    [Senate Hearing 106-831]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 106-831

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                           H.R. 4635, 4733, and 5483

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             Department of Defense
                              Department of Energy
                           Department of the Interior
                           Nondepartmental witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    62-775                     WASHINGTON : 2001

    _______________________________________________________________________
                For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
    Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
                                     20402

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    SLADE GORTON, Washington             FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JON KYL, Arizona
                       Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                   James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

                     PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            HARRY REID, Nevada
    SLADE GORTON, Washington             ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
    TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)

                               Professional Staff

                                   Clay Sell
                               W. David Gwaltney
                            Drew Willison (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                               Lashawnda Leftwich
                             Liz Blevins (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 21, 2000

                                                                       Page
    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
      Engineers--Civil...............................................     1
    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................    73

                            Tuesday, March 28, 2000

    Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration...    95

                            Tuesday, April 11, 2000

    Department of Energy:
        Office of Science............................................   187
        Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.............   187
        Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.............   187
        Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management..............   323
        Office of Environmental Management...........................   323

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

    California navigation and related projects.......................   399
    California water resource development projects...................   439
    Department of Energy programs and activities.....................   505
    New York and New Jersey water resource projects..................   529
    Nationwide water projects........................................   540
    Midwest U.S. water resource development projects.................   542
    Southwest U.S. water resource development projects...............   573
    Pacific Northwest water resource projects........................   585
    Southeastern U.S. water resource development projects............   610
    Ohio River Valley inland navigation projects.....................   630
    Mississippi and Louisiana water resource projects................   634

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, McConnell, Burns,
    Craig, Stevens, Reid, and Dorgan.

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

    STATEMENTS OF:
            DR. JOSEPH WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL
                WORKS)
            LT. GENERAL JOE N. BALLARD, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            GENERAL HANS A. VAN WINKLE, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL
                WORKS
            THOMAS F. CAVER, JR., CHIEF, PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
                DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Senator Reid is opening the Senate this
    morning on the minority side and he will be here shortly. In
    the meantime, I have an opening statement and then we'll
    proceed with your testimony.
        First of all, it's a pleasure to welcome representatives of
    the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to the
    subcommittee to review their budget request for fiscal year
    2001.
        Following our normal procedure of rotating the lead-off
    witnesses each year, we will first hear from the Corps of
    Engineers followed by the Bureau of Reclamation. I'm pleased to
    welcome you, Dr. Westphal, the Assistant Secretary for the Army
    for Civil Works. Likewise, you, Lieutenant General Joe Ballard,
    Chief of Engineers, and Major General Hans Van Winkle, the
    Director of Civil Works for the Corps.
        Gentlemen, it is truly a pleasure to have you here this
    morning to present and testify on the fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for the Corps of Engineers.

                        RECOGNITION OF LT. GEN. BALLARD

        General Ballard, it's indeed an honor to recognize you
    today, this being your final appearance before the
    subcommittee. I understand that you will be leaving the Army
    and the Corps of Engineers shortly after completing 4 years as
    the Chief of Engineers and 35 years of service to our country.
        General, your dedication to the Corps and to our country is
    to be commended, and I and the entire subcommittee thank you
    for your assistance and hard work over the years. We wish you
    well in your future endeavors and hope that you will have more
    time to spend with your family and doing whatever you would
    like.

                          MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE CORPS

        Gentlemen, we are all aware of the recent Washington Post
    articles which covered certain aspects of the Corps' program.
    We will get into that, I'm sure, during the questioning, but I
    want to say that while these articles raised some issues of
    concern, namely influencing the outcome of the study process
    and alleged activities of the Corps to ``grow'' their civil
    works program, the fundamental purpose of the Corps to oversee
    the development, management, protection and enhancement of our
    Nation's water resources is, in my opinion, very sound.
        For over 200 years, the Corps has been the primary agency,
    along with the Bureau of Reclamation, for translating the
    Nation's water resources infrastructure needs into reality and
    getting things done.
        The Corps' Civil Works program continues to provide
    billions of dollars of benefits to the Nation from deepdraft
    and inland navigation, billions of dollars of flood damages
    prevented annually and millions of dollars of forgotten
    environmental and recreational benefits that are provided as an
    integral part of each water resource project that is
    constructed. The project development process, established by
    Congress and carried out by the Executive Branch, is designed
    to maximize the benefits to our Nation--and we all understand
    that--while at the same time allowing review and input by
    Federal and State agencies and the general public.
        And I'm hopeful, if we have time, we'll go through the
    Upper Mississippi Navigation Study Process and indicate in the
    record with diagrams, et cetera, where that is, show that the
    public input process is intact, it is strong and it has still
    got a long way to go in terms of that participation before the
    project is completed.

                       MAINTAINING ENGINEERING CAPABILITY

        Another important but overlooked purpose of the Corps is to
    retain and maintain the capability to provide engineering and
    construction services to the Armed Services in support of the
    national defense.
        Dr. Westphal, General Ballard and General Van Winkle, it is
    good to have you here this morning to talk about the Corps
    Civil Works program. And I hope that you, General Ballard in
    particular, will help the subcommittee understand the current
    state of the Corps of Engineers.
        When Senator Reid arrives, we will do whatever he likes. If
    he wants to make a statement, we will interrupt and do that. If
    not, he will be here to do what he chooses today.
        Having said that now, we're going to proceed to hear first
    Assistant Secretary Westphal and then you, General Ballard.
    Would you proceed? Your entire statement is going to be made a
    part of the record you may proceed.

                          STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WESTPHAL

        Dr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great
    pleasure to be with you here today and also I join you in
    recognizing and commending General Ballard for his 30-plus, 35
    years of service to the Nation and to the Corps of Engineers,
    and we've worked together now almost 2 years since I've been on
    this job and so there is no question I'm going to miss him and
    I think the country is going to miss him in that regard.
        Mr. Chairman, back in 1824, 176 years ago--and I'm not
    going to follow whatever statements you got, because I rewrote
    my statement last night so I'm just going to kind of tell you
    some different things here
        Senator Domenici. Do you want to stand by that statement or
    do you want to throw it away?
        Dr. Westphal. The original statement is sort of cut and dry
    and all that.
        Senator Domenici. It's in the record
        Dr. Westphal. It's in the record. But back in 1824, 176
    years ago, Congress made its first appropriations to the Army
    Corps of Engineers for the ``removal of snags, sawyers,
    planters and other impediments of that nature'' from the Ohio
    and Mississippi Rivers.
        That appropriations, Mr. Chairman, was $75,000. This year,
    the President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 totals
    $4.063 billion. It is $160 million above last year's budgeted
    request to you. And we expect that the non-Federal
    contributions and other sources to be approximately $395
    million in fiscal year 2001, bringing the total funding to
    approximately $4.5 billion. So from the initial $75,000
    appropriations in 1824, our investment in water and related
    land resources is estimated to be worth today over $124
    billion.
        From that initial job of clearing snags on the Ohio River,
    the Army Corps of Engineers now works to serve the Nation's
    needs in such areas as toxic and hazardous waste cleanup,
    recreation, disaster relief, shoreline protection, hydropower
    generation, flood protection, environmental restoration, and
    provides support for other functions of technical oversight and
    management of engineering, environmental and construction
    contracts performed by the private sector firms on a totally
    reimbursable basis.
        Today, the Army Corps of Engineers is providing support to
    about 60 Federal, State and local governments. This year the
    President is requesting your support in funding three important
    initiatives that will greatly help our ability to integrate
    planning priorities, help us address an important backlog in
    maintenance of our infrastructure and protect lives, save
    money, and improve the environment through a nonstructural
    flood damage reduction program.

                               WATERSHED STUDIES

        First, with the budget we are proposing to undertake four
    comprehensive watershed studies. In 1997, my predecessor,
    Martin Lancaster, made a presentation to the World Water Forum.
    He stated, ``As we approach the 21st century, the need for new
    modes of interstate cooperation grows in both humid and arid
    areas. Reliance on court judgments has proved too expensive,
    inflexible, time consuming and precedent-bound to meet new
    needs realistically.'' I think he was right.
        Strengthening our ability to work with our Federal, State
    and Tribal partners early in the process is critical. I believe
    our proposal can serve as a model for future planning efforts
    that yield positive results and quicker and more effective
    solutions to problems that will enable us to design and build
    good projects in the future.
        Congresses and Presidents have greatly expanded the ability
    of the Corps of Engineers to meet both engineering demands as
    well as the environmental goals of society. Adding economics to
    the mix, we must now use an integrated approach to balancing
    all three priorities.
        Our population continues to increase, we continue to be
    vulnerable to droughts as well as to many effects of
    unacceptable water as a result of storm water drainage,
    combined sewer overflows, non-point source pollution, and lack
    of modern water delivery and sanitation infrastructure.
        We also have the needs of agriculture, flood control,
    industrial uses of water, and water supply for urban areas.
    These complex basin-wide issues can only be solved through a
    process that integrates the efforts of local stakeholders and
    State and Federal agencies.
        Our strategy is simple. We have selected four major
    watersheds that face many of the problems listed above. The
    four pilot projects will undertake a comprehensive study of the
    water resources needs of the basin. We will identify Federal,
    Tribal, State and local partners that will share the costs and
    we will focus on solving problems.
        The four pilot projects are the Rio Grande, the Lower
    Missouri-Middle Mississippi River basin, the White River in
    Arkansas, and the Yellowstone River in Montana.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have discussed
    these projects with many of you, seeking your advice and
    counsel. I want to work with Congress on the best possible plan
    to establish a partnership with the States involved and
    facilitate practical results that will enhance water resources
    for multiple uses and ensure the protection of the ecosystem.
        I commit to work with you to expedite the study process and
    to produce tangible and workable solutions to already existing
    constraints on these great river basins.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        The second initiative is aimed at reducing our significant
    backlog of maintenance on our recreation areas. The Corps of
    Engineers is responsible for 4,340 recreation areas at 456
    lakes in 42 States. These recreation areas host 377 million
    visitors annually.
        We are requesting $27 million in fiscal year 2001 to
    initiate the recreation modernization program which will
    replace or rehabilitate facilities at some of the more than
    2,389 recreation areas that the Corps of Engineers manages
    directly.
        Many of these facilities were constructed in the 1960s and
    1970s and the combination of heavy use, lack of routine
    maintenance, and changes in visitor needs has caused
    significant deterioration of recreation facilities and the
    natural resource base of our lakes.
        We hope to modernize about half the Corps-managed
    recreation areas over the next 5 to 10 years. These
    improvements include upgrading facilities, installing more
    family oriented facilities, and providing more access to water-
    related recreation activities.

                            CHALLENGE 21 INITIATIVE

        The third initiative is our Challenge 21 program better
    known as the Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
    Mitigation Program.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $20 million to
    initiate Challenge 21 authorized in WRDA 1999. This initiative
    expands the use of nonstructural flood hazard mitigation
    options and restoration of riverine ecosystems to allow more
    natural recession of floodwaters and provide other benefits to
    communities and the environment. Challenge 21 will create
    partnerships with communities and establish a framework for
    more effective coordination with key agencies.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army Civil Works
    program includes $82 million to initiate new investments with a
    total of $1.6 billion--for a total of $1.6 billion. Of that
    total, $410 million will be financed directly by non-Federal
    sponsors, including lands, easements, rights of way and
    relocations.
        In addition to the four comprehensive studies and two new
    programs I noted earlier, the fiscal year 2001 budget will
    include four new surveys, one new special study, one new
    preconstruction engineering and design (PED) project and 12
    construction new starts.
        The Administration is committed to the traditional missions
    of improving our navigation and transportation system,
    protection of local communities from floods and other
    disasters, and maintaining and improving hydropower facilities
    across the country.
        Together with these important national priorities, the Army
    Corps of Engineers is also the Nation's premier environmental
    restoration agency.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        This budget provides for continued development and
    management of the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
    the continuation of our work to enhance, protect and restore
    the environment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Joseph W. Westphal

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: Good
    morning. It is an honor and a pleasure to testify before this esteemed
    subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and to present the
    President's budget for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of
    Engineers for fiscal year 2001. It funds a strong program for Civil
    Works and is comparable to the funding levels enacted by Congress in
    recent years.
        Accompanying me this morning are Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard,
    Chief of Engineers; Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Deputy Commanding
    General for Civil Works; and Mr. Thomas F. Caver, Jr., Chief of the
    Programs Management Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
        My statement covers the following subjects: the Fiscal Year 2001
    Civil Works Program, the Harbor Services Fund Proposal, New Initiatives
    in the Army Civil Works Program, Other New Civil Works Investments, and
    Highlights of the fiscal year 2001 Continuing Program.

                      FISCAL YEAR 2001 CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

        The President's budget for the Army Civil Works program for fiscal
    year 2001 includes nearly $4.1 billion in the discretionary program,
    comparable to the amount appropriated for the program in fiscal year
    2000 and $160 million above last year's budget proposal. Details are
    presented in Table A.
        Last year I began by stating that Civil Works programs and policy
    must be based on strong partnerships with states and local communities
    as well as among federal agencies. We worked hard to build those
    partnerships, and the commitment of our non-Federal sponsors to cost
    share Civil Works projects demonstrates the strong support our program
    has across the country. With the non-Federal contributions and other
    sources, the total fiscal year 2001 funding for the Army Civil Works
    program is nearly $4.5 billion.
        I remain committed to ensuring responsive and timely allocation of
    our resources to meet the Nation's needs. I look forward to working
    with both Houses of Congress to make this happen.

                        ARMY CIVIL WORKS NEW INITIATIVES

        The Fiscal Year 2001 Civil Works program includes funding for three
    initiatives: Comprehensive River Basin Planning; Recreation
    Modernization; and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
    Mitigation.

    Comprehensive River Basin Planning
        The first is an initiative that I strongly support and the Nation
    sorely needs. It has been nearly 20 years since the last major effort
    was initiated to understand and assess the complex relationships among
    various water resources problems and opportunities. On a river-basin
    wide basis, the Federal Government needs a comprehensive approach to
    water resources to work effectively with states, counties, tribes, and
    river basin authorities in assessing today's competing water uses.
        The Army Civil Works fiscal year 2001 budget commits $2 million to
    initiate four broad river basin studies. These studies, which will be
    carried out in coordination with other federal agencies and regional
    stakeholders, will adopt a holistic approach and include multi-
    jurisdictional and trans-national considerations in resolving water
    resources issues. Two of these, the Rio Grande River Basin and the
    White River Basin in Arkansas, would proceed under the authority of
    section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. The
    other two, the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana, and the Missouri and
    Middle Mississippi River Basins, would proceed under specific
    authorizations.

    Recreation Modernization
        I am also pleased to announce that we will invest construction
    dollars in an area long-overlooked our Nation's recreation areas. The
    Corps of Engineers is responsible for 4,340 recreation areas at 456
    lakes in 42 states. These recreation areas host 377 million visitors
    annually.
        The Civil Works fiscal year 2001 budget includes $27 million to
    initiate the Recreation Modernization Program. Under this program, we
    will replace or rehabilitate facilities at some of the 2,389 recreation
    areas that the Corps of Engineers manages directly. Most of the
    facilities at Corps managed recreation areas were constructed in the
    1960s and 1970s. The combination of heavy use, lack of routine
    maintenance, and changes in visitor needs has caused significant
    deterioration of recreation facilities and the natural resource base at
    some of our lakes.
        The $27 million in the fiscal year 2001 budget will begin to
    implement this program. We hope to modernize many of the Corps managed
    recreation areas over the next 5 to 10 years. These improvements
    include upgrading facilities, installing more family oriented
    facilities, and improving general access to water-related recreation
    opportunities.

    Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation
        I am also pleased to tell you that this year's budget includes $20
    million to initiate the Challenge 21 Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and
    Flood Hazard Mitigation Program authorized by WRDA 1999. This
    initiative expands the use of nonstructural flood hazard mitigation
    measures and restoration of riverine ecosystems to allow natural
    moderation of floods and provide other benefits to communities and the
    environment. Challenge 21 will create partnerships with communities and
    create a framework for more effective coordination with key agencies to
    develop comprehensive flood damage reduction solutions, while restoring
    natural values of flood plains and wetlands.

                             NEW INVESTMENT PROGRAM

        The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army Civil Works includes $82
    million for new investments with a total cost of $1.6 billion. Of that,
    $412 million will be financed directly by non-Federal sponsors
    (including lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations). The
    Federal share is $1.2 billion. Details are presented in Table B.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget includes four new surveys, one special
    study, one new Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) start, four
    comprehensive studies, the three new programs that I have discussed,
    and 12 new construction starts. The new construction starts include:
      --2 environmental restoration projects;
      --2 commercial navigation projects;
      --4 flood damage reduction projects;
      --1 shore protection of critical environmental resources;
      --2 major rehabilitation projects, and
      --1 deficiency correction.

                         HARBOR SERVICES FUND PROPOSAL

        Like last year, a significant portion of the Civil Works budget is
    based on enactment of the proposed Harbor Services User Fee legislation
    that was transmitted to Congress. This new user fee would replace the
    Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), a portion of which was found
    unconstitutional. The HMT has also been the subject of questions raised
    by U.S. trading partners regarding claims that it violates the General
    Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This fee would collect about the same
    total amount of revenue as would have been collected under the HMT
    prior to the Supreme Court's decision.
        The new user fees would make up $950 million of the fiscal year
    2001 Budget ($700 million for maintenance and $250 million for
    construction) and would enable commercial harbor and channel work to
    proceed on optimal schedules. I urge you to enact legislation to
    replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax with the Harbor Services User Fee.

             HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONTINUING PROGRAM

        The Army continues to be committed to the Civil Works missions of
    navigation and flood damage reduction. Other missions that contribute
    net economic benefits to the Nation are investments in hydropower,
    water supply, shore protection and recreation. In recent years, the
    Army's Civil Works responsibilities increasingly have expanded to
    include the restoration of the environment, with particular emphasis on
    restoring aquatic and wetland ecosystems.
        Environmental programs make up about 18.2 percent of the fiscal
    year 2001 Army Civil Works budget, or more than $740 million. This
    includes $125 million for the Regulatory Program; $140 million for the
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; $91 million for the
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation program in the Pacific Northwest; and
    $158 million to restore, preserve and protect the Everglades and South
    Florida ecosystem. Also included are $28 million to fund the
    environmental restoration continuing authorities programs.
    General Investigations
        The budget for the Civil Works study program is $138 million, $3
    million more than last year's request. Overall, the level of funding we
    propose for the General Investigations account is consistent with our
    plan to stabilize the Civil Works budget in the future. There is a
    large amount of construction work waiting for funding--more than the
    funds we can reasonably expect in the future. The study program feeds
    this pipeline of construction work. This budget keeps project study
    funding at a lower level, in order to reduce the backlog of potential
    construction projects that are beyond our capacity to budget within a
    reasonable time frame. Once the backlog of costly projects is worked
    down somewhat, then we expect to resume funding for studies at a higher
    level.
        We believe that keeping study funding at this level is the right
    thing to do for our local sponsors, who expect timely construction of
    projects, once studies are completed and the projects are authorized.
        We are also requesting a $6.6 million supplemental appropriation to
    conduct studies of an outlet for Devil's Lake, North Dakota, as well as
    $1.5 million to study the feasibility of a flood damage reduction
    project for Princeville, North Carolina.
    Construction, General
        The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Civil Works Construction,
    General program is $1.346 billion, of which $1.268 billion is for the
    continuing program. Of the total, $250 million would be derived from
    the proposed Harbor Services Fund, allowing port related projects to
    proceed at optimal rates. This will enhance the competitiveness of our
    Nation's ports and harbors.
        Continuing construction of inland waterway, flood damage reduction
    and other projects is budgeted at a level that will, on average, result
    in completion of projects on about the same schedules as proposed in
    last year's budget.
        South Florida Ecosystem Restoration.--The Everglades is an
    ecosystem of international importance. It is also one that has
    dramatically deteriorated since the turn of the 20th Century. It is
    very important that we aggressively restoring this treasure that is so
    important to the Nation. Construction funding for the projects that
    will restore the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem is $135
    million. This amount includes $90 million for the Central and Southern
    Florida project to continue construction work at West Palm Beach Canal,
    South Dade County, and manatee pass-through gates, as well as planning,
    engineering and design work on the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, also
    known as the ``Restudy''; $20 million to continue construction on the
    Kissimmee River Restoration project; and $20 million for critical
    restoration projects authorized under the Everglades and South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration program. Of the overall amount for Everglades
    restoration, $5 million is included in the new investment program to
    initiate construction of the Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer Storage
    and Recovery pilot project to demonstrate aquifer storage and recovery
    technology.
        Columbia River Basin Fish Mitigation.--The budget includes $91
    million for Corps construction activities associated with Columbia
    River Fish Mitigation at 8 Corps dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers
    and to continue the mitigation analysis which evaluates additional
    measures to increase fish survival at those dams. This includes $41
    million for studies of surface bypass facilities, turbine passage, gas
    abatement, adult passage, spillway survival, and Lower Columbia
    configuration.
        Continuing Authorities Program.--The budget includes $72 million
    for a full program of continuing and new work under the 9 activities in
    the Continuing Authorities Program. This amount includes $2.5 million
    for beach erosion control projects (Section 103), $9 million for
    emergency streambank and shoreline protection projects (Section 14),
    $25 million for flood damage reduction projects (Section 205), $0.3
    million for navigation mitigation projects (Section 111), $7 million
    for navigation projects (Section 107), $0.2 million for snagging and
    clearing projects (Section 208), $10 million for aquatic ecosystem
    restoration (Section 206), $14 million for project modifications for
    improvement of the environment (Section 1135), and $4 million for
    beneficial uses of dredged material (Section 204).
    Operation and Maintenance, General
        The overall funding for the Operation and Maintenance, General,
    account is at a healthy level: $1.85 billion, $18 million more than
    last year's request and equal to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
    This demonstrates the Administration's commitment to maintaining the
    Corps' existing infrastructure, much of which is aging and requires
    greater upkeep. Of the $1.85 billion, $700 million would be derived
    from the Harbor Services Fund. In addition to these funds, operation
    and maintenance of hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest will
    be directly financed by a transfer of approximately $108 million from
    Bonneville Power Administration revenues, pursuant to an agreement
    signed three years ago.
        We are also requesting a $19.2 million emergency supplemental
    appropriation for fiscal year 2000 for emergency dredging and repairs
    to Corps projects along the Atlantic seaboard that sustained hurricane
    damage.
    Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T)
        The Army is pleased that the fiscal year 2001 budget for the MR&T
    account is at the same level of funding as that provided by Congress
    for fiscal year 2000. Within the total, there are some differences in
    proposed allocation of these funds. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    emphasizes main stem Mississippi River flood protection in the
    Atchafalaya River basin. No funding is provided to continue the
    Demonstration Erosion Control program. The Administration believes this
    program has fulfilled its purpose and should be discontinued. Any
    further streambank erosion control projects should be a local
    responsibility. Within the MR&T program, the allocation was reduced for
    work on those projects that primarily involve the drainage of wetlands
    to increase the production of surplus crops, particularly where
    lawsuits and continuing environmental studies have resulted in a hiatus
    on scheduled activities.
    Regulatory Program
        The Army Civil Works Regulatory Program is funded at $125 million
    to ensure that we continue to provide effective and equitable
    regulation of the Nation's wetlands. Through the Regulatory Program,
    the Army is committed to serving the public in a fair and reasonable
    manner while ensuring the protection of the aquatic environment, as
    required by laws and regulations. In fiscal year 1999, the Regulatory
    Program authorized over 90,000 activities in writing, the most in any
    year, and over 90 percent of all actions were authorized in less than
    60 days. Under the President's budget, this level of service is
    maintained. Regional and nationwide general permits help streamline the
    regulatory process. By the end of fiscal year 2000, we will have
    established a full administrative appeals process that will allow the
    public to challenge permit decisions and jurisdiction determinations
    without costly, time-consuming litigation.
        Under the Regulatory Program, we are also active in the preparation
    of Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) to address development in
    environmentally sensitive areas. In particular, the Corps has been
    asked to chair a task force to work with the Environmental Protection
    Agency and Riverside County, California in the development, funding,
    and implementation of a SAMP for the Santa Margarita and San Jacinto
    watersheds.
        Again this year, we are proposing to undertake a revision to the
    Regulatory User Fee, which has not changed since 1977. We ask the
    Subcommittee's support for this effort.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
        FUSRAP is an environmental cleanup program that was transferred by
    Congress from the Department of Energy to the Army in fiscal year 1998.
    We are continuing the implementation of needed clean-up of contaminated
    sites. This year's budget includes $140 million in new appropriations
    for this program. This amount will be supplemented by approximately $10
    million from a Potentially Responsible Party settlement reached at one
    site.
    Flood control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE)
        No new funding is requested for the FCCE program for fiscal year
    2001. Sufficient carry over funding remains from prior year
    appropriations to finance the normal costs of emergency planning and
    preparation.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In summary, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army
    Civil Works program is a good one. It demonstrates commitment to Civil
    Works with a strong program of new construction; a plan to solve the
    constitutional problem with the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax;
    maintenance of existing infrastructure; continuing support for
    historical Civil Works missions; and increased reliance on the Army
    Corps of Engineers' environmental restoration expertise. Thank you.

                                       TABLE A--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS FISCAL YEAR 2001 DIRECT PROGRAM PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM FUNDING
                                                                                        [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Fund
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Special                               Trust                       General
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                Trust
                            Program                                                                                              Sd                                 Transfer     Rivers
                                                                                      Permit    Rcrtn     Coastal             trrstrl                                Bnnvll       and        Total
                                                               Harbor     Permanent   applctn    user    wetlands    Inland    wldlf   Ultimate \4\  Initial \5\     Power      harbors
                                                            services \1\  apprprtns  fees \2\    fees   rstrtn \3\  waterway    hbtt                              Administrtn   cntrbtns
                                                                                                                               rstrtn
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMBINED (discretionary and mandatory):
        DEFENSE: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action    ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......      140,000       140,000  ...........  .........     140,000
         Program..........................................
        DOMESTIC:
            General Investigations........................  ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......      137,700       137,700  ...........     44,000     181,700
            Construction, General.........................     250,000    .........  ........  .......  ..........    74,000  .......    1,022,000     1,346,000  ...........    153,000   1,499,000
            Operation and Maintenance, General............     700,000    .........  ........   35,700  ..........  ........  .......    1,118,300     1,854,000     108,000       8,000   1,970,000
            Flood Control, Mississippi River and            ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......      309,000       309,000  ...........     45,000     354,000
             Tributaries Project..........................
            Regulatory Program............................  ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......      125,000       125,000  ...........  .........     125,000
            General Expenses..............................  ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......      152,000       152,000  ...........  .........     152,000
            Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.........  ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......  ............  ...........  ...........  .........  ..........
            Revolving Fund................................  ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......  ............  ...........  ...........  .........  ..........
            Permanent Appropriations......................  ............    16,000   ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......  ............  ...........  ...........  .........      16,000
            Coastal Wetlands Restoration..................  ............  .........  ........  .......     55,000   ........  .......  ............  ...........  ...........      9,000      11,000
            South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat       ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........   10,000  ............  ...........  ...........  .........      10,000
             Restoration..................................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ALL...........................................     950,000      16,000   ........   35,700     55,000     74,000   10,000    3,004,000     4,063,700     108,000     251,000   4,458,700
              DISCRETIONARY...............................  ............  .........  ........  .......  ..........  ........  .......    3,004,000     3,004,000  ...........  .........   3,004,000
              MANDATORY...................................     950,000      16,000   ........   35,700     55,000     74,000   10,000  ............    1,069,700     108,000     251,000  1,454,700
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Proposed special fund to replace Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    \2\ Proposed fees for processing permit applications, to be paid to General Fund receipt account, not available to Corps.
    \3\ Total for interagency task force; Corps' piece is reflected under ``Total.''
    \4\ Net direct Congressional appropriation after reimbursement from mandatory ``Special'' and ``Trust'' funds, as applicable.
    \5\ Direct Congressional appropriation. The total for all accounts comes from the General Fund, initially. Ultimately, it is reimbursed from mandatory accounts in the amount shown opposite
      ``Mandatory.''

      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T10MA21.001

                          STATEMENT OF JOE N. BALLARD

        Senator Domenici. Thank you, very much, Mr. Secretary.
    General Ballard, we welcome your testimony. Your written
    remarks will be made a part of the record as you read them.
    Proceed as you see fit.
        General Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd. I'm
    honored to testify on the President's fiscal year 2001 budget
    for the Civil Works Program.
        Senator Domenici. Just one moment. Senator Burns, did you
    want to make any remarks.
        Senator Burns. I think we ought to complete the statements
    and I'll submit my points I want to make. I think we should
    hear their testimony. Thank you very much.
        Senator Domenici. Please proceed, General.
        General Ballard. Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to testify on
    the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Civil Works
    program. As you noted, this is my last appearance before you as
    the Chief of Engineers and I very much appreciate your very
    kind remarks.
        Leading the Corps has been an inspirational experience as
    well as a rewarding personal and professional challenge. I take
    great pride in the results of our work with this Committee to
    ensure the Civil Works program remains strong, balanced,
    responsive and highly productive. Until my watch is over,
    however, I will continue to work with you to that end and I
    look forward to your continued partnership in this great
    program. My complete statement will cover three topics: the
    summary of the Civil Works program budget, reducing the Corps
    maintenance backlog, and I'll have some comments on meeting the
    Nation's water and related land resources management needs. And
    with your permission, I will submit this statement for the
    record.
        I would like to talk to you today about some significant
    challenges in water resource management and I will also address
    the recent media coverage on the Corps' work.

               MEETING THE NATION'S WATER AND LAND RESOURCE NEEDS

        First, a few words about the challenge of meeting the
    Nation's water and related land resource management needs.
    Public concerns about water resource investments continually
    change and, as a result, national needs and priorities must
    also be continually reevaluated to ensure that we provide the
    best possible service to the Nation. And we're examining
    national needs and priorities for water and land resource
    solutions.
        But based on our current assessment, we have identified
    five significant challenges that are currently facing the
    Nation. And these are navigation, which deals with the
    capacity, the efficiency, and the volumes needed in the
    national marine transportation system; flood protection,
    dealing with continued development of flood plains and coastal
    planes and coastline erosions; environmental management,
    dealing with restoration of habitat, especially protection of
    wetlands; wetland--I mean, infrastructure renovation, which is
    maintaining the Nation's water management infrastructure,
    including recreation facilities and the effects of global
    climate change; and disaster response assistance, dealing with
    increased severity and frequency of national disasters.
        We must meet these challenges in order to preserve and
    promote our future national welfare. And to that end, I believe
    that we need to carefully evaluate our level of investment in
    water resource management. We need to invest in improving our
    water resource infrastructure, many parts which have outlasted
    their 50-year design lives.
        Now, this comes at a time when national need for their
    continued benefits are growing and we need to meet new
    challenges for water resource management brought about by
    increasing trade, population and population shifts and
    environmental values. We need to invest, in addition to our
    water resource infrastructure, to the extent that improving
    existing infrastructure will not meet national needs. We also
    need to better manage existing infrastructure, where to invest
    and how to decide which facilities have outlived their
    usefulness.

                          MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE CORPS

        Now, to address very quickly some recent media coverage of
    the Corps. First, the allegation that I or members of my
    command are trying to grow the Corps with respect to the number
    of employees is absolutely ludicrous. For one thing, the Civil
    Works Program work force is only 24,000 strong, not 37,000 as
    implied by the media.
        More importantly, over the past 4 years, we have reduced
    the size of the organization by nearly 10 percent while
    streamlining and improving our business processes. We have
    pursued our mission to address the Nation's growing water
    resource management needs in an environment of deliberate
    downsizing. The Nation's work load for our mission is certainly
    growing, but we are not.
        Next, there are allegations of wrong-doing in the Upper
    Mississippi and the Illinois Navigation Studies. These
    allegations are very troubling to me, as they challenge the
    fundamental value of the Corps of Engineers to the Nation. The
    foundation for that value is trust in our absolute integrity to
    provide the Administration and the Congress with water resource
    investment recommendations that are unbiased and technically
    sound.
        Now, while the widely published allegations and the media
    reports attempt to erode that foundation, I know beyond a doubt
    that your trust has not been misplaced. I, therefore, welcome
    and will fully support all independent outside investigations
    of the allegations and any review of our processes. I will take
    prompt corrective action if wrongdoing is discovered and will
    make improvement in our processes, if warranted.
        However, I assure you that when all the facts are in, you
    will see that there is no need to do either and that your
    traditional trust in the Corps remains as always, very well-
    founded.
        Now, let me explain the reasons for my confidence. First of
    all, I believe in the professionalism and dedication of the
    Corps team and have great trust in my leaders. Additionally,
    our planning processes provide for multiple reviews to ensure
    objectivity. And these include independent technical reviews, a
    minimum of two formal public reviews, Washington-level policy
    review, State and agency coordination requirements and,
    finally, the review by the Executive Branch under Executive
    Order 12322.
        Notably, for the study in question, the draft report has
    not yet been completed, much less undergone these reviews. As a
    rule, there are no easy, clear-cut answers to the complex
    issues we face in water resource management.
        Technical experts often disagree on specifics.
    Nevertheless, our planning process ensures that all sides of
    any technical disagreement are competently analyzed and
    subjected to proper peer, public and policy reviews. And
    ultimately, after full and open debate, balanced professional
    judgment must enter the process.
        And dealing with technical disagreement is the role of our
    field commanders. They must make tough decisions on whether to
    recommend investments in a project, often in the face of
    strongly held opposing views. Our processes ensure that all
    interests are heard and that final recommendations are
    unbiased, based on the best science available and in the public
    interest.
        In our business, invariably there is an interest group that
    is opposed to some aspect of our work. However, the
    accommodation and fairness of the Corps' planning process
    delivers recommendations that address the national interest
    based on sound engineering judgment. And for these reasons, I'm
    sure you will find the integrity of our process and of the
    leaders who guide it to be indisputable.

                    UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY

        Now, let me take a few minutes to report on the status of
    activity related to the Upper Mississippi River Navigation
    Study. There have been two significant intentional reviews.
        Senator Domenici. General, do you have the project
    development flow chart?
        General Ballard. I have the chart, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Do you have it over here? Why don't you
    put it up. This is the project development process, right?
        [The chart follows:]

        General Ballard. That is the process, Senator.
        Senator Burns. Let the rest of us see it.
        Senator Domenici. You all don't mind in the audience if we
    look at it, do you? There you go.
        General Ballard. Bring it closer and I'll just talk off of
    it. I'll just deviate just for a second from my statement so I
    can explain this chart to everyone.
        Inside of the box there, is where we are with this study.
    We're in the feasibility portion of it. The large white arrow
    points out that we're in the study phase. What is important
    here is that we have not really had the appropriate oversight
    reviews that normally accrue to the public. And I'm talking
    about the public review process, the agency coordination or
    anything of that nature.
        We're in the preliminary stage. We are scheduled to
    submit--to complete a draft of this study in December of this
    year. The bottom line is, we're just starting this process. The
    dialogue is just beginning. So the comments that we have
    received from the media regarding ``cooking the books'' and all
    the other things that you read is definitely premature. We're
    not there yet.
        Senator Domenici. General, you meant by your statement
    that--you didn't mean that we have not done the public input.
    You meant that the time has not yet arrived according to the
    process and it's still to be done?
        General Ballard. The public comment, once we address the
    report, is still to be done. Thank you, sir, for correcting me.
    We have received public input to this process.
        Senator Domenici. But there will be a chance for more,
    won't there?
        General Ballard. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. If people are wondering what you're
    doing----
        General Ballard. We will have a chance to submit this for
    agency review, we will have at least two more opportunities for
    public comment as we move to point those out. After the draft
    report is out, that next dark black arrow there, we will have a
    period of public review. We're scheduled to have the final
    report out by December of this year. And after that, we will
    release it again to the public one more time and we will
    release it to State and agency reviews.
        Senator Domenici. One more time.
        General Ballard. Yes, one more time. And we are projected
    to have a final Chief's Report by February 2001. Then it goes
    from me to the ASACW office for Administration review. And then
    finally to OMB for clearance and review before it is submitted
    to the Congress. So as you can see, if I can quickly count
    that, after we address, there are one, two, three, four, five
    more opportunities for public review and input by others.
        Senator Domenici. We're going to make this one part of the
    record. We can't put that one in.

                           ALLEGATIONS FOR WRONGDOING

        General Ballard. Yes, sir. In addition to the clarification
    on the review process, there have been some allegations of
    wrongdoing by some of our employees and I've directed an
    internal investigation according to my authority to take a look
    at that. The investigation is complete and I can submit that
    for the record if you desire. And we found no misconduct.
        There are several external investigations and reviews that
    are in process. The Office of Special Counsel [OSC] requested
    that the Secretary of Defense investigate the allegation and
    report the finding back to OSC. This investigation is being
    done by the Army Inspector General and we are providing
    information requested by the Army Inspector General in support
    of his investigations and we're scheduled to meet with him and
    provide some additional answers.
        In addition, the Survey and Investigations staff of the
    House Committee on Appropriations has begun its investigation.
    We have met with the staff, provided information and documents
    requested, and we remain committed to fully supporting it
    throughout the investigation.
        Finally, the Secretary of the Army has directed that an
    independent assessment be made of the economics of the study.
    The bottom line is, sir, I'm convinced that the findings of
    these investigations will confirm that our planning process and
    execution of that process are fundamentally sound.
        In conclusion, we need to invest in water resource
    management infrastructure to meet the challenges based on
    national needs. And through a deliberate streamlining and
    improvement of our business processes and downsizing of our
    work force, we continue to maximize actual and potential values
    of our organization to the Civil Works program, to the Army,
    and to the Nation.
        And finally, we are pursuing this mission with the utmost
    professionalism and integrity. And I'm confident that our
    planning process and the judgment of our leaders are sound and
    will yield balanced recommendations for wise water resource
    investments.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    Committee. This concludes my statement.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Lt. General Joe N. Ballard

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am honored to be
    testifying on the President's fiscal year 2001 (fiscal year 2001)
    Budget for the Civil Works Program. This is my last of four appearances
    before you as Chief of Engineers. Leading the Corps has been an
    inspirational and rewarding challenge for me personally and
    professionally. I take great pride in results of our work together to
    ensure that the Civil Works Program remains strong, balanced,
    responsive, and highly productive. Until my watch is over, I will
    continue to work with you to that end, and look forward to your
    continued partnership in this fine program, so broadly beneficial to
    our nation.
        In this, my final statement, I will depart from the usual practice
    of presenting details on such things as the budget, program execution,
    organizational restructuring, and improvement of business systems and
    operations, to focus on significant challenges for the nation in water
    and related land resources management, which I feel the Corps is
    eminently qualified to address. I will say just a few words about the
    budget and reducing the Corps' maintenance backlog, then devote the
    balance of my testimony to an assessment of national water and related
    land resources management needs. Accordingly, my statement covers just
    these three topics: Summary of the Civil Works Program Budget; Reducing
    the Corps' Maintenance Backlog; and Meeting the Nation's Water and
    Related Land Resources Management Needs.

                     SUMMARY OF CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM BUDGET

        This is a good budget. New funding for the Civil Works Program,
    including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach
    $5.20 billion.
        Direct Program funding, including discretionary and mandatory
    amounts appropriated directly to the Corps, totals $4.46 billion.
    Discretionary amounts total $4.06 billion; mandatory amounts total $395
    million.
        Reimbursed Program funding is projected to be $700 million.

                                 DIRECT PROGRAM

        The proposed budget reflects the Administration's commitment to
    continued sound development and management of the nation's water and
    related land resources. It provides for continued efficient operation
    of the nation's navigation, flood protection, and other water resource
    management infrastructure, fair regulation of the nation's wetlands,
    and restoration of the nation's important environmental resources, such
    as the Florida Everglades. It is supported by a proposal to establish a
    Harbor Services User Fee (HSUF) and Harbor Services Fund (HSF) to fund
    the federal share of construction as well as operation and maintenance
    cost of our harbors and ports. Lastly, it is consistent with the
    President's overall domestic priorities and continued commitment to a
    balanced budget.
        The budget provides for continued funding of nearly all studies and
    projects underway, including many started in fiscal year 2000. It also
    provides for funding of new starts under the General Investigations
    (GI) and Construction, General (CG), programs.

                               REIMBURSED PROGRAM

        Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Support Program we
    help non-DOD federal agencies, States, and other countries with timely,
    cost-effective implementation of their programs, while maintaining and
    enhancing capabilities for execution of our Civil and Military Program
    missions. These customers rely on our extensive capabilities,
    experience, and successful track record. The work is principally
    technical oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
    construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is fully
    funded by the customers.
        Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 60 other
    federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
    reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2001 is projected to be $700
    million. The largest share--nearly $270 million--is expected from the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleanup of wastes at numerous
    sites under its Superfund program. 90 percent of Reimbursed Program
    funding is provided by other federal agencies.

                      REDUCING CORPS' MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Our fiscal year 2001 budget request for $1.854 billion matches the
    amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. In the short term, despite
    level funding, we will be able to sustain customer services. However,
    in the long term, given the vast and aging infrastructure needing
    attention and care, this becomes increasingly difficult. As stewards of
    a diverse and widespread complex of water and related land resources
    management facilities, the Corps must do its best to preserve the
    nation's investment and ensure the continued flow of intended benefits.
    Toward that end, I have recently completed a comprehensive review of
    the O&M program, as explained below.
        Over the past year, I conducted an in-depth review of the O&M
    program. I spent a full day with each of my eight division commanders,
    along with their district commanders, covering every aspect of the O&M
    program. My purpose was to instill heightened interest in making this
    program as efficient and effective as possible, and to ensure that my
    commanders are fully engaged to that end. As a result, we are pursuing
    improvements throughout the program. For example, we are reviewing our
    inventory of property and equipment to determine the minimum required
    for mission accomplishment. We have compiled a list of over 300
    examples of cost-saving measures, resulting in $124 million in annual
    savings and $24 million in one-time savings. These examples have been
    publicized throughout the Corps, so that everyone might apply them to
    his/her own situation. Division and district commanders are continually
    reviewing their programs to determine best business practices to be
    employed in responding to the ever-changing marketplace.
        Improving the O&M program is not a one-time effort. It is a
    continuing commitment that will challenge the entire organization.
    Everyone involved in the O&M program will be looking for better ways to
    provide public services and products at least cost. The Corps'
    dedicated workforce takes pride in carrying out its stewardship
    responsibilities. It is up to this challenge and will continue to do
    its best.
        Notwithstanding these efforts, we still face a growing O&M backlog.
    We are making a concerted effort to identify the highest priority
    backlog and concentrate available resources on addressing the most
    critical needs. Improved program execution is helping. In fiscal year
    1999, we succeeded in reducing the unexpended carryover by $110
    million, and applied a good portion of this toward the backlog.
    Nevertheless, we now estimate that required funding for our highest
    priority backlog will be about $450 million in fiscal year 2001--up
    from $329 million in fiscal year 2000. I will continue to do all I can
    to make the O&M program as efficient as possible, and look forward to
    continued support of this committee in our endeavor to reverse the O&M
    backlog growth.

       MEETING NATION'S WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT NEEDS
                 CORPS' HISTORIC ROLE IN SERVICE TO THE NATION

        The Army Corps of Engineers began its distinguished public service
    in the New England Provincial Army, before our nation existed, with
    construction of fortifications for the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775.
    Since then, for more than 225 years, the Corps has responded ably to
    the Army's and nation's needs.
        Throughout this period, the mission of the Corps has evolved from
    military only to both civil and military. What began as a military
    mission in birth of the nation in the 18th century grew into civil and
    military missions of building and preserving the nation in the 19th
    century. We mapped the frontier and laid out roads, canals, and
    railroads for westward expansion. We aided national commerce through
    development of a vast navigation system of coastal and inland channels,
    ports, and harbors. We initiated development of the first national
    parks. We built many public buildings of the nation's capital,
    including the Capitol. We also assisted in preserving the Union. In the
    20th century, we built the daunting Panama Canal, after others had
    failed. More importantly, based on our performance over the years, the
    Administration and Congress expanded both the civil and military
    missions dramatically.
        Civil Works project purposes included flood, hurricane, and shore
    erosion protection; water and related land environmental management;
    hydropower generation; water-based recreation; municipal and industrial
    water supply; irrigation; hazardous and toxic waste cleanup; and
    technical support for other federal agencies, States, and other
    nations. As a result of these and earlier duties, our water and related
    land management infrastructure has grown to include over 400 multi-
    purpose reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of
    ports and harbors, and 11.6 million acres of land.
        As our national needs and priorities have changed, the Corps has
    been at the leading edge to meet them.
        We have increasingly focused on developing and honing our project
    management expertise. Concurrently, we have contracted with private
    sector architectural, engineering, and construction firms to accomplish
    our work, until, now, much of our design and all of our construction
    are done by such firms. Contracting gives us ready access to a force
    much larger than our own to accomplish our mission, resulting in the
    so-called force multiplication effect. Given that we can leverage civil
    program assets in support of our military mission, this effect, already
    available to our military program, can be doubled for execution of our
    military mission. For example, during the Persian Gulf War, we employed
    readily available force-multiplied assets from the civil program to
    assist U.S. forces. This enhanced our nation's readiness,
    responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency in the ``mother of all
    battles,'' won by the allies in 100 hours, and remains a powerful
    strength for future service to the Army, federal government, our
    nation, and other nations.
        Always, we have striven to stay at the leading edge in service to
    the Army, federal government, and our nation.
        Success in meeting our challenge depends principally upon our
    business operations. In recognition of this, we have improved our
    business processes for more responsive, expeditious, and productive
    performance. Additionally, we have improved partnerships with project
    sponsors and partnering with all stakeholders in project execution.
    These improvements are the foundation of our recently fielded project
    management business process, providing an orderly, logical, and
    reasoned approach to managing projects to meet the nation's water and
    related land resource management needs. Finally, we remain vigilant for
    and eager to explore other improvement opportunities.
        To facilitate improved business operations, we have restructured
    our organization at all levels to provide for more pertinent, flexible,
    and timely operations resourcing. Concurrently, we have tailored our
    resources to workload and eliminated surpluses, downsizing our
    workforce by over 16 percent since 1993. In addition to promoting
    improved operations, this has reduced our cost of doing business. Our
    goal has been, and remains, to stay fit for and in step with our
    nation's future.
        As we enter the 21st century, we envision that the Corps will
    continue in its longstanding and exemplary leadership role as the
    nation's problem solver.

                         CURRENT CIVIL PROGRAM MISSION

        The goal of our Civil Program is to contribute to the welfare of
    our nation by providing, in partnership with customers, desired goods
    and services of highest quality, designed to be economic, technically
    sound, and environmentally sustainable. We do this through:
      --formulation, development, and operation of facilities and practices
            for management of the nation's water and related land resources
            (including protection, restoration, and management of
            environment resources);
      --administration of water resources management programs (including
            resource use regulation, hazardous waste cleanup, and
            assistance with natural disaster response and recovery); and
      --engineering and technical services for other federal agencies and
            States.
        The Civil Program is prosecuted through subordinate programs
    established expressly for accomplishment of distinct phases of work,
    such as investigation, construction, and operation and maintenance.
    These programs are designed to address needs of all purposes
    thoroughly, fairly, and timely. They are executed by a talented team of
    multidisciplinary staff specialists and private sector contractors.
    This team develops comprehensive perspectives across technical,
    socioeconomic, cultural, political, geographic, and environmental
    boundaries, in examination and recommendation of solutions to problems
    in all phases of our work.
        We address all relevant purposes within appropriate ``frameworks''
    in a multiojective trade-off process, ensuring optimum multipurpose
    solutions. The frameworks include regions, watersheds, coastal zones,
    and ecosystems. Our many partners participate in this process. They
    include customers; other stakeholders such as local, State, and federal
    agencies; and the general public. As a result, competing goals of many
    interests are balanced without bias to satisfy needs and desires of
    multiple constituencies for a wide variety of water and related land
    resource management goods and services that contribute directly to the
    national welfare.
        In light of the broad responsibility entrusted to us by the
    Administration and Congress for national water and related land
    resources management the breadth and depth of our experience in
    executing that responsibility, and national needs for water and related
    land resources management as we enter the new century, we feel obliged
    to present the following assessment.

                                NATIONAL TRENDS

        Throughout its history, our Civil Works Program has been affected
    by external forces. The most important of these have been, and continue
    to be, customer demands for goods and services and taxpayer concern
    that investment in such goods and services be advisable. Our customers
    include direct beneficiaries of our projects, most of whom are cost-
    sharing partners. Taxpayers include the general public and taxpayer
    advocates. For our program to remain a relevant and viable contributor
    to national welfare, we must remain sensitive to these forces,
    continually reorienting, rescoping, and refocusing the program in light
    of them.
        As customer demands for, and taxpayer concerns about, water and
    related land resources management investment continually change, so,
    too, do national needs and priorities for such management. In light of
    this, in the coming months we intend to hold public listening sessions
    around the country with our customers, other partners, and concerned
    taxpayers to refine current national needs and priorities for water and
    related land resources management. These sessions will provide a forum
    for a national dialogue intended to produce more widespread discussion
    of needs and priorities, choices, constraints, tradeoffs, impacts, and
    challenges facing the nation and the implications they have for our
    national welfare.
        Meanwhile, our current assessments of current trends follow.

    Current Assessments
        As the world's climate changes, changing hydrology and water
    distribution and, in turn, environmental and socioeconomic conditions,
    necessary changes in and additions to the nation's water and related
    land resources management facilities, systems, and practices must be
    anticipated and effected as opportunely as feasible.
        As global markets expand, international commerce will demand more
    efficient domestic ports and harbors and improved vessel and intermodal
    cargo handling facilities.
        With many properties and major populations located in the nation's
    floodplains, flooding will continue to threaten national welfare.
    Moreover, as pressures continue to develop flood-prone lands and
    natural flood management systems are compromised, the threat of flood
    damage will increase.
        Ongoing migration of the nation's population to coastal plains and
    coasts, and attendant property development, will increase risks of loss
    from coastal erosion, floods, and hurricanes.
        The ongoing migration to coastal plains and coasts will put
    increasing pressure on coastal habitat, especially wetlands, and other
    fish and wildlife ecosystems.
        Through Water Resources Development Acts of 1996 and 1999 (WRDA 96
    and WRDA 99), the American public placed national environmental health
    near the forefront of social priorities. These acts, providing
    additional authorities to the Corps for ecosystem and watershed
    protection and restoration, increase emphasis on national need such as
    for ecosystem restoration, wetlands management, and nonstructural
    floodplain management.
        As the nation's population grows, there will be growing conflicts
    among multiple interests within watersheds wanting to use available
    water for diverse needs.
        As the nation's water and related land management infrastructure
    ages, it must be rehabilitated, modified, replaced, or removed.
        Given the American public's strong and growing interest in
    downsizing the federal government and, in turn, its workforce, ongoing
    outsourcing and privatizing for accomplishment of government work,
    including engineering, will increase. Also, the nonfederal sector will
    have to take on more water resources responsibilities.

    Current Challenges
        In light of our current assessments of trends in the nation's water
    and related land resources management, we have identified 5 significant
    challenges currently facing the nation. These are:
      --Navigation--dealing with capacity and efficiency needs;
      --Flood Protection--dealing with existing and continued development
            of floodplains, including coastal plains and coasts, and
            increased demand for protection from flooding, erosion, and
            winds;
      --Environmental Management--dealing with restoration of habitat,
            especially protection of wetlands;
      --Infrastructure Renovation--maintaining the nation's water and
            related land management infrastructure and effects of global
            climate change; and
      --Disaster Response Assistance--dealing with increasing severity and
            frequency of natural disasters.
        We must meet these challenges in order to preserve and promote our
    future national welfare. In cases that other federal agencies have
    authorities to address them, we promote interagency alliances and
    partnerships. Each challenge is discussed next.

                                   NAVIGATION

        The National Marine Transportation System (NMTS) comprises
    approximately 1,000 harbor channels; 25,000 miles of inland,
    intracoastal, and coastal waterways; and 238 locks. This system serves
    over 300 ports with more than 3,700 terminals for cargo and passenger
    movement, and connects to 152,000 miles of rail, 460,00 miles of
    pipelines, and 45,000 miles of interstate highways.
        The system annually provides enormous national benefits:
      --creating employment for more than 13 million citizens and
            contributing about 8 percent of national Gross Domestic Product
            (GDP);
      --moving more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international
            freight having a value of approximately $1.01 trillion;
      --moving over 60 percent of the nation's grain exports;
      --importing 3.3 billion barrels of oil to meet national energy
            demands;
      --providing 3-20 times less pollution per ton of cargo moved, as well
            as reduced accident risk compared with alternate transportation
            modes;
      --supporting 110,000 commercial fishing vessels and recreational
            fishing together contributing $111 billion to State economies;
      --transporting 134 million passengers by ferry;
      --serving 78 million Americans engaged in recreational boating; and
      --hosting more than 5 million cruise ship passengers.
        However, the system is nearing capacity, while demands on it will
    grow substantially. The Corps estimates that total volume of domestic
    and international marine trade is expected to more-than-double in the
    next twenty years to more than 4 billion tons per year by 2020. We
    project that inland shipments will increase over that same period by
    200 million tons, to 830 million tons. This increase in shipment volume
    will severely stress the NMTS.
        International trade and competition are key factors in our economic
    growth and impacting foreign relations. Currently, 20 percent of our
    GDP and nearly that much of our employment are associated with
    international trade.
        Increasingly, the containerships of choice are mega-vessels with
    50-55 foot drafts. Few of our ports have sufficient depths for this,
    but key international ports do, including those of Halifax, Freeport,
    and Vancouver. These ports are able competitors for our international
    trade. A major hurdle in meeting demand for deeper channels required by
    mega-vessels will be in meeting dredging requirements themselves. Over
    the past 10 years an average of 275 million cubic yards of spoil has
    been dredged for deep-draft channels. With deeper and wider channels
    greater spoil quantities will be produced, stressing both the physical
    capacity of our dredge fleet, and our ability to dispose of the spoil
    economically and in an environmentally acceptable way.
        Also, unfortunately, more than 44 percent of our inland waterway
    locks and dams are at least 50 years old. Many locks are undersized for
    modern commercial barge movements. Yet, they are carrying beyond their
    original designs, and according to the Corps' calculations, will be
    asked to carry 30 percent more by 2020. Annual lock delays associated
    with aged facilities currently total over 550,000 hours, representing
    an estimated $385 million in increased operating costs borne by
    shippers, carriers, and ultimately consumers.
        Among the 36 locks with high average delays in 1998, 19 are on the
    Upper Mississippi River--Illinois Waterway system, 5 are on the Gulf
    Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) or its connecting channels, and 12 are on
    the Ohio River system. Since the passage of WRDA 86, with $1.7 billion
    has been invested in 14 locks to date, and an additional $3.4 billion
    is programmed for ongoing construction at an additional 13 locks.
    Adequate and timely investments are needed to address the need for an
    efficient inland waterway system.
        There is much that the federal government can do to ensure that our
    NMTS will continue to make positive contributions to our national
    prosperity and global competitiveness.

                                FLOOD PROTECTION

        Flooding is the most destructive and costly natural disaster in our
    nation, accounting for 85 percent of all natural disasters that occur
    annually. We have made a major investment in flood protection
    infrastructure, including, for the Corps only, nearly 400 major
    reservoirs and 8,500 miles of levees and dikes, as well as hundreds of
    smaller local flood protection improvements. We estimate that, since
    1950, the Corps' infrastructure has prevented nearly $500 billion in
    riverine and coastal flood damage, returning nearly $6.00 in flood
    protection benefit for every $1.00 invested, and preventing, on
    average, $16 billion in flood damages annually.
        Despite its considerable success in flood protection, the nation
    still has an extensive residual flood damage problem. Costs of floods
    (emergency assistance costs plus property losses) still average over $4
    billion annually. News coverage of recent flood disasters, including
    the 1993 Mississippi River Flood and the 1997 catastrophe in Grand
    Forks, North Dakota, have shown, graphically, the enormous economic
    costs of flooding. Unquantifiable social costs include, in addition to
    injury and loss of life, stress on individuals and families caused by
    disruption, evacuation, and life in temporary quarters. It also
    includes trauma caused by injury and death, loss of irreplaceable
    property, and destruction of homes, neighborhoods, and entire
    communities.
        Major reasons for the nation's continuing flood damage problem
    include extensive and growing unprotected development in ``100-year''
    floodplains along the nation's streams, rivers, and shorelines, as well
    as development just outside 100-year floodplains where use regulations
    do not apply, but risk of less frequent more damaging floods exists.
        Urban development in floodplains is increasing by 1.5-2.5 percent
    annually. In addition, the nation's population is migrating to coastal
    plains. Presently, more than 36 million people live in coastal areas
    subject to flooding, hurricanes, and shore erosion. Along the East and
    Gulf coasts, about $3 trillion in infrastructure is located along
    shores vulnerable to erosion from flooding and other natural hazards.
    During the 20th century, 23 hurricanes caused economic damages in
    excess of $1 billion, each, in today's dollars. Most recently, Floyd, a
    category 4 hurricane that ravaged the East Coast in September, 1999,
    caused loss of 75 lives and economic damages estimated at $6 billion.
    Populations of the coastal states of California, Florida, and Texas are
    each expected to grow by more than 36 percent over the next 25 years.
    In recent years, these states have sustained the greatest amount of
    total flood damages.
        The nation needs to develop policies to address floods, erosion,
    and hurricanes, and the social, economic, and environmental bases
    associated with them.

                            ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

        Protection and restoration of the environment is an important goal.
    Indeed, restoration of native ecosystems and, possibly, creation of new
    ones, is crucial to sustaining natural systems and habitats for future
    generations. Our nation has more than 3.6 million miles of rivers and
    streams that, along with floodplains and upland areas, comprise
    corridors of great economic, social, and environmental value. These
    corridors are complex ecosystems that perform vital environmental
    functions, including modulating streamflows, storing water, removing
    harmful materials from water, and providing habitat for aquatic and
    terrestrial plants and animals. Until passage of the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, however, development of these
    corridors proceeded without concern, resulting in degradation of water
    quality, decreased water conveyance and storage capacity, loss of
    habitat for fish and wildlife, and decreased recreational and aesthetic
    values. NEPA prescribed integration of environmental protection and
    social goals with economic ones in the development of water and related
    land resource management projects. However, despite the shift in
    emphasis toward environmental benefits in such projects, much work
    remains to be done. The environment has suffered heavily. In order that
    it might sustain future generations, it must be cleaned up and
    restored, and further development must be tempered by an ethic of
    ensuring environmental sustainability of any such development.
        Over the years, human activities have significantly stressed
    aquatic environments across the nation and contributed to detrimental
    changes in their dynamic equilibria. Environmentally stressing
    activities have included physically changing habitats, including
    converting them to something else; over-enriching waters with oxygen-
    demanding nutrients; contaminating waters with bacteria; polluting
    lands and waters with chemicals; elevating the temperature of waters
    with oxygen-depleting heat; and spilling oil in oceans. For example,
    dredging of the nation's ports and harbors for cargo vessels, and
    disposal of the spoil, much of which is contaminated sediment, has
    adversely impacted coastal ecosystems. Bigger ships on the horizon will
    require deeper ports, more dredging, and more places to dispose of
    spoil. Such sites are quickly filling.
        Within the contiguous United States, over 100 million acres (53
    percent) of wetlands--an area the size of California--have been lost
    since colonial times, primarily from farming and urban development.
    Coastal areas have been particularly hard hit, although the rate of
    loss there has slowed since the 1980s. In addition to serving as
    habitats and spawning grounds for fish, waterfowl, and mammals,
    wetlands help reduce flood damage, protect shorelines from erosion, and
    improve water quality. About 35 percent of all federally listed rare
    and endangered species either live in or depend upon wetlands. The
    reduction in wetlands has allowed flooding to affect habitats and
    species populations adversely. The American Fisheries Society lists 364
    species or subspecies of fish as threatened, endangered, or of special
    concern, or at risk of habitat destruction. In all, about 600 species
    have been lost or endangered. Diminished flows to river deltas and
    estuaries from dams dry up wetlands, deteriorate water quality, reduce
    crucial habitat, and reduce fisheries.
        On average, coastal areas are twice as productive (ecologically) as
    inland areas. Coastal oceans and estuaries, among the most productive
    and valuable of natural systems, are also among the most threatened by
    human development. Over half of our population lives within 50 miles of
    a coastline, in areas collectively representing only 11 percent of the
    nation's total land area. This population concentration puts a great
    strain on many local ecosystems and coastal environments, leaving them
    more vulnerable to damage from coastal storms and chronic erosion.
        The nation needs a healthy environment, capable of sustaining its
    development for socioeconomic purposes, for current and future
    generations. Potential for restoring beneficial conditions of our
    nation's environment, focusing on floodplains including rivers,
    streams, wetlands, and coastal areas, and protecting them from further
    damage, is boundless.

                           INFRASTRUCTURE RENOVATION

        Water resources management infrastructure has improved the quality
    of our citizens' lives and provided a foundation for the economic
    growth and development of this country. Our systems for navigation,
    flood protection, hydropower generation, and recreation management all
    contribute to our national welfare. The stream of benefits is realized
    as reduced transportation costs, avoided flood damages, electricity,
    and recreation services. For example:
      --Navigable channels provide an efficient and economic corridor for
            moving a staggering 2.3 billion tons of the nation's domestic
            and foreign commerce.
      --For every $1 invested to improve navigation infrastructure, our GDP
            rises more than $3.
      --Flood protection, on average, prevents $16 billion in damages per
            year, saving $6 for every $1 spent.
      --Thousands of cities, towns and industries benefit from the 9.5
            million acre-feet of water supply storage from 116 of our lakes
            and reservoirs.
      --Hydroelectric power dams produce enough electricity to supply 4.64
            million homes with power.
      --Coastal projects protect 426 miles of the nation's shoreline.
      --Over 30 percent of the recreation and tourism occurring on federal
            lands takes place on Corps water and related land resources
            management facilities.
        Quality of American urban and rural life is enhanced by the
    availability of high-quality recreational opportunities for users of
    all economic means. Recreational opportunities abound near reservoirs
    and other places where boating, swimming, and fishing otherwise might
    not be available. More than 180 million Americans visited ocean and bay
    beaches in 1993. It is estimated that coastal recreation and tourism
    generate $8 to $12 billion annually. In 1996, an estimated 77.7 million
    recreational boaters spent approximately $17.8 billion on products and
    services related to recreational boating, while recreational fishing
    contributed another $13.5 billion to the economy. Growing population
    will place a greater demand on performance of the national water and
    related land management infrastructure used for recreation.
        Investment in economically justified and environmentally sound
    maintenance, major rehabilitation, and new infrastructure is needed to
    maintain and improve our capital water and related land resources
    management stock, and, in turn, benefits received from it.

                          DISASTER RESPONSE ASSISTANCE

        In recent years, our nation has suffered a series of major
    disasters whose impacts have been measured officially in terms of lives
    lost and high costs of damage to property and relocations. In addition,
    impacts have included disruption of family life; loss of jobs; business
    failures; disruption of safe water, sanitation, food, and shelter, and
    transportation; chaos in communities for weeks; changing of lives
    forever; public health risks due to diminished capability of public
    health care systems; loss of income and tax revenues; and impacts on
    other government programs from diversion of tax dollars to disaster
    response, relief, and recovery.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency reports that 25 major
    disasters occurred between 1988-1997 totaling $140 billion in damages.
    In the past 10 years, the nation has experienced the Loma Prieta and
    Northridge earthquakes in California; record flooding in the Midwest,
    California, and other regions; and hurricanes Andrew, Inicki, Marilyn,
    Fran, and Georges, among others. The Atlantic region alone saw 65
    tropical storms during the period 1995-1999, of which 20 were Category
    3-5 major hurricanes.
        The cost of disasters runs high. The National Science and
    Technology Council estimates that the structural losses from natural
    disasters averaged $1 billion weekly between August, 1992 and December,
    1995. Given the magnitude of disasters in recent years, new ways are
    needed to address disaster response, recovery, and mitigation. In fact,
    every federal, State, and local agency charged with emergency
    management responsibilities is stepping up to the task, with the
    support of the private sector. On one hand, the nation must avoid,
    withstand, and minimize economic losses on humans and property from
    disasters to the extent feasible; and on the other, it must be prepared
    to respond to and recover quickly from disasters when they occur.
        Disasters are a fact of life, especially in our country which is
    subject to more major storms than in any other on Earth. With the
    threat of major floods and hurricanes, potential damages are severe.
    Recognized experts in the field of natural hazards assessment predict
    that losses from disasters will continue to grow over the next 10-20
    years, despite the best efforts of our emergency management
    practitioners. The Southern California Earthquake Center forecasts a
    high probability of a major catastrophic earthquake in California
    within the next 20 years. The repetitive nature of damages in many
    parts of the country illustrates need for new strategies to mitigate,
    respond to, and recover from the many looming hazards.
        Several trends are increasing our vulnerability to disasters. One
    is global climate change. Extreme events believed to have been exceeded
    but once in a hundred years, on average, are occurring far more
    frequently, threatening the lives, property, natural resources, and
    vitality of local and regional economies throughout the nation. There
    is also a trend of increased development in risk-prone areas. As stated
    previously, the coastlines are particularly attractive to development
    and also especially vulnerable to disasters. Warning systems and shore
    protection efforts have made people feel more comfortable about
    development along shorelines, and, along with mitigation and insurance
    measures to alleviate short-term risks associated with living near the
    ocean and floodplains, may actually encourage concentrations of
    development in vulnerable areas.
        Adequate investment in emergency management is needed to ensure the
    capability of federal agencies to respond fully and quickly when
    disasters strike. Coordinated planning is needed among key agencies who
    must work together to perform the readiness requirements under the
    Federal Response Plan, avoiding needless duplication of
    responsibilities, and undue hardship for State, county, and city
    agencies. Our nation, subject to more major storms than any other,
    needs the federal capability to deal with multiple emergency
    contingencies.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The President's Budget for the Corps of Engineers is a good one.
    However, we must continue to find ways to reduce our costs and shift
    more of those remaining to direct beneficiaries of our services.
    Meanwhile, we will do our very best to execute the Civil Works Program
    for maximum benefit to the nation.
        With funding provided for our Operation and Maintenance Program in
    the fiscal year 2001 budget, we will be able to sustain customer
    services. However, we estimate that required funding for our highest
    priority maintenance backlog will increase to $450 million in fiscal
    year 2001--up by over $120 million from fiscal year 2000. I will
    continue to do all I can to make the O&M program as efficient as
    possible.
        Based on our assessment of the nation's current water and related
    land resources management needs, we feel strongly that the nation faces
    significant, and demanding challenges in dealing with those needs. We
    also know that the Corps has many unique assets from which to draw in
    tackling those challenges. These include our longstanding and exemplary
    leadership role in water and related land resources management; highly
    competent multi-disciplinary workforce complemented through contracting
    by a large public sector workforce; world-class research and
    development laboratories; highly developed and continually improved
    business processes including the recently fielded project management
    process; geographically dispersed organization, recently restructured
    to provide more pertinent, flexible, and timely operations resourcing;
    and capital infrastructure including thousands of completed facilities.
        Finally, we are committed to improvement in performance and
    customer satisfaction within available resources--continually
    maximizing actual and potential values of our organization to the Civil
    Works Program, the Army, and the nation.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes
    my statement.

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Now, Senator Reid,
    would you like to comment on any observations before we start
    questions?
        Senator Reid. I will, in the interest of time, Mr.
    Chairman, submit my statement and questions for the record.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Senator Burns, do
    you want to have any comments first?
        Senator Burns. I'm just going to make mine in the form of a
    question, a couple of questions. I think it moves the process
    along.
        Senator Domenici. Senator McConnell.
        Senator McConnell. Same here, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Craig.
        Senator Craig. Same.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Dorgan. Can I ask, are the
    Senators here interested in a specific item that they're going
    to inquire about? If it's a specific item, I'll let you proceed
    and I'll wait to do my indepth questioning.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET

        I have very big concerns about this budget. Once again, the
    Administration funds all of its initiatives and projects it
    likes at either 100 percent, or 92 percent of the Corps
    capability, and they take 30 or 40 high priority congressional
    projects and don't request funds for them.
        Now, I don't think we can afford to just fund every one of
    the Administration's programs totally intact as they asked for
    and have a huge number of congressional priorities that aren't
    taken care of. Having said that, Senator McConnell, you wanted
    to ask about one project, one item?
        Senator McConnell. It's not one item, Mr. Chairman. It's
    related to the possibility of the Corps doing some of the
    cleanup at the Paducah uranium enrichment plant
        Senator Domenici. Let's go in order. We don't want to be
    here beyond maybe 11:30 or 11:45. You can start any questions
    if you have any, Senator Reid. Mr. Burns, you can proceed.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Senator Burns. I would ask that my full statement be made
    part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. It will be.
        Senator Burns. I have a couple of comments and will start
    by apologizing that I am unable to stay for the whole hearing
    so I will address my questions to both the Bureau of
    Reclamation and Corps of Engineers now to get them in the
    record. Maybe we can take some of the responsibilities off the
    Bureau of Reclamation's shoulders, general. I notice they are
    still in the business of administrating grazing permits in
    Montana. Why? They aren't in that business. Shouldn't it be
    done by the BLM and could it be moved to the Bureau of Land
    Management?
        Senator Reid. You hope so.
        Senator Burns. Well, if it takes an amendment to do that,
    let us know and we'll be happy to try including it.
        Also, I'm still having some concerns about the overtures I
    hear of flirting with reducing the budgets for purchase power
    and wheeling in the Administration's budget.
        With the Corps, the issuance of permits in Montana
    continues to concern me. That is our biggest problem. I guess
    probably what has happened here, the attention to the Upper
    Mississippi Valley is carrying over into other smaller projects
    where the permits could be issued, yet we're just not getting
    any kind of timely issuance of those permits. We are having a
    hard time even receiving a decision whether a permit is needed
    or not. That's frustrating to a lot of folks along our rivers
    in Montana.
        Also, I'm wondering if we can get assurances from the BOR
    on the ownership transfer of intake? The intake diversion dam,
    Glendive, Montana, was supposed to have been done years ago. We
    have legislation in the works authorizing this to be done and
    we're wondering about BOR's willingness to do this is a timely
    manner.
        Now, saying all that, I want to end on a high note and
    thank the Corps for your interest in the fish hatchery at Fort
    Peck and other projects up and down the river. I think you've
    got a tremendous leadership team on the upper Missouri and we
    want to continue to work with you on those things. But there
    are additional things that I think we should direct your
    attention toward. I've heard from my constituents in Montana
    and they agree.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I do continue to have some concerns about the priorities
    the Corps of Engineers are setting and look forward to working
    with you and trying to work our way through it with the
    Chairman of the Committee. Nobody works as hard on this
    particular subcommittee as our chairman does. And thank you
    very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

        Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee
    today. As you well know, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corp of
    Engineers both play vital roles in the management of the West's water
    resources. Overall, these agencies are a great asset to the West and
    have historically helped us in the management of our most valuable
    resource, water. I have been especially pleased with the working
    relationship that has developed between my office and the Corp of
    Engineers in our mutual effort to help the citizens of Montana.
        However, as is generally the case when dealing with a valuable
    resource, contentions do arise between my constituents and these
    agencies. With some attention to management details, I believe we have
    the opportunity to smooth out these rough spots.
        First, I would like to address some of the concerns with the Bureau
    of Reclamation. As most members of this committee are aware, many of
    the Bureau of Reclamation projects in my state are in dire need of
    repair. Unfortunately, I don't believe the Bureau has a comprehensive
    plan in place to address these needs. Additionally, the Bureau is
    consistently running into cost overruns and passing these added costs
    on to my state's constituents. In a time of economic hardship within
    our agriculture communities, these costs can be the difference between
    making ends meet and having to shut the family farm down. I would hope
    that the Bureau would examine their methods of cost estimation and
    construction costs and look for ways to keep our projects operational
    at a reasonable cost.
        Additionally, I am curious as to why, in this time of reinventing
    government, that the redundant activities of various agencies aren't
    being consolidated. I make this point in relation to the Bureau because
    we actually have Reclamation administrating grazing permits in some
    areas of Montana. Why aren't we turning this activity over to the
    Bureau of Land Management, an agency much more suited to the task? I
    have been asked numerous times by my ranchers why they operate under
    two sets of rules on BLM and BOR grazing land. It just doesn't make
    good sense. I believe we can streamline these processes and better
    address the needs of the public. This is only one example of a non-
    traditional Bureau activity, I am sure that many others exist that are
    better provided by other agencies.
        The Bureau also is continuing to flirt with the idea of addressing
    wheeling concerns through administrative means. I have made the point
    previously that any wheeling changes must be done legislatively and we
    will not tolerate an administrative rule change. I stand by my prior
    comments and feel they must be reiterated for the benefit of the
    Bureau. The questions surrounding wheeling are extremely important to
    my constituents and any administrative decision that does not allow
    them the representation due to them will only create divisiveness
    between the agency and my state's residents.
        Last year I mentioned that I was curious as to what is holding up
    the ownership transfer on the Intake Diversion Dam north of Glendive,
    Montana. Supposedly this transfer was to take place in a fairly
    straightforward manner, yet we continued to wait for it to be
    finalized. In response I introduced legislation to transfer title to
    these projects, but I feel that it could have been done more quickly
    had the Bureau acted in better faith with the local irrigators.
        In regards to the activities of the Corps of Engineers in Montana,
    I have to commend the Corps on their efforts to deal with many
    competing interests. As the permitting process in the Yellowstone area
    illustrates, it is hard to make a decision that will make everyone
    happy. The stakes are high and everyone has something to lose. I don't
    envy the position of the Corps in that regard. However, whether it is
    addressing an eroding landfill near Billings, or working to balance the
    needs of flood mitigation and wildlife habitat, the Corps has continued
    to shoot straight in dealing with most of our locals.
        That being said, I must relay some of the frustration being felt
    due to the lack of timeliness in receiving permits. When we apply for
    permits in Montana, it is generally an urgent situation. Flooding may
    be threatening the land we earn our livelihoods off of. It may also be
    threatening our very homes. Unfortunately, I don't believe the Corps
    has a fast-track process in place that can address these urgent needs.
    I hate to go home and hear horror stories of bureaucratic inaction and
    work that didn't get done in time because the permit process moved too
    slowly. These are real people who have worked their lives for what they
    have. It is a tragedy when they watch it all disappear because the
    bureaucracy moved a little too slowly.
        I urge the Corps to examine this problem and look at ways to fix
    it. To be fair, last year was a better year for permitting. Of the 600
    404 permit requests in Montana last year, I am told that all were
    approved. This is good, however, I still have heard from numerous
    ranchers that they were given the run around in finding out whether
    they needed permits or who to contact to get the green light to move
    ahead on important projects. I would hope that the Corps would put a
    process in place and let this be known to Montanans that may need to
    apply for permits.
        Another wrinkle in the relationship with Montanans and the Corps
    was the redirection of $400,000 of Section 33 money from an extremely
    important study on the Missouri River. The time lost in this study as a
    result will only lead to more erosion and problems on the stretch of
    the Missouri below Fort Peck. This is an important project and the
    money must be restored as soon as possible.
        Finally, I would like to end on a high note and thank the Corps for
    their work on the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery. This project will be a great
    boon to Montana's fisheries and the Corps has moved forward quickly and
    professionally at the request of the State of Montana, local citizens
    and myself. I look forward to passing authorizing legislation this year
    and hopefully including beginning construction money in the fiscal year
    2001 appropriations.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to address the
    committee.

        Senator Domenici. Thank you. We're going to proceed, then,
    with first arrival, is that fair enough? You proceed, Senator.

                        PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT

        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
    Westphal and General Ballard, I'm sure you've read the articles
    in The Washington Post documenting the wide stream
    contamination and radiation exposure to the work force at
    Paducah, Kentucky gaseous diffusion plant.
        As you can imagine, the workers and their families are
    justifiably outraged by the Department of Energy's misconduct.
    What is worse, up until the articles ran in the Post, the
    Department spent the past 50 years denying this sort of thing
    could have happened. Following the damaging press accounts, the
    Department of Energy committed more funding to cleanup and
    worker health testing.
        Perhaps predictably, DOE has absolutely failed to make any
    headway on the conversion of the 57,000 cylinders of depleted
    uranium hexafluoride that are stacked outside along the fence
    of the plants. These cylinders contain a potent cocktail of
    hazardous chemical and radiological material. DOE began
    accumulating these 14-ton cylinders since the day the plants
    began production 50 years ago. Today, if you lined up these
    contaminated cylinders end to end, they would stretch from
    Washington, DC, to Ocean City, Maryland, 136 miles away.
        In July 1998, I drafted legislation which was signed into
    law mandating that DOE begin converting this material into a
    nonhazardous state. To date, DOE has done little except study
    the situation. Already DOE has missed its self-prescribed
    timetable to have a contract award cleanup by the year and the
    fiscal year 2001 budget fails to provide sufficient funding to
    keep the cleanup on track. Frankly, I'm disappointed by DOE's
    inaction and lack of accountability. They have waited 50 years
    for cleanup and desperately needs a job. More importantly, the
    community deserves a start to the cleanup which by DOE's own
    projection will last more than 20 years.
        Now, I raise all this because the Corps of Engineers has a
    cleanup track record and I'm looking to the Corps for
    assistance in cleaning up DOE's environmental legacy. So with
    that backdrop, let me propound a few questions. General
    Ballard, does the Army Corps----
        Senator Reid. Senator McConnell, what was Paducah
    originally used for? Why do they have 57,000 drums? What was
    the plant initially established for?
        Senator McConnell. It's been a uranium enrichment plant for
    50 years. General Ballard, does the Army Corps have the
    expertise to undertake the conversion of 57,000 cylinders of
    depleted uranium cylinders immediately and convert this
    material to a benign state and to dispose of it permanently?
        General Ballard. The short answer is yes, Senator. And the
    long answer is that we've had quite a bit of experience not
    only working at the FUSRAP program but we are currently
    involved in--you may be aware of this--in doing a nuclear
    fissile storage facility in the former Soviet Union as part of
    the Nunn-Lugar amendment. So we have experience inside of the
    Corps, plus we have a number of our consultants and partners
    with us who have engaged in this type of work before.
        Senator McConnell. In fact, there is every reason to
    believe you could accomplish this task faster than the
    Department of Energy and better than the Department of Energy,
    is there not? Go ahead and brag if you want to.
        General Ballard. Well, we do have a fairly good track
    record of aggressively moving out on this type of work and I
    feel confident that we could accomplish the job now faster and
    I would rather not brag to that respect but we can do it.
        Senator McConnell. Are there legal impediments to--if I
    were to try to assign this task to you all rather than the way
    it's currently being done so ineptly, are there legal
    impediments to the Corps undertaking these kinds of tasks?
        General Ballard. Not if we do it as a contractor or support
    to DOE so we don't run into the regulatory issues. And I would
    have to look at it even deeper but I don't believe there are
    any legal impediments that would prevent me from doing this
    type work for DOE.
        Senator McConnell. The Department has prepared an
    environmental impact study, a Record of Decision and a cleanup
    plan. Have you or your staff reviewed this material and is
    there anything that you are unfamiliar with or unable to deal
    with from a technological standpoint?
        General Ballard. My staff has reviewed quite a bit of data
    surrounding the Paducah facility and another one in Ohio. So I
    don't think that there is anything that's there that we are not
    really familiar with. I think we understand what the process is
    pretty good.
        Senator McConnell. Finally, the Department of Energy has
    made a big deal and has just notified the Army of the potential
    threat to our men in uniform since the metal armor was produced
    from the depleted uranium from the plant. Are you familiar with
    recent evaluation by the U.S. Army radiation research office?
        General Ballard. I am somewhat familiar with it, Senator. I
    am not an expert on it but I read the documentation surrounding
    that testimony.
        Senator McConnell. Does what you've read give you any
    concern about proceeding with the conversion?
        General Ballard. No, it does not.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Dorgan.

                  RED RIVER VALLEY, GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
    want to thank you, Chairman Domenici, and also Senator Reid for
    the assistance on the projects that we've been working on in
    North Dakota and I want to thank General Ballard and Dr.
    Westphal and General Van Winkle and others.
        At one point in my congressional career, I was one of those
    who would use inappropriate language from time to time when I
    would reference the Corps because there are a number of things
    that I worked on, it just seemed to me like nothing quite got
    done. And then we got involved in a very significant flood
    fight in Grand Forks. The Red River Valley, particularly in the
    Grand Forks area caused us some problems. And I tell you,
    having the Corps involved in a flood fight with you is
    something to watch and I have deep admiration for the men and
    women who serve in the Corps of Engineers and I want to thank
    you for that.

                           DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA

        We have been struggling mightily in North Dakota with a
    lake flood called Devils Lake. And my colleagues know it well
    because we continue to talk a great deal about it. But in human
    terms, it's not taking lives but it's destroying lives in many
    ways.
        Duane Howard, one of the great rodeo champions in America--
    perhaps one of the best bull riders you would ever see in this
    country--lost 80 percent of his ranch. Eighty percent of it is
    gone. Now it's under the lake. He's lost his livelihood, lost
    his ability to make a living.
        And Randy Meyers is a gunsmith and a paraplegic who watched
    his home torched as a health hazard, as the water from the lake
    enveloped his home. These are real consequences and so we've
    been struggling mightily to address something we don't see in
    this country very often--a lake flood with no inlet and no
    outlet for which there is not an easy solution.
        And I want to thank you, Dr. Westphal and General Ballard,
    General Van Winkle. You all have been helpful. We're struggling
    to try to produce an outlet that would provide major releases
    of water in a manner that would not affect others but would
    take some pressure off that lake. And this is turning out to be
    a very, very difficult task but we must continue to work on it.
        I would ask a couple of brief questions. With respect to
    the outlet that we've been working on, I know it is alleged by
    some, that the proposed outlet, will send the boundary's waters
    to Canada. It is our intention and your intention and the
    intention of anyone who is talking about an outlet that we
    would be required to comply with the boundary waters treaty.
    And we would have to go through an EPA process and be in full
    compliance with the boundary water treaty. Will you concur with
    that?
        Dr. Westphal. Yes.
        General Ballard. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. And it is also the case that if we
    construct an outlet to take the pressure off this lake
    successfully it will prevent this lake from going to the 1,460
    level, which it has done some many, many years ago. I believe
    the Corps has indicated that the cost of the 1,460 level is
    somewhere around 500 and a quarter million dollars additional
    damage. Is that correct?
        General Ballard. That's correct.
        Senator Dorgan. And the reason I ask these questions is, it
    describes the fact that this investment, in an attempt to
    address this flooding, is an investment that's good for the
    country. If we don't take some proactive measures here, we will
    certainly have to bear a much larger cost later. And we have to
    build dikes, raise roads, raise roads again, do all of these
    things to try to respond to the needs of people and we're still
    not able to keep up.
        So I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I
    have appreciated your attention to this and appreciate the
    attention of the Corps as we work forward here. The
    Administration has asked for some $4\1/2\ million for some
    front end planning design. I understand from speaking with the
    Chairman that the construction itself has to be approved by
    Congress. We have to deal with that at a later time but the
    design, we hope we can keep that in this process.
        That's a long way of saying thanks. I appreciate the work
    you're doing and the assistance you're giving us, both you and
    also Mr. Chairman and others in the committee
        Senator Domenici. Well, let me assure you, Senator, that
    Devils Lake is imprinted on my brain. I have seen more of
    Devils Lake for never having visited it than any project in
    America. And in an effort to know about it, I finally have
    pledged to you that if I visit another State on a Corps
    project, I will stop over first at Devils Lake because it's a
    phenomenon that is very difficult to understand but it is real.
    And we will do our very best to get it started in an
    appropriate way and in this bill.
        You keep reminding us but I think we won't have to work
    very hard. It will be in the Chairman's draft when we get the
    appropriation bill ready. If it's something that belongs in the
    supplemental, it will be there. I don't know what we're going
    to do in the supplemental. Some way we're not going to have any
    at all. So it won't be in there if there is none.
        Senator Dorgan. The recommendation in the supplemental is
    actually where the small amount of money is--the larger amount
    of money is requested in the regular appropriations. But I look
    forward to working with you.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Craig here next, please.

                            SNAKE/COLUMBIA CORRIDOR

        Senator Craig. I'll be only brief. I came to listen but
    also to express to the Army Corps the importance I place on
    their missions and their responsibilities in the Pacific
    Northwest and especially in the Snake/Columbia corridor. My
    colleague from Washington is with me this morning. He and I
    watch you all very, very closely. We like our dams, we like our
    slack water, we like our fish, we like our hydro and we expect
    you to handle them responsibly. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. And that was even better than you did the
    last time in the Energy Committee. We can quote you on this.
    Senator Gorton?
        Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
    saying I've learned a great deal about Devils Lake. I perhaps
    have even more understanding than Senator Dorgan coming from a
    wet State than you do coming from a dry State. But the problems
    that he faces there are very real and do deserve our help and I
    wanted to say that.
        Senator Domenici. Incidentally, it's snowing in Albuquerque
    this morning, so don't call this dry. We're trying very hard to
    get a little water.

                   COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

        Senator Gorton. But I do have some questions on the subject
    that Senator Craig rose, General Ballard. Two weeks ago, I met
    General Strock in my office to discuss the status of the Corps'
    environmental impact statement on the Columbia and Snake. He
    advised me that the Corps may be issuing a preferred
    alternative on whether to breach the Snake River dams this
    fall.
        Can you specify for me a more precise time frame during
    which the Corps intends to release this preferred alternative
    and whether the public will have an opportunity to comment on
    it before it becomes final?
        General Ballard. Yes. Let me take the second part of your
    question. Most certainly the public will have an opportunity to
    comment on the preferred alternative when we release it.
        Senator Gorton. Before it becomes final.
        General Ballard. Before it becomes final. The date--I'm
    looking at my colleagues now to give me the exact date.
        General Van Winkle. Sir, we have a tentative date of
    October of this year but again, there are some negotiations
    ongoing and we have to make some decisions. So this is very
    tentative. I would give you that date as a rough estimate at
    this point
        Senator Gorton. Can you tell me if there is additional
    information that the Corps will incorporate into its final
    decision or will it be based on what you know already?
        Dr. Westphal. Senator, let me try and answer that. We
    believe that the Corps really has most of the information it's
    going to need. Now, the biological opinion is going to be
    coming out here in a couple of months and how that would affect
    the EIS, we're not sure, but we believe that we are really
    ready to go forward with a final EIS. We've done the study, the
    analysis. This is not a decision document. This is an
    information document. So to expedite this, we think we can put
    out a final EIS probably in the October/November time frame.
        Senator Gorton. You said a little later. It was September/
    October 2 weeks ago. Now it's October or November?
        Dr. Westphal. Well, only because before we were thinking
    about coming out with a draft EIS, another draft EIS, but if we
    go to a final, we could probably get it done by October. I
    don't want to speak for General Strock because they're still
    churning a lot of information and public comment, a significant
    amount of public comment from the recent meeting they had. So
    partly it's a function of that.
        General Ballard. But getting to the final rather than the
    draft, Senator, will get us into the dialogue much quicker.
        Senator Gorton. Now, can any of you here provide me with an
    estimate as to whether the natural runs for spring and summer
    Chinook salmon on the Snake River will increase or decrease
    this year?
        Dr. Westphal. Well, the expectations were that they were
    going to increase this year, but there is some new research
    coming out now that CRI is coming out and I am not sure exactly
    when that will be public. But we are being told that there may
    be some--that the news from that may not be that good. But I
    don't know what it is. I couldn't tell you today what the CRI
    will tell us.
        Senator Gorton. Will whatever happens this year be factored
    into the feasibility study and your recommendations?
        Dr. Westphal. No, because the CRI--well, we already have
    the analysis on the Snake River salmon. We don't really need to
    account for the remainder of the species in the Columbia River
    basin in our EIS because our EIS is lower Snake River EIS. So
    we've got what we need and we need to proceed forward with the
    EIS.

                             JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM

        Senator Gorton. One last question on this subject. I
    understand there are reports that the Oregon State Fish and
    Wildlife Department questions your analysis or may question
    your analysis on the John Day study drawdown and it is pressing
    the Corps to pursue further study on this issue. I don't
    believe any more study is warranted. Can you explain the Corps'
    position on the drawdown and when we can expect the final
    decision?
        Dr. Westphal. We completed John Day phase 1 study and as
    you know, there is language in last year's appropriations bills
    that prohibits us from going to a phase 2 or a McNary drawdown
    study without permission of the Congress.
        Senator Gorton. I'm familiar with that.
        Dr. Westphal. I thought you might be. But we intend to
    adhere to that language and we are not proceeding further.

                  COLUMBIA RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING

        Senator Gorton. Now something on which I wanted to
    congratulate you and say how much I want you to succeed, and
    that is the deepening of the Columbia River, the navigation
    channel. I'm delighted with your reports and it seems to me
    that you're doing very, very well. Some environmental features
    of the project which obviously are important may be ready for
    construction in fiscal year 2001 but the Chief's report was
    completed so late in the budget preparation cycle that it
    couldn't be included in the President's budget as a new
    construction start.
        If Congress were to appropriate a small amount of
    construction funds for fiscal year 2001, would the Corps be
    capable of beginning construction of these environmental
    features during that fiscal year?
        Dr. Westphal. I think so but let me defer to General Van
    Winkle.
        General Van Winkle. Senator, we could. We have some
    capability estimates of around $4.5 million to do that in 2001.

                        CAPABILITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

        Senator Gorton. Thank you. The National Marine Fisheries
    Service included a requirement that the Corps and local
    sponsors find and improve 5,000 acres of the habitat as
    mitigation. What are you doing to meet that requirement?
        Dr. Westphal. Sir, I'm not sure. I would have to get an
    answer for the record, unless you have one.
        General Van Winkle. No, we'll have to get the details for
    the record on that.
        [The information follows:]

                        CAPABILITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

        Although project and study capabilities reflect the readiness of
    the work for accomplishment, they are in competition for available
    funds and manpower Army-wide. In this context, the fiscal year 2001
    capability amounts shown consider each project or study PY itself
    without reference to the rest of the program. However, it is emphasized
    that the total amount proposed for the Army's Civil Works Program in
    the President's budget for fiscal year 2001 is the appropriate amount
    consistent with the Administration's assessment of national priorities
    for Federal investments. In addition, the total amount proposed for the
    Army's Civil Works Program in the President's Budget is the maximum
    that can be efficiently and effectively used. Therefore, while we could
    utilize additional funds on individual projects and studies, offsetting
    reductions would be required in order to maintain our overall budgetary
    objectives.
        Hereafter, this statement is referred to as ``the usual
    qualifications.
                                     ______

                        COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL DEEPENING

        The biological opinion for the Columbia River Channel Deepening
    project clearly states in the terms and conditions that the Corps will,
    ``as part of the Corps' ecosystem restoration mission and
    responsibility under separate authority, independent of the Channel
    Improvements Project, expedite the attainment of the objectives of the
    Lower Columbia River Estuary Program by restoring 1,500 acres of tidal
    wetlands by 2005, and 3,000 acres between 2005 and 2010, subject to
    Congressional authority and appropriation''. The Corps intends to
    request funds for a new General Investigation (GI) study in order to
    fulfill this term and condition. This GI study would specifically
    address environmental restoration in support of the Lower Columbia
    Estuary Program. The restoration of habitat is not considered part of
    ``mitigation for the deepening project''. We will also use Section
    1135, Project Modifications for Improvements to the Environment and
    Section 206, Aquatic Restoration, both part of our Continuing
    Authorities Program, for habitat restoration.

        Senator Gorton. If you will get an answer on how you are
    working with local sponsors, I would appreciate it. But I do
    want to say I'm very enthusiastic about your enthusiasm and I
    want to congratulate you. And Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank
    you very much.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, could I do a follow up to an
    answer?
        Senator Domenici. Could I just comment before you do that,
    Senator? Senator Gorton, we were having a hearing not too long
    ago on the purchase of the Boca, that big ranch in New Mexico,
    and I sat next to you as you questioned a U.S. Representative
    from the district that Boca is from, it's in his district, and
    I curtailed him and anybody present that it is not an easy
    thing around here and will never be to tear down the poor dams
    that are up there in your part of the country. Our Congressman
    got a lot of press that he was for tearing them down but your
    comments got in the paper also. I just wanted you to know you
    were pretty tough on that Congressman. But apparently this is
    one of the most important issues you have going, is that right?
        Senator Gorton. It is very easy to say that and we did not
    appreciate the Congressman referring to it in that way. But as
    I told him then, he was extremely fortunate that he had you as
    a Senator because that means that he doesn't get punished with
    respect to the Boca ranch interference in our business.
        Senator Domenici. I understand.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I was chairing that hearing
    and I must say that Senator Gorton, it was one of his finest
    hours, without question. In relation to final draft versus
    draft and public comment, what is it, what will it be, have you
    decided, and if it's a final, why then go back out for public
    comment?
        Dr. Westphal. When you do a final, you just simply put it
    out, not for public comment. You put it out for public review.
        Senator Craig. Consumption but not reaction?
        Dr. Westphal. Exactly.
        Senator Craig. So what are you doing?
        Dr. Westphal. We're heading towards a final. We believe
    we've got enough public comment and enough information to go
    right to a final. We don't need to put it out for more public
    comment and do another draft this time. That's my belief and
    that's what I would like to see happen.
        Senator Craig. So that is what we should expect to happen?
        Dr. Westphal. I think so.
        Senator Craig. All right. That it will be a final draft not
    for public comment, but for public consumption?
        Dr. Westphal. Right.
        Senator Craig. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Stevens, I and Senator Reid have
    reserved our questions but if you would like to go, we would
    welcome them.

                  ALASKA NATIONAL DEFENSE SYSTEM MISSILE SITES

        Senator Stevens. I just came over from another subcommittee
    because I saw my friends Dr. Westphal and General Ballard are
    here and I would just like to ask you a couple of questions.
        I just visited, General Ballard, with the Pacific Ocean
    Division of the Corps and, Secretary, this applies to you too.
    I believe the decision has been made that the Corps will handle
    the Alaska portion of the national defense system in terms of
    developing the site for the missiles and the support base that
    is necessary.
        I want to make sure that there is adequate funding here to
    carry out that process and that we have thought about the
    staffing in the Alaska District and the Pacific Ocean Division
    that will be needed to do that. I think they have the expertise
    to do it and they've gone to construction in Alaska and I want
    to make certain that these people have the knowledge, and that
    we're supporting them in getting the kind of people they need
    to assure this is getting done in time and done properly.
        General Ballard. Senator, I'll address that. As I informed
    your staff, about 2 weeks ago, I moved the project management
    for that work from Huntsville to the Alaska District and we are
    currently evaluating the appropriate staff that they require.
    As you know, this project is much too important for us to fail.
    So I'm putting the appropriate oversight and staffing in Alaska
    for them to handle this work.
        Senator Stevens. I want to make sure that people understand
    construction.
        Let me bore you all with a story. When I was a brand-new
    Senator, we got a new Federal building for Nome. I don't know
    if I told you this, but it was a really beautiful building for
    this small, historic town and they were going to have an
    opening in the spring. They decided to get the whole building
    warmed up before the opening. I went up there for the opening
    and guess what? The building had sunk about a foot and a half.
    No one understood the problems of permafrost and stability of
    soils and that's something we can't have happen on the national
    defense system.
        General Ballard. Absolutely.
        Senator Stevens. And so we have the ability and we have
    people who work in the Arctic who are contractors. And if we
    have people who have done beautiful work in Central America and
    they start doing it up there, we're going to pay the price. So
    I hope you really put some people in there that understand the
    Arctic, General, because this is going to be a big, big thing
    for the country if it happens. It's not that big for Alaska.
    The money is really going into the systems rather than into the
    ground but we want it to be done right when it's done.
        General Ballard. I understand, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Do you believe we have the supervision
    that will be necessary to do this job right?
        General Ballard. I'm confident that we will.

          U.S. ARMY COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORIES

        Dr. Westphal. Senator, when you and I went up there last
    year, if I recall, I took a half a day away from being with you
    and went to visit the Corps of Engineers Cold Regions
    Laboratory there, and what we have is you basically go
    underneath the mountain and they study permafrost.
        You can go inside this mountain and you can see the ice
    sitting in layers of dirt. And as you see, if you don't account
    for that, you put something on top of it and it melts, you've
    got a serious problem. So I think the Corps has the expertise
    and the ability and has it on site to deal with these issues.
        Senator Stevens. Well, we think that you ought to make
    trips often, make sure you inspect those sites.
        Senator Reid. Senator Stevens, did they ever fix the
    courthouse?
        Senator Stevens. As a matter of fact, we built a new one
    and used the other one--it has a nice basement, it does--it is
    still used but not for a courthouse.
        Senator Craig. Keeps sinking?
        Senator Stevens. I don't have any other questions,
    gentlemen. I appreciate your response to requests for
    information I've made and I do have great confidence in the
    work that's done by the Army through the Corps of Engineers.
    They're our neighbors and do a great many things. We're hopeful
    in time we'll have reports to you on developments of perhaps a
    new port on the northwest coast so we can open up some of those
    mines up there. But that's still coming through the stage of
    design and research and it's not ready to come to the committee
    yet.
        I would like to have you all come up there and see that
    sometime. You ought to see this area of Alaska. Very few people
    come up to see the northwest coast of Alaska. It's beautiful.
    Tremendous mineral content. The problem is access.
        Senator Reid. Is that where Nome is?
        Senator Stevens. It's actually above Nome. It's north of
    Nome. But Nome is on the Seward peninsula in northwest Alaska.
        Senator Domenici. We appreciate you coming to our committee
    today. We look forward to working with you on the budget.
        Senator Stevens. I'm your humble servant if you're ready to
    talk about the budget.
        Senator Domenici. The Corps of Engineers funding for your
    missile project will be in Senator Burns' committee in military
    construction.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, but these two were both in your
    subcommittee.
        Senator Domenici. I'm with you. Senator Reid, please. Thank
    you.
        Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
    General Ballard, I want to join with the others to congratulate
    you on a stunning military career. It's not often that you find
    someone who finishes their career with three stars and you
    should be very proud that you've rendered a great service to
    the country.
        General Ballard. Thank you, sir.

                    RURAL NEVADA WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

        Senator Reid. This question could be answered by anyone who
    cares to. The Federal Government is imposing increasingly
    strict regulations on water supply. In areas like Las Vegas and
    Reno, they can handle that. But for 10, 15 percent of the
    population of Nevada covering 70 million acres, they have a
    real burden. And I'm particularly interested in one of the
    provisions for rural Montana and Nevada in section 595 of WRDA,
    9299. But, of course, there are a host of others around the
    country that are concerned in addition to Montana and Nevada.
    Do we have any reason that we haven't budgeted money to take
    care of these problems? Do we have threats, for lack of a
    better description, that we're going to have higher
    restrictions on arsenic content and other things and we have no
    money to cover all this?
        Dr. Westphal. Let me take a stab at that. I think these
    questions--and I'm going to get on a limb here but I think
    these questions, such as the one you posed, Senator Reid, and
    some of the ones that I'll have to deal with throughout
    testimony here and in the House will require, I think, some
    greater dialogue between the Administration and the Congress as
    to how far out we want to get into this type of work.
        This is not traditional mission work of the Corps of
    Engineers. However, there is a national need for this. There is
    no question that the need you just outlined is there. It's
    there in many rural areas. It's there in many parts of the
    country. We operated, putting together our budget, on the
    premise that we have a very tight budget and we needed to fund
    the projects we already had in the works. So these types of
    authorities that have been in previous WRDA bills simply didn't
    get the funding.
        But I think there is an increasing debate about doing this
    kind of work and I believe that the only way we're going to
    successfully attack it nationwide is to have a dialogue with
    you and to come to some understanding as to how far we want to
    get into it and how we want to do that work.
        Senator Reid. All I know is that we're going to have a
    crisis because when these restrictions in effect come into it
    and local companies are trying to--water companies are trying
    to meet these standards. Impossible, can't meet them. The
    amount of money, the cost is more than the water districts are
    worth just to solve one of the water problems.
        Do you think the Corps has the capability and expertise, if
    you had the money, to address these problems?

                      CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Dr. Westphal. I think the Corps does have the capability
    and expertise. Now, again, we have to face the argument that
    some pose that say, well, you've got a huge backlog of work and
    construction and O&M. How do you reconcile putting money into
    other things when you've got this backlog?
        So I think we need to address both those issues. We need to
    address the backlog issue and how much it is and how much we
    have to--how much we're going to need to really make a dent on
    that. But we also have to--we can't stay still. We can't not
    support the needs of the country as they arise in the future.
    So we have to look to the future. We also have to address the
    past. And for us, it's a simple game of mathematics. We just
    have not had enough money to put in the budget to address all
    of these adequately.
        Senator Reid. Dr. Westphal, estimates range up to $45
    billion in backlog water resources this country needs. That
    doesn't take into consideration what I've just talked about,
    some of the new rules that will go into effect. And you have in
    your budget request $4 billion. It's without any question that
    this is inadequate funding, $4 billion.
        Do you have a plan to do away with this huge backlog? I
    mean, are we going to see additional requests in the years to
    come or are we going to continue doing less than one tenth of
    what is needed?
        Dr. Westphal. Well, there are a number of things we could
    do. We can certainly address the backlog from the standpoint of
    greater efficiencies and I think the Chief has done that. He
    has done a very good job of trying to find ways to make the
    program more efficient and use those gains to make up some of
    the backlog. But that's a very small dent into a big problem.
        Second, I think we can look at--you mentioned the $45
    billion. That includes a lot of projects that are absolutely
    not moving. They are simply--they are deferred or there is just
    nothing going on there. So there is a lot of--perhaps half of
    that work is work that we probably aren't going to do certainly
    in the near future and we need to address to determine with you
    if we are going to go forward with that work and at what pace
    and at what level and is there a Federal--non-Federal sponsor
    for the work.
        So we also need to look at the authorized projects that are
    simply not going to happen. They're not going to get built,
    they're not going to get constructed, because of the
    environmental issues or because there is no local sponsor. So
    there is a variety of ways of dealing with it, and as I
    requested from Chairman Smith of our authorizing committee,
    we're going to be looking at that backlog pretty seriously,
    taking a look at the lists of projects out there and making
    some analyses that we hope to be able to provide some
    recommendations on.

                               WETLAND PROPOSALS

        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other
    questions. One includes some technical answers that I need
    regarding wetlands proposals and whether or not, again, you
    have the adequate personnel to meet these demands. When
    problems arise regarding the wetlands rules, it's taking too
    long to resolve, and in the process of resolving these wetlands
    problems, people are literally going broke. They have to borrow
    money, waiting until there is some definitive answer from the
    Corps and, in the process, the interest payments are going up.
        So I have 12 other questions that we'll submit to you in
    writing because the Chairman hasn't had a chance to ask
    questions. I'm going to stop now. But if you would get back to
    me within the next couple of weeks with written responses to
    these written questions, I would appreciate it.

                           RIGID REGULATORY STANDARDS

        Senator Domenici. Senator, thank you so much for your being
    brief. I want to also say that inherent in what I see of the
    rural communities with smaller water systems and the new rules
    is a serious question as to whether the standards that have
    been set up are too rigid. I mean, nobody wants to look at it.
    I mean, they just want to say, how much is it going to cost to
    do what somebody is telling us to do.
        But the question may be, for a whole lot of America, are
    those standards that are being insisted upon, are they really
    necessary. And I'm not going to ask any of you. That's not your
    expertise. But it's obvious we're asking rural areas to build
    some rather fantastic facilities for very small systems that
    cannot achieve the kind of things that a major system can in a
    city. And I don't know who is going to look at it because it
    would seem to me the Administration doesn't want to look at it,
    at least for a while.

                                 FALLON, NEVADA

        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, just in one rural committee, an
    agricultural community in Nevada, Fallon, Nevada, they have an
    arsenal and they've had it for many years. It's estimated that
    it will cost each water user in Fallon $100 a month to meet the
    requirements that they have. That's $1,200 a year. They can't
    do it.
        Senator Craig. I've been to Fallon. No, they can't afford
    it.
        Senator Domenici. The question, however, is that arsenic
    standard, is that reasonable and rational and does it make
    common sense? We have background arsenic in many communities
    that have been there forever. I imagine that community and many
    areas around it have a level of arsenic in the water that has
    not been dangerous and we come along and say--and you can't get
    it out of the natural environment. We say you've got to do it
    in the water system.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, I assume in Fallon, that's a
    very mineralized area, that that's a natural water level, is it
    not?
        Senator Reid. In Fallon, it's not a mineralized area, but
    for reasons we don't fully understand, it's always been heavy
    in arsenic. Like up where I'm from it is mineralized, we have
    an arsenic problem there.
        Senator Craig. But it is considered a natural State.
        Senator Reid. Totally.

                       FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET PRIORITIES

        Senator Domenici. Okay. Let me just say, I have a series of
    questions for you, Dr. Westphal, with reference to the
    Administration's budget. I've alluded to them, but I'm just
    going to mark three points.
        The $4.064 million budget request has funds for high
    priority Administration environmental projects such as the
    Everglades funded at 100 percent of the Corps capability for
    2001, and deepwater ports, 92 percent of your capability. But
    its severely underfunded ongoing flood control and inland
    waterways--funding them at only 62 percent of the Corps'
    capacity, and it excludes from the budget requests 40 projects
    which are high priority for the Congress.
        Now, frankly, Dr. Westphal, you're to be commended for your
    efforts to put forth a somewhat better budget than we had last
    year, and I compliment you for it. I think in areas where you
    put some pressure on, we've got a better budget. But how are we
    going to deal with this enormous disparity between the
    Administration's priorities and Congressional priorities?
        Now, if they all meet the same tests, cost/benefit ratios
    and the rest, I mean, why are the President's more important
    than these items the Congress has continually supported? How am
    I going to do that? What do you recommend?
        Dr. Westphal. Well, Senator, I think that we did fully fund
    the Everglades and that's because we're at a point where that
    particular project is absolutely critical to get that
    comprehensive study underway. It's a 20-year project. The State
    is cost sharing that at a 50/50 rate, so we felt that's a very
    high priority to go forward. It's a national priority.
        In the navigation area, of course, we are still relying on
    the use of the new Harbor Services User Fee proposal which
    would allow us then to fully fund at capability levels all our
    navigation of our harbor projects. So we're able to make use of
    that fund for that. Last year, I think you appropriated
    somewhere in the vicinity of about $700 million out of the fund
    for the O&M part of that. This year, if the fund were
    implemented, it would be about $900 million out of the fund for
    O&M construction.
        Senator Domenici. The Everglades has $1.8 billion in new
    authorization for the Everglades.
        Dr. Westphal. It's $158 million in this particular year.
        Senator Domenici. But the new authorization is $1.8
    billion. Look, I'm not critical of the Everglades. It's a
    fantastic project and I'm sure this Committee wants to fund it
    mightily. But we're in a real spot when the Administration
    takes 40 projects that you have gone through and you've signed
    cost benefit sharing agreements with great fanfare. People are
    waiting, anticipating continued construction. They've got cost
    sharing agreements that you have signed, they're ready to put
    up their share. And all of a sudden they disappear from the
    President's budget.
        I can tell you right now, that's not going to happen. I'm
    not going to fund them unless we get some more money from the
    allocation, we're not going to fund the Administration's at its
    request and fail to fund Congressional priorities. You all are
    going to take a little cut in order to fund some of ours. There
    is no evidence that the President picks out better water
    projects in terms of those that have clear cost benefits than
    Congress can. So we have some prerogatives and I want you to
    know it's going to be tough. We'll work with you as best we
    can.
        I had a series of questions I was going to ask you about
    the integrity of the Corps process. I think you've satisfied my
    concerns. I'll submit them for the record .
        General Ballard. Thank you, sir.

                                  CORPS REVIEW

        Senator Domenici. I would want to know, there is a serious
    internal study, Dr. Westphal, occurring within the
    Administration because of the articles about the Corps, perhaps
    The Washington Post story. Now, who is conducting the review?
    Is it the Defense Department that's conducting the review or
    who within the Administration is conducting that?
        Dr. Westphal. There are three things underway. The first
    is--and General Ballard alluded to them. The first is the
    Secretary of the Army has asked the National Academy of
    Sciences to do an independent review of the Upper Mississippi
    Navigation Study, of that process.
        Senator Domenici. National Academy of Sciences?
        Dr. Westphal. Right. The National Academy has done some
    work for the Corps of Engineers in the past on assessing the
    current principles and guidelines so they have some expertise
    in this area. There was a feeling that there was a need to have
    a totally independent and outside review of this study. So
    that's been ordered and that's underway, I believe, or will be
    underway shortly.
        The second matter is that there are--and I can't tell you
    specifically because I don't know, but there are investigations
    of these allegations of misconduct and that's being handled
    through the appropriate Inspector General and those types of
    organizations within the Department of Defense and the Army.
        The third matter is simply that the Secretary said, because
    there were also allegations that the Army may not have been in
    control of the program or something to this effect, that the
    Secretary simply said, we will assess, we will ensure that the
    management and oversight of the Corps of Engineers is there.
    And that is not a study. That is simply looking at the
    regulations, I assume. And again, I'm not a part of that. I
    don't know when the Secretary is going to put that out or make
    a statement about that.
        Senator Domenici. But I want to state for the record here,
    so there is no misunderstanding, Senator Reid has just agreed
    with me, and I'm sure that I will get Chairman Stevens and
    ranking minority member Byrd, we're going to make sure the
    Administration understands that if, as a result of this study,
    there are any serious recommendations regarding restructuring,
    that we want a review process for the Congress, and we will
    make sure they know that. I don't know whether it should be 6
    months or what, but clearly we support what you do, yet we
    think we have good oversight. There still remain people who
    think the Corps shouldn't be doing so much work in America and
    what they do is not necessarily in the best interest of our
    country. So there are a few of those in the Administration.
    That's their business, not mine.
        But you understand that we would be very concerned that
    from an investigation should any restructuring occur without
    Congress understanding why and what it's going to do to the
    Corps as it's conducting itself. We're pretty proud. The Corps
    went through a difficult year about 25 years ago and I was here
    for about 8 or 9 years. And it's highly respected and Congress
    respects it tremendously for the kind work it's been doing and
    that's thanks to you and your predecessors, Mr. Secretary, and
    the good Generals who have been in charge.

                          RIO GRANDE RIVER BASIN STUDY

        I'm going to ask you a couple of questions, but I'm going
    to move for a minute to your requests for Comprehensive Red
    River Basin studies. And let me just suggest, I'm going to ask
    you about them in writing. And I do want you to know that you
    included a river in my State called the Rio Grande River.
        I don't know what I'm going to do with your request as I
    share my concerns with the subcommittee members and the full
    committee members but I do want to suggest that there are large
    numbers of stakeholders that some of whom are Federal agencies
    who are equal stakeholders, if not more so than the Corps, and
    I have to try to figure out whether we're going to get
    something constructive out of a comprehensive river basin study
    that you all would do. No aspersions on you. It's just when you
    look at all the players, are we apt to get something better or
    something that's just going to make the stakeholders more upset
    and angry?
        I, myself, am looking for a way to bring the stakeholders
    together. Bureau of Reclamation is involved, I should know,
    because they control the water flows in some facilities. And
    the Commissioner will testify next, and he's been doing a
    yeoman's job trying to allocate the water shortage in the Rio
    Grande. You're aware of that and I very much appreciate your
    personal knowledge on the subject. But you understand that your
    operations may not be what I, as a Senator, think are going to
    solve any problems.
        Dr. Westphal. And Senator, as I said in my oral statement,
    I want to proceed by working first with you and the other
    members, I've engaged Senator Burns and Senator Baucus on the
    issues on the Yellowstone because I think we need that input.
    And if for some reason you think that we ought to change this
    plan in some way, I'm very, very attentive and very willing to
    do that.

                     PICATINNY ARSENAL HEAVY METAL CLEANUPS

        Senator Domenici. Now, do any of you have any further
    comments? I will submit questions if you'll answer them. I just
    have one question about the heavy metals cleanup at the
    training ranges. Last year $3 million was included in the
    defense appropriation bill for work of extracting heavy metal
    from soils at various training ranges. This is a joint project
    between the heavy metals office at the Picatinny Arsenal in New
    Jersey and New Mexico State University. Evidently someone in
    the office of the Secretary of Defense saw this term
    ``remediation'' in the title of this project and sent the $3
    million to the Corps of Engineers. I'm not sure that's what was
    intended, but that's where it is.
        While you do remediation work for the Department of
    Defense, the $3 million is earmarked for heavy metals office at
    the Picatinny arsenal and it was not intended for the Corps--I
    know it was not intended for the Corps but it ended up there.
    We had been unsuccessful in having the funds transferred back
    to Picatinny. Are either of you, General Ballard or Secretary
    Westphal, familiar with the issue? And I understand that
    funding was directed to the Corps of Engineers by someone else
    in the Department of Defense, but I want to make it clear that
    this $3 million must be transferred back without delay so we
    can get something done.
        General Ballard. I'm familiar with it, Senator, and I was
    briefed on it this morning. We didn't go looking for it. I
    thought it was $3 million filed on post, but I'll quickly
    return it. We'll get it returned by----
        Senator Domenici. You can check it out and make sure what
    I'm saying is right.
        General Ballard. Yes, sir.
        Senator Craig. The check is in the mail.
        Senator Domenici. I do want to comment, with reference to
    cleanup that involves low level nuclear waste and the like.
    Somebody in the U.S. House had an ingenious idea that maybe we
    ought to experiment and let the Corps of Engineers do some of
    this cleanup because we had been involved in many of these
    projects, I mean, it's safe to say, but we never got anything
    done. We kept turning the soil and nothing happened.

                FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

        And now we have a program called FUSRAP and we've
    appropriated $150 million for the current year and the Corps is
    doing cleanup work. I want to suggest that from everything we
    know, you're doing a good job. And as compared with the huge
    delays and the kind of circuitousness of the Energy
    Department's efforts and cost increases, I mean, we get an
    estimate of $300 or $400 million, turns out $2 or $3 billion by
    the time the 10 years is examined.
        So are you confident that you all are monitoring this
    program and that the work is being done properly? And I ask
    both of you that. Do you have any complaints of a serious
    nature that you might want to put on the record?
        Dr. Westphal. I think we're finding great success with this
    program, doing it on time and in a very efficient manner. I
    think that the Corps has taken this task on very seriously and
    has done a great job.
        General Ballard. I share those concerns, those comments. We
    have taken this program on now and we, in fact, we are quite a
    bit further ahead of schedule. Probably the most important
    thing we did with then-existing authority and capacity, is that
    we did not grow one FTE for doing this program.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I want the record to show that
    nobody from the Corps, indirectly or directly, ever came to see
    me and ask me to fund this program. So if somebody thinks you
    all are lobbying for this cleanup, I never heard it. I believe
    the House came up with the idea. We transferred about $130
    million from DOE to the Corps.
        General Ballard. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. So I think it's very, very important that
    you do that job right and that you monitor it very, very
    closely because these kind of programs have a tendency--you
    know, something seeps out and it becomes a very big eyesore for
    big groups of people and we don't want that on the Corps for
    having stepped up to the plate and doing a better job than
    anybody else in this regard.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Unless you, Senator Craig, have anything, I'm going to
    submit the questions.
        Senator Craig. I do not, Mr. Chairman
        Senator Domenici. You're excused. And thank you very much.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                                PROGRAM OVERVIEW

        Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 totals $4.064
    billion for programs and activities of the Corps of Engineers compared
    to a total appropriation for fiscal year 2000 of $4.142 billion. The
    budget structure and the approach taken by the Administration in
    funding projects are very similar to the fiscal year 2000 budget.
    Specifically, the Corps' budget request: funds high priority
    Administration environmental projects such as the Everglades
    Restoration at 99 percent of the Corps capability for fiscal year 2001;
    funds selected deep water port projects at 92 percent of the Corps
    capability for fiscal year 2001; severely under funds ongoing flood
    control and inland waterway projects (funded at only 60 percent of the
    Corps capability), and excludes from the their budget request about 40
    projects which are high priorities of the Congress. Dr. Westphal, you
    are to be commended for your efforts to put forth a somewhat better
    budget request for the Corps in fiscal year 2001. Yet similar to last
    year, there are a number of concerns as I have listed above. Can you
    explain to the Committee why there is such a significant disparity in
    the balance between various elements of the ongoing construction
    activities of the Corps water resource program?
        Dr. Westphal. In an ideal world, we would very much like to finish
    all our continuing projects on optimum schedules and start new projects
    to meet additional needs as they arise. However, in the real world
    where we have funding constraints, we must try to balance the need for
    new projects proposed by the Administration and Congress with the needs
    of our continuing projects. Ultimately, we blend the priorities
    together as best we can to meet the most urgent needs in both areas.
    For the fiscal year 2001 budget, 24 port development projects and
    activities are funded to meet near optimum completion schedules in
    accordance with the proposed Harbor Services User Fee, which would
    cover all federal construction costs. In addition, 8 high priority
    continuing projects and 1 high priority new start project for
    mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes are funded to
    meet optimum completion schedules. However, there are also 6
    environmental projects and 4 environmental programs that are not funded
    at optimum levels. Amounts for 168 flood damage reduction, inland
    waterways, and shore protection projects, as well as the 6 delayed
    environmental projects and 4 environmental programs, are constrained to
    a level that is, in the aggregate, about 63 percent of what is needed
    to maintain optimum completion dates. The varied funding schedules for
    different types of projects primarily reflect the sources of funds
    available to implement them.

                                 PROJECT DELAYS

        Question. How many projects in this budget proposal have extended
    completion dates compared to the fiscal year 2000 program level? What
    would it take to fund all ongoing projects at a level which would
    maintain completion schedules anticipated by the appropriation for
    fiscal year 2000?
        Dr. Westphal. There are 57 projects in the fiscal year 2001 budget
    that have extended completion dates compared to the fiscal year 2000
    program level. About $158 million would be required to maintain the
    completion schedules anticipated for these projects by the
    appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Now Dr. Westphal, as I understand it you are required to
    enter into a cost sharing agreement with a local sponsor before
    constructing a project, and that you do this with much publicity and
    fanfare. Is this correct? Why then, does this Administration not feel
    it is important to carry through on the commitment made when signing
    the cost sharing agreement by funding many of these projects at optimum
    or even near optimum rates? What do you expect these communities who
    have put themselves into debt to cover their share of the project costs
    to do? Since there is no funding requested in your budget for fiscal
    year 2001, how do you expect construction to continue to meet your
    commitment to these communities?
        Dr. Westphal. You are correct, we are required to enter into
    project cooperation agreements with non-Federal sponsors before
    initiating construction projects. However, public signing ceremonies
    for these agreements are held only when the sponsors desire such
    events. We do feel that it is important to carry through on the
    commitment made when signing the project cooperation agreement.
    Nevertheless, budget constraints do not allow us to implement all
    projects at optimum or near optimum rates. We hope that sponsors can be
    patient and work with us to complete their projects as soon as possible
    within the context of our budget ceilings. Some projects for which
    Congress has added funds in previous years are not included in the
    Corps budget. Generally, these are projects that are not economically
    justified or could be accomplished by local interests, and consequently
    have low budget priority. Projects of this nature may continue to the
    extent that funds are added by Congress.

                       INTEGRITY OF CORPS' STUDY PROCESS

        Question. In January and again in February, the Washington Post
    published articles that raised serious allegations regarding the
    integrity of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its process for
    developing recommendations related water resource projects. If true,
    the validity of the investment of resources in carrying out projects
    resulting from the study and planning process is brought into question.
        Dr. Westphal and General Ballard, do you agree with these
    allegations as they relate to the broader study and evaluation process,
    excluding for the moment the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study
    which was specifically mentioned?
        Dr. Westphal. I have great confidence in the Corps. With regard to
    the allegations in the press, I strongly believe we should withhold
    judgement until completion of the review and inquiry directed by the
    Secretary of the Army.
        General Ballard. No Sir, I continue to stand behind the integrity
    of the Corps and its processes. The Corps planning process is based on
    the Principles and Guidelines (P&G) that were adopted by the President
    on March 10, 1983. These Principles and Guidelines are the culmination
    of a series of earlier efforts to develop a coherent planning process
    beginning in 1958 that resulted in the publication of Senate Document
    No. 97 in 1962. This document established the principles, standards,
    and procedures for planning water projects. This evolutionary
    development of the planning process has had the support of the Congress
    and has stood the test of time. As recently as 1999, the National
    Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences produced a report
    entitled ``New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers''. Overall, the findings of that report were an
    endorsement of the Corps planning process.
        Within the framework established by the P&G, the Corps has
    established procedures for implementing cost-effectiveness analyses for
    environmental restoration projects and is continuing efforts to improve
    the quantification of restoration outputs. The Corps has also made
    great advances in evaluating potential flood damage reduction projects
    in a risk framework beyond what is called for in the P&G.
        Question. General Ballard, the Washington Post articles suggest
    problems with your study process. Are you concerned about the current
    process, and, if so, how do you intend to identify and correct possible
    deficiencies? Is the current study process sound, recommending the best
    projects possible?
        General Ballard. I believe that the current Corps study processes
    are sound and determine the best projects possible. However, reviews of
    these processes are underway. While I firmly believe that through these
    investigations the Corps will be vindicated of all allegations,
    appropriate actions will be taken if deficiencies or opportunities for
    improvement are identified.
        Question. Dr. Westphal, I understand that Secretary of the Army
    Caldera has initiated a review of the Army's management of the Corps of
    Engineers to ensure there is appropriate leadership and oversight. I
    believe it is fair to say that the appropriate Committees of the
    Congress expect to be consulted prior to the Army making any changes,
    but what are the specific concerns regarding the current leadership and
    oversight structure? What changes are being considered? Have any
    changes been instituted or approved for implementation?
        Dr. Westphal. I believe Secretary Caldera is looking for
    opportunities to improve the Army Civil Works program by clarifying
    responsibilities, improving communications, and strengthening
    accountability. No changes have at this time been instituted or
    approved for implementation, to my knowledge.
        Question. Specifically, who is conducting this review, and what
    Federal agencies or Executive Offices are involved?
        Dr. Westphal. The Secretary has assigned this review to the Under
    Secretary of the Army. No other Federal agencies or Executive Offices
    are involved.
        Question. What is the schedule for completing the review?
        Dr. Westphal. I am not aware of a definite schedule, although I am
    sure that Secretary Caldera wishes to implement whatever changes he
    recommends in a timely way.
        Question. Why is this review being conducted by an internal Army/
    group instead of an outside independent entity?
        Dr. Westphal. The Secretary considers this to be an internal Army
    management issue.

                   ``GROWING `` THE CORPS CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

        Question. Another allegation put forth in the post inferred that
    the Corps of Engineers is involved in some secret, dark of the night
    plan to grow the Civil Works program from $4.0 billion annually to $6.0
    billion.
        Dr. Westphal, the Post article leads one to believe that the Corps
    of Engineers is out of control, running around without any oversight.
    Do you believe this to be the case?
        Dr. Westphal. No, Sir, I do not believe that the Corps of Engineers
    is out of control. The Civil Works program receives oversight from my
    office on a regular and continuing basis.
        Question. Dr. Westphal, your response to the Post reporter on this
    issue was, ``Oh my God. My God. I have no idea what you're talking
    about. I don't believe this.'' Could you explain your response? How is
    it possible that you could not know of such an effort if it were true?
        Dr. Westphal. First, let my say that the Post reporter caught me by
    surprise. I certainly knew that General Ballard and his staff had
    undertaken an analysis of the Nation's water resource needs and an
    evaluation of what the Corps could do to be more responsive to the
    needs. I had not been briefed on the specifics of their analysis, which
    I'm told was still in the formative stages at the time.
        Question. General Ballard, please explain any plans you may have
    underway to ``grow'' the Civil Works program. How would it be possible
    to carryout such an undertaking to double the size of the Corps program
    without the knowledge and approval of the Army, the Administration, and
    the Congress?
        General Ballard. First, let me state emphatically, growth in the
    Civil Works program is only possible if the Congress appropriates the
    funds. The ``growing'' the program referred to by the Washington Post
    was an internal presentation to me and the members of my Board of
    Directors aimed at generating discussion of National water resources
    needs and what the Corps could do to satisfy these needs. It is
    incumbent upon us in the Corps, as public servants, to lay out for the
    Army, the Administration and the Congress our assessment of water
    resources needs so that national decision makers can act in an informed
    manner. And, as I pointed out in my statement, I believe there are
    substantial needs that today are not being met.
        Question. Dr. Westphal, both you and General Ballard have spoken
    with me regarding the need to address serious and significant backlogs
    in the operation and maintenance, and recreation programs. Is this part
    of what the Post had in mind? What is the amount of authorized, but
    unfunded work the Congress has approved for the Corps of engineers to
    undertake?
        Dr. Westphal. I am not sure just what the Washington Post reporter
    had in mind, but the national needs that General Ballard and the Corps
    staff have laid out include the growing maintenance backlog and the
    seriously degraded recreation system. The backlog of deferred critical
    maintenance on projects will rise to $450 million in fiscal year 2001.
    These are a very important part of the water resources needs, along
    with new requirements for navigation, flood damage prevention,
    environmental restoration and enhancement, and others.
        The total estimated Federal cost of completing unfinished projects
    that Congress has authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers
    is about $37 billion. This amount includes $23 billion for projects
    classified in the active category that are included in the fiscal year
    2001 budget, $7 billion for projects classified in the active category
    that are not included in the fiscal year 2001 budget, and $7 billion
    for projects classified in the deferred or inactive category that are
    also not included in the fiscal year 2001 budget.

                    UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY

        Question. Now with regard to the Upper Mississippi River Navigation
    Study, the Washington Post and I believe, an employee of the Corps have
    implied that certain Corps officials have inappropriately tried to
    influence the outcome of this study. General Ballard, do you believe
    this to be the case? Please explain.
        General Ballard. No, Senator, I do not. I have the utmost
    confidence in the professionalism and integrity of the members of the
    Corps of Engineers--both Civilian and Military. I am confident that the
    various investigations that have been launched to look into those
    allegations will show to everyone's satisfaction that the Corps has
    pursued this study properly and prudently. Having said that, I also
    want to state that if the investigations should uncover any wrongdoing
    by anybody in the Corps, I would not hesitate to take swift and
    decisive corrective action.
        Question. What actions have you taken to review this matter and
    when can we expect to know the outcome of your review?
        General Ballard. Actually, Senator, along those lines there have
    been two significant internal events. For one, the headquarters has
    completed its policy review of some of the study team's draft products.
    Our review found that the District conducted the study in consonance
    with the Principles and Guidelines. Nevertheless, additional
    information and explanation are required. The complete findings were
    provided to the Division for further action. This, by the way, is a
    normal step in our process for a study of this size and complexity.
        Additionally, due to the serious nature of the allegation of
    wrongdoing in reference to one of our employees, I directed an internal
    investigation in accordance with Army Regulation 15-6. The
    investigation is complete and found no misconduct. I am willing to
    provide you with the results of the investigation. There are also a
    number of external investigations or reviews in progress. First, the
    Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has requested that the Secretary of
    Defense investigate the allegations and report his findings back to
    OSC.
        Second, the Surveys and Investigation Staff of the House Committee
    on Appropriations has begun its investigation. We have met with them,
    provided them information and documents they requested, and remain
    committed to fully supporting them as they continue their
    investigation.
        Third, we have provided information requested by the Department of
    the Army Inspector General in support of their investigation and are
    scheduled to meet with them to answer any additional questions they may
    have.
        Finally, the Secretary of the Army has directed an independent
    assessment of the economics of the study.
        Question. As I understand, the major allegation is that Corps
    officials directed changes to an economic model, thereby creating the
    appearance of manipulating the process to gain a favorable benefit-cost
    analysis. How do you answer this allegation?
        General Ballard. The economic model that was developed for this
    study appears to be a good one, and many notable economists have
    applauded it. On the other hand, other economists differ with the
    application of the model. Models are merely analytical tools. What is
    of importance is the analytical methodology employed by a model and the
    accuracy of the data that is fed into it. Apparently at the heart of
    the controversy is a mathematical formula which is designed to predict
    the likelihood, based on changes in the costs of shipping, that
    shippers would change modes and destinations for shipments of given
    commodities that could otherwise use the waterway. Specifically, there
    is a term in the formula--often referred to as the ``N-value''--that
    reflects the elasticity of demand for river-borne commerce for a given
    commodity. To estimate this variable, assumptions must be made about
    future demand for commodities that move on the waterway as well as
    assumptions about alternative markets these commodities could move
    into. While the Corps economist who developed the model has his own
    ideas of what the ``N-value'' should be, other economists have
    complained that his assessment of the ``N-value'' is incorrect. Various
    examples for this divergence of opinions exist, but it appears to me
    that the ``N-value'' is not really a constant number, but is rather a
    function of many variables that are difficult to reliably predict for
    the 50-year economic life of the project. I should note many of the
    variables that determine N-values are also used in the commodity
    forecast for the study. This uncertainty in our analytical process is
    exactly why we require sensitivity analyses in our inland navigation
    studies to better understand the effect the assumptions have on the
    ultimate results. What has been averred as an attempt to manipulate the
    model is really an attempt by the people who ultimately will have to
    formulate the Corps recommendation to gain a better understanding of
    its operation and how it responds to alternative assumptions. These
    decision-makers must be sure that the model neither understates nor
    overstates the economic effects--especially considering that these
    effects are monetarily significant and will get compounded well into
    the future. Before we can make any recommendations, we need to have a
    firm grip on the sensitivity that the model will show toward the
    various assumptions.
        Question. Did anyone with the Corps of Engineers direct changes in
    the economic model with the intent to inappropriately influence the
    economic justification of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study?
        General Ballard. I don't believe so, Senator. Let me explain the
    reason for my confidence that such is the case. First I believe in the
    professionalism and dedication of the Corps team. While my trust in my
    own team is high, I am a realist enough to know that individuals can
    and do make mistakes. My confidence is high even in this regard, in
    that our process has a series of built in checks or ``safety nets''.
    These include independent technical reviews, a minimum of two formal
    public reviews, Washington level policy review, State and Agency
    coordination requirements, and a final review by the Executive Branch
    under Executive Order 12322. I note that, for the on-going study in
    question, we are in the midst of preparing the feasibility report,
    assimilating data, examining alternatives, and developing costs and
    benefits. A draft feasibility report has not been completed, much less
    undergone all of the aforementioned reviews. The allegations appear to
    be based around what the Corps intends to recommend. The Corps'
    recommendation is still almost a year away, and there is much outside
    input to be gathered, analyzed and incorporated into the decision
    making process.
        Question. General Ballard, this is an interesting charge given the
    fact that the study is not complete and, I believe, you have more than
    a year to go before you expect to set forth your recommendations. Let
    me ask this question: Has there ever been an occasion where the Corps
    of Engineers has been told or ordered to change their recommendations
    or outcome of a completed study with or without a Chief's report? Could
    you give us the details of those instances, including who ordered the
    change and the justification for making the changes?
        General Ballard. Certainly not that I am aware of.
        Question. What is the current status of the Upper Mississippi
    Navigation Study? Has the Study's integrity been damaged to the point
    that the nearly $54 million spent to date will have been wasted?
        General Ballard. We are continuing with the study. The impacts of
    the investigations or reviews should not appreciably affect the
    schedule or usefulness of the study. I assure you that when all the
    facts are in, the integrity of the Corps will be intact, and you will
    know that the trust you have traditionally placed in the Corps is well
    founded.
        Question. What assurances can you give the Committee that the Study
    can be completed in a way that results in an unbiased recommendation?
        General Ballard. I assure you that it will be, and the process
    guarantees that it will be.

                           CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS

        Question. For the past several years the Committee has been
    concerned with the growing use of credits and reimbursements as a way
    to initiate and perform work on a project. The last estimate the
    Committee has was that the Corps had executed agreements totaling over
    $800 million and had another $500 million under negotiations. General
    Ballard, have these estimates changed substantially over the past year?
        General Ballard. The total of both executed and proposed credit and
    reimbursement agreements has grown only slightly to about $1.4 billion.
    We are closely monitoring the situation to identify projects that non-
    Federal sponsors desire to construct in this manner.
        Question. Gentlemen, do you see an increasing trend to use this
    approach to funding projects, and does this concern you?
        Dr. Westphal. There has been an increasing trend over the past few
    years for non-Federal sponsors to use credit and reimbursement
    agreements to undertake projects. We are concerned about the impacts
    such activities may have on the Corps of Engineers construction
    program.
        Question. General Ballard, what impacts to the Civil Works program,
    and the Corps of Engineers would result from allowing non-Federal
    interests to perform work for credit or reimbursement or to advance
    funds for projects to a greater degree?
        General Ballard. If many non-Federal sponsors of large projects
    elected to undertake their projects using credit or reimbursement
    procedures, the funding requirement for such cases could consume a
    large part of the Corps construction program. We are concerned about
    the adverse impact such a scenario would have on our Districts. If the
    Corps became predominantly a grant agency, it would erode our ability
    to maintain a high level of technical expertise, in both our project
    management and engineering roles.
        Question. Congress enacted legislation in the Energy and Water Act
    for fiscal year 2000 that placed limitations on the use of this type of
    project financing. Have there been any problems implementing the
    Congressional directions? Do you see any future issues or problems
    complying with these limitations?
        Dr. Westphal. To date, there have been no problems implementing the
    Congressional directions. We do not foresee any problems with the
    credit or reimbursement limitations through fiscal year 2001. However,
    in fiscal year 2002 we estimate that local sponsors will seek credits
    and reimbursements subject to section 102 of the Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Act that exceed the $50 million limit. We
    are working with the Office of Management and Budget to prioritize
    proposed work that is subject to section 102 and monitor the credit and
    reimbursement requirements so that we manage the program to not exceed
    the section 102 limits on a per project or fiscal year basis.

                        RECREATION MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

        Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes $27
    million to initiate the Recreation Modernization Program. I believe
    this is a new program with the objective of upgrading old, worn out and
    obsolete recreation facilities managed by the Corps of Engineers.
        Can you give the Committee some idea of the deteriorated conditions
    at your recreation areas, and the level of annual visitation at your
    facilities?
        Dr. Westphal. Most of the facilities at Corps managed recreation
    areas were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. The combination of heavy
    use, lack of routine maintenance, and changes in visitor needs has
    caused significant deterioration of recreation facilities and the
    natural resource base at many of our lakes. Deteriorated conditions
    include antiquated facilities such as shower buildings, campsites, day
    use areas, shelters and playgrounds that were built 30 years ago and
    have been maintained with a ``Band-Aid'' maintenance program. These
    facilities have barely been kept functional, with no funds available to
    improve or replace as visitation has tripled and types of users have
    evolved. Restrooms are not large enough to accommodate the numbers of
    campers, and they have little or no ventilation, heat, or hot water.
    Many campsites have been lost to erosion and compaction from over-use.
    Electric service at Corps sites remains at 20 and 30 amps while the
    industry standard is now 50 to 100 amps. Most of the Corps sites were
    designed to accommodate tents and pop-ups trailers while most campers
    today are using 30 to 45-foot units that can't drive through the
    campgrounds, let alone fit on a campsite. Users today are asking for
    full hook-ups to include water, electricity, sewer, cable, and even
    Internet access, which the Corps 1960's vintage units are unable to
    provide.
        Question. How does visitation at Corps Facilities compare with
    other Federal agencies?
        Dr. Westphal. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for 4,340
    recreation areas at 456 lakes in 42 states. These recreation areas host
    380 million visitors annually. In terms of water-based recreation, the
    Corps is the Nation's number one provider. The Corps is second in
    overall visitation at 21 percent of the national total, with the Forest
    Service being first at 48 percent. But, an important part of this
    number is that the Corps manages only 2 percent of total Federal acres,
    yet its visitation is greater than the National Park Service, Bureau of
    Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
    Reclamation. One in ten Americans visits a Corps lake each year.

                           EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED WORK

        Question. What types of problems will be addressed with this
    funding?
        Dr. Westphal. Generally, all of the inadequacies just mentioned
    will be addressed. We will not only repair the broken and worn out
    facilities, but will also modernize the facilities to meet the ``new
    customers'' of this era.
        More specifically, a good example would be recommended work at Pool
    Knobs Recreation Area within the J. Percy Priest Lake project in
    Tennessee. Reflecting the nature of current unacceptable conditions,
    corrective measures at Pool Knobs Recreation Area will include: (a)
    replacement of asbestos roof tiles with a new roof, (b) reworking 45
    campsites to allow greater spur length and provide modern hookup zones
    with less erosion, (c) providing some sites free of barriers to the
    handicapped, (d) stabilizing the shoreline, (e) reworking entrance
    registration and security measures and (f) renovating playground and
    beach areas. The total estimated cost of the rehabilitation and
    modernization is estimated at $660,000.
        Other repairs and modernization recommendations common to many
    other sites include: (a) replacement or updating of toilet/shower
    buildings, (b) replacing deteriorating walks, steps and access ways,
    (c) providing safe access walkways to restrooms, (d) updating water,
    sewer, electric and phone utilities, (e) renovating the sanitary dump
    stations, (f) replacing sand filters at water treatment plants, (g)
    installing trash collection stations, sodding and seeding to stabilize
    eroded and impacted zones, (h) improving access road systems and
    parking areas to alleviate unsafe driving conditions and constant
    congestion, (i) renovating severely deteriorated interior drainage, (j)
    renovating boat launching areas, (k) enlarging picnic shelters and (l)
    providing amphitheater, walking trail, fishing piers, fish cleaning
    stations, bulletin boards and road signs.

                        FUNDING PRIORITIES AND SCHEDULE

        Question. What is the level of the backlog of improvements needed?
        Dr. Westphal. Of the 4,340 recreation areas at Corps projects
    nationwide, the Corps manages 2,389 of them. Currently, 1,000 areas are
    in need of modernization. The proposed five-year program will provide
    for completion of 225 of those areas most in need of modernization at a
    total estimated cost of $330 million.
        Question. Does the Corps have a plan in place which identifies the
    most critical work to be undertaken first?
        Dr. Westphal. Each division, district, and field project stands
    ready with prioritized lists of work needing to be done. Obviously,
    their attention is drawn to those situations where public safety,
    sanitation, overcrowding and environmental impacts are major factors.
    Currently the Corps is are developing standards for facilities and
    levels of service which will be used in a formal evaluation and
    selection process to ensure the most efficient and effective use of
    these funds. Of the recommendations submitted to the Corps
    Headquarters, selection criteria for sites to be included in the first
    year of implementation are as follows: (a) Addresses customer feedback/
    needs. (b) Projects positive impact on fee collections. (c) Projects
    positive impact on long term operation and maintenance. (d) Corrects
    environmental shortfalls. (e) Takes advantage of consolidation
    opportunities. (f) Provides accessibility for persons with
    disabilities. (g) Executes plan, and potential/contractual tools exist
    or can be developed to execute modernization activities quickly.
        Question. Have you developed an annual funding profile through
    completion? If so, please provide it for the record.
        Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, I will provide that information for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

                    RECREATION MODERNIZATION FUNDING PROFILE

        The proposed five-year program will provide for completion of 225
    areas most in need of modernization, at a total estimated cost of $330
    million. The proposed funding profile to complete the modernization
    program, subject to change due to future budgetary decisions, is as
    follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

            Fiscal year                                             Estimate
    2001..............................................................    27
    2002..............................................................    63
    2003..............................................................    80
    2004..............................................................    80
    2005..............................................................    80

           ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM

        Question. The budget request also proposed initial funding of $20
    million for the Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard
    Mitigation program. The Administration has been trying to get the
    program funded over the past several years, but Congress provided
    program authorization only last year. Can you describe the need for
    this program?
        Dr. Westphal. Despite all of our efforts to reduce flood damages,
    there are still many communities susceptible to flood damage.
    Recognizing the significant role of natural floodplains in ameliorating
    flood peaks and thus damages, this program provides the opportunity to
    take a more holistic approach to the problem. In particular, it is
    hoped that in areas where relocation was not economically justified on
    its own that in combination with ecosystem restoration, projects may be
    implemented. It also provides a mechanism through which we hope to
    achieve results in a somewhat shorter time frame than through the
    traditional study and project authorization process.
        Question. How will the funding requested for fiscal year 2001 be
    utilized.
        Dr. Westphal. The funding requested for fiscal year 2001 will
    primarily be utilized for studies, however it is possible that some
    projects may reach the design or even the construction phase during the
    year.
        Question. Are there specific projects to which the funding will be
    allocated, if so, can you provide a list for the record which shows how
    the proposed Finding will be allocated?
        Dr. Westphal. Specific studies and projects to be funded have not
    yet been identified. We are still working on the eligibility and
    ranking criteria that will be used to select studies and projects for
    participation in the program.
        Question. The justification supporting the funding request for
    fiscal year 2001 seems to limit consideration of these funds to non-
    structural projects. Is this true, and, if so, why? Doesn't the program
    authorization provide authorization of structural projects as well?
        Dr. Westphal. While the justification supporting the funding
    request failed to mention structural flood control, this was not meant
    to imply that structural flood control features would be excluded from
    consideration since as noted, the authorization does allow structural
    projects. However, in accordance with the language of Section 212(b)(3)
    we would expect the studies and projects to emphasize, to the maximum
    extent practicable and appropriate, nonstructural approaches to
    preventing or reducing flood damages.
        Question. Will the program be managed similar to other Continuing
    Authority Programs?
        Dr. Westphal. With the full funding limit and requirement to notify
    the committees and in some cases obtain a resolution prior to
    implementation of these projects, the program management will likely be
    something of a hybrid between the processes used for specifically
    authorized projects and other Continuing Authority Programs.
        Question. What are the Corps' plans to develop criteria and
    procedures under which proposals will be selected?
        Dr. Westphal. Corps staff is working with my staff to develop a
    draft list of rating criteria that will be coordinated with state and
    local agencies and tribes prior to submission to the committees.
    Additionally the process of drafting policies and procedures for
    implementing this program has been initiated and the Corps plans to
    have them in place prior to receipt of program funding.

            FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)

        Question. Bring the Committee up to date on the Corps progress in
    cleaning up former sites under the FUSRAP program. How did your
    performance compare to the work schedules planned for fiscal year 1999
    and how are you progressing with work planned for fiscal year 2000?
        General Ballard. Our overall execution of FUSRAP since October 1997
    has been excellent. All of the $140 million appropriated, both in
    fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999, was expended and over 80
    percent of our expenditures in fiscal year 1999 were used for actual
    remedial activities, including the removal, shipment and disposal off-
    site of FUSRAP materials. In addition, the Corps completed remediation
    at two sites during fiscal year 1999, the Ashland 2, Tonawanda, New
    York site and the Bliss and Laughlin, Buffalo, New York site. At all
    except two sites, scheduled work was completed with only minor schedule
    adjustments. The two exceptions were the Painesville, Ohio and the
    Ashland 2 sites. Remediation at the Painesville site was not completed
    as scheduled due to increased quantities of material to be remediated.
    We are now doing additional site characterization at Painesville and
    preparing a revised cleanup plan. At Ashland 2, a substantial increase
    in quantities of soil requiring remediation caused a delay in
    completing remediation and in initiating remediation at the Ashland 1
    site. This delay will not have a significant impact on the completion
    schedule at Ashland 1.
        Total program execution to date in fiscal year 2000 is well ahead
    of work scheduled. Initiation of soils remediation at the Linde,
    Tonawanda, New York site, under a Record of Decision (ROD) has been
    delayed to permit the Corps to address concerns regarding the level of
    cleanup that were raised by the state. The Linde ROD was signed in
    March 2000. As a result of this delay in finalizing the ROD, we
    anticipate there may be some minor delays in the remediation schedule
    at Linde during fiscal year 2000. In addition, remediation of the
    commercial/industrial properties at the Maywood, New Jersey site, which
    was scheduled to be initiated in fiscal year 2000, has been delayed
    while the Corps resolves issues pertaining to Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission licensed storage pits at Maywood. Remediation of the
    commercial/industrial properties is now scheduled for initiation in
    fiscal year 2001. With funds available from the slippage at the Maywood
    site, we will accelerate cleanup at other sites.
        Question. How many sites are in the program? I believe you have
    indicated that you could complete 16 sites by 2002, is that correct?
    Does the budget request of $140 million support this schedule? If not,
    please explain.
        General Ballard. The Department of Energy (DOE) designated 46
    FUSRAP sites. The DOE had completed remedial activities at 25 of these
    sites at the time responsibility for executing FUSRAP was transferred
    to the Corps in October 1997. Our testimony that the Corps could
    complete 16 sites of the remaining 21 sites by 2002 was predicated on
    receipt of an annual appropriation necessary for program execution at
    an optimum level of effort. However, the funding actually provided in
    the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
    as well as the amount budgeted for fiscal year 2001 fall short of that
    required to support an optimum schedule. As a result it is no longer
    feasible to complete 16 sites by fiscal year 2002.
        Question. What will it take to complete the remaining sites after
    2002 and over what period of time? What is OMB's 5-year funding
    projection for the FUSRAP program?
        General Ballard. At current funding levels, with the remaining
    requirement adjusted for anticipated cost growth but not adjusted for
    items not previously included in the Corps cost estimates, such as
    potential new sites referred to the Corps by the Department of Energy
    (DOE), it is estimated it will take until 2010 to complete remedial
    activities and require $1.2 billion. At current funding levels, without
    factoring in the possible impact of potential new sites referred by
    DOE, the Corps will complete 12 sites by 2002, and 4 additional sites
    by 2007.
        OMB's 5-year funding projection for FUSRAP provides $140 million
    annually in new budget authority, adjusted for inflation starting with
    fiscal year 2003. It also reflects estimated offsetting collections of
    $10 million annually, adjusted for inflation starting in fiscal year
    2003. The Corps has received and anticipates receiving $10 million
    annually, fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2001, offsetting collections
    from the potentially responsible party (PRP) settlement negotiated with
    the W.R. Grace Corporation for use at the Wayne, New Jersey site. While
    the Corps continues with PRP activities at several FUSRAP sites, we
    have no expectation that additional PRP funds will be available in
    fiscal year 2002 or thereafter to supplement new budget authority. The
    PRP process can be protracted, and its outcome uncertain.
        Question. Why does the justification material continue to indicate
    that schedules to complete site remediation are still being determined?
        General Ballard. Out-year program ceilings had not been established
    at the time the justification material was being prepared;
    consequently, completion dates could not be determined.
        Question. Do you expect any problems in turning the Ashland #2 site
    to DOE for long term maintenance? Are there any issues in this regard
    that the Committee should be aware of?
        General Ballard. The Corps does not anticipate any problems in
    turning the Ashland #2 site over to the Department of Energy for long
    term maintenance. The Record of Decision (ROD) for Ashland 2 also
    includes the Ashland 1 site and a small area within the boundaries of
    the Seaway Landfill, Area D. The Corps will wait until the remediation
    of Ashland 1 and Seaway D are completed before starting the 2-year
    short term surveillance and maintenance clock at the Ashland 2 site.

                         ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PROCESS

        Question. Public Law 106-60, the Energy and Water Development Act
    for fiscal year 2000 directs that $5 million be used to fully implement
    an administrative appeals process including a single level appeal of
    jurisdictional determinations. Has this process been implemented as
    directed? If not, why?
        General Van Winkle. We expect to publish the final regulation by
    the end of March. It will implement the full appeals process, including
    appeal of jurisdictional determinations. We implemented the appeal of
    permit denials in fiscal year 1999.

                           REGULATORY PROGRAM STUDIES

        Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes an
    increase of $3 million over fiscal year 2000 for further development of
    specialized tools and studies to manage the aquatic environment in
    sensitive areas. Can you be more specific in describing what these
    tools and studies consist of and why they are needed? Also, how much
    has been spent over the last several years in this area, and
    specifically how the $3 million requested for fiscal year 2001 will be
    allocated?
        General Van Winkle. The Corps of Engineers has, for many years,
    conducted studies of watersheds where they involved high-value aquatic
    ecosystems and substantial pressure for development. These studies
    include watershed studies, Special Area Management Plans, or SAMPs, and
    similar efforts. Examples of substantial efforts include the SAMP for
    the City of Anchorage, Alaska, conducted in the late 1980s; a SAMP for
    wetlands west of Miami, called the Bird Drive Basin, completed in the
    mid 1990s; and studies of the vernal pools in central California's
    Santa Rosa Plain, conducted in the late 1990s. In each of these cases,
    the Corps, in cooperation with State, local and Federal agencies,
    studied the functions and values of aquatic ecosystems in the
    geographic areas, then worked toward issuing regional general permits
    for development in some of the moderate to lower value aquatic areas.
    The higher value aquatic ecosystems can be identified, mapped, and
    generally avoided or subjected to critical and comprehensive evaluation
    by the Corps if development is proposed. The advantage of this approach
    is that moderate to lower value aquatic ecosystems can be subjected to
    streamlined authorization by regional general permits and mitigation to
    improve degraded or lost portions of the aquatic ecosystems in
    watershed areas.
        The results of watershed studies allow more predictability for the
    regulated public and better, more focused protection of the aquatic
    environment. A substantial study will cost up to $1 million over
    several years. A more modest effort may cost $20,000 to $100,000. Over
    the last three years, we estimate that the total amount spent on these
    kinds of studies averaged less than $1 million per year, primarily due
    to funding limitations. A number of our districts have a need for these
    kind of studies in fiscal year 2001. However, due to the projected
    workload impacts of the replacement nationwide permits, we will have to
    do some careful prioritizing of program requirements. We may have to
    reprogram funds from these studies, as well as from other areas of the
    program, to handle the increase in individual permit applications.
        Question. The budget justification implies that these studies help
    reduce the workload for the Corps and reduce duplication for the
    regulated public. Specifically, how do these studies accomplish this
    outcome?
        General Van Winkle. Watershed-type studies provide more
    predictability for the regulated public by identifying the portions of
    the aquatic environment that have higher aquatic functions and values,
    as well as those with lower aquatic functions and values. Someone in
    the regulated community can make more informed decisions about future
    development by knowing the geographic areas in which the Corps will
    have greater concerns for impacts to the aquatic environment. The
    studies ultimately reduce Corps workload in the Regulatory Program by
    streamlining regulation in the area studied. Specifically, the Corps
    issues regional general permits for development in lower-value aquatic
    environment. These regional general permits typically specify
    mitigation measures that will help improve the watershed over time.
    Therefore, the process is expedited because general permits require
    less evaluation to authorize activities and mitigation measures are
    already identified.

                       COMPREHENSIVE RIVER BASIN STUDIES

        Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes funding
    to initiate four new comprehensive river basin studies. It is estimated
    that the studies will take 4 years and $2 million to complete. These
    studies, as I understand, are interagency efforts to address a host of
    water resource needs and issues in a particular river basin.
        Why are you requesting funding for comprehensive basins studies?
    Given the large and diverse interests in some of these river basins,
    how will you control the process so that one or a small group of
    interests don't inappropriately impact the outcome and pace of the
    study effort?
        Dr. Westphal. In an effort to be responsive to the national needs,
    the Corps is broadening the scope of Civil Works planning to address
    watershed issues and comprehensive impacts of multiple development
    decisions. These studies will address not only impacts of particular
    infrastructure projects, but also the impacts of permit decisions and
    non-Federal development plans. The other Federal agencies and state and
    local agencies involved would provide in-kind services to finance their
    own participation in the study. By calling on the expertise of
    interested Federal, state and local agencies to participate in these
    river basin studies, we will create a synergistic process through which
    the Army Civil Works program can make a major contribution. Study costs
    and schedules will be controlled using the recently developed Corps of
    Engineers automation and management procedures. We will leverage the
    responsibilities of the respective participants for the future benefit
    of the region and the wise use, development, preservation and
    conservation of the water and related land resources.
        Question. In your view, what are the benefits to undertaking a
    comprehensive basin study? What criteria were used in selection the
    four basin studies included in the fiscal year 2001 budget request?
        Dr. Westphal. We are now enjoying the economic benefits reaped from
    the wisdom and foresight of our predecessors who provided a strong
    federal role in national water resources development and management.
    Future generations will rely on our vision to maintain and improve the
    quality of life for them. Initiating studies of water resources needs
    for river basins or regions of the United States signals a return to
    proactive participation to address the future needs of the Nation. The
    difficult selection of these studies was based upon the existence of
    authorizations, the complexity of the watershed challenges, and the
    overall strength of the case presented in the new start justification
    sheets.
        Question. Now, your budget indicates that these studies are
    expected to cost $2 million. My experience is that these types of
    studies take a long time and cost much more than the $2 million dollar
    Federal cost put forth in your budget justification. How confident are
    you that these studies can be completed for $2 million?
        Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, we do not intend these to be replicas
    of the long, drawn-out watershed studies of the past. Our proposal is
    to engage with States, local entities and other Federal agencies to
    take a watershed-based look at the complex interrelationship of the
    problems and opportunities for resource development and restorations.
    These studies are not intended to be decision documents in themselves.
    However, we fully expect comprehensive basin studies to identify
    numerous water resource problems and opportunities. If these turn out
    to be appropriate projects for the Civil Works program, the Corps would
    propose in-depth studies through our normal cost-shared feasibility
    process.

                   RIO GRANDE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

        Question. Specifically, as it relates to the Rio Grande River Basin
    Comprehensive Study, how will the Corps of Engineers be able to manage
    the study schedule given the diverse interests in the basin which runs
    from Colorado into Mexico?
        Dr. Westphal. In cooperation with our local sponsors, the Corps
    will integrate the concerns of the various basin interests in a
    comprehensive study scope and apply Corps project management procedures
    to the ultimate benefit of all stakeholders. Communication and
    coordination will be key. In addition to an intensive public outreach
    program, the Corps will conduct periodic focus group sessions with
    local agencies, non-governmental interests and the general public
    including our local sponsor and other interests on the multidisciplined
    study team.
        Question. What is the objective of the Rio Grande River Basin
    Comprehensive study?
        Dr. Westphal. The objective of the Rio Grande Comprehensive Study,
    in cooperation with others, is to evaluate current conditions and make
    recommendations for improving water management on the Rio Grande in
    order to improve environmental quality, prevent flooding, and protect
    the water deliveries required by the Rio Grande Compact and
    international treaty obligations.
        Question. Does the State of New Mexico support this effort?
        Dr. Westphal. Yes, the Corps is currently engaged in dialogue with
    the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission concerning their
    involvement in this study as the local cost sharing sponsor.
        Question. Your budget justification indicates that the Study will
    be closely coordinated by the Consortium of the Rio Grande in
    accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement signed with federal
    agencies and the CoRio as part of the American Heritage Rivers
    Initiative. Who makes up the Consortium of the Rio Grande?
        Dr. Westphal. Members include Federal and local interests who have
    chosen to work cooperatively based upon the designation of the Rio
    Grande as an American Heritage River.
        Question. Who are the signatories of the Memorandum of Agreement?
        Dr. Westphal. The following are signatories of the Memorandum of
    Agreement: Ty Fain, General Secretary of the Consortium of the Rio
    Grande, Inc.; Representative Silvestre Reyes; Representative Ciro
    Rodriguez; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Department of
    Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; Environmental Protection
    Agency; Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Interior;
    NASA; Department of Health and Human Services; Department of Energy;
    U.S. Department of Education; International Boundary and Water
    Commission; Mayor of El Paso; and Mayor of Laredo; Mayor of
    Brownsville.
        Question. Was this Agreement coordinated with the State of New
    Mexico?
        Dr. Westphal. I have been informed the Agreement was not
    coordinated with the State of New Mexico.
        Question. I understand that the Study is to be cost shared on a 75
    percent Federal-25 non-Federal basis. Have any of the state of
    Colorado, Texas or New Mexico agreed to share the Study cost?
        Dr. Westphal. To date, the Corps has not received a commitment from
    any of the states to cost share this study. However, the Corps has been
    working with the State of New Mexico to establish its support.
        Question. Given the fact that a non-Federal cost share will be
    required, how does the Corps of Engineers plan to control and limit the
    costs of this effort?
        Dr. Westphal. The Corps is currently working with the State of New
    Mexico to develop a scope of activities and a funding schedule which
    will more clearly define the criteria on which decisions are made
    within existing agreements such as Rio Grande Compact and international
    treaty requirements.
        Question. Is it the Corps of Engineers' position that no additional
    work should be undertaken in the basin until this comprehensive study
    is completed?
        Dr. Westphal. No, Sir. Though we see the need for a comprehensive
    approach to Rio Grande watershed management, there are critical ongoing
    studies and projects which should proceed.
        Question. What assurances can you give that this study will not
    adversely impact New Mexico water law, and the State's entitlement and
    use of Rio Grande River water?
        Dr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, we are extremely sensitive to the issue
    of state water law. I understand the Interstate Stream Commission, as
    the most probable local sponsor of studies under this authority within
    the State of New Mexico, would be interested in using this study to
    develop data and analyses which would assure adherence with New Mexico
    water law. Furthermore, the Army remains, as always, committed to
    supporting and preserving all provisions of the Rio Grande Compact.
        Question. Why shouldn't New Mexico evaluate the competing needs for
    water within New Mexico instead of submitting to this international,
    multi-national effort?
        Dr. Westphal. There are some very complex issues in this area.
    Diverse intrastate interests will influence the study direction
    significantly. However, those interests simultaneously recognize the
    need to mesh local concerns with interstate and international
    agreements. Addressing local needs in the larger forum will provide New
    Mexico additional opportunities to articulate the state's water
    requirements.

               ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES STUDY

        Question. Funding was added to the fiscal year 2000 budget based on
    the City of Espanola expressing support for resumption of the Study and
    its willingness to cost share the feasibility phase studies on a 50-50
    basis. Do you expect any problems with the City providing its cost
    share as was the case in past years?
        General Ballard. The problem in past years was not funding but the
    inability of the City and Santa Clara Pueblo agreeing on the use of the
    necessary right-of-way for the project. However, now there is a concern
    that the City will be unable to provide funding to cost share the
    study. Previous assistance from the State may no longer be available.
        Question. I note that the budget justification shows only $24,000
    remaining after fiscal year 2001 to complete the feasibility stage of
    the study. Does the Corps have the capability to complete this work in
    fiscal year 2001?
        General Ballard. The budget request of $50,000 in fiscal year 2001
    and a follow-on funding of $24,000 in fiscal year 2002 reflects a basic
    level of effort due to the uncertainty of not executing the Feasibility
    Cost Sharing Agreement as scheduled. The Corps does not have the
    capability to complete this study in fiscal year 2001. The study will
    be a multi-year effort based on sponsor requested changes since the
    completion of the 1995 draft feasibility report.
        Question. If so how much would be needed?
        General Ballard. If the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement is
    executed as scheduled in fiscal year 2000, it is estimated that funds
    of $200,000 could be used to continue the feasibility study in fiscal
    year 2001.

                           ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM

        Question. As you are aware, there have been problems in the past in
    developing and finalizing cost sharing agreements of the Acequias
    Irrigation System project. Have the cost sharing agreement problems
    been resolved?
        General Ballard. Yes, Sir. The State of New Mexico has established
    a new procedure to resolve these problems by prioritizing projects for
    rehabilitation. This enables the State to select and prioritize
    qualified participants early in the process and avoid delay during
    project implementation.
        Question. Are there any issues and problems with the State or other
    non-Federal entity providing their portion of the non-Federal cost?
        General Ballard. State legislation was proposed in fiscal year 2001
    limiting annual state expenditures per project to $250,000. This would
    jeopardize local funding for larger projects and lengthen construction
    duration. Although the bill was not enacted, further discussion is
    expected in the upcoming special session of the State legislature.
        Question. What is the Corps capability on the project in fiscal
    year 2001?
        General Ballard. The Corps capability of $900,000 is the same as
    our budget request.

                        ALAMOGORDO FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM

        Question. The budget request includes $3 million to continue work
    on the Alamogordo flood control project in New Mexico. Why doesn't the
    budget justification show an estimated completion date to the project?
        General Ballard. Completion dates were listed as ``being
    determined'' because program ceilings beyond fiscal year 2001 were not
    available when justification materials were finalized. Because of this,
    outyear schedules could not be established in time to be reflected in
    the budget justifications, although the schedules are now available.
        Question. Has the completion schedule changed from the date
    anticipated by the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 and, if so, why?
        General Ballard. The completion schedule of September 2009 is the
    same as presented to Congress last year.
        Question. What is the Corps capability to continue construction in
    fiscal year 2001?
        General Ballard. The Corps capability for fiscal year 2001 is $3
    million, the same as the budget request.

                                   LAS CRUCES

        Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2000 included $2.4
    million to complete the Las Cruces, New Mexico flood control project.
    Yet I note that the budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes an
    additional $2.841 million to again complete the project. Why won't the
    project be completed as scheduled?
        General Ballard. Additional time was required for acquisition of
    real estate and to incorporate design changes requested by the City of
    Las Cruces. Construction is now underway, but due to the delay, surplus
    funds were reprogrammed from the project.
        Question. Do you expect any cost increases or other problems that
    would prevent you from completing the project in fiscal year 2001?
        General Ballard. No, Sir.
           rio grande floodway, san acacia to bosque del apache unit
        Question. Can you explain why the effort on the Rio Grande
    Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque del Apache project continues at such a
    low level, particularly when construction was initiated in fiscal year
    1992?
        General Ballard. There are many diverse and competing interests for
    water in this area. Meeting our local sponsor's requirements while
    addressing various concerns from other interests has impacted design of
    the recommended plan. The listing of two new endangered species has
    also given rise to environmental issues not considered during project
    formulation.
        Question. What is the 5-year budget profile for this project?
         General Ballard. The 5-year program, subject to change as a result
    of future budget decisions, is listed below:

    Fiscal year
        2001......................................................  $600,000
        2002...................................................... 4,500,000
        2003...................................................... 8,300,000
        2004...................................................... 7,000,000
        2005...................................................... 5,600,000

        Question. What is the Corps fiscal year 2001 construction
    capability?
        General Ballard. Although our fiscal year 2001 capability is
    $600,000, the same as the budget request, physical construction would
    not be initiated until project issues have been resolved.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS FINANCE CENTER

        Question. Mr. Secretary, would you please explain the proposed
    capitalization of the Corps of Engineers Finance Center by the Defense
    Finance and Accounting Service and the impact that it would have on the
    Corps and it contractors?
        Answer. DFAS has proposed to capitalize the operating finance &
    accounting functions performed by the Corps of Engineers Finance Center
    (UFC) in Millington, Tennessee, on June 30, 2000, as one of the final
    actions under Defense Management Review Directive 910. With the
    capitalization, DFAS would assume all finance and accounting operation
    functions including disbursements performed by the UFC. Under this
    scenario, the UFC would become a DFAS operating location (OPLOC)
    reporting to DFAS, Indianapolis.
        The Army has worked closely with DFAS to review the savings already
    achieved by the Corps in its consolidation of its nationwide financial
    actions into the UFC and to identify any additional savings that might
    be realized by capitalizing the UFC into DFAS. The Army has noted to
    DFAS the unique nature of the Corps Civil Works and Support for Others
    financial actions and has expressed concerns about potential impacts on
    accuracy, timeliness and integrity of the financial data and timeliness
    of payments to contractors.
        Question. Would it have any impact on the Corps' ability to respond
    to emergencies?
        Answer. The Army and DFAS would make certain before any such
    capitalization occurs that the Corps emergency response capability,
    specifically the ability to procure/contract for goods and services
    very rapidly and to pay for those goods and services upon receipt,
    would not be compromised.
        Question. What impact could it have on the current workforce and
    service?
        Answer. There are about 300 hundred Corps of Engineers employees
    currently performing the functions which would be capitalized. These
    positions would become part of DFAS. Any future actions affecting these
    positions would be within the purview of DFAS, rather than the Corps.
        Question. How would the proposal impact local sponsors, which cost
    share most Corps projects?
        Answer. The Army has expressed to DFAS concerns that such a
    capitalization has the potential to increase costs, which would affect
    non-Federal sponsors as well as the Federal Government.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton

                      TIMEFRAME FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

        Question. Two weeks ago I met with General Carl Strock in my office
    regarding the status of the Corps' EIS. He advised at that time that
    the Corps may be issuing a (preferred alternative( on whether to breach
    the Snake River dams this fall. Can you specify a more precise
    timeframe as to when the Corps intends to release this information, and
    whether the public will have an opportunity to comment on it before it
    becomes final? What additional information, if any, will the Corps
    incorporate into its final decision?
        Dr. Westphal. There are a number of factors that make it difficult
    to precisely determine when the Corps will identify a Preferred
    Alternative. For example, the Corps must analyze all the comments
    received during the public review period. Therefore, the schedule is a
    function of the number and the complexity of the comments. To date we
    have received over 40,000 comments and we fully expect that the final
    number will be in the range of 100,000. We have granted the requested
    30 day extension of the public comment period until April 30. This will
    delay completion of the Final EIS. Additionally, the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) is expected to release a Biological Opinion
    for the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System this
    summer, which could significantly effect future actions for the lower
    Snake River dams. Although we considered preparing a Revised Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement with a preferred alternative, the
    current plan is to proceed directly to a Final EIS unless new
    information is received that would dictate otherwise. In either event,
    the public will have an opportunity to review the proposed federal
    action before a Record of Decision is prepared. It is anticipated that
    the document will be available for public review late this fall.
        It is our intent to use the best available information. New
    information arising from public and agency comments will be used in our
    decision process.

             SNAKE RIVER PREDICTED CHINOOK RUNS VS. COLUMBIA RIVER

        Question. Can you provide an estimate as to whether the natural
    runs for spring and summer chinook salmon in the Snake River will
    increase or decrease this year? How will the Snake River salmon runs
    compare this year to the runs on the Columbia? If the runs on the Snake
    River are improved from last year, will this new information be
    factored in on any additional feasibility studies?
        Dr. Westphal. The spring and summer chinook salmon adult returns to
    both the Snake and Columbia rivers are expected to be higher this year
    than in 1999. That includes both the hatchery and naturally-produced
    fish. All available scientific information will be factored into the
    feasibility studies; however, I must caution that the Summer of 2000
    adult returns are only estimates at this time, based on the jack
    returns in 1999, and subject to revision as the runs progress. Jacks
    are juvenile salmon that return a year early and serve as a predictor
    of the returns for the following year. There are natural fluctuations
    in salmon returns from year to year. Despite the encouraging returns
    for 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service's modeling analyses
    (CRI) show that long term population trends indicate a decline for
    these salmon stocks.

                      COMPARISON TO UPPER SNAKE RIVER DAMS

        Question. Your draft EIS states that you have a very high rate of
    survival for juvenile and adult salmon through all four of the Snake
    River projects. I am assuming that some of this success may be
    attributed to the fish passage improvements at Ice Harbor, Lower
    Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite Dams over the past few
    years. Isn't it true that no fall chinook may pass through on any of
    the dams further upstream on the Snake River because they have no such
    improvements?
        Dr. Westphal. That is correct. The Hells Canyon Project, which is
    the next complex of dams on the Snake River above Lower Granite
    Project, is made up of three dams: Hells Canyon, Oxbow and Brownlee.
    These projects, owned by Idaho Power Company, do not include passage
    facilities for either adult or juvenile salmon. All salmon and
    steelhead runs into Idaho above the Hells Canyon complex have been
    eliminated.

                    DELAYED MORTALITY OF SALMON THROUGH DAMS

        Question. Will any additional scientific data be used in a final
    Corps EIS to explain the delayed mortality of salmon, which the Corps
    acknowledges in its draft EIS? Which agencies will the Corps be
    coordinating with to get this information?
        Dr. Westphal. The Corps has relied, and will continue to rely, on
    the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as the Federal biologist
    on anadromous fish issues. The short answer to your question is no. We
    do not anticipate that there will be additional scientific data
    available for the Final EIS on delayed mortality. NMFS has indicated
    that ``. . . the extent to which transported fish suffer differential
    delayed mortality is a crucial question because the answer strongly
    influences the possible advantage to be accrued by dam drawdown
    [breaching]. Ongoing direct experiments that contrast the return rates
    of tagged fish that pass through the hydrosystem versus the return
    rates of transported fish can resolve this question in a clear and
    unambiguous manner. It will, however, require several years to obtain
    sufficient data because sample sizes of recaptured returning fish are
    typically low, the magnitude of differential delayed transportation
    mortality may vary with climate, and measurements from only a few years
    may fail to capture extreme values that could have important ecological
    effects.''

                                 CASPIAN TERNS

        Question. The Corps issued an Environmental Assessment in January,
    which reveals that some 1,200 terns were moved from Rice Island, and
    about 77 percent of the salmon population in that area was recovered.
    We understand that the Corps has an even more aggressive plan to remove
    terns this year. Will this information be incorporated into the Corps'
    final EIS?
        Dr. Westphal. The Portland District is proceeding with the Caspian
    Tern fiscal year 2000 Management Plan, which includes preventing
    Caspian Terns from nesting on Rice Island, Miller Sands Spit and Pillar
    Rock for the 2000 nesting season. Last year, 8,100 pairs nested on Rice
    Island while 1,400 pairs nested on prepared habitat on East Sand
    Island. Research indicated that in 1998 the Caspian Tern colony on Rice
    Island consumed between 7.7 percent (7.4 million) to 15.8 percent (10.8
    million) of the estimated 96.6 million salmonid smolts that reached the
    Columbia River estuary. The best estimate of smolts consumed by the
    terns is 11.2 percent (10.8 million).
        Analysis of Caspian Tern diets from the 1999 pilot project
    indicates that the consumption of salmonids by terns nesting at East
    Sand Island was 44 percent of their diet versus 75 percent of that of
    terns continuing to nest at Rice Island. Consequently, we expect that
    the avian management actions to be implemented this year will result in
    a significant reduction in juvenile salmonid loss due to bird
    predation. We are looking to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
    describe a long-term management plan for the terns with the hope that
    areas outside the Columbia River estuary can be found for the bird
    colony.
        We will continue to look at and include any new scientific
    information on bird predation that could affect study results in the
    final EIS. That includes the effect of predation on the juvenile fish
    and actions that could reduce predation.

                          OCEAN CLIMATE CHANGES & EIS

        Question. Why hasn't the Corps incorporated information regarding
    the impact of ocean climate changes on the decline of salmon runs in
    its EIS? Are there any plans to use research in a final EIS?
        Dr. Westphal. The Draft EIS does contain information on the ocean
    and climatic effects on salmon and steelhead. This information is
    referred to in a number of locations throughout the report, with the
    lengthiest discussion starting on page 5.4-62 and in Appendix A. As the
    primary study objective is to improve migration conditions through the
    lower Snake River, the study does not seek to develop a life-cycle
    recovery plan.
        If more detailed information becomes available on ocean conditions
    and how it effects salmon populations, we will incorporate it into our
    Final EIS. The CRI analysis suggests ``. . . survival of adults in the
    ocean is a key life history stage. Unfortunately, ocean conditions are
    little more than a black box for all salmonids, and there is a need for
    long-term research focused on the relationship between ocean conditions
    and salmonid population dynamics. This research will not help inform
    decisions over the next few years, but could help place population
    fluctuations in a broader context over the long term. So management
    actions might better respond to those threats that are best mitigation
    by non-ocean actions.'' Research efforts have recently begun on ocean
    conditions.

                            JOHN DAY DRAWDOWN STUDY

        Question. I am concerned reports that the Oregon State Fish and
    Wildlife department may be questioning your analysis on the John Day
    Drawdown study, and is pressing the Corps to pursue further study of
    this issue. I do not believe that further study is warranted, nor will
    it lead to any additional information that will positively impact. Can
    you explain the Corps' position on the John Day drawdown and when we
    can expect a final decision?
        General Ballard. As you know, the draft John Day report is out for
    public and agency review. Our preliminary recommendation is that no
    further study is required to allow Congress and the Region to make a
    decision regarding drawdown of the John Day reservoir or removal of the
    John Day Dam. We will evaluate all comments received during the review
    period, due to close on May 1, 2000, including those from the State of
    Oregon, before making our final recommendation to Congress.
        We fully understand that diverse views regarding further study are
    prevalent throughout the region. Let me assure you that the Corps of
    Engineers will base its recommendation on the best science available.
    We anticipate completion of the Phase I report this summer. Our final
    recommendation to Congress will be made in late September of this year.

                        COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL DEEPENING

        Question. As you know, I have strongly supported deepening the
    Columbia River navigation channel from 40 to 43 feet. It will enable
    the newer generation of cargo ships with their deeper drafts to serve
    the Columbia/Snake River system. Sustaining that service will allow
    thousands of businesses, farms, and ranches to continue to compete
    successfully in the world marketplace.
        The Corps of Engineers issued a favorable Chief's Report on the
    project in late December, so it is fully authorized. Pre-construction
    Engineering and Design and land acquisition are underway and will be
    completed during fiscal year 2001. Some environmental features of the
    project, which are very important to its success in my part of the
    country, will be ready for construction in fiscal year 2000.
        Unfortunately, because the Chief's Report was completed so late in
    the budget preparation cycle, construction funds for the Columbia River
    project could not be included in the President's budget request.
    However, if Congress were to appropriate a small amount of construction
    funds [$4 million] for fiscal year 2001, would be Corps be capable of
    beginning construction of these environmental features during fiscal
    year 2001?
        General Ballard. Yes, subject to the usual qualifications, the
    Corps of Engineers would be capable of initiating part of the
    environmental restoration component of the Columbia River Channel
    Improvements Project. This capability is dependent, however, upon the
    non-Federal sponsor's execution of their plan to acquire the lands
    necessary for construction.
        Question. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service
    included a requirement that the Corps and local sponsors secure and
    improve 5,000 acres in the estuarian habitat as mitigation for the
    deepening project. What steps is the Corps taking to meet this
    requirement?
        General Ballard. The Biological Opinion for the Columbia River
    Channel Deepening project clearly states in the terms and conditions
    that the Corps will, ``as part of the Corps' ecosystem restoration
    mission and responsibility under separate authority, independent of the
    Channel Improvements Project, expedite the attainment of the objectives
    of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program by restoring 1,500 acres of
    tidal wetlands by 2005, and 3,000 acres between 2005 and 2010, subject
    to Congressional authority and appropriation''. Fiscal year 2002 funds
    for a new General Investigation (GI) study would be needed in order to
    fulfill this term and condition. This GI study would specifically
    address environmental restoration in support of the Lower Columbia
    Estuary Program. The restoration of habitat is not considered part of
    ``mitigation for the deepening project''.
        Question. Although some mitigation measures were included in the
    Chief's Report, the number of acres involved will not meet the
    requirements established by NMFS. In what ways can the Corps use other
    authorities to work with the local sponsors to provide the habitat
    improvements required by NMFS?
        General Ballard. The items included in the Chief's report include
    mitigation for impacts due to upland disposal impacts to wildlife. The
    items referred to in the Biological Opinion's terms and conditions
    relate to restoration actions. This is an important distinction. The
    Biological Opinion states that the Corps will, ``as part of the Corps
    ecosystem restoration mission and responsibility under separate
    authority, independent of the Channel Improvement Project, expedite the
    attainment of the objectives of the Lower Columbia River Estuary
    Program by restoring 1,500 acres of tidal wetlands by 2005 and 3,000
    acres between 2005 and 2010, subject to congressional authority and
    appropriation.'' The Corps intends to use a future General
    Investigation Study as a vehicle for evaluating and seeking authority
    to provide the habitat restoration. We will also use Section 1135,
    Project Modifications for Improvements to the Environment and Section
    206, Aquatic Restoration, both part of our Continuing Authorities
    Program, for habitat restoration.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

        Question. Dr. Westphal, I sense a growing concern in this country
    regarding the state of our environmental infrastructure, that is, our
    water supply and distribution systems and sewage collection and
    treatment systems. We've correctly determined that much more needs to
    be done in the future to assure these systems are as modern and
    functional as possible, but our traditional process of assigning
    responsibility for this work mostly at the local government level, and
    our mechanisms for financing needed improvements have been found
    wanting. The Federal Government has imposed increasingly strict
    requirements on water supplies and discharges, realizing that water
    problems affect all of us, not just those within a given local
    political jurisdiction where a discharge, for example, might occur.
    These new standards are imposing great demands, however, on local
    governments. The demands are especially difficult for poor rural
    areas--and poor urban areas for that matter. Congress has taken a few
    steps in the right direction in recent Water Resources Development Acts
    by creating an opportunity for the Corps to bring its expertise to bear
    on the problem. I'm particularly interested in one of these provisions
    for rural Nevada and Montana contained in Section 595 of WRDA 99, but
    there are a host of others as well across the country, indicating to me
    that many of my colleagues have similar concerns. Despite your growing
    authorities to address these problems, you have not as yet budgeted for
    any of them. Why not? Don't you believe these needs are important?
        Answer. Answered at hearing P. 36 LINE 22.
        Question. Did you recommend to OMB that work under these
    authorities be funded?
        Dr. Westphal. I recommended to OMB that several environmental
    infrastructure projects for which Congress had previously appropriated
    funds be included in the President's budget. My recommendation did not
    include work authorized by section 595 because I believed that ongoing
    activities had a better chance of being budgeted.
        Question. General Ballard, does the Corps have the capability and
    expertise to address these problems?
        General Ballard. Yes, we do.

                             EVERGLADES RESTORATION

        Question. Dr. Westphal, The administration has placed a great deal
    on emphasis on restoration of the Florida Everglades. I too am in favor
    of this extensive environmental restoration. However, I am concerned
    about the cost and the potential impacts to other worthy projects
    within the Corps' annual budget. It is important to the Congress that
    the Corps' budget balance all of the various water resources needs of
    the nation. The extent of the financial commitment for the Everglades
    will put a tremendous strain on this balanced approach without
    significant increases in the Corps' budget in coming years. Dr.
    Westphal, Is the administration making provisions in the outyears to
    increase the Corps' budget targets to account for the tremendous
    increases necessary to fund the Everglades restoration?
        Dr. Westphal. OMB's outyear projections for the Army Corps of
    Engineers and other agencies illustrate funding levels that would
    maintain roughly a constant level of total spending in real terms. The
    outyear levels do not represent a particular level of funding in any
    future year. We would expect the next Administration to consider an
    appropriate balance of funding for Everglades restoration and other
    worthy Corps projects and activities when it establishes budget targets
    for the Corps of Engineers.
        Question. General Ballard, This tremendous amount of new work in
    Florida is likely to strain your staffing resources in the area.
    Assuming this work is funded at anticipated levels, how will the Corps
    undertake this additional work within current staffing levels?
        General Ballard. We believe we should be able to accommodate the
    Everglades work within the overall Corps FTE allocation using a
    combination of Corps FTE personnel and Architect/Engineering contracts.

                                SHORE PROTECTION

        Question. Dr. Westphal, Shore Protection projects, with very few
    exceptions, are conspicuously absent from the President's budget again
    this year. Congress, at the urging of the Administration, modified the
    cost sharing provisions for shore protection projects in WRDA 99. By
    making these changes, we expected some movement within the
    Administration to budget for these vital projects. Why has the
    Administration refused to budget for these projects despite the
    concessions by Congress on cost sharing issues?
        Dr. Westphal. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $55 million for
    shore protection projects, a $21 million (62 percent) increase over
    funding requested for these projects in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
    Although the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 increased the cost
    sharing for shore protection, the Administration's policy on shore
    protection projects remains unchanged from prior years, because the
    revision included by Congress did not go far enough in changing the
    cost sharing for periodic nourishment. The Administration proposed
    increasing the non-Federal share of periodic nourishment from 35
    percent to 65 percent. WRDA 1999 increased the non-Federal cost share
    to 50 percent for shore protection projects for which a feasibility
    study is completed or for which the project is authorized after 31
    December 1999. Thus the non-Federal cost share falls short of the level
    the Administration had desired and a great many projects would be
    totally exempted from the new cost sharing. I look forward to
    continuing to work with congress to reach agreement on this issue in
    the next Water Resources Development Act.
        Question. Did you advocate to OMB that these projects should be
    budgeted?
        Dr. Westphal. Yes, I supported funding each of these projects at
    the level recommended by our Divisions.
        Question. Shoreside communities contribute billions of dollars to
    our national economy. These projects provide protection for these
    communities as well as providing recreation for the citizens of this
    country. Doesn't the Administration feel that jobs and tax dollars
    generated in these communities are worth preserving?
        Dr. Westphal. Yes, however the Administration also believes that,
    in most instances, these communities can use some of the funds they
    generate to finance the shore protection they need. It is for this
    reason that the Administration is seeking higher cost sharing from the
    non-Federal sponsors for shore protection.

                               REGULATORY PROGRAM

        Question. General Ballard, the Corps has recently proposed new
    wetland rules. In the past, I have been concerned over the length of
    time involved in securing Corps' permits. These new wetland rules will
    increase your workload tremendously. A comparison of your proposed
    Regulatory Program shows that you received $106 million in fiscal year
    1999, $117 million in fiscal year 2000 and are requesting $125 million
    in fiscal year 2001. An increase of only $8 million for fiscal year
    2001 does not seem adequate for the increase in workload that these new
    rules are likely to generate. Is your staff and budget adequate to
    respond to all of these new permit requests in a timely manner?
        General Ballard. The fiscal year 2001 budget request was not
    developed to reflect workload generated by the nationwide permit
    changes since the request predates completion of our study of the
    nationwide impacts. However, we do anticipate that the fiscal year 2001
    funding request increase, if approved, would partially address the
    individual permit workload but would not be adequate to maintain our
    current performance levels.

                              CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG

        Question. Dr. Westphal, estimates range from $30 to $45 billion in
    backlogged water resources needs in this country. An administration
    budget of $4 billion is inadequate to fund these great needs. Congress
    has generally increased the budget somewhat in order to try to fund
    some of these needs, however, the Congress cannot increase the Corps'
    budget to the levels needed without some leadership from the
    Administration. As the senior Administration advocate for the Corps,
    how are you actively seeking to increase the Corps' share of the
    Federal dollar?
        Dr. Westphal. I have actively worked within the Administration to
    educate others on the magnitude of water resources needs and their
    importance to the well being of the Nation. As you know there are many
    competing interests for the Federal dollar. The Administration's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request strongly supports investments in water
    resources, including $78 million for 14 new construction starts, $27
    million for recreation modernization, and $20 million for the newly
    authorized Challenge 21 program. In fact, the Administration's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request of $4.064 billion is virtually equivalent to
    Congress' fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $4.113 billion. As long as
    I am Assistant Secretary, I intend to continue advocating greater
    priority for Civil Works funding to better address the Nation's water
    resources needs.

                          HARBOR SERVICES FUND AND FEE

        Question. Dr. Westphal, the Committee is aware that the Supreme
    Court ruled a portion of the Harbor Maintenance Tax as
    unconstitutional. The Administration has proposed a Harbor Services
    Fund and Fee as a replacement for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
    Tax. What other options did the Administration consider in lieu of this
    fee?
        Doctor Westphal. The Administration worked to develop a proposal
    that was economically and constitutionally supportable. Chiefly due to
    the Supreme Court decision and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
    Trade (GATT) concerns of some of our international trading partners, no
    other options were determined to be viable. The tax has been challenged
    by the European Union in the World Trade Organization as a violation of
    GATT. If the European Union ultimately prevails in a case, the tax
    would most likely have to be repealed in order to avoid damages. If
    Congress does not replace it with another financing mechanism, one that
    can withstand constitutional tests, then work programmed for port
    improvements and maintenance will have much stiffer competition from
    appropriations from other Federal programs and activities. A
    constrained budget will not support a program that will bring
    navigation improvements on line sooner and, probably, at less cost.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        Question. It is the Committee's understanding that there is a large
    backlog of critical maintenance at existing Corps projects. Could you
    please comment on this backlog, provide examples of the type of
    maintenance that is backlogged and the procedures used to prioritize
    and budget for this backlog.
        General Ballard. The fiscal year 2001 maintenance backlog is around
    $451 million, equal to 24 percent of the $1.854 billion budget request
    for O&M. It covers all of our O&M business functions as follows:
    Navigation--$276 million, Flood Control--81 million, Hydropower--$30
    million, Environmental Stewardship--$13 million and Recreation--$50
    million. Some specific examples would include: (a) repair spillway gate
    in the McNary Lock and Dam in Oregon, (b) dewater and perform major
    repairs at Port Allen Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in
    Louisiana, (c) repair the South Beach Groin at Ventura Harbor in
    California; and (d) repair severe deterioration of existing riprap on
    Coyote Dam at Lake Mendicino in California.
        Over the last year I have conducted intensive reviews with each
    division commander analyzing his O&M program from top to bottom. We
    have identified the highest priority maintenance backlog and have
    instituted aggressive programming measures to concentrate available
    resources on the most critical needs. In fiscal year 1999, the
    unexpended carryover was reduced by $110 million with a good portion of
    these funds applied toward the backlog. We continue to look for
    efficiencies in the O&M program with savings being applied toward
    helping to reduce the maintenance backlog to a manageable level.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

              ROBERT C. BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA AND OHIO

        Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
    and the reduction in navigation delays since operations of the new
    locks commenced in January 1993. Please also provide an estimate of the
    navigation savings during this same time.
        General Griffin. The capacity of the old Gallipolis locks was
    estimated to be 63.3 million tons. With the new R.C. Byrd locks, 15-
    barge tows typically can be processed in one operation rather than the
    two operations necessitated by the smaller Gallipolis locks. Transit
    times have been reduced from an average of 16 hours per tow to 1.5
    hours per tow. The capacity of the new locks is estimated at 148.5
    million tons.
        Since the new locks opened in 1993, annual traffic has grown from
    45 million tons to 56 million tons in 1999. In the first seven years of
    operation, the new locks have realized transportation savings of an
    estimated $227 million. The total project cost is $379 million. The
    incremental cost (over the without-project condition) is estimated at
    $263 million. Cumulative savings to date represent 86 percent of the
    incremental cost of the new locks. At present traffic levels, it is
    expected that the R.C. Byrd Locks and Dam project will pay for itself
    by 2001.

                     WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
    and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new lock
    commenced in November 1997. Please also provide an estimate of the
    navigation savings during this same time.
        General Griffin. The capacity of the old Winfield project was
    estimated at 24 million tons. With the new lock, typical five barge
    tows can be processed on one operation, rather than the five operations
    necessitated by the smaller locks. Processing times were reduced from
    about 170 minutes per tow to 64 minutes. The capacity of the new lock
    is estimated at 69.5 million tons.
        Since the new lock opened, transit times through Winfield have been
    reduced by approximately 12.5 hours per tow and total lockages have
    reduced from over 22,000 to about 3,000. In the two years of operation,
    the new lock has realized an estimated $23 million in transportation
    savings. The cumulative savings represent 10 percent of the incremental
    cost of the new lock. The total cost of the project is estimated at
    $227.5 million. This total cost is also the incremental cost because
    there was no construction in the ``without project'' condition. The
    traffic forecast in the feasibility report tracks very well with actual
    traffic at Winfield. At forecast traffic levels, it is expected that
    Winfield lock will pay for itself by 2012.

              BLUESTONE LAKE (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE), WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. Bluestone is a fifty-year-old dam on the New River just
    above Hinton and the confluence of the New and Greenbrier Rivers. The
    Huntington Corps of Engineers reports that the dam does not meet
    today's safety criteria. In fiscal year 2000, Congress provided
    $750,000, which was supplemented by a reprogramming of approximately
    $3.9 million, to initiate a new construction start on Phase I work on
    the Bluestone Dam Safety Project.
        What work will be completed with the fiscal year 2000 funds?
        General Griffin. Fiscal year 2000 funds will be used initiate
    construction of Phase 1, consisting of the resident engineer's office,
    penstocks extension, and mass concrete thrust blocks. Plans and
    specifications will be started for the second phase, which consists of
    a 13 foot pre-cast concrete wall, State Route 20 gate closure, and
    anchors.
        Question. What risks are currently posed by the Bluestone Dam to
    the communities and businesses, and environments below the dam?
        General Griffin. Under current design criteria, the probable
    maximum flood is estimated to overtop the existing dam by 13 feet. Dam
    failure would cause catastrophic flooding along the Greenbrier, New,
    Gauley, Kanawha, and Elk Rivers, including the metropolitan area and
    heavily industrialized capital city of Charleston, West Virginia. This
    would place more than 115,000 persons at risk, with property damages in
    excess of $6.5 billion. However, the probable maximum flood has a small
    likelihood of occurring in any given year.
        Question. What level of flooding would cause the dam to fail
    catastrophically? How likely is it that such a level of flooding might
    occur? What is the likelihood that the dam will fail in the next 50
    years? In the next 100 years?
        General Griffin. The dam would be in danger of failing if pool
    levels approaching the top of the existing dam were to occur. This
    flood level, known as the 500 year flood event, has a 0.2 percent
    chance of occurring in any year, a 10 percent chance of occurring at
    least once in the next 50 years, and an 18 percent chance of occurring
    at least once in the next 100 years.
        Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities for this project
    for fiscal year 2001 above those identified in the President's fiscal
    year 2001 budget?
        General Griffin. Yes, subject to the usual qualification, the Corps
    has additional capability of $8.7 million above the President's Budget
    request of $6.3 million, for a total of $15 million. The capability-
    level funds would be used to complete engineering and design for the
    preferred alternative, complete phase 1 construction, and initiate
    phase 2 construction. Capability-level funds would advance overall
    project completion by one year.
        Question. What additional measures can be taken to minimize the
    risks to the public and to ensure that this project remains on track
    and a high priority?
        General Griffin. In order to reduce risk as early as possible in
    the project schedule, the project was separated into phases. The first
    phase includes modifications to the existing penstocks and construction
    of concrete thrust blocks. Construction of these features will improve
    stability of the dam and increase the discharge capacity of the dam
    during rare flood events.

                     GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. The pristine Greenbrier River Basin of West Virginia is
    one prone to extensive flooding. The Water Resources Development Act of
    1996 authorized the Corps to implement local protection plans to help
    mitigate damage from future flooding.
        Has the Corps reached an agreement with the City of Marlinton on a
    local flood protection plan? Have the details of the plan been worked
    out and agreed to among the participants?
        General Griffin. The Corps and the City of Marlinton have
    identified two plans of protection. Both include a levee down the front
    side of Marlinton that borders the Greenbrier River and a secondary
    levee along the Riverside area of town. One plan involves the extension
    of the levee upstream along Knapps Creek, and the other plan involves
    construction of a Knapps Creek diversion channel. The costs of the two
    plans currently are being evaluated.
        Question. What is the projected non-Federal cost? What is the total
    cost?
        General Griffin. The total cost of the least-cost plan is estimated
    to be not more than about $75 million. The local sponsor would qualify
    for a reduction in its cost share to 14 percent, based on ability-to-
    pay provisions. Therefore, the non-Federal share of the least-cost plan
    would be no more than about $10.5 million. However, if one plan proves
    to be more costly and the local sponsor prefers that plan, the local
    sponsor also would pay the full incremental costs of that plan.
        Question. What activities are currently being conducted on the
    Marlinton local protection plan?
        General Griffin. The Corps is finalizing design, conducting field
    investigations, and evaluating the feasibility of the two alternatives
    in the Knapps Creek area.
        Question. What capabilities does the Corps anticipate for fiscal
    year 2001 for the Marlinton local protection plan?
        General Griffin. Subject to the usual qualification, the fiscal
    year 2001 capability is $1.0 million. If provided, these funds would be
    used to continue detailed design and to complete the detailed project
    report and NEPA compliance.
        Question. When can construction on the Marlinton project begin?
        General Griffin. If funds are provided, construction could begin in
    fiscal year 2002 in a limited area.
        Question. What is the status of the flood warning system for the
    Greenbrier River Basin? What benefits are anticipated or have been
    achieved already with its installation?
        General Griffin. The flood warning system is complete and
    operational. Since installation was completed in Fall 1999, there has
    been no basin flooding that has required use of the system. The primary
    benefit of the flood warning system is that it provides advanced
    notification of impending flooding conditions. This additional warning
    time is beneficial to reduce flood damages and save lives.
        Question. Have other localities, such as the cities of Ronceverte,
    Alderson, Durbin, Cass, Renick, which are authorized for flood damage
    reduction plans under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
    expressed interest in pursuing projects?
        General Griffin. At this time, there are no other expressions of
    interest to pursue a project.
        Question. Is the current authorization of $47 million as modified
    by section 360 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, for
    federal participation sufficient to complete the Marlinton project,
    factoring in inflation and possible future participation from other
    localities mentioned above in flood protection projects? What level
    would be sufficient?
        General Griffin. The current authorization of $47 million is not
    sufficient to complete the Marlinton project and initiate work on other
    projects. The Federal share of the Marlinton project alone, including
    expected price level adjustments for inflation, is estimated to be $65
    million. The Federal share of projects for other localities such as
    Ronceverte, Alderson, Cass, Durbin, and Renick would not be quantified
    until a definitive plan and schedule were established, but the total
    for the Greenbrier River Basin is likely to be well over $100 million.

                      MARMET LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. Congress provided $11,350,000 last year to advance
    engineering, design, and land acquisition for the Marmet Lock
    replacement project. The President's budget request is $6,500,000,
    which is far less than last year's enacted level and the $9,800,000
    requested by the Administration.
        Is the Marmet Lock replacement important to maintain and increase
    the efficient flow of commerce? How many tons of cargo, and what type
    of cargo, were shipped through the locks in 1999? Does the project have
    a strong benefit/cost ratio?
        General Griffin. The Marmet lock replacement is essential to
    maintain and increase the flow of commerce. The locks move millions of
    tons of cargo to and from West Virginia. Improvements at Marmet would
    reduce the average transit time of 5.5 hours to around 1 hour, a
    reduction in lock transit time of 4.5 hours. At current traffic levels,
    the new lock would yield 23 thousand hours of reduced trip time for the
    4,300 tows that used the project. In 1999, more than 14.7 million tons
    of commerce locked through Marmet, including 13.6 million tons of coal,
    580 thousand tons of petroleum and chemical products, and 440 thousand
    tons of stone. The remaining benefit-to-cost ratio is 4.7 to 1.
        Question. The President's budget request for the project is
    $6,500,000, which is far less than last year's enacted level of
    $11,350,000 and the Administration's fiscal year 2000 request of
    $9,800,000. Why has the Administration significantly reduced the fiscal
    year 2001 request as compared to fiscal year 2000 request? Does this
    project not warrant continued strong support and funding?
        General Griffin. The fiscal year 2001 request reflects a
    constrained construction program Corps-wide. The President's budget
    reflects a reasonable schedule for continuation of real estate and
    design activities.
        Question. Last year, the Corps estimated that it would need to buy
    about 250 properties for this project. How many have been purchased to
    date, and how many do you anticipate having purchased by the close of
    fiscal year 2000?
        General Griffin. To date, 64 properties have been purchased. By the
    end of fiscal year 2000, approximately 100 properties will have been
    acquired.
        Question. When do you anticipate that the land acquisition for the
    project will be completed? When do you anticipate that the land
    acquisition will be sufficiently far enough along that the Corps can
    begin construction?
        General Griffin. The President's budget reflects that land
    acquisition will be completed by September 2002 and that sufficient
    land acquisition and design will be completed by the end of fiscal year
    2001 to enable initiation of construction of the lock in fiscal year
    2002.
        Question. How much money will be needed beyond fiscal year 2001 to
    complete the project? What work will remain to be done?
        General Griffin. An additional $273 million is required beyond
    fiscal year 2001 for continued engineering and design of the lock,
    acquisition of the remaining properties, and construction of the lock.
        Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities at Marmet for
    fiscal year 2001 above those identified in the President's budget?
        General Griffin. Subject to the usual qualification, the Corps has
    the capability to use an additional $7.1 million, for a total
    appropriation of $13.6 million, to advance engineering and design and
    land acquisition. Advancement of engineering and design at the
    capability level would advance project completion by one year.
        Question. I would like to again remind the Corps that many people
    are affected by this project--from those whose lives and homes are
    being disrupted by the construction, to all of the people and
    industries whose livelihoods depend upon the locks, the shipping, and
    the products that go through Marmet locks. Therefore, it is imperative
    for all of us to move this project forward efficiently so at to avoid
    any unnecessary delays.
        General Griffin. Yes, sir.

    LEVISA AND TUG FORKS OF THE BIG SANDY RIVER AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER,
      WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY--WEST VIRGINIA TUG FORK FLOOD
                              PROTECTION PROJECTS

        Question. For fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $4,400,000 to
    continue work on flood protection projects in southern West Virginia
    along the Tug Fork and its tributaries as part of the multi-state
    Section 202 project. While the President's request includes $12,100,000
    for Levisa and Tug Fork projects for fiscal year 2001, all of these
    funds are slated for other states.
        Last year, there were significant delays associated with the Corps
    executing Project Cooperative Agreements for the Upper Mingo County
    project and the McDowell County project. Have these project agreements
    been executed?
        General Griffin. Both project agreements have been executed. The
    Upper Mingo County Project Cooperation Agreement was amended in June
    1999 to include the tributary areas. The McDowell County Project
    Cooperation Agreement was executed in September 1999.
        Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year
    2000 in lower Mingo County and what is the cost of the remaining
    effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in lower Mingo County in
    fiscal year 2001?
        General Griffin. The flood proofing or acquisition of structures
    would continue beyond fiscal year 2000 if funds were provided. The
    remaining cost is $2 million. The capability for fiscal year 2001 is
    $1.6 million, subject to the usual qualification.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2000 in upper Mingo County along the Tug Fork and its tributaries
    and what is the cost of the remaining effort? Does the Corps have
    capabilities in upper Mingo County in fiscal year 2001?
        General Griffin. Non-structural flood damage reduction measures
    would continue beyond fiscal year 2000 if funds were provided. The
    remaining cost is $2,818,000. The capability for fiscal year 2001 is
    $1,500,000, subject to the usual qualification.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2000 in McDowell County and what is the cost of the remaining
    effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in McDowell County in fiscal
    year 2001?
        General Griffin. Remaining activities include acquisition, flood
    proofing, and construction of relocated schools, town halls, and fire
    stations. The remaining cost is $166,359,000. The capability for fiscal
    year 2001 is $600,000, subject to the usual qualification.
        Question. What is the approved plan for schools in the McDowell
    County Nonstructural Project?
        General Griffin. The approved plan consists of the construction of
    ringwalls to protect schools in place, or relocation and re-
    construction of schools out of the floodplain, whichever is the least
    costly, for six schools. The Government also requires the regulation of
    each former school site, consistent with the project's flood control
    purpose.
        Question. What is the locally preferred plan for the McDowell
    County project?
        General Griffin. The locally preferred plan is to construct two
    replacement schools, allowing the consolidation of five county
    elementary schools. The Federal participation in funding the school
    consolidation would be to contribute an amount equal to the least
    costly method of flood protection for each school. The approved plan
    and locally preferred plan both include relocation of the high school
    out of the floodplain.
        Question. What must be done to implement the locally preferred
    plans for the McDowell County project?
        General Griffin. A report on the locally preferred plan would be
    prepared that includes cost comparisons, documentation of NEPA
    compliance, and identification of any changes in Federal and non-
    Federal responsibilities. The Project Cooperation Agreement would be
    amended based on the report. The non-Federal sponsor would agree to
    minimize flood risk to the new schools and prevent flood-prone
    construction at the former school sites.
        Question. What is the schedule for completing the additional design
    documents for the McDowell County project?
        General Griffin. The report on the locally preferred plan will be
    completed in May 2000. The first relocations design document for
    consolidation of three elementary schools will be completed in
    September 2000. The second relocations design document to consolidate
    the other two elementary schools will be completed in March 2001.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2000 in Wayne County and what is the cost of the remaining effort?
    Does the Corps have capabilities in Wayne County in fiscal year 2001?
        General Griffin. The acquisition or flood proofing of structures
    would continue beyond fiscal year 2000 if funds were provided. The
    remaining cost is $6,244,000. The capability for fiscal year 2001 is
    $400,000, subject to the usual qualification.

                       WHEELING RIVERFRONT, WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. Wheeling, West Virginia, is in the midst of major
    preservation and rehabilitation project to protect and enhance its
    cultural and commercial resources in its central business district. In
    fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $100,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers to provide assistance and support to the preservation and
    revitalization plans associated with the Wheeling National Heritage
    Area. These funds were to allow the Corps to objectively analyze the
    planned and ongoing design and construction work connected with these
    restoration efforts. This is an important project and I believe that
    the Corps might have some expertise that would be useful in the effort.
        What is the status of this investigation?
        General Griffin. In March 2000, Pittsburgh District issued a Notice
    to Proceed to its indefinite Delivery Architect/Engineer contractor to
    complete a Special Project Report. This report that will evaluate
    improvements to the waterfront at the confluence of the Ohio River and
    Wheeling Creek within the Wheeling National Heritage Area, Wheeling,
    West Virginia. The contractor's report will be submitted in June 2000.
        Question. What types of capabilities has the Corps identified to
    date?
        General Griffin. Corps capabilities that are anticipated to be
    applicable to this project are to dredge the lower one mile of Wheeling
    Creek for recreational boating and use the dredged material, if clean,
    to cap two brownfield sites adjacent to the Wheeling waterfront.
        Question. What would be the next step toward further involving the
    Corps with the revitalization efforts underway in Wheeling, with each
    capability identified?
        General Griffin. After the Special Project Report is completed in
    June 2000, findings must be coordinated with the Wheeling National
    Heritage Corporation and the City of Wheeling to determine local
    interest in pursuing the identified initiatives.
         Question. What legislation, if any, would be required to authorize
    the Corps' participation in each area of assistance identified?
        General Griffin. Authorization legislation and funding would be
    required.
        Question. What would be the cost-share requirement for each of the
    capabilities identified?
        General Griffin. If the work were authorized, some or all costs
    would be assigned to recreation or recreational navigation and would be
    cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal unless
    otherwise specified in law.

                         LOWER MUD RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. The Lower Mud River project, authorized by Section 580 of
    the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, was originally a Department
    of Agriculture project. Its purpose is to mitigate the repeated
    flooding events that have caused extensive damage to the City of
    Milton, West Virginia.
        What is the status of the limited reevaluation report being
    conducted by the Corps on the earlier Department of Agriculture study?
        General Griffin. The Corps reevaluation report is scheduled for
    completion in July 2000. The West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency is
    cost sharing this report.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2000 for the Lower Mud River project and what is the cost of the
    remaining effort? Does the Corps have capabilities for this project in
    fiscal year 2001?
        General Griffin. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requested
    $650,000 in General Investigations funds to continue preconstruction
    engineering and design (PED). Due to acceleration of the work, this
    amount is now sufficient to complete PED. Subject to the usual
    qualification, the Corps total capability in fiscal year 2001 is
    $1,000,000 of Construction, General funds to complete PED, negotiate
    and execute a Project Cooperation Agreement, and initiate construction.
        Question. When does the Corps anticipate that construction will be
    able to commence?
        General Griffin. If funded, project construction could begin in the
    third quarter, fiscal year 2001.

                      LONDON LOCKS AND DAM, WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. The fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations Act
    included $600,000 to initiate construction of the London Lock and Dam
    rehabilitation project. This project will replace the upper guard wall
    and extend the lock chamber. The rehabilitation project is needed to
    avoid future lockage delays along the Kanawha River at London.
        What work will be accomplished with the fiscal year 2000 funds?
        General Griffin. Fiscal year 2000 funds will be used to initiate
    construction of phase 1, which consists of fabricating the needle dam
    beams, needle dam sheet piling, and pre-cast concrete needle sill, and
    to continue design for phase 2A, which consists of electrical and
    mechanical work not requiring closure of the lock chamber.
         Question. What is the total cost of the project?
        General Griffin. The total cost of the project is $22.2 million.
        Question. Does the Corps have additional capabilities for fiscal
    year 2001 that would accelerate the completion of this project if funds
    were available?
        General Griffin. Yes. Subject to the usual qualification, the
    fiscal year 2001 capability is $5 million, $3.2 million more than the
    President's Budget Request of $1.8 million. The additional funds would
    be used to complete engineering and design and to initiate construction
    of phase 2B, which involves closure of the lock chamber.

                         WEST FORK RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA

        Question. For the past two years, I have received communications
    from constituents in Harrison County, West Virginia, for a flood
    warning system along the West Fork River.
        To what extent has the Corps participated in the funding and
    installation of such early warning systems at other locations?
        General Griffin. In 1998, the Pittsburgh District completed
    implementation of a comprehensive flood warning system (FWS) for the
    Cheat River Basin in West Virginia, and the Huntington District
    completed a similar system for the adjacent Greenbrier River Basin,
    also in West Virginia. Both systems involved installing several new
    stream gages and connecting the new gages and existing stream and
    precipitation gages with flood forecasting software via radio,
    telephone, and satellite communications technology. Installation of
    these FWS was 100 percent Federally funded in accordance with the
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997. The State of
    West Virginia is the project sponsor of both FWS and pays for operation
    and maintenance of the new gages. The Pittsburgh District currently is
    planning a FWS in the Tygart River Basin, West Virginia, as an element
    of the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia and
    Pennsylvania, project, which does not extend to the West Fork Basin.
        Question. What role would there be for a flood warning system in
    protecting residents along the West Fork River?
        General Griffin. A flood warning system would likely provide
    several hours of additional warning time to communities and property
    owners along low-lying areas adjacent to the West Fork River and
    possibly some major tributaries. This would reduce the flood threat to
    life and property.
        Question. What would be the estimated cost for installation of such
    a system? Is there a cost-sharing requirement for this system? General
    Griffin. The West Fork Basin is roughly similar in size to the Cheat
    and Greenbrier Basins, so $500,000 should be sufficient to plan and
    implement a similar comprehensive FWS. There was no cost sharing for
    implementing the Cheat and Greenbrier FWS, because of the appropriation
    act language. In the absence of such special legislation, the Corps
    could plan and implement a FWS under its existing Section 205
    Continuing Authorities Program for flood damage reduction, with a 35
    percent non-Federal share of $175,000 and a 65 percent Federal share of
    $325,000.
        Question. How much does it cost to maintain a flood warning system
    once it is fully operational and what entity would be responsible for
    maintaining it?
        General Griffin. The new Cheat flood warning system gages are being
    maintained for approximately $6,500 per gage per year. There were seven
    new stream gages, so the total annual cost is about $45,000. As the
    local sponsor, the State of West Virginia, through its Office of
    Emergency Services, pays for maintenance of these new gages. Each
    stream or precipitation gage that existed prior to its incorporation
    into the new system is still maintained by its owner, which is either
    the National Weather Service, the U.S. Geologic Survey, or the Corps of
    Engineers.
          west virginia statewide flood protection plan, west virginia
        Question. Congress provided $400,000 in fiscal year 1998 and
    $624,000 in fiscal year 1999 for the Huntington Corps of Engineers, on
    a 50/50 cost-share basis with the West Virginia Department of
    Agriculture, to conduct a comprehensive study of the chronic flood
    problems that devastate West Virginia.
        What is the status of the study?
        General Griffin. The study was divided into two phases to match the
    two-year funding cycle of the sponsor. The Corps has completed twenty
    percent of the work tasks in phase I, including updating data on flood
    damages and the costs of prospective water resources projects and an
    analysis of local government financial capability to cost share those
    projects. The phase II agreement was provided to the non-Federal
    sponsor for review and execution in September 1999, but has not been
    executed by the sponsor at this time.
        Question. Is the project behind schedule? By how much? What factors
    are contributing to the delay and what is being done to get the project
    back on track?
        General Griffin. The project is behind schedule. Phase I is behind
    by eight months. Completion was scheduled for December 1999. Factors
    leading to the delay include late receipt of the sponsor's matching
    funds and a delay in establishing the multi-agency task force required
    in the study agreement. Phase II has not been initiated and thus far is
    behind two months from the initial schedule. The principal cause of
    delay of the second phase is difficulties encountered in defining the
    sponsor's in-kind contribution. The Corps and the sponsor are working
    to establish the task force, define in-kind contributions for phase II,
    execute the phase II agreement, and reschedule phase I and II studies
    to be concurrent, thus reducing schedule impacts.
        Question. What activities will be accomplished in fiscal year 2000?
        General Griffin. Following formation of the task force, remaining
    phase I study work tasks will be completed. These include flooding
    problem identification, plan formulation, and development of a
    statewide strategy for flood protection. Once the phase II agreement is
    executed, the phase II work tasks could be initiated. Phase II
    activities include development of a statewide flood warning system,
    training for floodplain managers, development of model watershed plans,
    and development of recommendations for flood control programs.
         Question. What activities will be accomplished in fiscal year
    2001?
        General Griffin. The phase II tasks will be completed, and phase I
    and II study documentation will be merged into a single decision
    document for the state executive and legislative offices.
         Question. When will the project be completed and what will the
    study provide?
        General Griffin. The study is scheduled for completion in July
    2001. It will provide a comprehensive strategy for addressing flooding
    problems throughout West Virginia, concentrating on unmet flood control
    needs, especially in high-priority areas of the state where chronic
    flooding occurs. It will provide a statewide flood damage assessment,
    identify existing flood control shortfalls, assess existing Federal and
    state flood protection programs, formulate flood protection and
    floodplain management program improvements, assess non-Federal
    financing capability, identify financing needs for investment in flood
    protection, develop a long-term investment strategy for the state, and
    a provide a detailed report on a statewide flood warning system.
        Question. What additional Federal resources are needed for this
    project?
         General Griffin. No additional Federal funds are required to
    complete the study.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                          LA FARGE DAM DEAUTHORIZATION

        Question. Why was the La Farge Dam/Kickapoo Reserve project not
    included in the President's Budget? I had several contacts with the
    Corps over the last year, all of which led me to believe that the Corps
    was committed to moving forward and towards completion. I was very
    surprised to see that no funding was included. We have been funding
    this program for three years through Congressional adds. What happened
    to this funding in the President's Budget?
        Answer. All work except the highway repairs and relocations is
    funded, and a decision that will establish the relative priority of the
    highway work in the Administration's program is still pending. This
    project was considered, along with many other worthy projects nation-
    wide, for the budget, but was not selected for inclusion in the
    President's Budget. There were two primary factors that eliminated the
    La Farge project during the fiscal year 2001 budget prioritization
    process. First, the authorized project modifications do not provide Net
    Economic Development benefits. Second, under the terms and conditions
    prescribed by Section 361 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1996, the State of Wisconsin must sign a written agreement to hold the
    United States harmless from any damages related to the transfer of
    lands and improvements before the Corps of Engineers can proceed with
    this project. Currently, the State does not have the legal authority to
    furnish the hold harmless provisions as required by law. However, it is
    our understanding that legislation to provide such authority recently
    passed the State legislature and is awaiting signature by the Governor.

                              FOX RIVER, WISCONSIN

        Question. I have recently been contacted by the State of Wisconsin,
    and notified by the Detroit District, that there is a proposal to turn
    over the locks on the Fox River to the State of Wisconsin. The State,
    with federal help, would then do the necessary repairs to reopen the
    locks to traffic and take on the operating costs. The State and the
    local community seem eager to take on responsibility for the locks, and
    I have a few questions about the potential transfer.
        Is there a concrete plan for turning over the locks and for the
    State of Wisconsin's management of those locks?
        General Griffin. Sir, the Corps has been involved in extensive
    negotiations with the State involving the transfer of the navigation
    facilities, and we anticipate signing a formal agreement this Spring.
    The actual transfer would take place after completion of historical,
    cultural, and environmental documentation and the appropriation of
    funds for transfer-related payments. The State intends to use Federal
    and non-Federal funds to repair and rehabilitate the locks and reopen
    them. The exception is the Rapide Croche lock, which has been closed to
    prevent invasion of the sea lamprey.
        Question. Are you aware of any existing claims to the land by
    Native American Tribes?
        General Griffin. No claims have been made by any Native American
    tribe for any portion of the Fox River navigation system. We are not
    aware of any former reservation on project lands or of any reversionary
    interest held in project lands by Native American tribes.
        Question. Do the locks have adequate invasive species control
    measures to protect the wildlife in Lake Winnebago?
        General Griffin. Sir, a sea lamprey barrier was installed by the
    Corps at the Rapide Croche lock and dam in 1988. As part of this
    barrier, the gates to the lock were permanently closed. Any agreement
    to transfer the locks would contain a condition that the Rapide Croche
    sea lamprey barrier be maintained. The sea lamprey has been the
    invasive species of most concern on the system. There are no other
    invasive species control measures in place. Transfer would not impact
    the status quo. After transfer, the State of Wisconsin could evaluate
    and, if necessary, modify its operations to address concerns with
    invasive species.
        Question. Will an environmental impact statement be necessary
    before the locks are reopened?
        General Griffin. An Environmental Assessment is being prepared to
    address the Federal action, which is solely the transfer of the land
    and facilities. Future operation (opening) and maintenance of the locks
    would become the responsibility of the State of Wisconsin.
        Question. Has the Corps examined whether the plan to reopen the
    locks is economically viable from a federal perspective?
        General Griffin. Sir, there are benefits to be gained from
    reopening the locks; however, not all repair and rehabilitation costs
    related to reopening the locks are economically justified. The payment
    to be made by the Corps under the agreement would be based on the
    avoided cost of placing the locks in a long term inoperable status and
    the repair and rehabilitation costs that are economically justified.
        Question. I understand that the Corps would seek authorization in
    WRDA for a direct appropriation for this project. Has this been done in
    other states and would headquarters support a direct appropriation?
        General Griffin. The payments under the agreement will be
    conditioned upon the Congress appropriating the necessary funds. Should
    the agreement be executed, the Corps would be in a position to seek
    appropriations for the payments. This would be done through the normal
    budget process. The Army does not intend to seek additional
    authorization to carry out the transfer and payments.

       UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS NAVIGATION STUDY, ILLINOIS, IOWA,
                       MINNESOTA, MISSOURI AND WISCONSIN

        Question. Reports have indicated that the Corps may have discounted
    the role small scale measures could play in ameliorating traffic delays
    at the locks on the Mississippi. Corps economists indicated that these
    measures, which include mooring cells, traffic scheduling, and industry
    self-help could save the taxpayers millions of dollars and eliminate
    the need for lock extensions. Have these options been fully considered?
    Can you explain why these measures were not accepted, and could you
    provide me with the data and analysis used to come to that conclusion?
        Answer. These three small-scale measures-mooring cells and buoys,
    traffic scheduling, and industry self-help have been fully considered
    in the study's plan formulation process. Documentation to date for
    small-scale measures is included in three interim study products:
    General Assessment of Small-Scale Measures report dated June 1995,
    which provides information on the 92 small-scale measures considered in
    early brainstorming sessions that screened the measures down to 16;
    Detailed Assessment of Small Scale Measures report dated December 1998
    which provides more detailed examination and quantification of
    performance for these 16 measures; and, Summary of Small-Scale Measures
    Screening report dated April 1999, which further screened the measures
    down to 5 remaining small-scale measures. The three referenced small-
    scale measures are discussed in these three interim study reports.
        All three of these measures are present to some degree in the
    future river conditions. First, mooring cells and buoys are part of the
    alternative plans still under consideration for the with-project
    conditions. Mooring facilities provide some project benefits, but alone
    they do not considerably reduce future delay projections. Second,
    traffic scheduling has been an integral part of our standard operating
    procedure and will continue to be into the future in the without-
    project condition, based on historic application and our study
    assumptions. The traffic scheduling is in the form of an N-up/N-down
    policy where the lock operator locks through ``N'' vessels traveling in
    one direction prior to locking through ``N'' vessels traveling in the
    opposite direction. Other studies have demonstrated that this existing
    N-up/N-down scheduling policy captures the majority of scheduling-
    related benefits, and the effects of projected traffic growth and
    related delay potential would overwhelm the benefits of any other
    additive scheduling procedures. Third, industry self-help is the
    practice where industry tows assist each other by extracting unpowered
    cuts, usually 9-barge configurations, from the lock without the
    assistance of lock personnel or equipment. Industry self-help is
    currently utilized for approximately one to one-and-a-half percent of
    all lockages at the busiest locks on the system. Additional
    coordination with the navigation industry, U.S. Maritime
    Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard in 1998 indicated that regular use
    of industry self-help is not practical due to the variability in
    conditions where it can be implemented safely. The general industry
    comment was that industry self-help is a stop-gap measure that is used
    to minimize the impacts of a breakdown on the system, not a routine,
    long-term measure to address increasing system traffic and delay. In
    addition to this information, the study team considered site-specific
    input from Corps lock personnel; historical lock performance data and
    current usage, safety, risk, and liability considerations; and concerns
    raised over potential impacts to environmental and social resources
    from growing usage. Also, industry self-help with guidewall extensions
    was screened out because it is out-performed at a similar cost by
    powered kevels with guidewall extensions. Considering the variables
    involved, the successful implementation of industry self-help as a
    standard operating procedure does not appear to be viable as a long-
    term solution. Lock statistics from 1992 to 1998 showed that the
    average actual usage of self-help was significantly less than 1.5
    percent of total commercial lockages, and that only Locks 24 and 25 had
    achieved significant time savings historically. The highest usage noted
    during that period was in 1992 at Lock 25 where it was 3.6 percent.
    Therefore, the assumptions for the model limited self-help usage to 5
    percent, which allows some increase over current usage while remaining
    close to observed rates and reasonably considers the above-stated
    concerns.
        The referenced interim products have been discussed in public
    forums. Additionally, copies of the documents discussed have been
    provided to the Committee. All aspects of the formulation will be
    documented as the study team continues to write the draft Feasibility
    Report and Environmental Impact Statement for eventual public release
    and review. The plan formulation process is still underway, and no
    final study conclusions have been reached. The Feasibility Report and
    Environmental Impact Statement will not be final until the issuance of
    the Division Commander's Public Notice, at which time the report and
    Environmental Impact Statement will be forwarded for Washington-level
    processing.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan

                    MAPLE RIVER, NEAR ENDERLIN, NORTH DAKOTA

        Question. After years of flooding along the Sheyenne River at West
    Fargo, ND, a dry dam was proposed on a tributary stream, the Maple
    River, near Enderlin. The Maple empties into the Sheyenne north of West
    Fargo and it was suggested that a dam would reduce back up flows in the
    Sheyenne. The dam would only hold water during flood emergencies. The
    Corps determined that the dam would not meet its cost-benefit ratio so
    local interests (Southeast Cass Water Board) decided to build it on its
    own. Although I've been told that the Water Board has tried to work
    with the Corps to take the necessary steps to construct the dam, action
    has been stalled for several years.
        I've heard from the water board that the Corps ought to be dealing
    with this issue more expeditiously. Can you please give me an update
    what the Corps is doing--if anything--to deal with the Maple River Dam
    situation?
        Dr. Westphal. The Corps is working to conclude its environmental
    studies that are required as part of the permitting process for the
    project. The permit applicant has chosen the same site that was
    considered earlier by the Corps for a flood control dam because it is
    the most effective location for such action. The site, however, is rich
    in cultural history as indicated by approximately 60 site leads,
    archeological sites and Indian village sites dating back hundreds of
    years. Because of this, there is considerable interest by
    representatives of seven Tribes.
        An effort was made to prepare a Programmatic Agreement (PA) setting
    forth how resources would be dealt with in the future. Because some of
    the Tribes oppose the project, we have been unable to develop a PA that
    is satisfactory to all. Therefore, the Final Environmental Impact
    Statement (FEIS) will identify, in detail, the cultural resources known
    in the area, their significance, expected effects of the proposed
    project and its reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation for
    those effects. Each of the seven interested tribes must be included in
    this process, as required by regulations; however, completion of the
    process does not rely on their participation.
        We expect that the coordination and impact analyses will take a
    minimum of 120 days. Subsequent to that, the FEIS will be prepared and
    mailed. This should occur no later than August 20, 2000. A Record of
    Decision could be completed 30 days later, but due to the intensive
    opposition by Tribes, additional resolution processes are expected to
    occur with respect to the Section 106 compliance.

                            WILLISTON, NORTH DAKOTA

        Question. The water transmission line that serves the city of
    Williston, ND, has been damaged by the construction of the Garrison
    Dam. Much like the rising water table that has resulted in the need for
    the purchase of flowage easements at the Buford Trenton Irrigation
    District, the water transmission line is threatened by rising water
    tables. I've been advised that the Corps does not have authority to
    replace this line ( despite the federal government's clear
    responsibility to mitigate the negative consequences of the dam's
    construction.
        Can you please clarify if the Corps has the authority to replace
    the water transmission line? If the Corps does not have this authority,
    please suggest authorizing language that would enable the Corps to move
    forward with this construction.
        Dr. Westphal. The Corps does not have the authority to replace the
    water transmission line. The following proposed authorizing language is
    offered for your consideration: The Secretary is directed to use up to
    $4,000,000 of the funds appropriated herein to replace or relocate the
    municipal water transmission line owned by the City of Williston, North
    Dakota, and located adjacent to and running parallel to the levee
    protecting the City.
        Question. Last fall, my colleagues from North Dakota and I
    requested that the Corps reprogram funds into the Section 33 account
    for the continuation of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization study
    after funding for the cumulative Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    was not included in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations bill. Because I think that this is one of our state's
    water management priorities, I am once again requesting money for this
    project because it is a critical component of the process to develop a
    common vision for the river across a variety of North Dakota interests.
        Would you agree that this kind of analysis has the potential to
    address many technical issues and provide a foundation for future
    policy decisions on bank stabilization?
        Dr. Westphal. Yes, I do agree. The potential for cumulative impacts
    from bank stabilization works along the Missouri River has not been
    documented in a comprehensive study. The Section 33 cumulative impacts
    study presents an opportunity to answer questions regarding the
    presence of bank stabilization structures in the river. A
    geomorphologic study is being conducted, as funds become available, to
    identify and address technical concerns and issues. The study will
    determine the existing physical condition of the river channel, project
    future channel conditions and determine the impacts that additional
    bank stabilization may have on the alluvial processes and channel
    formation. The information will be useful to help guide future
    decisions regarding construction under the Section 33 program
    authority. It will also be useful as the basis for recommending long-
    term strategies for the management and protection of the Missouri
    River.
                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DAVID COTTINGHAM, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
                WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
            J. RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
                COMPLETION ACT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                                OPENING REMARKS

        Senator Domenici. We have Commissioner Eluid Martinez with
    the Bureau of Reclamation, David Cottingham, Counselor to the
    Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the
    Interior, and Program Director for the Utah Project Completion
    Act Office, J. Ronald Johnston.
        Commissioner, we're very pleased to have you and you're
    going to lead off. I think it's only fair to say to you right
    at the onset, we are very grateful and thankful for the job
    that you have done as Commissioner. A lot of new twists and
    turns have entered the playing field since you became
    Commissioner, and I think you have stepped up to the batter's
    box on most of them and have done an excellent job and I thank
    you for that. I know in particular in New Mexico on the water-
    short Pecos River Basin and the Rio Grande Basin, you've done
    an admirable job of trying to help sort out things and get us
    through some difficult problems.
        If you've been looking at the drought in New Mexico, which
    we certainly have, I would like to report to you that about 40
    percent of the State got incredible snowfall overnight. I don't
    know what that means in terms of the total precipitation, but
    whatever we get helps you in your job and helps all of us.
        Your testimony will be made part of the record. If you
    could proceed to summarize it, we would be most appreciative.

                         STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ

        Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I think the reason
    it's snowing and raining is probably because we showed up there
    last week. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, please allow me to
    express my sincere appreciation both to you and Senator Craig
    and to members of the committee for the support you've provided
    me during my tenure as Commissioner of Reclamation and to
    Reclamation in general.
        My appearance today in support of Reclamation's budget will
    most likely be my last before this subcommittee. My wife is
    looking forward to returning to New Mexico at the end of this
    Administration. Thank you for the opportunity to serve as
    Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
        I welcome the opportunity to appear today in support of the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Bureau of
    Reclamation, which is a request for $801 million, a $33.1
    million increase over fiscal year 2000 appropriations. My
    statement has been submitted for the hearing record and with
    your permission, I will summarize that testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, Reclamation's 2000-2005 Strategic Plan
    identifies three mission goals that are linked to Reclamation's
    budget and are the essence of what Reclamation is all about.
    These goals are to manage, develop and protect water and
    related resources to help meet the future needs of current and
    future generations; to operate, maintain and rehabilitate our
    facilities to provide projected benefits flowing from those
    projects; and to ensure organizational effectiveness.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, in keeping with your statement that you would
    like to be out of here by 11:30 this morning, my statement has
    been submitted for the record and I would be glad to answer any
    questions you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Eluid L. Martinez

        Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I welcome
    the opportunity to appear before you today to support the President's
    fiscal year 2001 budget request of $801.0 million in new budget
    authority for the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes $741.0 million
    for Reclamation's programs and $60.0 million for the California Bay-
    Delta Restoration activities.

                                    MISSION

        As I am sure you are aware, Reclamation's mission is to manage,
    develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally
    and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
    The Bureau of Reclamation has been developing and managing water and
    related resources in the Western United States since 1902. Reclamation
    is today one of the largest suppliers and managers of water in the 17
    western states
        Its facilities, which include reservoirs with the capacity to store
    245 million acre-feet of water, deliver water to one of every five
    western farmers to irrigate about 10 million acres of land and to over
    31 million people for municipal, rural, and industrial uses.
        Reclamation is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power
    in the nation. Reclamation produces enough electricity to serve 6
    million homes, and generates nearly a billion dollars in annual power
    revenues.
        The ingenuity and expertise Reclamation used in the 20th Century to
    plan and construct dams, reservoirs and other water supply facilities
    is currently being used for:
      --Managing the dam safety program to minimize risks to the downstream
            public, property, and natural resources,
      --Facilitating Reclamation's operation and maintenance program to
            maximize public benefits at the least cost,
      --Developing partnerships with customers, states, and tribes,
      --Finding ways to bring competing interests together to address water
            needs,
      --Transferring title and operation of facilities to local
            beneficiaries,
      --Establishing results-oriented business practices that will provide
            the most effective and efficient service to customers,
            partners, and employees,
      --Placing greater emphasis on promoting the conservation,
            reclamation, and reuse of existing water supplies,
      --Protecting and restoring fish and wildlife resources to ensure
            future reliability of project water and power benefits.
        The fiscal year 2001 President's budget request continues to
    demonstrate the Administration's strong commitment to this mission.
        Water resource projects developed by Reclamation continue to
    contribute to sustained economic growth and an enhanced quality of life
    in the Western States. In recent years, Reclamation has primarily moved
    from development to management of these important resources. In
    cooperation with state, tribal, and local governments, along with other
    entities and the public at large, Reclamation develops solutions for
    water resource issues--solutions that are consensus-based, cost
    effective, and environmentally sound.
        Although this infrastructure is sophisticated and has allowed
    significant development of urban and agricultural areas, it is subject
    to and results in various stresses, such as aging facilities, land use
    changes, agricultural commodity prices, changes in domestic and
    international economies, instream flow needs for habitat protection,
    and water rights settlements.
        The future of the West's water supply infrastructure, including
    Reclamation project facilities, must focus on maintaining and
    optimizing the utility of existing facilities, keeping costs down,
    ensuring that public facilities fit more comfortably into the natural
    environment, and demonstrating ingenuity in meeting needs in the most
    efficient ways possible. While supply-oriented solutions should not be
    entirely ruled out, innovative solutions, such as water conservation
    and wastewater recycling, must be explored.
        One of Reclamation's strategies is to efficiently target its
    planning program to search for contemporary solutions deserving of
    national, state, and/or local investment. Financial resource
    constraints facing the Nation require a commitment to expand the use of
    decision support tools, including benefit-cost and risk analyses, and
    to choose only the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to the
    complex water resource challenges that we face.
        I would like to point out that every day we see immediate water
    resource needs important to state, local and tribal partners. Many
    states are developing State Water Plans, for instance, to address
    resource utilization and stewardship against the backdrop of large
    population increases and the growing notion of sustainable development.
        Reclamation can assist in the systematic evaluations of existing
    and potential water use within a river basin or subbasin to determine
    how present and future needs can best be met.

                          WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

        The total request for projects and programs related to Water and
    Related Resources is $674.2 million. This is partially offset by an
    undistributed reduction of $31.1 million in anticipation of delays in
    construction schedules and other activities, resulting in a net request
    of $643.1 million.
        The fiscal year 2001 request provides a total of $288.9 million for
    facility operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Providing adequate
    funding for these activities continues to be one of Reclamation's
    highest priorities. Reclamation staff is working closely with water
    users and other stakeholders to ensure that available funds are used
    effectively.
        Facility operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation (OM&R) funds
    are used to allow Reclamation to identify, plan, and implement, among
    other activities, dam safety corrective actions and site security
    improvements. The fiscal year 2001 request includes $77.3 million for
    the Dam Safety Program to protect the downstream public by ensuring the
    safety and reliability of Reclamation dams.
        Reclamation plans to initiate safety of dams modifications at
    several facilities in the near future, including Horsetooth Dam,
    Colorado; Clear Lake Dam, Oregon; Pineview Dam, Utah; Salmon Lake Dam,
    Washington; Wickiup Dam, Oregon; Grassy Lake Dam, Wyoming; Keechelus
    Dam, Washington; Deer Creek Dam, Utah; and Warm Springs Dam, Oregon.
        The Administration sent legislation (H.R. 3595) to the Congress to
    increase by $380 million the authorized cost ceiling for the
    Reclamation Safety of Dams Act. Current projections indicate there is
    sufficient authority to support the fiscal year 2001 budget request,
    but additional authority will be needed in fiscal year 2002 and beyond.
        Additionally OM&R funds allow Reclamation to ensure the reliability
    and operational readiness of dams, reservoirs, powerplants, and
    distribution systems while also helping the timely and effective
    delivery of project benefits.
        The fiscal year 2001 request also includes a total of $385.3
    million for resource management and development activities. The request
    for these activities includes funding for projects currently under
    construction, including the Central Arizona Project, the Mni Wiconi
    Project in South Dakota and the Garrison Diversion Unit in North
    Dakota, as well as for the recently enacted Rocky Boy's Indian Water
    Rights Settlement in Montana.
        Resource management and development activities include funding for
    a number of high priority activities that emphasize improved water
    management and environmental compliance. In the area of environmental
    compliance, funds are requested for endangered species conservation and
    recovery efforts in the Columbia /Snake and other river basins, fish
    and wildlife and other work on California's Central Valley Project, and
    construction of a temperature control device at Glen Canyon Dam. Funds
    requested for other projects, such as the Lower Colorado River
    Operations Program and the Klamath Project, would meet objectives in
    both of these areas.
        Funds for the Lower Colorado River Operations Program are used to
    implement and accomplish the Secretary of the Interior's ``Water
    Master'' function for the lower Colorado River area. This function
    includes ongoing negotiation, development, and execution of water
    service contracts, determining consumptive use of Colorado River water,
    identifying non-contract water users and completing appropriate
    environmental and endangered species programs.

                    CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

        The fiscal year 2001 Reclamation budget includes a request for
    $38.4 million from the Central Valley Project (CVP) Restoration Fund,
    which is the estimated level of collections from project beneficiaries.
    The fiscal year 2001 request funds a wide variety of activities to
    restore fish and wildlife habitat and populations in California's
    Central Valley Project, including acquisition of water for anadromous
    fish and other environmental purposes, providing long-term water
    deliveries to wildlife refuges, implementation of the Anadromous Fish
    Restoration Plan, restoration of land to improve wildlife habitat,
    conserve water and reduce drainage, and construction of fish screens
    and other facilities.
        The request is financed by CVP water and power users, including an
    estimated $28.2 million in additional mitigation and restoration
    charges. The fiscal year 2001 budget contains a proposal that, in
    fiscal year 2001 and each year thereafter, the full amount of these
    additional charges would be collected, and all revenues deposited in
    the CVP Restoration Fund from this and other sources would be directly
    available for expenditure.

                        CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

        The fiscal year 2001 budget includes a request for $60.0 million
    for the Bay-Delta Restoration program. While funding is requested in
    Reclamation's budget, funds for specific projects or programs will be
    transferred to participating Federal agencies based on plans developed
    by CALFED. Reclamation manages most of these projects.
        Over the past three years, CALFED, a consortium of Federal and
    State agencies, has funded all or portions of some 240 ecosystem
    restoration projects and programs with monies from the State of
    California, the Federal Government and stakeholder funds.
        These funds support an ecosystem restoration program of vast
    breadth and scope with the ultimate goal of developing a long-term
    solution that addresses both environmental and water management
    problems associated with the Bay-Delta system.
        The fiscal year 2001 request includes $36.0 million to continue
    implementation of the ecosystem restoration program initiated in 1998.
    Activities funded in this program include improvements in fish screens
    and fish passage, restoration of habitat in flood plains and marshes,
    and river channel changes. Funding is also requested for improvements
    in instream flows, water quality and water temperature, as well as
    improvements in fish management and hatchery operations. The program
    also funds efforts to control introduced and undesirable species as
    well as monitoring, permit coordination and other special support
    programs.
        The request also includes $24.0 million for a broad variety of
    water management activities in accordance with the CALFED Bay-Delta
    Program including: water use efficiency, water transfers, integrated
    storage investigations and studies for Delta conveyance.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget contains a proposal extending the
    availability of funding authorized by the California Bay-Delta
    Environmental Enhancement Act through 2003. This proposed extension
    would support continued Federal participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta
    ecosystem restoration activities to meet the commitment of the State/
    Federal Cost Share Agreement. There is no increase in the amount of
    funds authorized, rather an extension of time in which funds may be
    appropriated.

                                 OTHER ACCOUNTS

        The request for Policy and Administration (P&A) is $50.2 million.
    The purpose of this appropriation is to support management and
    administration activities that are not chargeable directly to a
    specific project or program. P&A supports all of Reclamation's
    centralized management functions, such as overall program and personnel
    policy management; budgetary policy formulation and execution;
    information resources management; procurement, property and general
    services policy; and public affairs activities. Since a significant
    portion of the funding for P&A supports salaries and related costs,
    this account has been impacted significantly over the past few years,
    as the funding level for P&A has remained constant while cost-of-living
    increases associated with salaries and benefits have increased at a
    rate of 3 to 5 percent per year.
        The request for the Loan Program in fiscal year 2001 is $9.4
    million, and would continue funding for three loans in California.
        Permanent appropriations available in the Colorado River Dam Fund
    are estimated to be $66.1 million in fiscal year 2001, and non-Federal
    contributions to Reclamation's Trust Funds are estimated to be $4.5
    million.

                                   CONCLUSION

        This completes my statement. Please allow me to express my sincere
    appreciation for the continued support that the Committee has provided
    Reclamation. I look forward to working with the Committee to further
    our mutual goals of managing, developing, and protecting water and
    related resources. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have at this time.

                        STATEMENT OF J. RONALD JOHNSTON

        Senator Domenici. We won't be out of here on time, but
    you're certain that you're comfortable with that?
        Commissioner Martinez. Yes, I'm comfortable with that, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Okay, let's proceed now. Do we have some
    other witnesses who are going to testify right now? Central
    Utah Project, would you like to enter your statement as part of
    the record and please comment for us?

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Johnston. Yes, I am pleased to be here today to
    represent the President's budget for implementation of the
    Central Utah Project. I would appreciate my statement being
    entered for the record and I think with that, I'll just answer
    any questions that you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of J. Ronald Johnston

        I am pleased to be here today to present the President's fiscal
    year 2001 budget for implementation of the Central Utah Project
    Completion Act.
        The Central Utah Project Completion Act, Titles II-VI of Public Law
    102-575, provides for completion of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by
    the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes
    funding for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
    establishes an Account in the U.S. Treasury for the deposit of these
    and other funds; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
    Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
    activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Rights Settlement.
        The Act provides that the Secretary may not delegate his
    responsibilities under the Act to the Bureau of Reclamation. As a
    result, the Department has established a program coordination office in
    Provo, Utah, that reports to the Assistant Secretary, Water and
    Science, and that provides oversight, review, and liaison with the
    District, the Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and assists in
    administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Act.
        The fiscal year 2001 request for the Central Utah Project
    Completion Account provides $39.9 million for use by the District, the
    Commission, and the Department to implement Titles II-IV of the Act, an
    increase of $0.7 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
    request includes $19.1 million for the District to continue
    construction on the remaining segments of the Diamond Fork System; to
    implement approved water conservation and water management improvement
    projects; and to continue development of planning and NEPA documents on
    facilities to deliver water in the Utah Lake drainage basin.
        The funds requested for transfer to the Mitigation Commission will
    be used in implementing the fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation
    and conservation projects authorized in Title III ($12.8 million); and
    in completing mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992 Bureau of
    Reclamation planning documents ($1.4 million). Title III activities
    funded in fiscal year 2001 include the Provo River Restoration Project;
    acquisition of habitat, access, and water rights in other key
    watersheds; and fish hatchery improvements.
        Finally, the request includes funds for the Federal contribution to
    the principal of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
    Account ($5.0 million); for mitigation and conservation projects
    outside the State of Utah ($0.4 million); and for program
    administration ($1.3 million).
        In addition to this request, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget
    includes $24.9 million for the Ute Indian Rights Settlement; and $5.0
    million is included in the Western Area Power Administration budget for
    its contribution to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
    Account.
        This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
    any questions you may have at this time.

        Senator Domenici. Thank you so much. We will certainly be
    interested in the statement. Is that the extent of the
    witnesses? You're here in support?
        Mr. Cottingham. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Craig, do you have any questions?
        Senator Craig. I do have one question.
        Senator Domenici. Could you chair for just a moment and I
    will be right back.

                              IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS

        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Commissioner Martinez, let me also echo the comments of the
    chairman and the opportunity we've had to work with you and the
    initiatives you've taken, the kind of support you have given us
    and, in like turn, we've been able to provide you. It's been a
    positive working relationship and we thank you for that.
        I have one question in your fiscal year 2001 budget that I
    would like to visit with you about and that is a passback from
    OMB. I understand that the Pacific Northwest Region's budget
    was about $72 million, mostly O&M, and OMB cut that by about
    $7.9 million. The Idaho investigation program was cut
    approximately in half to about $248,000, while others such as
    Oregon investigations took no cuts. The Idaho investigations
    were listed as new. I understand these are not new.
        Could you explain here for the record what these
    investigations are and why Idaho took what I think is a
    disproportionate cut?
        Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, Idaho
    took a 50 percent cut, that was not the intent and should not
    be the intent of the Bureau of Reclamation. I believe that most
    of that cut came from a Fort Hall Reservation study. I will
    provide you the information for the record. If this program
    needs additional resources, I will look to see if some re-
    programming capability exists.
        [The information follows:]

                              IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS

        Following the lead of Congress in recent years, the OMB
    ``passback'' on the fiscal year 2001 budget did include a reduction in
    new study activities, but the decision on which study activities to cut
    was made by Reclamation. As a result of requests from the Department
    and from OMB to provide additional data on work being performed under
    the statewide investigation programs, Reclamation's Pacific Northwest
    Region revised its program narratives for the fiscal year 2001 budget
    submission. Activities begun under existing line items in prior years
    were separated from those line items and described as their own line
    item activity in greater detail. These separated items were then
    ``deemed'' to be new starts since they had not appeared in any previous
    budget submission from the region. As a result, funding for these items
    was eventually cut from the fiscal year 2001 request.

             FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

        Senator Craig. Well, let us look at the Fort Hall
    situation. I need to know the specifics of that. And I say
    that, Commissioner, because we've had a very substantial
    underground water contamination problem at Fort Hall and I'm
    not sure that you all were involved in that. And if you were,
    is that where these resources are now being taken from? So let
    us examine that with you. But I see that overall as
    disproportionate, and if there is a better explanation that you
    can provide us, we'll look for it.
        Commissioner Martinez. Senator, I'll provide that for the
    record. Based on my understanding the major part of the cut was
    for that one program. However, I'll provide you a detailed
    response. And if it is something that is needed in Idaho, I
    look forward to working with you to make sure we get that done.
        Senator Craig. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that's the only
    question I have. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

                                   FORT HALL

        Fort Hall is a special study and has not been part of the Idaho
    Investigations Program. Although the Fort Hall study was not included
    in the President's request for fiscal year 1999, the Senate report
    accompanying the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill contained a
    directive to use $200,000 of available funds to begin a feasibility
    study to address the serious dangers of ground water contamination at
    the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho. The Congress added $250,000
    to continue the study into Reclamation's fiscal year 2000 budget. The
    Congressional funding came after the Department had reviewed
    Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 budget request, so funding was not
    requested for the Fort Hall project.

                         DROUGHT SITUATION IN THE WEST

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Thank you for
    attending. I appreciate it very much.
        I want to ask a few questions with reference to the drought
    and the anticipation of drought damages. Let me start by saying
    Congress provided you with $3 million and associated
    legislative language for funding provided under drought
    emergency assistance program. The law provided primarily for
    leasing of water in compliance with State water laws and that
    purchase be approved by the State in question.
        What is the current situation and evaluation with reference
    to droughts in the West and has it changed appreciably over the
    last year?
        Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, my information
    indicates that currently Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, southern
    California and Hawaii are experiencing drought conditions.
    There are emergency declarations either in place or expected in
    the near future. Many areas of the Southwest are in worse
    condition than they were a year ago. With respect to New
    Mexico, conditions of anticipated runoff are approximately what
    they were last year, which is about 40 to 50 percent of
    average.
        Last year, luckily it started raining. As you know, it
    rained all summer. If we don't have that same scenario, we're
    going to have a drastic situation in terms of drought in the
    American Southwest.
        With respect to Reclamation projects, the storage carryover
    in our reservoirs is sufficient to provide water to those
    project beneficiaries for the next couple of years. The purpose
    of these reservoirs is to provide that carryover capability.
        But with respect to the small irrigation ditches and the
    acequias in New Mexico, they're going to have some difficult
    times this summer.
        Of the $3 million that the Congress provided last year for
    fiscal year 2000 for the budget, we have $2.3 million which is
    still unallocated. But based on the projections, we will
    probably not have any carryover money into the next year.
        We have identified in our budget this year a request for
    $500,000. We honestly believe that the demand might be
    somewhere between 2 to 3 million additional dollars. Part of
    that is because, as you know, the National Drought Policy
    Commission is expected to send its report to Congress this
    June. As a result of the activities on the Drought Policy
    Commission, many more people will become familiar with our
    program and are going to be asking for more additional money.

                           DROUGHT AUTHORITY LANGUAGE

        There is one issue I need to bring to the Committee's
    attention. In the past, the Bureau of Reclamation has provided
    assistance to States and tribes to help them compile their
    drought contingency plans. The Bureau of Reclamation had been
    interpreting Public Law 102-250, which is the law that gives us
    authority to work on drought issues. Title 2 of that Act allows
    the Bureau of Reclamation to assist States and tribes with
    resources so they can do their drought contingency plans. The
    Bureau of Reclamation had been interpreting that language to
    mean that we could provide financial grants to the States and
    the tribes, as well as technical assistance.
        My attorneys tell me that they interpret the language to
    mean that we have no authority to provide money, only technical
    assistance. I would like to get the language corrected if the
    intent of Congress is to not only provide technical assistance
    but also financial grants to States and tribes to help them do
    their planning.
        A long answer to a short question.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I appreciate your frankness. I
    can't imagine with what's happening out there that we ought to
    take the risk that we have sufficient monies with the money
    that hasn't been spent, plus a half a million. I think we
    better put a little more in that fund and I appreciate your
    suggesting $2 to $3 million. I don't think we'll have any
    trouble getting support for that because those of us who come
    from arid States know what happens.
        People don't understand, if we have a drought, individual
    water wells that serve a home in a rural part of the State
    might go dry. If that happened as a result of a serious problem
    in a city, we would be helping with their water system. If it
    went out because of a great flood, we would help pay for the
    infrastructure and the like. We have to try to understand what
    are the kinds of things that might happen and make sure you
    have authority, or somebody does. So I would like to just ask
    two or three questions.

                         DROUGHT EMERGENCY AUTHORITIES

        Could you explain what the emergency authorities are and
    which are available to the Bureau of Reclamation to mitigate
    the impact?
        Commissioner Martinez. I would be delighted to provide you
    a detailed response for the record, but basically the National
    Drought Policy Commission to date has identified the fact that
    the authority that Congress has provided the Bureau of
    Reclamation under Public Law 102-250 is really the only
    authority a Federal agency has been given by Congress to react
    to drought situations.
        The Act basically provides authority to the Secretary of
    Interior to do two things: To assist States and tribes and
    governmental entities to do drought contingency plans, and then
    to provide financial assistance during droughts so the
    Secretary can drill wells, lay temporary pipelines and redirect
    water from Bureau of Reclamation projects.
        [The information follows:]

                          DROUGHT EMERGENCY AUTHORITY

        Emergency drought assistance is provided through Public Law 102-
    250, Title I. This assistance is provided only in those instances where
    a Governor of a State or a tribal leader has made a request for
    temporary drought assistance and we have determined that such temporary
    assistance is merited.
        Mitigation is defined in recent drought-related literature as an
    essential, proactive element of drought preparedness which can reduce
    the overall need for and cost of drought response. In terms of
    mitigation efforts, Reclamation has the authority to undertake these
    efforts through programs such as water conservation or wastewater
    reuse. However, the ability to implement these mitigation efforts
    depends upon the criteria for eligibility for those programs as well as
    funding provided for those activities.

                        DROUGHT POLICY COMMISSION REPORT

        I need to again state that the National Drought Policy
    Commission report, which is anticipated to be transmitted to
    Congress in June, will define what the Federal agencies have in
    terms of authority and responsibility in these areas.
        Senator Domenici. Won't they also recommend what they think
    we should have?
        Commissioner Martinez. That's the intent. It will have
    recommendations regarding congressional actions as well as
    administrative actions.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I want to say I was privileged to
    draft that legislation. I got a lot of support here and then
    the House quickly joined and it took the Administration a year
    to get that commission going, but I attended the first meeting.
    You were there. There certainly is sufficient power by the
    people to make a strong recommendation.
        You're a member and I assume that so far, knowing the kinds
    of problems that you're confronted with in the event of a
    drought, do you believe that the recommendations are going to
    be sufficiently positive that we might consider them something
    we should do?
        Commissioner Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is part of
    the discussions that are taking place amongst the
    commissioners. We feel that in order for that report to be
    effective, we need to make some concrete recommendations.
    Therefore, the report will recommend action that the
    Administration can take immediately, and then we'll also make
    recommendations regarding what Congress might do in terms of
    authorizations and funding for down-the-road type issues.

                            DESALINIZATION RESEARCH

        Senator Domenici. I'm going to come back to the Pecos River
    and the Rio Grande in my State, but I would like to talk a
    minute about desalinization research. Somehow or another
    desalinization has ended up in your packet of areas where you
    were expected to do something. How is the desalinization
    program within the Bureau in your opinion addressing critical
    issues regarding making desalinization competitive?
        Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if you recall, last
    year we had basically the same discussion, and we provided a
    rather detailed answer for the record. The Bureau of
    Reclamation historically has been involved in the application
    of existing technology to try to provide desalinization needs
    across the Reclamation States.
        We work with the Department of the Army, and we also work
    overseas, especially in Saudi Arabia, to help with
    desalinization. The state of the art is a question of
    economics. My understanding is that over the last 10 years, the
    cost of desalinization has gotten down to where it's becoming a
    more viable option.
        Based on the figures that I have before me, you can now
    treat brackish water for about a dollar per thousand gallons
    and seawater from about $2 to $5 per thousand gallons, and
    that's becoming competitive.
        Our budget includes two requests. One is to fund at $1.2
    million our continuing efforts to apply the technology that is
    flowing from research and $300,000 to do research working with
    academia and the private sector. That goes back to the
    legislation introduced by Senator Simon, I believe.
        We divided the request in our budget into two components.
    In the past we had merged them both together, the application
    and the research. This year we have $1.2 million for
    application and $300,000 for research. I realize that Senator
    Reid's concern last year was that we were not putting enough
    money into the research component. I understand that. It's just
    a question of economics.
        I believe our program is effective. We went back and
    revisited our program. We work with a committee made up of
    folks from the universities and the private sector who review
    the research proposals. We have funded a significant number of
    proposals, although not as many as we would wish. We hope to
    continue to work in the research area as well as the
    application area.
        Senator Domenici. We understand that overall within the
    Federal Government, we're spending about $10 million annually
    for desalinization. Your program is about $1.5 million. The
    rest is primarily within the Department of Defense. Now, is
    there any coordination between what the Defense Department does
    with the $8.5 million I assume they have and the Bureau of
    Reclamation?
        Commissioner Martinez. Yes, it's my understanding, and I
    reviewed the response we provided last year for the record,
    that there is a committee that is involved with Federal
    agencies that coordinates their efforts. I'll provide
    additional information for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                           DESALINATION COORDINATION

        As stated last year, the Bureau of Reclamation has a unique role
    among the Federal agencies in desalination research, development, and
    demonstration. Other agencies use and adapt desalination technologies
    to meet mission specific needs. Many years ago it was generally
    recognized that a potential existed within the Federal Government for
    duplication of research efforts. As a result, the Bureau of Reclamation
    and the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and
    Engineering Center created the Interagency Consortium for Desalination
    and Membrane Separation Research in 1992. Since that time, the
    Consortium, including other Federal agencies, has met yearly to discuss
    individual projects being carried out by the agencies and the future
    directions of their programs. The most recent meeting was held March
    21--22, 2000.
        The Consortium members work together to establish a communications
    network that has the following benefits: Prevent Federal duplication of
    efforts, Pool limited Federal research funding and other resources to
    obtain common goals, Identify future research needs, and Allow for
    discussion of new technologies with other experts in the field.
        For example, over the past year, the Army has continued to work
    with Reclamation and the Navy in its procurement of new desalting
    devices. Reclamation, the Army, and the National Institute of Standards
    and Technology (NIST) have continued to collaborate in membrane fouling
    research. The Army and Reclamation continue to develop a new chlorine
    resistant membrane with tests at the Yuma Water Quality Improvement
    Center (WQIC) in Yuma, Arizona, the Navy's seawater test facility in
    California, and Water Factory 21 in Orange County, California. One of
    the Defense Advanced Projects Agency's research contractors is using
    Reclamation's WQIC for their testing. The Army and Reclamation work
    together on the Industrial Advisory Board for the National Science
    Foundation's Membranes and Applied Separations Technology Center at the
    University of Colorado. Reclamation participated in the most recent
    program review of the Office of Naval Research's membrane program.
    Reclamation is co-chair with NIST and the University of Colorado for
    the North American Membrane Society (NAMS) meeting in May. We will also
    be providing a hands-on workshop with membrane test equipment in our
    Denver laboratories for the NAMS conference attendees. Reclamation is
    coordinating and supporting a consortium of membrane producers and
    users in the development of ultrafiltration characterization techniques
    by NIST.

                              DESALINIZATION COSTS

        Senator Domenici. I wonder, when you mentioned the costs,
    which it's been obvious forever, since I first came to the
    Senate, we had a desalinization program going on in Roswell,
    New Mexico. You might recall that when you were there. It was
    so prohibitive in terms of cost differential that we stopped
    it. But I imagine with Israel and others working on it, that we
    have done better.
        Who would be the science and economic expert that we might
    ask regarding your assessment that you gave us here today of
    the $2 to $5 cost and the relevance of that in terms of
    competitiveness? Do you have an expert?
        Commissioner Martinez. Yes, we will provide that
    information for the record.
        Senator Domenici. Could you have the expert provide us a
    narrative of what's going on and what they think the next steps
    are in moving in this area?
        Commissioner Martinez. We'll do that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                             DESALINATION EXPERTISE

        We have an expert, Kevin Price in our Denver office, and a staff
    that supports the desalination program. Competitiveness is determined
    through the comparison of actual costs of alternative supplies of water
    determined by a specific community and actual desalination costs.
    Actual desalination costs are obtained through published information,
    which has given the cost at the seawater plants at Tampa Bay at $2.09
    per thousand gallons, Trinidad at $3.21 per thousand gallons, and
    Larnaca, Cyprus at $3.30 per thousand gallons. We also obtain current
    cost data through the communication and coordination with experts
    within the desalination industry and through professional organizations
    such as the American Desalting Association (ADA). We have jointly
    developed, validated, and are selling a cost model with the ADA. This
    model was created with the assistance of the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology and ADA desalting experts. It currently
    focuses on brackish and seawater desalination with membranes; future
    work will add electrodialysis. ADA is currently negotiating with the
    International Desalination Association for support to include the costs
    of thermal desalting technologies.

                            DESALINATION-NEXT STEPS

        The status of desalination today is that there are commercially
    available processes, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, distillation and
    electrodialysis, which the potential user of desalination can select
    depending on the particular requirements. The Desalting Plant Survey
    conducted for the International Desalting Association indicates that
    there were approximately 12,000 desalting plants worldwide at the end
    of 1997.
        Federal funding of desalination research began in 1954 with the
    creation of the Office of Saline Water and largely ended when the
    Office of Water Research and Technology closed its doors in 1982. Also
    in 1982 with the end of Federal funding, a significant patent was
    issued for a specific type of very efficient membranes. That patent,
    which was ultimately owned by the Department of the Interior, remains
    as the basis of today's commercial desalination membrane market.
        While significant progress has been made in applying cost-effective
    desalination technologies, they remain too expensive an option for the
    majority of small communities in the United States. Specifically,
    further work is needed to reduce the costs related to the clogging or
    fouling of membranes, and work is need to find environmentally friendly
    ways of byproduct or concentrate disposal
        While the issues of membrane fouling and concentrate disposal have
    a high priority, other issues have also been identified by the
    Desalination Research and Development Program's constituents. They are:
      --development of membranes with increased resistance to chlorine,
      --development of techniques to reduce surface fouling,
      --development of ion- or component-specific membranes for reverse
            osmosis, electrodialysis or other membrane-based processes,
      --increased rates of mass transfer at membrane surfaces,
      --development of ``leak-proof'' recycling treatment technologies for
            potable reuse,
      --standardized membrane integrity tests,
      --improved predictive measurements for accurate modeling,
      --support and development of innovative processes,
      --evaluation of economic and environmental benefits of recovering the
            byproducts of desalting processes,
      --development of more energy efficient systems,
      --development of accurate cost models,
      --development of non-conventional concentrate disposal methods,
      --development of methods to cost effectively recover by-products,
      --testing and demonstration to assist in the development of public
            health and environmental regulations,
      --development of tools and resources for planners and engineers.
        As progress continues to be made through the research planned in
    the identified areas, the effectiveness and efficiency of desalination
    processes are expected to improve. Supporting research funding is
    essential to achieve these objectives in order to produce more
    affordable desalinated water supplies that can help meet the nation's
    current and future potable, industrial, and environmental water supply
    needs.

                          ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY

        Senator Domenici. I appreciate it. I have questions
    regarding the Carlsbad project with reference to fish and
    wildlife, but I'll submit it to you for your answers and also
    one with reference to the endangered species recovery and
    implementation of that program and your efforts to comply with
    the so-called biological opinions.
        Would you care to just generally comment with reference to
    those two--that situation, please?
        Commissioner Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    your assistance over the years on this issue. Generally what
    we're doing is working with the State of New Mexico on the Rio
    Grande and the Pecos River to look at long-term operations of
    the Bureau of Reclamation projects and the Corps of Engineers
    projects as appropriate. Both of these are underway. The final
    EISs are a few years down the road.

                             RIO GRANDE INITIATIVE

        But we continue to work with the stakeholders, especially
    on the Rio Grande. There is a new initiative to put together a
    conservation plan agreeable to the State as well as the Corps
    of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and the business
    community.
        The Bureau has taken the lead working with the agencies and
    the State to coordinate this initiative to maximize the
    benefits of these projects, at the same time dealing with
    endangered species issues.
        I hope that by this time next year we will have a plan in
    place that will address some of your concerns about bringing
    all the parties together and making sure that we don't have
    duplicate programs in place.
        Senator Domenici. And that the stakeholders are really
    talking to each other with reference to having to accommodate
    somewhat to differing views. Could I ask you, what is the name
    of the entity that you just described so that I am working with
    the right one? They were in my office the other day and I
    assume that's the group that you're talking about.
        Commissioner Martinez. On the Rio Grande?
        Senator Domenici. Yes.
        Commissioner Martinez. If not, I'll provide it. I'll
    provide it for the record.
        Senator Domenici. We think it's the ESA work group and
    middle Rio Grande restoration initiative.
        Commissioner Martinez. That is the group, but the habitat
    conservation plan has about six signatories. I'll provide that
    information for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                 ESA WORKGROUP

        You were correct that the group is called the ESA Working Group.
    They formulated the Habitat Conservation Plan with seven signatories,
    including the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the New Mexico Interstate Stream
    Commission, the Attorney General of New Mexico, the New Mexico
    Department of Game and Fish, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
    District.

                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE

        Senator Domenici. I want to state for the record that with
    reference to the Rio Grande and the Pecos, I know a little bit
    more about the Rio Grande, having been born and raised right
    there. But ultimately, you know, I'm not at all bashful about
    thinking that the Federal Government might have to come up with
    some money in the end with reference to an appropriate habitat.
    The problem is we don't know what to do yet. And I assume when
    you speak of maybe next year we'll be ready to have a unified
    effort, you would also be addressing what is the Federal
    Government's role if we have to provide for the endangered
    species, what should the Federal Government be doing. Would
    that part of what's being discussed?
        Commissioner Martinez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the
    foundations are what the Federal Government is doing. On the
    Rio Grande there was a big debate, as you're aware, as to
    whether the Secretary of the Interior was going to release
    water from the upstream reservoirs just by his own action. The
    position of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Secretary
    basically is that we will not be releasing water unilaterally
    from reservoirs across the West. We will be trying to work with
    Congress or to seek appropriations to acquire water rights
    under existing State law to address some of these concerns,
    keeping in mind that the different stakeholders also have to
    bring something to the table. It's not an entire federally
    financed project. But if you look at our budget we have money
    for these kinds of acquisitions. We have a budget request on
    the Rio Grande and on the Pecos River, and of course, we've
    been leasing water on the Columbia/Snake River system to the
    extent of 427,000 acre feet since 1996.
        That generally is the direction where we're heading. I will
    make sure that a report to the Committee on these issues is
    provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                      ENDANGERED SPECIES/WATER ACQUISITION

        Reclamation supports the goals and requirements of the Endangered
    Species Act to conserve threatened and endangered species and avoid
    actions that might jeopardize the continued existence of these species
    or destroy their critical habitat.
        In regards to conservation, our policy is to participate in the
    development and implementation of recovery plans for listed species
    that are affected by Reclamation's projects and actions or where
    resources under our control are identified in a recovery plan. We also
    undertake conservation actions to avoid future listings of species. In
    determining what conservation actions are appropriate for
    implementation, we consider such things as: species' needs, impacts and
    benefits to species, funding availability and priorities, costs,
    authorities, local support, technical feasibility, availability of
    agency resources, impacts on Indian Trust Assets and the availability
    of cost-sharing partners. We support using a multi-species/ecosystem
    approach, where possible, and involving stakeholders from the public
    and private sectors in developing and implementing conservation plans.
    Some of the conservation programs that we are presently engaged in are:
    the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program, the Platte
    River Recovery Implementation Program, the Lower Colorado River Multi-
    Species Conservation Program, and the Central Valley Project
    Improvement Act implementation. Conservation activities may involve
    increasing in-stream flows through changes in dam operations and
    acquisition of water through lease or purchase; and acquiring lands for
    habitat restoration and protection.
        We involve the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
    Fisheries Service early in project planning or in decisions involving
    existing operations to determine effects on any threatened or
    endangered species. For formal consultations, we work with the Services
    in preparing Biological Assessments, Biological Opinions and Reasonable
    and Prudent Alternatives that are technically and economically
    feasible.

                             RIO GRANDE RESTORATION

        Senator Domenici. I thank you very much for the way you
    have attempted to work as an intermediary and to be unbiased
    and even-handed and to recognize that the State has a genuine
    interest as you have been doing is really gratifying to this
    Senator and I commend you for it.
        I will begin very shortly furthering my involvement with
    ESA Working Group and the Rio Grande Restoration Initiative.
    They've been in my office. I've discussed with them; in fact,
    we have to all get together and start talking about where we
    end up. If you think they are a good, workmanlike group, I
    appreciate that sort of advice and I will begin to work more
    diligently with them.
        Commissioner Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to
    working with you down the road as a fellow New Mexican, and I
    am personally interested in these issues. These issues affect
    not only the Rio Grande stream system, but they're common to
    every stream system across the West. If we don't come to grips
    with them, we are going to be in constant litigation and
    causing fractionalization among different stakeholders across
    the West.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Domenici. Thank you all very much. The questions
    will be submitted and whenever you can get them answered, we
    would appreciate it.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                                  DESALINATION

        Question. Mr. Commissioner, what is the state of desalination
    technology today?
        Answer. The status of desalination today is that there are
    commercially available processes, such as reverse osmosis,
    nanofiltration, distillation and electrodialysis, which the potential
    user of desalination can select depending on the particular
    requirements. The Desalting Plant Survey conducted for the
    International Desalting Association indicates that there were
    approximately 12,000 desalting plants worldwide at the end of 1997.
        Federal funding of desalination research began in 1954 with the
    creation of the Office of Saline Water and decreased substantially when
    the Office of Water Research and Technology, or OWRT, closed its doors
    in 1982. Also in 1982 as a result of OWRT's work, a significant patent
    was issued for a specific type of very efficient membranes. That
    patent, which was ultimately owned by the Department of the Interior,
    remains as the basis of today's commercial desalination membrane
    market.
        While significant progress has been made in cost effectively
    applying desalination technologies, they remain too expensive an option
    for the majority of small communities in the United States.
    Specifically, further work is needed in the public or private sector to
    reduce the costs related to the clogging or fouling of membranes, and
    work is needed to find environmentally friendly ways of byproduct or
    concentrate disposal.
        Question. What kinds of research must be undertaken in order to
    make desalination competitive?
        Answer. There are two types of research that could be undertaken:
    basic and applied. Basic research tends to be expensive and long-term,
    while applied research tends to be incremental, with shorter-term
    payoffs. Our current approach in the Bureau of Reclamation's
    Desalination Research and Development Program is to use the funding
    available primarily to support applied research projects from bench-
    scale to pilot-scale to demonstration.
        When determining whether or not desalination costs are competitive,
    desalination costs must compare favorably with fresh water costs. In
    the past, fresh water sources were much less expensive than
    desalination. But today, in many cases, there are no good alternatives.
    Fresh water sources are in many cases over-allocated. Desalination
    could provide an opportunity to increase the total water supply by
    purifying impaired waters.
        Question. What are the key issues that must be addressed?
        Answer. While the issues of membrane fouling and concentrate
    disposal have a high priority, other issues have also been identified
    by the Desalination Research and Development Program's constituents.
    They are:
      --development of membranes with increased resistance to chlorine,
      --development of ion- or component-specific membranes for reverse
            osmosis, electrodialysis or other membrane-based processes,
      --increased rates of mass transfer at membrane surfaces,
      --development of ``leak-proof'' recycling treatment technologies for
            potable reuse,
      --standardized membrane integrity tests,
      --improved predictive measurements for accurate modeling,
      --support and development of innovative processes,
      --evaluation of economic and environmental benefits of recovering the
            byproducts of desalting processes,
      --development of more energy efficient systems,
      --development of accurate cost models,
      --development of non-conventional concentrate disposal methods,
      --development of methods to cost-effectively recover by-products,
      --testing and demonstration to assist in the development of public
            health and environmental regulations,
      --development of tools and resources for planners and engineers.
        Question. How is the Desalination Program within the Bureau of
    Reclamation addressing the critical issues?
        Answer. The critical issues are addressed first through
    communication and planning with the potential users of the technology,
    e.g. utilities, water management agencies, regulators, equipment
    suppliers, associations, engineering firms, nonprofit research
    organizations, and the academic community. From the extensive
    suggestions of the potential users, research investigations, pilot
    plants, and demonstration projects are developed with priorities
    matched to a budget. The priority areas are advertised and contracted
    through a competitive process to qualified researchers. Upon completion
    of the work, it is disseminated through conferences, workshops,
    reports, patents, electronic media, and electronic files available from
    the Desalination Research and Development Program's website. On a
    regular basis, the Desalination Research and Development Program is
    reviewed by outside evaluators and the research is reprioritized.
        Question. Is there a research ``Road-map'' in place to focus
    available funding on the most critical issues?
        Answer. The Desalination Research and Development Program's
    research road-map is determined through the input of two committees,
    the Steering Committee and the Technical Review Committee. Both of
    these committees assist in the implementation of the research process.
    The Steering Committee is comprised of six non-Reclamation individuals
    from various desalination constituencies and is chaired by
    Reclamation's Director of Research. It is responsible for assisting in
    developing the strategic plan and vision, recognizing unexplored
    opportunities and assuring the Desalination Research and Development
    Program meets the intent of Congress. The Technical Review Committee is
    made up of five highly qualified experts from outside of Reclamation.
    They make recommendations concerning the research goals and objectives,
    as well as assisting in the development of research priorities, or
    road-map. The committees are new for fiscal year 2000. We will have the
    first Steering Committee meeting April 10, 2000.
        The current road-map concentrates funding into five emphasis areas.
    They were established through extensive input from seven workshops with
    constituents held between 1989 and 1997. The five emphasis areas are
    membranes, especially fouling issues, and increased efficiencies;
    concentrate disposal for inland and coastal plants; innovative
    concepts, especially reduced costs for small systems; demonstration,
    especially for broad regulatory approval and for testing of laboratory/
    pilot successes; and technology transfer. Currently, Reclamation is
    partnered with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
    (AWWARF) to bring together in July representatives of the membrane
    industry, academia, design engineering companies, utilities, and
    regulatory agencies in order to develop a detailed, prioritized list of
    projects for desalting and water filtration membranes. This list will
    guide the Desalination Research and Development Program in desalting
    membrane research and guide AWWARF investments in water filtration
    membrane research.
        Question. Could you give the Committee an idea of the comparative
    costs between desalinated water and the next lowest alternative?
        Answer. Costs for various alternative water supplies vary widely
    site-to-site. This is difficult to provide an across the board
    response. The next lowest cost alternative to desalination may be
    conservation, reallocation of existing resources, or water reuse. Last
    year, San Diego, California, estimated costs for their limited options
    to increase water supply as: water transfer costs of $0.84-$1.33 per
    1000 gallons, marine transport costs of $1.58 per 1000 gallons,
    reclaimed water for industry of $2.22 per 1000 gallons. These options
    are all available on a limited scale, whereas some form of desalination
    is available on a more widespread basis. A general rule of thumb is
    that brackish water desalination costs about $1 per 1000 gallons and
    seawater desalination costs between $3 and $4 per 1000 gallons.
        Question. Are there any unusual factors in the Tampa, Florida
    desalination project that would skew comparisons with that project?
        Answer. The Tampa Bay Project will produce water for approximately
    $2.08 per thousand gallons. The unusual factor in this project is its
    low cost. Factors in the project that affect the water production cost
    include sharing infrastructure with the adjacent power plant, a
    favorable electric power cost, feed water warmed by a few degrees, and
    a feed salinity about 80 percent of that of normal seawater. These
    factors would tend to skew comparisons with other facilities.
        Question. Under what conditions do you see desalination being
    feasible for a rural community or small town in an interior location?
        Answer. Desalination is used in a number of small communities in
    the interior, like Buckeye, Arizona, and Las Animas, Colorado, which
    had no alternative but to desalinate locally available brackish waters.
    The primary condition that leads to this is the lack of a good water
    supplies nearby. Decreased desalination costs will make good quality
    water available for many more such communities.
        Question. Why does the budget justification material separate out
    the Desalination R&D activities from Advanced Water Treatment
    Desalination?
        Answer. The two programs were separated because they represent the
    needs of two different constituencies. It became apparent during an
    external program Peer Review in 1998, that the Desalination Research
    and Development Program was national in scope and should not be used
    primarily to support research within the agency. The Advanced Water
    Treatment Program is comprised of research and technology development
    to specifically address Reclamation's water treatment needs such as
    rural and Native American water treatment, treatment of irrigation
    returns, treatment of impaired waters, salinity control through
    treatment, water reuse, and increasing water supplies with treatment
    technologies.
        Question. How are these two programs different?
        Answer. The Desalination Research and Development Program is
    authorized by the Desalination Act of 1996 and focuses on water
    purification and technology development. The Secretary of the Interior
    is designated as the responsible official in this Act, and Reclamation
    serves as his steward for implementing this national program. The
    Desalination Research and Development Program serves as a catalyst in
    accelerating the reduction in cost of desalination technologies through
    cost-shared, competitive, cooperative agreements. The Advanced Water
    Treatment Program focuses on Reclamation's needs, using Reclamation's
    researchers to develop and apply new water treatment technologies that
    benefit Reclamation projects. The program may use desalination
    technologies created by the Desalination Research and Development
    Program. The Advanced Water Treatment Program is carried out under
    Reclamation's Science and Technology Program using Reclamation's
    general research authority. Water treatment is undergoing a
    technological revolution, which is being driven by more stringent
    drinking water and environmental regulations and an increased need for
    water. Reclamation must meet these regulations and work to develop
    additional supplies of water.
        Question. Why isn't there a greater non-Federal contribution to
    this research effort?
        Answer. The Desalination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-298, requires
    that the Federal cost share not exceed 50 percent. Further, it provides
    that a Federal contribution in excess of 25 percent may not be made
    unless the project is determined to not be feasible without such
    increased Federal contribution. Up to $1,000,000 in each fiscal year
    may be awarded to universities without any cost-sharing requirement. In
    our Desalination Research and Development Program, the non-Federal
    contribution from non-academic institutions has varied from 50 percent
    to 90 percent. While academic institutions are not required to cost
    share, their cost share has ranged up to 70 percent.
        Currently, the majority of contracts have been with more than 16
    universities including New Mexico State University, University of
    Nevada, Montana State University, University of Texas at El Paso,
    Arizona State University, University of Illinois, and University of
    Colorado. The Federal funding helps to motivate the best and brightest
    of the faculty and students to chose to study desalination issues. In
    the majority of cases, the universities match the Federal funding with
    in-kind contributions such as use of specialized equipment, facilities,
    and faculty time.
        Generally, the private sector does not fully invest in desalination
    research because many other areas in their businesses return higher
    short-term profits. However, we have found that Federal funds attract
    corporate researchers, and help to justify essential desalination
    research that may not have an immediate return on their investment.
        Question. Would you support increasing the non-Federal cost sharing
    in this program?
        Answer. Yes, we would support increasing the non-Federal cost
    sharing in this program.

                                    DROUGHT

        Question. What is the current drought situation in the West?
        Answer. Currently Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, southern California,
    and Hawaii are experiencing drought conditions, with emergency
    declarations in-place or expected in the near future.
        Question. Has it changed appreciably over the past year?
        Answer. Many areas in the southwest are in much worse condition
    than the previous year due to the previous year's drought conditions,
    coupled with almost no snowpack or run-off expected in large areas of
    the southwest this year.
        Question. Has the Bureau of Reclamation encountered any problems in
    using the funding provided by the Congress for drought emergency
    assistance?
        Answer. The Solicitor's Office has informed us that Public Law 102-
    250 does not authorize financial assistance to cooperating entities for
    development of drought plans.
        Question. Can you detail for the Committee how the additional $2.5
    million appropriated over the budget request for fiscal year 2000 has
    been used to date?
        Answer. The table below indicates the use of the funding available
    fiscal year 2000.

    Carryover.....................................................  $100,000
    Fiscal year 2000 Appropriation................................ 3,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Beginning Fiscal Year 2000 Allocation................... 3,100,000
    Underfinancing................................................  -250,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................ 2,850,000
    Program Administration Costs..................................  -100,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................ 2,750,000
    National Drought Mitigation Center, Drought Planning Technical
        Assistance to the State of Arizona........................   -40,000
    Navajo Nation for Drought Plan................................   -75,000
    Hualapai Nation for Drought Plan..............................   -50,000
    Budgeted for Drought workshop in GP Region....................   -50,000
    Technical Assistance to the State of Hawaii for drought
        planning..................................................   -75,000
    Funding stakeholder education and public outreach efforts
        through Western Governor's Association....................   -10,000
    Drought Response Fund Study (Public Law 102-250, Section 205).  -100,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Unallocated Balance..................................... 2,350,000

        Question. Do you expect carryover funds into 2001?
        Answer. Requests are expected to exceed available funding,
    therefore we anticipate little or no carryover.
        While there is currently an unallocated balance, inquiries for
    assistance have been received, and we anticipate receipt of formal
    requests for both emergency and planning assistance in the very near
    future. Requests are currently in the development phase at the area
    office level.
        Question. Is the $500,000 requested for 2001 plus any expected
    carryover sufficient to meet your expected needs for 2001?
        Answer. As a result of activities related to the National Drought
    Policy Commission, we anticipate that the number of requests for
    drought-related assistance could increase due to increased awareness
    and conditions that currently exist or are being forecast; therefore,
    our fiscal year 2001 request may well not be sufficient to meet all
    requests for funding.
        Question. Could you explain what emergency authorities are
    available to the Bureau of Reclamation to help mitigate the impacts of
    drought?
        Answer. Emergency drought assistance is provided through Public Law
    102-250, Title I.
        Question. The committee has had to extend authority under the
    Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act on several occasions.
    Has the bureau given thought to proposing legislation to give
    Reclamation permanent emergency drought authority?
        Answer. The National Drought Policy Commission is currently in the
    final stages of preparing its report to Congress and to the President.
    As part of its analysis and recommendations, the Commission is
    considering the need for legislation to support its proposed National
    Drought Policy report. We are examining the need for permanent
    authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation drought-related efforts
    within this context.

                                    CARLSBAD

        Question. The budget request includes $2.1 million for Fish and
    Wildlife Management and Development activities. Most of the increase
    over the last year's request is to obtain additional supplemental
    water. Why is this additional water needed?
        Answer. Water is needed to offset Pecos River depletions.
    Depletions occur when water is bypassed through Sumner Dam to benefit
    the threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner. In past years, water would have
    been stored at Sumner Dam or released in such a manner as to incur
    fewer depletions. However, these operations had negative impacts on the
    threatened fish.
        Question. How much additional supplemental water do you expect you
    will need in fiscal year 2000 to meet the endangered species
    requirements?
        Answer. The amount of water needed is dependent on the hydrology
    and weather conditions. It depends on how much we need to bypass at
    Sumner Dam for the shiner and how much of that water needs to be offset
    through Reclamation's water acquisition program. We may need as much as
    an additional 6,000 acre-feet.
        Question. How have you obtained any additional water in fiscal year
    2000?
        Answer. We have leased 2000 acre-feet for fiscal year 2000 from
    Pecos River pumpers who have non-project water rights. These farmers
    have agreed to fallow the land. We are continuing our efforts to look
    at other options and sources to offset depletions.
        Question. Have there been and do you expect any adverse impacts
    resulting from this diversion of this water for support of endangered
    species?
        Answer. The operations in question do not involve diversion of
    water for endangered species in the Pecos River. Rather, operations of
    Sumner Dam have been changed to either bypass natural inflow to assist
    meeting flow recommendations or alter storage release regimes to
    minimize impacts to the fish. These operations may increase water
    depletions over the more than 150 river miles between Sumner Dam and
    the Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID). Reclamation has committed to a
    program of water leasing and acquisition that will attempt to offset
    those increased depletions to CID. The adverse impacts of not being
    able to provide sufficient additional water could include non-
    compliance with ESA standards, increased vulnerability to lawsuits for
    non-compliance, and payment to the State of New Mexico of $106 for each
    acre-foot of depleted water not offset as required. This latter measure
    is required by our cooperative agreement with the State of New Mexico
    Interstate Stream Commission.
        Question. Can you give the Committee some idea of the estimated
    total cost and length of time it will take to fulfill the requirements
    of the Biological Opinion on the Pecos River?
        Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service requested that target flows
    not fall below a certain level. The amount of water needed varies from
    year to year with the hydrologic conditions. We will need to supply
    supplemental water as long as fish need it. We cannot estimate time or
    cost because of dependence on available water. However, Reclamation,
    CID, and the State of New Mexico are working jointly to mesh river
    operations, Biological Opinion requirements, Pecos River Compact
    delivery obligations, New Mexico State Engineer water rights
    administration and other pertinent requirements.

               ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

        Question. Mr. Commissioner, can you explain to the Committee your
    legal obligations to comply with Biological Opinions issued by the Fish
    and Wildlife Service?
        Answer. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires each
    Federal agency to assure that any action it authorizes, funds, or
    carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
    listed species. To do so, agencies consult with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service or with the Commerce Department's National Marine Fisheries
    agency, as appropriate on any action which may affect endangered
    species. If the Service determines the action is likely to jeopardize
    the continued existence of the species, the Service recommends
    reasonable and prudent alternative to the original action. Reclamation
    generally works cooperatively with the Services to develop an
    acceptable reasonable and prudent alternative and then accepts and
    implements each Biological Opinion. The consequence for not accepting
    it could be jeopardy to the species and potential litigation.
        Question. Does the Bureau of Reclamation ever put forth a
    definitive recovery plan with firm costs and schedules for
    implementation?
        Answer. Technically, the Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible
    for development of Recovery Plans for a particular species. The Fish
    and Wildlife Service will nominate and approve experts to serve on a
    ``Recovery Team''. This team may be represented by various private,
    state, and Federal agency technical members. The Recovery Team develops
    a Recovery Plan for the specific endangered species. In some cases,
    portions of a Recovery Plan may be adopted as part of Reasonable and
    Prudent Alternatives for various proposed Reclamation actions.
        The key issue is that a Recovery Plan is developed by a Recovery
    Team established by the Fish and Wildlife Service, not by Reclamation
    alone. Reclamation does, on an annual basis, establish funding and
    schedule estimates to implement Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives and
    in some cases those Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives involve
    elements of a ``Recovery Plan''. Eventually such a ``Plan'' will be
    accomplished and the species will be recovered. Each Reclamation
    project or program with a biological opinion updates the costs
    associated with the opinion, at least annually, while preparing the
    budget for that project or program.
        Question. I understand that legislation has been proposed that
    would require non-Federal cost sharing for capital improvements related
    to endangered species recovery activities in the Upper Colorado and San
    Juan River Basins. What is the Administration's position on this
    legislation?
        Answer. The Department testified in support of H.R. 2348, the House
    version of this legislation last October, with amendments to address
    some concerns. The Administration believes the legislation is critical
    to the continued recovery of the four species of endangered fish and to
    future successful water management for multiple uses.
        Question. What are your concerns, if any?
        Answer. During its testimony, the Department noted concerns about
    two aspects of the bill. The first was that Section 3(e) ``Authority to
    Retain Appropriated Funds,'' is not only unnecessary, but may also
    unduly restrict Reclamation's ability to manage its program. In
    addition, the Administration has policy and PAYGO concerns with
    allowing power revenues to be used to both write-off debt to the
    Treasury and at the same time be redirected to fund new investments.
    The Department would like to work with the Congress to address these
    concerns, so that the legislation might be enacted.
        Question. Do you support the idea that non-Federal interests should
    bear a greater portion of these fish and wildlife costs?
        Answer. Reclamation is very supportive of all program participants
    providing financial and other support to the program roughly
    proportionate to the benefits they receive.
        Question. What is the position of the affected States on increased
    cost sharing?
        Answer. Recognizing the program is best accomplished cooperatively,
    the states developed and support the cost share formula proposed in the
    legislation.

                               MIDDLE RIO GRANDE

        Question. The budget request for Fish and Wildlife Management and
    Development on the Middle Rio Grande Project increases by 56 percent
    over fiscal year 2000 request. Mr. Commissioner, the Bureau of
    Reclamation continues to spend increasing amounts of money on studies,
    coordination, data collection and computer models.
        Is there a plan for the recovery of the Rio Grande silvery minnow?
        Answer. Yes, the official recovery plan was issued by the Fish and
    Wildlife Service in July 1999. Reclamation is an active participant in
    recovery efforts, including development of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
        Question. When do you expect to finalize a plan, and what do you
    expect it to cost?
        Answer. The final recovery plan was issued in July 1999. The
    estimated cost of the plan is $6,950,000 over a five year period.
        Question. How much additional water do you expect will be needed to
    support the recovery plan?
        Answer. Depending on actual water supply and weather conditions an
    additional 50,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of water could be needed each
    year.
        Question. How much additional water do you expect will be needed in
    fiscal year 2000 to support the recovery plan?
        Answer. We anticipate that over 50,000 acre-feet will be needed in
    fiscal year 2000.
        Question. How and from whom will this water be obtained?
        Answer. We have obtained 38,000 acre-feet from current contractors
    of San-Juan Chama Project water. The remaining water will have to be
    found from undefined sources.
        Question. Do you have an agreement with the State of New Mexico
    regarding the additional water for fiscal year 2000 and any additional
    needs for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The Bureau has discussed with the State of New Mexico and
    others the additional amount of water that might be required in fiscal
    year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 to support the recovery plan, but we do
    not have a formal agreement with the State.

                                   RIO GRANDE

        Question. I note that funding is being requested to initiate
    ``clean water activities and silt research'' studies on the Rio Grande
    Project. Why is this work required and what is the estimated cost and
    schedule for completion for this work?
        Answer. Water quality activities including research efforts at
    Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs will begin in fiscal year 2001.
    The funding requested for fiscal year 2001 for these efforts is
    $85,000. The total estimated cost and schedule for the efforts are not
    available until current investigations are completed.
        Question. What is the current status of the adjudication of water
    rights in New Mexico and Texas?
        Answer. There are three distinct legal cases involved with Rio
    Grande Project water rights. The New Mexico State Court continues its
    hydrology committee activities and issuance of the year 2000 hearing
    schedule. In the quiet title case the United States District Court on
    November 30, 1999, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order staying
    mediation and allowing the litigation of this matter to proceed. The
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission continues to be on hold
    with its administrative hearings pending outcome of the other two
    cases.
        Question. Has there been any movement or progress over the past
    year?
        Answer. Yes, the United States team views the progress made with
    the majority of the parties during mediation in the quiet title case as
    significant.
        Question. Why has the development and use of the Upper Rio Grande
    Water Operations model been delayed an additional 2 years?
        Answer. With the increasing demand for water among competing uses,
    it has become necessary to develop more sophisticated methodologies
    related to water accounting. A draft operations model is currently
    being used for the Annual Operating Plan and will be tested side by
    side with existing accounting methods i.e., manual data input to
    spreadsheets, etc. As more is learned about the hydrologic
    characteristics of the Rio Grande Basin, the Upper Rio Grande Water
    Operations Model, referred to as URGWOM, has continued to evolve to
    take full advantage of the additional data. Efforts to incorporate the
    emerging legislative constraints into the URGWOM have led to the
    development of more sophisticated methodologies which will enable
    URGWOM end users to make more informed and better decisions in a more
    timely manner.
        Question. Is your work funding constrained, and if so, what is your
    funding capability for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. We have received adequate funding in the past, but we have
    a capability in fiscal year 2001 of an additional $300,000 to
    accelerate continuation of collaborative efforts with other agencies
    and stakeholders, model refinements as deemed necessary, and continue
    work on database development, end user support, model implementation,
    testing and calibration, and ongoing data collection efforts for the
    URGWOM.
        Question. How important is this operational model to the water
    quantity and quality studies of the Bureau of Reclamation?
        Answer. The URGWOM is becoming increasingly essential to the daily
    water operations because of the enlargement of the number of involved
    and vested parties, the amount of data, the complexities of the issues,
    and the demand for water . The ability to analyze and respond quickly
    to competing demands for water requires analysis tools like the URGWOM.
    As more data is made available that affects water supply within the
    basin, the URGWOM will play an even more important role with its
    ability to analyze this data and allow decisions makers to more quickly
    assess the impacts of operational decisions and respond accordingly.

                            TAOS WATER SUPPLY STUDY

        Question. What is the current status of the Taos Water Supply
    Study?
        Answer. Environmental compliance and negotiations among the main
    parties on how to spend the money have been completed as well as
    putting the cooperative agreements in place. Drilling of one of seven
    wells for the city has been completed. Additional work on some of the
    non-drilling components of the project, such as water planning,
    budgeting and prototype projects, is in progress.
        Question. When will this work be completed?
        Answer. The additional wells and the non-drilling components should
    be completed by the end of this calendar year.
        Question. Have there been any delays in the completion schedule
    since last year? If so, please explain.
        Answer. Upon initial receipt of funds, no firm completion schedule
    was established. We had hoped for perhaps a May 2000 completion. The
    time needed for environmental compliance and agreement among all
    parties delayed the initial contract award. There have been no drilling
    delays other than the expected shut down for the winter months. We now
    anticipate completion by December 2000.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Domenici. We stand in recess until March 28th when
    we will have the DOE testify on defense programs.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Tuesday, March 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, Craig, and Reid.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    National Nuclear Security Administration

    STATEMENTS OF:
            GEN. THOMAS F. GIOCONDA, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENSE
                PROGRAMS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MILITARY
                APPLICATIONS
            ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ATOMIC ENERGY
                DEFENSE AND NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
            ADM. FRANK L. BOWMAN, DIRECTOR, NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION
                PROGRAM
            GEN. EUGENE E. HABIGER, DIRECTOR, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY
                OPERATIONS

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. The hearing will come to order. I
    understand everybody is busy, so I guess our goal ought to be
    to expedite things this morning.
        This is a very, very important set of witnesses, and I have
    a few opening remarks. We will then proceed as quickly as we
    can and, if any one has any remarks after I am finished we will
    hear them.
        The subcommittee is going to consider the fiscal year 2001
    budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration
    [NNSA] covering defense programs, nonproliferation, and naval
    reactor programs this morning. This is the first appearance of
    the new NNSA before this committee, and I am very pleased to
    have you here. Combined, these programs account for $6.2
    billion of the $18.1 billion requested for the Department from
    this subcommittee and representing the core of its national
    security functions of the Department of Energy. The request
    represents an increase of $224 million over comparable levels
    last year, a 3.7 percent increase from the current level.
        The defense and nonproliferation programs together are the
    backbone of our strategic nuclear deterrent, on the one hand
    reducing the threat to our Nation posed by other weapons of
    mass destruction and, on the other hand, maintaining our
    deterrence against the threat that remains.
        We are considering the programs together because they are
    interrelated. If, for example, in the coming decade we made
    rapid progress on the disposition of plutonium and uranium in
    Russia and our ability to verify our potential adversary's
    stockpile levels, we may be able to reduce our nuclear
    stockpile. Conversely, lack of progress in those areas will
    prevent us from pursuing stockpile reductions. At least, many
    people think that.

                  STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM--30-DAY REVIEW

        I would like to make an additional comment about the
    stockpile stewardship program before we proceed. During the
    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty debate last year there was
    testimony from committed and well-respected public servants
    that the science-based stockpile stewardship program was
    underfunded and under stress. Stress was a word that was used.
        Thereafter, Secretary Richardson ordered a comprehensive,
    internal 30-day review of stockpile stewardship. Frankly, I did
    not think 30 days and a review internally would produce
    anything very significant, but that is not for me to say. It
    turns out it did produce something rather significant, and
    there is no question that the review concluded that the
    stockpile stewardship program was on-track, but that,
    ``additional pressures such as increased security requirements,
    newly discovered stockpile issues, and resource limitations
    have collectively forced the program overall to be wound too
    tight,'' with ``too little program flexibility for
    contingencies.'' All of the last words I have cited are in
    quotes from that report.
        My review of the study leads me to the conclusion that we
    are not on schedule, given the current budget to develop the
    tools and technologies and stockpile base to refurbish our
    weapons and certify their safety and reliability for the
    stockpile. Further, a successful stewardship program requires
    qualified and motivated nuclear weapons experienced personnel,
    a very serious problem, well-noted in the 30-day review, an
    indication we had better do something about retaining the
    scientist we have and finding new ways to encourage others to
    the program.

                          INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

        Second, modern and well-maintained facilities, the special
    experimental and computational facilities needed for
    stewardship in the absence of testing and a sound management
    structure, each year we continue to lose to retirement our most
    experienced designers and most highly skilled technicians, and
    we all understand recruiting and retaining the next generation
    of nuclear weapons stewards has been made more difficult by
    resource constraints, fewer opportunities for exploratory
    research, and diminished morale from a perceived lack of
    confidence in nuclear weapons scientists. At least some of them
    pursue that.
        DOE has failed to keep good facilities. This report
    suggests that we had better do something about that. The 30-day
    review said we have a huge bow wave of deferred improvements.
    For example, 70 percent of the facilities at Y-12, 80 percent
    of the facilities at the Kansas City plant, 40 percent of the
    facilities at Pantex, and 40 percent of Savannah River's
    tritium facilities are more than 40 years old.
        The Department has experienced tremendous difficulty in
    constructing its special experimental computational facilities
    within budget and within schedule. The National Ignition
    Facility is only the most recent example.
        Now, I am delighted that we are going to spend time today
    exploring the needs and potential problems and issues facing
    the weapon complex. If we need you again we will call on you
    informally. We are going to hear from the Department of
    Energy's Office of Security and Emergency Operations, the Naval
    Nuclear Propulsion Program, and then we are going to go to our
    Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation. It is good to have you with us. And finally,
    General Habiger of the Department's Office of Security and
    Emergency Operations.
        I note the presence of our Ranking Member from Nevada,
    Senator Reid, and I started a bit late, for which I apologize.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

        Senator Reid. Boy, was I ever glad you were late, though. I
    know, Mr. Chairman, you have tremendous responsibilities,
    especially this time of year with the Budget Resolution that is
    due out any day now, and so I am going to summarize my
    statement and ask permission to place some of my questions and
    materials in the record.
        I have several concerns, most involving defense programs
    side of DOE. I had a recent discussion with Secretary
    Richardson about most of them, so I will not go into any great
    detail at this time. However, as we move forward with program
    funding for fiscal year 2001, I hope most of these issues can
    be resolved.

                           NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

        First and foremost, I am concerned about the NIF, the
    National Ignition Facility. This program is substantially
    behind and well over budget. I understand this subcommittee is
    likely to receive a new NIF cost and schedule baseline in the
    coming weeks for those of you new to Washington, a new baseline
    is code word for hundreds of millions of dollars additional
    cost. Needless to say, I am not comforted when I read sentences
    like the following in your testimony we have reviewed already:
        ``The NIF task force believes, however, that with
    appropriate corrective actions, a strong management team,
    additional funds, and extension of the schedule and recognition
    that NIF is at its core a research and development project, the
    NIF laser system can be completed.''
        NIF has been sold to this subcommittee as the cornerstone
    of this Nation's stockpile stewardship program, not as some
    long-term lab full employment program. I am pleased that there
    has been an offer in some of the testimony to work with
    Congress on this issue. Suffice it to say that I am going to
    take a great deal of convincing at this stage.
        To me, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the
    project is beginning to remind me of the Superconducting Super
    Collider and, as we all know, that project is dead now. I think
    that there is going to have to be some tremendous work done by
    a lot of people to keep this program going, because I do not
    think it would take a great deal on the Senate floor to kill
    this project, and I think--I only speak for myself. I am
    terribly disappointed how this subcommittee has been treated. I
    think we have been misled.

                       MEGASTRATEGY FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS

        Second of all, as you are aware, Senator Domenici--and I
    put language into last year's energy and water conference
    report that more or less codified the so-called megastrategy.
    Part of that strategy involved moving the Atlas pulse power
    facility from Los Alamos to the Nevada Test Site. This
    megastrategy I guess has collapsed, and I am not convinced that
    anything has yet filled that void.
        I would appreciate a detailed, written response outlining
    the direction the new Defense Programs is planning to take.
    None of this is to suggest that I have softened in my resolve
    to see Atlas moved. Quite the opposite. I thought it was the
    right thing to do last summer, and I still feel that way.
        [The information follows:]

                                  MEGASTRATEGY

        The term ``megastrategy'' or ``integrated strategy'' is an
    official, short-hand reference to a suite of long-term actions that
    have been under consideration by Defense Programs to achieve more
    effective mission and resource integration within the sites and
    programs supporting the Stockpile Stewardship Program. A broad outline
    of the concept was informally articulated in the summer, 1999. The
    strategy looked at several factors including various weapons complex
    capabilities, options to rebalance workload, elimination of duplication
    between sites, concentration of efforts in centers of excellence, and
    increased attention to needed investments in infrastructure in some
    areas.
        Consistent with direction from the Congress in the fiscal year 2000
    legislation withholding authority to fully implement the integrated
    strategy, several actions have been undertaken. The transfer of
    activities supporting the W80 weapon system from the Los Alamos
    National Laboratory (LANL) to the Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory is still under discussion both internally and with the
    Department of Defense. The consolidation of major hydrotesting
    capabilities at LANL is also being considered. A conceptual design for
    the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) facility
    at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque is underway, and it
    is proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget as a candidate project for
    preliminary design funding. The PEGASUS machine has been transferred
    from LANL to the University of Nevada. The Department has conducted
    further analysis of the ATLAS facility at LANL, and has concluded that
    its construction should be completed and the facility put in cold
    standby, pending clarification of its future role in the weapons
    research programs. Moving the facility to a location in Nevada is also
    under consideration as a potential option. Another aspect of the
    integrated strategy sought to focus increased attention on the
    infrastructure improvements needed at the production plants. A complex-
    wide study of recapitalization needs is now underway to couple it with
    the fiscal year 2002 budget formulation and beyond.

                      UTILIZATION OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE

        Senator Reid. My final thoughts today have to do with the
    decision-making process, how the decision-making process works
    within Defense Programs. It is increasingly difficult for the
    weapons labs to get permission to do risky experiments at their
    sites due to urban encroachments, public health and safety
    risks, threats to the environment. Nevertheless, by all
    accounts the labs continue to push for more and more test
    facilities of this sort. Ultimately, these will prevent
    continued operations at any place other than the Nevada Test
    Site.
        The test site is a place where these experiments and
    activities that cannot take place any place else should be
    conducted. That is why it is there. Unless the Nevada Test Site
    as utilized is maintained as a healthy and viable part of the
    stewardship program, the Federal Government will have to
    replicate these experimental facilities at great cost and even
    greater difficulty.
        This all seems simple enough to me. Do dangerous activities
    and experiments in a place where the danger to the public and
    environment is lowest and do what you need to do to maintain
    that place properly.
        My concern is that is not what is happening. DOE is doing
    the same things the same way they always do, despite dramatic
    changed conditions. So again, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate
    a detailed, written discussion of what the Department is doing
    to prepare for the day when it becomes impossible to perform
    the dangerous activities and experiments at the labs due to the
    encroachment that I have talked about.
        People raise the health, safety, and other concerns, and I
    have a lot of other things to talk about, but I would ask your
    permission to insert that in the record.
        [The information follows:]

                       URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LABORATORIES

        All Defense Programs facilities and activities, including those at
    the laboratories, can be safely conducted at their current locations
    for the foreseeable future. Hazards associated with all our facilities
    and activities have been analyzed to assess their potential impact on
    the public, workers, and the environment during both routine operations
    and in hypothetical accident scenarios. The physical location of
    hazards relative to the public is specifically considered in these
    analyses. These analyses are reviewed continuously to assure that
    changes in work, hazards or safety requirements are addressed. Safety
    features including engineered systems, procedures and other controls
    are in place to assure compliance with applicable public health and
    safety requirements.
        In the unlikely event that a safety requirement can not be met,
    operations are suspended and a review is conducted immediately to
    determine a path forward. Many options exist to restart operations,
    including redesigning the work, implementing new controls or moving the
    most hazardous portion to a better suited facility or more remote site
    such as the Nevada Test Site. The Nevada Test Site is being maintained
    not only as part of readiness to resume underground testing, if
    necessary, but to support the experimentation programs conducted at the
    site, including the subcritical experiments and the hydrotesting at the
    Big Explosives Experimental Facility, and work performed at the site
    for others such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

        Senator Domenici. You've got it.
        Senator Craig.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, my statement will come in the
    form of questions, so why don't we proceed with the testimony.
        Senator Domenici. Senator, I want to thank you for your
    interest. This is a very important subcommittee, and frequently
    nobody is around, and sometimes I need some people around.
    There are some tough decisions to be made this year, and so I
    need the counsel of Senators like you. I just cannot write this
    bill this year alone and in a vacuum. It is very, very
    difficult.
        Senator Craig. I appreciate you saying that. It is an
    important issue for me and for my State and for the Nation.
    That is why I am here.
        Senator Domenici. We will proceed now with you, General
    Gioconda. First of all, let me say you succeed a very
    exceptional person who actually is the father of stockpile
    stewardship, Vic Reis. I am sorry, in the last few months, that
    you and I have not been able to meet as often as I used to meet
    with Dr. Reis to talk about what we are doing. But from what I
    am hearing, you are working diligently and doing a good job.
        You have some prepared remarks. They will be made a part of
    the record. You may proceed as you wish in terms of your
    testimony, but even without a light up here, let's kind of
    shoot for no more than 10 minutes.
        General Gioconda. That is where I think I have it, if I do
    not linger.
        Senator Domenici. All right, proceed.

                        STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. GIOCONDA

        General Gioconda. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the subcommittee. I am pleased to report to you today that
    stockpile stewardship is working to ensure the continued safety
    and reliability of America's nuclear deterrent.
        Our nuclear deterrent remains the cornerstone of this
    Nation's defense. The highly trained men and women working in
    our production plants and weapons laboratories possess the
    critical nuclear weapons skills needed to support the
    stockpile. Your ongoing support for their stewardship program
    is absolutely essential for its continued success. If approved
    by Congress, our supplemental will also provide funds needed by
    the production sites to cover work load costs and stabilize our
    highly skilled workforce.

                      STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP--30-DAY STUDY

        Before I get into the details of the fiscal year 2001
    request, I would like to draw your attention to two
    developments impacting the stewardship program. First, as you
    stated, Mr. Chairman, at the Secretary's direction we undertook
    a comprehensive internal review of the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program last November. This detailed review was led by Under
    Secretary Dr. Moniz.
        I will not repeat your summary, Mr. Chairman, but this
    review concluded that the program was on track and developing
    the science, technology, and production capabilities needed to
    support the stockpile. Several of the findings will help us to
    shape future decisions that are needed in the program. In this
    effort, we must continue to prioritize investment schedules and
    resources.
        The program faces challenges, and there are 15 specific
    actions that emerged from the report's findings. We are
    aggressively working these action items to further strengthen
    the program. Key among these is the need for the DOE and the
    DOD to refine our process for determining the scheduling of
    stockpile refurbishments over the next several decades to take
    into consideration military, human, and budgetary needs. We are
    working with DOD right now to address this issue.

                            REVISED BUDGET STRUCTURE

        Second, we have a new business strategy for the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. We have transitioned from the old paradigm
    of design, test and produce to an environment of maintaining
    the safety, security, and reliability of our current weapons
    with advanced science and manufacturing techniques. We needed a
    new business strategy to support our new business approach. We
    feel this is a superior approach, as it provides more
    visibility into our program and, quite frankly, gives us a
    better means to integrate and balance the competing needs of
    the program.
        The major elements of this new approach are Directed
    Stockpile Work [DSW] that encompasses all activities that
    directly support the specific weapons in the stockpile, as
    directed by the nuclear weapons stockpile plan of the
    President. It covers all the activities to support the day-to-
    day needs of the stockpile. DSW work occurs across the entire
    weapons complex.
        Next, we have Campaigns, which are the technically
    challenging research and development programs designed to
    provide us with the critical science and engineering
    capabilities needed for the certification of the nuclear
    weapons stockpile over the long term. Campaigns have definitive
    milestones, work plans, and specific end dates. There are
    currently seven campaigns which are being conducted across the
    complex.
        Finally, infrastructure, which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
    Our facilities must be in a safe, secure, and reliable
    operating condition to support our work. This category also
    includes our new construction work, our transportation system
    for moving components and weapons safely and securely through
    the complex, and our Federal staffing that provides the
    oversight of the program.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST

        Let me talk a little about the fiscal year 2000
    supplemental that is before you. Our supplemental of $55
    million is targeted to the Y-12 plant in Tennessee, the Kansas
    City plant, and the Pantex plant in Texas. The funding, if
    approved, will allow us to meet increased work load
    requirements related to weapons refurbishment, upgrade the
    enriched uranium infrastructure at Y-12, and avoid lay-offs of
    critically skilled personnel at the three locations. These are
    unique assets that must be protected. The fiscal year 2001
    request is predicated on getting this important supplemental in
    fiscal year 2000.

                       ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

        I have some examples of the fine work done by Sandia
    National Labs to show you today. This safety device is a strong
    link switch designed by Sandia and manufactured by Kansas City.
    It is employed in a number of weapons in today's stockpile, and
    is designed to prevent detonation in the highly unlikely event
    that a weapon is involved in an accident. Almost 500 pieces
    make up this strong link switch.
        Sandia is examining advance technology----
        Senator Domenici. Would you repeat that one again? I'm very
    sorry.
        General Gioconda. Sir, this is a strong link switch, and it
    is designed by Sandia and is manufactured by Kansas City. It is
    employed in many of our weapons today, in today's stockpile,
    and it is designed to prevent detonation in the highly unlikely
    event that a weapon is involved in an accident, and in this
    little box is almost 500 pieces that make up the strong link to
    prevent a detonation. Sandia is examining advanced technologies
    to reduce the size and number of parts in the strong link.
        This smaller prototype will fit into detonators of existing
    weapons. Future strong links like this, using microsystem
    technology, decreases the size, and would enable our scientists
    and tech engineers to place these devices anywhere in the
    weapons system, further improving safety of the stockpile. This
    is what we are doing today, and this is what we can do in the
    future. These examples give you an idea of how the technology
    is advancing. This is but one example of the 6,000 parts that
    make up a nuclear weapon. These parts must be expertly managed,
    studied, and produced.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Our fiscal year 2001 overall budget request of $4.6 billion
    is about 6 percent greater than our fiscal year 2000
    appropriation. The major reasons for this increase are a
    significant fraction of the Nation's nuclear arsenal, the W-80
    and the W-76, are scheduled for refurbishment over the next
    decade. Work associated with these two weapons systems will
    constitute the majority of directed stockpile work. We must
    meet the schedules of these activities, including the
    development of scientific capabilities required to certify
    those weapons without testing.
        We are working with the DOD to identify and assess the
    final technical drivers and schedules for weapon component
    replacement or certifiable modifications. We are also making
    significant security improvements in our transportation system
    used to transport components, materials, and actual weapons
    within the complex. We are requesting a few new construction
    line items in the fiscal year 2001 budget also.
        The preliminary project design and engineering pilot
    program is a new initiative with about $15 million to fund
    preliminary design before setting the hard baseline in asking
    for construction approval, similar to what DOD does in design
    completion. Several candidate projects are proposed. We believe
    this will provide an improvement in our project management
    system.
        We also have three other new projects, one at Pantex, the
    Weapon Evaluation and Testing Laboratory; a new storage
    facility for highly enriched uranium at Oak Ridge Y-12; and a
    Distributive Information System at Sandia. In total, however,
    our construction request is down from 2000.

                           NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

        While I am on the topic of construction, let me say a word
    about the National Ignition Facility [NIF]. As many of you
    know, the project has encountered significant technical issues
    in assembling and in stalling the laser infrastructure. Let me
    emphasize that the problems with NIF are not scientific. A new
    baseline will be submitted to Congress by June 1, 2000 as
    required. The previous funding plan for NIF has been included
    in this budget, which reflects the majority of the decrease in
    construction.
        I would like to point out one last but important area of
    growth. Even though it only represents 1/10th of 1 percent of
    my budget, we are developing a plan that will focus on building
    and sustaining a talented, diverse workforce of Federal R&D
    technical managers, as recommended by the Chiles Commission
    plan.
        The plan will include innovative recruiting strategies,
    retention incentives, and comprehensive training and
    development programs of new and current employees. We also have
    included resources to reengineer our organization to place
    employees closer to where the work is accomplished and
    streamline some of our outmoded administrative functions.

                     STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Our 2001 budget request will allow us to build upon a
    significant list of accomplishments that you mentioned, Mr.
    Chairman, in the Stockpile Stewardship Program as compiled over
    the last several years. Let me just review a few others. First,
    and most important, we have completed three annual
    certifications and expect a fourth shortly. Secretary Cohen
    signed off on the certification letter last Wednesday, and
    Secretary Richardson now has the package for his review and
    signature and I believe he will complete it by the end of the
    week.
        Through the continuing success of the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program, we have been able to support the Secretary of Energy
    in joining with the Secretary of Defense in certifying that the
    nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable, and there is no
    requirement for underground testing at this time.

                   ACCELERATED STRATEGIC COMPUTING INITIATIVE

        Last month, we announced the first ever three-dimensional
    simulation of a nuclear weapon explosion using our ASCI Blue
    Pacific computer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. To get a
    sense of the complexity of this calculation, it took our Blue
    Pacific machine some 20 days to run the calculation. It would
    have taken an average desktop machine over 30 years to do the
    same. This is important, because as our weapons get older, the
    problems are expected to get harder, and we must have ready
    more sophisticated tools, and the people to allow our
    assessment of whether our weapons will continue to be safe,
    secure, and reliable. Our ASCI program is key to that
    requirement.

                                 PIT PRODUCTION

        As you may recall, we decided in 1996 to reestablish
    limited capability to produce plutonium pits at Los Alamos
    National Laboratory, which was necessary with the closure of
    Rocky Flats. We have now fabricated four development pits.
    While many other scientific and production steps are needed to
    verify the quality of the pits produced, this is a very
    positive sign. We plan to have a certifiable pit by 2001.
        The subcritical experiment program at the Nevada Test Site
    continues to provide important data for the stewardship program
    and maintain test readiness as directed by the President. Last
    week, the Nevada Test Site team successfully executed the
    Thoroughbred experiment. Data from this experiment will be used
    to compare the plutonium manufacturing process used at Rocky
    Flats with those being developed today at Los Alamos to make
    sure we are on the right track.
        The Department also plans to undertake a preconceptual
    study of a pit production facility during fiscal year 2001.
    This study will build on earlier work done by DOE. Based on our
    ongoing pit aging studies from our campaigns, we believe that
    we have at least a 15-year lead time for the construction of a
    pit manufacturing facility. Our overall course of action on pit
    manufacturing has been reviewed and approved by the Nuclear
    Weapons Council and will continue to be, since it's so
    essential.

                               TRITIUM PRODUCTION

        Our tritium program is making significant progress. We
    signed a 35-year, $1.5 billion agreement with the Tennessee
    Valley Authority for the irradiation of tritium iridium
    producing burnable, absorber rods. With this in place, we now
    have three reactors, Watts Bar and both Sequoyah units
    available for tritium production. We expect to break ground at
    the Savannah River site this summer for construction of the
    Tritium Extraction Facility. This facility will begin to
    deliver tritium gas to the stockpile by 2006.
        With the success of the commercial light water reactor
    program and other competing financial demands on other parts of
    Stockpile Stewardship, DOE has been forced to redefine the work
    associated with the Accelerator Production Tritium [APT]
    program. We will continue limited engineering development and
    demonstration activities at Los Alamos National Lab as well as
    work with other parts of DOE to develop a joint program for the
    many other uses of APT technology.
        We are also accomplishing our life extension requirement
    for the W87 involving principally Kansas City, Y-12, and
    Pantex, and have produced the first neutron generators at
    Sandia since the close of the Pinellas plant in the early
    nineties.

                               CONCLUDING REMARKS

        Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years the Stockpile
    Stewardship program has made significant scientific and
    technical advances, strides that many of our critics and even
    some of our supporters doubted we could achieve. These
    accomplishments increase our confidence that the men and women
    of the stewardship team will be able to meet the scientific and
    engineering challenges of stewardship in the decades to come.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        These challenges include: meeting the requirement for
    nuclear deterrence, our primary job; attracting and retaining a
    preeminent nuclear team as many people reach retirement age;
    certifying replacement pits; producing tritium; and
    implementing new security standards. Our ability to meet these
    and other challenges is dependant on your continued support and
    the support of this committee of our budget for this vital
    national security program and our aggressive Federal
    management.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEN. THOMAS F. GIOCONDA

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy (DOE)
    National Nuclear Security Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for Defense Programs' Stockpile Stewardship Program. This
    request of $4.594 billion represents a 6.3 percent increase over the
    comparable fiscal year 2000 level. Due to mission transfers out of the
    weapons activities account, this request is roughly comparable to a
    program level of about $4.7 billion, using previous year comparisons. A
    detailed summary of the fiscal year 2001 request for Defense Programs
    is included near the end of the statement.
        As part of the fiscal year 2001 budget process, the Administration
    is also requesting supplemental funding for fiscal year 2000 in the
    amount of $55 million to address shortfalls in production readiness at
    the Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 plants. Provision of this
    supplemental funding is essential to maintain employment levels and
    skills necessary to support important workloads in fiscal year 2000 and
    future years and we appreciate this subcommittee's support for our
    request.
        With your support, the program, to date, has achieved some major
    milestones as we move from underground nuclear test-based to science-
    based nuclear weapons assessment and certification. Most notably, we
    are about to certify, for the fourth consecutive year, that the safety,
    security and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile is
    assured without the need for underground nuclear yield testing at this
    time. This fourth annual certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile
    will be transmitted to the President by the Secretaries of Energy and
    Defense shortly. The people, tools, and technologies supported by this
    budget make this accomplishment possible.
        Our nuclear deterrent remains the foundation for U.S. national
    security. We believe that our accomplishments and the new budget and
    management structures we have put in place, along with your continued
    support, will maintain the success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
    in serving our supreme national interest.

                MAJOR CHANGES IN PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING

        The men and women of the Stockpile Stewardship Program continue to
    meet formidable challenges with ingenuity and innovation both in the
    way we do science and manufacturing, and in the way we organize the
    work we do. Without the critical work of our ``stockpile stewards'' at
    the labs, plants and in the federal structure--no program will succeed.
    Our people remain our number one resource that must be carefully
    attended now and into the future.
        During the past year, for the first time ever in the weapons
    program, we have organized our tasks according to a streamlined
    business model. Quite simply, in a world where competition for budget
    resources is intense, we need to be able to demonstrate clearly that we
    are taking every step to operate in a cost effective manner--we must
    use metric that both the folks inside and outside of the program can
    use to measure our progress.
        Our budget request is based on planned performance. It is the
    outcome of planning processes that focus our efforts on specific
    performance goals and strategies that flow from strategic planning. The
    cycle of planning, budgeting, program execution, and evaluation is the
    foundation of our program's accomplishments and our initiatives to
    improve management and accountability to the public.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget reflects a new budget structure, which
    is part of the implementation of the National Nuclear Security
    Administration. The structure emphasizes the integrated nature of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program, and is built upon three principal
    elements: Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns, and Readiness in
    Technical Base and Facilities. Overall, these changes reflect our
    vision for the future of the program and the nuclear weapons complex.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request is presented in the proposed
    budget and reporting structure. A more technical discussion of all
    aspects of the proposed budget structure change is included as an
    appendix to the Executive Budget Summary document. We are continuing to
    execute the fiscal year 2000 budget in the current ``old'' structure as
    it was appropriated; however, we are also collecting data unofficially
    in the new structure as a further check on the viability of the
    approach.
        Directed Stockpile Work encompasses all activities that directly
    support specific weapons in the nuclear stockpile as directed by the
    Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Plan. These activities include current
    maintenance and day-to-day care of the stockpile as well as planned
    refurbishments as outlined by the Stockpile Life Extension Program.
    Additionally, this category includes: research, development and
    certification activities in direct support of each weapon system; and
    long-term future-oriented research and development to solve either
    current or projected stockpile problems. These activities are conducted
    at the national laboratories, the Nevada Test Site (NTS), and
    production plants.
        Campaigns are focused scientific and technical efforts to develop
    and maintain critical capabilities needed to enable continued
    certification of the stockpile for the long-term. Campaigns are
    technically challenging, multi-function efforts that have definitive
    milestones, specific work plans, and specific end dates. The approach
    was initiated several years ago in the planning and executing the
    stewardship program. There are currently 17 planned campaigns. These
    activities are conducted at the laboratories, NTS, production plants,
    and other major research facilities such as the OMEGA laser at the
    University of Rochester and the NIKE laser at the Naval Research
    Laboratory.
        Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) provides the
    physical infrastructure and operational readiness required to conduct
    the Directed Stockpile Work and Campaign activities at the national
    laboratories, NTS and the plants. This includes ensuring that
    facilities are operational, safe, secure, compliant, and that a defined
    level of readiness is sustained at DP-funded facilities. For the
    production plants, all site overhead is also included in RTBF.
        The new structure proposal also includes separate decision units
    for Secure Transportation Asset (formerly Transportation Safeguards
    Division), Program Direction, and Construction.
        Another business practice introduced this year by Defense Programs
    was the establishment of a rigorous planning process that clearly lays
    out within each business line, firm programmatic milestones to be
    achieved within each element of Stockpile Stewardship. The complete
    program is now defined by a series of program plans that have a five-
    year planning horizon, each with an accompanying annual implementation
    plan. Five-year program plans describe the goals and objectives of
    program elements, and annual implementation plans provide detailed sets
    of milestones that allow for accurate program tracking and improved
    oversight.
        The rigorous planning that has been done is key to better
    management, improved focus and sustaining the laboratories as premier
    scientific and engineering institutions, as well as supporting balanced
    manufacturing activities necessary to maintain and modernize the
    stockpile.
        Within this business model structure, we have laid out an improved
    plan, weapon by weapon, part by part, that addresses the tasks required
    to maintain the stockpile over the next one, five, ten years and
    beyond. We have support for our program from the Department of Defense
    (DOD), and the Administration has committed to funding it.
        In addition, we have established an Office of Project Management
    Support to serve as the focal point for all critical construction
    decisions and performance reviews. It will conduct project readiness
    reviews and provide technical experts to assist line managers in
    project planning and execution. It will also serve as a single point of
    contact for construction policy and procedures, working with program
    offices and field elements to improve and standardize construction
    management within Defense Programs.
        A key element of the Stockpile Stewardship's continued success is
    an effective corporate level strategic planning process. We expect to
    transmit the fiscal year 2001 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP), also
    called ``The Green Book'' to the Congress shortly. In the development
    of the SSP, we rely heavily on the DOD, the National Security Council
    staff, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of
    Management and Budget, and other senior policy officials in the
    ``nuclear community'' to help ensure that we continue on the right
    track.

                                ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        In October 1999, Secretary Richardson ordered a review of the
    health and status of the nuclear weapons complex and of the status of
    recruitment, retention and training of top scientists and engineers
    needed to sustain Stockpile Stewardship. The principal finding of this
    internal Department of Energy review, led by Under Secretary Ernest
    Moniz, is that Stockpile Stewardship is on track; both in terms of
    specific science, surveillance, and production accomplishments and in
    terms of developing a program management structure that improves the
    certification process.
        Several of the findings of this review will help to shape future
    decisions in the program. We must continue to prioritize investments,
    schedules and resources. There are 15 specific actions that emerged
    from the report's findings. Key among them is the need for DOE and DOD
    to refine the process for determining the scheduling of stockpile
    refurbishments over the next several decades to take into consideration
    military, human, and budgetary needs. We are working with DOD to
    address this issue right now.
        Let me give you just a few examples of how Stockpile Stewardship is
    already working today:
      --In early February our Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
            announced the successful completion of the first-ever three-
            dimensional simulation of a nuclear weapon ``primary''
            detonation using the IBM Blue Pacific supercomputer at DOE's
            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. On the supercomputer,
            this calculation ran for more than 20 days. A desktop computer
            would have taken 30 years to accomplish the task. Modern
            nuclear weapons consist of two main components: the
            ``primary,'' or trigger, and the ``secondary'' which produces
            most of the energy of a nuclear weapon. The ability to ``see
            and understand'' the action of the primary is a critically
            important step in simulating the entire weapon detonation in
            three dimensions.
      --Subcritical experiments are being conducted at the Nevada Test Site
            to understand aspects of weapons physics and the aging
            properties of plutonium to help: assess the stockpile, qualify
            the pit production facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory;
            and subsequently, certify our pit manufacturing. The
            subcritical experimental program also helps to ensure nuclear
            test readiness as directed by the President with the current
            underground test moratorium.
          Three subcritical experiments were conducted in fiscal year 1999.
            We successfully conducted the first fiscal year 2000
            subcritical experiment on November 9, 1999. It was one of the
            Oboe series of experiments that are conducted in vessels in the
            same underground alcove. These experiments are somewhat simpler
            than the typical ``full-size'' subcritical experiment. Since
            that time, we have conducted two more experiments in the Oboe
            series to study technical issues.
          We plan to conduct four additional Oboe experiments this fiscal
            year, as well as one full-sized subcritical experiment,
            Thoroughbred, to measure early time dynamic behavior of special
            nuclear material. In fiscal year 2001, we tentatively plan to
            conduct one full-size subcritical experiment and several
            smaller experiments similar to the Oboe series.
      --In November 1999, the first successful hydrodynamic test at the
            Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test facility provided a
            freeze-frame photo of materials imploding at speeds of more
            than 10,000 miles an hour; allowing scientists to study solids
            and metals as they flow like liquids, thus, becoming
            hydrodynamic when driven by the detonation of high explosives.
      --On January 27, 2000, tests that are key to certification of the W76
            Acorn gas transfer system were conducted in the Annular Core
            Research Reactor at Sandia National Laboratories--five days
            ahead of our earliest goal. The reactor and all diagnostics and
            data gathering equipment operated as desired. Initial
            evaluation of the required data that was obtained from the
            tests indicate good results for Acorn certification to the
            stockpile.
      --On August 12, 1999, the first lot of 24 War Reserve, W76 neutron
            generators were placed in inventory by Sandia National
            Laboratories (SNL), thus demonstrating the capability lost when
            our Pinellas plant was closed in 1994. Neutron generators are
            limited life components that help to initiate a fission
            reaction. SNL is more than doubling neutron generator
            production capacity to reflect a request by the DOD to produce
            enough neutron generators to support both the active and
            inactive stockpiles. Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
            simulations have enabled the certification of the W76 neutron
            generator as the first radiation hardened component certified
            without underground testing.
      --The Kansas City plant has successfully begun production of tritium
            reservoirs and is meeting new production requirements for the
            W76, W80 and W88 warheads parts inventories.
      --The Y-12 Plant has resumed uranium processing operations in four of
            five major mission areas and in portions of the fifth. We are
            currently working on plans for the difficult resumption of
            enriched uranium recycle and recovery operations.
      --We have signed a 35-year, $1.5 billion agreement with the Tennessee
            Valley Authority (TVA) for irradiation of tritium producing
            burnable absorber rods beginning in the Fall of 2003 at TVA's
            Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors.
          A contract for the assembly of the first 6,000 Tritium Producing
            Burnable Absorber Rods and follow-up fabrication work is
            expected to be awarded in the next few months. Site preparation
            and detailed design of a Tritium Extraction Facility are
            underway at the Savannah River Site. To date, we have made up
            three months of the fiscal year 1999, 12 month congressionally-
            mandated moratorium on construction of the facility. The
            facility is scheduled to begin delivering tritium gas to the
            stockpile in February 2006.
      --In fiscal year 1998, Los Alamos National Laboratory fabricated
            development pits for the W88, demonstrating a capability that
            DOE has not had since the closure of the Rocky Flats Plant in
            1989. We expect to produce the first pit qualified for
            stockpile use in 2001. By fiscal year 2007, a limited
            capability to manufacture replacement pits for the units
            destructively evaluated during surveillance activities will be
            available.
      --DOE has dismantled almost 12,000 weapons since 1990. Disassembly of
            the W69 was finished at Pantex in fiscal year 1999. DOE plans
            to finish disassembling the current backlog of retired weapons
            by the end of fiscal year 2005.
      --The Secure Transportation Asset (STA) has met all direct stockpile
            maintenance shipment schedules, which currently average 1,000
            weapon and 4,000 Limited Life Component shipments per year. A
            further demand on STA is the need to ship an annual average of
            3,000 containers of fissionable materials from DOE sites
            scheduled for closure to other DOE and customer sites for
            disposal or remanufacture into fuel elements for nuclear
            reactors. Overall, STA has transported sensitive cargo more
            than one hundred million miles since 1975 without compromise of
            its security or release of radiation.
          We have continued upgrades of the STA fleet with new safeguard
            transporters, secure communication upgrades, and new tractor
            replacements. Additional security enhancements have been
            directed in response to security guidance and recent analyses
            which will accelerate these upgrades and require more intensive
            agent training and recruitment of additional federal agents. We
            have included increased funding for this in fiscal year 2001.
        The Stockpile Stewardship Program has already been able to solve
    some problems that in the past would most likely have required a
    nuclear test to resolve. We expect our ability to solve problems
    without testing to be greater as new tools and expertise come on-line.
    Keep in mind that it has been nearly 11 years since we have
    manufactured a new nuclear weapon and over seven years since the last
    underground nuclear test, yet our confidence in the safety, security
    and reliability of the current stockpile remains strong. Nuclear
    deterrence for our nation demands no less!

                                   THE PEOPLE

        At the heart of Stockpile Stewardship is the people who make it
    work. The Chiles Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons
    Expertise offered 12 specific recommendations for action under four
    broad categories: national commitment, program management, personnel
    policies, and oversight. A key driver in the time frames within which
    we have been planning and executing the program has been the fact that
    scientists and engineers with nuclear test experience are nearing
    retirement age and will be leaving the program in large numbers over
    the next decade. To transfer the knowledge they have to a new
    generation is vital so that the role of testing in the process of
    maintaining our stockpile is well understood in all its dimensions. To
    make that crucial transition properly we must retain experienced test
    workers while we recruit and train new workers.
        In addition, we are attempting to make that transition in a booming
    economy where technical expertise is highly recruited and rewarded by
    the private sector. The skill mix at the laboratories will shift away
    from nuclear test-based expertise toward a more science-based expertise
    for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile. At the production
    plants, there will be more emphasis on computer and network-based
    design tools and advanced manufacturing techniques. These changes in
    skill mix are major recruiting and retention challenges facing us right
    now.
        There are fewer opportunities to conduct exploratory research at
    the laboratories due to limits on Laboratory Directed Research and
    Development (LDRD), which has been a key source of new talent and
    training at the laboratories. A pay freeze implemented in the early
    1990s has resulted in loss of market position for the salaries of
    scientists and engineers, especially in highly competitive areas such
    as information science and technology. Increased security requirements
    may also affect recruitment and retention. Such factors make it more
    difficult to recruit and retain top scientific talent for Stockpile
    Stewardship.
        Defense Programs is addressing many of these and others issues
    through actions to implement the Chiles Commission recommendations.
    Among them is the request for supplemental fiscal year 2000 funding to
    avoid further layoffs at the plants and to maintain critical skills
    which you have favorably considered. The fiscal year 2001 request also
    provides stability in plant funding with some flexibility to address
    skill mix concerns. For the nuclear weapons labs, the fiscal year 2001
    request maintains our commitment to balance the pace and scope of
    security requirements implementation with preservation of the research
    environment. To that end, a restoration of LDRD funding to six percent
    for fiscal year 2001 has been requested. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    also provides for stability in employment and increases in support for
    the varied work of science-based stewardship at the labs.

                        HOW STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP WORKS

        Let me briefly summarize the Stockpile Stewardship process and the
    challenges it now faces before I go into a more detailed discussion of
    program elements. Each year, eleven samples of each type of weapon are
    returned from the active force and are disassembled, examined, tested,
    and analyzed for defects. If defects are found, their effect on
    reliability and safety is assessed. Some parts, like neutron generators
    and gas reservoirs, require replacement at regular intervals, as
    limited life components. Other parts of a nuclear weapon are made from
    radioactive materials which decay; and as they decay, both their own
    properties and the properties of other materials within the weapon may
    change.
        Remanufacturing replacement parts for our nuclear weapons sounds
    simple enough, but since the time that many of the current weapons in
    the stockpile were originally manufactured, some of our production
    plants have been closed and manufacturing processes, techniques and
    standards have changed. We must adhere to more stringent health and
    safety standards, and are more concerned about the proper handling and
    storage of nuclear waste materials. Today, replacement parts require
    even tighter production controls than the extraordinarily rigid
    standards under which the original parts were designed and
    manufactured. A nuclear weapon, less than the size of a small desk, has
    enough explosive power to completely destroy a modern city, and yet it
    must be able to survive extraordinary accidents with less than a one-
    in-a-million chance of exploding. Industrial materials advancements and
    new manufacturing processes make it difficult, if not impossible, to
    get exact replacement parts. Yet, we in the nuclear weapons program,
    must produce replacement parts using modern material and processes that
    will still maintain the safety and reliability of our weapons while
    certifying their safety, security and reliability without underground
    nuclear testing.
        As our stockpile weapons continue to age, we expect more parts to
    require replacement. Because new warheads have not been produced since
    1988, we are not replacing old weapons with new ones. In about ten
    years, most of our weapons designers with nuclear testing experience
    will have retired. This means that when our newest system, the W88,
    reaches the end of its original design life in 2014, we may no longer
    have anyone with the test-based job experience to help us evaluate
    modifications that may be required due to aging at that time.
    Successfully dealing with this time factor is critical to the success
    of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
        Instead of an underground nuclear test, we can conceptually divide
    the explosion sequence into each of its parts, then test and analyze
    each of these separately. We plan to put all the data together into a
    computer calculation--a simulation--to see if the resulting performance
    is within its original specification. Each part of the simulation must
    predict the results of each of the separate tests, and where they
    exist, the results must be consistent with archived underground nuclear
    test data and research. These simulations will be validated with state
    of the art experimental tools such as the Dual Axis Radiographic
    Hydrodynamic Test facility and the National Ignition Facility. We also
    hope these modern codes and experimental tools will serve to attract
    and maintain a cadre of outstanding technical staff, the grand
    challenge of stockpile stewardship.

                   STOCKPILE LIFE EXTENSION AND SURVEILLANCE

        We are working closely with the DOD to finalize detailed plans to
    indefinitely extend the lifetime of each weapon system in the
    stockpile. The Stockpile Life Extension Program (SLEP) is DOE's
    planning framework for a proactive management of system maintenance
    activities. Under SLEP, options are developed to address potential
    refurbishment actions. These life extension options address:
    ``musts''--to correct known problems; ``shoulds'' to prevent
    foreseeable problems; and ``coulds'' to improve safety, use control and
    other items given the opportunity while working ``musts'' and
    ``shoulds.'' These life extension options allow the DOE and DOD to
    anticipate and plan for future resource requirements such as workforce,
    skills mix, equipment, and facilities. These requirements provide the
    framework for: our surveillance of the stockpile and stockpile research
    and development activities at our laboratories, guiding our production
    plants in validation of new materials, and development and
    certification of new manufacturing processes. The cycle is continuous
    and is closely integrated. Data and information from our surveillance
    programs and from the hundreds of experiments and simulations being
    performed, help to identify which parts of a weapon are aging
    gracefully, and which parts present current and potential future
    problems.
        Stockpile surveillance has been a major element of the U.S. nuclear
    weapons program ever since the first weapons were put into service.
    Approximately 1,100 stockpile weapons are thoroughly examined each
    year. The results provide data not only for assessing the current
    safety and reliability of the stockpile, but also for developing
    predictive models and age-focused diagnostics required to anticipate
    weapons refurbishment requirements.
        The Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP) is developing the
    technologies and methods, as well as a fundamental understanding of
    materials properties and weapons science, to significantly improve
    detection and predictive capabilities. For example, the ESP identified
    an aging mechanism in a stockpile high explosive, ultimately concluding
    that the changes actually improved the stability of the explosive. This
    assessment is permitting us to reuse the high explosive during the W87
    life extension program, thus avoiding significant costs. We have also
    embarked on a novel strategy to accelerate the aging process in
    plutonium. The capability to predict the lifetime of components made
    from plutonium will permit us to more accurately identify when pit
    replacements are needed and when the significant facility investments
    must be made in order to support pit replacement.
        Technical work on the W76/Mk4 Dual Revalidation Project drew to a
    close in December 1999. There were significant accomplishments in each
    of its major areas of investigation.
        System Level Assessment.--The Military Characteristics and
    Stockpile to Target Sequence were reviewed and updated and the system
    was shown to meet requirements. The system also was assessed against
    safety requirements and for abnormal environments and successfully met
    them. Results from various tests are being used to validate new
    computational models, leading to an improved understanding that will be
    used for future assessments, evaluations and other analyses.
        Primary Physics Assessments.--Five hydrodynamic tests were
    completed, four by Los Alamos National Laboratory and one by Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory. Two of the tests used stockpile-aged
    high explosives. A modern one point safety assessment was completed
    that reaffirmed the safety margin calculated in previous assessments. A
    modern intrinsic radiation analysis was performed. Significant progress
    was made in baselining.
        Secondary Physics Assessment.--There is an improved understanding
    of the secondary. Significant progress was made in baselining and
    benchmarking of the secondary.
        Physics Package Engineering Assessment.--A test of the ability of
    the secondary to withstand the revised long-term shipboard vibration
    environment was completed and the results show it meets requirements.
    Extensive testing of the high explosive thermal sensitivity, chemical
    composition, and density properties was completed. An aged physics
    package was disassembled, inspected, and the aged components tested. A
    detailed description and catalogue of the function, composition,
    requirements, state, and design intent of each component was assembled.
        Arming Fuzing and Firing (AF&F) and Weapon Electrical System
    Assessment.--Nineteen AF&Fs were disassembled, inspected, and put
    through product acceptance testing. An age aware model of the fire set
    was completed and electronic sub-component models were developed. Most
    AF&F hostile environment testing is complete.
        In addition to these specific accomplishments, the Dual
    Revalidation Project provided an opportunity to train many people
    within the DOE and DOD nuclear weapons communities. Engineers and
    scientists responsible for the system have developed in-depth
    experience. The project also provided significant contributions to the
    W76/Mk4 6.2/6.2A life extension study. The review team reports are
    scheduled to be submitted by the end of March 2000.
        DOE has redirected the Dual Revalidation effort into baselining and
    peer review. The decision was made to baseline all the systems over the
    next five years while designers with underground test experience are
    still on the payroll. After the systems are baselined, we will assess
    any gaps discovered in our knowledge and develop a plan to fill them
    in.

                           MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES

        Manufacturing continues to play a critical role in the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. During fiscal year 1999, almost 1,300 Limited Life
    Components (LLCs) were produced. Plans call for the production of over
    2,000 LLCs in fiscal year 2000. These product deliveries signal the
    successful transfer of production activities from plants which have
    been closed. The weapons complex is also performing major refurbishment
    actions on several weapon types, including the B61 and the W87.
        The W87 is a key component of the U.S. land based ballistic missile
    element of the U.S. nuclear deterrent triad. In December 1998, the Y-12
    plant at Oak Ridge completed and shipped to Pantex the first
    refurbished canned sub-assembly for the life extension program of the
    W87 under our Stockpile Life Extension Program. Early in 1999, the
    first deliveries of electronic and mechanical parts for the W87 life
    extension were shipped to Pantex from the Kansas City plant. The first
    W87 life extension unit was delivered to the Air Force in May 1999. The
    W87 was the first production unit completed under the life extension
    program. This is considered a major milestone in meeting a DOE
    commitment made to the Air Force.

                                     ADAPT

        The Advanced Manufacturing, Design, and Production Technologies
    Campaign (ADAPT) is providing the nuclear weapons complex with advanced
    capabilities for: designing, developing, and certifying components and
    systems; and for producing, assembling, and delivering weapons
    components and products for systems. ADAPT is radically changing how
    DOE supports the nuclear weapons stockpile by infusing new product and
    process technologies, and by adopting state-of-the-art business and
    engineering practices. Our production complex must take advantage of
    modern design and manufacturing techniques to keep the complex vitally
    strong and capable under modern technology. We have now begun to use a
    ``paperless'' product realization system to quickly design and evaluate
    components prior to their release for production. Once released for
    production, the same paperless designs (computer models) are used to
    develop and drive manufacturing operations. This approach is already
    cutting costs and time while improving our ability to deliver extremely
    high quality parts. We have begun to use computer-based multimedia
    systems to guide production technicians on the shop floor and we expect
    to see quality improvements similar to those now being gained in U.S.
    industries using these methods, where manufacturing defects have been
    cut 60-90 percent. As an additional example, we are using models of the
    various operations in our production complex to identify and alleviate
    scheduling and operational bottlenecks. In one instance, we were able
    to remove a bottleneck in certain dismantlement operations, allowing us
    to cut in half, the time required to complete dismantlement of a
    warhead being removed from the stockpile with no compromise in safety
    and security.
        We remain committed to exploring a robust and world-class
    microsystems engineering capability at Sandia National Laboratories.
    This effort could allow us to both develop and exploit emerging
    technologies that show great promise for miniaturizing weapon
    components, improving their reliability; and for maintaining a critical
    capability in radiation-hardened electronics needed to address
    potential safety, security, and hostile radiation threat environments
    of the future.

                                    TRITIUM

        Every U.S. nuclear weapon requires tritium to function as designed.
    Because tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, decays at a rate of
    5.5 percent per year, it must be periodically replenished. DOE has not
    produced tritium since 1988 and the current START I inventory will be
    sufficient only until about 2005, after which the five year tritium
    reserve will be reduced and a new source of tritium will be needed.
        In May 1999, the Department issued a Record of Decision that
    formalized the Secretary's December 1998 announcement that Tennessee
    Valley Authority (TVA) reactors would be used to produce tritium. That
    decision was codified in the National Defense Authorization Act for
    fiscal year 2000.
        Three TVA reactors Watts Bar and both Sequoyah units will be
    available to irradiate DOE designed, commercially manufactured,
    tritium-producing rods. DOE plans to start production of tritium in TVA
    reactors beginning with the scheduled refueling of the Watts Bar
    reactor in October 2003. After irradiation, the rods will be shipped to
    the Savannah River Site where a new Tritium Extraction Facility is
    under construction. The facility will extract tritium gas from the rods
    and send it to the existing Tritium Loading Facility. Extraction
    operations are scheduled to begin in February 2006, later than
    originally planned because of the congressional restriction against
    tritium construction activities in fiscal year 1999. Again, we have
    made up three months of this 12 month construction moratorium. The
    Tritium Extraction Facility's operating capacity will be such that the
    five year reserve will be fully replenished in two to three years.
        An interagency agreement between DOE and TVA went into effect on
    January 1, 2000. TVA, with DOE assistance, is preparing requests to the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend the licenses of the TVA
    reactors to permit tritium production. TVA plans to submit those
    requests at the beginning of calendar year 2001. The NRC review of the
    license amendment cannot begin until TVA has submitted its application
    for amendment of the operating licenses for Watts Bar and the two
    Sequoyah units. TVA will be putting that license amendment package
    together during the rest of calendar year 2000, with assistance from
    its two fuel vendors (Westinghouse and Framatone) and DOE. TVA
    corporate and plant licensing and engineering personnel will also be
    performing analyses and preparing significant portions of the license
    amendment submission. This work is on schedule.
        Also during fiscal year 2000, DOE will award a contract for
    commercial fabrication of 6,000 tritium-producing rods. Thirty-two rods
    underwent an irradiation demonstration in the Watts Bar reactor over
    the course of a full reactor operating cycle that was completed in
    March 1999. The rods have been taken to a DOE laboratory and are
    currently undergoing a series of examinations. So far, the results of
    all examinations have been as expected. Site preparation and detailed
    design of the Tritium Extraction Facility are in progress this year. In
    fiscal year 2001, we will begin construction of the facility building.
        The Record of Decision on tritium production stated that the
    Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) alternative would be developed
    as a backup tritium technology by completing engineering development
    and preliminary design. With the success of the commercial light water
    reactor program and with competing financial demands on other parts of
    Stockpile Stewardship, DOE has been forced to redefine the work
    associated with the APT, the backup tritium technology. Consequently,
    we plan to work with Congress this year to suspend preliminary design
    work for an APT plant. However, engineering development and
    demonstration activities at LANL will continue to assure that, should
    the backup technology be needed, it will be ready. In addition, DOE
    will explore the potential for a multi-mission accelerator program that
    could include tritium production, isotope production, and waste
    transmutation.

                             EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS

        It is at the DOE's Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratories and at the Nevada Test Site, that the science
    base of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is developed and applied. The
    experimental program is how, in the absence of nuclear testing, we
    divide the physics of the explosive sequence into each of its parts and
    analyze each separately. Information that we have from the production
    and surveillance activities described previously, helps us to focus our
    experiments. Information from over 1,000 U.S. nuclear tests also tells
    us where we need to fill in gaps in our knowledge through experiment
    and observation.
        Thousands of experiments, large and small, are performed each year
    in support of stockpile stewardship. Subcritical experiments help us
    fill in gaps in empirical data on the high pressure behavior of
    plutonium, realistically bench marking data on the dynamic, non-nuclear
    behavior of components in today's stockpile; analyzing the effects of
    remanufacturing techniques; understanding the effects of aging
    materials; and addressing other technical issues. Information from
    these experiments will be key to qualifying the pit production
    capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well as certifying the
    performance of weapons which will contain the replacement pits. These
    experiments also contribute significantly to the maintenance of the
    critical infrastructure and qualifications of skilled personnel at the
    Nevada Test Site to maintain readiness.
        With the right tools, we can do a thorough job of investigating the
    first part of the nuclear explosion; that is, the implosion of the
    plutonium pit by high explosive, with non-nuclear experiments. We can
    measure a number of important features by taking X-ray pictures during
    critical parts of the experiment, and we can measure the time evolution
    of the implosion with arrays of contact sensors (called pins). We can
    then compare these pictures and time histories with calculations and
    with previous data from the more than 1,000 underground nuclear tests
    and 14,000 surveillance tests. Ultimately, we require better pictures
    at multiple times to certify rebuilt pits and 3-D simulations of weapon
    performance.
        During fiscal year 1999, we conducted some 14 non-nuclear
    hydrotests at the Pulsed High Energy Radiographic Machine Emitting X-
    rays (PHERMEX) and related facilities at the Los Alamos National
    Laboratory; and about 15 tests at the Flash X-Ray (FXR) and B851 Site
    300 facilities at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In
    addition, we conduct up to 1000 less complex experiments per year aimed
    at preparing for larger tests and subcritical experiments, and for
    understanding high-explosives behavior and explosive effects on
    materials. In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, we anticipate
    conducting a similar number of experiments with major radiography
    shots, primarily at the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
    (DARHT) Facility.
        The DARHT facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a
    massive, advanced X-ray facility, will examine an imploding pit model
    from two different directions at greatly improved resolution and will
    replace PHERMEX as the primary radiography machine at Los Alamos. The
    first axis of DARHT is now operational. In addition, under the auspices
    of the National Hydro Program, DARHT will perform some of the Livermore
    tests formerly done at the FXR machine located at LLNL. The building to
    house the second axis of DARHT is complete, and the accelerator is
    under construction, due for completion in fiscal year 2002.
        The FXR firing site has been shut down since early fiscal year 1999
    for construction of the Contained Firing Facility which will be
    completed in fiscal year 2001. FXR is currently being used for non-
    explosive, beam target development tests in support of the second axis
    of DARHT.
        Experiments using the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE)
    are investigating proton radiography, a new technique in which proton
    beams from a linear accelerator are used directly in a novel approach
    to hydrodynamics-radiography that, if successful, could provide
    required additional information to our radiographic process of
    certifying pits. This technique is one of the candidate technologies
    being considered to make detailed, three-dimensional ``motion
    pictures'' of the implosion process. Smaller-scale dynamic proton
    radiography experiments have already been performed at LANSCE to
    address important certification issues (e.g., cold high-explosives
    performance), paving the way for validation of advanced explosives
    simulation models.
        In 1998, the Z-pulsed power facility at Sandia achieved record X-
    ray energy and temperature levels. In 2001, we plan to conduct about
    180 shots in Z in the areas of weapons effects, weapons physics, and
    ignition. A major activity at Z during fiscal year 2001 will be the
    completion of installation of the beamlet laser from the Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory which will be used as a diagnostic on Z.
    This diagnostic will enhance investigations in all areas.
        The Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, in conjunction with the
    other stewardship campaigns, is currently developing detailed
    experimental plans to achieve ignition and to address other stewardship
    issues during National Ignition Facility (NIF) operations.
        Construction is underway for NIF, an essential element in the long-
    term success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. NIF, the world's
    largest laser, will enable our scientists to generate conditions of
    temperature and pressure approaching those that occur in nuclear
    weapons. Demonstrations of how aged or changed materials could behave
    under these unique conditions will provide data essential to validate
    computer based predictions. Recently, laser glass has been produced
    which meets all required technical specifications. This is a major
    program accomplishment. All the enabling technologies required for
    construction of NIF have been demonstrated with the exception of
    coatings that will not incur damage at the laser energy levels required
    for ignition later in this decade. The NIF building is about 85 percent
    completed. The 10-meter diameter aluminum target chamber is installed
    in the building. The Optics Assembly Building to be used for final
    precision cleaning of the optical components which will be installed in
    the laser's beam path, and the Central Plant and its cooling towers,
    have been turned over to the laboratory for operation.
        Integration, schedule and cost problems associated with the
    construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) were identified to
    DOE in late August of last year. On September 3, 1999, Secretary of
    Energy Richardson announced a series of actions to address these
    problems. In response, Defense Programs, DOE's Oakland Operations
    Office, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and NIF project
    management have been working together to put the project back on track
    as directed by Secretary Richardson. The NIF project method of
    execution is being changed to address the increased complexity of this
    state-of-the-art system, and the cleanliness problems in assembling and
    installing the laser and target system infrastructure. As a result,
    assembly and installation of the beampath infrastructure system will
    now be managed and performed by industrial partners with proven records
    of constructing similarly complex facilities.
        At the Secretary's direction, an independent task force was formed
    by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to review options to
    complete the project and to recommend the best technical course of
    action. The overall conclusion in the interim report to the SEAB
    stated, ``The Task Force has not uncovered any technical or managerial
    obstacles that would, in principle, prevent the completion of the NIF
    laser system. Nevertheless, serious challenges and hurdles remain. The
    NIF Task Force believes, however, that with appropriate corrective
    actions, a strong management team, additional funds, an extension of
    the schedule and recognition that NIF is, at its core, a research and
    development project, the NIF laser system can be completed.'' The
    project is currently developing a new NIF baseline which will be
    certified by the Department and submitted to Congress as required. We
    will be working with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    management and internally within Defense Programs to get the project
    back on track. Your continued support of the NIF project, as a key
    element of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, is essential. The
    Secretary has committed to work closely with Congress on this issue.

                           SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION

        Data from U.S. nuclear tests, experiments, surveillance, and
    production activities, provide input to the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program supercomputers. Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratories are collaborating on the supercomputing program.
    While advanced computing has always been a feature of the nuclear
    weapons program, the computing speed, power and level of detail
    required to certify existing nuclear weapons without nuclear testing
    has required an extraordinary collaborative effort that is breaking
    barriers undreamed of only five years ago.
        The Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) is developing
    the high-performance computational modeling and numerical simulation
    capabilities necessary to integrate theory, existing data, and new
    experimental data to predict results that can be verified and
    validated. The ASCI program, a collaborative effort between the U.S.
    government and U.S. industry, is developing the world's fastest, most
    powerful computational and advanced simulation and modeling
    capabilities. These advanced supercomputers are needed to fully
    implement science-based methods and to assess and certify the safety,
    security, and reliability of the stockpile without underground nuclear
    testing.
        Advanced computational capabilities that include application codes,
    computing platforms, and various tools and techniques, are being
    developed under ASCI and incorporated into ongoing stockpile
    computational activities. This technology is being developed at about
    twice the rate of commercial computing speed and power advances. ASCI
    has been highly successful in meeting its milestones and providing
    effective new tools to support Stockpile Stewardship. Information
    developed from other elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program,
    such as NIF and our subcritical experiments, will provide the basic
    physics models and data for ASCI simulations.
        At the end of fiscal year 1998, ASCI unveiled its second generation
    of computing systems. Two major systems capable of running in excess of
    three trillion operations per second (3 TeraOps) peak speed were
    delivered ahead of schedule and within budget. Blue Pacific, developed
    by IBM, is located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    (LLNL), and Blue Mountain, developed by SGI, is located at the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). These systems are each 15,000 times
    faster and have roughly 80,000 times the memory of the average personal
    desktop computer. Under the Blue Pacific program, a world record 1.2
    TeraOPS was achieved on a hydrodynamics benchmark while a second
    benchmark run set a world record with 70.8 billion zones.
        On February 12, 1998, the Department announced the selection of IBM
    to partner with ASCI on the Option White 10 TeraOps supercomputer to be
    located at LLNL. Building upon the experience and knowledge gained with
    the 3 TeraOps Blue Mountain system, LANL is procuring a computational
    system that will achieve a peak performance level of 30 TeraOps by mid-
    year 2001. And the Department's first generation Option Red Intel
    computer system, installed at the Sandia National Laboratories in 1996,
    has been upgraded with faster processors and more memory and is now
    operating in production mode at a peak speed of more than 3 TeraOps.
        The ASCI Defense Applications and Modeling Campaign has recently
    completed the first three-dimensional simulation of a nuclear weapon
    primary explosion and has compared the results with the data from an
    underground test. This calculation, an important first step toward
    simulating a complete nuclear weapon, was performed by the Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory during December 1999.
        Completion of the prototype ASCI burn code required to perform the
    above calculation was the first of an ambitious serious of mileposts
    required to achieve a high-fidelity simulation of a full nuclear weapon
    system by 2004. The code team at LLNL met this very difficult milepost
    on schedule and with code capabilities that exceeded the established
    programmatic specifications. Future mileposts require a continued
    effort to extend this calculation to nuclear weapons secondaries and
    later to full weapons systems. At the same time, other mileposts
    address the advanced physics and materials models that will be required
    to achieve the highly accurate simulations that are needed in the
    absence of underground nuclear tests.
        Weapons designers are already utilizing these new three-dimensional
    codes and the ASCI computer systems to support assessment of the
    stockpile. They have run simulations to support the certifications of
    the B61 modification and the W76 neutron generator. These simulations
    would not have been possible without the capability provided by the
    ASCI platforms performing at the TeraOps level. However, three-
    dimensional, high-fidelity simulation of a full weapon system and its
    performance, as defined by scientists and engineers at DOE national
    laboratories, will require a minimum of 100 TeraOps of computing
    capability.
        The unprecedented computational power of ASCI is also being made
    available to selected groups in the university community through the
    Academic Strategic Alliances Program. In 1997, the Department awarded
    contracts to five major U.S. universities--Stanford University,
    California Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago, the
    University of Utah, and the University of Illinois. The work of the
    university teams is of similar difficulty and complexity to that needed
    for Stockpile Stewardship and will provide benchmarks by which we can
    assess the accuracy of our own work. These projects are expected to
    lead to major advances in computer simulation technologies as well as
    to discoveries in basic and applied science, areas important to ASCI,
    the broader Stockpile Stewardship Program, and other application areas.
    Applications being developed and run by the university teams are
    unclassified and deal with significant non-defense scientific
    priorities.

                        TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAMS

        The Defense Programs Technology Partnerships Program, which has
    been restructured and directly integrated into Stockpile Stewardship
    activities, represents an important investment in near-term and future
    capabilities. The private sector has technical leadership in many areas
    that are critical to the nuclear weapons program. The Technology
    Partnership Program sponsored collaborations between the national
    laboratories, plants and industry are contributing to all components of
    the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Developing these collaborations has
    been challenging but there are a number of successes. For example, a
    partnership between Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and General
    Electric has improved SNL's capability in the production of neutron
    generators, a critical weapons component. Another example is the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory collaborations with Dow Chemical and PPG on
    predictive modeling of materials aging. The ability to accurately
    predict material lifetimes and reliability has paramount consequences
    for the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program and for major
    industrial challenges like aging effects on an array of materials from
    car frames and engine parts to medical implants. Measured progress in
    these partnerships remains beneficial to Stockpile Stewardship and to
    other national concerns.

                         BUDGET SUMMARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ACCOUNT SUMMARY
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Fiscal year
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2000                     Comparable
                                             1999 Current   2000 Current    Comparable      2001     change--percent
                                            appropriation  appropriation  appropriation    Request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operations & Maintenance..............    $3,899,601     $3,904,464     $3,798,654   $4,179,827          10.0
    Fiscal year 2000 Supplemental.........  .............        55,000         55,000   ..........        -100.0
    PY Work conducted in fiscal year 1999.        28,558   .............  .............  ..........  ...............
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, O&M...................     3,928,159      3,959,464      3,853,654    4,179,827           8.5
    Construction..........................       518,984        530,256        530,256      414,173         -21.9
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Weapons Activities....     4,447,143      4,489,720      4,383,910    4,594,000           4.8
    Use of PY Balances....................       -50,994         -7,668         -7,668   ..........        -100.0
    Less Proposed Supplemental............  .............       -55,000        -55,000   ..........        -100.0
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Weapons Activities........     4,396,149      4,427,052      4,321,242   4,594, 000           6.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fiscal year 2001 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) request
    increases 8.5 percent above the comparable fiscal year 2000
    appropriated level, including the pending supplemental request. The
    supplemental request is a result of recommendations in the 30 Day
    Review which highlighted fiscal year 2000 budget pressures caused by
    increased security requirements and issues that have emerged since the
    fiscal year 2000 Congressional budget was submitted. The $55 million
    would provide additional funding to address critical skills retention
    and other issues at the Y-12, Kansas City and Pantex plants, and would
    continue activities necessary to restart enriched uranium operations at
    Y-12.
        The construction request is about 22 percent below the fiscal year
    2000 request level, reflecting programmed decreases in appropriations
    for major projects, including the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and
    the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Testing Facility (DARHT), and
    completion of funding for six projects. The request level supports a
    continuing program of infrastructure renewal at the laboratories, as
    well as the start of construction for three key new experimental and
    manufacturing facilities.

                                                  DECISION UNIT SUMMARY
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            2000           2001         Comparable
                                          1999 Current   2000 Current    Comparable   Congressional  change--percent
                                         appropriation  appropriation  appropriation     request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stockpile Stewardship..............      $2,113.1       $2,200.6   .............  .............  ...............
    Stockpile Management...............       2,055.4    \1\ 1,991.8   .............  .............  ...............
    PY Work conducted in fiscal year             28.6   .............  .............  .............  ...............
     1999..............................
    Stockpile Stewardship O&M:
        Directed Stockpile Work........  .............  .............        $760.0         $836.6            10.1
        Campaigns......................  .............  .............         928.6        1,049.9            13.1
    Readiness in Tech Base.............  .............  .............       1,870.0        1,953.6             4.5
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.....................  .............  .............       3,558.6        3,840.1             7.9
    Secure Transportation Asset........  .............          91.5           91.5          115.7            26.5
    Program Direction..................         250.0          205.8          203.6          224.1            10.1
    Construction.......................  .............  .............         530.3          414.2           -21.9
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal.....................       4,447.1        4,489.7        4,383.9        4,594.0             4.8
    Use of Prior Yr Balances...........         -51.0           -7.7           -7.7   .............         -100.0
    Less Proposed Supplemental.........  .............         -55.0          -55.0   .............         -100.0
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Weapons Activities....       4,396.1        4,427.0        4,321.2        4,594.0             6.3
                                        ============================================================================
    Federal Staffing...................         1,777          1,751          1,751          1,787             2.1
    DP-Funded M&O \2\..................        22,739         21,582         22,625         22,570            -0.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $55 million proposed supplemental funding.
    \2\ Fiscal year 1999 End of Year; fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 projections are averages for labs and
      headcounts for plants.

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request supports the transition to
    performance-based program management and budgeting for the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. The overall increase in fiscal year 2001 will
    cover: inflationary increases; support current infrastructure; and does
    not anticipate involuntary layoffs at the laboratories, Nevada Test
    Site, or production plants at this time. We have protected our highest
    priority work associated with pit aging issues, surety improvements,
    and stockpile support activities.
        Stewardship O&M provides funding for activities carried out by
    integrated contractors encompassing Directed Stockpile Work, Campaigns,
    and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities; principally at the
    Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories,
    production facilities at Kansas City, Pantex, Savannah River and Y-12,
    and the Nevada Test Site. The program activities link directly with
    DP's performance goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan. They
    provide the technical basis for confidence in the safety, reliability,
    and performance of the U.S. weapons stockpile in the absence of
    underground nuclear testing. The programs have been balanced to develop
    and maintain essential scientific and technical capabilities over the
    long-term while meeting near-term workload requirements and schedules,
    within a modern integrated complex with unique and interdependent
    facilities. On a comparable basis, the fiscal year 2001 request for
    Stewardship O&M activities is approximately 7.9 percent above the
    fiscal year 2000 request, including the pending fiscal year 2000
    supplemental.
        Directed Stockpile Workload increases 10.1 percent in fiscal year
    2001. Production schedules for gas generators, neutron generators and
    tritium reservoirs in the Master Nuclear Schedule, Volume II, are met.
    Alteration and modification schedules as specified in the Production
    and Planning Directive, principally focused on the W87 Life Extension
    Program, schedules are supported. Although we will be working with the
    DOD to relax certain outyear schedules, critical near-term stockpile
    needs are supported. Limited full scale engineering development
    continues in support of the W80 and W76, although we are interested in
    exploring less complex, lower cost workload options with the DOD. We
    are studying the potential transfer of the work on the W80 from the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory to the Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory as a longer-term workload leveling measure. Pit
    manufacturing and certification efforts for the W88 continue.
        The Campaigns increase $121.3 million, or 13.1 percent above the
    fiscal year 2000 comparable level of $928.6 million, to support the
    development of the tools and scientific capabilities required to
    maintain and certify the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear
    testing into the future. The budget request allocates significant
    program growth over fiscal year 2000 to the highest priorities:
    supporting campaign activities and key milestones in Pit Manufacturing
    Readiness (+54 percent growth); Primary Certification (+41 percent
    growth); Enhanced Surveillance (+21 percent growth); and ICF and High
    Yield (+21 percent growth). Program growth in the 10 to 20 percent
    range is allocated in the Secondary Certification, Advanced
    Radiography, and Certification in Hostile Environments campaigns.
        Pit Manufacturing Readiness, which increases $38.1 million, or 54
    percent above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, will focus on
    continuing the manufacture of development pits leading towards the
    manufacture of a certifiable W88 pit. Increased funding will support
    the hiring of production staffing and the procurement and installation
    of reliability equipment. Subsequent to fiscal year 2001, activities
    will move from manufacturing development pits to steady state
    manufacture of pits for qualification and production pits for placement
    into the stockpile.
        Primary Certification, which increases $11.9 million, or 41 percent
    above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, performs increasingly
    complex integrated hydrodynamic radiography and subcritical experiments
    for development of simulation codes and weapon certification.
        Enhanced Surveillance, which increases $15.6 million, or 21 percent
    above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, will include a pit study
    to determine whether pit lifetimes equal or exceed 60 years (enabling
    substantial deferral or downsizing of a potential new pit manufacturing
    facility) and the development and implementation of new, non-
    destructive examination tools for early detection of potential flaws.
        Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield, which
    increases $21.1 million, or 21 percent above the fiscal year 2000
    comparable level, will support the design and development of the NIF
    Cryogenic System, the development of the initial set of core target
    diagnostics and laser characterization diagnostics for NIF, ignition
    target design, development and experiments to verify conditions
    necessary for ignition, weapons physics experiments which also support
    other Stewardship campaigns.
        Secondary Certification and Nuclear Systems Margins, which
    increases $8.6 million, or 19 percent above the fiscal year 2000
    comparable level, will support design of above ground experiments to
    examine HE-induced case dynamics and performance issues required for
    code validation and to enhance capabilities in hydrodynamic modeling.
        Advanced Radiography, which increases $5.1 million, or 14 percent
    above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level, optimizes the first axis
    beam on DARHT which became operational in fiscal year 1999. Research
    and development will be conducted to begin to define the requirements
    for advanced radiography capabilities to support certification of
    refurbished and replaced primaries.
        Certification in Hostile Environments, which increases $1.6
    million, or 12 percent above the fiscal year 2000 comparable level,
    will allow us to start the development of System Generated
    Electromagnetic Pulse model validation for the ASCI codes to support
    the W76 Arming Firing and Fusing (AF&F) certification, to work on 0.5 m
    rad/hard (silicon-on-insulator) technologies for the W76 and future
    AF&F refurbishments , and to accelerate the calculations of weapons
    outputs.
        We are maintaining progress on achieving an assured source of
    tritium, although we are suspending the efforts on the preliminary
    design for the backup Accelerator Production of Tritium plant. We are
    developing advanced stewardship tools, particularly simulation and
    modeling, the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT)
    facility, 3D burn codes, and subcritical experiments. These activities
    are essential to maintain confidence in the safety of the stockpile
    without underground nuclear testing to assure that the U.S. will
    continue to certify the effectiveness of the nuclear weapon stockpile
    into the future.
        Within the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities decision
    unit, the largest category supporting operations of facilities is
    essentially flat from the fiscal year 2000 level. There is significant
    growth over fiscal year 2000 in other categories such as Containers,
    Program Readiness, and Advanced Simulation and Computing.
        Advanced Simulation and Computing increase $80 million, about 20
    percent, including: $3.9 million to accommodate final development and
    delivery of 10 TeraOps system and ongoing operating expenses for the 3
    TeraOps (LANL and SNL) systems; $8.7 million for Distance and
    Distributed Computing (DisCom \2\) efforts to scale up software
    development and network bandwidth substantially in order to enable tri-
    lab use of the 10 TeraOps platform under demanding conditions; $45.1
    million for Visual Interactive Environment for Weapons Simulation
    (VIEWS) for integrating visualization and data management and
    developing technologies that contribute to the ``see and understand''
    capabilities for 3D simulation codes data with increased levels of
    fidelity and for new computing and display equipment and software
    development to use scalable parallel technologies and, $13.0 million
    for Collaborations with University Partners, Alliances, Institutes and
    Fellowships for existing commitments and expansion of the program along
    with continued development of partnerships with expertise in academia.
        The Department's Secure Transportation Asset is requesting a
    funding increase of 26.5 percent over fiscal year 2000 to support its
    plan to continue to redress security and other vulnerabilities
    identified in recent Departmental evaluations, including the
    replacement of safe secure transporters (SST's) with the next
    generation SafeGuards transporters, equipment and escort vehicle
    upgrades, recruitment of new courier classes, and enhanced inservice
    training.
        Defense Programs is requesting an increase in Program Direction
    funding of $20.5 million, a 10.1 percent percent increase over the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The largest portion of this increase,
    $11.0 million, is to cover the DP federal staff's salaries and
    benefits. This increase covers expected cost of living increases, step
    increases, promotions, and full year funding for the 30 new hires to be
    brought on-board during fiscal year 2000 at headquarters as part of the
    Secretary's Workforce 21 initiative to fill critical mission skill
    positions. The request supports the Secretarial Scientific Retention
    and Recruiting initiative to enhance scientific and technical talent in
    the federal workforce, and provides flexibility to relocate staff and
    consolidate functions among headquarters, operations office and area
    offices in fiscal year 2001.
        Construction includes all DP-funded, line item infrastructure and
    programmatic construction projects at the laboratories, Nevada Test
    Site, and plants. The construction request is about 22 percent below
    the fiscal year 2000 level. This reduction reflects the completion of
    appropriations for six projects, and planned decreases for three more,
    including the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and DARHT experimental
    facilities that are progressing towards completion. Three new starts
    are also proposed: the Distributed Information Systems Lab at the
    Sandia National Laboratory in California; Highly Enriched Uranium
    Storage Facility at Y-12; and Weapon Evaluation Testing Laboratory at
    Pantex; and in addition, Defense Programs is piloting the Departmental
    initiative to request ``Preliminary Project Design and Engineering''
    funding for potential out year new construction starts. This pilot
    project is intended to remedy problems in construction projects related
    to inadequate scope definition and premature cost estimates.
    Construction funds included in the fiscal year 2000 request for NIF do
    not reflect forthcoming cost and schedule changes.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Stockpile Stewardship is a one-of-a-kind endeavor. It is unique in
    that we are responsible for a product that everyone hopes we will never
    have to use. It is unique in the same way that the Manhattan Project
    and Apollo moon program were: innovative, creative approaches to
    something new under the sun with no margin for error. It is unique in
    that we are not making any new weapons, but are only maintaining
    existing inventory. We must continue both to maintain current models
    without total system testing, but also be prepared to return to design,
    production and testing if directed to do so by the President. Every
    year, our success on the job must be certified to the President. Our
    responsibilities and capabilities are often the focus of heated public
    debate and occupy a singular position in the formulation of foreign and
    defense policy.
        On the other hand, Stockpile Stewardship involves many industrial
    processes common to private industry. We must be sure that product
    replacement parts continue to be available and that new materials and
    processes are compatible with maintaining our existing inventory in
    perfect working order without underground nuclear testing. To get the
    job done right, we rely on advanced scientific expertise, complex
    experimental capabilities, historic product data, and highly
    sophisticated computer calculations--bottom line--more high tech than
    almost any other organization. We have high level security and safety
    concerns, transportation needs, environmental responsibilities,
    downsizing requirements, workforce and training issues, cost-benefit
    trade-offs to consider, and other problems similar to those faced by
    private businesses, although in a unique context. And, as is usually
    the case in any business or government activity, our people remain the
    key to our success now and in the future.
        Properly supported and carefully managed, I believe the Stockpile
    Stewardship program will continue to maintain, indefinitely, a safe and
    reliable stockpile without the need to conduct nuclear testing. I know
    of no other national security issue more important for our nation in
    this new millennium of great challenges.

                       ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Now you have
    provided examples of the type of improvements needed in the
    weapons program. Can I clarify those three items you sent up
    here for us to look at?
        General Gioconda. The strong link, switches----
        Senator Domenici. Yes, now the very heavy one is the
    current one?
        General Gioconda. Yes. It is the one currently in a lot of
    our stockpile, or versions of it.
        Senator Domenici. Then the second one is a little machine
    inside of that plastic box. Is that little machine going to
    take the place of the big one?
        General Gioconda. Yes, sir, it can. It also will be closer
    to the actual prevention of detonation by moving it closer to
    the actual thing you are worried about.
        Senator Domenici. Then the third one was another change in
    evolution into a little tiny strip that will do the same thing
    as the box with 500 pieces?
        General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. I note there are some young people in the
    audience this morning. You are not from my State, but could you
    maybe tell us where you are from? Who is the leader of the
    crowd?
        Voice. We are from Alabama, Minnesota, South Dakota, and
    Nebraska.
        Senator Domenici. Well, we welcome you to this hearing. We
    are going to pass these three exhibits to you, and you can look
    at them.
        Without going into too much detail, the heavy one is the
    one we are currently using to make sure our nuclear weapons
    cannot be armed in the case of accidents or the like. The next
    one right behind it is a modern, technologically improved item
    that takes the place of that one, and then if you look at the
    third one you will see a little tiny strip of tape. It is a
    microchip. It takes the place of the other two, and this will
    just show you the kind of changes that are occurring in science
    and technology.
        This committee is going to consider and ultimately pass a
    bill that provides for the nuclear weaponry for the United
    States, and also for the Energy Department in terms of
    nonnuclear energy research and the like. So this is a small but
    important Subcommittee on Appropriations, and we welcome you to
    our hearing, and we hope you have a great time from the States
    you're from, and that you have a safe trip home.
        Do any of you young people have a quick question for the
    witnesses?
        [No response.]
        Senator Domenici. Okay. You can be thinking about that and
    we will let you ask that later. If you stick around awhile
    maybe you can write one up between you.
        The next witness today is Ms. Rose Gottemoeller, Acting
    Deputy for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. Would you proceed
    with no more than 10 minutes?

                         STATEMENT OF ROSE GOTTEMOELLER

        Ms. Gottemoeller. Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much for the
    opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. As always, I
    welcome the opportunity to tell you and your colleagues about
    our program.
        As you know, my office has undergone a number of
    organizational changes over the course of the last year.
    Specifically, in the National Nuclear Security Administration,
    my office, the Office of Nonproliferation and National
    Security, has been redesignated as the Office of Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation. In addition, the Department's Office
    of Fissile Materials Disposition was incorporated into this new
    office. Implementation of these new arrangements has gone very
    well, and we are now better able to respond to proliferation
    challenges, in my view.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        In the office's fiscal year 2001 budget request is $906
    million. This figure incorporates both the former Office of
    Nonproliferation and National Security, for which we are
    requesting $683 million, and on a comparable basis an increase
    of $136 million, or 21 percent above the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation and the Office of Fissile Material disposition
    for which we are requesting $223 million on a comparable basis,
    an increase of $22 million, or a 10-percent increase above the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
        Mr. Chairman, I appear to need my glasses at this age for
    numbers. I apologize. In any event, I will proceed.

                          LONG-TERM RUSSIAN INITIATIVE

        A major priority for the Department of Energy in the coming
    fiscal year is a proposed $100-million long-term,
    nonproliferation program with Russia developed by Secretary
    Richardson as a key part of the President's fiscal year 2001
    budget request for the expanded threat reduction initiative.
    The proposed $100-million initiative should be reviewed in the
    context of our broader effort in Russia to end the production
    of fissile materials and reduce existing stockpiles, an effort
    that includes the plutonium disposition program, the HEU
    purchase agreement, and the plutonium production reactor
    agreement.
        Allow me to give you a few details concerning the new
    initiative, which is divided into two parts. The first involves
    the nuclear fuel cycle, for which we are requesting $70
    million, and the second covers the Russian nuclear
    infrastructure, for which we are requesting $30 million.
        Let me turn first to our work on the nuclear fuel cycle
    under the new initiative. Since 1992, the United States has
    invested substantial resources to cooperate with Russia to
    secure and eliminate weapons-grade nuclear materials in
    Russia's military nuclear program.
        We aim to expand these efforts by strengthening the
    security and accounting for existing civil plutonium
    stockpiles, preventing the further accumulation of separated
    plutonium from spent fuel produced by civil nuclear power
    reactors, and raising technical barriers to the possible misuse
    of civil nuclear technologies to further weapons programs.

                    MORATORIUM ON SEPARATED CIVIL PLUTONIUM

        A key aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle work is a proposed
    moratorium on the further accumulation of separated civil
    plutonium from spent fuel. Each year, Russia produces
    approximately 2 metric tons of separated civil plutonium at its
    Mayak reprocessing plant, adding by 2 metric tons per year to
    their growing stockpile of more than 30 metric tons of this
    material and, sir, I feel it is particularly important, given
    our emphasis in our plutonium disposition program on disposing
    of approximately 2 metric tons a year, that we do get a handle
    on this additional production of 2 metric tons per year.
        To support this moratorium, we are proposing to assist
    Russia in designing, licensing, and constructing a dry storage
    facility for civil reactor spent fuel that would otherwise have
    been reprocessed. Our funds will support the development of
    technically sound, environmentally safe and secure approaches
    to spent fuel packaging and storage.
        A second program area involves collaborative research to
    enhance the proliferation resistance of nuclear reactors and
    fuel cycles. The stages of collaboration include refining
    nonproliferation performance metrics, evaluating specific
    technologies against these metrics, and ultimately developing
    the most promising options that incorporate safety,
    environmental, and economic considerations in addition to
    nonproliferation. Major research and development investments in
    this area are conditioned on Russia fulfilling its commitments
    to curtail nuclear cooperation with Iran.

                         RUSSIAN NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE

        Now, let me turn to the second part of the initiative, our
    work on the Russian nuclear infrastructure. A requested $30
    million is to support new initiatives to address
    nonproliferation dangers associated with Russia's nuclear
    infrastructure. We will expand efforts to consolidate nuclear
    weapons usable material in fewer sites and fewer buildings, and
    to improve material protection and control in highly sensitive
    Russian Navy nuclear sites.
        New funds will also further advance national security goals
    by helping to accelerate the closure of nuclear warhead
    assembly and disassembly lines at the Avangard and Penza-19
    plants in Russia, two out of the four Russian warhead
    production plants.
        New funds will also support the expansion of our work in
    cooperation with the Ministry of Atomic Energy Situation and
    Crisis Center to permit networking of Russian nuclear complex
    facilities to that center for emergency management and
    response.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn briefly to two
    other program areas, our material protection control and
    accounting program, which is progressing well, and our brain
    drain programs. We have improved the security of 450 metric
    tons of fissile material at more than 30 sites in Russia under
    our material protection control and accounting program.

                        GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT

        A recent GAO report of which you may be aware criticizes
    the Department for having completed security upgrades for only
    7 percent of the material considered at risk. The GAO's
    assertion is not accurate. In fact, we have completed rapid
    security upgrades for 450 metric tons of highly enriched
    uranium and plutonium, or approximately 70 percent of the
    estimated stock of at-risk materials.
        These upgrades include quick fixes, such as fortifying
    entrance and exit points, placing 1-ton concrete blocks on
    material storage areas, or even just bricking up windows to
    secure these sites against terrorist and outsider attacks.
        The 7-percent figure cited by the GAO refers only to those
    sites where we have completed all upgrades.
        A key part of our strategy in the coming year is to embark
    upon a strategic planning process, which was one recommendation
    in the GAO report, with an eye toward increasing efficiencies,
    reducing costs, and promoting sustainable operations.
        We are completing at the present time a model project
    further to consolidate and convert more than 200 kilograms of
    highly enriched uranium and plan to convert an additional 600
    kilograms of this material. Over the next 2 years, our goal is
    to convert 8 to 10 additional metric tons of highly enriched
    uranium and that, as I see it, is an important new direction
    for the program to consolidate materials and ensure that over
    time the number of facilities and buildings we have to address
    are actually fewer in number through the consolidation process.

                           NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE

        I would now like to turn very briefly to our flagship brain
    drain prevention programs, the Nuclear Cities Initiative [NCI],
    for which we are requesting $17.5 million, and the Initiatives
    for a Proliferation Prevent [IPP] program, for which we are
    requesting $22.5 million.
        I would like to make a couple of remarks about the Nuclear
    Cities Initiative, which has had considerable successes in the
    last couple of weeks. In fact, we have had underway high-level
    strategic planning efforts with the Ministry of Atomic Energy
    in both Sarov and Snezhinsk. The Sarov strategic plan was
    completed last September, and we have among other things
    identified the reduction of 6,000 employees at the Institute
    for Experimental Physics in Sarov.
        In addition, we are accelerating the shut-down of weapons
    assembly and disassembly at the Avangard plant, and recently
    signed an agreement to produce medical equipment at the
    Avangard plant through a German-American medical equipment
    company. This particular project was mentioned, you may have
    seen, on CNN last Friday night, when we were actually able to
    announce that program just last Friday.
        Also last week we completed a strategic planning process
    for the City of Snezhinsk, and there we will have a second open
    computing center as well as a number of major industrial
    projects, and so I feel for our two out of three cities we are
    proceeding to a closing stage in completing the strategic
    planning process, which was an effort that was really
    underscored as necessary by our counterparts and colleagues
    here on Capitol Hill.
        A third team is in Moscow at the present time to move
    forward on strategic planning for the City of Zheleznogorsk, so
    Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude by underscoring that we have
    taken the recommendations of this body to heart and are truly
    moving out on trying to define carefully successful projects
    under this particular effort.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I would like to submit the rest of my remarks for the
    record, if I may, and thank you for your attention.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Rose Gottemoeller

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to present this statement for
    the record on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for the Office of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation, formerly the Office of Nonproliferation and National
    Security. I look forward to working with you, Chairman Domenici, and
    with the rest of the members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
    Development, as we address some of the many serious challenges facing
    our nation today.
        It has been more than a decade since the Berlin Wall fell, opening
    a new era in history. While the Soviet threat is gone, dangers arising
    from the global spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and
    missiles for their delivery, remain with us. These dangers are real and
    increasingly unpredictable. As President Clinton recently declared, the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ``continues to pose an
    unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign
    policy, and economy of the United States.'' As a nation, we may face no
    greater challenge than to prevent these weapons from falling into the
    hands of those who would use them against us or our allies.
        As you know, my Office has undergone a number of organizational
    changes over the course of the last year. Specifically, Title 32 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 calls for the
    creation of a new National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In
    the NNSA, my Office, the Office of Nonproliferation and National
    Security, has been re-designated as the Office of Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation. In addition, the Department's Office of Fissile
    Materials Disposition was incorporated into this new Office.
    Implementation of these new arrangements have gone very well. We are
    now better able to respond to proliferation challenges. In a separate
    reorganization effort, the Office of Security Affairs and the Office of
    Emergency Management, formerly in the Office of Nonproliferation and
    National Security, were transferred to the new Office of Security and
    Emergency Operations led by General Eugene Habiger (USAF Ret.). This
    move was part of the Secretary's initiative to centralize the
    Department's domestic nuclear security functions. And finally, to
    address the management demands and significant budget share of our
    Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program (MPC&A), I created
    a new division in 1999 and added to it important remaining functions in
    international emergency management. The new division is called the
    Office of International Materials Protection and Emergency Cooperation.
    I am confident that the combined effect of these changes will sharpen
    our ability to address the proliferation problem.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Office's fiscal year 2001 budget request is $906 million. This
    figure incorporates both the former Office of Nonproliferation and
    National Security, for which we are requesting $683 million, on a
    comparable basis, an increase of $136 million or 21 percent above the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation, and the Office of Fissile Materials
    Disposition, for which we are requesting $223 million, on a comparable
    basis, an increase of $22 million or a 10 percent increase above the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation. In general terms, this increase
    reflects our commitment to meet the ever growing challenges our nation
    faces in the international arena, as well as new opportunities to
    consolidate and expand our nonproliferation work in cooperation with
    Russia.

                 LONG TERM NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAM WITH RUSSIA

        A major priority for the Department of Energy in the coming fiscal
    year is a proposed $100 million long term nonproliferation program with
    Russia, developed by Secretary Richardson as a key part of the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Expanded Threat
    Reduction Initiative (ETRI). This new program will improve our ability
    to respond to the most serious challenges presented by Russian nuclear
    facilities and nuclear weapon-usable materials. Activities included in
    this program will supplement existing efforts to reduce proliferation
    dangers in the Russian military nuclear complex, while addressing a new
    area, that is, separated plutonium produced in Russia's civil nuclear
    sector.
        The proposed $100 million initiative should be viewed in the
    context of our broader effort in Russia to end the production of
    fissile materials and reduce existing stockpiles, an effort that
    includes the Plutonium Disposition program, the HEU Purchase Agreement,
    and the Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement. These activities, in
    addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending to
    assist the Russian Government's activities to improve fissile material
    security in Russia, reflect our deep concerns over the risks of theft
    and diversion of nuclear materials in the unique circumstances of the
    post-Cold War environment.
        Allow me to provide you with a few details concerning this new
    initiative. There are essentially two parts. The first involves the
    nuclear fuel cycle, for which we are requesting $70 million; the second
    covers the Russian nuclear infrastructure, for which we are requesting
    $30 million.
        Nonproliferation and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle ($70 million).--Since
    1992, the United States has invested substantial resources to cooperate
    with Russia to secure and eliminate weapon-grade nuclear materials in
    Russia's military nuclear program. We aim to expand these efforts by
    strengthening security and accounting for existing civil plutonium
    stockpiles, preventing the further accumulation of separated plutonium
    from spent fuel produced by civil nuclear power reactors, and raising
    technical barriers to the possible misuse of civil nuclear technologies
    to further weapons programs.
        A key aspect of the nuclear fuel work is a proposed moratorium on
    the further accumulation of separated civil plutonium from spent fuel.
    Each year, Russia produces approximately two metric tons of separated
    civil plutonium at its Mayak reprocessing plant, adding to two metric
    tons per year to their growing stockpile of more than 30 metric tons of
    this material. To support this moratorium, it will be necessary to
    assist Russia in designing, licensing, and constructing a dry storage
    facility for civil reactor spent fuel that would otherwise have been
    reprocessed. Funds will support the development of technically sound,
    environmentally safe, and secure approaches to spent fuel packaging and
    storage. Funds will also support accelerated completion of material
    control and accounting work on tens of tons of civil plutonium
    currently stored at the Mayak site.
        A second program area involves collaborative research to enhance
    the proliferation resistance of nuclear reactors and fuel cycles. The
    stages of collaboration include refining nonproliferation performance
    metrics, evaluating specific technologies against those metrics, and
    ultimately developing the most promising options that incorporate
    safety, environmental and economic considerations, in addition to
    nonproliferation. Major research and development investments in this
    area are conditioned on Russia fulfilling its commitment to curtail
    nuclear cooperation with Iran. Restrictions will also continue on
    Russian nuclear entities that engage in nuclear assistance to Iran.
        We will also propose research collaboration on long term solutions
    to the problem of managing spent fuel and nuclear waste. This will
    include further developing the science underlying geologic repositories
    and researching environmental, safety and related issues involved in
    spent fuel storage.
        It bears noting that this bilateral initiative is not intended to
    address civil fuel cycle programs outside of Russia. Specifically, the
    United States will maintain its commitments regarding the use of
    plutonium in civil nuclear programs in Western Europe and Japan.
        Russian Nuclear Infrastructure ($30 million).--$30 million is
    requested to support new initiatives to address nonproliferation
    dangers associated with Russia's nuclear infrastructure. We will expand
    efforts to consolidate nuclear weapon-usable materials in fewer sites
    and fewer buildings and to improve material protection and control in
    highly sensitive Russian Navy nuclear sites. New funds will also
    further advance national security goals by helping to accelerate the
    closure of the nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly lines at the
    Avangard and Penza-19 plants. Our plan includes financing for non-
    military projects to support displaced warhead production workers. New
    funds will also support the expansion of our work in cooperation with
    the Ministry for Atomic Energy's Situation and Crisis Center to permit
    the networking of Russian nuclear complex facilities to that Center for
    emergency management and response purposes. And finally, funding will
    facilitate negotiations on an internationally funded program to
    cooperate with Russia on repatriating highly enriched uranium from
    Soviet-supplied research reactors in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

                  MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING

        The new $100 million Russia initiative builds on existing programs
    and successes. Our Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A)
    program is a good example of this success. Through the MPC&A program,
    we have built a legacy of trust, solid working relationships and
    cooperation with Russian agencies, institutes and scientists,
    facilitating our efforts to improve the security for the nuclear
    materials at highest risk throughout the Russian nuclear complex. This
    program is an essential bulwark against the nuclear weapons aspirations
    of terrorists or countries of proliferation concern.
        Our MPC&A efforts are progressing well. We have improved the
    security of hundreds of tons of fissile material at more than 30 sites
    in Russia. Last October, Secretary Richardson and Russian Minister for
    Atomic Energy Adamov signed a government-to-government agreement that
    will ensure the job gets done at the remaining sites. We are also
    nearing completion of a separate implementing agreement with the
    Russian Ministry of Defense that will advance our MPC&A work at a
    number of very sensitive Russian Navy sites. I have been very impressed
    with the unprecedented degree of cooperation and access shown by the
    Russian Navy to Department of Energy employees.
        A recent GAO report \1\ criticizes the Department for having
    completed security upgrades for only seven percent of the material
    considered at risk. The GAO's assertion is not accurate. In fact, we
    have completed rapid security upgrades for 450 metric tons of highly
    enriched uranium and plutonium, or approximately seventy percent of the
    estimated stock of at-risk material. These upgrades include quick
    fixes--such as fortifying entrance and exit points, placing one ton
    concrete blocks on material storage areas, or even just bricking up
    windows--to secure these sites against terrorist or outside attack. The
    next level of protection includes material tracking and accounting
    systems to protect against insiders siphoning off these fissile
    materials. Both layers of protection are needed to secure materials
    well into the future. The seven percent figure cited by the GAO refers
    only to those sites where we have completed both short and long term
    upgrades.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Limited Progress in Improving Nuclear Material Security in
    Russia and the Newly Independent States,'' GAO/RCED/NSIAD-00-82 (March
    2000).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the emphasis in our first years of operation was on the
    ``quick fix,'' today we are implementing a strategic plan, with an eye
    towards increasing efficiencies, reducing costs, and promoting
    sustainable operations. A key part of this strategy is our effort to
    consolidate and convert highly enriched uranium into a non-weapons-
    usable form. We recently completed a model project to consolidate and
    convert more than 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and plan to
    convert an additional 600 kilograms of this material. Over the next two
    years, our goal is to convert 8-10 additional metric tons of highly
    enriched uranium.
        ``Sustainability'' is another important part of our longer term
    efforts. We must ensure that computers for nuclear materials accounting
    and control remain operational and that the protective locks we help to
    install do not rust and break away. For this task, we will establish
    training centers, identify credible Russian suppliers of MPC&A
    equipment, and help in the development of regulations and security
    force procedures, as well as a central system to track amounts and
    locations for all of Russia's nuclear material.
        Our strategic plans address two additional issues raised in the GAO
    report that I would like to comment on: access to facilities and
    taxation by the Russian government. As you might imagine, access is a
    sensitive point for Russia since we are working at some of their most
    highly secret sites. But we are making progress. Secretary Richardson,
    for example, recently established a special task force to help us
    better understand Russia's requirements for approving visits by DOE
    personnel and to share ideas on ways to better facilitate access. I
    should also stress that this is not a complex-wide problem. In fact, I
    would argue that we have more access to sites than we have money to
    perform upgrades. Moreover, at major defense sites, such as Mayak,
    Krasnoyarsk-45, and Sverdlovsk-44, we have gained considerable access
    and are moving quickly to upgrade material security. Sites that fail to
    grant access do not receive contracts for work.
        Russian taxation of our MPC&A cooperation is another area where we
    are making good progress. New Russian legislation and implementing
    regulations are now on the books which exempt the entire MPC&A program
    (and all other DOE cooperative programs with Russia) from direct
    Russian taxes. I am pleased to report that the MPC&A program was one of
    the first to be registered as tax exempt. This is a very positive step
    forward. The GAO report correctly indicates that approximately $1
    million in taxes were included in a contract for MPC&A work by a
    particular Russian institute. In fact, we have not paid the $1 million
    in taxes, and we are working on ways to avoid ever paying. In the
    meantime, I have directed the MPC&A program to review all existing
    contracts to ensure that DOE takes full advantage of its tax-exempt
    status. I have also issued updated guidance to DOE labs on this topic.
        For the coming fiscal year, our base request for the MPC&A program
    is $149.9 million, or approximately $5 million above the comparable
    amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. This increase reflects the
    transfer of international emergency cooperation from the Office of
    Security and Emergency Operations to our MPC&A program. In the
    international emergency cooperation program, we conduct nuclear threat
    assessments; obtain samples of seized nuclear materials for forensic
    analysis; and develop training and emergency response plans for foreign
    governments and international organizations. In addition, $2 million
    from the proposed $100 million Russia nonproliferation initiative will
    support the continuation of our work with the Russian Situation and
    Crisis Center, which is now linked by a direct televideo line to our
    own Emergency Operations Center. We are also requesting an additional
    $20 million for MPC&A work under the proposed $100 million Russia
    nonproliferation initiative. Together, this would constitute a 15
    percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The increase
    will allow us, among other things, to improve security at highly
    sensitive Russian Navy sites and to continue consolidating and
    converting Russia's stocks of weapon-usable nuclear material.

                       ARMS CONTROL AND NONPROLIFERATION

        Our arms control and nonproliferation budget for fiscal year 2001
    is $123 million, representing an increase of $6.7 million, or
    approximately 5 percent above the comparable funds appropriated in
    fiscal year 2000. Activities covered by this budget line include a
    number of critical nonproliferation programs in Russia and the Newly
    Independent States, but also technical, analytical, and operational
    support for the major pillars of the larger nonproliferation regime,
    that is, treaties and agreements, export controls, international
    nuclear safeguards, and work in regions of proliferation concern. Our
    activities in these areas highlight the breadth and depth of the
    Department's contribution to U.S. arms control and nonproliferation
    priorities.
        Knowing your interest in the Russia problem, let me turn to our
    flagship ``brain drain'' prevention programs--the Nuclear Cities
    Initiative (NCI), for which we are requesting $17.5 million; and the
    Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program, for which we
    are requesting $22.5 million. This represents a $10 million increase
    for these programs together above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
    The $10 million increase would be applied to NCI, building on the
    momentum the program has gathered over the past year.
        As you know, Secretary Richardson and Minister Adamov established
    the Nuclear Cities Initiative in late 1998 to cooperate with Russian
    efforts to create peaceful, commercial jobs for displaced Russian
    nuclear weapons scientists and engineers in the ten ``closed'' cities.
    Our initial focus has been on three municipalities--that is, Sarov
    (Arzamas-16), Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70), and Zheleznogorsk
    (Krasnoyarsk-26). NCI is a new type of ``brain drain'' prevention
    program in that it is focused on nuclear workers who are slated to
    leave the nuclear weapons complex as facilities, and their jobs, are
    eliminated.
        This program is on track. Since April 1999, when my Office was
    first authorized to spend funds, we have commissioned an Open Computing
    Center in Sarov, an International Business Development Center in
    Zheleznogorsk (with similar centers to open soon in Snezhinsk and
    Sarov), and signed an agreement in December 1999 with the European Bank
    for Reconstruction and Development to open small business loan centers
    in the three cities, providing access to millions of dollars in
    potential financing. The first loan was recently approved for a small,
    5-person company in Zheleznogorsk.
        We have also initiated high-level strategic planning efforts with
    the Ministry for Atomic Energy to establish goals, costs, and time-
    lines for workforce reduction and facility closures in each of the
    three cities. The Sarov strategic plan was completed last September,
    identifying, among other things, the reduction of as many as 6,000
    employees of the Institute for Experimental Physics, a nuclear weapons
    design institute. Through the plan, we have also agreed to the
    accelerated shutdown of weapons assembly and disassembly at the
    Avangard plant: weapons assembly will halt by the end of 2000; weapons
    disassembly will halt by the end of 2004. A commercial agreement for
    the production of kidney dialysis equipment was also recently
    completed, linking Avangard (home of a Russian nuclear weapons assembly
    in Sarov), a German-American medical equipment company, and the
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Similar private industry
    partnerships are under development in other closed cities.
        I am proud to say that NCI is already working to create jobs. The
    Open Computing Center will have 100 new contract research employees
    this year, with another 500 jobs expected by 2001. A separate center in
    Sarov for nonproliferation analysis has opened and will employ 30 or so
    workers displaced by down-sizing in the Russian nuclear weapons
    complex. The kidney dialysis equipment project at Avangard could create
    more than 100 jobs and has the potential to bring major investments
    into Sarov. In all, more than 30 civil projects, equating to more than
    700 jobs, are either funded or under development across a range of
    commercial areas--from laparoscopy in Sarov, to fiber optic production
    in Snezhinsk, to canola oil and seed processing in Zheleznogorsk. The
    $10 million increase in fiscal year 2001 will allow us to build this
    program by creating perhaps as many 1,000 new jobs in the three cities.
        Like NCI, the IPP program works to secure weapons of mass
    destruction expertise and know-how. Since the program's inception in
    1994, more than 6,000 weapons scientists in Russia and the Newly
    Independent States have been supported through 400 non-military
    projects. The program partners Russian and NIS scientists with
    specialists at the Department's national laboratories and concentrates
    aggressively on the commercialization of projects that are cost-shared
    with U.S. industry. Major corporations--such as United Technologies,
    DuPont, and American Home Products--are participating in this program.
    To date, U.S. industry has contributed $64 million, eclipsing the $38
    million provided by the Department of Energy for cost-shared projects.
    Six commercial projects have already been launched, with full
    graduation from U.S. government financing, and another thirteen are
    poised for full commercialization by the end of 2001.
        Improving the commercial thrust of the IPP program is just one of
    the recommendations suggested by the GAO in its February 1999 report
    (GAO/RCED-99-54, ``Nuclear Nonproliferation: Concerns With DOE's
    Efforts to Reduce the Risks Posted by Russia's Unemployed Weapons
    Scientists.'') that we have moved to implement quickly. All of our IPP
    projects are now reviewed by the U.S. Industry Coalition, helping to
    promote those having genuine commercial potential. Other issues raised
    by the GAO report have been addressed as well. For example, we now use
    the Civilian Research and Development Foundation to avoid the payment
    of taxes on IPP projects in Russia; we have the agreement of the
    governments of Ukraine and Kazakhstan not to tax IPP payments; we vet
    all projects through an interagency screening process to rule out
    activities that might further a weapons program; and we cap the amount
    of IPP budgeted funds going to DOE's national laboratories at 35
    percent.
        Our progress to prevent a ``brain drain'' of weapons expertise
    complements our related efforts to prevent illicit nuclear trade and
    secure nuclear materials outside of Russia. MPC&A is the first line of
    defense. Our ``second line of defense'' program is working to help
    Russia block unauthorized nuclear trade at nine key border crossing
    points and transportation centers. We plan to place radiation detection
    equipment at all nine points by the end of this calendar year. These
    efforts are above and beyond my Office's responsibility to support
    multilateral export control regimes, to administer U.S. controls over
    transfers of American nuclear technology to other countries, and to
    ensure that DOE-funded activities take place in compliance with U.S.
    export control laws and procedures.
        We have additional nuclear material security programs focused on
    MPC&A improvements in former Soviet states outside of Russia and the
    protection of plutonium-bearing spent fuel in two special cases--North
    Korea and Kazakhstan. Our ``on the ground'' efforts to can and secure
    more than 8,000 spent fuel rods in North Korea is nearing completion,
    and we hope to move to the long-term maintenance phase of this project.
    We will maintain a presence in the country to preserve equipment,
    ensure the continued integrity of the fuel canisters, and address any
    International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards issues that might arise.
    In Kazakhstan, the news is also good. There, the first phase of
    operations to can and secure 3,000 plutonium-bearing spent fuel rods in
    the BN-350 reactor at Aktau is nearly complete. The next phase involves
    placing the material in long-term storage. Expert discussions on this
    issue are progressing well, and we expect to launch a long-term
    management program in fiscal year 2001.
        Our efforts to control weapons of mass destruction materials and
    expertise at their source is a critical part of our nonproliferation
    mission. But we must also do more to address the concerns that motivate
    states to pursue these weapons. Drawing on the Department's and its
    national laboratories' tradition of excellence in arms control and
    nonproliferation, my Office supports a number of projects and
    institutions that are dedicated to improving dialogue and communication
    in regions of tension, including the Middle East, South Asia and
    Northeast Asia. Among other activities, we will continue to fund the
    Cooperative Monitoring Center (CMC) at close to $5 million in fiscal
    year 2001. Located outside the fence of Sandia National Laboratories,
    the CMC provides training and education for regional officials and
    specialists in the use of unclassified monitoring technologies that can
    be applied across a broad range of potential agreements and
    arrangements--from demilitarized monitoring to monitoring shared
    watersheds. On his visits abroad, Secretary Richardson has made it a
    special point of emphasis with India, Israel, Egypt, and others to
    encourage their participation in CMC and related arms control and
    nonproliferation training activities.
        And finally, allow me to say a word about our other efforts to
    strengthen bilateral and multilateral arms control and nonproliferation
    agreements. We hope to complete a START III Agreement with Russia in
    2000. My Office is preparing for that agreement, evaluating the impact
    of a warhead dismantlement verification regime on the U.S. weapons
    complex and developing, in some cases in cooperation with Russian
    scientists, technologies to demonstrate that warheads can be verifiably
    dismantled without disclosing sensitive nuclear weapons design
    information. We are developing similar ``information barrier''
    techniques for other agreements designed to promote transparent and
    irreversible reductions of nuclear stockpiles, including the U.S.-
    Russia-IAEA Trilateral Initiative, the HEU Purchase Agreement, and
    negotiations, led by the Department of Defense, with Russia to
    construct a weapons-origin plutonium storage facility at Mayak and an
    associated agreement to measure that plutonium before it is converted
    in a packaging and processing facility.

                         FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

        The transfer of the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition to the
    new Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is now complete and has
    gone extremely well. Laura Holgate, who has served very ably as
    Director of that Office, is now Associate Deputy Administrator for
    Fissile Materials Disposition and Special Secretarial Negotiator for
    Plutonium Disposition. There is a strong synergy between fissile
    materials disposition and my Office's broader mission to demilitarize
    large stocks of U.S. and Russian fissile materials surplus to national
    security requirements.
        On the domestic front, the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition
    made significant progress this past year. We transferred substantial
    quantities of surplus U.S. highly enriched uranium to the U.S.
    Enrichment Corporation for down-blending and peaceful use as commercial
    fuel. We entered into contracts with the private sector for the design
    of two key plutonium disposition facilities--a plutonium pit
    disassembly and conversion plant and a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel
    fabrication plant. We continued to demonstrate our capability to
    disassemble various types of nuclear weapons pits at the Los Alamos
    prototype ``ARIES'' facility. And in January 2000, the Department
    issued a Record of Decision, codifying the decision to construct and
    operate three new plutonium disposition facilities at the Savannah
    River Site in South Carolina. This decision calls for the
    immobilization of 17 metric tons of plutonium and the use of up to 33
    metric tons of plutonium as mixed oxide fuel for irradiation in
    existing U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors.
        On the international front, as part of the President's Expanded
    Threat Reduction Initiative, we continued our efforts in partnership
    with Russia to demonstrate a number of plutonium disposition
    technologies, demonstrations that will accelerate Russia's ability to
    build the facilities needed to dispose of its own surplus plutonium. We
    also continued extensive negotiations with Russia on a bilateral
    plutonium disposition agreement. Implementation of such an agreement is
    needed to trigger the start of actual disposition in both countries. I
    am pleased to report that U.S. and Russian negotiators are now very
    close to a final document; both sides are pushing hard to have an
    agreement in hand this spring.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for U.S. and Russian
    disposition activities is $223 million, an increase of $22 million over
    the comparable amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The increase
    will enable us to begin Title I design of a facility to immobilize
    surplus non-pit plutonium; incorporate aqueous processing in the design
    for the MOX fuel fabrication facility; fund MOX lead test assembly
    activities; facilitate advanced gas reactor and reactor fuel
    qualification work in Russia; and hire additional Federal staff
    necessary to oversee these disposition activities.

            HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM TRANSPARENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION

        In addition to plutonium, our work with Russia to convert surplus
    highly enriched uranium from the Russian military stockpile into a non-
    weapon-usable form is also progressing well. The 1993 U.S.-Russia HEU
    Purchase Agreement remains one of the more impressive nonproliferation
    achievements of the last decade. Through the end of calendar year 1999,
    more than 80 metric tons of weapons grade uranium--enough for 3,200
    weapons--had been removed from the Russian military program under this
    Agreement and converted to low enriched uranium for commercial sale.
    Already, Russia has received close to $1.5 billion as compensation for
    converted HEU. Secretary Richardson and Under Secretary Moniz have been
    instrumental in keeping this complex agreement on track.
        My Office administers the HEU transparency and implementation
    program to monitor the conversion and processing of this material at
    Russian facilities subject to the Agreement. Over 70 teams--the
    equivalent of nearly 43,000 inspection hours--have visited these
    facilities to monitor conversion operations. During the past year, we
    installed a Blend Down Monitoring System (BDMS) at one Russian facility
    to provide continuous monitoring data in support of our transparency
    objectives. For fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $15.2 million to
    continue these efforts, principally by upgrading transparency measures
    at additional Russian blending facilities and exploring new
    opportunities to strengthen this important activity.

                  INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION

        Reducing safety risks at the 64 operating Soviet-designed nuclear
    power reactors is another priority area for my Office. While our fiscal
    year 2000 appropriation was half of the requested amount, we
    nevertheless had a successful year, including a vigorous effort to
    prepare Russia and Ukraine, the two primary users of Soviet-design
    reactors, for Y2K. We provided computer hardware and software,
    equipment and technical guidance to these countries, as well as experts
    in country for the actual rollover. The best measure of success may
    have been that the Y2K rollover came and went without incident. Our
    contributions to nuclear safety can be expressed by other metrics--we
    installed safety parameter systems at seven nuclear power plants; we
    completed six simulators to model normal operating and response
    procedures; we provided U.S. training methods for nuclear plant
    operators; and we continued to provide in-depth reactor safety
    assessments to identify risks and prioritize safety upgrades.
        We are encouraged not just by our progress to address nuclear
    safety at operating reactors, but by the early closure of older
    reactors as well. Ukraine remains on track to shutdown permanently
    Chornobyl's Unit 3, the sole operating reactor at the Chornobyl plant,
    by the end of this calendar year. Our efforts to support the
    construction of a replacement heat plant at Chornobyl for
    decontamination and decommissioning purposes are also proceeding well.
    In addition, Kazakhstan has shut down the BN-350 reactor and our
    attention is now focused on plans for decommissioning and
    decontamination of the reactor's sodium coolant. Removal of the coolant
    effectively bars the reactor's restart. And in Lithuania, the
    government recently called for the closure of Unit 1 at the Ignalina
    nuclear power plant in 2005, representing another important nuclear
    safety achievement.
        Our fiscal year 2001 budget request is $20 million, representing an
    increase of $5 million, or 33 percent, above the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation. This increase will allow our program to accelerate
    efforts to address the most pressing nuclear safety risks associated
    with these reactors and to ensure the safe and orderly shutdown of
    reactors nearing the end of their service life. In all of these
    efforts, we work closely with our colleagues in the U.S. Government,
    including the Department of State, the Agency for International
    Development, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

                            RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        I wish to end on what may in some respects be the most pernicious
    security threat of the 21st century--the danger that Americans will be
    the targets of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons attacks.
    Responding to this threat is extremely complex. Not only must we be
    ready to mitigate the consequences of an actual attack, but we must
    also discriminate between real threats and the hoaxes that occur almost
    daily. In 1999, the FBI investigated more than 150 threats involving
    anthrax. While none of these threats proved to be real, the disruption,
    in terms of confusion and wasted resources, continues to be a source of
    concern.
        Our research and development efforts are breaking new ground in the
    campaign to combat proliferation and protect U.S. security. We do this
    by developing and delivering field-tested, state-of-the-art
    technologies and systems for proliferation detection to our customers.
    We are developing new technologies to counter nuclear smuggling, detect
    nuclear materials diversion, and prepare for new arms control
    verification challenges in a future START III agreement. We are also
    advancing new remote systems to detect the early stages of a
    proliferant's nuclear weapons program.
        In the area of nuclear test detection, we are developing new space-
    based systems to monitor above ground nuclear explosions world-wide and
    are delivering a ``knowledge base'' system on regional seismicity to
    the U.S. Air Force that will improve our national capability to detect
    nuclear explosions at lower yields than could be detected using
    traditional, teleseismic systems. We have also delivered a new
    generation of detectors to identify radioactive particulates from
    atmospheric nuclear explosions. These systems and capabilities are all
    needed irrespective of whether a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is in
    force.
        We have numerous examples of success in other areas. Our solid
    state, fiber optic neutron and gamma ray sensor for nuclear materials
    detection was transferred to industry and selected by R&D magazine as
    one of the 100 most technologically significant products of the year.
    For the U.S. Customs Service, we completed upgrades for an advanced
    nuclear smuggling detection demonstration unit. Just recently, we
    launched the Multispectral Thermal Imager satellite, providing a state-
    of-the-art system to help us ``see'' reflected and thermally radiated
    electromagnetic waves.
        The chemical and biological weapons threat is particularly
    worrisome. To meet this threat, the Department of Energy is drawing
    upon the diverse and extensive expertise of its national laboratories.
    Fortunately, we are making progress. Last year at this time, I reported
    that we possessed no simple, portable, and reliable tools for the
    detection of biological agents. Now, we are building half a dozen
    prototype devices that could soon be available for ``first
    responders,'' that is, local police, medical and other community
    officials. Our goal is to provide these first responders with advanced
    systems that have laboratory sensitivity for use in the field; we
    recently developed a battery operated, hand-held gas chromatograph,
    sensitive to parts per billion, that gives us that capability. We are
    also demonstrating and field-testing integrated chemical and biological
    protection systems for high-risk infrastructure and events, whether at
    a subway or the Super Bowl, and developing advanced genetic and
    computational tools to ``fingerprint'' biological agents, leveraging
    DOE's investment in the Human Genome Project.
        The Research and Development budget request for fiscal year 2001 is
    $233 million, representing an increase of $8 million, or 3 percent,
    above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. This increase will allow us
    to continue to improve our abilities to detect and counter weapons of
    mass destruction programs. Our research and development programs are
    breaking new scientific and technological ground and strengthening our
    response to current and projected threats to U.S. national security.

                               PROGRAM DIRECTION

        The success of our programs is a testament to the motivated men and
    women we employ to further our critical nonproliferation missions. As
    our programs grow, so must our workforce. We also must have a
    sufficient number of Federal employees to oversee the many projects and
    activities we lead. Our program direction budget request for fiscal
    year 2001 is $41.6 million, an increase of $13.5 million, or 48
    percent, above our fiscal year 2000 comparable appropriations. This is
    a large, but essential jump. We will use this increase to hire 56 new
    Federal employees to meet our expanding nonproliferation and national
    security mission and to support augmented DOE operations at the U.S.
    embassies in Moscow, Russia and Kiev, Ukraine. By ``federalizing'' our
    workforce, we can also reduce our reliance on M&O and support service
    contractors.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, as I am sure you can
    agree, the proliferation dangers we face today are clear and present.
    We have no room for error. I am confident that the programs we are
    advancing today will have dramatic payoffs tomorrow. The budget request
    we provide to you today puts us on the road to safety and security and
    avoids the path of danger and destruction. It also sends a clear
    message to the world community that the United States and Secretary
    Richardson will spare no effort to reduce the global danger of the
    spread of weapons of mass destruction.

                       STATEMENT OF ADM. FRANK L. BOWMAN

        Senator Domenici. Now, Admiral Bowman, would you like to
    talk to us about your program, please, and what you need?
        Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, distinguished
    committee members, I know the next time I testify in the wake
    of Tom Gioconda I am going to bring some artifacts with me so
    not to be upstaged by all of these trinkets Tom brought.
        Senator Craig. A sub will not fit in this room.

                             NAVAL REACTOR PROGRAMS

        Admiral Bowman. Naval Reactors, Mr. Chairman, as you know,
    was organized in the late 1940's by Admiral Rickover with the
    visionary concept of cradle-to-grave responsibility for all
    aspects of maintaining and operating the Navy's nuclear-powered
    fleet. It is a centrally managed, single-purpose organization
    with clear lines of authority, responsibility, and
    accountability for all aspects of its operation. Naval Reactors
    has enjoyed the benefit of the full support of Congress over
    these years. As a result, the country has benefited.
        The program's basic structure, policies, and practices were
    preserved in an executive order signed by President Reagan upon
    Admiral Rickover's retirement in 1982. The fiscal year 2000
    National Defense Authorization Act specified this executive
    order as the charter for naval reactors within the new National
    Nuclear Security Administration and, similar to the fiscal year
    1985 National Defense Authorization Act, mandated that the
    provisions of the naval nuclear propulsion executive order
    remain in full force until changed by law. Adherence to the
    tenets of this executive order have been key to naval reactors'
    operational excellence and unsurpassed record of safety.

                           NAVAL REACTORS OPERATIONS

        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, our nuclear Navy has now
    steamed safely over 119 million miles in the ocean, equivalent
    to nearly 5,000 times around the globe. We are responsible
    today for 103 operating nuclear reactors, equal to the number
    of commercial reactors in this country. We have accumulated
    over these years over twice the operating experience of the
    United States' commercial power industry and over half the
    operating experience of the entire commercial power industry
    worldwide. Our outstanding and fully public environmental
    record enables our ships to visit over 150 ports worldwide,
    visits that are absolutely critical to our Nation's forward
    presence and deterrence strategy and ability to project power.

                          NAVAL REACTORS ORGANIZATION

        Last summer, as the Senate Armed Services Committee was
    considering the issue of reorganization of the Department of
    Energy, both former Senator Warren Rudman and retired Admiral
    Hank Chiles recognized the importance of Naval Reactors'
    organizational structure to its success and to national
    security in their testimony. Admiral Chiles specifically
    testified, ``I want to state emphatically that Naval Reactors,
    the DOE arm of the Naval Reactors program, is carrying out its
    mission in an exemplary manner. Therefore, I strongly recommend
    that you retain Naval Reactors' authorities, responsibilities,
    and structure.''
        This was, of course, done in the implementation of title 32
    of the National Nuclear Security Administration and, Mr.
    Chairman, I want to thank you personally, as well as the
    committee and your staff, for your continuing efforts in
    support of the Naval Reactors program and its basic tenets. The
    country and our Nation's security will continue to benefit from
    your actions.
        If I may quickly recount some facts about the Naval
    Reactors' program in our fiscal year 2001 DOE budget request,
    today's Navy operates 83 nuclear-powered warships and one
    nuclear-powered research submarine and, as I discussed earlier,
    we oversee 103 operating reactors. Nine of our 12 country's
    aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered, giving us the capability
    to sprint where needed and arrive on-station ready for
    sustained power projection.
        Last year was the first full year of a 15-year DOE
    laboratory development effort on the new reactor plant for this
    carrier of the 21st Century, called the CVNX.
        All 56 of our country's attack submarines are nuclear-
    powered. They possess inherent characteristics such as stealth,
    endurance, mobility, fire power, multimission capability, which
    afford unfettered access to contested battle space 24 hours a
    day, 7 days a week, 24/7, as we say today.
        Once there, submarines can surveil new or emerging
    adversaries undetected and provide timely insight on their
    intentions and capabilities to policymakers without risk of
    political escalation. This is particularly valuable, since many
    of the world's bad actors today understand their own
    vulnerability to satellite reconnaissance and often are able to
    employ deceptive means to cover it.
        Usefulness of these traits has resulted in the near
    doubling of the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance
    tasking requirements over the last 10 years for our attack
    submarine force. While those same numbers of attack submarines
    have decreased by nearly 40 percent. Should tensions escalate,
    submarines can also execute Tomahawk strikes from undisclosed
    locations without warning, often from inside an adversary's
    defensive umbrella.
        I predict that in the future we are going to demand more
    and more of these first-in, last-out, versatile platforms. It
    is worth noting that the Joint Staff, in conjunction with our
    unified war-fighting CINC's, recently completed an exhaustive
    study of attack submarine missions and force structure. That
    study reconfirmed that submarines are far from being cold war
    relics.
        In fact, I was with Senator Lieberman just yesterday in
    Groton, Connecticut, at the unveiling of a centennial stamp
    collection in honor of the U.S. Submarine Force. Senator
    Lieberman in his remarks called the attack submarine a sunrise
    system for this country, certainly not a sunset system. They
    provide unprecedented multimission capability, and will
    continue to be a significant value as we execute the national
    security strategy in the challenging decades ahead.
        The design of the reactor plant for today's new attack
    submarine, the Virginia class, will be about 93 percent
    complete at the end of fiscal year 2001. Today, 90 percent of
    the components for that lead ship have been already delivered
    to the ship-builder. Overall, ship construction is 25 percent
    complete and is on schedule. All 18 of our Ohio-class Trident
    ballistic missile submarines are nuclear-powered. They remain
    the most survivable leg of the Nation's strategic deterrence
    triad.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Our DOE budget request for fiscal year 2001 is $677.6
    million, less than 4 percent of the DOE budget request, and
    less than 1 percent of the prospective total defense budget of
    the country. I believe our record says this is a pretty good
    investment.
        Our DOE 2001 budget request is about $11 million less,
    about 2 percent less in real dollars than our fiscal year 2000
    request. Naval Reactors is a very lean organization. We
    continually scrub our operating and infrastructure
    requirements. For example, we have downsized our DOE
    laboratories, we have shut down six of our eight land-based
    research and development prototypes, and we continue to look
    for ways to save.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Office of Naval Reactors within the Department of
    Energy transferred into this new NNSA on March 1, 2000. There
    have been no interruptions in program operations or support for
    the Navy, nor will there be. Naval Reactors' operations in our
    DOE budget request are outlined in more detail in my written
    statement.
        Thank you again for your continuing support.
        [The statement follows:]

                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADM. FRANK L. BOWMAN

        Thank you for inviting me to testify on Naval Reactors' fiscal year
    2001 Department of Energy budget request.
        Naval Reactors is a centrally managed, single-purpose organization
    with clear lines of authority and total responsibility and
    accountability for all aspects of Naval Nuclear Propulsion. As the
    Director of Naval Reactors, I have direct access to the Secretary of
    the Navy and to the Secretary of Energy. Naval Reactors' principal
    mission is to provide militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants to
    the U.S. Navy and to ensure their safe, reliable, and long-lived
    operation.
        Under the visionary leadership of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, Naval
    Reactors was organized in the late 1940's with the concept of cradle-
    to-grave responsibility. Upon Admiral Rickover's retirement in 1982,
    President Reagan signed Executive Order 12344 with the express purpose
    of ``. . . preserving the basic structure, policies, and practices
    developed for this program in the past. . . .'' The fiscal year 2000
    National Defense Authorization Act specified the Executive Order as the
    charter for Naval Reactors and, similar to the fiscal year 1985
    National Defense Authorization Act, mandated that ``. . . the
    provisions of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Executive Order remain in
    full force and effect until changed by law.'' The charter, as
    incorporated within Title XXXII, maintains my responsibility for all
    aspects of the Program, including the following:
      --Research, development, design, and construction;
      --Operation, operator selection and training, maintenance, and
            disposal; and
      --Administration (e.g., security, nuclear safeguards, transportation,
            public information, procurement, and fiscal management).
        Operating within the tenets of the Executive Order, the Naval
    Reactors Program has a flat organization with clear, simplified lines
    of authority and a culture of technical, managerial, and fiscal
    excellence. The longevity of its senior managers and staff ensures
    continuity of expertise through the extremely long lives of the nuclear
    propulsion plants it builds and supports. The Program has compiled an
    unparalleled record of success, including the following:
      --Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed over 119 million
            miles--equivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.
      --Naval Reactors is responsible today for 103 operating nuclear
            reactors. For perspective, this is equal to the number of
            licensed commercial power reactors in the United States. In
            addition, over the years, we have accumulated over twice the
            operating experience of the U.S. commercial power industry.
            Naval reactor plants have accumulated over 5,100 reactor-years
            of operation, compared to about 2,400 for the U.S. commercial
            industry. In addition, our operating experience is about half
            that of the entire commercial power industry worldwide (our
            5,100 reactor-years compared to about 9,200 worldwide--
            including the United States).
      --Naval Reactors' outstanding (and fully public) environmental record
            enables our ships to visit over 150 ports around the world--
            critical to our Nation's forward-presence strategy and ability
            to project power.
        Both former Senator Warren Rudman and Admiral Henry G. Chiles
    recognized the importance of Naval Reactors' organizational structure
    to its success and to national security in testimony before the full
    Senate Armed Services Committee last June.
        Senator Rudman stated:

              We called for the integration of the DOE Office of Naval
            Reactors into the new agency for nuclear stewardship. We
            recommend this because we believe the ANS [now NNSA] should be
            the repository for all defense-related activities at DOE.
            However, we believe the Office of Naval Reactors must retain
            its current structure and legal authority, under which its
            director is a dual-hatted official, both a four-star admiral
            and a part of DOE.

        Admiral Chiles also advised the Committee:

              . . . I want to state emphatically that Naval Reactors, the
            DOE arm of the Naval Reactors Program, is carrying out its
            mission in an exemplary manner. Therefore, I strongly recommend
            you retain Naval Reactors' authorities, responsibilities, and
            structure. A most important point is [that it is] crucial to
            ensure Naval Reactors remains outside the Department of Defense
            so the program can continue to successfully carry out its
            regulatory responsibility. I can personally attest, based upon
            my long and direct experience, to the success of the Naval
            Nuclear Propulsion Program. This program is a model of how a
            defense activity should be carried out within the Government.

        Today's Navy operates 83 nuclear-powered warships and 1 nuclear-
    powered research submarine. Nuclear power enhances a warship's
    capability and flexibility to sprint where needed, and arrive ready for
    sustained power projection. The Navy has repeatedly employed the unique
    capabilities inherent in nuclear propulsion. Sustained high speed
    (without dependence on a slow logistics train) enables rapid response
    to changing world circumstances, allowing operational commanders to
    surge these ships from the U.S. to trouble spots or to shift them from
    one crisis area to another. Nuclear propulsion helps the Navy to
    stretch available assets to meet today's worldwide commitments.
      --Nine of twelve aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered-growing to
            eleven of twelve when CVN 76 and CVN 77 enter the Fleet.
            Nuclear-powered carriers can transit to a crisis area
            unsupported at sustained high speed and arrive fully ready to
            launch the awesome firepower of the airwing. Then, they can
            sustain that presence and response without immediate
            replenishment of combat consumables, and with tactical mobility
            and flexibility, free from the need for propulsion fuel
            replenishment. The future carrier, CVNX, will continue to
            provide these benefits.
      --The 56 U.S. nuclear attack submarines possess inherent
            characteristics such as stealth, endurance, mobility,
            firepower, and multimission flexibility. These characteristics
            afford unfettered access to contested battlespace 24 hours a
            day, 7 days a week, for as long as required. Once there,
            submarines can surveil new or emerging adversaries undetected
            and provide timely insight on their intentions and capabilities
            to policymakers without risk of political escalation--
            particularly valuable because many potential adversaries
            understand their vulnerability to satellite reconnaissance, and
            often employ deceptive methods to defeat it. The usefulness of
            these traits has resulted in the near doubling of Intelligence,
            Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) tasking requirements
            over the last 10 years while submarine force levels have been
            reduced by nearly 40 percent. Should tensions escalate,
            submarines can also execute Tomahawk strikes from undisclosed
            locations without warning, often from inside an adversary's
            defensive umbrella.
            Additionally, within its Research and Development (R&D)
                programs, the Navy is investing the R&D dollars necessary
                to equip submarines with new and dominant technologies. The
                Navy is developing offboard sensors (such as unmanned
                undersea vehicles) to facilitate a clearer picture of the
                battlespace, and is leveraging the explosion in information
                systems technology to more readily share this insight with
                other naval and joint forces in a timely and useful manner.
                The Navy is working to increase payload capacity and
                enhance multimission flexibility. These technologies will
                be integrated into VIRGINIA Class submarines as they are
                built, and backfitted into earlier submarines, where
                appropriate. The Navy is also pursuing electric drive
                technology, which will dramatically improve our acoustic
                stealth and provide the power density required for
                revolutionary advances in sensors and weapons.
            Finally, it is worth noting that the Joint Staff, in
                conjunction with our unified warfighting CINC's, recently
                completed an exhaustive study of attack submarine missions
                and force structure. The study reconfirmed that submarines
                are far from being Cold War relics. They provide
                unprecedented multimission capability and will continue to
                be of significant value as we execute the national security
                strategy in the challenging decades of the 21st century.
      --The 18 nuclear-powered OHIO Class ballistic missile submarines are
            the most survivable and cost-effective leg of the Nation's
            strategic deterrence triad. These reliable, stealthy ships also
            carry more strategic warheads than the other two legs of the
            triad combined. These ships use only 34 percent of our
            strategic budget and are manned by less than 1.5 percent of our
            naval personnel.

                      FISCAL YEAR 2001 DOE BUDGET REQUEST

        Naval Reactors' principal charge, as well as the bulk of its
    resources and work, is to ensure safe and reliable operation of reactor
    plants in U.S. Navy nuclear-powered warships, enhance their
    performance, and develop improved reactor plants in support of the
    Navy's needs.
        Sustaining today's 103 operating reactors requires continuous
    analysis, testing, and monitoring of plant and core performance.
    Nuclear propulsion is a demanding technology--the harsh environment
    within a reactor plant subjects equipment and materials to the
    deleterious effects of irradiation, corrosion, high temperature, and
    pressure over a lifetime measured in decades. In addition, naval
    reactor plants must be rugged enough to accommodate ships' pitching and
    rolling; have the resilience to respond to rapidly changing demands for
    power; be robust enough to withstand the rigors of battle; and be safe
    for and easily maintainable by the Sailors who must live next to them.
        Development efforts at Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories have led to
    significant advancements. Improved components and materials, longer
    core lives, and improved predictive capabilities have allowed the Navy
    to extend the service life and intervals between major maintenance
    periods for nuclear-powered warships. The reduction in ship off-line
    time for maintenance effectively increases ship availability and, thus,
    the Navy's warfighting capability, while also reducing maintenance
    costs. Added ship availability is particularly important in the face of
    Fleet downsizing as the operational demands on each remaining ship
    increase. In the same vein, development efforts are ensuring that we
    can meet the Navy's need for extended warship lifetime.
        However, new development and analysis challenges arise as a result
    of these advancements. For example, the longer intervals between major
    maintenance periods reduce opportunities to examine and/or replace
    aging components. Thus, a more extensive analytical and testing effort
    is required to verify materials and component performance. Extended
    ship lifetime also demands exhaustive testing and performance
    enhancements to ensure that component endurance--despite potential
    corrosion and mechanical strain--can be assured for significantly
    greater than the design life. As data are gathered from deploying ships
    with long-lived reactor cores, the emphasis on this area has grown. A
    life-of-the-ship core offers extraordinary advantages in terms of ship
    availability, cost reduction, and reduction in radiation exposure and
    waste generation; however, a life-of-the-ship core eliminates mid-life
    opportunities to examine reactor components. Moreover, the adverse
    consequences of, and the cost to deal with, a flawed core or component
    would be much greater. Testing and verification, therefore, will be
    paramount to ensure that naval reactor plants will continue to perform
    safely.
        New DOE laboratory development work is focused on the next
    generation submarine reactor for the Navy's new VIRGINIA Class attack
    submarines and on a new reactor plant intended for the Navy's new CVNX
    Class aircraft carriers.
        The design of the reactor plant for the Navy's VIRGINIA Class
    submarine will be about 93 percent complete by the end of fiscal year
    2001. Currently, the design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA Class
    is about 85 percent complete. Today, 90 percent of the components for
    the lead ship have been delivered, all on schedule and within budget.
    The pre-reactor-fill test program has begun and is on schedule to
    support ship delivery. The forward end of the engine room module
    (including associated reactor plant systems) has been delivered from
    Quonset Point to Electric Boat for final outfitting. Overall, ship
    construction is 25 percent complete and is on schedule. The lead
    submarine incorporating this plant is expected to go to sea in fiscal
    year 2004. The VIRGINIA Class submarines will provide badly needed
    capability for the Navy at an affordable price.
        In September 1998, the Defense Acquisition Board approved the Navy
    recommendation for a new design nuclear propulsion and electric plant
    for CVNX Class aircraft carriers and authorized the beginning of
    propulsion plant design efforts. CVNX is expected to be authorized in
    fiscal year 2006 and to go to sea in fiscal year 2014 to replace USS
    ENTERPRISE (CVN 65).
        The CVNX reactor plant design will be consistent with the CVNX
    Mission Needs Statement approved in March 1996, the approved CVNX
    evolutionary strategy, and the CVNX Operational Requirements Document,
    which is expected to be approved shortly.
        CVNX is the first new carrier designed since the 1960's NIMITZ
    Class design. The new design CVNX reactor plant will build on three
    generations of nuclear propulsion technology developed for submarines
    since NIMITZ to incorporate needed advancements in warfighting
    capabilities and to significantly reduce life-cycle costs.
        Last year was the first full year of a 15-year DOE laboratory
    development effort on the new reactor plant for CVNX. Reactor plant
    design work began in earnest to support the long design and
    manufacturing lead-times required for reactor plant components and the
    CVNX ship construction schedule. Current design efforts include general
    arrangement studies, system description development, and component
    design, including sizing and system interface evaluations. Naval
    Reactors approved the first CVNX system description (steam generating
    system) last month. Current design work is focused on supporting
    procurement of long lead reactor plant forgings planned for fiscal year
    2001 and establishing the necessary system descriptions and general
    arrangements required for later design activities.
        Naval Reactors also is proceeding with the inactivation of six
    shutdown DOE developmental and training prototype reactor plants. The
    increased sophistication of computer models and the accumulation of
    operational data, along with the decrease in the need for Navy plant
    operators, have allowed the shutdown of six of the eight land-based
    prototype reactor plants. Since 1993, Naval Reactors has been
    inactivating and dismantling the shutdown plants as promptly as funding
    and manpower will allow to eliminate surplus facilities, reduce
    environmental liabilities, and contribute to positive remediation in
    three States.
        This inactivation and cleanup work is progressing well. Today, this
    effort is over 80 percent complete. The last of the prototype reactor
    plants at the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho was defueled in fiscal
    year 1999. By the end of fiscal year 2000, inactivation at the Windsor
    site in Connecticut will be complete and regulatory approval for
    unrestricted release is expected. Two of four prototype reactors at the
    Kesselring site in New York have been inactivated and defueled, and
    dismantlement and cleanup are proceeding.
               naval reactors department of energy budget detail
    Program technical requirements
        Naval Reactors' technical budget request is categorized into
    ``areas of technology'' including Reactor Technology and Analysis;
    Materials Development and Verification; Plant Technology; and
    Evaluation and Servicing. This approach conveys the integrated and
    generic nature of our DOE research and development work. When research,
    development, and design work is executed in individual technology
    areas, it frequently can be both retrofitted into existing ships and
    incorporated into future ships.
      --The fiscal year 2001 request of $216.9M for Reactor Technology and
            Analysis will ensure continuation of work on the next
            generation reactor for the VIRGINIA Class submarine and
            development work on the new reactor for CVNX Class aircraft
            carriers, as well as ensure the safe and reliable operation of
            existing reactors. The reduction in operating plant maintenance
            periods places greater emphasis on thermal-hydraulics,
            structural mechanics, fluid mechanics, and vibration analysis
            work to accurately predict reactor performance and to avoid
            problems. The continued push for longer life cores also means
            we will continue to operate reactors beyond our operational
            experience base for many years to come. Improved analysis tools
            and understanding of basic nuclear data will allow us to
            predict performance more accurately and safely through a more
            than 30-year core life. Other efforts in this area are
            dedicated to revising core manufacturing processes to reduce
            cost and hazardous waste; perform reactor safety analyses;
            accomplish component and system development efforts to support
            the Navy's acoustic requirements; and develop improved shield
            designs to reduce costs and radiation levels.
      --The $118.2M request for Plant Technology will allow Naval Reactors
            to develop and analyze those systems that transfer, convert,
            control, and measure reactor power to maximize plant
            performance. The request reflects the requirement to design and
            develop CVNX steam generators--the largest developed to date--
            as well as instrumentation and control equipment for the new
            carrier reactor plant. Development of technologies in the areas
            of chemistry, energy conversion, instrumentation and control,
            plant arrangement, and component development will continue to
            improve performance and address operational problems. Naval
            Reactors is also developing components to address known
            limitations or to improve reliability, including a redesigned
            main coolant pump for the NIMITZ Class plants and new
            instrumentation and power distribution equipment to replace
            older, technologically obsolete, and increasingly hard-to-
            support equipment.
      --The $127.6M request for Materials Development and Verification is
            the amount necessary to conduct essential material analysis and
            testing as ships are kept in service longer than originally
            intended, and materials are called upon to perform safely and
            reliably over longer time periods. Effort on the core and core
            structural materials includes testing and analysis of fuel,
            poison, and cladding materials to verify acceptable
            performance, as well as developing improved materials with
            enhancements such as reduced susceptibility to corrosion or
            swelling. Testing and development of reactor plant materials
            also ensures reliable performance and leads to improvements
            such as reduced cracking and stress.
      --Evaluation and Servicing ($134.0M in fiscal year 2001) decreased
            17.2 percent from fiscal year 2000. The decrease is primarily
            due to completion of A1W prototype defueling and reduction in
            inactivation work at Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho, and at the
            S1C prototype in Windsor, Connecticut. Evaluation and Servicing
            funds the operation and servicing of land-based test reactor
            plants and Naval Reactors' share of the Advanced Test Reactor,
            a specialized materials testing facility operated by DOE's
            Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology. Testing of
            materials, components, cores, and systems in these plants
            provides important technical data and experience under actual
            operating conditions, and allows potential problems to be
            identified and addressed before they occur in the Fleet. The
            two operating test reactor plants and the Advanced Test
            Reactor, with proper maintenance and servicing, will meet
            testing needs for some time.
            Evaluation and Servicing also funds the inactivation of the six
                prototype plants that have been shut down. Fuel has been
                removed from all six plants, and extensive dismantlement
                and disposal have been accomplished. Cleanup of one site,
                the Windsor site in Connecticut, is nearly complete;
                regulatory approval for unrestricted release is expected
                later this year. The other shutdown prototypes are located
                in Idaho and New York on sites that have continued use for
                the Program. At these sites, we have defueled the plants
                and are conducting plant and site remediation. For those
                plants that have progressed to dismantlement, the Program
                desires to complete the dismantlement work as promptly as
                funding and manpower allow, consistent with published
                environmental impact statements for those projects.

    Program infrastructure and administrative requirements
        The $21.4 million in Program Direction request will cover Naval
    Reactors' 201 DOE personnel at headquarters, the Program's field
    offices, and the Idaho Operations Office, including salaries, benefits,
    travel, and other expenses. This staff maintains oversight of the
    Program's extensive day-to-day technical and administrative operations,
    while continuing to ensure compliance with growing environmental,
    safety, and other regulatory requirements, which--notwithstanding our
    excellent record--necessitate substantial effort.
        The $42.2 million in Facilities Operations (a 9 percent decrease
    compared to fiscal year 2000) will maintain and modernize the Program's
    facilities, including the Bettis and Knolls laboratories and the
    Expended Core Facility (ECF).
        The Construction funding request in the amount of $17.3 million
    principally provides for refurbishment and replacement of the Program's
    facilities. This includes continuation of West End Modification to the
    ECF Dry Cell project to allow transfer of nuclear fuel from the Idaho
    Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center to ECF for interim dry
    storage, as well as beginning the Major Office Replacement Building
    project. Overall, investment in these various projects will extend the
    lives and improve the efficiency of the Program's facilities.

                              NNSA IMPLEMENTATION

        The Office of Naval Reactors within the Department of Energy
    transferred into the NNSA on 1 March 2000. The efforts expended for
    this transition ensured that there have been no interruptions in
    Program operations or support for the Navy. Naval Reactors' smooth
    transition can be primarily attributed to:
      --The hard work of the Congress and their staffs in invoking and
            preserving the Naval Reactors' Program charter, Executive Order
            12344, in Title XXXII; and
      --The unique nature of the Program, which has a single-mission focus
            with laboratories and field offices solely dedicated to naval
            nuclear propulsion.
        Naval Reactors' Executive Order provides the Program with the tools
    necessary to ensure the continuation of its historical technical and
    managerial excellence. For example, because the Program maintains total
    responsibility for administration and because the Director has a
    mandated long term (8 years), I can ensure that areas essential to our
    Program's success (such as radiological controls, nuclear safety,
    environmental safety and health, and security) continue to be
    mainstreamed into all aspects of our daily work.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Naval Reactors Program recently moved into its second half
    century of successfully supporting the Nation's national security with
    safe and effective nuclear propulsion plants for the Navy's most
    formidable forward-deployed ships. At no time in the history of our
    Program has the value of nuclear propulsion been more clear. As the
    Navy diligently works to more efficiently meet increasing worldwide
    demands with decreasing assets, naval nuclear propulsion eases the
    strain.
        Nuclear-powered warships' long lives, ability to surge to meet
    emergent requirements, and fast transits allow our Nation to ensure
    that American forces are in place when needed. No other nation has this
    capability. To a large extent, the credit for this capability belongs
    to the wisdom of the Congress, which has consistently supported our
    Program, our ideas, and the way we conduct business.
        Naval Reactors, working with the Navy and the DOE, is committed to
    maintaining this record of excellence and ensuring that our technology
    meets the rigorous demands of the 21st century. Your support will
    continue to be needed and appreciated.

                        NAVAL REACTOR OPERATIONAL SAFETY

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Admiral. I remain
    totally and absolutely convinced that your activities indicate
    a way to have safe, totally safe, nuclear power and secure your
    own--in terms of within your organization you have your own
    security.
        We have not heard of any leaks, or thefts of secrets from
    your Department and, frankly, the best reason we can put forth
    to the American people with reference to nuclear power and its
    future is to cite the record of the U.S. Navy, with 103
    reactors that are the same kind of reactors we have got in our
    inland cities, but they are afloat in the ocean, or under the
    ocean and, if something were to happen there, they are in the
    midst of all of the dangers we talk about would be right there
    in the water and almost every port in the world accepts you
    with your engines on, right?
        Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And you know, it is just amazing that the
    United States, with all of that going on, and all of that
    proof, we are walking around wondering whether we can have
    nuclear reactors in the future on the continent of the United
    States, and I use you as an example.

                          WOMEN SERVICE ON SUBMARINES

        But now I have a tough question, because one of the
    youngsters submitted a question directed at you, Admiral
    Bowman, and it says, when will women be able to serve on
    submarines?
        Admiral Bowman. Well, that is an excellent question and it
    has, unfortunately, not a short answer.
        As the former Chief of Naval Personnel, having absolutely
    nothing to do with reactor technology, I studied this issue
    very closely. I was, in fact, in that role as the Chief of
    Naval Personnel when the combat exclusion law was passed in
    1994, and I worked diligently to include women in as many of
    our combatant ships and roles as possible.
        There are many good reasons to consider bringing women into
    submarines. However, a submarine represents a very major
    challenge to our desire to integrate women fully into the Navy.
    Frankly put, it is difficult to imagine being able to achieve
    the necessary privacy that we would all feel comfortable with
    on board this very cramped and equipment-dense platform, so I
    will tell you that we are continuing to study it, but we do not
    see an immediate break-through in this.
        We do have women in the Navy's nuclear power program, Mr.
    Chairman. I am happy to report we have 100 women officers on
    board our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers today. We have on
    the order of 400 enlisted women on our nuclear-powered aircraft
    carriers working inside the Naval Reactors program, and they
    are moving into all walks of life in that regard.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. That is the best we
    are going to do today, okay.
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, to see the progress made, all
    you need to do is read John McCain's book about his father. Was
    it his father, or grandfather?
        Admiral Bowman. His father was a submariner.
        Senator Reid. Boy, things have changed a great deal, and
    they certainly have. I read that myself, Faith of Our Fathers.

        UNITED STATES HELPING THE RUSSIANS CONTROL THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much for your comment,
    Senator.
        Could I, before these young people leave, and then I will
    go right to the General, could I ask you, Dr. Gottemoeller, I
    am sitting out there and I am listening to you talk about the
    United States spending all of this money in Russia to establish
    or to open up some of their nuclear cities, to pay for some of
    their scientists, do other things for them. Maybe I would ask
    you, are you serious? Why are we helping Russia?
        Ms. Gottemoeller. That is a very good question, Mr.
    Chairman, but it is in the national security interest of the
    United States because, after the Soviet Union broke up in the
    early 1990's, we were facing the danger of a chaotic break-up
    of the enormous Soviet nuclear arsenal, and that chaotic break-
    up could have led to a lot of warheads and nuclear materials
    simply walking out of Russia and ending up in the hands of
    terrorists or third countries not friendly to the United
    States.
        Senator Domenici. Including their scientists.
        Ms. Gottemoeller. And their scientists as well, because
    they were not getting paid much money, and many of them were
    poverty-stricken, and they were getting job offers from places
    like North Korea and Iran, so it is very important for us to
    step up to this challenge as a national security challenge for
    the United States. It deals with threats to our national
    security.
        Senator Domenici. General, it is a pleasure to have you.

                      STATEMENT OF GEN. EUGENE E. HABIGER

        General Habiger. It is my pleasure to be here, Mr.
    Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity. I would like today
    to run through the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001
    budget request for the Office of Security and Emergency
    Operations. Mr Chairman, I would request my written comments be
    entered into the record, and I will keep my comments here this
    morning very brief.
        Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
        General Habiger. Thank you, sir. This past year, the
    Department took unprecedented steps to address major internal
    security problems and we have made, Mr. Chairman, significant
    progress in fixing those problems. The Cox and the Rudman
    reports provided a wake-up call that emphasized the urgency for
    needed change in the Department's approach to its security
    responsibilities.
        Our proposed budget response to this wake-up call in our
    new security organization, which was not even a figment of
    anyone's imagination last year at this time, when the fiscal
    year 2000 budget was being briefed to this committee, is also a
    result of that wake-up call.
        With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly
    introduce the leadership of my security team. Mr. Joe Mahaley.
    Mr. Mahaley is back behind me, sir. Mr. Mahaley is in charge of
    our safeguards and security program, and his claim to fame, in
    addition to doing a superb job since going into that job in
    1997, he got his training at the U.S. Naval Academy, so he has
    a solid foundation to do this job.
        Next is Major General (retired) Boomer McBoom. Boomer is in
    charge of emergency operations and emergency response. Boomer
    was wing commander of the F-15 outfit that was first into Saudi
    Arabia in 1990. He also served for 2 years at National Military
    Command Center, so he has got a tremendous background in
    emergency operations.
        Mr. John Gilligan. I have known John for many years. He was
    my source selection authority when I was Commander-in-Chief of
    the Strategic Command for my information technology systems. He
    came over from the Department of Defense, and is the CIO and
    Cyber Security Chief for the Department of Energy.
        And finally, but not least, Mr. Chairman, is Ms. Nancy
    Holmes. Nancy is in charge of our resource management. She is
    the one that has pulled together our budget. She has been
    working at the Department of Energy for nearly 40 years, and
    she is awesome, sir.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        That is the team, and each of these professionals has been
    totally involved with our fiscal year 2001 security request of
    $340.4 million that comes before this committee today. This
    request represents an increase of 16.5 percent over our fiscal
    year 2000 funding level. The majority of this increase funds
    additional requirements in cyber security, critical
    infrastructure protection, and program direction.
        The fiscal year 2000 level of $292.2 million includes an
    additional $8 million supplemental request, which is still
    working through the system. This additional $8 million is to
    provide adequate staffing for the Office of Security and
    Emergency Operations, and to support our cyber security
    initiatives.
        Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about
    our fiscal year 2001 budget amendment that will be submitted to
    Congress in the near future. Strong security is based on a
    foundation of clear line management authority, responsibility,
    and accountability. To do this, we must address the control and
    accountability of security activities within the Department.
    Historically, security activities were funded from overhead
    accounts at the DOE National Laboratories and other facilities.
    There was no single source for reviewing or accounting for the
    security budget.
        To remedy this, and to strengthen our ability to manage the
    responsibility of this office, in August of last year the
    Deputy Secretary directed that the DOE fiscal year 2001 budget
    request include security as a specifically identified direct-
    funded activity within my office. This, Mr. Chairman, is the
    first time a unified security budget has been submitted. This
    amendment will provide the Department with the funding
    authority to help strengthen DOE, provide security, allow
    better management of funds, provide visibility to the
    Department's commitment to appropriately fund the security
    throughout the complex and, finally and most importantly, those
    responsible for security in the field will have an advocate.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, Mr. Chairman, we understand our security
    challenges, we understand that we must meet those challenges,
    and we will, with your support. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Gen. Eugene E. Habiger

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
    for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the
    Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Office
    of Security and Emergency Operations (SO).
        This past year the Department took unprecedented steps to address
    major internal security problems and we have made significant progress
    in fixing those problems. Publication of the Cox and Rudman reports
    emphasized the urgency for needed change in the way the Department
    performed its security responsibilities. As the Rudman report correctly
    concluded, security at the Department had suffered from diffused
    authority and inattention. The confidence and trust of both the
    American people and Congress began to fade when enormous negative media
    coverage brought national attention to security-related incidents at
    the national laboratories. Combined with DOE's historical track record
    of security deficiencies, criticism of the Department as an ineffective
    and incorrigible agency incapable of reforming itself prevailed as
    public sentiment.
        The Secretary directed an abrupt end to this unacceptable situation
    and in May 1999 announced his Security Reform Package--the most
    sweeping reform of security programs in the Department's history. This
    comprehensive plan, which included the creation of the Office of
    Security and Emergency Operations, gave DOE the tools and authority
    needed to detect security infractions, correct institutional problems
    and protect America's nuclear secrets. Of paramount importance, was the
    need to change the security culture at DOE and establish a program to
    re-energize and restore confidence in the Department's security
    program.

                       FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET AMENDMENT

        Today, I will focus my testimony on the current budget before the
    Committee. However, before I do that, I feel the need to say a few
    words about an fiscal year 2001 Budget Amendment that will be submitted
    to the Congress soon. This amendment will provide the Department, for
    the first time, with a unified separate budget for its safeguards and
    security program. It will provide the Department with the funding
    authority to help strengthen DOE-wide safeguards and security, allow
    better management of funds, and provide visibility to the Department's
    commitment to appropriately fund safeguards and security throughout the
    complex. We believe this action, coupled with the Department's
    commitment to change the security culture, refocus its commitment to
    security, and the establishment of the Office of Security and Emergency
    Operations, will correct institutional problems and ensure that we
    protect America's nuclear secrets.
        Strong security is based on a foundation of clear line-management
    authority, responsibility and accountability. To implement change, one
    of the first steps required was to address the control and
    accountability, or lack thereof, of security activities within the
    Department. Currently, safeguards and security activities are funded
    from overhead accounts at the DOE national laboratories and other
    facilities. There is no single source for reviewing or accounting for
    the security budget. To remedy this and to strengthen my ability to
    manage the responsibilities of this office, in August 1999 the Deputy
    Secretary directed that the DOE fiscal year 2001 budget request include
    Safeguards and Security as a specifically identified, direct-funded
    activity within SO, which the pending budget amendment will accomplish.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Now, let me turn to the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $340.4
    million that is before this Committee today. This request represents an
    increase of 16.5 percent over our fiscal year 2000 funding level. The
    majority of this increase funds additional requirements in Cyber
    Security, Critical Infrastructure Protection and Program Direction. The
    fiscal year 2000 level of $292.2 million includes an additional $8.0
    million supplemental request. This additional $8.0 million identified
    in fiscal year 2000 is sought to provide adequate staffing for the new
    Office of Security and Emergency Operations and to support cyber-
    security improvements.

                                SECURITY AFFAIRS

        The Office of Safeguards and Security (OSS) ensures the protection
    of the Department's Special Nuclear Material, classified information,
    and facilities against theft, sabotage, espionage and terrorist
    activity. As part of the Security Reform, we have developed improved
    security policy and provided assistance to sites in implementing these
    revised policies. We are modifying current technologies for safeguards
    and security application and developing new safeguards and security
    technologies based on identified user needs.
        For fiscal year 2001, this program's budget request of $60.2
    million reflects increases in response to the U.S. policy on
    counterterrorism, for the initial implementation of nuclear/chemical/
    biological (NBC) programs across the DOE complex, by providing NBC
    protection, training and chemical/biological detection equipment. Our
    Information Security program has expanded its information assurance
    forensics analysis capabilities to support investigations and
    prosecutions of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. We
    have increased our focus on development of physical security technology
    applications to address vulnerabilities at DOE sites, and on the
    testing of delay tactics for use around the DOE complex.
        Unclassified foreign visits and assignments to Department of Energy
    national laboratories are vital to ensure that U.S. scientists remain
    knowledgeable of developments throughout the scientific world.
    Consequently at the end of last fiscal year, we established a new
    Office of Foreign Visits and Assignments. This Office has made
    tremendous strides in implementing the appropriate balance between
    enabling international scientific exchange while ensuring the
    protection of national security interests. A number of changes have
    occurred in the way we manage foreign nationals who visit our
    facilities. Specific changes include: involving counterintelligence,
    nonproliferation, export control and security officials at the national
    laboratories in the review process authorizing visits and assignments
    from foreign nationals; extending security oversight measures to DOE
    headquarters and DOE-sponsored off-site visits and assignments;
    granting the Secretary of Energy sole authority to approve visits and
    assignments from terrorist-list countries; and removing authority for
    facility directors to grant waivers of the DOE security requirements.
    Fiscal year 2001 funding will be used to upgrade a centralized tracking
    system for all foreign visitors or assignees at DOE facilities. It will
    also be used to enhance education and awareness activities at DOE
    facilities to ensure that all personnel are fully cognizant of the
    responsibilities associated with hosting foreign nationals.
        The Security Investigations program is requesting $13.0 million in
    fiscal year 2001. The request funds background investigations for DOE-
    wide federal employees, headquarters support services, protective force
    contractors, and miscellaneous non-federal personnel, who, in the
    performance of their official duties, require a security clearance
    permitting access to Restricted Data, National Security Information, or
    Special Nuclear Material. Offsets of $20.0 million will be provided by
    four other program offices (Defense Programs, Environmental Management,
    Nuclear Energy, and Science). In fiscal year 2001, the offset program
    organizations will be severely impacted due to language contained in
    the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 (S.1059,
    Section 3144). Background investigations on individuals who are
    employed in certain sensitive positions must now be conducted by the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) rather than the Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM) at a much higher price. There has been no
    funding increase to support our field contractor requirements. Without
    the necessary funding, the Department may need to submit a notification
    letter to Congress regarding a program funding increase for the third
    year in a row.

                                DECLASSIFICATION

        Under the authority granted in Public Laws 105-261 and 106-65, the
    Office of Nuclear and National Security Information continues its
    program to review other-agency documents scheduled for declassification
    under Executive Order 12958, to determine if they contain sensitive
    nuclear design information, i.e., Restricted Data and Formerly
    Restricted Data. The office also continues its effort to declassify the
    Department's own archived documents under the President's Executive
    Order on classification and declassification. Our responsibility to the
    American people under these initiatives is twofold: protecting the
    nation's most sensitive nuclear design information from inadvertent
    release; and eliminating excessive secrecy through the declassification
    of documents not warranting protection.
        The declassification budget request for fiscal year 2001 is $4.2
    million more than our fiscal year 2000 appropriation, representing a 25
    percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 funding level. The majority
    of this increase is required to implement Public Law 106-65, section
    3149, which supplements Public Law 105-261 and requires the Department
    to audit an additional 450 million pages of documents at the National
    Archives and Records Administration (NARA) which have already been
    declassified by other agencies and designated for release by NARA. To
    date, the Department has audited in excess of 64 million pages of
    documents under these two statutes and, in the process, has discovered
    erroneously declassified documents containing Restricted Data and
    Formerly Restricted Data. To date, the audits have prevented the
    inadvertent release of significant amounts of sensitive nuclear weapon
    design information.
        Also in support of its program under Public Law 105-261 and Public
    Law 106-65, the Office of Nuclear and National Security Information
    conducts Restricted Data/Formerly Restricted Data training courses for
    other-agency declassification reviewers. These courses are designed to
    alert other-agency reviewers of the presence of critical nuclear weapon
    design information which may be embedded in documents earmarked for
    declassification. We have already trained over 1,000 reviewers; during
    this fiscal year, over 150 reviewers have attended these training
    courses. We project an additional 500 reviewers will attend the courses
    through the end of this fiscal year.
        As hundreds of millions of pages of data are reviewed for release
    throughout government, the Department's program to ensure the
    appropriate protection of information so vital to the nation's security
    must be maintained.

                       CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

        The Department created the Office of Critical Infrastructure
    Protection to direct DOE's responsibilities under the national mandates
    of Presidential Decision Directive 63 regarding work with industry to
    develop and implement a plan to protect against, mitigate, respond to,
    and recover from attacks that would significantly disrupt the nation's
    energy infrastructure. The fiscal year 2001 request of $13.0 million
    supports policy and R&D activities necessary to fulfill these
    responsibilities.
        An important DOE mandate is to assure reliability and security of
    the energy grid. The nation's energy infrastructures (electric power,
    oil and gas) are susceptible to threats from natural, accidental, and
    intentional sources. The threats are directed at both physical and
    cyber assets of the energy sector. Recent trends toward increasing
    complexity and interconnectedness of the energy sector serve to
    increase the potential for significant disruptions to energy supply, if
    an element of the infrastructure is damaged, destroyed, or otherwise
    compromised. Because the energy grid is the life blood of our nation's
    critical infrastructures, such significant disruptions can have major
    impacts on the economy, human health and safety, and national security.
    Operating under the guidance of PDD-63, DOE funds activities to address
    and remedy the energy sector's vulnerability to the increasing
    diversity of threats.
        Focused on the thrust areas of Analysis and Risk Management and
    Protection and Mitigation Technologies, the critical infrastructure
    program will result in real-time control mechanisms, integrated multi-
    sensor and warning systems, and risk management and consequence
    analysis tools that will help the national energy sector address the
    physical and cyber threats to, and vulnerability of, the energy
    infrastructure. DOE also will develop infrastructure interdependence
    tools to improve the capability to assess the technical, economic and
    national security implications of cascading energy infrastructure
    disruptions and to improve the reliability and security of the nation's
    interdependent energy grid. This program will involve collaboration
    between DOE and the major stakeholders, including private sector owners
    of energy elements, other federal agencies involved in critical
    infrastructure protection, and state and local governments. The
    capabilities of the national laboratories, academia, and private
    research organizations will be used to develop and implement the
    program.

                                 CYBER-SECURITY

        When our office was established in July 1999, a single cyber
    security organization, under the direction of the Chief Information
    Officer, was included to address the pervasive lack of attention to our
    cyber security practices in a world of increased computer hacking and
    cyber terrorism. The $30.3 million requested for the Cyber Security
    Program in fiscal year 2001 is an increase of $17.0 million over the
    fiscal year 2000 request. This increase provides policy and planning,
    training, technical development, and operations to provide consistent
    principles and requirements that line management can implement for the
    protection of classified and unclassified information used or stored on
    Departmental Information Systems. The policies for the protection of
    this information will ensure that classified and unclassified
    information is protected consistently across the various elements of
    the Department in a cost-effective manner and consistent with the
    protection of this information in paper form.
        A goal of the program is to implement enterprise-wide training to a
    broad audience of individuals responsible for implementing Cyber
    Security programs and protection measures. These include, but are not
    limited to managers, system administrators, Cyber Security
    professionals, and general users. Training will use commercial and
    government off-the-shelf materials where available. The fiscal year
    2001 request provides for an increase in Computer Incident Response
    Capability (CIAC at LLNL) from 15 to 25 contractor staff to provide
    cyber security incident response, analysis of cyber intrusions and
    attempted intrusions, and warning capability for the Department.
        A large portion of the funds will support the Cyber Security Core
    Architecture engineering and deployment, which will enable the program
    to implement baseline Cyber Security capabilities at 12 sites. The
    Public Key infrastructure (PKI) Initiative started in fiscal year 2000
    will be enhanced to operate and expand inter-site PKI capability for
    the protection of unclassified data in transit, as well as limited
    capability for protection of unclassified data in storage. The PKI
    Initiative will also provide Departmental infrastructure to support
    token or biometric authentication.
        The program will also provide for Departmental cyber security tools
    and capabilities to support the establishment of a limited testing
    capability for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) cyber security products
    prior to being deployed in the Department. There is a continuous need
    to evaluate and potentially modify COTS cyber security products: (1) to
    ensure that the application of these products does not significantly
    interfere with primary organizational or computer missions, and (2) to
    identify weaknesses in COTS products that must be mitigated to ensure a
    consistent, comprehensive cyber security implementation.

                              EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

        The fiscal year 200l budget request for the Office of Emergency
    Operations is $93.6 million. This represents a $5.94 million technical
    adjustment over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. This adjustment
    restores much needed funding for the Radiological/Nuclear Accident
    Response program.
        The Office of Emergency Operations serves as the central
    organization within the Department of Energy for all emergency
    functions. To carry out this role, the office employs the necessary
    command, control and communications capabilities augmented by trained
    response personnel to ensure the successful resolution of an emergency
    event affecting Departmental operations and activities. In addition,
    the office ensures that the Department's seven unique assets (Aerial
    Measurement System, Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability, Accident
    Response Group, Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center,
    Nuclear Emergency Search Team, Radiological Assistance Program and
    Radiological Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site) are in place to
    provide an appropriate response to any DOE facility or nuclear/
    radiological emergencies within the U.S. or abroad. These capabilities
    are organized into an integrated set of radiological emergency response
    assets which provides overall program management and the organizational
    structure during both emergency and non-emergency conditions for the
    personnel, equipment, and activities that collectively comprise the
    program.
        For fiscal year 200l, by prioritizing our program efforts, we will
    continue to improve and expand our capabilities to effectively plan for
    and respond to an emergency event. For example, we will: increase the
    number of Department-wide drills and exercises and evaluate our
    readiness to implement the Department's emergency management system;
    improve our atmospheric release plume modeling capability; expand the
    number of sites and technical features of the Emergency Communications
    Network; and increase our training of emergency management personnel at
    the Emergency Operations Training Academy.

                               PROGRAM DIRECTION

        The fiscal year 2001 request for Program Direction of $89.4 million
    will provide the salaries, benefits, travel, support services, and
    related expenses associated with overall management, oversight,
    staffing and administrative support necessary to carry out the Security
    and Emergency Operations Program. This represents an increase of $7.6
    million over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and requested
    supplemental. The requested increase in funds would provide additional
    staff and cover their associated costs (including inflation).

                                   CONCLUSION

        Today, the Department has raised its level of consciousness
    regarding security activities that led to the deterioration of security
    awareness and education. We now function in a security environment
    decidedly different from the one we faced a decade earlier. We cannot
    directly control or alter the threats to the security interests
    entrusted to our care. What can be controlled, however, is our ability
    to plan, train, and respond should these threats ever materialize. The
    changing security environment and other threats over the past decade
    have fundamentally altered the Department's security perspective and
    posture. This is a significant challenge, but one that the Department
    of Energy must be prepared to meet.
        The bottom line is clear . . . The Department has made significant
    progress over the past year in standing up a new security organization.
    We're seeing a change in the culture and an improved level of security
    awareness. With the support, cooperation and buy-in of other program
    offices across the DOE complex, the initiatives that the Secretary has
    put forth are working. Our professionals are committed to serving their
    country in an environment that produces the very best science within a
    framework of security that is effective, but not unjustifiably
    intrusive.

                           NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, General.
        Senator Reid.
        Senator Reid. Thank you a lot, Mr. Chairman.
        General, one of the questions was answered--I guess when I
    say General, I have to identify the General. Like when people
    say Senator around here, everybody turns around.
        General Gioconda, you answered a question that I had as to
    when the new NIF baseline will come up, and you said around
    June 1.
        General Gioconda. Sir, that is the reporting requirement.
    Secretary Richardson has made a commitment, understanding your
    accelerated mark up schedule, to provide to you, as early as
    possible the NIF options.
        In fact, this afternoon I am meeting with the Secretary to
    go through the options that have been developed and take him
    through several weeks of work outlining what options are
    available. They range from zero, no continuation, to all the
    way through full funding to get the program back on track.
        Senator Reid. General, I hope that you heard not only what
    I said, but how I said it. I personally feel we have really
    been misled. We were working under very tight budget
    constraints and we were promised, and we said, is this going to
    work out, and I think we were misled.
        They recognized once we started we never stop anything
    around here. Well, that is not quite true. We have stopped
    things, and when I mentioned the Superconducting Super
    Collider, that was a tough thing that we did, but I think NIF,
    unless we get that resolved, there is going to be more than
    this Senator concerned about it. This is something, I can just
    see how this is going to develop on the floor. I hope you got
    that message.
        General Gioconda. Yes, sir. There are three steps we have
    been engaged in with NIF, and when you say you have been
    misled, that is quite frankly how the Secretary feels. He made
    his speech that it was on-cost, on-schedule, and it was not
    communicated to Defense Programs, nor was it, obviously,
    communicated to the Secretary. The first thing that the
    Secretary had to do, was determine the program, who do you
    trust and what is the truth.
        Then he had to put together a management team to develop
    the options that you can rely on if you were to move forth with
    the program, and that is kind of the step we are in now. Many
    people have been reassigned, moved out of their jobs, resigned,
    and been told, quite frankly, their performance was
    unacceptable.
        Next, I believe, we have put together, a good management
    team. We have put in the hands of the lab what they are world-
    class at, which is science, and we have put in the hands of
    people who are world-class in integration, which is not the
    lab, and that is what got them in trouble. Now what we are
    figuring out is the path forward, and that is what we owe you.
        Senator Reid. General, I am not saying this because
    Secretary Richardson is from New Mexico, or that the chairman
    of the subcommittee is from New Mexico. But I really feel,
    again speaking only for me, that I have gotten better
    information from the two labs in New Mexico on a continual
    basis than I have from the outfit in California, and I am going
    to take a real close look at programs that emanate from that
    facility. I have the distinct impression that they feel they
    own this subcommittee, and they should understand, all those
    within the sound of my voice, that they do not.
        General Gioconda. Sir, what I would like to offer, if I
    could at this point in the record, is to give you, when the
    Secretary approves, two white papers, one classified and one
    unclassified, on NIF, what its requirements are, how it fits
    Stockpile Stewardship, and how it relates to the rest of the
    program. When that is approved by the Secretary, sir, I would
    like to offer that to you, because I think that is important to
    what you are saying--how NIF relates to all of Stockpile
    Stewardship, and how all of stockpile stewardship relates to
    each other.

                            DEVICE ASSEMBLY FACILITY

        Senator Reid. I know the chairman has so many things to do,
    but I have another question or two that I would like to ask.
        We constructed at the Nevada Test Site, at great expense, a
    Device Assembly Facility. We did that because the original
    facility was real close to the perimeter. It was reachable, and
    this is something we were very proud of. Well, it has not been
    used much at all since we spent a large amount of money
    building it. It is only 20 to 25 percent, at best, utilized
    today.
        I would like you to take a look at this facility and have
    your people give me a report as to what can be done to more
    fully utilize this facility. The Department's combined budget
    request for national security for next year is about $7
    billion, and it seems that this facility simply isn't being
    used at all, so I would like you to get back to me on that.
        Senator Domenici. Could it be back to the committee?
        Senator Reid. Yes, please. Of course.
        General Gioconda. Sir, our Albuquerque Operations Office
    and our Nevada Operations Office are doing that right now as
    part of our infrastructure plans. So yes sir. We will get it
    back to you.
        [The information follows:]

                            DEVICE ASSEMBLY FACILITY

        The Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)
    was designed to assemble test devices for underground nuclear tests.
    With the cessation of underground testing, new missions have been
    sought for the facility. Currently there are four mission assignments
    for the DAF: (1) support to the subcritical experiments; (2) readiness
    to resume underground nuclear tests; (3) readiness to receive damaged
    U.S. nuclear weapons; and (4) plutonium target assembly for the JASPER
    two-stage gas gun. Additional long-term missions for the DAF are being
    studied by the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories
    in conjunction with the Albuquerque and Nevada Operations Offices.
    Activities being looked at are those which would add strength to the
    current NTS mission and help build and maintain a cadre of experienced
    nuclear explosives technicians and engineers such as stockpile
    surveillance activities including advanced aging units, drop testing,
    limited dismantlement, shelf life evaluation, and other lab research
    and developments. The DAF is also being considered as an alternative
    for the relocation of the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility now
    in Technical Area 18 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and as a
    possible monitored disassembly facility under future arms control
    regimes.

        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions
    that I will submit. As you know, I have spoken to you on the
    Atlas, the pulse power facility. I have a significant number of
    questions on that that I would like you to focus some attention
    on. I think that again, for whatever reason, I was told certain
    things. We put certain things in our last bill. They just have
    been ignored. I would like you to take a look at that.
        Senator Domenici. I think that is really important. We went
    through a lot of effort last year to work on this, and it looks
    like it is not happening. We just have to know all about it. We
    would like to know why.

                              INTEGRATED STRATEGY

        General Gioconda. You are talking about the megastrategy or
    integrated strategy?
        Senator Reid. Yes, with particular emphasis for me on the
    Atlas program.
        General Habiger, when can we have an exact date for the
    security budget, your security budget? When are you going to be
    able to do that?
        General Habiger. Mr. Chairman, that budget left the
    Department of Energy 2 weeks ago. It is now over in the Office
    of Management and Budget. We are going over there today to try
    to break that loose, and I cannot give you a date, sir.
        Sir, I should have had this over here 2 months ago, and I
    am very frustrated that it is not here.
        Senator Reid. Well, I think we are very fortunate, and I
    speak for all four of you here. I mean, I think that if people
    knew the quality of folks that we had running this most
    important part of our national security, our Government today,
    they would be and should be very proud and I think this is a
    great collection of minds, with a lot of experience, and I am
    very happy to be working with you.
        Mr. Chairman, Thank you.

                            NEED FOR FUNCTIONAL NNSA

        Senator Domenici. General Habiger, I am not sure, because
    of time, that I will get around to questions. I will probably
    submit them to you, but let me suggest that you probably have
    done the best job, looking at the past, of trying to
    consolidate the office that you have alluded to, the security
    office, but I still want to tell you what I believe.
        I believe that the office is going to be no better
    ultimately than the management scheme for nuclear weaponry
    within the Department of Energy. I believe it is subject to so
    many cross-currents of regulations, that is, the function that
    we would try to isolate and call nuclear weaponry, that it is
    almost impossible for anybody to truly have their hands around
    security or anything as generic as that, and that is why we--
    will ask the Secretary, but that is why we believe it is very
    important that the law that we pass be complied with, and that
    we begin the structural reform.
        You heard the Admiral. Now, they are not comparable
    programs, but you heard that everything to do with the naval
    reactor program is under one person, one commander, all of it--
    security, production, management, the whole scheme, and to a
    very real extent we have watched in the past when a problem
    comes up in the Department, a new box is created, and I am not
    suggesting your box, because you could probably put something
    together that would describe it better than the rather profound
    word, box, but we watched it, and that is what happens.
        A big problem occurs, and a new box is created, but it gets
    lost when it comes into contact with the proliferation, the
    pieces of the Department that want to get a piece of the action
    of what is going on. I want you to know that it is my plain,
    simple evaluation that there will be an NNSA in full function
    soon and it will be sooner rather than later, because whether
    we can make it work with Secretary Richardson, who has a couple
    of very big concerns--and it is just a matter of time, but it
    is going to be done.
        And so I urge that as you put this apparatus together and
    suggest a new budgeting approach where you are going to do more
    harmonizing, I hope you will look at the statute on NNSA and
    make sure that you are not building something that will have
    difficulty fitting into that, because I assure you that when
    you send it up here we are going to look at it that way, and
    this is one Senator--and I think on this score I will be
    listened to.
        I am not going to address your amended request if I see
    this as building a brand-new box that is to be independent and
    will not fit into the NNSA that we modeled somewhat after
    theirs, but certainly Admiral Chiles and others know that it is
    different than yours, so we created what is necessary, it
    seems, to try to do a better job for the next decade.

                   ADEQUACY OF STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

        Now, General Gioconda, I have a lot of questions, but what
    I am really concerned about is the adequacy of the 2001 budget.
    Even though we all sit here and say, isn't it good, it has got
    an increase in it, you yourself must be familiar with some
    things that are pretty critical that we may not be able to do
    under this budget that we ought to be doing. I wonder if you
    could tell us a few of those.
        General Gioconda. Sir, the one thing, and thank you for the
    very kind words about Dr. Reis. As an Italian, he is still my
    godfather.
        Sir, the three things that have to be the priority in
    stockpile stewardship is what I call people, places, and
    process. The first is the people. If we do not attack that
    issue, to get the next generation trained, make sure the people
    believe this is a vital national issue and stay with the
    program. This budget, there is not enough to do that, but we
    are working on the plans to do that.
        The second thing is, places, infrastructure. As you
    mentioned, if you look back at the history of Stockpile
    Stewardship in the last 5 years, the thing that has caused us
    the most problems is start-up of infrastructure. It has not
    started up very gracefully.
        If you look at the way we designed new infrastructure--we
    built a new weapon, then the infrastructure was updated as the
    new weapon flowed through the system. Well, since we do not
    have that forcing function any more, we have to figure out how
    we are going to update the infrastructure. With 50 to 60
    percent of the current stockpile coming through the complex for
    refurbishment, we need to do that very quickly.
        The third part is the process, which drives the other two.
    We have to make sure that we have a process that is based on
    requirements, requirements that can stand your review, our
    review, and go forward on those. I think we now have the
    process. Those other two areas, infrastructure and people,
    quite frankly, have paid the price any time we've gotten in a
    budget crunch.
        Senator Domenici. Well, while we look at some very
    important issues regarding the maintenance and our ability to
    attract the expert personnel we have to look at some very
    mundane-type things, because they are very adversely affected
    by polygraph, the polygraph positions of the U.S. Government,
    and limitations on laboratory research and development and
    travel.
        I have some very specific questions, but I will submit
    them, but essentially I am very hopeful that we are developing
    a polygraph sense about the laboratories that is way, way far
    from let's have polygraphs for everybody, and that it will not
    be that. It will be a program that is directed at polygraphs
    being an integrated approach to try and do better surveillance
    of the activities of our scientists and those in the labs. You
    are developing that.

                                POLYGRAPH TESTS

        General Gioconda. Sir, I consider myself the spokesman for
    that in the Department, and just recently we have had several
    meetings with the lab directors present. General Habiger has
    been there, and we sat down and worked out the details, and so
    the implementers understand what they are implementing.
        I have taken a polygraph, after 30 years in the Air Force,
    to understand what it is all about, and we are going through
    that step-by-step. We are not trying to jump ahead. We are
    trying to make sure this is all integrated but it is a very
    fragile area of trust.
        Senator Domenici. I think it is very important that either
    you or the lab directors, as soon as practicable, begin to
    communicate with the workforce, that in fact this is evolving,
    and whatever they have read--and we are not there yet, so they
    do not assume they are working just 2 or 3 more years trying to
    get the hell out of here, as some would say, because I do not
    want it to be part of my Ph.D. career to end up with me having
    to take polygraph tests every year, and so I hope we can
    communicate that is a very, very big morale problem.
        Now, also, regarding travel, we had a series of questions,
    but let's just say, you and I and everybody running the
    Department knows that people in the laboratory have to travel,
    right? It is just part of being a great scientist, a great
    engineer, a great manager of programs. They have got to get out
    and interact with others. That is part of the academic aspect
    of their lives, and they have to travel to foreign countries,
    which some people around do not want that to happen, either,
    but they have got to.
        In fact, any prohibition that they cannot go to Taiwan or
    communist China, somebody is going to look at that after a
    while and say, now, who is winning and who is losing in this
    exchange program, so for the record, you all are concerned
    about that, are you not, and you are trying to put something
    together that is realistic, yet not as ambitious as they have
    had in the past. It was too ambitious and too costly.
        General Gioconda. Sir, my comment on travel is, we have
    just got to ask the questions that need to be asked before
    someone travels. We can't assume the dollars are there. We need
    to take the GAO comments and implement a process, and then I
    think, sir, that can withstand anyone's scrutiny.

                               TRITIUM PRODUCTION

        Senator Domenici. We had an option called accelerator
    production of tritium that was a back-up to using a reactor,
    and incidentally I compliment the entire Department on the
    success of using the reactor system of the TVA. I never thought
    we would clear that program that easily but I assume,
    environmentally and otherwise, that people have looked at it
    objectively instead of with some of the typical emotionalness,
    and we are going to proceed.
        General Gioconda. Sir, the only hurdle we have left is the
    NRC licensing, and that is the paperwork we are doing this
    year.
        Senator Domenici. NRC licensing has become a much more
    positive and realistic activity in the past 2 or 3 years, and I
    take a little credit for that, and I am proud of it, but I
    think they are doing pretty well.
        We are thinking about a composite that will involve
    continuation of accelerator research and include transportation
    of waste. We think there is a real chance at this point, when
    we are worried about energy and our dependance, that we would
    take a real serious look at the science of transportation as
    well as alternatives for tritium and other things an
    accelerator can do. We are going to try to put a program
    together and submit it to you all for your analysis.
        General Gioconda. We in Defense Programs support that. I
    resisted the temptation to take the money, because I am blessed
    with two really good programs that are working very, very well.
        No action was taken against the APT program as a bad
    program. In fact, it was excellent. It made the choice hard. We
    cut the design capability. We put that in the back seat, and we
    went on with the engineering because that is important, and we
    are trying to link up with other parts of the Department to
    have that program continue, and Defense Programs wants to be a
    part of that.

                           NUCLEAR WEAPONS PRODUCTION

        Senator Domenici. I think we ought to state here for the
    record and in public that, contrary to impressions and
    accusations, as the head of stockpile stewardship and your
    position in the Department, the United States of America to
    your knowledge, and certainly to my knowledge, is not producing
    any new nuclear weapon, right? We're not manufacturing any new
    weapons?
        General Gioconda. Absolutely not, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And we are continuing to develop a budget
    that is predicated upon that premise that we are not going to
    build any.
        On the other hand, the Russians, they keep their stockpile
    safe, et cetera, by building new nuclear weapons. That sounds
    strange to Americans, but they build a completely different
    nuclear weapon, and so they rebuild them. Are you satisfied, in
    your position, that there is no significant disadvantage to the
    United States, in the current posture of them building new ones
    to keep theirs solid and solvent, and us doing ours under
    stockpile stewardship and replenishment of parts?
        General Gioconda. Sir, as long as I carry out the second
    part of my mandate, which is to maintain a design capability
    and work on that, then I believe that our program, our
    scientists, our great minds, and our production people will
    stay sharp--then I think we're okay. But if I just do half, and
    just fall asleep at the switch, then I will have problems.
        But right now, sir, I am confident we are doing the right
    thing.
        Senator Domenici. General, let me suggest that one thing we
    are least capable of doing as a people, probably because of our
    governance style, is to maintain an effectiveness that is not
    needed. We just have a very difficult time saying, let's keep
    the Nevada Test Site ready. I mean, it is hard for us to put
    money into that kind of a thing, just like it is to put money
    into maintaining great scientists who are not doing the design
    and keeping that workforce.
        I think it is a very important part of your role, and I
    think every chance you get you ought to make sure you analyze
    it from the standpoint of us not cutting corners with reference
    to the parts of the Department that are attractive to those
    people we may need if ever this approach is not working.

                     LONG-TERM STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP BUDGET

        Now, let me talk a minute about the $45 billion framework
    that comes forth from your 30-day review. Is it possible to
    meet the stockpile work load to develop the technical tools
    needed to ensure the reliability of the stockpile and maintain
    the readiness of the technical facility base within this $45
    billion for the over 10 years? Would you just answer it and
    give us a brief explanation if you think it is?
        General Gioconda. No, sir. Yes, I will answer it, but no,
    sir. I have to watch my answers here.
        It is important, I believe, to go through and look at what
    it was. The $4.5 billion over 10 years was a good start as far
    as what was projected for the program, but a lot of things have
    changed in the program. I think it has to be a requirements-
    based program, that you base it on requirements and then you
    make decisions based on how much and what requirements you want
    to have done and what requirements you want to put on hold. Our
    new budget structure will allow us to do that in a much more
    stringent manner, but I do not think a magic formula at this
    point is the right way of doing it.
        Senator Domenici. Well, look, I was just going to tick off
    some things that have obviously changed dramatically, but I
    will just use one. Obviously, the NIF overruns could be very
    substantial. In that $45 billion in that period, they could be
    $600 to $800 million, and nobody planned for that. That is a
    huge amount.
        We do not have to have very many of those, and the $45
    billion is not available for what you need it for. I believe
    your continued work with the Department of Defense to make sure
    they are fully supportive of our defense work so that they
    treat it like regular defense work when they consider how much
    you need--and then we will have to do that up here.
        People think the DOE nuclear weapons program is a
    stepchild. They fund the Department of Defense appropriation,
    but forget this is defense money as well. This is a continuing
    problem and is very difficult for us. The Department must push
    very hard that these are very important defense issues, and
    that is what they are. We do not need them if they are not
    defense.
        General Gioconda. Sir, that is one of my jobs as a General
    Officer assigned to DOE, to open up the communication between
    the Departments. What has been very useful is STRATCOM, with
    Admiral Mies and General Habiger, opening up the communication
    with the Department. A lot of people in the Defense Department
    need the same knowledge, and we have to keep that going. I can
    say it is on a positive upswing.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I think it is a matter of
    communications and making sure that the Pentagon knows the
    importance of these programs, because they will be just as
    impressed as with the importance of whether we build a new
    aircraft carrier or not.
        General Gioconda. Every one of my assistants meets with a
    defense official once a week, picks one and makes sure they
    stay in contact, both the Navy and the Air Force, and I do the
    same, and that is the way to open it, making sure we keep these
    items center stage.
        Senator Domenici. I am going to submit questions for your
    response. For example, to explain the pit production at Los
    Alamos, what it really is intended to be, and where we are
    going in terms of our requirements on pits. I guess it is a
    fair statement to say as of today Pakistan has more ability to
    manufacture pits than the United States of America. Is that
    true? Somebody said that to me.
        General Gioconda. Sir, I am not conversant on the Pakistan
    program. They obviously did one.
        Senator Domenici. Well, if they could do one, they are
    better than us.
        General Gioconda. Sir, for the record, I will take our
    stockpile over theirs.

                            RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA

        Senator Domenici. Of course. I am just making a point about
    one little piece of it. It is not always appropriate to do
    that.
        Okay, what I think I am going to do is recess now and
    submit questions to all three of you. Let me also suggest that
    in Russia, where you spend a lot of time and where I have some
    great friends, like Sid Hecker, who spends almost all of his
    life trying to figure out how to do better over there, this is
    also a time where we have to be careful about what is going on
    in Russia.
        They have a new president. None of us really know what that
    means right now. It does not seem to me like he is going to be
    anything like the president that they have had the last 4 or 5
    years over there, and our continued assistance in these areas
    has to be on the basis that we are getting some real feed-back
    from them that is tangible and objective, that they are really
    cooperating in an effort to reduce the threats and to eliminate
    every opportunity we can for further proliferation.
        If that is not happening, that can get turned off awful
    fast up here, because we are on a thin, thin reed right now in
    terms of support. I continue to support it, even the new
    initiative on the cities, the nuclear cities initiative. I have
    very serious doubts that you can convert those cities the way
    we think, but I think it is worth a small amount of money to
    see if we can.
        Ms. Gottemoeller. Thank you for your support, Mr. Chairman.
    It has been an exciting year, as I mentioned in my testimony,
    but I agree with you, we need to keep on top of the situation
    and keep in close communication to make sure that we are
    getting results from the Russian side.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Domenici. Thank you, we will submit all of the rest
    of the questions.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                   CONDITION OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE

        Question. General Gioconda, is the nuclear weapons stockpile safe,
    reliable and secure?
        Answer. Yes, the Secretaries of Energy and Defense have recently
    certified, for the fourth consecutive year, that the safety, security,
    and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile is assured
    without the need for underground nuclear yield testing at this time.
        Question. Do you have confidence that the weapons in the stockpile
    can and will perform as designed?
        Answer. Yes, the integrity of the existing nuclear weapons
    stockpile is assured through the execution of the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program which includes routine surveillance, regular replacement of
    limited life components such as gas reservoirs and neutron generators,
    and the replacement or upgrade of other components and subsystems. Each
    year in the surveillance program, eleven weapons of each weapon type
    are disassembled and examined. Laboratory and flight tests are also
    conducted to simulate expected deployment environments. The data from
    these examinations and tests are compiled and carefully analyzed by the
    DOE and the national laboratories using extensive computer modeling,
    which helps to understand the long-term, time-dependent behavior of
    weapons materials and the implications of any observed changes on
    weapon life projections.

                  ADEQUACY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Question. Are there any critical needs not addressed in the budget
    request because of the lack of budgetary resources? If so, please
    explain.
        Answer. There are no critical needs that are not addressed in the
    budget request with the exception of the NIF rebaseline. However, as I
    testified to, when we've gotten in a budget crunch, it's our people and
    our infrastructure which seem to have paid the mortgage price. This
    budget is no different and we know if we don't fix the problems soon
    they will be very critical. We must recruit and train the next
    generation of scientists and engineers and it must be done while we
    still have a cadre of workers whose experience with the stockpile can
    be passed on to the next generation. There must be a transition period
    with both the experienced workers and the new recruits on board and
    that expenditure has been deferred in light of more pressing needs the
    past few years. At the same time with no new weapons moving through the
    complex to force the issue, our investment in our infrastructure has
    not kept pace with future needs. As a large portion of the stockpile
    must move through the complex for reburbishments in the coming years
    that situation must also be reversed.
        However, the investments we are making in developing our scientific
    capabilities are mandatory if we are to continue to certify the safety
    and reliability of the stockpile without underground testing. That
    scientific capability is already paying off and we just certified to
    the President for the fourth consecutive year that underground testing
    is not necessary at this time. As these scientific capabilities mature
    these investments will be reduced. Our work with DOD to identify and
    assess the final technical drivers and schedules for weapon component
    replacements and our new budget structure will hopefully allow us to
    more effectively balance the program.
        Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow NNSA
    to meet all DOD annual weapons alterations, modifications, and
    surveillance schedules? For example, does this budget put us on a
    schedule to make all of the safety and security upgrades available when
    the weapons go in for refurbishment?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request assumes enactment of
    the supplemental request in fiscal year 2000. If this funding is
    provided, we will be able to meet all fiscal year 2001 scheduled
    weapons alterations, modifications, and surveillance requirements. The
    Department will continue to assess weapon workload priorities to ensure
    weapons in the stockpile remain safe and secure.
        Question. Does this budget request make the appropriate investments
    in future manufacturing facilities, process development, critical
    skills so that the NNSA will be able to meet the known future military
    requirements as well as the requirements of the Stockpile Life
    Extension Program?
        Answer. I believe the balance we have reached in the fiscal year
    2001 budget request is the best one to fulfill the requirement to
    maintain a national deterrent while ensuring a path for the viability
    of the weapons production complex to produce components into the
    future. One of the avenues we are pursuing is our production readiness
    campaigns. In fiscal year 2001, we are proposing in initiate the
    Secondary Readiness Campaign, which will begin to address these issues
    for secondary production. These efforts are planned to be expanded in
    fiscal year 2002 covering two additional production readiness
    campaigns, high explosives/assembly and nonnuclear component
    manufacturing. To address the critical skills issues, we continue to
    fund the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program and have
    requested the establishment of an analogous program in the production
    plants, Plant-Manager Research, Development and Demonstration (PMRDD),
    to attract and retain the best possible people to the laboratories and
    production plants.
        Question. If the Committee were to provide you additional funds,
    what would be your next priorities and at what level of funding?
        Answer. I believe we have struck an appropriate balance in the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request between Directed Stockpile Work,
    Campaigns, and infrastructure. Of course, funding for the NIF
    rebaseline was not included in the request, but we will soon transmit a
    budget neutral amendment to accommodate the new baseline. As always
    there are items which could not be accommodated within the budget
    request, or which could benefit from additional funding, but it is our
    judgement that these are not critical needs.

                ADEQUACY OF 10 YEAR $45 BILLION BUDGET FRAMEWORK

        Question. A key outcome of the 30 Day Review was the need for DOE
    and DOD to refine the process for determining the scheduling of
    stockpile refurbishing requirements considering military, human, and
    budgetary needs. What are the critical underlying issues that make this
    such an important area of focus? What progress has been made to resolve
    these issues?
        Answer. There are never enough resources to satisfy all
    requirements. Choices must be made. In Defense Programs, the choices
    are complicated by the fact that the DOE and DOD have had differing
    views on which requirements should take precedence; stockpile work,
    scientific and technical tools, security, reliability, or
    infrastructure. In the final analysis, all of these requirements and
    many others must be balanced and integrated in order to have a viable
    and responsible program.
        We are working within the program and with the DOD to reach
    agreement on a prioritized set of requirements. A group within the DOE,
    the Requirements Assessment and Implementation Team, has started work
    on a DOE list. In the DOD, the Nuclear Weapons Requirements Working
    Group, has embarked on a similar task, and both groups are working
    together to establish a common set of prioritized requirements for the
    stockpile stewardship program of the future.
        Question. In your judgement, is it possible to meet the Direct
    Stockpile workload; develop the scientific and technical tools needed
    to insure stockpile safety, security, and reliability; and maintain the
    Readiness of the technical and facility base within the $45 billion,
    10-year budget framework? Please explain.
        Answer. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is working, we have been
    able to certify to the President for the fourth consecutive year that
    underground testing is not necessary, but we've made some difficult
    choices as to where limited resources must be spent.
        Recognizing the changes that have occurred in the program since its
    inception, last Fall the Secretary ordered a review of the health and
    status of the nuclear weapons complex, including its physical
    infrastructure, and of the status of recruitment, retention, and
    training of top scientists and engineers needed to sustain the program.
    While the review indicated that Stockpile Stewardship is on track both
    in terms of specific science, surveillance, and production
    accomplishments and in terms of developing a program management
    structure to improve the certification process, it did provide insight
    into areas that still need attention.
        We are engaged with the DOD in identifying the process for
    determining the scheduling of refurbishments to more fully consider
    military, workforce, and budgetary needs. At the same time we must
    aggressively develop the scientific capabilities required to certify
    the stockpile without testing. This is proving to be more expensive
    than estimated at the program's inception and is requiring less than
    optimum funding for our future infrastructure and for recruiting,
    retention and training of our people. The Stockpile Stewardship Program
    is a requirements-based program and it is our determination regarding
    when those requirement must be meet that drives the budget.
        Question. In your view, what is the appropriate annual budget level
    needed to meet these requirements? Can you even set a baseline for a
    program still in development?
        Answer. There is no absolute formula for determining the annual
    budget level with the challenge of certifying our stockpile without
    underground testing. I do believe that our budget each year should be
    requirements based and not measured against an arbitrary standard and
    that as we refine and prioritize requirements with the DOD and gain
    more experience with our developing scientific capabilities the annual
    budget can be refined to the point where a requirements based future
    year budget can be confidently forecasted.

                       NEW BUDGET AND REPORTING STRUCTURE

        Question. DOE's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a significantly
    changed budget and reporting structure. The new structure integrates
    the activities under the old Stockpile Stewardship and Management
    approach into the Stockpile Stewardship Program which consist of 3 main
    elements: Directed Stockpile Work, Readiness in Technical Base and
    Facilities, and Campaigns which has 17 sub-elements. General Gioconda,
    your statement indicates that you are ``collecting data in the new
    structure as a further check on the viability of the approach,'' Why is
    this approach being put forth if you are unsure of its success?
        Answer. We believe this new business line approach better
    integrates our program elements, and if approved and implemented, will
    provide an improved program framework. Prior to receiving official
    approval of the structure change, we are continuing to fine tune with
    the Headquarters and Operations Office Chief Financial Officers the
    categories underpinning the major new structure elements. We are having
    the M&O contractors collect fiscal year 2000 budget execution data
    unofficially in the new structure. It allows Headquarters to assure
    that the new cost categories provide the intended information; it also
    permits the contractors to begin to develop and put into place the
    complex cost accounting mapping tools to successfully accomplish the
    structure change in order to execute it officially in fiscal year 2001.
        Making a major accounting and budgeting change is a formidable
    task, and a transition period is not unusual to assess each measure
    with the assured confidence that we expect.
        Question. The budget justification material for Campaigns provides
    a very general description of the goals and end states, and provides
    general, non-specific performance measures for each Campaign. How can
    the work on critical research and development, and analysis of the
    nuclear weapons stockpile be managed in a focused way without specific
    milestones and performance measures?
        Answer. We are doing the ``focused way'' just as the question
    implies. As stated in the budget justification, the Campaigns are
    managed by detailed implementation plans that include specific year-by-
    year technical milestones and deliverables. The table to which you
    refer in the budget contains the highest level information from these
    plans--the end state for each campaign, and the highest level
    performance measures for the 5 year period. The Detailed Budget
    Justification section of the budget cascades to the next lower level of
    detail in support of those high level performance measures,
    highlighting each Campaign's Major Technical Elements with associated
    fiscal year 2001 funding. The specific milestones and performance
    measures supporting this lower level are not included in the budget
    document. Rather, they are included in the implementation plans, which
    we would be happy to make available to the Committees if desired. The
    measures in the implementation plans are referenced in the Department's
    Work Authorization system when the programs are executed.
        Question. How detailed are the annual Implementation Plans? Explain
    if, or how personnel performance evaluations are tied to the success of
    these annual plans?
        Answer. The Implementation Plan for Campaigns are primarily
    documentation of the technical goals and detailed milestones and
    deliverables for the M&O contractors who execute the Stockpile
    Stewardship programs. These plans contain the types of milestones which
    could be utilized by M&O contractors in evaluation of their employees,
    although the DOE is not directly involved in these efforts. At a higher
    level, these plans could be enumerated in the performance measures
    associated with the M&O contracts. Federal managers may also choose to
    include a reference to a specific Implementation Plan as part of their
    personnel performance measurement package. We are looking at the
    potential for all of this throughout our federal structure and M&O
    contracting.

                     ABILITY TO MEET MILITARY REQUIREMENTS

        Question. The DOD is the military customer for the nuclear
    stockpile and partners with the DOE to set requirements for the
    stockpile stewardship program. A significant fraction of the weapons in
    the stockpile are aging well beyond their design lives. Since we are
    not producing new weapons, we must begin rebuilding our existing
    weapons by fiscal year 2006. When we begin rebuilding weapons, we want
    to be able to make them more safe, reliable, and secure.
        The 30-Day Review said ``Failure to develop and mature these
    technologies [to make weapons safer, more reliable, and more secure]
    during the next 3-5 years could lead to the reuse of 20-30 years old
    technology in refurbished weapons.''
        General Gioconda, has the Administration requested a budget that
    supports the schedule to rebuild weapons and incorporate the latest
    technologies to make our weapons safer, more reliable and more secure?
        Answer. The Administration has requested a budget that strikes an
    appropriate balance between developing new technologies, incorporating
    those technologies into the stockpile, and being able to certify that
    the stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable without a nuclear test.
    More work in the surety options available for each weapon in the
    stockpile is being conducted prior to large resource decisions.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Question. The 30-Day Review identified the special challenge of
    balancing the implementation of program requirements and new security
    requirements. It noted a recent study that found secure information
    environments across the complex were outdated and poorly supported
    compared to unclassified systems. The 30-Day Review stated, ``The study
    concludes that a robust set of cyber-security related upgrades would
    cost approximately $850 million over four years to complete. At
    present, funds are not identified to commence the needed upgrades.''
    What is the Department's plan to upgrade cyber-security throughout the
    weapons complex?
        Answer. Defense Programs, in conjunction with the Chief Information
    Officer, will convene the Integrated Security Management (ISecM)
    leadership team to review, update, and attempt to reduce the projected
    costs of the program described in the October 1999 report. The cyber
    security standard used for ISecM will be changed from ``preeminent'' to
    ``national security best practice'' based on lessons learned from the
    intelligence community and DOD, with an emphasis on secure computing
    operations in the weapons complex. Using the results of this review,
    analyses of nuclear weapons information assets, and analysis of data
    flows within the nuclear weapons complex, Defense Programs will develop
    a revised set of requirements for improved cyber security throughout
    the weapons complex. Defense Programs will complete the analyses,
    revise the requirements, and develop a program plan (including
    anticipated funding requirements) within the next few months.
        Question. Why hasn't the Administration requested the $850 million
    over four years to implement the proposed cyber security upgrades?
        Answer. Funds for the Integrated Security Management (ISecM)
    proposal were not included because the proposal was still being
    reviewed. The ISecM proposal was based on ``pre-eminent protection
    against the insider threat'' which substantially increase the overall
    project costs without a corresponding significant increase in
    protection. Defense Programs in close coordination with the DOE Chief
    Information Officer has initiated an effort to define a program to
    improve cyber security in the weapons laboratories using effective, but
    less stringent, criteria. A detailed program plan and funding
    requirements will be forthcoming through the DOE Chief Information
    Officer.
        Question. How important is cyber security and what is the
    appropriate level of funding to address our cyber security
    vulnerabilities over the next five years?
        Answer. Protecting nuclear weapon information against an ever-
    increasing threat, including increasingly sophisticated insiders is
    important. Funding requirements will be defined during the planning and
    design phase of the weapons complex enterprise secure network. In
    addition to the development and integration costs, the costs of
    maintaining the integrated enterprise-wide secure computing
    infrastructure will require a substantial ongoing investment to stay
    ahead of the evolving threat.

                           NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

        Question. NIF has been described by the Department as critical for
    Stockpile Stewardship. Recently, many reports have surfaced with major
    concerns regarding schedule and costs for NIF.
        General Gioconda, how important is NIF to the success of the
    Stockpile Stewardship program and maintaining the nuclear deterrent?
    Will a fully operational NIF be necessary to certify weapons systems in
    the future?
        Answer. NIF is a unique facility and a key element of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program because it will allow the experimental study of
    thermonuclear burn and important regimes of high energy density
    science, directly related to the primaries and secondaries of modern
    nuclear weapons. Thermonuclear burn is at the very heart of how our
    stockpile works. The ability to experimentally study physical
    phenomenon under these conditions will lead to greater confidence in
    the US stockpile over the long-term. Although NIF ignition experiments
    will not test all of the phenomena for the success of nuclear weapons,
    they will provide a stringent test of the understanding and integration
    of a significant subset of these phenomena in a way that no other
    Stockpile Stewardship experiments will be able to do.
        NIF supports the SSP in three essential ways: (1) it permits the
    study of issues which can affect an aging or refurbished stockpile; (2)
    it permits an advancement of the critical elements of the underlying
    science of nuclear weapons and thus will play a major role in
    validation of the advanced simulation codes under development by the
    Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) which will form our
    basis for certification; and, (3) it will attract and help train the
    exceptional scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
    over the long term.
        Question. The original cost estimate was for $1.1 billion. I keep
    hearing rumors that the new cost baseline may increase by $500 to $800
    million, and that operational costs associated with NIF may double
    original projections. At what point does NIF get simply too expensive?
    Must we have NIF at any cost, or is there an alternative path the
    Committee should consider?
        Answer. NIF is a key element of the Stockpile Stewardship program.
    Several options to complete the NIF have been developed and a new cost
    and schedule baseline proposal is being prepared. The total additional
    funding requirement is dependent on which option the Department
    selects. After reviewing the proposed solutions, the Secretary will be
    in a position to identify the funding required for the preferred
    option. At the current time and with the projected state of technology,
    there are no alternatives to NIF that can produce the physical
    performance regimes required.
        The projected costs to operate NIF have not changed. The one
    remaining operational cost uncertainty represents a very small element
    of the total operating cost. It is associated with the ability of the
    final optics to withstand the high damage levels associated with
    operating the laser at the required ultraviolet wavelength for the most
    energetic experiments to be conducted on NIF. The issue is one of
    economics--how frequently these optics need to be refurbished or
    replaced. There is a technology program in place to increase the damage
    tolerance of the optics and their coatings. Highly energetic
    experiments are not planned until the latter half of this decade and
    prior to that time, significant experimental mission needs can be
    satisfied with current technology.
        Question. General Gioconda, as the Department prepares a new cost
    and schedule baseline for NIF, I would also like for you to report to
    me on alternatives to NIF (within the next 90 to 120 days).
        Answer. My scientific advisors tell me there is no alternative
    technology having the maturity of lasers which can address the
    requirements of the SSP. Although current results from pulse power
    systems based on Z-pinch technology have been impressive, we do not
    have the scientific knowledge at this point to scale this technology to
    the temperature and pressure regime needed for the stockpile
    stewardship mission. The Z-machine will be useful as a complement to
    NIF, particularly in enhancing weapon effects testing. It is also able
    to perform a subset of the SSP experiments in hydrodynamics and
    radiation flow although at conditions further from the nuclear weapons
    regimes. Z-pinch technology has great potential and could become the
    means for studying high yield weapons physics, but at this point it is
    not a credible alternative to NIF.
        Question. Would you compare NIF to the similar program in France?
    Is their machine similar or different? Do their programmatic
    assumptions correlate to ours? Have they encountered similar troubles?
        Answer. The elements of the French Laser Megajoule (LMJ) and the
    NIF are very similar although the LMJ has 25 percent more beams than
    NIF. LMJ was originally scheduled to be completed in 2010 but has been
    accelerated to 2008 because of the urgent needs of the French Stockpile
    Stewardship Program now that they no longer have a test site. Their
    programmatic assumptions are similar, using experiments to train the
    next generation of weapons scientists and to test weapons design codes
    under conditions of temperature and pressure close to that of a nuclear
    weapon. Ignition is a central test of this philosophy for the French.
    The French are currently building an eight beam engineering prototype
    called the Laser Integration Line (LIL) which will be operational in
    2002 and serve as a useful test bed. The French have historically drawn
    upon their industrial contractors to develop and build their high power
    laser systems. They are continuing this practice for LIL and LMJ. This
    is the approach which is now being used for NIF to address the
    previously unaccounted for complexity of our state-of-the-art system,
    and cleanliness problems in assembling and installing the laser and
    target system infrastructure. As a result, assembly and installation of
    the NIF beampath infrastructure system will now be managed and
    performed by industrial partners with proven records of constructing
    similarly complex facilities.

                  NIF-TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGHS STILL NEEDED

        Question. Isn't there still significant technological risk
    associated with NIF, beyond the problems of getting it built?
        Answer. The Conceptual Design Report of May 1993, identified six
    major technological breakthroughs required to make NIF a functional
    reality meeting all mission performance requirements. During the
    intervening years, five of these breakthroughs have been demonstrated.
    These include: (1) a high-gain pre-amplifier module which amplifies and
    conditions the laser light before it enters the large glass lasers; (2)
    a servo-controlled deformable mirror which aligns the laser light to
    very exacting tolerances as it transmits the light to the main
    amplifiers on multiple passes; (3) a large aperture optical switch
    which traps the light inside the main amplifier and enables the multi-
    pass operation; (4) the production of laser glass in a continuous
    versus batch process thus reducing the cost by a factor of five below
    that for NIF's predecessor Nova; and, (5) the development and
    production of large frequency conversion crystals which are grown in a
    couple months as compared to two years for those used on Nova. The one
    remaining challenge is the demonstration of long-life optics that can
    withstand the high damage levels associated with operating the laser at
    the required ultraviolet wavelength. The issue is one of economics,
    namely, how frequently the final optics in the system need to be
    refurbished or replaced. With current technology, the optics lifetime
    goal can be achieved with as much as 60 percent of the maximum desired
    energy. To achieve the full goal, a technology program is in place to
    increase the damage tolerance of the optics and coatings needed for the
    most energetic experiments to be conducted on NIF, which will not be
    conducted until the latter half of this decade.
        Question. Isn't it true that in order for NIF to get the laser
    energy levels required for ignition, it must have major breakthroughs
    in performance?
        Answer. No major breakthroughs are required to demonstrate the
    energy levels needed for ignition. The objective of the technology
    development program described in the previous question is to reduce the
    cost of operating NIF at full energy. In addition, there have been
    recent advances in target physics and fabrication which while not
    completely tested and reviewed, increase the confidence in achieving
    ignition with 192 beams.
        Question. Isn't it true that there still exist major technological
    issues with the Final Optical Assembly design?
        Answer. There are no technological issues with the Final Optics
    Assembly design. During system engineering evaluation of the design, an
    error was uncovered and resulted in the need to redesign the assembly.
    This component is not on the project's critical path schedule and there
    is time to correct the design prior to release for bid.

                              NIF--SEAB CONCLUSION

        Question. General Gioconda, in your written testimony about NIF,
    you refer to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's conclusion that,

              The Task Force has not uncovered any technical or managerial
            obstacles that would, in principle, prevent the completion of
            the NIF laser system. Nevertheless, serious challenges and
            hurdles remain. The NIF task force believes, however, that with
            appropriate corrective actions, a strong management team,
            additional funds, an extension of the schedule and recognition
            that NIF is, at its core, a research and development project,
            the NIF laser system can be completed.

        Their conclusion is filled almost completely with disclaimers. It
    seems to promise only an open-ended R&D effort with continual cost
    overruns, schedule delays and technological hurdles. Do you draw any
    encouragement at all from such a statement?
        Answer. The SEAB Task Force's Interim Report provided seven
    detailed findings and associated recommendations, all of which are now
    being acted upon. In one key recommendation, the SEAB urged the NIF
    team to clarify the roles and lines of authority of NIF management; to
    implement an external project management review process; and, to
    strengthen the management team at Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory. The NIF Project and Lawrence Laboratory have streamlined
    reporting relationships and implemented a reorganization to establish
    clear authority and accountability in the project. The NIF Project has
    a new Associate Director for NIF Programs, George Miller, who reports
    directly to LLNL Director Bruce Tarter. In addition, a new project
    manager, Ed Moses has been assigned to the project.
        The Project is also using industry to its fullest, contracting to
    industry essentially all fabrication, assembly and installation tasks
    and maintaining only those tasks that are a unique capability of
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. One of the highest sources of
    cost growth for NIF has been the clean assembly of the laser system.
    Originally the assembly of the laser system was envisioned to use in-
    house labor, but this task has now been identified to be too
    complicated and difficult to be managed and executed by Livermore. The
    project has worked with industrial experts from fields such as
    aerospace and semiconductor plant construction, to develop both a
    construction method and a contracting strategy for laser assembly that
    is in the process of being executed. This is a significant step on the
    path to getting NIF back on track.
        In aggregate, the Task Force's report provides a great deal of
    confidence that we understand the issues with NIF. We expect to have a
    path forward that will ensure the success of the project within the new
    cost and schedule baseline currently being developed by the Secretary
    of Energy for presentation to Congress by the June 1, 2000 deadline. My
    confidence is in the issues identified and solution set promulgated at
    this point I will continue to gage the program success with a host of
    milestones and will expect the program and project to excel.

                              TRITIUM--APT FUNDING

        Question. When the Secretary selected reactor production of tritium
    as the preferred option for maintaining our stockpile, he stated in the
    Record of Decision the importance of keeping accelerator-based
    production in the APT program as a viable backup.
        Furthermore, Sec. 3134 of last year's Defense Authorization Act
    required the Department to complete engineering development and
    preliminary design of the APT as a back-up source to the reactor.
        The President's budget provided only $19 million for APT, rather
    than the $84 million that is required to complete the design work on
    schedule.
        Why has the Department chosen to ignore the clear statutory
    requirement to fund APT through design?
        Answer. The Department has not chosen to ignore the statutory
    requirement to fund the APT through completion of design. In fiscal
    year 2000, the APT project has been funded and developmental and
    preliminary design work is proceeding. However, the Department made
    clear in its budget submission that there is not sufficient funds in
    fiscal year 2001 to support both its basic stockpile obligations and
    continue as originally planned the backup program for tritium
    production. Given the success of the Commercial Light Water Reactor for
    the production of tritium to date, the Department has focused available
    funding on meeting basic stockpile obligations. The Department will
    continue the APT project with available resources in fiscal year 2001
    as a back up for tritium production, though it must suspend the design
    effort and replan development to reflect funding realities.
        The Department is pursuing as an alternative approach a joint
    program for Advanced Accelerator Applications to include transmutation
    of waste, tritium production, and other efforts. Such a program is
    supported by both Defense Programs and the Office of Nuclear Energy. A
    DP/NE working group is developing the joint program concept. The
    Department remains committed to a back up tritium production program
    but must do so within the boundaries of available balanced resources
    and good management for the overall Stockpile Stewardship Program.

                       TRITIUM-STATUS OF REACTOR DECISION

        Question. On January 28, the GAO issued their report on
    ``Challenges Remain for Successful Implementation of DOE's Tritium
    Supply Decision.'' The GAO report notes:

              ``DOE's current approach for developing the accelerator
            introduces cost and schedule risks that threaten the
            accelerator's availability as a tritium production backup
            option as originally intended.''
              ``This report recommends that the Secretary of Energy
            reassess the Department's current approach for the backup
            accelerator.''

        General Gioconda, please update the Committee on the status of the
    commercial light water reactor for the production of tritium?
        Answer. The commercial light water reactor (CLWR) project is
    working to achieve two major milestones: (1) to begin producing new
    tritium in Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reactors in October 2003,
    and (2) to begin extracting the tritium in the new Tritium Extraction
    Facility (TEF) being constructed at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in
    February 2006. As discussed below, the project is making progress as
    planned to meet these milestones.
        DOE plans to use TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1, Sequoyah Unit 1, and
    Sequoyah Unit 2 reactors for tritium production, with Watts Bar being
    the first. To do this, work is being done in three major areas. TVA is
    preparing the analyses and reports needed to request the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend the operating licenses of the
    three reactors to permit them to irradiate DOE-designed, tritium-
    producing rods. TVA is working under the DOE-TVA interagency agreement
    that went into effect on January 1, 2000. These license amendment
    requests are scheduled to be submitted to the NRC at the end of January
    2001. NRC has previously committed to an expeditious review of the
    license amendment requests. Since the first insertion of tritium rods
    will not occur until the fall of 2003 (they must actually be on site at
    Watts Bar in August 2003), the schedule leaves more than adequate time
    for the NRC to complete its review and approve the license amendments.
        With respect to tritium rod fabrication activities, DOE is in the
    process of procuring commercial services for the fabrication of
    tritium-producing rod components and for commercial services to
    assemble the components into complete rods. The procurement process for
    rod components is well underway, and several contracts have already
    been signed. With respect to acquiring the services of a fabricator for
    production-scale manufacture of the tritium rods, proposals have been
    received and are presently being evaluated. The selection of a
    commercial fabricator is expected within the next several weeks.
        Site preparation for the Tritium Extraction Facility has begun, and
    groundbreaking is scheduled for July 2000. Detailed design of the
    facility is continuing. Procurement of long-lead major equipment items
    is underway.
        Question. Do any significant hurdles remain that could prevent the
    NNSA from producing tritium on the proposed schedule, such as technical
    issues, regulatory approval, etc.?
        Answer. There are no significant hurdles that will prevent the NNSA
    from producing tritium although there are still a number of actions
    that must be completed. Laboratory tests and post-irradiation
    examinations continue to confirm that the technology is sound.
        The regulatory process is expected to yield reactor license
    amendments in advance of when they are needed. Since the first
    insertion of tritium rods will not occur until the fall of 2003 (they
    must actually be on site at Watts Bar in August 2003), the schedule
    leaves more than adequate time for the NRC to complete its review and
    approve the license amendments. It is important to emphasize, in this
    regard, that the NRC has already conducted three technical reviews of
    the technical and safety issues associated with the use of the tritium
    rods, and all generic issues associated with their use have been
    resolved. The only remaining items are the reactor-specific items that
    will be the subject of TVA's license amendment requests next year. In
    addition, the NRC has previously committed to the expeditious review of
    the amendment requests.
        We are on track to construct and start up the Tritium Extraction
    Facility by February 2006, but the schedule has very little float in it
    because of prior-year constraints. To complete the facility on time,
    the Department must continue to carefully manage all aspects of the
    project.
        Question. Explain DOE's reasoning for terminating design work on
    the APT plant. DOE obviously believes that there in very little risk
    with the CLWR approach and is, therefore, willing not to comply with
    Congressional direction to complete the APT plant design. What is your
    response General Gioconda?
        Answer. Faced with funding constraints in fiscal year 2001 and
    unable to support both our primary stockpile obligations and the backup
    tritium production source as planned, Defense Programs prioritized in
    favor of meeting basic stockpile needs. The success to date of the CLWR
    program was certainly a factor in deciding where scarce funds should be
    allocated.
        It should be understood, however, that the APT project is fully
    funded for fiscal year 2000 and will be continued with available
    funding in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Department is pursuing a
    joint program for Advanced Accelerator Applications to include
    transmutation of waste, a backup tritium capability, and other
    potential efforts as an alternative approach to ensuring a backup
    capability for tritium production. We are working with the Office of
    Nuclear Energy to define such a program.
        The Department remains committed to a backup tritium production
    program but must do so within the boundaries of available balanced
    resources and good management.
        Question. What is the status of the plant design? What is the cost
    and schedule to complete the design?
        Answer. The APT plant preliminary design is on schedule and on
    budget. A recent Independent Cost Estimate was in agreement with the
    project estimates, to within 3 percent. By the end of fiscal year 2000,
    the preliminary design will be approximately 66 percent complete. The
    Baseline Change, approved last June, included $38 million for design in
    fiscal year 2001, and $19 million in fiscal year 2002 or a total of $57
    million to complete preliminary design and essential elements of final
    design by the end of fiscal year 2002.
        Question. How long would it take to reassemble the design team once
    the design effort is terminated?
        Answer. Assuming that the current design team was entirely
    terminated, it is estimated that reassembly of the team, including
    contracting and staffing up, would take approximately 12-18 months. If
    the proposed joint accelerator program were fully funded, it is
    anticipated that the APT design team would be retained to complete work
    on design and upgrade of the Low Energy Demonstration Accelerator
    prototype for that program. If the proposed joint program were
    initiated but not fully funded, it is expected that the design contract
    would be retained, with some portion of the design team. In that event,
    reassembly of the APT design team could be accelerated, requiring only
    6-12 months for staffing up.

       COMBINING ACCELERATOR PRODUCTION OF TRITIUM (APT) AND ACCELERATOR
                          TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE (ATW)

        Question. I understand that there may be opportunities for
    synergies in an advanced accelerator program that would help maintain
    APT as a viable backup to reactor-based production of tritium, while at
    the same time allow the Department to continue important research into
    Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW).
        I understand that both APT and ATW use the same accelerator design.
    Such an accelerator could also provide the nation's supply of medical
    radioisotopes with a small fraction of its total beam.
        General Gioconda, you and others have indicated that there are
    several options under discussion for an integrated program, probably at
    around $70 Million in the first year. This strikes me as a good way to
    address two national issues, tritium and nuclear waste. Unfortunately,
    the budget zeroed out all funding for the ATW program.
        Would a program such as this that integrated several applications
    of advanced accelerators be of interest to the NNSA?
        Answer. Yes, such a program would be of interest to the NNSA. It
    could provide not only a backup capability for tritium production, but
    a source for other defense-related isotopes, demonstration of a
    potential means for transmutation of defense waste, development of
    defense-related technologies, and development of an important nuclear
    technology, all of which are important to national security. The
    current APT accelerator design can, indeed, be used for such a program.
        Defense Programs believes that there is a real opportunity for
    synergy in a joint program that could spur development of accelerator
    technology, providing a facility capable of demonstrating transmutation
    of waste, isotope production, and production of tritium--all of which
    are of interest to the NNSA. As stated earlier, we are working with the
    Office of Nuclear Energy to define such a program.

                     INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE LABS AND PLANTS

        Question. DOE has failed to keep good modern facilities. In fact,
    where the industry and DOD have a historic reinvestment rate of 2-4
    percent, DOE has historically reinvested in its facilities at a rate of
    0.8 percent.
        The 30-Day Report said this has ``resulted in a huge bow wave of
    deferred improvements. For example, 70 percent of the facilities at Y-
    12, 80 percent of the facilities at the Kansas City Plant, 40 percent
    of the facilities at the Pantex Plant, and 40 percent of the facilities
    at the Savannah River tritium facilities are more than 40 years old.''
    For example, ``before the B-61 and W-76 SLEP refurbishments can be
    completed, it may be necessary to reestablish material formulation and
    fabrication capabilities for critical weapons components.''
        General Gioconda, what is the Department's plan to address the
    crumbling infrastructure in the weapons complex?
        Answer. Despite our ambitious efforts over the past few years to
    simultaneously downsize and modernize the weapons complex
    infrastructure, we have fallen behind the pace of degradation of our
    facilities. Even aided by additional funding provided by the Congress
    for use at the production plants, the infrastructure issues are so
    pervasive that one of the recommendations of the recent 30 Day Review
    advocated immediate corrective action. Consequently, we are requesting
    supplemental funding for infrastructure needs in fiscal year 2000. In
    addition, we have recently commissioned comprehensive internal and
    independent assessments of our recapitalization needs in response to
    the recommendation. When that information is integrated into the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program, we will bring it forward to the
    Congress.
        Question. How much money is needed over how many years?
        Answer. I am not in a position to speculate on this until the
    comprehensive independent assessment is complete, but any additional
    resources applied here will be put to immediate use. It is my hope that
    we can present a responsible, achievable, multi-year recapitalization
    initiative with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
        Question. What is the impact on the weapons refurbishment schedule
    if the facilities are not improved and restarted?
        Answer. Our present stockpile refurbishment planning requires
    former capabilities be reestablished, new capabilities added, and
    existing capacities expanded. Without the following investments,
    currently planned refurbishments will have to be rethought and
    rescheduled. These investments include: A new Highly Enriched Uranium
    Materials Facility and a new Special Materials Complex are needed to
    support the secondary manufacturing capability at Y-12 Plant. The
    production capacity at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, for
    neutron generators must be expanded to provide sufficient quantities to
    refurbish the stockpile. At the Savannah River Site, the Acorn gas
    transfer system production capacity must be expanded to provide other
    production lines to support scheduled refurbishments. Also, at Los
    Alamos National Laboratory, the detonator facility capacity must be
    expanded to support neutron generator production. In all of these
    facility efforts we have attempted to strike a balance between
    production, maintaining the infrastructure, assuring the availability
    of critical skills, and security, while ensuring the safety of our
    workers. Each year we must in an integrated, measured way improve our
    infrastructure for the long haul.
        Question. Has the Department ever considered 3rd party financing
    arrangements for infrastructure such as the ones DOD has experimented
    with?
        Answer. To my knowledge, the Department has not formally considered
    3rd party financing arrangements for infrastructure. Although Los
    Alamos National Laboratory has an extensive background in 3rd party
    financing for major telecommunications and supercomputer acquisitions,
    there is no precedent in the Department of Energy complex for 3rd party
    financing of construction projects on government owned land.

                     RECAPITALIZATION OF PRODUCTION PLANTS

        Question. The budget request includes about $60 million to continue
    the Stockpile Management Restructuring Initiative (SMRI) projects to
    resize the production plants consistent with planned workload levels.
    Of the $60 million, nearly $24 million is for the Kansas City Plant and
    $31 million is for the Savannah River Plant. This leaves only $5
    million for the Pantex Plant.
        How do you explain this apparent imbalance? What factors, other
    than resource constraints, were considered in arriving at this
    allocation of funding for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The scope of each of the Stockpile Manufacturing
    Restructuring Initiative (SMRI) projects reflects the amount of
    infrastructure restructuring that could be done that could provide cost
    effective operational efficiencies. Each of the projects underwent
    thorough reviews by Defense Programs and by independent external
    reviewers. Based on these reviews, we ended up with a fairly wide range
    of projects. At one extreme is the Kansas City Plant, where we are
    radically reducing our footprint at a total estimated cost of about
    $122 million. At the other extreme is the Pantex Plant where the
    reviews determined that only about $13 million in reconfiguring was
    necessary to support anticipated workloads.
        Question. The industry standard for infrastructure replacement is
    3-5 percent of the replacement value. What is the replacement value of
    each of the production plants and how does your fiscal year 2001 budget
    request compare to the 3-5 percent industry standard?
        Answer. The replacement values for the Pantex and Kansas City
    Plants are $5.1 and $1.2 billion respectively. The replacement values
    for the DP owned portions of the Y-12 Plant and Savannah River Site are
    $1.7 billion and $713 million respectively. The infrastructure
    replacement investment for these plants included in the fiscal year
    2001 budget request is about 2 percent of their total replacement
    value. I recognize these investments fall short of industry standards
    and have recently commissioned a comprehensive assessment of our
    recapitalization needs in response to the 30-Day Study recommendation.
        Question. Does DOE have a detailed plan for recapitalizing the
    production plants and facilities at the national labs?
        Answer. In my view we do not yet have enough detail for proper
    future planning in an integrated fashion. That is why we are doing the
    comprehensive assessment mentioned previously.
        Question. What are OMB's 5-year budget projections for each of the
    production plants and national labs for infrastructure replacement?
        Answer. OMB does not provide specific site by site outyear
    projections. The five year funding projection for Weapons Activities
    that accompanies the fiscal year 2001 Congressional Budget Request was
    provided by OMB and grows from $4.594 billions in fiscal year 2001 to
    $4.870 by the end of the five year period.

                    STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY (START)

        Question. The budget request for several years, including fiscal
    year 2001, has been based on a ``lead-hedge'' nuclear weapons policy
    established by President Clinton in 1995 or 1996. Under that policy,
    DOE is required to maintain facilities and capability to support a
    stockpile inventory of 6,000 weapons under START II, with the ability
    to return to START I levels of around 9,000 weapons.
        Could you explain this policy and how requirements, both budgetary
    and production support could change under START II or START III?
        Answer. The ``lead-hedge'' nuclear weapons policy is designed to
    lead the Russians into a START II regime, while at the same time
    maintaining our ability to return to START I levels should the
    situation warrant. The impact of a possible START III agreement on
    budget and production support cannot be determined with any degree of
    accuracy at this time. The result would be highly dependent on the
    numbers and types of nuclear weapons as well as the agreed upon
    schedule for stockpile reductions and transparency measures.
        Question. How does maintaining the capability to produce several
    thousand weapons above START II or an assumed START III level of 2,500
    weapons, aid overall non-proliferation and weapons reduction goals?
        Answer. Regardless of the size of our nation's stockpile, to ensure
    the safety and reliability of that stockpile requires maintaining a
    production capability to replace parts as necessary as the stockpile
    ages. It is our safe and reliable stockpile that supports non-
    proliferation by providing our allies a nuclear umbrella which reduces
    their incentive to develop a nuclear stockpile of their own and that
    support reduction goals by allowing us to negotiate from a position of
    strength.
        Question. How does START III enter into DOE's current strategic
    planning? Can we afford to refurbish warheads which would be discarded
    in a short period of time if START III is ratified?
        Answer. START III is one of the scenarios that DOE considers in its
    strategic planning. As START III takes shape, so will our plans. Until
    more is known, we will continue our plans to refurbish the directed
    stockpile as contained in the President's Nuclear Stockpile Memorandum.
        Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, unlike START I and START II, is it
    likely that a START III will restrict the size of an inactive warhead
    reserve?
        Answer. At this point, the United States is involved in discussions
    with Russia about the framework for START III and formal negotiations
    have not commenced. A final decision has not been made about the
    central limits for deployed warheads or the composition of U.S.
    strategic forces. As a consequence, it is premature to address the
    question of how to treat an inactive warhead reserve.
        Question. General Gioconda, how does the annual funding need change
    based on a START I, START II or START III assumption? Is there a
    significant reduction in funding requirement if planning to meet a
    START III stockpile level of 2,000-2,500 weapons?
        Answer. Current policy regarding START II requires a hedge to
    return to a START I stockpile thus making essentially no difference
    between them for DOE resource and management activities. START III
    discussions have not matured to a point that enables a detailed
    assessment of funding impacts. The impact would depend on the timing,
    specific weapons involved, and policies about an inactive reserve.
        Question. General Gioconda, how would planning and funding change
    under a START III level of 2,500 weapons with an upward hedge of 50
    percent?
        Answer. The approach to planning for a START III level of 2,500
    weapons with an upward hedge of 50 percent would be very similar to the
    approach we take now. The biggest difference most likely would be in
    the planning associated with a potentially more limited mix of weapon
    types in the stockpile. The complex required to support the stockpile
    and the associated funding would be dependent on the specific
    composition of the active and inactive stockpile and the time required
    to reactivate warheads linked to specific weapon systems DOD requests.
        The budget request for several years, including fiscal year 2001,
    has been based on a ``lead-hedge'' nuclear weapons policy established
    by President Clinton in 1995 or 1996. Under that policy, DOE is
    required to maintain facilities and capability to support a stockpile
    inventory of 6,000 weapons under START II, with the ability to return
    to START I levels of around 9,000 weapons.
        Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, what is the current status and schedule
    for finalizing START III?
        Answer. The United States and Russia are currently engaged in
    discussions on the provisions that would be appropriate for inclusion
    in a START III Treaty and for an Amendment to the ABM Treaty to permit
    a U.S. National Missile Defense System. These discussions involve the
    explanation and clarification of potential treaty elements, but they do
    not involve the negotiation of specific provisions for either START III
    or the ABM Treaty. Now that the Russian Duma has ratified the START II
    Treaty, the United States and Russia will make a decision on how to
    proceed with START III Treaty negotiations. However, a schedule for
    finalizing START III and ABM Treaty Amendments has not been developed.

                      DUAL REVALIDATION OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS

        Question. The concept of dual revalidation, that is having a second
    independent check by the national weapons design lab that did not
    design the particular weapon, has been the guiding concept for the life
    extension review program in DOE. The Nuclear Weapons Council approved
    this concept in 1996 to insure a critical, impartial assessment of
    design and performance issues.
        Am I correct that the fiscal year 2001 budget backs away from that
    concept? If so, why is this change being made?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes funding for the
    baselining program. The Nuclear Weapons Council approved dual-
    revalidation only for the W76. Baselining efforts will capitalize on
    robust experimental, simulation, and production activities as described
    in the Department's high level plan: Directed Stockpile Work Program
    Plan, Campaign Plans, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
    Plan. Additionally, the baselining efforts will incorporate peer review
    to maintain the strictest standards of intellectual oversight. It is
    the Department's judgement that a properly executed baselining program
    will achieve the initial goals of the dual revalidation program earlier
    while capitalizing on existing nuclear weapons complex programs, better
    utilizing the limited resources under our stewardship.
        The W76 Dual Revalidation effort began in 1996 and was completed in
    December 1999 with significant cost in time, money, and scientific
    manpower. Although the nuclear weapons complex greatly benefited from
    the experience gained in the dual revalidation program, it was
    determined that the Department must streamline these efforts to
    complete the task of studying the entire nuclear stockpile within an
    acceptable period of time. The baselining program will document our
    current understanding of engineering models, simulation tools, data,
    and other information critical to understand the certification basis
    for each warhead along with an analysis of their quality and
    sufficiency. This information will form the basis upon which future
    weapons research will be focused and will provide tools for future
    assessment and certification activities. Additionally, the baselining
    program will capture institutional expertise from our ``gray beards''
    with underground nuclear test experience before the majority of them
    retire over the next five years. The baselining program begins in
    fiscal year 2000 with baselining efforts on the W80 warhead and
    continues for the next four years, baselining two warheads each year
    until complete.
        If after baselining all weapons, we find areas to focus dual
    revalidation efforts in a focused manner with expected milestones we
    will use our baselining result as the starting point of the
    revalidation.
        Question. How will an impartial, critical peer assessment from the
    designing lab be possible?
        Answer. Baselining activities are planned to include an integral
    peer-review element in each technical area. This peer-review process
    has been successfully employed at the respective labs for years and
    will continue to be a crucial element of all Department design
    laboratory plans.
        Question. I understand that the new Campaign concept being proposed
    in this budget is what DOE now believes will better identify and
    address the life extension issues of the remaining weapons systems in
    the stockpile. Yet the Campaign approach appears to address development
    of scientific and technical tools and does not focus on critical design
    and operational issues. Do you share my concerns?
        Answer. I am very confident that our new business model containing
    Direct Stockpile Work (DSW), Campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base
    and Facilities (RTBF) is addressing all the areas that you discussed.
    Together, these three high-level plans completely address and properly
    focus the requirements of the Stockpile Stewardship Plan.
        For example, the DSW Program clearly defines the scope and schedule
    of planned weapon refurbishment activities. Based upon this
    information, the supporting production and engineering campaigns align
    their deliverables with the requirements of the DSW plan while RTBF
    infrastructure needs are similarly aligned. In parallel with these
    efforts, the science campaigns continue to improve their fundamental
    science efforts to impact and enable the certification requirements of
    these refurbished warheads. Together, this business model maintains
    focus on the stockpile while supporting necessary scientific efforts
    that provide high confidence in the safety, reliability, and
    performance of our nuclear arsenal.
        Question. What is the justification for moving away from a
    rigorous, in depth peer analysis to an accelerated baseline formulation
    proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget?
        Answer. As stated previously, baselining will achieve the initial
    goals of the dual revalidation program but is a more streamlined effort
    which allow the entire stockpile to be studied in a more acceptable
    time frame and with less resources. Peer review will still play an
    integral role in the baselining process. Once the stockpile is properly
    baselined we can then in focused, accountable fashion call for dual
    revalidation efforts in gray or shortfall areas as they emerge in the
    baseline analysis.

                                     SAFETY

        Question. Recently, a safety engineer from within Defense Programs
    wrote a harsh 29 page report called the The Safety Basis Debacle, in
    which he alleges safety requirements at Pantex and other sites are
    routinely ignored and institutionally discouraged. Among other things,
    he wrote:

              The pattern of stylized and ineffectual safety analysis, of
            accident precursors unheeded, and of management complacency is
            strongly reminiscent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
            before the accident at Three-Mile Island or NASA before the
            Challenger disaster.

        General Gioconda, are you aware of the report and how serious are
    the allegations?
        Answer. We in Defense Programs take safety very seriously. I, along
    with my senior managers, have read the report in detail and have
    received extensive briefings by the author. The issues raised in the
    report have prompted further review by Defense Programs; the Office of
    Environment, Safety, and Health; the Inspector General; and
    consultation with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This
    review and analysis, aimed at what actions are necessary responses to
    keep Defense Programs safety center-stage, is on-going and will be
    forwarded to the Congress once finalized.
        Question. How will the NNSA respond to the issues raised in the
    report?
        Answer. I have asked the writer to provide me with recommendations
    to improve the safety requirement processes and to sharpen his focus to
    what can be done to address the issues he raises. This would include a
    clear process to ensure all safety issues are raised and appropriately
    addressed. I have also asked the plants and laboratories, headquarter
    elements and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to respond
    along the same lines to develop an integrated action plan as necessary.
    I will be working with my staff at Headquarters and in the field to
    implement recommendations that come out of the reviews.

                                CRITICAL SKILLS

        Question. The Chiles report, the 30-Day Review and other reports
    continue to identify critical skills as a major problem for the weapons
    complex.
        What have you proposed in this budget request to address the
    ongoing problem of recruiting and retaining the critical technical and
    scientific workforce needed to support and maintain over the long term
    a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of
    underground nuclear testing?
        Answer. For the Federal workforce, we have proposed $3.6M for our
    Scientific Retention and Recruitment Initiative. This will enable the
    recruitment and retention of experienced scientists and related support
    staff in areas of emerging importance to the science mission. Funds
    will also be used to motivate and retain highly skilled top performing
    technical managers.
        In regard to the contractor work forces, we have attempted to
    stabilize the employment situation in the last few years following a
    multi-year period of recurring downsizing and work force restructuring
    at most of our sites. Recognizing budget constraints, we have relied on
    attrition to create the ``headroom'' necessary in our work forces to
    pursue recruitment strategies to replenish existing critical skills and
    develop the necessary skill base for new requirements. We have not
    proposed any specific additional activities in this budget for the
    contractor workforce; however, we have been working with all of our
    contractors on their work force plans aimed at ensuring the
    availability of required technical and scientific skills through
    effective recruitment and retention measures.
        Pursuant to section 3163 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for fiscal year 2000, the Department will submit a joint DOE/DOD plan
    to Congress addressing various issues related to the Chiles report. The
    report will discuss the current situation at each contractor site,
    outlines measures necessary to retain required nuclear weapons
    expertise, and identifies resource requirements.

                                 PIT PRODUCTION

        Question. NNSA continues to work to reestablish plutonium pit
    manufacturing at Los Alamos to replace pits destructively tested in the
    surveillance program and to replace pits in the future should
    surveillance indicate a problem. This capability is central to the
    weapons complex of the future. The 30-Day Review identified the
    challenge to build new, certifiable weapons primary pits, using new
    tools and processes in a new environment, and stated, ``Presently, the
    U.S. is the only nuclear power that lacks the ability to manufacture
    pits.''
        General Gioconda, please update the committee on NNSA's efforts to
    reestablish pit production at Los Alamos?
        Answer. Since we initiated the reestablishment of pit
    manufacturing, we have put in place at Los Alamos several critical
    pieces of equipment necessary to manufacture pits, completed the plans
    with agreements between designers and manufacturing personnel for
    qualifying all the processes necessary to manufacture war reserve W88
    pits for the stockpile, and manufactured five development pits in
    preparation for the manufacture of pits necessary to qualify the
    production processes through physics and engineering testing.
        Question. Have you been able to produce a certifiable pit? What
    problems or issues remain to be resolved in order to achieve
    certification? Will you meet the requirement for W-88 pit production by
    the end of fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. We have not yet manufactured a certifiable pit, however we
    have produced five developmental pits. One of the important elements we
    are currently working on and is necessary before a certifiable pit is
    manufactured is to have, in place, the quality controls and
    manufacturing organization and infrastructure necessary to ensure,
    through documentation, data gathering and analysis, and procedural
    controls that the design requirements have been met and that there is
    consistency in manufacture of the pit. Beyond this, the pits must be
    certified through a number of physics and engineering testing. These
    tests will provide assurance that the pits manufactured will meet the
    environments expected to be encountered in the stockpile and that the
    manufacturing differences between LANL and Rocky Flats have not
    introduced unacceptable physical behavior, which would affect
    performance of the pit. We are currently planning to have manufactured
    pits for qualification and complete the physics and engineering testing
    sufficient for pits to enter the stockpile by the end of fiscal year
    2004.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget request fully support
    the production schedule? If not, please explain.
        Answer. We are pursuing options in fiscal year 2000 to provide
    additional funding to LANL to reduce the risks in achieving program
    objectives in fiscal year 2001. It is important, however, to understand
    that the funds requested under pit readiness rely upon a base
    capability funded under direct stockpile support and facility
    infrastructure. Successful implementation of the Pit Readiness Program
    within any 1 year is dependent upon the total funding received by the
    laboratories in support of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
        Question. Isn't it true that the budget request does not support a
    schedule to achieve annual production capacity of 20 pits by 2007?
        Answer. Defense Programs is currently reevaluating the
    manufacturing equipment and facility infrastructure upgrades
    requirements for reestablishing an interim pit manufacturing capability
    of nominally 20 pits per year by 2007. This is being done to assure
    near-term requirements to support the stockpile will be met and that
    funding for the interim manufacturing capability is appropriate with
    any planning for a pit manufacturing facility to support the stockpile
    for the long term. The funding requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget
    request is in keeping with this objective. Results of this reevaluation
    will be incorporated within the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

                 PIT PRODUCTION NEW DESIGNS OR REMANUFACTURED?

        Question. There have been several stories in New Mexico lately
    regarding language in DOE Budget documents about manufacture of new
    weapon pits at Los Alamos. Several DOE spokesman have since stated that
    the budget documents were in error and there is no intent to
    manufacture newly-designed pits.
        For the record, can you clarify the types of weapon pits that would
    be manufactured at Los Alamos in the next few years?
        Answer. For the next few years, Los Alamos will be focused solely
    on the manufacture of the W88 pit to support the stockpile. There will
    be some work on developing manufacture processes for the W87 and B61-7
    in order to demonstrate that the technologies to remanufacture the pits
    found in the enduring stockpile have been recaptured.
        Question. Are they really ``newly-designed weapons'' or ``re-
    manufacture of existing designs''?
        Answer. The work being accomplished on the manufacture of the W88
    and manufacture process development of the W87 and B61-7 is associated
    with the remanufacture of existing designs. We have no requirement for
    pits in the stockpile other than to replace the one W88 pit we
    destructively test each year and for which there is a shortfall of
    spares caused by the closure of the Rocky Flats Plant during the
    production of W88. We are on a course to do just that.

               ACCELERATED STRATEGIC COMPUTING INITIATIVE (ASCI)

        Funding of the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative has
    ramped up very rapidly. Large new computers are in place at each Lab
    now.
        I've heard impressive figures for peak computing speeds from these
    machines. But I've also heard serious concerns that the labs have not
    demonstrated sustained performance at levels more than a few percent of
    the peak speeds.
        Question. What percent of peak speeds are currently being achieved
    in the ASCI program with the existing large machines?
        Answer. Percentage of peak processor speed on various ASCI computer
    programs currently range from about 3 percent to about 50 percent. This
    range is exactly as expected and planned from the beginning of the ASCI
    program. The range is a function of the maturity of the computer
    programs and the method of solution (algorithm) required by the problem
    being solved.
        While processor utilization is one useful measure of computer use
    efficiency, it does not give the full picture in that some algorithms
    require extensive logical and data transfer operations for problem
    solution. In those cases, the processor units must wait for data
    transfer operations to complete before they can continue processing,
    resulting in lower percentage of peak speeds being attained by such
    algorithms. Low percentage of peak speed in such cases absolutely does
    not imply that the machine is being poorly used. It simply means that
    particular algorithm for the problem solution required by the Stockpile
    Stewardship program requires the supercomputer level data transfer
    capabilities of the ASCI machine in different proportion than other
    algorithms used by the ASCI program. As has always been the case with
    new supercomputer architectures, the initial efficiencies of our new
    parallel applications will improve significantly as the computer
    programs are optimized for production.
        Question. Is the ASCI program moving too rapidly to acquire new
    impressive hardware before waiting for the software programming tools
    to develop to enable full utilization of the machines?
        Answer. No. It has always been the case in the supercomputing
    environment that the hardware exists before and always drives
    development of the software. The software will not be developed until
    the hardware exists that demands its development. This was true for the
    Cray supercomputer delivered in 1976 with virtually no software and
    will likely always be true of new supercomputing architectures.
        The programming tools needed for full utilization of the hardware
    are being made available on a planned timetable that is directly tied
    to the application mileposts for ASCI. The delivery of these tools,
    with appropriate mileposts, has been planned through the achievement of
    initial capability for three-dimensional high-fidelity-physics full
    nuclear weapons simulations in 2004. The ASCI Program is on track and
    is meeting mileposts required by the Stockpile Stewardship Program.

               LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)

        Question. LDRD was held to 4 percent in the Conference Report
    impacting the current fiscal year. As I've visited at the Laboratories,
    I find that this cut in LDRD is having very severe consequences.
        LDRD investments have a proven track record of high returns to the
    taxpayer. In addition to significant contributions to mission relevant
    areas, these funds account for over 30 percent of the new knowledge, as
    measured by publications, at a laboratory like Los Alamos. There's no
    question that LDRD investments help attract the high-caliber staff
    required to meet the challenges of nuclear-weapons science and
    engineering.
        I appreciate that your budget for fiscal year 2001 restores the
    LDRD funding back up to 6 percent.
        Do you concur that the weapons programs have benefitted very
    significantly through the LDRD program and the funding should be
    restored to at least 6 per cent?
        Answer. We most definitely concur that the weapons programs have
    benefitted significantly from LDRD investments and that LDRD funding
    should be restored to at least the 6 percent level. This opinion is
    also stated in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2001; the DOE
    Stockpile Stewardship Program Review, dated 11/23/99, (also called 30-
    Day Study); and the Laboratory Operations Board's recent report (1/00)
    on LDRD. The three DOE DP Laboratory Directors and the Secretary of
    Energy unanimously support restoration to a six percent LDRD program.
        Question. What impact has the 4 percent limitation had on your
    ability to meet critical Stockpile Stewardship Program goals? Please be
    specific.
        Answer. The impact of reducing the allocation from 6 percent to 4
    percent has been serious, and this negative impact will continue unless
    adequate funding is restored. Reductions in LDRD are resulting in lost
    knowledge and capabilities to meet future national defense needs. The
    LDRD Program cut caused numerous cancellations of fiscal year 2000
    weapons-related research and the scaling back of many other projects,
    thus reducing the breadth and depth of fundamental and exploratory
    science.
        The LDRD fiscal year 2000 funding cut has been creating an
    environment of uncertainty about future funding for science that has
    negatively affected morale. This uncertainty, coupled with constrained
    Program budgets, has had a noticeable impact on the ability of the
    national laboratories to attract and retain the needed scientific
    talent.
        The following is a sample list of specific curtailed or eliminated
    projects illustrating the connections to the weapons program:
      --Research and Development for Future Proton Applications
      --Application of Multi-scale Science to Weapons Issues in Fluids and
            Materials
      --Next Generation Sophistication in High Energy Density Physics
      --Nano-Structure High Explosives Using Sol-Gel Chemistry
      --Chemical Reactions at Actinide Surfaces: Implications for Nuclear
            Material Aging and Safety
      --RadSensor: Optical Dielectric-Modulation Sensing of Ionizing
            Radiation
      --Atomic Resolution Probes of Strategic Materials
        Question. A criticism has been that there is far too much freedom
    and flexibility under LDRD which allows the work to get far afield of
    stockpile requirements. Do you believe this to be valid? Is it
    realistic to confine LDRD to stockpile related work only?
        Answer. We do not consider this a valid criticism today. DOE and
    the laboratories carefully manage the LDRD program to ensure support of
    their mission areas with a particular emphasis on national security.
    LDRD proposals undergo rigorous peer reviews to ensure technical
    excellence, and formidable management reviews to guarantee strategic
    alignment with the long-term goals of DOE and the laboratories.
    Additionally, DOE HQ and field offices oversee and concur on all LDRD
    projects prior to funding and an annual report on LDRD projects is
    provided to Congress.
        The national security programs at the laboratories provide about 70
    percent of the LDRD funds, yet they receive over 95 percent support
    from the LDRD projects. This is due to the synergistic nature of the
    R&D pursued under LDRD. Confining LDRD to only stockpile work would
    unnecessarily restrict the innovative impact of the program by stifling
    the creativity of the scientists and engineers. The multi-disciplinary
    nature of the Labs is generally beneficial because various DOE missions
    draw on related science and technology. Mission-oriented, LDRD-
    supported basic and applied research almost always provides science and
    technology to more than one mission. LDRD helps develop and maintain
    first-class scientific and engineering capabilities in all laboratory
    competencies.
        Question. Historically, what portion of LDRD funding has been for
    direct stockpile work and how much has gone to other activities that
    are not directly related to stockpile needs?
        Answer. Consistent with statutory authority and Department policy,
    LDRD funds cannot be used to support direct stockpile work. LDRD
    supports fundamental R&D efforts that are high-risk. If proved viable,
    the results are then incorporated in the stockpile efforts of the
    laboratories. All LDRD projects at the national laboratories support
    DOE and laboratory missions. The Stockpile Stewardship Program provides
    just over 50 percent of the funds to the DP labs and is supported by
    more than 60 percent of the LDRD research funding. More than 95 percent
    of the LDRD research portfolio has a direct impact on the national
    security missions of the DP Laboratories.
        Question. How could a similar program at the production plants be
    used to address the problems identified by the Chiles Commission in
    recruiting and retaining the best engineers and technicians for the
    weapons complex of the future?
        Answer. Defense Programs is exploring a program in the production
    plants that is analogous to the Laboratory Directed Research and
    Development (LDRD) program to attract and retain the best possible
    people through activities including the development of new production
    and design concepts and the establishment of intern and cooperative
    student programs.

                       TRANSPORTATION SAFEGUARDS DIVISION

        Question. The 30-Day Review found that ``During the past year, DP's
    Transportation Safeguards Division (TSD), which is responsible for
    providing safe, secure and cost effective transportation for nuclear
    weapons in DOE custody received a `marginal' security rating.''
        What is the Department's plan to improve the ``marginal'' safety
    rating the Transportation Safeguards Division received?
        Answer. The marginal rating was the result of the postulated
    security threats growing faster than TSD resources. We have initiated a
    five year plan to enhance the resources of TSD that will put us into a
    position to satisfactorily respond to the postulated security threat.
    These resource enhancements are in both personnel, including enhanced
    training and an approximately 40 percent increase in the number of
    couriers over the next five years, and in equipment, including the
    accelerated replacement of the old-generation Safe Secure Transport
    fleet with the new-generation SafeGuards Transporters and the
    procurement of additional non-conventional escort vehicles.
        Question. Has the Administration requested sufficient funds to
    improve TSD security as soon as possible?
        Answer. Of the $115 million requested for secure transportation in
    fiscal year 2001, approximately $25 million is requested to fully
    support the security enhancements to overcome the marginal rating. The
    balance of the request, about $90 million, is needed to maintain the
    current level of operational availability of secure transportation
    assets for Defense Programs, other DOE programs, and the Department of
    Defense.

                         TRAVEL LIMITATIONS AT THE LABS

        Question. Last year, a $150 million cap on contractor travel
    expenses was imposed in an attempt to require greater efficiency and
    economy in lab travel. However, in talking to individuals at the labs,
    I am concerned that the travel cap has unfortunately forced cutbacks in
    programmatic work , significantly damaged morale of the workforce, and
    damaged the labs ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest
    scientists.
        General Gioconda and Ms. Gottemoeller, do you agree that the travel
    cap has had some very negative effects and do you support raising the
    travel cap to a reasonable level?
        Answer. (General Gioconda) Travel ceilings have resulted in
    efficiency and economy through improved business operations, including
    prioritization of travel, allocation and tracking of ceilings, and
    utilizing best practices in travel management such as following the
    Federal Travel Regulations reimbursement schedules. However, travel
    ceilings have also decreased the contractors' flexibility to handle
    discretionary travel such as training, recruitment and retention, and
    decreased their capability to handle new or unexpected requirements for
    programmatic travel. Compliance with travel ceilings has caused the
    contractors to utilize less than optimum methods of mission performance
    in order to keep travel costs down. We are concerned that these work-
    arounds and delays could actually increase the overall costs to the
    Stockpile Stewardship mission both in the short-term and the long-term.
        Answer. (Ms. Gottemoeller) We recognize the concerns that led to
    the imposition of travel ceilings on the National Laboratories but, as
    a practical matter, they are translating into programmatic reductions
    that will delay the work on major Departmental initiatives in Russia,
    Ukraine, and other countries in the Former Soviet Union. Proper
    implementation and oversight of our work at the sometimes very remote
    sites in these countries require judicious travel by contractors as
    well as DOE headquarters personnel. These trips are strictly for
    project development, management, or audit and examination purposes. The
    impact of the cap on these programs, especially the international
    materials protection, control and accounting program, will be
    particularly devastating since expansion to new sites will require
    more, not less, travel for successful implementation.
        I agree with General Gioconda regarding disposition of the travel
    ceiling. The minimum that should be done in fiscal year 2001 is raise
    statutory travel ceiling to a more reasonable level to cover critical
    missions. Even better than raising the statutory ceiling would be the
    elimination of the ceiling as a legal requirement since the statutory
    ceiling is excessively expensive to manage from both the Federal and
    the contractor standpoints. Another option, such as the inclusion of a
    reasonable travel goal or target for the Department to manage in the
    report language only, is also preferable to continuation of the
    statutory ceiling.

                              PRODUCTION READINESS

        Question. The 30-Day Review found that ``production readiness,
    especially at Y-12, needs more support because many of these facilities
    have not been maintained and need to be restored in a timely manner to
    meet refurbishment production schedules.''
        The 30-Day Review also stated, ``Changes and upgrades to the
    manufacturing facilities are needed in order for DOE to meet the
    military's near-term and long-term production requirements'' necessary
    to meet the stockpile refurbishment mission.''
        General Gioconda, what is plan for and cost of this needed support?
        Answer. We are addressing these needs in three ways. First, we have
    established readiness campaigns to fill gaps in manufacturing processes
    and capabilities that are required to support future workload, but are
    not available within the complex today. Campaigns for reestablishing
    the capability to produce tritium and plutonium pits are ongoing. In
    fiscal year 2001, we are proposing to initiate the Secondary Readiness
    Campaign to ensure future manufacturing capabilities (equipment,
    people, processes) are in place and ready for production of
    secondaries. The High Explosives/Assembly and Nonnuclear Readiness
    campaigns are scheduled for initiation in fiscal year 2002. The fiscal
    year 2001 budget request includes about $200 million to support these
    activities.
        Second, we have proposed new construction activities at the Y-12
    Plant to help address these issues as well. The Highly Enriched Uranium
    Materials Facility will support the consolidation of long-term highly
    enriched uranium materials and the Special Material Complex, a
    candidate under the Defense Program Preliminary Project Design and
    Engineering Project, will enhance operational reliability for materials
    processes required for future workload. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    request includes about $27 million to support these activities.
        Finally, we have recently commissioned a comprehensive assessment
    of our recapitalization needs in response to the 30-Day Study
    recommendation. Despite our recent investments to downsize and
    modernize the weapons complex infrastructure, we realize that more
    improvements are needed to meet future refurbishment production
    schedules.
        Question. What is the total cost over how many years?
        Answer. We are in the process are finalizing our planning for the
    production readiness campaigns and are initiating planning efforts for
    the recapitalization needs. I expect that this information will be
    fully developed in time for the fiscal year 2002 budget.
        Question. Is the appropriate amount in the 2000 and 2001 budgets?
        Answer. The Department has submitted a supplemental budget request
    for fiscal year 2000 primarily to restart of Enriched Uranium
    Operations at the Y-12 Plant. All critical needs for fiscal year 2001
    are addressed in the budget request. As always, there are items which
    could not be accommodated, or those which could benefit from additional
    funding, but it is our judgement that these are not critical needs.

                                 TEST READINESS

        Question. The 30-Day Review found, ``more long-range planning is
    needed to ensure that the Nevada Test Site will have the infrastructure
    and intellectual base to maintain readiness for twenty years or more.
    Work is currently underway in the Nuclear Weapons Council to evaluate
    options for enhancing test readiness through consideration of specific
    testing scenarios.''
        What options have the Nuclear Weapons Council identified to address
    the long-term infrastructure and intellectual base at the Nevada Test
    Site that will allow us to maintain test readiness?
        Answer. The Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) chartered the DOD Program
    Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) Office together with Defense Programs to
    review the adequacy of DOE and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
    planning and programs to maintain the test readiness posture directed
    by the President. Those results were briefed to the NWC on October 14,
    1999, at which time the NWC requested DOE and PA&E perform additional
    case studies to evaluate specific weapons systems and the possibility
    to reduce readiness time to 18 months. Current plans are for the NWC to
    be briefed on the results of that analysis on April 19, 2000.
        For the past 8 years Defense Programs has committed resources to
    archive knowledge, preserve unique equipment and infrastructure, and
    maintain access to experienced personnel. It is generally accepted that
    over time the ability to access personnel or to operate and maintain
    aging equipment will deteriorate to some level if not exercised.
        In order to attract and maintain a workforce with skills and
    knowledge relevant to test readiness, NTS is actively involved in
    supporting the technical campaigns centered at the design laboratories.
    Included in these campaigns are subcritical experiments which are
    critical to the maintaining test readiness since they exercise most of
    the functional area required for an underground nuclear test. The DOE
    Nevada Operations Office is also attracting various work-for-others
    programs to the NTS. These programs, also help to distribute the costs
    for NTS infrastructure across several customers.
        Although there are many unique capabilities at the test site that
    must be preserved, most of the special technical knowledge and skills
    required to prepare a device for testing, field the diagnostics,
    perform the test and analyze the results resides at the design
    laboratories and production facilities. These are capabilities that
    will be maintained though other stockpile stewardship activities.
    Consequently there is no line-item in the DOE Defense Program budget
    labeled Test Readiness.
        Question. What is the cost of these efforts in fiscal year 2001 and
    future years?
        Answer. Because test readiness is derived primarily from other
    Stockpile Stewardship programs, there is no line-item in the DOE
    Defense Program budget labeled Test Readiness. However, the Stockpile
    Stewardship portion of the DOE/NV budget is generally characterized as
    the test readiness budget, and the planned amount identified for fiscal
    year 2001 is approximately $188 million. In the outyears, we expect the
    cost to be approximately level, assuming that we maintain the current
    level of readiness.
        Question. Is the budget request adequate to support test readiness?
        Answer. The Stockpile Stewardship portion of the NTS budget is
    generally characterized as the test readiness budget. As long as the
    budget is adequate for maintaining active experiment programs,
    particularly subcritical experiment programs which exercise most of the
    functional areas required for an underground nuclear test, the
    Department will be able to maintain test readiness. The current budget
    request will provide adequate funding to meet those needs.

                 DOE/NIH PARTNERSHIP FOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

        Question. Report language in the Defense Authorization bill for
    this current year established a partnership between DOE and NIH. The
    language set aside $6 Million in the DOE Defense Programs budget, to be
    paired with comparable funding from the NIH, to set up a pilot program
    to jointly explore the potential of DP technologies to impact medical
    health. Similar language also appeared on the NIH bills.
        The Pilot Program seeks to ensure that technologies developed
    within the nuclear weapons program are carefully evaluated for their
    impact on the health sciences, with the goal of achieving clinical
    applications and improved national health care. To the best of my
    knowledge, the DOE has not begun to implement this program.
        What is the status of this DOE/NIH Medical Technology Partnership
    program?
        Answer. We have begun this work with NIH. A number of successful
    activities are underway utilizing the imaging capabilities developed
    for the DP mission. In one case, the three-dimensional ultrasound
    developed for stockpile stewardship is improving resolution as an early
    diagnostic for breast cancer. This improved resolution will transfer
    directly back to stockpile stewardship benefit. In other cases, the
    femtosecond laser, developed as a cutting tool for national security
    requirements, is being refined as a tool for neurosurgeons and
    knowledge of fluorescing molecules is being redirected to diabetes
    therapy and potentially an artificial pancreas.
        A preliminary discussion occurred between Secretary Richardson's
    staff and NIH Deputy Director Wendy Baldwin. This will be followed by
    discussions between Defense Programs staff and NIH personnel to
    formalize the program. The Joint Conventional Munitions Memorandum of
    Understanding between the Departments of Energy and Defense will serve
    as a model for this new partnership.

                            INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIPS

        Question. The challenges faced by the weapons laboratories and
    plants have dramatically escalated with the cessation of nuclear
    testing. Now, more than ever before, they need access to the very best
    engineering and scientific talent in our nation.
        The labs and plants have great staff, but they don't have a corner
    on the nation's expertise. American industry, both large and small
    companies, frequently has the cutting edge technology that the complex
    needs.
        Sometimes we can buy the help we need, but in many cases,
    partnerships are the best way to leverage the talents of different
    contributors. I'm very concerned that the Department has sent strong
    and consistent messages for the last few years that partnerships with
    industry are discouraged. I think that's exactly the wrong message to
    be sending.
        In fiscal year 1996, more than $200 Million was requested for
    industrial partnerships. There isn't even a line item for these in
    fiscal year 2001. In the current year, $14 Million was identified.
        On February 14, I chaired a Hearing of the Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee in Albuquerque. The Directors of each New Mexico
    laboratory expressed strong support for industrial partnerships and
    great concern that the funding for them has vanished.
        Do you concur with my view that industrial partnerships are a
    critical contributor to the ability of the laboratories to deliver on
    their missions?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001 there is no longer a specific
    Technology Partnership decision unit in the budget, although Defense
    Programs will continue to support various technology partnerships
    within the Campaigns which they support as a means to reach the goals
    and objectives of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. I agree with your
    assessment that leveraging partnerships with industry is critical to
    the successful achievement of the Department's nuclear weapons mission.
    By teaming with the private sector, our laboratory scientists and
    engineers have been able to solve technological problems that exist in
    the laboratories and industry in a timely, creative, and cost-effective
    manner.
        I also agree that the message to industry needs to be one of
    renewed support and funding stability to encourage development of
    productive partnerships both for the benefit of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program and U.S. economic competitiveness. For example,
    Sandia National Laboratories is working with the State of New Mexico
    Legislature to pass a bill where a portion of the gross receipts tax
    paid by Sandia can be used to foster partnerships and small business
    technical assistance. However, this is very limited as it represents
    only $1.8 million this year, but is indicative of how valuable
    partnership activity is to the Department and the Laboratories.
        Question. Are you interested in working with me to restore a
    significant focus within the Department on these activities?
        Answer. Yes. We are establishing a significant focus on industrial
    partnerships by further integrating them with our primary mission,
    Stockpile Stewardship. The fiscal year 2001 Budget Request for the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program includes approximately $14 million for
    technology partnership activities, an increase of $1.5 million over
    fiscal year 2000 funding and the first increase in this program in
    years. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Department has proposed a new
    budget structure for the integrated Stockpile Stewardship Program.
    Within this new budget structure, Technology Partnerships will directly
    support the Stockpile Stewardship Program within the Campaigns budget
    line. While the details of how this strategy will be executed in the
    field have not been finalized, one of our goals is to leverage industry
    capabilities in order to meet our program challenges within the fiscal
    year 2001 budget. We would like to promote industrial partnerships with
    the weapons program, especially those that support Stockpile
    Stewardship and I am open to discussing options to accomplish this.

                       RADIOGRAPHIC DIAGNOSTIC FACILITIES

        Question. DOE is currently operating several radiographic
    diagnostic experimental facilities. They include PHERMEX and DARHT at
    Los Alamos, FXR and the Contained Firing Facility at Lawrence
    Livermore, LANSCE at Los Alamos, and the Z-pulsed power facility at
    Sandia.
        Could you briefly explain the importance of each of these
    facilities to the stockpile stewardship program?
        Answer. PHERMEX, DARHT, FXR and the Contained Firing Facility are
    or will be experimental hydrodynamics facilities. They provide x-ray
    images through an imploding nuclear weapons system containing a high-
    explosive driven primary but with the special nuclear materials
    replaced by surrogates. Absent nuclear testing, these experiments are a
    principal means by which the weapons laboratories can observe the
    impact on system behavior of changes resulting from aging or design,
    material and manufacturing changes during refurbishment. These
    experimental facilities are providing higher resolution will be
    required to validate predictions of nuclear weapons performance that
    will be generated through the new ASCI codes.
        The two principal LLNL facilities are FXR and Building 851, located
    at site 300, about 15 miles southeast of LLNL. Both are used for
    experimental work on primary systems and for reimbursable work for the
    Department of Defense. FXR conducts about 10-15 major experiments in
    weapon full geometry each year. The Building 851 facility has been used
    for ``Manybeam Velocimetry'' experiments. In total about 150-200
    smaller tests are conducted each year. Conducting the full complement
    of weapon experiments has required the capacity of two facilities.
    PHERMEX at LANL provides similar capabilities for LANL experiments that
    FXR does at LLNL.
        The Contained Firing Facility of CFF, is a facility upgrade to FXR.
    It will maintain the same beamline, but will provide for full
    containment of the explosion in order to mitigate adverse environmental
    effects. Closure of the FXR facility has never been planned., but its
    use will be changed as many full system hydrodynamics shots will be
    moved to DARHT.
        DARHT's second axis, under construction at LANL, will, for the
    first time, provide two-axis multi-time radiographs of imploding
    primary systems with improved resolution and intensity over current
    single axis facilities. This will provide improved ability to infer
    cavity shape and criticality of imploding primary systems essential for
    both performance and nuclear safety assessments. Once operational, this
    will be the mainstay of DP radiographic efforts.
        The Z-pulsed power facility at Sandia is principally a high energy
    density experimental facility that supports physics relevant to
    radiation flow and hydrodynamics of secondaries and also will study
    materials properties. To support these experiments Z will use the NIF
    beamlet experiment as a radiographic source for experiments relevant to
    secondary physics. This will complement the radiographic facilities
    above that support primary research.
        LANSCE's principle relevance to radiography is to provide the
    proton beam that is used in experiments to explore proton radiography
    for potential use on a future hydrodynamic test facility. This new
    technology shows great promise to image very dense systems with high
    resolution. These experiments have also been valuable in measuring
    properties of some small scale high-explosive experiments. These LANSCE
    experiments are small-scale scientific experiments and do not per se
    constitute major hydrodynamics tests of stockpile devices. Such uses
    are a small part of the total LANSCE effort which is principally
    focused on obtaining materials properties and nuclear data in support
    of both Defense Programs and the Office of Science.
        Question. What is the schedule for closing some of the older
    facilities as the newer more advanced facilities come on line?
        Answer. Currently Defense Programs is developing a hydrotest
    facility user plan to consolidate operation at FXR/CFF and DARHT with
    both labs using each facility, and other facilities to be closed.
        PHERMEX is scheduled for shutdown in fiscal year 2001 after
    completion of a major special hydrodynamics test. It is intended that
    LLNL B851 be closed within about a year of the time CFF is completed in
    late fiscal year 2001.
        Until recently, both LLNL and LANL operated two accelerators, FXR
    and an RF LINAC at LLNL, and PHERMEX and ECTOR at LANL. When the
    current hydrotest projects are completed, the LLNL RF LINAC, and LANL
    PHERMEX and ECTOR machines will be decommissioned, leaving only DARHT
    and CFF to meet the needs of the hydrotest program.
        Question. FXR is currently being used to support development work
    for DARHT. Why hasn't FXR been closed as planned? When do you expect
    the FXR mission will be completed and the facility closed entirely?
        Answer. CFF [Contained Firing Facility] is a facility upgrade to
    FXR. It will maintain the same beamline, but will provide for full
    containment of the explosion in order to mitigate adverse environmental
    effects. Closure of the FXR facility has never been planned but its use
    will be changed as many full system hydrodynamics shots will be moved
    to DARHT.
        Question. Does DOE plan to close any of the existing facilities
    upon completion of the second axis of DARHT? Please explain.
        Answer. PHERMEX, ECTOR, and Building 851 will be closed as
    operations are consolidated at DARHT and CFF. This will happen before
    DARHT second axis is operational. While these schedules anticipate
    DARHT second axis operations they are not contingent upon it.
        Question. What will proton radiography being developed at LANSCE
    provide that DARHT, Advanced DARHT or other hydrodynamic facilities
    cannot?
        Answer. Primary weapons designers have believed for years that they
    will need a multi-time mutli-axis radiographic capability in order to
    provide the resolution necessary to assess the safety and performance
    of a primary system to the small margins of uncertainty that will be
    required. The goal is to be able to reconstruct a 3-D moving picture of
    an imploding primary system. Efforts are ongoing to provide a sound
    scientific justification for the requirements for such a facility,
    including the number of axes. Most estimates indicate that it would
    require 4-12 beam lines.
        While multiple x-ray beams of the type used in current facilities
    could be one approach, recent improvements suggest that proton
    radiography could be an excellent alternative. Proton radiography uses
    magnetic lenses to focus high energy photons onto an imaging system
    during an imploding weapon experiment. This works very much the way a
    camera lens focuses light on film to make a photograph. With x-ray
    radiography only a small fraction of the energy makes it through the
    target, whereas most high energy protons would make it through a
    target, providing much better resolution. Though this application to
    radiography is a recent development, it is a mature technology since
    the basic capabilities have been employed in proton accelerators for
    years. The principal challenge is to tailor an accelerator design and
    beam transport system to the requirements for multi-axis radiography in
    a way that minimizes costs.

                             PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION

        Ms. Gottemoeller, the Congress provided $200 million in fiscal year
    1999 to jump-start negotiations on disposing of surplus weapons
    plutonium in Russia. I have repeatedly heard that the existence of this
    $200 million, which can be obtained by Russia only after the
    disposition work actually starts, has been a tremendous impetus towards
    finalizing the disposition protocol.
        I'm very concerned that we move as rapidly to start with the
    disposition. As you know, this is material for well over 6,000 weapons.
    I'm therefore puzzled that the Department chose to identify $49 Million
    of that $200 Million to cover prior year balances and very recently has
    proposed to defer another $40 Million of this Fund in your fiscal year
    2000 supplemental request.
        I don't think we are sending an appropriate message to the Russians
    about the urgency of disposition of weapons-grade plutonium with these
    funding cuts, even if we propose to restore the cuts later.
        Question. Ms. Gottemoeller, do you share my view that disposition
    of these weapons materials represents one of our most critical national
    security challenges before us?
        Answer. Yes. The disposition of surplus weapons-usable fissile
    materials does represent one of our most critical national security
    challenges. These disposition activities, along with other efforts to
    dismantle weapons delivery systems, secure nuclear materials, and
    prevent the spread of nuclear weapons knowledge, are key parts of the
    United States Government's strategy to reduce the global danger from
    the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
        Question. Can you assure me that the Department's actions in using
    almost one-half of the $200 million for other purposes will not harm
    the negotiations?
        Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $49
    million to become available in fiscal year 2004, when the funds are
    needed for plutonium disposition in Russia. Congressional approval of
    the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request will restore funding
    to the $200 million level, which provides the greatest assurance that
    this important arms control and nonproliferation initiative with Russia
    can be successfully concluded.
        Question. What is the status of the negotiations with the Russians?
        Answer. Following extensive negotiations with Russia over the past
    year on a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement, all of the
    outstanding issues, save one, have been resolved. Our aim is to resolve
    this issue in a matter of weeks and have an agreement that can be
    signed later this Spring.

               OVERALL BUDGET--PRIORITIES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING

        Question. If the Committee were to provide you additional funds,
    what would be your next priorities and at what level of funding?
        Answer. The President's request is an appropriate level for
    competing requirements and for meeting critical program objectives. I
    can assure you that we will continue to carefully examine our program
    and budget priorities through the budget process.

                         TASK FORCE ON NONPROLIFERATION

        Secretary Richardson recently announced the creation of a new task
    force, to be led by former Senator Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler. The
    Secretary has tasked the group to send him a report by September
    outlining ways to improve programs involving materials protection,
    economic development and cooperation on R&D between Russian and
    American Scientists.
        Question. What types of concerns prompted the Secretary's creation
    of the panel?
        Answer. Secretary Richardson decided to use the established
    Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) as the vehicle for this Task
    Force on Russia. The objectives of this Task Force are: to provide
    recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding the policy
    priorities established by DOE to pursue cooperative nonproliferation
    and nuclear safety programs with Russia and the other countries of the
    Newly Independent States (NIS); to identify crucial program areas that
    may not have been addressed in the past; and to provide an assessment
    of the performance of DOE's programs in achieving national security and
    nonproliferation missions. The Task Force's recommendations of new
    potential areas of cooperation may be used as a blueprint for future
    programs in the next Administration.
        Question. Are there areas where the Labs can increase their
    collaborations with the Russians on non-proliferation R&D programs?
        Answer. Yes, there are at least two such areas. First, as part of
    the $100 million Long-term Nonproliferation Initiative, we are hoping
    to engage our labs and Russian specialists on the subject of enhancing
    the proliferation resistance of reactors and the nuclear fuel cycle.
    This, of course, is contingent on Russia complying with the commitments
    it has given the United States regarding cooperation with Iran. We are
    also proposing research on long-term solutions for spent fuel and
    radioactive waste. Secondly, under the Nuclear Cities Initiative, a
    number of our laboratories are hoping to contract for services from
    Russian counterparts on a range of non-military issues, from the
    development of simplified computer codes, to analyses of radionuclide
    transport through various geological media.
        Question. Do you have a good system for measuring success in the
    Russian programs? Should we limit future funding for NCI to
    demonstrable conversion from military to civilian activities?
        Answer. All of our Russian programs have measures of success;
    however, some of them are more easily measured than others. Among those
    with straightforward metrics are the MPC&A program, where we measure
    the amount of special nuclear material and number of facilities
    secured, the Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase program, where we measure
    the amount of uranium blended down, and the Plutonium Disposition
    program, where we measure the number of kilograms of plutonium that are
    to be processed. The programs directed at preventing the migration of
    scientists with weapons knowledge to countries and organizations of
    concern are more complex to measure. The Initiatives for Proliferation
    Prevention Program measures the number of scientists employed, the
    number of institutes engaged, financial contributions from industry,
    the number of new enterprises created, and similar metrics. The Nuclear
    Cities Initiative measures number of workers employed, number of new
    jobs created, number of individuals trained, level of private industry
    participation, number of facilities converted, and the square footage
    of space transferred from weapons to non-weapons work. NCI also
    provides for changes in municipal infrastructure to enable
    transformation of the nuclear cities from a total weapon-based economy
    to a commercial economy in the ten closed cities.
        The Nuclear Cities Initiative is making demonstrable progress in
    transferring former weapons facilities to non-weapons work. The recent
    agreement to dedicate over 500,000 square feet of floor space at the
    Avangard nuclear weapons plant at Sarov to commercial work is a notable
    example of such progress. Such metrics clearly indicate that the
    Nuclear Cities Initiative can achieve important national security goals
    for the United States by working with the Russian Federation to
    accelerate the downsizing of the Russian nuclear complex.
        Question. Can you elaborate on the types of threats the United
    States and the world community are facing in Russia?
        Answer. The current economic and security situation in Russia poses
    strong challenges for U.S. security interests. Within Russia, there
    continue to be cases of ``insider thefts'' of sensitive material,
    almost certainly a reflection of the prevailing economic conditions in
    Russian society. Underpaid security guards and workers at nuclear
    facilities, as well as world class scientists with access to sensitive
    materials and information, remain a worrying ``insider'' problem. Over
    the past several years, Russia also has experienced a sharp rise in
    terrorist activity. The Russian military in 1999 reported 560 terrorist
    incidents in Russia, including several reported threats against
    facilities holding sensitive materials. In addition, Iran and other
    nations seeking to develop WMD capabilities also are looking to exploit
    Russia's security conditions through aggressive efforts to acquire
    fissile material and expertise. The MPC&A program, in cooperation with
    the Russian government, has provided upgraded security for nearly 450
    metric tons of nuclear material, enough material to build 24,000
    nuclear devices. In so doing, the program represents a powerful
    countervailing force against those trying to exploit Russia's endemic
    security problems.

                   MATERIALS PROTECTION CONTROL & ACCOUNTING

        Securing and disposing of nuclear material in Russia is one of our
    most important national security objectives. However, the GAO recently
    issued a report that indicated the Department had achieved very limited
    progress in improving the security of nuclear materials in Russia. The
    report stated that only 7 percent of the 650 metric tons have been
    identified as being at risk for theft or diversion, are stored in
    buildings with installed security systems.
        Question. How would you respond to the GAO Report?
        Answer. The GAO only had one recommendation--to develop and
    annually update an overall cost estimate and time frame for completing
    the MPC&A program. We completely agree with this recommendation and
    have already begun developing this estimate. It will be completed in
    May.
        However, the GAO Report also stated that ``About 50 metric tons, or
    about 7 percent of the approximately 650 metric tons of the weapons-
    usable nuclear material, are in buildings with installed security
    systems.'' Actually, rapid upgrades to approximately 450MT of
    additional at-risk nuclear material are either ongoing or have been
    completed. The 450MTs that have either been secured or are in the
    process of being secured is equivalent to roughly 24,000 nuclear
    devices. The 7 percent refers to weapons-usable material that has
    received comprehensive security upgrades, meaning all aspects of the
    MPC&A installation work is complete. Rapid upgrades are the first steps
    DOE takes to immediately improve security and thus reduce the
    proliferation threat. Rapid upgrades include, for instance, 1-ton delay
    blocks, steel cages, bricked windows, hardened doors and mechanical
    locks. Once rapid upgrades are complete, focus is then placed on
    completing the required comprehensive security upgrades, which involve
    more advanced material control and accounting systems.
        Access to sensitive MinAtom facilities was another issue raised by
    the GAO, and DOE is addressing this concern in a number of ways.
    Secretary Richardson and Minister Adamov established a Task Force to
    develop solutions to the problem, and there are ongoing discussions and
    negotiations in this forum. DOE has developed additional guidance
    regarding access, and this guidance will be used in future MPC&A
    upgrade negotiations and contracts. Access needs vary at each site, and
    the access guidance provides for access to be negotiated on a site by
    site basis as needed.
        Question. The GAO report also recommended the Department develop a
    cost estimate and schedule for completing the MPC&A program. Is that
    possible at this time?
        Answer. Yes. DOE has already begun developing this updated MPC&A
    Life Cycle Cost and Schedule Estimate. The revised estimate will be
    completed by May 2000 and, as the GAO recommended, will be updated
    annually in December.
        Question. Please update the Committee on recent developments in
    your work with the Russian Navy?
        Answer. The Department of Energy's (DOE) cooperative relationship
    with the Russian Federation Navy (RFN) began in 1996, when the RFN
    requested assistance from DOE to secure highly enriched uranium (HEU)
    fuel. In 2000, DOE will:
      --commission four HEU fuel facilities;
      --complete work to secure test reactors belonging to the Russian
            Ministry of Defense at a facility in Sergeiev Posad;
      --continue work supporting MPC&A upgrades at RFN facilities at
            Kurchatov Institute; and
      --provide MPC&A training for Russian Navy personnel.
        Building on what is now a solid record of accomplishment--reflected
    by security upgrades to some 30 Metric Tons of proliferation attractive
    material--DOE has also been asked by the Russian Navy to expand this
    relationship to include a long term plan for the physical protection of
    over 30 Navy strategic and tactical nuclear weapon storage sites. In
    2000, DOE will complete initial rapid upgrades at seven sites, complete
    comprehensive upgrades at one of these sites and sign contracts for
    initial rapid upgrades at least seven additional sites.
        DOE will work only at those sites where access can be granted to
    ensure that appropriated funds are being spent properly.

                        NEW INITIATIVE FOR $100 MILLION

        Question. Couldn't both requests just as well be included within
    the existing MPC&A program and within an expanded Nuclear Cities
    Initiative?
        Answer. From a budgetary perspective, the requests could just as
    well be included within the existing MPC&A program and within an
    expanded Nuclear Cities Initiative. However, the Long-Term
    Nonproliferation Program for Russia will establish a series of new
    efforts to respond to recognized but previously unaddressed threats to
    U.S. national security. This expanded component of our nonproliferation
    work will supplement on-going Departmental programs and establish new
    and accelerated solutions to the most serious dangers presented by the
    Russian nuclear weapons complex and civilian nuclear facilities.
        This program both builds upon successful on-going projects and
    takes advantage of new opportunities presented by the Russians to
    dramatically reduce the production of plutonium; enhance the
    proliferation-resistance of nuclear fuel cycle technologies; accelerate
    the planned downsizing of the Russian nuclear weapons complex through
    the closure of facilities and consolidation of nuclear materials into
    fewer locations; and expand nuclear material protection activities to
    the most sensitive Russian Navy sites. All of these activities reflect
    our deep concern over the risks of theft and diversion of nuclear
    materials in the unique circumstances of the post-Cold War environment.
        Question. Why were they included as new initiatives instead of
    suggested as very logical and very positive additions to existing
    programs?
        Answer. The work in the $100M initiative does not duplicate any
    existing MPC&A work and responds to new opportunities. The $20 million
    for MPC&A will expand work into the new, unplanned and previously
    unfunded areas of Russian Navy cooperation at highly sensitive sites,
    and provide similar opportunities for our material consolidation and
    conversion and Russian emergency management system work. For example,
    the new funding will enable us to convert an additional 1.5 metric tons
    of highly enriched uranium--which is attractive to proliferators--to
    low enriched uranium.
        The $10 million for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) will be
    used in a new project to accelerate the closure of the weapons
    production capabilities at Sarov (Avangard) and Zarechnyy (Penza-19) to
    shift large portions of their work force to work outside of the nuclear
    weapons complex, related commercial activities, and provide civilian
    employment opportunities for scientists and technicians currently
    working in these facilities. We are already achieving success in the
    transfer of 500,000 square feet from weapons work to commercial
    production at Avangard. We would like to accelerate this process at
    Avangard and begin work a similar effort as quickly as possible at
    Penza-19.
        Question. The budget request includes a new $100 million non-
    proliferation initiative. Included within that request would be funding
    for increased Materials Protection, Control and Accounting work on
    Russian Naval fuels as well as funding for conversion of some of the
    Russian weapons facilities.
        A portion of the funding presumes an agreement with the Russians
    for them to stop the reprocessing of civilian spent fuel and the
    production of plutonium. Is there an agreement with the Russians? What
    is the status of negotiations?
        Answer. Negotiations continue to take place on an intensive basis
    with Russian Federation officials to develop a high-level Joint
    Statement on a moratorium on further accumulation of separated civil
    plutonium resulting from the reprocessing of civil power reactor fuel
    in Russia. This effort will complement established U.S. programs to
    secure and eliminate plutonium arising from weapons dismantlement. Once
    this high-level Joint Statement is signed, which we expect to occur
    early this summer, we will proceed immediately to complete the Work
    Plan and Implementing Agreement necessary to implement the Initiative.
    These documents, which we are already developing with the Russians, are
    to be completed by October 1.

                           NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE

        Question. I've spoken out in several statements, most recently at
    Princeton University on March 14, with concerns that the credibility of
    the current Nuclear Cities program suffers in Congress from a lack of
    transparent milestones. I've suggested that the only way to gain
    significant funding for the Initiative would be for our support to be
    tied to such milestones that lead to downsizing of the entire Russian
    nuclear cities complex to levels consistent with their future national
    security needs.
        Dr. Gottemoeller, you've described progress within the Initiative
    along the very lines that I've suggested. I appreciate your progress.
    Based upon your understanding of the interests of the Russian MinAtom
    leadership, would you anticipate that the Russians would agree to a
    firm schedule for downsizing with verifiable milestones, in return for
    a significant increase in the Nuclear Cities budgets?
        Answer. The Department of Energy fully shares your interest in
    securing the rapid downsizing of the Russian nuclear complex to levels
    consistent with Russia's national security needs. MinAtom has developed
    a plan for significant reduction of their complex, and I believe the
    Russians are committed to implementation of the plan. Senior leadership
    within MinAtom responded to your remarks at the Princeton Conference by
    affirming the Russian Government's strong desire to downsize its
    nuclear weapons complex; they also stated that NCI is essential if they
    are to implement their conversion plans on an accelerated basis,
    consistent with the desires of both Governments. I believe that there
    is a widely held view within the Russian leadership that the nuclear
    weapons complex is larger than necessary and too costly to sustain. On
    March 31, 2000, President Putin, in his first major policy address as
    the newly elected President of the Russian Federation, reaffirmed this
    position during a speech to nuclear workers in Snezhinsk. With the
    Russian acceptance of downsizing, we should indeed be able to provide
    concrete and verifiable measures of downsizing of facilities and
    transfer of people to the civilian sector. In a significant new
    development, we recently signed an agreement with the Avangard weapons
    production plant that will move 500,000 square feet of work space from
    within the weapons complex to the open part of the city. This
    constitutes a real and measurable reduction in the Russian nuclear
    complex. Furthermore, strategic plans are under development by U.S.
    representatives and Russian scientific and downsizing community
    stakeholders within the three closed cities of Sarov, Snezhink, and
    Zhleleznogorsk to map out the commitment and the time-line to
    accomplish these complex, downsizing efforts. With your support and the
    support of the Congress, we can make even greater progress in the
    future.

                      CORE CONVERSION OF RUSSIAN REACTORS

        Question. In 1997, Vice President Gore announced a centerpiece of
    the Clinton Administration's arms control package. It involved a
    commitment from Russia to halt production of weapons-grade plutonium by
    the end of this year by converting their production reactors to new
    cores that would not continue the plutonium production. The project was
    advertised to cost about $80 Million.
        The Russians have stated that these reactors produce critically
    needed heat for their cities, and can't simply be shut down. Most of
    this project is funded through Nunn-Lugar DOD funds, but the safety
    evaluations are being done through DOE funds.
        Lately, reports are circulating that this program is being called
    into serious question by the Russians. For one thing, The Vice
    President's plan called for conversion of these reactors to Highly
    Enriched Uranium cores--the very material that we're desperately trying
    to encourage the Russians to dispose of. It's never been clear to me
    why the core conversion was such a great idea if it increase Russian
    use and traffic in HEU.
        Then there's the issue of safety. These reactors are early versions
    of the Chernobyl reactor. These reactors have glaring safety problems,
    we've got plenty of evidence of that already. Our and Russian experts
    are pointing out that the safety margins are even worse if we convert
    these cores to HEU.
        The Russian have proposed that this project be canceled and that we
    assist them in procurement of gas turbines instead. I understand there
    is a cost issue on these gas turbines, with Russian and Administration
    cost estimates very different ($230 Million vs $1 Billion).
        What's your view of this core conversion program? Should we be
    encouraging this use of HEU and perpetuation of Chernobyl-type
    reactors, to say nothing of Chernobyl-type reactors with degraded
    safety margins?
        Isn't it time for the Administration to explore other options?
        Answer. Both the United States and Russian governments remain
    committed to achieving the objective of the 1997 Plutonium Production
    Reactor Agreement (PPRA), i.e., stopping the production of weapons-
    grade plutonium from the three remaining Russian plutonium-producing
    reactors. Those reactors have not been shut down because, in addition
    to producing a combined two metric tons of plutonium a year, they also
    supply energy for the surrounding regions. Since receiving initial
    funding in fiscal year 1998, a joint effort was undertaken to end
    weapons-grade plutonium production through the conversion of the three
    operational reactors to a highly enriched uranium fueled core design.
    The results of this design effort have raised significant questions in
    Russia and the U.S. regarding the benefits versus the risks of this
    approach. We are now assessing with Russia whether core conversion,
    possibly with a low-enriched uranium fuel, or provision of fossil fuel
    energy sources is the most safe, efficient and cost-effective approach.
    Our joint goal remains to end the production of weapons-grade plutonium
    consistent with the intent of the PPRA.

                           COMPETING NN R&D CONTRACTS

        Question. What is the status of your efforts to comply with this
    provision?
        Answer. Regarding competing R&D contracts, we are following
    Congressional direction, and have initiated the process to start open,
    competitive acquisition of 25 percent of our R&D program. While there
    are no projects where work is procured through a DOE competitive
    process open simultaneously to DOE laboratories, universities, and
    private companies, approximately 3 percent of our program funds go
    directly to industry and 1 percent to universities. In addition,
    approximately 15 percent of R&D funds provided to the laboratories go
    to industry, as well as 3 percent to university researchers.
        As a start to this process, we are finalizing a draft, joint
    solicitation with the Department of Defense for release this summer
    that will procure seismic-related research and development for the
    ground-based portion of our Nuclear Explosion Monitoring program,
    resulting in approximately 4 percent of that part of our fiscal year
    2000 program being acquired through open competition. Our progress
    toward acquiring more work through open, competitive means has been
    slowed by fiscal year 2000 undistributed reductions which eliminated
    the source of funds for any new work. The remaining budget is dedicated
    to many large, multi-year projects, and we did not believe it prudent
    to terminate or adversely impact on-going work that is scheduled to
    meet firm delivery dates or is jointly funded with other agencies. We
    are currently identifying specific research and development thrusts in
    each program area for open competition in fiscal year 2001.

                 PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH SEPARATE SECURITY BUDGET

        Question. General Habiger, you have testified that the Department
    will be proposing a unified separate budget for its safeguards and
    security program, and that safeguards and security through-out the
    weapons complex will be your responsibility. However, Sec. 3212(b)(6)
    of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act specifically gives
    responsibility for safeguards and security to the Administrator. And
    Sec. 3232(c) of the Act provides that there will be a Chief of Defense
    Nuclear Security working for the Administration to implement security
    policies. Isn't your proposal for a unified Department-wide security
    budget inconsistent with the clear Congressional direction of the NNSA
    Act?
        Answer. No, we believe that it fully supports the intent of the
    legislation, i.e, to strengthen safeguards and security throughout DOE,
    and the NNSA. This unified budget will provide the NNSA Administrator
    and his Chief of Defense Nuclear Security, with a definitive budget
    profile that can be used to provide overall better planning and
    execution. In the past, the security funding was obtained from overhead
    accounts that were subject to nonprogrammatic changes depending on
    individual priorities at each facility.
        Question. Shouldn't the responsibility for security be integrated
    into the line program? Shouldn't we hold the lab director's responsible
    for security at their site?
        Answer. Responsibility for security at our laboratories remains
    unchanged, i.e., the field office managers and contractors will
    continue to be the first line of defense to assure appropriate security
    at their respective locations, and the LPSO's will continue to be
    accountable for integrated security and program implementation. The
    unified budget will provide them with a definitive funding profile that
    will permit better planning of security implementation.

                                   POLYGRAPHS

        Question. What is the current best estimate of the number of
    employees subject to polygraphs? If the figure is above 1000, why was
    it changed? And will my concerns on the use of polygraphs be part of an
    integrated security program.
        Answer. In October 1999, Congress passed the National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2000. Section 3154 of the NDAA
    requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a counterintelligence
    polygraph program for the defense-related activities of the Department.
    The counterintelligence polygraph program consists of the
    administration of a counterintelligence polygraph examination to
    specified persons who have access to high-risk programs.
        On December 17, 1999, reflecting the Congressional mandate of
    Section 3154, DOE published a final rule for the use of polygraph
    examinations for certain DOE and contractor employees, applicants for
    employment, and other individuals assigned or detailed to Federal
    positions at DOE. (64 FR 70962) The Polygraph Examination Regulation
    identifies eight categories of positions which are eligible for
    counterintelligence polygraph examinations.
        On December 13, 1999, I issued a memorandum for all DOE employees
    identifying the specific positions within the eight counterintelligence
    categories covered by the Polygraph Examination Regulation that will be
    subject to the polygraph testing. I estimated that approximately 800
    individuals throughout the DOE complex would undergo
    counterintelligence polygraph testing during the implementation of the
    counterintelligence polygraph program. I also noted that Section 3154
    forbids DOE from providing anyone initial access to a SAP or the PSAP
    without first signing a consent agreement and then taking a
    counterintelligence polygraph examination. I stated that this statutory
    requirement would be implemented in accordance with the terms of the
    Polygraph Examination Regulation.
        I estimate that between 2600 and 3100 employees currently in one or
    more of the eight counterintelligence categories covered by the
    Polygraph Examination Regulation will be polygraphed over the next five
    years; however, approximately 1350 additional employees will require
    initial access to a SAP or the PSAP during Calendar Year 2000, and must
    be polygraphed in accordance with Section 3154. I intend to submit to
    the Congress legislation that would amend Section 3154 of the NDAA to
    provide authority to identify the specific positions within the
    Department which should be eligible for a counterintelligence polygraph
    examination.
        I share your concern on the use of polygraphs as part of an
    integrated counterintelligence program. Section 3154(g) of the NDAA
    required DOE, in consultation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    (FBI), to develop procedures for identifying and addressing ``false
    positive'' results of polygraph examinations, and to ensure that
    adverse actions are not taken against an individual solely by reason of
    that individual's physiological reaction to a question in a polygraph
    examination. DOE provided a draft of its Polygraph Examination
    Regulation to the FBI for its review and comment. The FBI concurred in
    the issuance of the Polygraph Examination Regulation and did not
    recommend any changes relative to those portions addressing DOE's
    procedures for addressing ``false positive'' results and not denying or
    revoking an individual's access based solely on the results of a
    polygraph examination.
        I believe that these procedures as set forth in the final Polygraph
    Examination Regulation successfully address your concerns and those
    received during the public comment period on the use of polygraph
    examinations as part of an integrated counterintelligence program.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Question. General Habiger, you have requested $30.3 million for
    cyber security at the Department. The budget indicates a great majority
    of that money will be spent at headquarters for hiring new FTEs, and to
    provide policy, planning, training, and technical development. Why did
    the Department not request money for actual cyber security upgrades at
    the laboratories?
        Answer. A majority of the $30.3 million requested is directed
    towards improving security Department-wide and is broken out as
    follows: $15 million is for hardware and software tools to improve
    unclassified system security; $3.35 million is requested for conducting
    cyber security training; $12 million will be spent to significantly
    increase our cyber security incident response capability ($5M),
    implement a Public Key Infrastructure Department-wide ($2M), and
    complete additional ongoing cyber security activities.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                  LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        Question. Last year, Congress eliminated the use of environmental
    management funds for the purpose of laboratory directed research and
    development--so called ``LDRD'' programs. I do not agree with this
    restriction because LDRD contributes to the development of innovative
    new technologies. DOE has requested an increase in LDRD for non-
    Environmental Management programs from the current 4 percent to 6
    percent. Would you comment on the value of LDRD research?
        Would you comment on the value of LDRD research?
        Answer. (General Gioconda) We believe that LDRD research does
    return substantial value to the taxpayer. First and foremost, it plays
    a critical role in ensuring the scientific and technical vitality of
    the laboratories, which support the current and future needs of the
    national security missions. The Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), in
    the absence of nuclear testing, is a major challenge, requiring the
    laboratories to remain at the cutting edge in relevant scientific
    fields. LDRD has helped the scientific foundation for SSP (e.g.,
    massively parallel computing for ASCI, use of lasers for material
    processing, high explosives research, and proton radiography) and has
    enabled the laboratories to attract the high caliber staff needed to
    meet these challenges.
        Answer. (Dr. Gottemoeller) Our Nonproliferation and Verification
    R&D program conducts applied research, development, testing, and
    evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the U.S.
    response to national security threats posed by the proliferation of
    nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and diversion of special
    nuclear material. Through the LDRD process, the laboratories pursue
    basic or high risk research that is the wellspring of many of the
    concepts that are subsequently supported by our program, but which at
    the outset are not mature enough to be funded in a directed research
    and engineering program. Limiting LDRD to four percent reduces the pool
    from which successful research concepts may arise to feed our future
    applied research needs.
        Question. Do you feel that LDRD research returns value to the
    taxpayer?
        Answer. (General Gioconda) LDRD investments at the three DP
    laboratories have a proven track record of high returns to the
    taxpayer:
      --Over 25 percent of new knowledge, as measured by peer-reviewed
            publications;
      --Over 30 percent of useful new technologies, as measured by patents
            granted;
      --Over 40 percent of new science and technology workers, as measured
            by the participation of students and recent doctoral recipients
            on LDRD projects; and
      --Over 60 percent of R&D 100 Awards, many in partnership with
            industry.
        Answer. (Dr. Gottemoeller) I believe the taxpayer gets a very good
    return on the LDRD investment. In addition to being the basic research
    source of many of our innovative, operationally oriented development
    projects, the LDRD program is a magnet for new, young scientists to
    pursue innovative concepts that push the boundaries of science and
    technology. The six percent level of LDRD support in past years was
    believed to be an appropriate balance between the funding for basic
    research concepts and our program of directed research on national
    security and nonproliferation issues. We believe that six percent
    should be reinstated.

                                BN-350 SHUT-DOWN

        Question. I understand that DOE's program to secure the spent fuel
    from the BN-350 breeder reactor in Kazakhstan has been successful so
    far. Argonne National Laboratory has been assisting in the safe
    shutdown of the reactor by transferring experience gained in the
    shutdown of the EBR-II reactor in Idaho and in designing a system to
    remove radioactive cesium from the reactor coolant. I understand that
    Kazakhstan has decided to shut down this reactor permanently.
        What is the current U.S. role at the BN-350 with respect to
    permanent shutdown of the reactor?
        Answer. In April 1999, Kazakhstan announced its intention to
    permanently shut down the BN-350 breeder reactor located in Aktau,
    Kazakhstan on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea. Since that time,
    the Office of International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation (NN-30) has
    been assisting Kazakhstan with immediate safety and decommissioning
    issues. In December 1999, Secretary Richardson and the Kazakhstan
    Minister of Energy, Industry and Trade signed an Implementing
    Arrangement that formalizes the U.S. intent to assist in the
    decommissioning of the reactor. This assistance will include joint
    development of a shutdown plan that will be peer-reviewed under the
    auspices of the IAEA. Upon completion, the plan will be used by
    Kazakhstan to solicit technical and financial assistance other nations
    and international organizations.
        The technical focus of the U.S. assistance will be to ensure that
    the shutdown of the reactor is irreversible. This will be accomplished
    by decontaminating, draining, and deactivating the reactor's highly
    radioactive sodium coolant. These actions will be performed using
    technologies and procedures developed by Argonne National Laboratory at
    EBR-II.

                             NUCLEAR SAFETY CENTERS

        Question. Argonne West personnel are involved with two joint
    centers--the Russian International Nuclear Safety Center and the
    Kazakhstan Nuclear Technology Safety Center--that were established with
    the goal of enhancing the nuclear safety infrastructure in each
    country. The work of the safety centers addresses nuclear safety
    through activities such as providing training on the use of nuclear
    safety computer codes, developing safety procedures, and transferring
    knowledge gained from nuclear operations around the world.
        Would you comment on the role the centers have played in enhancing
    nuclear safety in these countries?
        Answer. The International Nuclear Safety Centers in Russia,
    Kazakhstan and the United States have made significant contributions to
    nuclear safety. The centers currently carry out collaborative
    activities that support plant-specific safety assessment projects and
    promote the development of a sustainable nuclear safety infrastructure
    in Russia and Kazakhstan.
        The Russian International Nuclear Safety Center (RINSC) is
    chartered as a separate organization within the Russian Ministry of
    Atomic Energy (Minatom). However, essentially all Russian institutes,
    such as the Kurchatov Institute, the Russian Academy of Sciences'
    Nuclear Safety Center (IBRAE), and GAN technical center, are official
    members of the Nuclear Safety Center. Minatom provides RINSC with
    supporting funds as well as the office space. An important element in
    maintaining the competence of the Russian center is its direct
    connection with the corresponding centers abroad, in particular the
    Argonne center.
        In fiscal year 2000, planned activities at the Center include:
      --Safety analysis computer code management and configuration control.
            The Russian Federation International Nuclear Safety Center
            (RINSC) has been designated as the official repository of U.S.
            safety analysis code technology. The U.S. provides computer
            codes to RINSC that are used for nuclear safety work concerning
            individual nuclear power plants. From RINSC, U.S. safety
            analysis codes are distributed, with the appropriate
            configuration controls, to Russian users in other institutes
            and organizations. The Center maintains and controls the
            Russian version of the codes, as well as the manuals on code
            use.
      --Management of nuclear safety analysis computer code validation.
            Russia, with U.S. help, is preparing safety analyses of several
            nuclear power plants. The application of U.S. safety analysis
            codes to Soviet-designed reactors requires an extensive
            validation process, requiring applicable experimental data.
            RINSC is managing this project because of its established
            relationship with all Russian institutes involved in this
            process. Through the technical institutes belonging to RINSC,
            it is able to access needed experimental data and establish the
            bases for validated codes. Development and maintenance of the
            Russian safety analysis data bank. RINSC maintains a nuclear
            data base for use in safety analysis. Nuclear power plants and
            their supporting organizations need analytical information from
            the data bank in order to carry out in-depth safety
            assessments. Of particular importance are basic data on
            material properties.
      --Development of technical basis for accident management. While
            design basis safety and risk assessments are plant specific,
            the general technical basis for management of severe accidents
            is applicable for all reactors of a given type. RINSC, in
            coordination with several Russian institutes, is developing
            this technical basis for the Russian nuclear power plants.
      --Archiving and distribution of safety and risk analysis results. The
            quantitative results of the safety assessment projects are
            maintained in a database and distributed by RINSC on an as-
            needed basis to nuclear power plants. This ensures the widest
            possible distribution and application, with the necessary
            quality control, of the DOE-supported safety assessments.
        The operation of RINSC has been quite successful despite its
    limited budget. RINSC was tasked by Minatom to develop the first ever
    Russian Nuclear Safety Research Plan. This plan received a favorable
    international review by nuclear safety experts under the auspices of
    the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency. RINSC continues to contribute to the
    international database on nuclear reactor materials, including some
    valuable high-temperature data previously unavailable in the West. Some
    of these data (e.g, high temperature properties of Zirconium) have
    already found use in improving the accuracy of U.S. severe accident
    analysis computer codes.
        The Kazakhstan Nuclear Technology Safety Center was created by a
    joint U.S.-Kazakhstan agreement, signed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy
    and the Kazakhstan Minister of Science in 1997. The purpose of the
    Center is to provide expertise and infrastructure for nuclear safety
    analysis. The focus of the activity is the BN-350 fast breeder reactor
    in Aktau, Kazakhstan. To date, the Center has conducted safety analysis
    review (SAR) workshops on spent fuel packaging and failed fuel
    packaging. Similar workshops are planned for decommissioning activities
    such as: spent fuel transportation, cesium decontamination, sodium
    coolant draining and deactivation, and liquid and solid waste
    management. The Center also has hosted shutdown planning conferences
    that included DOE and NRC personnel as well as Kazaki personnel from
    several ministries and from BN-350 plant management. In addition, the
    Center's Deputy Director has observed aspects of the EBR-II shutdown
    project in Idaho so that these can be applied to the BN-350 project.
    The Center also addresses nuclear safety issues for the six nuclear
    research reactors and related facilities within Kazakhstan that were
    designed and supported previously by institutes located in Russia.

                 LONG-TERM NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAM FOR RUSSIA

        Question. The Administration has proposed a new program on long-
    term nonproliferation in the Russian Federation, in exchange for
    certain concessions by the Russians related to reprocessing and
    assistance to Iran's program.
        What is the status of your negotiations with the Russian
    Federation, and how confident are you that the desired concessions will
    be granted?
        Answer. Negotiations are ongoing, and we are making good progress
    on developing a Joint Statement outlining the intention of the two
    sides to move forward with this program, including a moratorium on
    further accumulation of separated civil plutonium resulting from the
    reprocessing of civil power reactor fuel in Russia. Regarding Russia's
    nuclear cooperation with Iran, we are currently in intense and high-
    level discussions with Russia to try to resolve these concerns. The
    Russians understand that the implementation of the R&D program within
    the new Long-Term Nonproliferation Initiative is conditioned on the
    resolution of these issues. In addition, we, and other parts of the
    Administration, are having detailed technical discussions with MinAtom
    on the implementation of Russian export control laws, with a view
    towards improving Russia's compliance with its undertakings regarding
    nuclear transfers to Iran.

                 INTERNATIONAL CENTERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

        Question. DOE signed a bilateral agreement with Russia to
    collaborate on environmental clean-up technologies through
    establishment of the International Center for Environmental Safety.
    This Center has existed on paper for nearly two years, but DOE's
    financial support has been only about $500,000 a year.
        Is there a chance this Center could get a pledge of increased
    financial support from DOE in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The International Center for Environmental Safety (ICES)
    was established jointly, in June 1999, by the Russian Federation
    Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) and DOE. MinAtom funded an office
    in Moscow for the Center, hired core personnel, and assigned it the
    responsibility of coordinating environmental safety projects at MinAtom
    industrial sites. In fiscal year 1999, DOE provided $100,000 to INEEL
    to help establish the Center. DOE had planned to provide additional
    support in fiscal year 2000, but was unable to do so due to a 50
    percent reduction in the International Nuclear Safety Program budget
    and restrictive language in the Appropriation Committee Conference
    Report.
        DOE still believes that, as a coordinating activity, the Center
    would improve the efficiency of environmental efforts at MinAtom
    industrial sites and that the U.S. could benefit from collaboration on
    legacy environmental problems. For example, Russia has conducted
    criticality safety benchmark experiment projects that could improve
    operational safety with spent nuclear fuels at DOE facilities.
    Similarly, Russian experience in modeling the subsurface flow of
    contaminants could improve assessment and resolution of problems at DOE
    sites. However, unless funds are appropriated and restrictive language
    removed, no further funding of ICES is planned.

                         FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

        Question. The DOE Fissile Materials Disposition program has been
    working with Russia to help develop MOX fuel for the BN-600--a breeder
    reactor in Russia. At last year's hearing, I raised this issue with
    DOE's program director Laura Holgate, and she stated that ``we have an
    active R&D program underway in Russia to work on converting the BN-600
    reactor to use MOX fuel, and a key element of that will be removing the
    breeder blankets that actually create the plutonium, and I am convinced
    that there is a cooperative role for Argonne West's experience as we
    move forward with the Russians on that project.''
        However, since that response, very little progress has been made in
    MOX fuel development, and essentially no progress has been made on
    converting the BN-600 breeder blanket to a stainless steel reflector.
    Also, no progress has been made in identifying a storage location for
    the spent fuel and blanket assemblies that would have to be removed
    from the reactor during conversion to MOX.
        Can you please comment on the status of the R&D program and the
    blanket removal?
        Answer. A significant volume of work continues with regard to the
    development of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for the BN-600 fast reactor. The
    Russian Research Institute of Research Reactors (RIAR) fabricated three
    vibro-compacted (VIPAC) powder MOX lead test assemblies for the BN-600
    using plutonium metal from Russian weapons components. The experimental
    subassemblies will begin to be irradiated in the BN-600 restart
    following a May maintenance and refueling shutdown. The Argonne
    National Laboratory is participating in meetings to discuss
    accelerating the path forward for the VIPAC MOX option. As an
    alternative, the U.S. is also studying the possibility of fabricating
    BN-600 MOX fuel in pellet form at the Mayak facility.
        Work continues with Russia with regard to the removal of the
    irradiated breeding blanket in the BN-600 reactor. Russia has completed
    the technical designs for a stainless steel reflector subassembly and a
    boron shield subassembly--two components required for blanket
    replacement. However, proceeding with the blanket replacement will
    require Russia to make a decision for the location of a dry storage
    facility for both spent MOX fuel and irradiated breeding blanket
    subassemblies. Dry spent fuel storage technology used at the
    Radioactive Waste Storage Facility at the Argonne-West site is one of
    the possible technologies under consideration.

                                 NAVAL REACTORS

        Question. Is the President's budget request for Naval Reactors
    sufficient to meet the Navy's commitments to the State of Idaho under
    the clean-up settlement agreement?
        Answer. Yes, the President's budget request for Naval Reactors is
    sufficient to meet the Navy's commitments in the 1995 Idaho agreement.
    The Navy has met all its commitments under the agreements to date, and
    expects to continue to satisfy the terms of the agreement in fiscal
    year 2001 and beyond.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Domenici. We stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Tuesday, March 28, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Domenici, Gorton, McConnell, Craig, Reid,
    Murray, and Dorgan.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                               Office of Science

    STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER, ACTING DIRECTOR

                     Office of Energy and Renewable Energy

    STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY

                Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

    STATEMENT OF BILL MAGWOOD, DIRECTOR

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON

        Senator Gorton [presiding]. Well, the Chairman is delayed,
    and I must preside at another hearing at 9:30. But rather than
    keep the witnesses waiting or Senator Dorgan waiting, perhaps
    it would be well to start.
        The Chairman has a detailed opening statement. He may want
    to give it later, but we will place it in the record.
        The jurisdictions of the various witnesses are of
    considerable interest to me as well, and I suspect to the Vice
    President and to Senator Dorgan as well.
        Do you have any opening statement that you would like to
    make?

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Apparently
    this is a morning where all committees are holding all of their
    subcommittee hearings. And I think I have four that are
    starting at either 9:00 or 9:30 today. So we are all under the
    same circumstance.
        This is an important programmatic area. And in an
    interesting way, it is a timely area to be discussing because
    of the actions of the OPEC countries and the spike up in gas
    prices. When we talk now about renewal energy technologies and
    extending America's energy supply through new technologies, I
    think it is exactly what we ought to be talking about. I have
    had an opportunity to work with Mr. Reicher and others on a
    range of issues.
        Because you bicycled through North Dakota at one point,
    Senator Gorton, you probably know this. But North Dakota is the
    Saudi Arabia of wind energy.
        Senator Gorton. Fortunately the winds were in the right
    direction.
        Senator Dorgan. As I understand it, you were biking from
    west to east----
        Senator Gorton. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Which would be logical if you
    wanted a tail wind in our State.

                       NORTH DAKOTA WIND ENERGY POTENTIAL

        But if you look at wind energy potential in our country,
    North Dakota really is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy
    potential, but it exists in a fair number of areas, including
    the State of Washington. Wind energy and biomass and a whole
    range of opportunities exist. We have programs and initiatives
    in the Federal Government that I think are exciting. And I know
    they are niche areas, but I think they are exciting.
        And if we make the right investments and take this
    opportunity during this period of a discussion about being
    captive or dependent on energy supplies from foreign sources,
    we can make the right investments and extend our energy
    supplies by developing what some people call green power and
    others call renewable energy sources. Abundant energy gathered
    from self-renewing resources makes a great deal of sense in our
    country.
        And so I came by today just to say that as we begin looking
    at the resources we devote to this, I am especially interested
    in wind energy. And I especially want to keep, if we can, the
    administration's recommendation on wind energy investment. But
    I want to work with other members of the subcommittee,
    including the chairman, on a range of these projects.
        So thank you very much.
        Senator Gorton. Senator Craig? We just got started.
        Senator Craig. I am delighted to be here and I will ask
    questions of our first panel.
        Senator Gorton. Fine.
        Senator Craig. Thank you.
        Senator Gorton. And if the witnesses have a preferred
    order--I have Dr. Decker first. If you all wish to change the
    order, it is okay with us.
        And of course, as always, your formal written statements
    will be included in the record of the hall. So we would
    appreciate you summarizing.
        Dr. Decker. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to----
        Senator Gorton. Here is the Chairman. Just getting them
    started.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici [presiding]. Hello, everybody. I am very
    sorry. I guess everybody knows I am sorry, though.
        Good morning. Today the subcommittee is going to continue
    its review of the Department of Energy's budget request for
    fiscal year 2001 in two separate panels.
        The first panel we will hear, Mr. Dan Reicher, Assistant
    Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy; Mr. Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear
    Energy, Science and Technology; followed by Dr. James Decker,
    Acting Director of the Office of Science.
        In the second panel, we are going to hear from Dr. Carolyn
    Huntoon, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental
    Management, and Dr. Ivan Itkin, who is the Director for the
    Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
        First of all, I thank you all very much for the flexibility
    that you have shown us in accommodating to the committee's
    schedule. As many of you know, the subcommittee had to cancel
    last week's hearing because the ranking member and I were on
    the Senate floor with a budget resolution. And it was
    impossible to be both places. I look forward to getting back
    into the appropriations matters today.

                       SOLAR AND RENEWABLE BUDGET REQUEST

        The solar and renewable budget request for next year is
    $409.5 million, a 32-percent increase over the current year.
    Meanwhile, just my own observation, the nuclear energy budget
    request for next year is $306 million, an increase of 7.4
    percent over the current year.
        I remain very concerned about the relative investments the
    Department is proposing in these two areas. According to a 1997
    study, the U.S. Federal R&D investment per thousand kilowatts
    was approximately 5 cents per kilowatt for nuclear and 4,800
    per kilowatt for wind, 17,000 per kilowatt for photovoltaic.
        Despite the considerable investment this country has made
    in non-hydro renewables over the last several decades, the
    technology remains rather uncompetitive on the large scale and
    today contributes less than one percent of the U.S. electrical
    power. I think we have to be realistic.
        And while we commend the director, Mr. Reicher, who has
    taken over this part of the budget and, I must say comparably
    speaking, is running a much, much better department than ever
    before, the facts still kind of shine rather brightly on this
    issue.

                        OFFICE OF SCIENCE BUDGET REQUEST

        The budget request for the Office of Science for next year
    is $3.51 billion, a 12-percent increase. Hopefully we are going
    to be able to accommodate that, and maybe a little more, in our
    appropriation process.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUDGET REQUEST

        The environmental management request is $6.738 billion, a
    6.9-percent increase. While this program is producing visible
    progress at a number of sites, many challenges remain in
    developing clean-up technologies and managing costs for these
    clean-ups. Next year is a very critical year for the Office of
    Civilian Radioactive Waste Management as it prepares to make
    and issue a final AIS and a formal site recommendation to the
    Secretary on the Yucca Mountain site.
        I ask that you be as brief as you can, but we clearly want
    to hear from you. Your prepared remarks will be made part of
    the record as if read.
        Any Senator have any comments?
        Senator Gorton. Well, everyone else has done their opening
    statement. I had just recognized Dr. Decker when you came in.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Let us proceed on
    that basis.
        Dr. Decker.

                         STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER

        Dr. Decker. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on
    the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Office of Science.
    Before I begin, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee, for the committee's strong support for our
    research programs in past years.
        The Office of Science supports basic research that
    underpins the science, energy, environment and national defense
    missions of the department. It is the major supporter of
    fundamental research in the physical sciences and plays an
    important and unique role in life sciences, environmental
    sciences, mathematics, computer sciences and engineering
    sciences.
        The Office of Science also plays an essential role in the
    Nation's scientific infrastructure by constructing and
    operating major scientific facilities, such as accelerators,
    light sources and neutron sources. Each year these facilities
    serve more than 15,000 scientific users from all research
    sectors, academia, industry and federal laboratories.

                                ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        The past year has been a very productive one for the Office
    of Science. We have completed a number of new research
    facilities and completed upgrades to existing facilities on
    time and within budget. It has also been a year of exciting
    science. I will mention two examples that illustrate the
    scientific breath of our research.
        The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Group has found
    evidence that the expansion of the universe is speeding up,
    suggesting the presence of a new force. In genomic research, we
    have completed sequencing the three million base pair of
    Deinococcus radiodurans, nicknamed Conan the Bacterium.
        Since it can survive 600 times more radiation than the
    human being, this should provide insights into mechanisms for
    DNA repair and may show us how to engineer Conan into a
    workhorse for helping to clean up some of DOE's most difficult
    mixed waste problems.

                                 NANOTECHNOLOGY

        In the fiscal year 2001 budget request, there are several
    areas of exciting and challenging scientific opportunities for
    the future that I would like to highlight. First, nanoscale
    science, engineering and technology. This area of basic science
    will allow for the creation of new materials tailored for
    specific uses, one atom at a time. The resulting materials will
    have new or greatly improved properties. The impact of Nano
    technologies could equal that of the transistor.

                     ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

        Second, advanced scientific computing research. Every
    scientific program supported by the Office of Science is faced
    with enormously complex problems. They can only be addressed
    through computational models. Such models are already essential
    tools for our research, but our current computers are not
    powerful enough to address many of our most important problems.
        Computers that can are rapidly becoming available. Industry
    can now supply super-computers ten times faster than those that
    are now available to our civilian scientists. And far more
    powerful computers will be available very soon.
        But these are very complex machines. Producing the unique
    software and mathematical models that will make them useful,
    for our scientific programs requires a focused program of
    research and development. For a relatively modest investment,
    we can begin to provide all of our science programs with a
    powerful tool for basic research.

                                 MICROBIAL CELL

        Third, understanding the microbial cell. Microbes are
    amazing little chemical factories. The revolutionary tools
    developed in the life sciences over the last few years, such as
    genetic sequencing technologies, give us the opportunity to
    determine how they work and to modify them to work for us in
    areas such as bioremediation, carbon sequestration and
    sustainable energy production.

                                 BIOENGINEERING

        Fourth, bioengineering. In bioengineering we will take
    advantage of our unique resources to support innovative program
    research in nano medicine, bio materials and molecular biology.
        In addition to the enhanced activities just noted, the 2001
    request will provide for a wide range of important scientific
    activities in each of our programs and will support increased
    investment and existing user facilities.

                           SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE

        In closing, I would note the substantial progress made on
    the Spallation Neutron Source. On December 15 we broke ground
    and began construction of the project. R&D and design
    activities are proceeding on schedule. Last month the Office of
    Science conducted its regular semiannual review of the project.
        While this review examined all aspects of the project, the
    review committee was specifically asked to examine whether the
    project's cost and schedule baseline are consistent with the
    President's 2001 budget request. The review committee judged
    that this Spallation Neutron Source project is making good
    progress and that it can be completed on schedule and within
    budget.
        The budget request for the Office of Science balances
    support for our existing programs and facilities and new
    investments and tools, such as the Spallation Neutron Source
    and advanced computational modeling, and in promising new
    areas, such as nano science. It provides a strong basis for
    scientific progress and all the disciplines that we support.
        And I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may
    have.
        [The statement follows:]

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on behalf of the Office of Science (SC) of the
    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The fiscal year 2001 budget request
    for the Science appropriation supports: Advanced Scientific Computing
    Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research,
    Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Energy
    Research Analyses, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities Support,
    and Science Program Direction. The Technical Information Management
    program budget request is located within the Energy Supply
    appropriation.
        The DOE budget for fiscal year 2001 requests $3,151.1 million for
    SC programs in the Science Appropriation and $9.3 million for the
    Technical Information Program in the Energy Supply Appropriation. The
    activities supported by this budget will build on SC's achievements in
    the physical and biological sciences, leverage our current investments
    for new opportunities, and permit new investments in individual
    research projects at our national laboratories and research
    universities across the country. The Department's science programs and
    infrastructure advance basic research and provide the technical
    foundations and resources for DOE's applied missions in national
    security, energy, and environment.
        This request will enable SC to pursue new and challenging
    scientific opportunities in nanoscale science, engineering and
    technology to allow for the creation of new materials one atom at a
    time; advanced scientific computing research to advance all of our
    research programs by taking advantage of the prodigious increases in
    computing power that will occur in the next few years; molecular level
    understanding of microbes to harness nature's remarkable chemical
    factories; and bioengineering to use the science and engineering
    capabilities of our programs for new breakthroughs. In addition, the
    ongoing programs representing our core competencies will remain strong
    and vigorous.
        The requested funding will allow Fermilab to initiate Run II of the
    Tevatron Collider using the new Main Injector, which will increase its
    beam intensity by up to a factor of ten, and the correspondingly
    upgraded the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and the DO detector.
    Run I discovered the top quark and Run II will allow a search for the
    origin of mass and new symmetries in the fundamental interactions of
    matter. Late in fiscal year 2000, a major new nuclear physics facility
    at the Brookhaven National Laboratory called the Relativistic Heavy Ion
    Collider (RHIC) begins colliding gold nuclei to create a form of matter
    that has not existed since the Big Bang and the first results are
    expected in fiscal year 2001. Encouraging hints of this ``quark-gluon
    plasma'' have recently been detected at CERN. The B Factory at Stanford
    Liner Accelerator Center (SLAC), designed to study the subtle matter-
    antimatter asymmetry in our matter-dominated world, will have its first
    full year of running at full design luminosity. Major new results on
    the depleted neutrino signal from the sun will be provided by the
    Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) detector, located 2 kilometers
    underground in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. The request will also allow
    SLAC to begin the final design and prototyping for Gamma Large Area
    Space Telescope (GLAST). This exciting new initiative between DOE and
    NASA combines the sophisticated experimental techniques of our high
    energy physics programs with the expertise of NASA in space to enhance
    our ability to solve the mysteries of the universe.
        This request will also permit SC to increase funding for its most
    heavily used facilities, continue construction of the Spallation
    Neutron Source, and continue our participation in the Large Hadron
    Collider. The coming year promises to be an exciting and productive one
    for the programs that use our major facilities. Our synchrotron
    radiation light sources and neutron sources will run at maximum
    capacity to serve their large and growing multidisciplinary user
    communities; every one of our major high-energy and nuclear physics
    facilities has just been upgraded and will be available to serve these
    communities; the National Spherical Torus Experiment will be
    operational with its neutral beam heating system; and our computing
    facility, National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC), will
    undergo a major upgrade to enable multi-teraflops operation. The
    restructured Fusion Energy Science program will: pursue the physics of
    advanced tokamaks; launch a new competition for innovative confinement
    concepts; continue our heavy ion beam accelerator research; and enhance
    our support for plasma science in such areas as plasma processing and
    plasma chemistry.
        Continued leadership in science and technology is a cornerstone of
    our nation's economic prosperity and growth. Information technology
    alone accounts for one third of U.S. economic growth and is creating
    jobs that pay almost 80 percent more than the average private-sector
    wage. Many of the technologies that are fueling today's economy, such
    as the Internet, build upon government investments, such as the SC
    ESnet, in the 1960's and 1970's. The Department of Energy, and its
    predecessor agencies, have been the proud sponsor of science-driven
    growth through the combined efforts of the national laboratories, 70
    Nobel Laureates, and thousands of outstanding university and industry
    based researchers nationwide. As we begin the new millennium, SC
    reaffirms its commitment to these quality investments in scientific
    programs and tools to enable tomorrow's advances.

                    OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND RECENT SUCCESSES

        SC is the nation's major supporter of fundamental research in the
    physical sciences. It is also among the nation's largest supporters of
    fundamental research in mathematics and computing, engineering, and
    environmental sciences. The SC programs fund research at 250 colleges
    and universities located in 49 states. The inclusion of research
    activities at this large number of academic institutions is a vital
    part of the SC programs. These academic scientists and their students
    are funded through individual peer-reviewed grants and as members of
    peer-reviewed research teams involving investigators from both national
    laboratories and universities.
        SC also provides the major support for 32 major scientific user
    facilities, which together host more than 15,000 users annually from
    all research sectors. University-based scientists are among the
    principal users of these facilities. New research capabilities came on
    line at the Combustion Research Facility, the Continuous Electron Beam
    Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
    Facility (TJNAF), and the B-factory at SLAC during fiscal year 1999 and
    fiscal year 2000. Projects and other major facilities completed on time
    and within budget include: the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC),
    the U.S./Canadian Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) detector, the
    National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX), the Fermilab Main Injector,
    and the Joint Genome Institute's (JGI) Production Sequencing Facility.
    Ground was broken on December 15, 1999, for the Spallation Neutron
    Source (SNS), SC's newest construction start.
        Each year, hundreds of principal investigators funded by SC win
    dozens of major prizes and awards sponsored by the President, the
    Department, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
    Engineering, and major professional scientific societies. The awards
    have included: the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and Physics, the National
    Medal of Science, Presidential Young Investigator Award, Enrico Fermi
    and E.O. Lawrence awards, National Science Foundation Career Award, R&D
    100 awards, Discover Magazine Awards, the Federal Laboratory Consortium
    Award, the Gordon Bell Prize and the Fernbach Award, IBM's
    Supercomputer Award, and many others.
        This research portfolio supports the goals of the Department and
    the Administration while advancing science and contributing to U.S.
    economic growth. Presented below are recent program accomplishments.
    The selected program highlights are representative of the broad range
    of research supported in SC. These highlights demonstrate the discovery
    of new knowledge to challenge our imagination, the rapidity with which
    new knowledge often can be incorporated into other scientific
    disciplines and into the commercial sector, and the great potential of
    new knowledge for future impacts in energy production and use.
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research Accomplishments
        Today's high performance scientific computations rely on high
    performance, efficient libraries of numerical linear algebra software.
    These libraries, which are the core of numerical efforts in the
    solution of differential and integral equations LINPACK, EISPAC,
    LAPACK, SCALAPACK are the direct result of decades of DOE funding of
    basic research in this area. These libraries are used by thousands of
    researchers worldwide and are a critical part of the world's scientific
    computing infrastructure.
        The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) part of TCP/IP (Internet
    Protocol) is responsible for ensuring that packets of information
    traveling over the internet arrive at their destination. In 1987, as
    DOE and the other federal agencies were interconnecting their networks
    to form the core of the Internet, critical parts of the infrastructure
    began to fail. There was concern that this represented a fundamental
    flaw in the TCP/IP architecture; however, a researcher at LBNL applied
    ideas from fluid flow research to understand the problem and develop a
    solution. This new TCP algorithm was incorporated in virtually every
    commercial version of Internet software within six months and enabled
    the Internet to scale from a small research network to today's
    worldwide infrastructure.
        To meet the nation's energy needs, the United States oil and gas
    industry must continue to advance the technology used to extract oil
    and gas from both new and old fields. Computer scientists at Argonne
    National Laboratory, in collaboration with petroleum engineers at the
    University of Texas at Austin, have recently developed a software
    package capable of simulating the flow of oil and gas in reservoirs.
    These codes, which are based on software tools designed at Argonne, are
    able to run on a variety of computer platforms. The software codes will
    enable the oil and gas industry to lower exploration and drilling costs
    and enhance the yield of oil from new and old fields alike.
        The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program is pioneering
    national collaboratories which link researchers at their home
    institutions with the instruments at the SC user facilities to change
    the way science is being done at these facilities.
        The small Laboratory Technology Research subprogram ($15.7 million)
    supported research projects that received five R&D 100 Awards in fiscal
    year 1999.

    Basic Energy Sciences Accomplishments
        As part of a nationwide program in high-resolution electron-
    microscopy applied to fundamental materials sciences research, a new
    imaging technique was developed that achieved the highest resolution
    image of a crystal structure ever recorded, resolving adjacent columns
    of silicon atoms separated by a scant 0.78 angstroms (3 billionths of
    an inch). The precise atomic-scale structure of a material controls the
    performance of materials for semiconductor devices, superconductors,
    and a host of other applications. Combined with improved electron
    imaging optics currently under development, this result promises to
    revolutionize the atomic-scale understanding of materials.
        As part of its stewardship responsibility for neutron science, the
    Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program made substantial investments in
    human and facility resources for neutron science. In addition to the
    construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, all BES neutron science
    facilities are being upgraded and/or provided additional funds to
    increase hours of operation to enable a major increase in the national
    neutron science effort. Finally, a neutron science summer school is
    being supported to give students hands-on experience with the
    techniques of neutron scattering.
        As part of a major program to theoretically predict and then
    synthesize new materials with unusual chemical and physical properties,
    a new fullerene species, C36, has been synthesized and
    produced in bulk quantities for the first time. Fullerenes or
    ``buckyballs'' are hollow clusters of carbon atoms. They have been
    studied extensively since the Nobel prize-winning discovery of
    C60 in 1985 (supported by BES). C36 is the
    smallest fullerene discovered to date and is characterized by unusual
    and potentially very useful properties. For example, in contrast to
    C60 molecules, which interact only very weakly with one
    another, C36 molecules stick together--hence the nickname
    ``stickyballs.''
        A powerful new instrument completed at the Combustion Research
    Facility promises to provide new information about how molecules
    dissociate when given enough internal energy. Understanding such
    processes is critically important for combustion, because, at the high
    temperatures of combustion, dissociation occurs in a variety of ways
    that are difficult to observe, model, and predict. With this new
    instrument, measurements are made one molecule at a time, making this a
    tool of unrivaled power for the validation of predictive models and
    theories of chemical reactions.
        It has long been recognized that tools and concepts developed in
    the physical sciences can revolutionize the life sciences. One need
    only consider the impact of x-ray synchrotron radiation and MAD
    (multiple wavelength anomalous diffraction) phasing on macromolecular
    crystallography; both were developed within the SC program. In fiscal
    year 1999, many of the program highlights illustrate the rapidity with
    which advances in the physical sciences are impacting the life
    sciences. Two such examples are new techniques of nuclear magnetic
    resonance (NMR) that are being used to study the molecular structures
    of solid protein deposits implicated in brain diseases such as
    Alzheimer's Disease and BSE (Mad Cow Disease), and a nano-laser device
    that has been shown to have the potential to quickly identify a cell
    population that has begun the rapid protein synthesis and mitosis
    characteristic of cancerous cell proliferation.

    Biological and Environmental Research Accomplishments
        Each year, Science Magazine honors a ``Breakthrough of the Year''
    and nine additional major discoveries in fields that span the
    scientific disciplines, from the edgy dance of subatomic particles to
    the biological wizardry that imprints memories. Genomics was again
    included for 1999. Genomics is one of today's most exciting and high
    profile fields in biology and DOE supports the full range of genomic
    research from microbes to the Human Genome. For example, SC researchers
    have completed sequencing the entire 3 million base pair genome of
    ``Conan the Bacterium''-Deinococcus radiodurans. This DNA sequence
    information should provide additional insights into the astonishing
    mechanisms for DNA repair in Deinococcus radiodurans in addition to
    improving opportunities for engineering Deinococcus radiodurans into a
    potential workhorse for helping cleanup some of DOE's most troublesome
    waste problems.
        Deinococcus radiodurans cannot normally degrade solvents that are
    part of the mixed wastes at many DOE sites. A team of SC-funded
    scientists at the Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences
    (USUHS) in Bethesda, Maryland has transferred genes that code for
    enzymes that degrade toluene and related solvents from Pseudomonas
    putida into Deinococcus radiodurans. The new Deinococcus radiodurans
    can degrade toluene and toluene-related solvents. The engineered
    Deinococcus could also survive levels of toluene and trichloroethylene
    that would normally dissolve most other bacteria, suggesting that these
    engineered microbes might survive in radioactive and solvent containing
    mixed wastes and degrade the solvents.
        The DOE Joint Genome Institute's Production Sequencing Facility in
    Walnut Creek, California will complete a working draft of human
    chromosomes 5, 16, and 19 by March 2000. This is part of SC's
    contribution to the international effort to sequence the entire human
    genome by 2003. This working draft represents roughly 90 percent of the
    entire sequence of these three chromosomes completed to 99 percent
    accuracy. This draft sequence, together with drafts produced by other
    sequencing centers around the world, will open the floodgates of
    biological information to scientists and reduce the time and effort
    needed to complete the entire high quality sequence. SC's effort to
    complete the finished sequence for chromosomes 5, 16, and 19 is
    scheduled for completion by October 2001.
        A massively parallel version of the Community Climate Model (CCM3)
    was developed by a multi-institutional partnership that includes
    several DOE laboratories, the National Center for Atmospheric Research
    (NCAR), and university research groups. CCM3 runs on a massively
    parallel computer and performs coupled climate model simulations.
    Highly optimized atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice general circulation
    model codes that run effectively on massively-parallel scientific
    supercomputers have been completed and tested for use in climate change
    studies. The Parallel Climate Model (PCM), which more accurately
    represents the physical ocean, sea ice and atmosphere motion, has been
    tested on three different parallel supercomputers. This is a
    significant step in developing the next generation of climate models.
        Brain imaging studies using positron emission tomography (PET) show
    that methamphetamine is toxic to the brain and this is associated with
    long-term memory loss and motor impairment. Studies are in progress to
    determine if recovery occurs on drug withdrawal.

    Fusion Energy Sciences Accomplishments
        The tearing and reconnection of magnetic field lines is of
    fundamental importance in many areas of plasma physics, including
    fusion science. Newly developed laboratory experiments at the
    California Institute of Technology, Swarthmore, and the Princeton
    Plasma Physics Laboratory have led to significant advances in the
    understanding of this phenomenon. This is of particular importance in
    the eruptions of energetic bursts from the surface of the sun, which,
    in turn affect radio and satellite communications.
        Considerable progress has been made in areas such as the
    macroscopic equilibrium and stability of magnetically confined plasmas,
    and turbulence and transport in tokamak plasmas. Software and hardware
    have been developed to allow remote collaborations on a wide variety of
    fusion experiments in the United States and abroad.
        Plasma turbulence increases energy transport and thereby limits
    magnetic confinement. There have been recent attempts to compare plasma
    transport phenomena with avalanche or ``sand pile'' transport models.
    Although plasmas are fluids, Self-Organized Criticality (SOC) models
    that are used to simulate a wide variety of natural phenomena such as
    earthquakes, avalanches, etc., describe some nonlinear aspects of
    plasma turbulence. Tokamak measurements are providing information about
    the size and frequency of transport events, thus improving comparisons
    with theoretical avalanche models.

    High Energy Physics Accomplishments
        DOE is entering into an exciting and expanding partnership with
    NASA in the area of Particle Astrophysics. Research and development for
    the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and Gamma Large Area Space
    Telescope (GLAST) experiments has been underway for some time.
    Preliminary consideration is being given to the SuperNova Acceleration
    Probe (SNAP) experiment. These experiments, and others that may be
    proposed, will provide important new information about cosmic rays and
    the rate of expansion of the universe which will in turn lead to a
    better understanding of dark matter, dark energy, and the big bang. For
    example, the AMS flew in a space shuttle payload bay for 10 days in
    June 1998 and gathered about 100 hours of data. The data provide a far
    more comprehensive and accurate description of the global distribution
    and movement of cosmic rays than available previously. Researchers
    analyzing this global data have found intriguing and unexpected
    information about cosmic rays and how they interact with the earth's
    magnetic field.
        Charge-Parity (CP) Violation is one of the central problems of
    subatomic-particle physics. It is arguably the only known subatomic
    effect for which no clear explanation exists in the Standard Model of
    particles and their interactions. CP violation is a manifestation of
    subtle difference between the properties of particles and of
    antiparticles, it has been postulated (by Russian physicist Andrei
    Sakharov) to have been responsible for the development, shortly after
    the Big Bang, of the slight excess of matter over antimatter from which
    the entire material universe has since evolved. Thirty years of
    experimental effort to study CP Violation have succeeded in determining
    only two parameters of the theory--parameters that explain no other
    known effect. In March 1999, scientists working on Fermilab's KteV
    experiment announced evidence that established the existence of direct
    CP Violation beyond reasonable doubt. This is a significant advance in
    our understanding of this important phenomena. The finding definitively
    rules out the existing Superweak Theory as the sole source of CP
    Violation and indicates that the phenomena can be accommodated within
    the Standard Model.
        The observation was made, by the international CDF collaboration
    working at Fermilab, of the existence and properties of the B meson
    containing a charmed quark. This discovery completes the theoretically
    predicted family of B mesons.
        Evidence of neutrino mass and quantum mixing was obtained in a
    U.S.-Japanese experiment with the Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan.
    Neutrino beam experiments in Japan and at Fermilab are underway to
    verify these results.

    Nuclear Physics Accomplishments
        In fiscal year 1999, observations of two new chemical elements (Z
    (number of protons)=116 and Z=118) were reported in measurements
    performed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's 88-Inch
    Cyclotron using the Berkeley Gas-filled Spectrometer (BGS). Continued
    measurements are planned for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
        The Gammasphere, coupled with the Fragment Mass Separator at the
    Argonne Tandem-Linac Accelerator System (ATLAS) facility at Argonne
    National Laboratory, provided surprising results on the structure of
    the Nobelium isotope (254  No) showing that nuclear shell
    structures, which are entirely responsible for the stability of nuclei
    with charges greater than Z=100, persist up to very high deformation.
    Other measurements performed at the ATLAS facility have established
    properties of nuclei and reaction processes that allow for more
    stringent tests of models for supernova collapses and improved
    predictions for chemical element production in stellar burning and
    supernovae.
        National laboratory theorists have found, quite unexpectedly, that
    effects due to special relativity can explain a previously unexplained
    symmetry in the low lying states of a large number of atomic nuclei.
        In keeping with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
    the SC fiscal year 2001 budget request includes program specific goals,
    strategies, and measures that focus our research activities and ensure
    continuity with Departmental plans and national goals. The DOE
    Strategic Plan and Science Strategic Plan outline the vision, goals and
    strategic objectives that will, through leadership in science and
    technology, help the DOE to meet its technology driven missions.

                    LOOKING TO THE FUTURE--FISCAL YEAR 2001

        Last year, in the Science Strategic Plan, SC provided a framework
    for addressing its mission through four science goals:
      --Exploring Matter and Energy--understanding the building blocks of
            matter from subatomic particles to living systems;
      --Fueling the Future--supporting fundamental science for affordable
            and clean energy;
      --Protecting Our Living Planet--supporting fundamental science to
            understand and mitigate the impacts of energy production and
            use; and
      --Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science--providing major
            facilities and tools for the nation's researchers in academia,
            federal laboratories, and industry.
        In fiscal year 2001, new activities that support these goals
    include nanoscale science, engineering, and technology; advanced
    computational modeling and simulation; understanding the workings of
    microbes at the molecular level; applications of science and
    engineering expertise to problems in the life sciences; increased
    utilization of scientific user facilities; support for the Spallation
    Neutron Source and the Large Hadron Collider; and augmentation of the
    skills of our technical workforce.
        Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology.--In 1959 Richard
    Feynman delivered a now famous lecture, There is Plenty of Room at the
    Bottom--An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics. He challenged
    his audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and
    controlled on the smallest of scales, when new materials could be
    fabricated and devices could be designed atom by atom. ``In the year
    2000,'' he said, ``when they look back at this age, they will wonder
    why it was not until the year 1960 that anybody began seriously to move
    in this direction.''
        Unfortunately, it took longer than Feynman predicted to arrive at
    the threshold of such complete control of materials. Now, in the year
    2000, controlling and manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular
    scale--which is the essence of nanoscale science, engineering, and
    technology--has finally become feasible. In the 40 years since
    Feynman's lecture, instruments have been invented and perfected that
    enable visualization and control at the nanoscale. Many of these
    instruments and techniques are contained within SC's collection of
    scientific user facilities. Theory, modeling, and simulation have also
    reached the stage at which it is possible to understand and predict
    phenomena at the nanoscale.
        The principal DOE missions in science, energy, defense, and
    environmental quality will benefit greatly from developments in these
    areas. For example, nanoscale synthesis and assembly methods will
    result in significant improvements in solar energy conversion; more
    energy-efficient lighting; stronger, lighter materials that will
    improve efficiency in transportation; greatly improved chemical and
    biological sensing; use of low-energy chemical pathways to break down
    toxic substances for environmental remediation and restoration; and,
    better sensors and controls to increase efficiency in manufacturing.
        A key challenge in nanoscience is to understand how deliberate
    tailoring of materials on the nanoscale could lead to novel properties
    and new functionalities. Examples include: the addition of aluminum
    oxide nanoparticles that convert aluminum metal into a material with
    wear resistance equal to that of the best bearing steel; and, novel
    chemical properties of nanocrystals that show promise as photocatalysts
    to speed the breakdown of toxic wastes and meso-porous structures
    integrated with micromachined components that are used to produce high-
    sensitivity and highly selective chip-based detectors of chemical
    warfare agents. These and other nanostructures are already recognized
    as likely components of 21st century optical communications, printing,
    computing, chemical sensing, and energy conversion technologies.
        SC has been a leader in the early development of nanoscale science,
    engineering, and technology since the 1980s, supporting research and
    sponsoring workshops to help establish the importance of nanostructured
    materials. Because of the confluence of advances during the past
    decade, SC is well prepared to make major contributions to develop
    nanoscale scientific understanding, and ultimately nanotechnologies,
    through its research programs and its materials characterization,
    synthesis, in-situ diagnostic, and computing capabilities. The DOE and
    its national laboratories maintain a large array of major scientific
    user facilities that are ideally suited to nanoscience discovery and to
    developing a fundamental understanding of nanoscale processes.
        New funding in the amount of $36.1 million in fiscal year 2001 is
    requested for these activities as part of the proposed multiagency
    National Nanotechnology Initiative. This effort has the following broad
    goals: (1) attain a fundamental scientific understanding of nanoscale
    phenomena, particularly collective phenomena; (2) achieve the ability
    to design and synthesize materials at the atomic level to produce
    materials with desired properties and functions; (3) attain a
    fundamental understanding of the processes by which living organisms
    create materials and functional complexes to serve as a guide and a
    benchmark by which to measure our progress in synthetic design and
    synthesis; and, (4) develop experimental characterization and theory/
    modeling/simulation tools necessary to drive the nanoscale revolution.
        The synergy of DOE assets, in partnership with universities and
    industry, will provide the best opportunity for nanoscience discoveries
    to be converted rapidly into technological advances. These will meet a
    variety of DOE mission and national needs, while enabling the U.S. to
    reap the benefits of an emerging technological revolution.
        Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing.--Modeling and
    simulation was one of the most significant developments in the practice
    of scientific research in the 20th century. It is essential to all of
    the Department's missions, including the design of nuclear weapons, the
    development of new energy technologies, and--most importantly--the
    discovery of new scientific knowledge. Research programs throughout SC
    have high priority scientific problems that can only be addressed by
    advances in computational modeling and simulation. These problems
    include:
      --Predicting the effects of aging, cracking, fatigue, and
            catastrophic failure in materials; as well as designing new
            materials with desired properties and functions, e.g.,
            catalysts, alloys, and photovoltaic devices.
      --Designing new particle accelerators that provide the beam energy,
            intensity, and quality needed to continue our investigations
            into the fundamental nature of matter.
      --Predicting the interaction of chemical reactivity and fluid
            dynamics to understand the mixing of reactants and the removal
            of products for applications as diverse as combustion,
            atmospheric chemistry, and chemical processing.
      --Predicting the fate of contaminants in the subsurface, including
            chemical reactions and biological transformations, as well as
            fluid flow through porous material.
      --Predicting and controlling plasma instabilities that lead to a
            critical loss of power density in Tokamaks and other magnetic
            fusion devices.
      --Predicting the earth's climate at both regional and global scales
            from decades to centuries, including quantification of the
            uncertainties associated with the predictions.
        Theoretical and experimental approaches alone do not provide
    sufficient information to understand and predict the behavior of
    systems as complex as those listed above. Computational modeling and
    simulation, which allows a complete description of the system to be
    constructed from basic physical principles and the available
    experimental data, is key to solving these problems.
        SC has a long history of accomplishment in scientific computing and
    has served as the proving ground for new computer technologies-
    subjecting these technologies to the demands that only its most
    computationally intensive simulations could provide. In 1974, the
    Department established the first civilian supercomputer center for a
    national scientific community, the National Magnetic Fusion Energy
    Computing Center, which became the National Energy Research Scientific
    Computing Center (NERSC) and also became a model for centers
    established a decade later by NSF and other agencies.
        SC's achievements in software for scientific computing are equally
    impressive. SC led the transition from the vector supercomputers of the
    1970s and 1980s to the massively parallel supercomputers of today,
    providing much of the basic software required to use the massively
    parallel supercomputers. Many of the scientific simulation software
    packages for massively parallel supercomputers were developed by SC, a
    fact recognized by periodic awards from the supercomputing community.
        To meet the current and future scientific challenges in its
    research programs, SC will capitalize on the 1,000-fold increase in
    computer capabilities that are predicted to occur in the next five
    years. In fiscal year 2001, SC will make a set of coordinated
    investments that build on its established strength in computational
    modeling and simulation, computer science, applied mathematics, and
    high-performance computing as well as in the organization and
    management of large scientific projects. The SC-wide effort will
    address:
      --Scientific Applications Codes including research, development, and
            deployment of advanced computational modeling and simulation
            codes, new mathematical/computational methods for advanced
            computers, and application of the codes and methods to
            challenging scientific problems.
      --Computing Systems Software including the development and deployment
            of systems software and specifically mathematical methods,
            algorithms, and libraries that scale to ten thousand or more
            processors; software systems to enable the development and use
            of scientific applications codes; distributed computing and
            collaboration tools to support use of remote computing
            resources and enable integration of geographically-dispersed
            teams; scientific data management and analysis (visualization)
            systems to enable the extraction of knowledge from scientific
            simulations; and scalable, open-source operating systems to
            provide the basic infrastructure needed to use massively
            parallel computer systems.
      --Computing Infrastructure includes an upgrade of the National Energy
            Research Supercomputing Center from 3\1/2\ to 5 teraflops, an
            upgrade to the ESnet to handle the larger datasets required by
            our scientific applications, and to investigate alternate
            computer architectures to determine those most effective to
            address the Department's scientific problems.
        The proposed SC investments support the recommendations outlined in
    the report by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee
    (PITAC) and take advantage of the capabilities being developed in the
    Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) in the Office of
    Defense Programs for DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program.
        Unraveling the Mysteries of Nature's Chemical Factories--Microbial
    Cell.--The fiscal year 2001 request includes funds for a new activity
    to understand microbial processes at the molecular level. The
    understanding of the biochemical, metabolic, physiological and cellular
    processes will permit the generation of solutions for today's and
    tomorrow's challenges in energy production and use, environmental
    cleanup, carbon sequestration, plant sciences, and industrial
    processing. Microbes have dramatic impacts on energy production and
    conservation. Adverse effects include the fouling or corrosion of
    pipelines and other metal components used in energy production,
    significant reductions in the efficiency of heat exchangers, and the
    souring of fossil energy reserves. Conversely, microbes play a valuable
    role in numerous industrial fermentations and other bioprocesses that
    convert complex biomass into potential biofuels and chemical
    feedstocks. Harnessing microbes for our own uses is the goal.
        This work capitalizes on SC's pioneering and leadership role in
    high throughput genomic DNA sequencing as part of the Human Genome
    Program; its longstanding support of microbial biochemistry, metabolism
    and physiology; its support of national user facilities for determining
    protein structures; and, the capabilities of its national laboratories
    in computational analysis and instrumentation research. The key
    scientific challenges are far greater than simply understanding how
    individual genes and proteins work. We need to understand how genes and
    proteins are regulated in a coordinated manner and how they are
    integrated into a functional, interactive cell.
        Bioengineering.--The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes an
    increase for a research program in bioengineering, which uses SC's
    unique resources and expertise in the biological, physical, chemical
    and engineering sciences to develop new research opportunities for
    technological advances in biomedical applications. This activity will:
    advance fundamental concepts; create knowledge from the molecular to
    the organ systems level; and, develop innovative biologics, materials,
    processes, implants, devices, and informatics systems. The work will
    complement that of other federal programs by supporting early stage
    research that is not funded by other federal agencies. This program
    will be coordinated with all activities under the auspices of the
    Bioengineering Consortium (BECON), which includes SC, the National
    Science Foundation (NSF), and all of the individual NIH institutes.
        Scientific Facilities Utilization.--Each year, over 15,000
    university, industry, and government-sponsored scientists conduct
    cutting edge experiments at the particle accelerators, high-flux
    neutron sources, synchrotron radiation light sources, and other
    specialized facilities operated by SC. The user community continues to
    be pleased with the service provided to them by the SC scientific
    facilities, as evidenced by their many letters of support, by the
    positive results of surveys conducted at the facilities, and by the
    investigations of review committees.
        In fiscal year 2001, operating budgets are increasing at our user
    facilities, such as the synchrotron radiation light sources, the
    neutron scattering facilities, and the Environmental Molecular Sciences
    Laboratory, to provide increased operating time and support for users
    and to fabricate instruments and beamlines to serve the large and
    growing user community at these facilities.
        Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).--The purpose of the SNS Project is
    to provide a next-generation short-pulse spallation neutron source for
    neutron scattering. The SNS will be used by researchers from academia,
    national labs, and industry for basic and applied research, and for
    technology development in the fields of condensed matter physics,
    materials sciences, magnetic materials, polymers and complex fluids,
    chemistry, biology, and engineering. It is anticipated that SNS will be
    used by 1,000-2,000 scientists and engineers annually, and that it will
    meet the nation's need for neutron science capabilities well into the
    21st century. When completed in 2006, the SNS will be more than ten
    times as powerful as the best spallation neutron source now in
    existence--ISIS at the Rutherford Laboratory in England.
        Neutrons enable scientists studying the physical, chemical, and
    biological properties of materials to determine how atoms and molecules
    are arranged and how they move. This is the microscopic basis for the
    features that make materials of technological significance for many
    economically important areas. Major research facilities, such as the SC
    synchrotron and neutron sources, are used to understand and
    ``engineer'' materials at the atomic level so that they have improved
    macroscopic properties and perform better in new applications. The SNS
    is a next-generation facility for this type of research. Neutron
    scattering will play a role in all forms of materials research and
    design, including the development of smaller and faster electronic
    devices; lightweight alloys, plastics, and polymers for transportation
    and other applications; magnetic materials for more efficient motors
    and for improved magnetic storage capacity; and, new drugs for medical
    care.
        The importance of high neutron flux (i.e. high neutron intensity)
    cannot be overstated. The relatively low flux of existing neutron
    sources and the very small fraction of neutrons that get scattered by
    most materials means that most measurements are limited by the source
    intensity. However, the pursuit of high-flux neutron sources is more
    than just a desire to perform experiments faster, although that, of
    course, is an obvious benefit. High flux enables broad classes of
    experiments that cannot be done with low-flux sources. For example,
    high flux enables studies of small samples, complex molecules and
    structures, time-dependent phenomena, and very weak interactions.
        The SNS Project is a partnership among five DOE laboratories that
    takes advantage of specialized technical capabilities within the
    laboratories: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in ion sources, Los
    Alamos National Laboratory in linear accelerators, Brookhaven National
    Laboratory in proton storage rings, Argonne National Laboratory in
    instruments, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in targets and
    moderators.
        The Department has met the conditions stipulated in the House
    Report (Report 106-253, pages 113-114) accompanying the fiscal year
    2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act concerning the
    release of construction funds for the SNS project, and has regularly
    communicated its progress to Congress. During the past year, the
    project has: established a revised project management structure with a
    single Executive Director who has been designated as the primary
    authority for the project; filled all senior positions with qualified
    individuals; established cost and schedule baselines that were
    externally reviewed and determined to be the most cost effective way to
    complete the project; and, established an inter-Laboratory Memorandum
    of Agreement and incorporated it by reference into the laboratory
    contracts, thus making it legally binding.
        In the President's budget request, the estimated Total Project Cost
    (TPC) has increased from $1,360 million to $1,440 million and the
    construction schedule has been extended six months to the third quarter
    of fiscal year 2006 as a result of project restructuring during fiscal
    year 1999. Fiscal year 2001 funding of $281 million is requested for
    the SNS Project to conduct detailed design and start fabrication of key
    components and systems. Production of several significant equipment
    items will continue. Construction will begin on several conventional
    facilities in preparation for starting installation of major equipment.
    Construction will be completed on roads into the site, site
    preparation/grading, waste systems, and retention basins. Project
    management and integration activities, which are exceptionally
    important during this phase of the project, will also be conducted.
    Work will continue on the Safety Assessment Document for all of the
    facility except for the target system, for which a Safety Analysis
    Report will be prepared.
        Since the Tennessee use tax, that applies to all tangible property
    either purchased in the state or brought into the state, had applied to
    the SNS, $28 million was included in the TPC for this tax liability.
    However, in late January 2000 the Tennessee legislature passed
    legislation, that was signed by Governor Sundquist, exempting the SNS
    from these taxes. The fiscal year 2001 estimate for these taxes was
    $2.5 million. This exemption will reduce the TPC to $1,411.7 million
    and will reduce the fiscal year 2001 request from $281 million to
    $278.5 million a reduction of $2.5 million for the fiscal year 2001 tax
    liability exemption.
        Large Hadron Collider (LHC).--The foremost high energy physics
    research facility of the next decade will be the LHC at CERN, the
    European Laboratory for Particle Physics. The primary physics goals of
    the LHC will impact our understanding of the origin of mass through
    studies of the elusive ``Higgs'' particle, exploration of the structure
    and interactions of quarks, and unanticipated phenomena. The High
    Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) strongly endorsed participation
    in the LHC to provide U.S. access to the high energy frontier in order
    to maintain the U.S. as a world leader in this fundamental area of
    science.
        DOE and NSF have entered into an agreement with CERN, signed in
    1997, arranging for participation in the LHC project (accelerator and
    detectors) at CERN that will primarily take the form of the U.S.
    accepting responsibility for designing and fabricating particular
    subsystems of the accelerator and of the two large detectors. Thus,
    much of the funding will go to U.S. laboratories, university groups,
    and industry for fabrication of subsystems and components which will
    become part of the LHC accelerator or detectors. A portion of the funds
    will be used to pay for purchases by CERN of material needed for
    construction of the accelerator. As a result of the negotiations, CERN
    has agreed to make these purchases from U.S. vendors.
        This agreement, provides access for U.S. scientists to the next
    decade's premier high energy physics facility. Under the agreement, the
    DOE will contribute $450 million ($250 million for the detectors and
    $200 million for the accelerator) to the LHC effort over the period
    fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2004. The total cost of the LHC is
    estimated at about $6,000 million. The U.S. contribution represents
    less than ten percent of the total cost of the project. The Office of
    Science has conducted a cost and schedule review of the entire LHC
    project and similar reviews of the several proposed U.S. funded
    components of the LHC. All of these reviews concluded the costs are
    properly estimated and that the schedule is feasible.
        The LHC collaboration includes a very active interagency
    cooperation. A DOE-NSF Joint Oversight Group meets every six months and
    a program level working group meets every two weeks. The agreement
    negotiated with CERN provides for U.S. involvement in the management of
    the project through participation in key management committees such as
    the CERN Council, CERN Committee of Council, and the LHC Board. In
    addition, both DOE and NSF participate in the Joint Coordinating
    Committee established with CERN to oversee the collaboration on an
    annual basis. Laboratory and university collaborations have even more
    extensive contacts.
        Work on the LHC detectors is progressing across the United States.
    Brookhaven is the host laboratory for the ATLAS detector, which also
    involves Argonne and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, and 28
    university groups. Fermilab is the host laboratory for the Compact Muon
    Solenoid (CMS) detector, which also involves Brookhaven and Los Alamos
    National Laboratories, and 33 university groups. Cost and schedule
    baselines have been reviewed and validated for each U.S. portion of the
    project, and management systems are in place to monitor progress
    against baselines.
        Scientific and Technical Workforce Retention and Recruitment.--
    During 1999, DOE conducted a systematic analysis of staffing needs
    required for current and projected R&D program missions. As a result,
    staffing shortfalls were identified, especially in scientific and
    technical disciplines. Alarmingly, one half of the R&D technical
    managers are currently eligible to retire. In fiscal year 2001, the
    Department will focus on building and sustaining a talented and diverse
    workforce of R&D technical managers through innovative recruitment
    strategies, retention incentives, comprehensive training and
    development programs, and succession planning.
        SC, using Program Direction funds, will recruit experienced
    scientists and related support staff in areas important to the
    Department's science mission. Other key activities to be supported
    include motivating and retaining highly skilled, top-performing
    technical managers, and the training of new and current scientists.
        In addition, SC university research programs and projects at the
    national laboratories provide competitive financial support for
    undergraduate and graduate students and post-doctoral investigators as
    an integral part of the funding for fundamental scientific research in
    universities and in the private sector. SC scientific user facilities
    provide outstanding hands-on research experience to many young
    scientists. Specific fellowship programs are also sponsored by SC to
    target emerging areas of need. A total of 6,550 graduate students and
    post-doctoral investigators were supported at universities and national
    laboratories in fiscal year 1999 and 4,840 made use of the SC
    Scientific User Facilities. SC will continue its support for graduate
    students and post-doctoral investigators in fiscal year 2001.

                              PERFORMANCE MEASURES

        All three of SC's global scientific performance measures were fully
    met in fiscal year 1999.
      --Construct large-scale facilities so that projects are completed
            within 110 percent of cost and schedule baselines. All SC
            projects completed in fiscal year 1999 met 100 percent of the
            cost and schedule baselines.
      --Maintain and operate the scientific user facilities so that the
            unscheduled down time on average is less than 10 percent of the
            total scheduled operating time. Fiscal year 1999 performance
            resulted in an average of less than 9 percent unscheduled
            downtime.
      --Excellence in basic research: All research projects will continue
            to be reviewed by appropriate peers and selected through a
            merit-based competitive process. In fiscal year 1999, 91
            percent of DOE grants were awarded through a competitive merit-
            based process.
        In addition, the following performance goals were fully met in
    fiscal year 1999:
      --Continued collaborative efforts with NASA on space science and
            exploration.
      --Delivered on the 1999 U.S./DOE commitments to the international LHC
            project.
      --Completed construction and began commissioning of the Relativistic
            Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory on
            time and within budget.
      --Began Title I design activities, initiated subcontracts and long-
            lead procurement and continued R&D work necessary to begin
            construction activities of the SNS.
      --Completed the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the
            Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory within scope and budget,
            achieving first plasma milestone ahead of schedule.
            science programs--advanced scientific computing research

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$182.0 M
        The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program supports
    advanced computing research--applied mathematics, high performance
    computing, and networking--and operates supercomputer and associated
    facilities that are available to researchers 24 hours a day, 365 days a
    year. The combination of support for fundamental research,
    computational and networking tools development, and high-performance
    computing facilities provides scientists with the capabilities to
    analyze, model, simulate, and--most importantly--predict complex
    phenomena of importance to SC and DOE.
        A new federally-chartered advisory committee has been established
    for the ASCR program and has been charged with providing advice on:
    promising future directions for advanced scientific computing research;
    strategies to couple advanced scientific computing research in other
    disciplines; and the relationship of the DOE program to other federal
    investments in information technology research. This advisory committee
    will play a key role in evaluating future planning efforts for research
    and facilities.
        Some of the pioneering accomplishments of the ASCR program are:
    development of the technologies to enable remote, interactive access to
    supercomputers; research and development leading to the High
    Performance Parallel Interface (HiPPI) standard; and, research leading
    to the development of the slow start algorithm for the Transmission
    Control Protocol (TCP), which enabled the Internet to scale to today's
    worldwide communications infrastructure. This long history of
    accomplishments in the ASCR program continued to be recognized in
    fiscal year 1999 including: the Maxwell Prize, the Crystal Award of
    Excellence, several awards at Supercomputing 1998 and Supercomputing
    1999 including ``Best of Show'' and ``Best Paper'' in 1998, a Genius
    Grant from the MacArthur Foundation, the 39th Annual G.H.A. Clowes
    Memorial Award, the American Physical Society's James C. McGroody
    Prize, the Humboldt Research Award, Presidential Early Career Awards,
    and Federal Laboratory Consortium Awards.
        During the past quarter century computational simulation has
    dramatically advanced our understanding of the fundamental processes of
    nature and has been used to gain insights into the behavior of such
    complex natural and engineered systems as the earth's climate and
    automobile design. The new generation of terascale computing tools, and
    the 1,000 times more powerful petascale computing capabilities that are
    now on the horizon, will enable scientists to dramatically improve
    their understanding of fundamental processes in many areas. In
    addition, these new tools will enable scientists to predict the
    behavior of many complex natural and engineered systems from a
    knowledge of the underlying physical, chemical, and biological
    processes involved. This new capability, to predict the behavior of
    complex systems based on the properties of their components, will
    change the way DOE and other government agencies solve their most
    demanding, mission-critical problems. A workshop held at the National
    Academy of Sciences in July 1998 identified opportunities for new
    scientific discovery through advanced computing in all of the SC
    programs.
        The ASCR program has worked with the other SC research programs,
    other federal agencies, and the broad scientific community to formulate
    a vision for advanced scientific computing within SC. This work,
    conducted during the past two years, forms the basis for the investment
    choices described in the fiscal year 2001 budget; aspects of these
    investments have been previously described in this testimony. Success
    in the scientific applications of high-performance computing depends on
    investments in applied mathematics and computer science to provide the
    algorithms, mathematical libraries, and underlying computer science
    tools to enable the scientific disciplines to make effective use of
    terascale computers.
        Despite considerable progress during the past ten years in making
    massively parallel computer systems usable for science applications,
    much remains to be done. The next generation computer systems to enable
    leading-edge applications will have between 5,000 and 10,000 individual
    computer processors rather than the 500 to 1,000 processors in today's
    typical high performance systems. In addition, the internal structure
    of the computers will become more complex as computer designers are
    forced to introduce more layers of memory hierarchy to maintain
    performance and develop new hardware features to support rapid
    communication and synchronization. The end result five years from now
    will be hardware systems that, while having their roots in today's
    systems, will be substantially different, substantially more complex
    and therefore more challenging to exploit for high performance. These
    challenges will require substantial improvements in parallel computing
    tools, parallel I/O (input/output) systems, data management,
    algorithms, and program libraries that must work together as an
    integrated software system. In addition to the fundamental research
    challenges that are implied by this evolution in computer hardware, DOE
    must integrate the output from successful SC research projects into
    integrated sets of software tools that scientists in disciplines as
    diverse as global climate, materials science, and computational biology
    can build on to address scientific challenges.
        In fiscal year 2001 the ASCR program will, through enhancements to
    the Mathematical, Information, & Computational Sciences (MICS)
    subprogram, produce the scientific computing, networking and
    collaboration tools that SC researchers require to address the
    scientific challenges of the next decade. These enhancements build on
    the historic strength of the MICS subprogram in computational science,
    computer science, applied mathematics, and high-performance computing.
    They also take full advantage of the dramatic increases in computing
    capabilities being fostered by the Accelerated Strategic Computing
    Initiative (ASCI) in the Office of Defense Programs.
        Research programs throughout the Office of Science have high
    priority scientific problems that can only be addressed by
    computational modeling and simulation. These problems include:
      --Predicting the effects of aging, cracking, fatigue, and
            catastrophic failure in materials; designing new materials with
            desired properties and functions, e.g., catalysts, alloys, and
            photovoltaic devices.
      --Designing particle accelerators that provide the beam energy,
            intensity, and quality needed to continue forefront
            investigations into the fundamental nature of matter.
      --Predicting the interaction of chemical reactivity and fluid
            dynamics to understand the mixing of reactants and the removal
            of products for applications as diverse as combustion, chemical
            processing, and atmospheric chemistry.
      --Predicting the fate of contaminants in the subsurface, including
            chemical reactions and biological transformations, as well as
            fluid flow through porous material.
      --Predicting and controlling plasma instabilities that lead to a
            critical loss of power density in tokamaks and other magnetic
            fusion devices.
        The size and complexity of these problems require the development
    of fast and efficient algorithms and software that can take advantage
    of the power of today's massively parallel computing platforms.
        The MICS subprogram will address these challenges by establishing a
    small number of competitively selected partnerships focused on
    discovering, developing, and deploying to scientists key enabling
    technologies. These partnerships, which will be called enabling
    technology centers, must support the full range of activities from
    basic research through deployment and training because the commercial
    market for software to support terascale scientific computers is too
    small to be interesting to commercial software providers. These centers
    will build on the successful experience of the program in managing the
    DOE2000 initiative, as well as the lessons learned in important
    programs supported by DARPA such as Project Athena at MIT, the Berkeley
    Unix Project, and the initial development of the Internet software and
    the Internet Activities Board (IAB). These enabling technology centers
    will have close ties to key scientific applications projects to ensure
    their success.
        In addition, the MICS subprogram will support increased fundamental
    research in networking and collaboration tools, partnerships with key
    scientific disciplines, and advanced network testbeds. This is
    necessary to support researchers using the major experimental
    facilities, computational resources, and data resources supported by
    DOE. With leadership from SC, geographically distributed laboratories
    or collaboratories have begun to play an important role in the nation's
    scientific enterprise. The importance of collaboratories is expected to
    increase in the future.
        However, significant research questions must be addressed if
    collaboratories are to achieve their potential. For example, typical
    Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experimental collaborations
    involve thousands of scientists and hundreds of institutions spread
    around the world who need access to petabytes of data (a billion times
    as much data as a large web page). Using the current Internet, it would
    take about 2,500 hours to transmit one day's data from RHIC to one
    remote site for analysis. Significant research is needed to enable
    today's commercial networks to be used for scientific data retrieval
    and analysis, to provide remote visualization of terabyte to petabyte
    data sets from computational simulation, and to enable remote access to
    petabyte/year High Energy and Nuclear Physics facilities such as the
    RHIC and to tomorrow's advanced scientific computer.
        To realize this scientific opportunity, enhancements to SC's
    computing and networking facilities are required. The current computers
    at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing (NERSC) Center
    provide less than half of the computer resources that were requested
    last year. This pressure on the facility will continue to increase in
    future years as more applications become ready to move from testing the
    software, to using the software to generate new science. In addition,
    as the speed of computers increases, the amount of data they produce
    also increases. Therefore, focused enhancements to SC's network
    infrastructure are required to enable scientists to access and
    understand the data generated by their software. These network
    enhancements are required to allow researchers to have effective remote
    access to the SC experimental facilities.
        The MICS subprogram will also increase funding for SC's computing
    and networking facilities. The ASCR budget request includes $32.3
    million in fiscal year 2001 to support NERSC. This investment will
    provide computer time for about 2,000 scientists in universities,
    federal agencies, and U.S. companies and will enable NERSC to maintain
    its role as the nation's largest, premier unclassified computing
    center. Research communities that benefit from NERSC include:
    structural biology; superconductor technology; medical research and
    technology development; materials, chemical, and plasma sciences; high
    energy and nuclear physics; and environmental and atmospheric research.
        The research and development activities supported by the ASCR
    program are coordinated with other federal efforts through the
    Interagency Principals Group, chaired by the President's Science
    Advisor, and the Information Technology Working Group (ITWG). The ITWG
    represents the evolution of an interagency coordination process that
    began under the 1991 High Performance Computing Act as the High
    Performance Computing, Communications, and Information Technology
    (HPCCIT) Committee. SC has been a key participant in these coordination
    bodies from the outset and will continue to coordinate its R&D efforts
    closely through this process.
        This program will make significant contributions to the nation's
    Information Technology Basic Research effort just as previous SC
    mission-related research efforts have led to SC's leadership in this
    field. In particular, the enhanced MICS subprogram will place emphasis
    on software research to improve the performance of high-end computing
    as well as research on the human-computer interface and on information
    management and analysis techniques. In addition, through NERSC and the
    Advanced Computing Research Facilities, the program will provide the
    most powerful high-end computers available to the nation's scientific
    and engineering communities.
        In addition to these computing related activities, ASCR also
    manages the Laboratory Technology Research (LTR) program. The mission
    of this program is to support high risk, energy related research that
    advances science and technology to enable applications that could
    significantly impact the nation's energy economy. LTR fosters the
    production of research results motivated by a practical energy payoff
    through cost-shared collaborations between SC laboratories and
    industry. In fiscal year 1999, the LTR subprogram initiated a portfolio
    of Rapid Access Projects that address research problems of small
    businesses by utilizing the unique facilities of the SC laboratories.
    These projects were selected on the basis of scientific, technical and
    potential commercial merit, using competitive external peer review. The
    LTR subprogram received five R&D-100 Awards in 1999.
        The Advanced Energy Projects subprogram under ASCR was terminated
    in fiscal year 2000.

                             BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$1,015.8 M
        The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is one of the nation's
    major sponsors of fundamental research in the broad areas of materials
    sciences, chemical sciences, geosciences, plant and microbial sciences,
    and engineering sciences. The program encompasses more than 2,400
    researchers in nearly 200 institutions and 16 of the nation's
    outstanding user facilities. The BES program funds research at 149
    colleges and universities located in 48 states. The inclusion of
    research activities at this large number of academic institutions is a
    vital part of the program. These scientists are funded through
    individual peer-reviewed grants and as members of peer-reviewed
    research teams involving investigators from both national laboratories
    and universities. In addition, university-based scientists are among
    the principal users of the BES user facilities. The BES program has
    taken a leadership role in defining and addressing the 21st century
    challenges facing the natural sciences--from understanding collective
    effects in materials to designing new materials atom by atom and,
    finally, to developing functional materials. Functional materials are
    those with the ability to self assemble, self repair, sense, respond,
    and evolve in order to provide functional properties--optical,
    mechanical, catalytic, electrical, and tribological. Envisioning and
    creating these materials is the coming challenge for the disciplines of
    materials sciences, chemistry, physics, and biology. This work during
    the past few years has led to the expansion in the base program effort
    in nanoscale research.
        Within the base research effort in fiscal year 2001, a program in
    Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Research will continue
    to support work at the frontiers of basic research that hold the
    promise of delivering revolutionary breakthroughs. In the fiscal year
    2001 request, new funding in the amount $36.1 million is requested for
    these activities. Funds are distributed within the Materials Sciences,
    Chemical Sciences, and Engineering and Geosciences subprograms. The BES
    program has worked with the National Science and Technology Council's
    Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology, the Basic Energy Sciences
    Advisory Committee (BESAC), and the broad scientific community from
    academia, industry, and the national laboratories to define and
    articulate the goals of this research and determine how best to
    implement a program.
        In the fiscal year 2001 request, funding in the amount of $2.4
    million is requested for Microbial Cell research activities within the
    Energy Biosciences subprogram. New research activities coordinated with
    activities in the Biological and Environmental Research program focus
    on a bacterial cell consisting of a minimal set of genes essential for
    life. The specific research target will be understanding the
    biochemical and physiological functions of this set of genes.
    Additional studies will determine the genes and gene functions required
    for a particular physiological process.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget supports continued activities within
    the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). In fiscal year 2001,
    resources of $19.5 million are being requested in BES, which is the
    same amount as the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. These funds will be
    used to continue the research projects selected in fiscal year 2000.
    All CCTI activities are peer-reviewed fundamental scientific research
    that expand upon core research activities.
        Also included in the fiscal year 2001 request are funds in BES in
    the amount of $47.1 million that potentially impact solar and renewable
    energy resource production and use in the categories of biomass, wind
    energy, photovoltaics, hydrogen, and other (solar photoconversion).
    These funds provide continuing support for multidisciplinary, basic
    research in the BES Materials Sciences, Chemical Sciences, and Energy
    Biosciences subprograms.
        In addition to directly supporting research performers, BES is also
    the steward of 16 major national user facilities. Research communities
    that have benefited from the BES supported Scientific User Facilities
    include materials sciences, chemical sciences, earth and geosciences,
    environmental sciences, structural biology, superconductor technology,
    medical research, and industrial technology development. Included
    within this request to sustain a constant level of effort increase
    operations at each of the four BES synchrotron radiation light sources
    as well as additional funding to address specific recommendations of
    the 1997 BESAC review ``Synchrotron Radiation Sources and Science'' for
    each of the light sources.
        Also included within this request are funds to address neutron
    science following the closure of the High Flux Beam Reactor. Additional
    operating funds are provided to permit increased operations at other
    neutron sources, and additional capital equipment and accelerator
    improvement funds are provided for new instruments and infrastructure
    improvements, respectively. These actions are in accord with
    recommendations recently provided by BESAC, which was charged with
    providing guidance to the BES program for the near-term needs of the
    neutron science community, i.e., for the period during which the
    Spallation Neutron Source will be under construction. The synchrotron
    radiation light sources and the neutron sources serve a wide variety of
    research disciplines, and it is important that these facilities be
    operated so as to optimize beam availability and reliability to serve
    their users. The funds requested will ensure this high level of
    operation.
        BES scientific user facilities enable researchers to gain the new
    knowledge necessary to achieve the Department's missions and, more
    broadly, to advance the nation's entire scientific enterprise. The
    number of scientists conducting research at the BES user facilities has
    grown dramatically in recent years. BES user facilities are open to all
    qualified investigators in academia, industry, and government
    laboratories on a no-charge basis to all qualified researchers whose
    intention is to publish in the open literature. Over 6,000 users were
    accommodated at the BES scientific user facilities in fiscal year 1999.
    These facilities have an enormous impact on science and technology,
    ranging from determinations of the structure of superconductors and
    biological molecules to the development of wear-resistant prostheses;
    from atomic-scale characterization of environmental samples to
    elucidation of geological processes; and from the production of unique
    isotopes for cancer therapy to the development of new medical imaging
    technologies.
        Materials Sciences.--The Materials Sciences subprogram supports
    basic research in condensed matter physics, metal and ceramic sciences,
    and materials chemistry. This basic research seeks to understand the
    atomistic basis of materials' properties and behavior and how to make
    materials perform better at acceptable cost through new methods of
    synthesis and processing. Basic research is supported in corrosion,
    metals, ceramics, alloys, semiconductors, superconductors, polymers,
    metallic glasses, ceramic matrix composites, catalytic materials, non-
    destructive evaluation, magnetic materials, surface science, neutron
    and x-ray scattering, chemical and physical properties, and new
    instrumentation. Ultimately the research leads to the development of
    materials that improve the efficiency, economy, environmental
    acceptability, and safety in energy generation, conversion,
    transmission, and use. These material studies affect developments in
    numerous areas, such as: the efficiency of electric motors and
    generators; solar energy conversion; batteries and fuel cells;
    stronger, lighter materials for vehicles; welding and joining of
    materials; plastics; and petroleum refining.
        Chemical Sciences.--The Chemical Sciences subprogram has two major
    components. One major component is comprised of photo- and radiation-
    chemistry; chemical physics; and atomic, molecular and optical (AMO)
    science. This research provides a foundation for understanding
    fundamental interactions of atoms, molecules, and ions with photons and
    electrons. This work also underpins our fundamental understanding of
    chemical reactivity. This, in turn, enables the production of more
    efficient combustion systems with reduced emissions of pollutants. It
    also increases knowledge of solar photoconversion processes resulting
    in new improved systems and production methods. The other major
    component of the research program is comprised of physical chemistry,
    inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, analytical chemistry,
    separation science, heavy element chemistry, and aspects of chemical
    engineering sciences. The research supported provides a better
    molecular level understanding of homogeneous and heterogeneous
    reactions occurring at surfaces, interfaces, and in bulk media. This
    has resulted in improvements to known heterogeneous and homogeneous
    catalytic systems, new catalysts for the production of fuels and
    chemicals, and better analytical methods in a wide variety of
    applications in energy processes. It has also provides new knowledge of
    actinide elements and separations important for environmental
    remediation and waste management, and better methods for describing
    turbulent combustion and predicting thermophysical properties of
    multicomponent systems.
        Engineering and Geosciences.--The Engineering and Geosciences
    subprogram conducts research in both of these disciplinary areas. In
    Engineering Research, the goals are to extend the body of knowledge
    underlying current engineering practice to create new options for
    improving energy efficiency and to broaden the technical and conceptual
    knowledge base for solving the engineering problems of energy
    technologies. In Geosciences Research, the goal is fundamental
    knowledge of the processes that transport, concentrate, emplace, and
    modify the energy and mineral resources and the byproducts of energy
    production. The research supports existing energy technologies and
    strengthens the foundation for the development of future energy
    technologies. Ultimately the research impacts control of industrial
    processes to improve efficiency and reduce pollution, increase energy
    supplies, lower cost, and increase the effectiveness of environmental
    remediation of polluted sites.
        Energy Biosciences.--The Energy Biosciences subprogram supports
    fundamental research related to a molecular level understanding of the
    formation, storage, and interconversion of energy by plants and
    microorganisms. Plants and microbes serve as renewable resources for
    fuel and other fossil resource substitutes, as agents to restore
    previously disrupted environmental sites, and as potential components
    of industrial processes to produce new products and chemicals in an
    environmentally benign manner. The program supports research in a
    number of topics related to these areas. These include research in
    photosynthesis and bioenergetics; the biosynthesis, structure and
    function of plant cell walls (the major component of plant biomass);
    the bioproduction and bioconversion of methane; the biodegradation of
    lignocellulose; the biosynthesis of starch and lipids (plant energy
    storage compounds); plant secondary metabolism; microbial fermentations
    ; microbial thermophily; and processes that offer unique possibilities
    for research at the interface of biology and the physical, earth, and
    engineering sciences.

                     BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$445.3 M
        For over 50 years, the Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
    program has been investing to advance environmental and biomedical
    knowledge connected to energy. Through its support of peer-reviewed
    research at national laboratories, universities, and private
    institutions, the program develops the knowledge needed to identify,
    understand, anticipate, and mitigate the long-term health and
    environmental consequences of energy production, development, and use.
        The BER program continues its commitment to and dependence on
    research scientists at our nation's universities. University-based
    scientists are an integral part of research programs across the entire
    range of the BER portfolio and are the principal users of BER
    facilities for structural biology--at the Environmental Molecular
    Sciences Laboratory, and the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation
    Research (NABIR) Program's Field Research Center. University scientists
    also form the core of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)
    science team that networks with the broader academic community as well
    as with scientists at other agencies, such as the NASA and the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In addition, university-
    based scientists are funded through their response to Requests for
    Applications across the entire BER program.
        The BER request includes funding for Scientific User Facilities
    such as the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences
    Laboratory which enables research activities that underpin long-term
    environmental remediation. This funding will provide for the operation
    of the facilities, assuring access for scientists in universities,
    federal laboratories, and industry. It will also leverage both
    federally and privately sponsored research at these facilities. The
    request includes support for infrastructure and development of user
    facilities at synchrotrons and neutron sources for the nation's
    structural biologists. Support of structural biology user facilities is
    coordinated with NIH and NSF. Support is also included for the
    operation of the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research
    (NABIR) Program's Field Research Center and ARM research sites.
        The Human Genome Program continues to be a centerpiece of the BER
    research program, both in terms of its contribution to the
    international effort to sequence the human genome, and in terms of the
    spin-off technologies. Through efforts at the Joint Genome Institute
    (JGI) and its Production Sequencing Facility, DOE does its share of
    high-throughput human DNA sequencing and develops, validates, and
    integrates new DNA sequencing technologies into the production of DNA
    sequencing. Fiscal year 2001 is the fourth year of a major five year
    scale-up of DNA sequencing capacity to achieve the international goal
    of a complete sequence by 2003. The BER request for fiscal year 2001
    includes $90.3 million for human genome research. The DOE's share of
    the funding for the U.S. Human Genome Program is about 25 percent of
    the national effort. University scientists, working with the JGI, play
    a key role in completing DOE's share of determining the human DNA
    sequence.
        The fiscal year 2001 request also includes $9.7 million for the
    Microbial Cell project. This project, a joint effort between BER and
    Basic Energy Sciences, capitalizes on DOE's pioneering and leadership
    role in high throughput genomic DNA sequencing; its longstanding
    support of microbial biochemistry, metabolism and physiology; its
    support of national user facilities for determining protein structures;
    and the capabilities of its national laboratories in computational
    analysis and instrumentation research. The goal of the Microbial Cell
    project is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the complete
    workings of a microbial cell, from the DNA sequence, to the
    identification of all the genes, to the production of all the proteins
    whose assembly instructions are contained in the genes, to the complex
    interaction of the genes and proteins in a cell that give the microbe
    its life and its unique characteristics and behaviors.
        The fiscal year 2001 request also includes $6.7 million for a
    research program in Bioengineering Engineering. The Bioengineering
    program will support collaborations between the DOE national
    laboratories and leading medical schools and teaching hospitals. These
    collaborations will leverage the laboratories' unique resources and
    expertise in the biological, physical, chemical, engineering, and
    computing sciences to provide innovative solutions to medical
    application. The program builds on research in the nuclear medicine
    field that SC originated and has supported for over half a century.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request supports a continuation of two
    carbon-related programs, each coordinated among several offices and
    agencies. The first is the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI).
    CCTI focuses on the underpinning fundamental science that will enable
    mitigation of climate change and is supported by both BER and the Basic
    Energy Sciences program. The second is the U.S. Global Change Research
    Program (US/GCRP). US/GCRP research focuses on developing the
    fundamental understanding of the comprehensive climate system and the
    global and regional manifestations of climate change. The two programs
    complement one another. For example, ``A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science
    Plan'' was undertaken by the US/GCRP and the ``Carbon Sequestration
    Research and Development Report'' was developed under the auspices of
    the CCTI. The BER request includes fiscal year 2001 funding for CCTI of
    $16.3 million. Ongoing CCTI research includes two focused efforts in
    carbon sequestration in oceans and the earth, and the sequencing of the
    DNA of several microbes critical to biological sequestration. Research
    projects span a broad array of disciplines, including ecology and
    biology.
        Life Sciences.--In addition to the Human Genome Program and the
    Microbial Cell project, life sciences research is focused on utilizing
    unique DOE resources and facilities to develop fundamental biological
    information and advanced technologies for understanding and mitigating
    the potential health effects of energy development, use, and waste
    cleanup. Research is conducted in five areas: structural biology,
    cellular biology, molecular biology, human genome, and health effects.
        Structural biology research supports national user facilities and
    emphasizes the development and use of robust computational processes
    and new technologies and methodologies to predict and understand the
    three-dimensional structure and dynamic behavior of proteins and
    protein complexes involved in the recognition and repair of DNA damage
    or the bioremediation of metals and radionuclides.
        Molecular biology research emphasizes microbial systems, including
    the Microbial Cell project, microbial genomics, and molecular aspects
    of the CCTI program. The field of microbial genomics continues to be
    one of the most exciting, high profile, and rapidly growing fields in
    biology today, expanding from the SC-initiated program to other federal
    agencies and private industry. The BER Microbial Genome program has
    supported the complete genomic sequencing of 15 of the approximately 50
    bacteria whose DNA have been sequenced. The sequencing of more than 40
    additional microbes is in progress in the scientific community. The
    broad impacts of this research emphasize a central principle of the SC
    genome programs--complete genomic sequences yield answers to
    fundamental questions in biology. Microbes are being sequenced and
    characterized in several parts of the BER program with potential
    impacts across several DOE missions including: CCTI, microbes for
    cleaning up the environment, alternative fuel sources (methane
    production or energy from biomass), and microbes that produce
    industrially useful enzymes. As the number of complete and in-progress
    microbial genomes grows, the microbial genome program is shifting its
    emphasis from a predominant focus on genomic sequencing to a broader
    emphasis on the use and discovery of new knowledge from microbes whose
    genomic DNA sequences have been determined. In addition to sequencing
    the DNA of microbes important to the CCTI, a key component of CCTI
    research is to identify and understand genes, proteins, and entire
    biochemical pathways or gene regulatory networks that address the fuel
    production or carbon sequestration goals of CCTI.
        The low dose radiation research program, the central focus of
    cellular biology research, provides information that is a key
    determinant in decisions made to protect people from adverse health
    risks from exposure to radiation. This information will provide a
    better scientific basis for remediating contaminated DOE sites and
    achieving acceptable levels of human health protection, both for
    cleanup workers and the public, in a more cost-effective manner that
    could save billions of dollars.
        Health Effects conducts research and develops tools needed to speed
    understanding of the human genome. If the sequencing of the human
    genomic DNA provide the complete parts list for the human genome, this
    research contributes to the development of a ``high tech owner's
    manual'' that is critical for understanding normal human development
    and disease processes.
        Environmental Processes.--Research is focused on understanding the
    basic chemical, physical, and biological processes of the earth's
    atmosphere, land, and oceans and how these processes may be affected by
    energy production and use, primarily the emission of carbon dioxide
    from fossil fuel combustion. A major part of the research is designed
    to provide the data that will enable an objective assessment of the
    potential for, and consequences of, global warming. The program is
    comprehensive with an emphasis on understanding the radiation balance
    from the surface of the earth to the top of the atmosphere (including
    the role of clouds) and on enhancing the quantitative models necessary
    to predict possible climate change at the global and regional scales.
        The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program produces the
    experimental and modeling results necessary to resolve the greatest
    uncertainty in climate prediction--the role of clouds and solar
    radiation. Climate modeling uses massively parallel supercomputers to
    simulate climate change, predict climate, and evaluate model
    uncertainties due to changes in atmospheric concentrations of
    greenhouses gases on decade to century time scales. The Atmospheric
    Science program acquires data to understand the atmospheric processes
    that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy-related
    chemicals and particulate matter. Emphasis is placed on processes
    relating to new air quality standards for tropospheric ozone and
    particulate matter and relationships between air quality and climate
    change. Funding is included in Environmental Processes for DOE's
    contribution to the US/GCRP that was codified by Congress in the Global
    Change Research Act of 1990.
        BER supports research, at several levels, to understand and
    identify the sources, destinations, and impacts of carbon dioxide in
    our global environment. The Carbon Cycle program is designed to study
    the natural carbon cycle, including quantifying the role of the
    terrestrial biosphere as a sink or source of carbon dioxide. The
    program on Ecosystem Research is designed to provide information on the
    effects of atmospheric and climate changes on terrestrial organisms and
    ecosystems, including the potential direct effects of increasing
    atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. CCTI research supports two focused
    efforts on the sequestration of carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems.
    Research includes the identification of biochemical or physical
    pathways or processes that could be modified to enhance the net flow of
    carbon out of the atmosphere and an assessment of the environmental
    implications of long-term carbon sequestration or storage options.
        Environmental Remediation.--Research is primarily focused on
    gaining a better understanding of the fundamental biological, chemical,
    geological, and physical processes that must be marshaled to develop
    and advance new, effective, and efficient processes for the remediation
    and restoration of the nation's nuclear weapons production sites.
    Bioremediation activities are centered in the Natural and Accelerated
    Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program, a basic research program
    focused on determining the conditions under which bioremediation will
    be a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective technique. A key goal is
    to define and develop an integrative model to aid collaboration and
    direction across research teams within the NABIR program.
        The ``Bioremediation and Its Societal Implications and Concerns''
    (BASIC) component of NABIR will explore societal issues surrounding
    bioremediation research and promote open and two-way communication with
    affected stakeholders.
        A high priority for this program is the operation of the William R.
    Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), a national
    user facility for basic research that will underpin safe and cost-
    effective environmental remediation methods and technologies and other
    environmental priorities. Research is also included in support of
    pollution prevention, sustainable technology development, and other
    fundamental research to address problems of environmental
    contamination.
        Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--The Medical
    Applications subprogram supports research to develop beneficial
    applications of nuclear and other energy-related technologies for
    medical diagnosis and treatment. The research is directed at
    discovering new applications of radiotracer agents for medical research
    as well as for clinical diagnosis and therapy. The program seeks
    breakthroughs in noninvasive imaging technologies such as positron
    emission tomography. A major emphasis is placed on cutting edge
    research to image gene expression and to develop new approaches to
    pharmaceutical design that will enable the development of technology to
    actually see genes in action in cells and organs. This new technology
    will strongly impact and have broad utility for scientists in
    developmental biology, genomics, and general medical scientists.
        Bioengineering is included in the medical applications program. As
    previously described, research is directed to fundamental studies in
    artificial organs, biological and chemical sensors, imaging, lasers,
    informatics, and other areas of technical expertise in the DOE
    laboratories.

                             FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$247.3 M
        The Fusion Energy Sciences program is the nation's primary sponsor
    of research in plasma physics and fusion science. The program is a
    multi-purpose, scientific research effort, producing valuable
    scientific knowledge and technological benefits in the near term and
    providing the science base for a fusion energy option in the long term.
    The mission of the Fusion Energy Sciences program is to advance plasma
    science, fusion science and fusion technology, and thereby establish
    the knowledge base for an economically and environmentally attractive
    fusion energy source. The program also trains future researchers not
    only for fusion research, but also for related areas such as plasma
    processing, space plasma physics, plasma electronics, and accelerator/
    beam physics. In fiscal year 1999, the program supported 365 graduate
    students and post doctoral investigators; 49 of these graduate students
    and post doctoral investigators conducted research at the Fusion Energy
    Sciences' scientific user facilities.
        The Fusion Energy Sciences program is composed of three
    subprograms; Science, Facility Operations, and Enabling R&D. The
    Science subprogram includes research funds for: general plasma science;
    for experiments on the physics of high temperature plasmas in magnetic
    fields, in both tokamaks and other configurations; for the physics of
    heavy ion beam accelerators; and for theory and modeling of fusion
    plasmas. Funds for building, operating, upgrading and decommissioning
    of major facilities are in the Facility Operations subprogram. The
    Enabling R&D subprogram includes funds for key fusion technology
    research and innovations needed to advance fusion science and have thus
    enabled many of the advances in fusion science that have occurred
    during the past 30 years. All three subprograms contribute to the
    knowledge base for an attractive fusion energy source.
        Fusion research provides two major benefits--in the near term there
    are both advances in plasma science and technology spinoffs and in the
    long-term there is the basis for development of a new energy source.
    Advances in plasma science have contributed to numerous other areas of
    science. In astrophysics, it has allowed an understanding of the
    behavior of plasma and magnetic fields in the earth's magnetosphere, in
    the sun, other stars, and the galaxies. Plasma physics is integral to
    our understanding of magnetic storms, solar flares, shock waves in
    space, magnetic fields, black holes, and star formation. In the area of
    large-scale scientific computing, fusion research pioneered the use of
    supercomputers to solve complex problems. Novel optical and magnetic
    diagnostics have been created to provide access to the extreme
    temperature, density, and magnetic fields prevalent in fusion
    experiments. In addition, fusion and other plasma based research has
    provided a stimulus to the development of large superconducting
    magnets, development of advanced materials, advancement in pulsed-power
    technology, and plasma aided manufacturing processes such as those used
    in semiconductor device fabrication.
        This is a time of important progress and scientific discovery in
    fusion research. By virtue of previous investments in facilities,
    sophisticated diagnostics, critical technologies, and modeling
    capabilities, the Fusion Energy Sciences program is making great
    progress in understanding the fundamental processes involved in
    confining fusion fuels, such as the turbulence responsible for loss of
    particles and energy across magnetic field lines. In addition, the
    program is exploring innovative approaches to fusion energy, including
    supporting advances in state-of-the-art enabling technology, in search
    of an optimized confinement system that could result in an affordable
    development path.
        A major review of magnetic and inertial fusion energy options was
    carried out by a task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
    (SEAB) in response to Congressional requests. The task force report was
    issued in August 1999. The report's Executive Summary states that, ``In
    the light of the promise of fusion and the risks arising from
    increasing worldwide energy demand and from eventually declining fossil
    energy supply, it is our view that we should pursue fusion
    aggressively.'' The task force also endorsed the revised focus of the
    magnetic fusion program to understand the science and technology of
    fusion. It also concluded that the inertial fusion energy program
    warranted continued exploration and development. The National Academy
    of Sciences is reviewing the quality of science in the Fusion Energy
    Sciences Program. An interim report was issued in August 1999,
    highlighting the contributions of fusion science to other fields of
    research. The full study, including strategic recommendations, will be
    completed in fiscal year 2000.
        At a two-week long workshop in the summer of 1999, 350 fusion
    researchers from the United States and about 15 researchers from abroad
    discussed virtually all of the key technical issues associated with
    fusion science. This workshop provided a very effective forum for
    enhanced interaction between magnetic fusion and inertial fusion
    approaches, between science and technology issues, and between basic
    understanding and energy applications of fusion. The community
    reaffirmed that the next frontier in magnetic fusion is the science of
    burning plasmas, and that the tokamak is technically ready for a high-
    gain burning plasma experiment. The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
    Committee (FESAC) led a community assessment of the restructured fusion
    program and provided a report, with specific recommendations on program
    priorities and balance, in September 1999.
        Preparation of a strategic plan for Fusion Energy Sciences was
    initiated in fiscal year 1999. It will be completed early in 2000
    incorporating the results of the SEAB and National Research Council
    reviews, the recommendations of the FESAC, and technical understandings
    that came from the 1999 Fusion Summer Study.
        In pursuit of the mission of the fusion energy sciences program,
    the program's objectives are to:
      --Understand the science of plasmas, the fourth state of matter.
      --Identify & explore innovative and cost-effective development paths
            to fusion energy.
      --Explore the science and technology of energy producing plasmas, the
            next frontier in fusion research, as a partner in an
            international effort.
        Following restructuring, the Fusion Energy Sciences program is
    focused primarily on the first two objectives and the related enabling
    technology research. Only a small effort on burning plasma physics and
    related fusion technology, e.g. materials science and engineering
    research on energy conversion and tritium handling, continues. The
    fusion program is exploring a wide range of confinement concepts other
    than the tokamak. Three new experiments started operation in fiscal
    year 1999-the Sustained Spheromak Physics Experiment (SSPX) at the
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the flow stabilized pinch
    experiment (ZAP) at the University of Washington, and the Helically
    Symmetric Stellarator Experiment (HSX) at the University of Wisconsin.
    During fiscal year 2000, the Levitated Dipole Experiment at the
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology will begin operation. This will
    bring the total number of exploratory level alternate magnetic concept
    experiments in the United States to 13. This important new investment
    in the Fusion Energy Sciences program is expected to pay dividends in
    the form of enhanced understanding of the interaction of plasmas with
    electric and magnetic fields and lead to significantly better magnetic
    confinement concepts over the next decade. In addition, there was
    increased effort on exploring the physics of a heavy ion accelerator
    for inertial fusion energy.
        DOE and NSF issued a joint announcement for new opportunities for
    funding in fiscal year 2000 in September 1999 as part of the NSF/DOE
    Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering. In fiscal year
    1999, the general plasma science program was extended to include
    national laboratories with a solicitation for proposals on applications
    of plasma science. All proposals, many of which will have evolved from
    Laboratory Directed R&D programs, will be competitively peer reviewed.
        As a part of the ongoing restructuring of the program, the major
    U.S. experimental facilities--the DIII-D at General Atomics, the
    Alcator C-Mod at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the new
    National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma
    Physics Laboratory (PPPL)--have been operating as national facilities
    with research teams composed of participants from throughout the fusion
    science community. Program advisory committees assure scientific
    quality and program relevance of the research conducted at each
    facility. Also as part of the restructuring of the fusion program, a
    Virtual Laboratory for Technology has been established to improve the
    governance of the various, diverse enabling R&D elements through
    improved advocacy, coordination, and communication.
        The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) located at PPPL was closed
    down in fiscal year 1997 after 13 years of pioneering experiments
    yielding significant scientific results from producing actual fusion
    power in a laboratory. Preparations for the decontamination and
    decommissioning (D&D) of TFTR were initiated at PPPL in fiscal year
    1999. During fiscal year 2000, PPPL will complete removal of all
    systems/components to be retained for future use in the program; and
    will prepare the remaining systems/components for dismantling, removal,
    and shipment offsite. When D&D is completed, the TFTR test cell will be
    available for reuse by the Fusion Energy Sciences program.
        At the direction of Congress, U.S. participation in ITER was
    successfully completed. The U.S. ITER work site in San Diego was closed
    and returned to the owner; U.S. secondees to the Joint Central Team
    returned; and the U.S. responsibilities in component R&D were
    discharged. Of particular note, the Central Solenoid Model Coil, the
    largest pulsed superconducting magnet ever built, was completed and
    shipped to Japan for testing. The European Union, Japan, and the
    Russian Federation are proceeding with a three-year extension of the
    ITER program to complete the design of a reduced cost and reduced
    objectives facility. They are now considering their preparation for
    decisions, within the next three years, whether and where to construct
    ITER. We will be involved only on the periphery of the project
    consistent with traditional exchange of scientific information. If the
    ITER parties decide to construct a burning plasma facility like ITER,
    the United States will then consider whether to propose to be involved.
        In conclusion, the U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences program has made
    excellent scientific progress and has been responsive to the
    congressional request to restructure the program. Fusion and plasma
    science make a unique contribution to the nation's scientific
    infrastructure in the near-term and provide a vital energy option for
    the future. Europe and Japan are making large investments in this area.
    The challenge to the United States is to continue a strong scientific
    base program, including making effective use of existing facilities,
    and to sustain meaningful participation in the world program.

                              HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$714.7 M
        High energy physics research seeks to understand the nature of
    matter and energy at the most fundamental level, as well as the basic
    forces which govern all processes in nature. DOE provides more than 90
    percent of the federal support for the nation's high energy physics
    (also called elementary particle physics) research program. The balance
    is provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Our knowledge of
    the universe, the fundamental constituents of matter, and the laws of
    nature that underlie all physical processes, continues to grow as a
    result of this research.
        High energy physics research not only helps us learn how the world
    works, it also contributes to the nation's economic competitiveness in
    the high-technology marketplace. High energy physics research requires
    accelerators and detectors utilizing state-of-the-art technologies in
    many areas, including fast electronics, particle detectors, high-speed
    computing, superconducting magnets, and high power radiofrequency
    devices. In these areas, high energy physics research frequently drives
    the technology, which not only contributes to other scientific
    disciplines, but also has led to many practical applications having
    major economic and social impacts. Who could have predicted that
    research that went into the building of accelerators and particle
    detectors and the subsequent technology would contribute so much to
    today's medical imaging capabilities?
        The High Energy Physics program also has a history of attracting
    and training some of the best and brightest young minds. The training
    they receive prepares them for careers not just in high energy physics,
    but also in other disciplines as well, including computer sciences,
    teaching, and industrial research. It is the unique problem solving
    ability, learned from this scientific discipline, that makes them
    attractive. More than half of the Ph.D.'s trained for high energy
    physics find permanent employment outside the field.
        Carrying out high energy physics research effectively depends on
    many elements including the availability of forefront experimental
    capabilities, effective use of specialized facilities, and the
    availability of new and upgraded facilities to take advantage of new
    technologies and research opportunities. The Department supports two
    major high energy physics accelerator centers--the Fermi National
    Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator
    Center (SLAC). Each of these laboratories provides unique capabilities
    and is operated as a national facility available to qualified
    experimenters around the nation and abroad on the basis of the
    scientific merit of their research proposals. Approximately 2,000 U.S.
    scientists and about 500 foreign scientists work at these facilities at
    any given time.
        Experimental and theoretical researchers from more than 100
    universities conduct about 75 percent of HEP research, with the
    remainder being done by national laboratory staff. In general, the
    laboratories and universities perform different, but complementary,
    activities. University scientists provide the primary intellectual base
    for the program, performing experimental research at accelerators and
    non-accelerator facilities, technology R&D, and theoretical research.
    University grantees are selected and retained based on the quality,
    appropriateness, and performance of their research activities. All
    research proposals received are subjected to a rigorous multi-stage
    review.
        National laboratories primarily house the major accelerator
    facilities at which university scientists perform their research. In
    addition, the laboratories provide the related technical and scientific
    expertise, as well as day-to-day liaison between university
    researchers, laboratory experts, and management. Research requiring the
    use of a facility at one of the laboratories is reviewed extensively by
    the laboratory and its Program Advisory Committee (PAC), another form
    of peer review. The Department carries out its oversight
    responsibilities by conducting annual reviews of the laboratories'
    scientific programs. In addition, the Department tracks project
    progress against budget and schedule milestones using semiannual
    project reviews.
        Fermilab is home to the world's highest energy superconducting
    accelerator, the Tevatron, which provides both fixed target and
    colliding beam research programs. The colliding beam research program
    has two major detector facilities, the Collider Detector at Fermilab
    (CDF) and the D-Zero Detector, which complement each other in their
    different technical capabilities. These two collaborations continue to
    produce new scientific knowledge. For example, the CDF collaboration at
    Fermilab observed the existence and properties of the B meson
    containing a charmed quark--completing the theoretically predicted
    family of B mesons; and another team observed direct violation of
    Charge-Parity (CP) symmetry in the decays of K mesons. Measurements
    such as these will improve even more with data from the upcoming run of
    the Tevatron with the newly upgraded Main Injector.
        Construction of the Fermilab Main Injector project was completed in
    fiscal year 1999 on schedule and within budget. The final data
    collection with the Fermilab 800 GeV fixed-target program is being
    completed in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001, the prime focus of
    the Fermilab program will turn to research using the Tevatron Collider
    with the higher luminosity of the new Main Injector. Also at Fermilab,
    design of the NuMI (Neutrinos at the Main Injector) project got
    underway in fiscal year 1998 and is proceeding. The project will
    provide a new neutrino beamline aimed at the Soudan Underground
    Laboratory in Soudan, Minnesota where the large MINOS detector will be
    installed to search for and study neutrino oscillations.
        In addition, Fermilab continues to play an active role in the Large
    Hadron Collider (LHC). Fermilab is the host and center of the
    U.S.Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector effort of university and
    laboratory scientists, and host and center of the U.S. LHC accelerator
    collaboration, with specialized expertise in the design and fabrication
    of superconducting magnets.
        At the SLAC, the Stanford Linear Collider (SLC), the world's only
    high energy linear collider, continued to achieve record high
    luminosities in positron-electron collisions. The B-factory at SLAC was
    completed on schedule and within budget in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal
    year 2000 the B-factory was brought into full operation. Some 27 DOE-
    funded universities participate in large international collaborations
    doing experiments at SLAC. The experiments involve the BaBar detector
    and other smaller detectors for fixed target experiments. These
    experiments are investigating fundamental constituents of matter such
    as the b quark. In particular, the BaBar detector is being used to
    study the nature of Charge-Parity (CP) Violation in the B meson system.
    Researchers from universities and laboratories conducting research at
    SLAC are in the process of analyzing the large amounts of data
    collected. In fiscal year 2000, work will continue on R&D in support of
    a future linear collider. Participation with NASA and university
    scientists to fabricate a non-accelerator-based experiment, the Gamma-
    ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), is also planned.
        The Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven National
    Laboratory (BNL) was transferred in fiscal year 1999 to the Nuclear
    Physics program to be operated as the injector for RHIC. Operation of
    the AGS for the high energy physics program in fiscal year 2001 will be
    on an incremental cost basis. Brookhaven is also a key participant in
    the LHC project as host and center of the U.S. ATLAS detector
    collaboration of university and laboratory scientists, as well as a
    participant in the U.S. accelerator collaboration. BNL's Accelerator
    Test Facility (ATF), a small, low energy electron linac, has achieved
    one of the brightest electron beams in the world. It is used by
    universities, national laboratory groups, and industry for testing new
    advanced accelerator concepts.
        During the past year, progress continued to be made on the
    technical components for the LHC and many management details were
    refined. Fabrication of LHC subsystems and components by U.S.
    participants began in fiscal year 1998. Funding was provided in fiscal
    year 1996 ($6,000,000) and fiscal year 1997 ($15 million) for
    preliminary R&D, design and engineering work on the subsystems and
    components being proposed for inclusion in the agreement with CERN.
    This funding was essential in order to provide the cost and technical
    bases for the proposed U.S. responsibilities in LHC, and to be ready
    for rapid start to satisfy the anticipated timetable for the project.
    $70 million was provided in fiscal year 2000, and $70 million will be
    provided in fiscal year 2001 to support continuation of these R&D and
    design efforts, and the continuation of fabrication of those subsystems
    and components specified in the agreements with CERN.

                                NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$369.9 M
        The primary goal of nuclear physics research is to understand the
    structure and properties of atomic nuclei and the fundamental forces
    between the constituents that form the nucleus. Nuclear processes
    determine essential physical characteristics of our universe and the
    composition of its matter.
        The Nuclear Physics program continues to be a vital source of
    trained people for fundamental research and for applied technology
    areas. The program supports the graduate training of approximately 450
    students per year, and typically 100 doctorates in nuclear physics are
    awarded each year in DOE-supported nuclear physics programs. A majority
    of these highly trained researchers will take positions in high-
    technology private industry. In fiscal year 2000, the Nuclear Physics
    Program initiated an Outstanding Junior Investigator (OJI) program to
    recognize and support young promising scientists pursuing nuclear
    physics research.
        Many future nuclear physics investigations will study questions
    related to the quark presence in composite nuclei. Until recently, the
    fundamental understanding of nuclear properties has been based on the
    concept of a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons that interact
    through weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces. It became clear that
    achieving a real knowledge of many nuclear properties depends on
    understanding nuclear structure based on quarks, and particles called
    gluons that bind the quarks together. Quarks and gluons are the
    building blocks of protons and neutrons (nucleons). The Nuclear Physics
    program works in close coordination with the Nuclear Physics program at
    the NSF and, jointly with NSF, charters the Nuclear Science Advisory
    Committee (NSAC) to provide advice on scientific opportunities and
    priorities.
        Studies of nuclear structure require ultra-high resolution
    ``microscopes,'' accelerators that produce particle beams of various
    energies, depending on the problems to be studied. The cost and
    complexity of these machines requires the creation of national
    Scientific User Facilities such as the Department has established at
    its laboratories.
        Research programs at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
    Facility (TJNAF), formerly the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
    Facility (CEBAF), are studying effects due to the presence of quarks in
    nucleons in the nucleus. Two principal focuses of these studies are to
    continue to develop an understanding of how the ``spin'' of a nucleus
    originates in the quarks, and how the size of a quark cluster in a
    nucleus affects the strength of the interaction of that cluster with
    other nucleons in the nucleus. TJNAF has consistently delivered highly
    polarized electron beams for experiments. Precision measurements
    performed in fiscal year 1999 with TJNAF's world-class polarized
    electron beams provide important new insight into the role of the
    strange quark in determining the fundamental properties of the nucleon.
    As of fiscal year 2000, twelve experiments will have been completed in
    Hall C and ten experiments will have been completed in Hall A at TJNAF.
    The complex large-acceptance spectrometer in Hall B is complete and the
    research program is well underway. By the end of fiscal year 2001,
    three major experiments will have been completed, and partial data will
    have been accumulated on many more. TJNAF scientists are also
    participating in the assembly of a new detector for the ``GO''
    experiment, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation. TJNAF
    involves a users group of 1,460 scientists from 80 institutions, in the
    U.S. and 36 foreign countries.
        In fiscal year 1999, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)
    construction project at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) was
    completed on schedule and within budget. RHIC is a unique facility
    whose colliding relativistic heavy ion beams will permit exploration of
    hot, dense nuclear matter and recreate the transition from quarks to
    nucleons, the quark-gluon plasma, that characterized the early
    evolution of the universe. Ever since quarks and gluons were
    discovered, theorists have looked to the discovery of the quark-gluon
    plasma as the crowning triumph of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics. Studies with
    colliding heavy ion beams at RHIC will provide researchers with their
    first laboratory opportunity to directly explore this new regime of
    nuclear matter and nuclear interactions that up to now has only been
    studied theoretically. On February 10, 2000, scientists at CERN
    announced the accumulation of significant pieces of evidence, though
    indirect, for the existence of the quark-gluon plasma. This is very
    encouraging news for the research program at RHIC.
        Fiscal year 2001 will be a critical year, as all four RHIC
    detectors reach their full potential for studies of the expected new
    forms of nuclear matter that will be created in the heavy ion
    collisions. Detector fabrication, including the additional experimental
    equipment recommended by NSAC for purposes of particle detection and
    data analysis, will be largely completed by fiscal year 2001, as
    scheduled. Four experiments (STAR, PHENIX, BRAHMS and PHOBOS) involving
    over 950 researchers and students from 90 institutions and 19 countries
    will pursue a vigorous research program at RHIC.
        Another new generation facility, the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam
    Facility (HRIBF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is now producing
    previously unavailable, highly radioactive, short-lived, nuclear beams
    to study important stellar processes and nuclear structure at limits of
    stability. In fiscal year 1999, HRIBF completed a series of experiments
    that provide input to refined astrophysical calculations for the
    breakout from the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle responsible for
    element production beyond oxygen. An expanded series of measurements
    will be carried out in fiscal year 2000-2001 as new beam species are
    developed and beam intensities increase. Radioactive ion beams, in
    addition to the stable beams normally provided, are also being produced
    at the ATLAS accelerator at Argonne National Laboratory and the 88-inch
    Cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These laboratories
    are pursuing research as well as developing new techniques for the
    generation of radioactive beams. The experience gained and ideas
    generated at all three laboratories will provide important input to the
    design of a proposed new rare isotope facility presently being studied
    by the Nuclear Physics program.
        In fiscal year 1999, the NSAC Isotope Separation On-Line (ISOL)
    Task Force, identified an optimal configuration for a next generation
    Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA). RIA will produce short-lived nuclei
    (with lifetimes of greater than a thousandth of a second) in nuclear
    reactions using intense beams of stable nuclei; these nuclei will then
    be extracted and accelerated in a post-accelerator to be used in
    experiments. RIA would provide unique, world-class capabilities for the
    low energy, nuclear astrophysics, and nuclear structure communities for
    several decades. R&D and preconceptual design activities will continue
    in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
        In fiscal year 2001, the BLAST detector at the MIT/Bates Linear
    Accelerator Center facility will be completed and will initiate
    commissioning for a research program in fiscal year 2002-2004 studying
    the structure of the nucleon and few-body nuclei. Upon completion of
    the BLAST research program in fiscal year 2004, MIT and DOE have agreed
    that the Bates facility will begin a two-year phaseout.
        The solar neutrino problem remains one of the great challenges in
    astrophysics. The predicted rate of neutrino production by the sun is
    significantly higher than the observed rate. There are two possible
    explanations for the discrepancy. Either our understanding of solar
    burning is very wrong, or the neutrino has a small mass, contradicting
    the long-held belief that it is massless. The Sudbury Neutrino
    Observatory (SNO) was created to study this problem and the processes
    that control our sun. This observatory consists of a 40 foot diameter
    plastic (acrylic) vessel holding 1,000 tons of heavy water that is the
    solar neutrino detector. SNO is located 6,800 feet underground. The
    detector water-fill was completed in fiscal year 1999 and data taking
    is underway. The SNO detector's first results are expected in fiscal
    year 2001.

              MULTIPROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES-FACILITIES SUPPORT

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$33.9 M
        Fulfillment of the DOE's science and technology goals depends
    heavily on the existence and operating efficiency of the five
    multiprogram SC laboratories. The five multiprogram energy laboratories
    are: Argonne National Laboratory-East, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
    and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. These laboratories are
    government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) and have over 1,100
    buildings with 14.3 million gross square feet of space with an average
    age of 35 years and an estimated replacement value of over $9,000
    million. Total operating funding for these laboratories is over $3,000
    million a year. The Office of Science manages this program to provide a
    comprehensive, prioritized and equitable approach to its stewardship
    responsibility for the general purpose support infrastructure of these
    laboratories.
        Portions of the infrastructure of these laboratories are old,
    deteriorating, and, in some cases, obsolete. Improvements are needed to
    comply fully with the environment, safety and health requirements in
    effect today as well as to meet everyday operational needs.
        SC established the Multiprogram Energy Laboratories-Facilities
    Support (MEL-FS) program in 1981 to provide a systematic approach to
    its stewardship responsibility for the general purpose infrastructure
    of these laboratories. The MEL-FS program helps to preserve the
    government's investment in infrastructure and to maintain
    infrastructure integrity in a reasonable and economic manner at these
    laboratories. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, this program includes
    funding of Oak Ridge Operations Office Site Landlord activities.
        The MEL-FS program supports line item construction projects to
    refurbish and replace inadequate general purpose facilities and
    infrastructure. Capital investment requirements are identified in
    laboratory Institutional Plans that address needs through the year 2004
    based on expected programmatic support. The projected needs through the
    period total over $450 million. Of this amount, 65 percent is to
    rehabilitate or replace buildings; 21 percent is for utility projects;
    and 11 percent for ES&H projects. All projects are first ranked using a
    prioritization model that takes into account risk, impacts, and mission
    need. The projects that have ES&H as the principal driver are further
    prioritized using the Risk Prioritization Model from the DOE ES&H and
    Infrastructure Management Plan process.
        The fiscal year 2001 MEL-FS budget request provides for the
    continuation of three on-going projects and five new projects. The
    three projects that are ongoing in fiscal year 2001 are: the Fire
    Safety Improvements, Phase IV (TEC $8.4 million) at Argonne which will
    bring 30 major facilities into compliance with the Life Safety Code and
    the National Fire Alarm Code; the Sanitary System Modifications, Phase
    III (TEC $6.5 million) at Brookhaven which will replace or rehabilitate
    approximately 9,900 feet of existing deteriorated sewer piping, replace
    the sewage digester, connect five facilities to the sanitary system,
    and make other modifications to reduce discharges to the environment;
    and the Electrical Systems Upgrade (TEC $5.9 million) at Oak Ridge
    which will include: replacing overhead feeders; installing advanced
    protective relaying capabilities at major substations; and replacing
    major switchgear and transformers.
        Two new starts for fiscal year 2001 are proposed at Brookhaven. The
    Groundwater and Surface Water Protection project (TEC $6 million) will
    begin to reduce a backlog of ground and surface water protection
    projects per commitments to regulators. These include: proper closure
    of inactive supply and injection wells; runoff control for the surplus
    material storage yard; containment and runoff control for the
    radioactive material storage yard; replacement of 12 hydraulic elevator
    cylinders; removal of 22 underground fuel oil tanks; replacement of
    radioactive waste tanks with secondarily contained tanks. The
    Electrical Systems Modifications, II project (TEC $6.7 million) will be
    the second phase of the modernization and refurbishment of the
    laboratory's deteriorating 50 year-old electrical infrastructure.
        Two new starts for fiscal year 2001 are proposed at Oak Ridge. The
    Fire Protection System Upgrade project (TEC $5.9 million) will: replace
    deteriorated, obsolete systems with more reliable fire alarm and
    suppression capabilities; replace the single 16-inch water main in the
    east central section of ORNL with a looped system; and extend coverage
    of automatic alarm systems and sprinkler systems to areas not
    previously served. The Facilities HVAC Upgrade project (TEC $7.1
    million) will provide improvements to aging HVAC systems (average age
    38 years) located in the thirteen buildings which comprise ORNL's
    central research complex and additions and improvements to the chilled
    water distribution system.
        The Site-wide Water Distribution System Upgrade project (TEC $8.3
    million) is a proposed new start for fiscal year 2001 at Lawrence
    Berkeley National Laboratory that will rehabilitate the Lab's High
    Pressure Water (HPW) System. This activity will: replace all 1.4 km of
    cast iron pipe with ductile iron pipe; install cathodic protection;
    replace and enhance pressure reducing stations; add an emergency fire
    water tank to serve the East Canyon; and provide new liners and seismic
    upgrades for two existing emergency fire water tanks.
        Four projects are scheduled for construction completion in fiscal
    year 2001: the Central Supply Facility and the Electrical Systems
    Upgrade, Phase III at Argonne; the Electrical Systems Modifications--
    Phase I at Brookhaven; and the Building 77 Rehabilitation at Berkeley.
        The direct funding for the American Museum for Science and Energy
    (AMSE) under the Oak Ridge Landlord activities will end in fiscal year
    2000. Museum operation is transferred to Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    where alternative funding mechanisms are being developed, including
    support by private or industrial partners, and possibly, an admission
    fee for adults.

                            ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSES

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$1.0 M
        The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to
    conduct technical assessments of the Department's civilian research and
    development programs and to provide direction to future research and
    development activities. ERA also conducts science policy analyses, and
    coordinates the development of the Office of Science Strategic Plan and
    the DOE Science Portfolio.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request will provide funding for peer
    reviews of projects in the Office of Science, Environmental Management,
    and Energy Efficiency to continue to improve the quality and relevance
    of DOE research and development. Other activities will include
    evaluation of critical planning and policy issues of DOE science and
    technology using expert groups at the National Academy of Sciences, the
    JASON group, etc., as deemed appropriate.

                           SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

    Fiscal Year 2001 Request--$141.2 M
        This program provides the federal staffing and associated funding
    required to provide overall direction of activities carried out under
    the SC programs cited in this testimony. This funding also provides the
    necessary support to the Director of SC to carry out SC's
    responsibilities under the Department of Energy Organization Act
    (Public Law 95-91) and as mandated by the Secretary. These
    responsibilities include: providing advice on the status and priorities
    of the Department's overall research and development programs and on
    the management of the Department's multipurpose laboratories;
    developing research and development plans and strategies; supporting
    university and science education; and ensuring the institutional health
    and overall site integration at three multi-program field offices. This
    program also provides program-specific staffing resources at the
    Chicago, Oakland, and Oak Ridge Operations Offices directly involved in
    executing SC programs within the field complex. In fiscal year 2001,
    there will be continued emphasis on integrated business management
    technology initiatives and supporting the ongoing efforts begun in
    fiscal year 2000 related to succession planning and increasing
    diversity of the workforce. In addition, resources will be devoted to
    enhance the Spallation Neutron Source Project Office management
    structure; fulfill waste management responsibilities; and build and
    sustain a talented technical workforce through the Department's
    Scientific and Technical Workforce Retention and Recruitment effort.
        The Program Direction subprogram has been divided into four
    categories: Salaries and Benefits, Travel, Support Services, and Other
    Related Expenses, the latter including the Working Capital Fund.
    Support Services refers to support services contracts that provide
    necessary support functions to the federal staff, such as technical
    support, computer systems development, travel processing, and mailroom
    activities. Other Related Expenses refers to other administrative costs
    of maintaining federal staff, such as building and facility costs and
    utilities in the field, information technology expenses, and training.
    The Working Capital Fund includes centrally provided goods and services
    at headquarters, such as supplies, rent and utilities.
        The Field Operations subprogram funds the core management and
    administrative federal staff and is the central funding source for the
    infrastructure requirements at three of the Department's multiprogram
    operations offices: Chicago, Oakland and Oak Ridge. The staff is
    responsible for the full range of administrative functions critical to
    the success of all programs executed through these offices, including
    fundamental science, energy research, national security, and
    environmental management. By fiscal year 2001, the federal workforce
    sponsored by this subprogram will be 5.2 percent less than mid fiscal
    year 1999; therefore, SC plans to support technology investments and
    integrate business management systems aimed at providing coordinated,
    efficient and effective services and process improvements.
        The Science Education subprogram focuses primarily on undergraduate
    research experiences at the national laboratories. Science Education
    also supports the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowships,
    the National Science Bowl, and the DOE Institute of Biotechnology,
    Environmental Science, and Computing for Community Colleges. The Energy
    Research Undergraduate Laboratory Fellowships, formerly known as the
    Laboratory Cooperative Program, are designed to provide educational
    training and research experiences at DOE laboratories for highly
    motivated undergraduate students. These opportunities complement
    academic programs and introduce students to the unique intellectual and
    physical resources present at the DOE laboratories. Appointments are
    available during the spring, summer, and fall terms.
        In 1991, as a national initiative, the National Science Bowl was
    developed to encourage high school students from across the nation to
    excel in math and science and to pursue careers in those fields. It
    provides students and their teachers a forum to receive national
    recognition for their talent and hard work. DOE is committed to math
    and science education to help provide a technically trained and diverse
    workforce for the nation. The National Science Bowl is a highly
    publicized academic competition among teams of high school students who
    answer questions on scientific topics in astronomy, biology, chemistry,
    mathematics, physics, earth, computer and general science. Since its
    inception, more than 60,000 high school students have participated in
    regional tournaments leading up to the national finals.
        The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Act of 1994
    was signed into law in November 1994. The law gives DOE responsibility
    for administering the program of distinguished educator fellowships for
    elementary and secondary school mathematics and science teachers. This
    program supports outstanding teachers of science and mathematics, who
    provide insights, extensive knowledge and practical experience to the
    Legislative and Executive branches.
        The DOE Institute of Biotechnology, Environmental Science, and
    Computing for Community Colleges is a collaboration between DOE (and
    five of its multiprogram laboratories) and the American Association of
    Community Colleges. It is designed to provide educational training and
    research experiences at five DOE national laboratories for highly
    motivated community college students. Each laboratory will offer a ten-
    week summer experience for selected students from a regional consortium
    of community colleges partnering with DOE and that laboratory.
        There is a national need to maintain worldwide leadership in
    science and technology and to stay competitive in critical research
    areas such as high energy and nuclear physics, computational science,
    and renewable energy technologies. Our outstanding national
    laboratories help to drive the progress of science and technology
    development in the United States. To replenish our stocks of scientists
    and engineers for the next century, we must invest in our nation's
    youth to encourage interest in science and scientific careers. A proven
    method to achieve this is by introducing students to the excitement of
    scientific research through exposure to the national laboratories.
    Historically, over two-thirds of undergraduates who have participated
    in DOE programs have gone on to graduate school in disciplines directly
    related to DOE missions.
        The SC staff includes scientific and technical personnel as well as
    program support personnel in the areas of budget and finance; general
    administration; grants and contracts; information resource management;
    infrastructure management; construction management; safeguards and
    security; and environment, safety and health.
        Through Program Direction, SC Headquarters continues to achieve
    technical excellence in its programs despite managing one of the
    largest, most diversified and most complex basic research portfolios in
    the Federal Government with a relatively small Federal and contractor
    support staff.

                ENERGY SUPPLY--TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

    Fiscal Year 2001--$9.3 million
        The Technical Information Management (TIM) program provides timely,
    accurate technical information to DOE's researchers and the public by
    collecting, preserving, and disseminating scientific and technical
    information, the principal product resulting from DOE's multi-billion
    dollar research and development programs. The TIM program maximizes the
    return on DOE's $7 billion annual R&D investment by collecting,
    preserving, and disseminating information resulting from these research
    programs. This information is recorded in three forms: journals,
    technical reports, and pre-prints. The TIM program has produced world-
    class web-based systems to provide full-text, electronic access to all
    three sources of information. The DOE Information Bridge (www.doe.gov/
    bridge) provides access to 70,000 technical reports. The newly launched
    PubScience (www.doe.gov/pubsci) provides electronic access to over
    1,000 physical science journals--analogous to the capability PubMed
    provides in the life sciences. Fiscal year 2001 activities will include
    expanded coverage of science journals and a fully operational,
    searchable pre-print network. Also, the TIM program will continue its
    important role in obtaining foreign research information through two
    international information exchanges and, for the first time, will
    provide access to this information in electronic full-text. Finally,
    the TIM program will continue reengineering systems to provide enhanced
    protection and secure electronic access to a 50-year old repository of
    classified and sensitive R&D information.

                                    CLOSING

        The significant increase in the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
    the Office of Science recognizes the critical role that fundamental
    knowledge plays in achieving the DOE missions and for the general
    advance of the nation's economy and the welfare of its citizens. The SC
    request supports thousands of individual research projects at hundreds
    of research facilities across the U.S., primarily at our national
    laboratories and research universities. In addition, the fiscal year
    2001 request will support continuing construction of the Spallation
    Neutron Source; increasing investments in nano-scale science to make
    significant contributions to the interagency initiative in nano-
    technology; implementing advanced computational modeling and simulation
    for DOE's broad scientific challenges; investigating the workings of
    the microbial cell for DOE applications; improving the utilization of
    our major scientific user facilities; and updating the skills of our
    technical workforce.
        However, it must be noted that the reduction of fiscal year 2000
    funds for contractor travel is having a significant impact on our
    ability to conduct forefront research in the fundamental sciences.
    Travel to meetings is a traditional mechanism by which the results of
    research are delivered to, and actively discussed by, the scientific
    community. Failure to participate lessens the impact of the basic
    research investment in the federal laboratory system. Reductions in
    contractor travel have hampered these exchanges and have impacted SC's
    ability to recruit young scientists to the national laboratories. In
    addition, DOE has been pursuing the construction of major new
    scientific user facilities, such as the SNS, as collaborations between
    several laboratories. Successful completion of these projects require
    large amounts of contractor and DOE travel. Proper oversight of these
    activities through major project reviews also requires use of
    contractor travel funds, and is negatively impacted by restrictions on
    such funds. Finally, our partnership with CERN in construction of the
    Large Hadron Collider, combined with the need to send researchers
    abroad to participate in experiments at forefront research facilities
    in other nations, required a significant level of foreign travel. I
    look forward to working with the Congress to address the unique
    situation for SC laboratory researchers with regard to travel.
        On behalf of the Administration and the Department, I am pleased to
    present this budget for the Office of Science and welcome the challenge
    to deliver results.
        This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer your
    questions.

        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
                           REQUEST, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
                              [Dollars in Millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year
                                   -----------------------------------------
                Program                  1999           2000
                                      Comparable     Comparable      2001
                                    appropriation  appropriation    Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Science.......................       $791.7          $779.4     $1,015.8
        Basic Energy Sciences.....        425.9           434.1        445.3
        Biological and                    220.6           247.8        247.3
         Environmental Research...
        Fusion Energy Sciences....        153.5           127.9        182.0
        Advanced Scientific               682.7           703.8        714.7
         Computing Research.......
        High Energy Physics.......        338.5           355.8        369.9
        Nuclear Physics...........         32.2            33.1         33.9
        Multiprogram Energy Labs-           1.0             1.0          1.0
         Facilities Support.......
        Energy Research Analyses..        135.0           131.7        141.2
        Science Program Direction.         81.5    .............  ..........
                                   -----------------------------------------
    SBIR/STTR.....................      2,862.6         2,814.6      3,151.1
          Subtotal................        (13.8)   .............  ..........
    General Reduction for Use of           (7.6)   .............  ..........
     Prior Year Balances..........
                                   -----------------------------------------
          Superconducting Super         2,841.2         2,814.6      3,151.1
           Collider...............
                                   =========================================
    Energy Supply:
        Technical Information               8.8             8.6          9.3
         Management...............
        SBIR/STTR.................          4.9    .............  ..........
        General Reduction for Use          (0.3)   .............  ..........
         of Prior Year Balances...
                                   -----------------------------------------
          Total...................         13.4             8.6          9.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          STATEMENT OF DAN W. REICHER

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. We are going to
    proceed with each panel and then ask questions.
        Mr. Reicher?
        Mr. Reicher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rather than read an
    oral statement, if you have this in front of you, I would like
    to go through these quickly. I would like to first briefly
    address an issue that I think is on everyone's mind today, and
    that is the growing gap between oil production and oil
    consumption in the United States. And I will just quickly make
    the point that programs in our Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy can help in addressing that gap.

                       ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE FROM OIL

        If you would turn to page two. Whether it is replaced oil
    from transportation and industry with biofuels and
    biochemicals, whether it is replacing oil with natural gas for
    both heating and electricity, whether over the long haul
    looking to hydrogen as an ultimate energy source, or most
    importantly, perhaps, what we are doing in improving the
    efficiency of cars and trucks, radically increasing the fuel
    efficiency, through the partnership for a new generation of
    vehicles, our programs can help.
        So I think it is important that we can contribute a lot to
    that vexing national problem that Mr. Dorgan referred to in his
    opening statement.

                          PROGRESS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Now I would like to review the progress we have made and
    the challenging work that remains to be done in some of our
    programs. If you turn to page two, some exciting progress has
    been made. Wind energy cost 40 cents a kilowatt hour, Mr.
    Chairman, in 1979. It is down to 4 to 6 cents a kilowatt hour
    in the year 2000. And with continued R&D support, we think we
    can get it down by 2003 in the 2\1/2\ to 4\1/2\ cent per
    kilowatt hour range.

                                      WIND

        From coast to coast and border to border, the United States
    is blessed with a phenomenal wind resource. If you turn to page
    three, you will see what I mean. This is a ranking of the
    States with the best wind resources in the United States.
        Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, California, typically thought
    of as the wind State, does not even get into the top 15. It is
    number 17 on the list. States like North Dakota, Montana, New
    Mexico, Idaho, even New York, has a better resource. And North
    Dakota alone has 2\1/2\ times the wind resource of Germany,
    which now leads the world in wind investment. And wind has
    literally become a new cash crop for farmers.
        If you turn to the next page, this is a major wind
    development in Iowa, over 100 megawatts recently installed. And
    on this farm alone that is pictured, the farmers are being paid
    between $2,000 and $3,000 per turbine per year for the use of
    their land. So that $8,000 to $12,000 payment for just these
    four turbines can literally mean the difference between
    profitability and losing the family farm for farmers in many
    parts of the country.
        Secretary Richardson on Friday is going to break ground on
    a major new wind development in Upstate New York in dairy
    country. We expect to see--we are going to see many, many more
    across the Northeast, the Midwest, the Dakotas and west from
    there, very interesting opportunities all across the United
    States.
        And the sale of wind turbines has grown phenomenally
    internationally. If you turn to page five, Mr. Chairman, this
    is a very interesting comparison. And it tells the following
    story: That in 1999, more new megawatts of wind were installed
    in the world than new megawatts of nuclear.
        Both technologies are critical to our energy mix. The point
    is that wind technology now has gotten to a point where we are
    installing it in the thousands and thousands of megawatts
    worldwide. And we had the best year on record in the United
    States last year with about 1,000 megawatts installed.

                                   GEOTHERMAL

        Turning to another great power source on page six,
    geothermal energy has dropped from 15 to 16 cents per kilowatt
    hour in 1985 to 5 to 8 cents today. And with continued R&D
    support, we see it going to 4 to 6 cents in 2003. And like
    wind, we have a very rich resource in the United States,
    particularly in the West. If you would turn to page seven,
    please, you will see the top three States, Nevada, California
    and Utah. But you will see a variety of other States with major
    resources, Idaho, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota,
    Texas and Wyoming. And we think that we can dramatically
    increase the use of this excellent energy source, both for
    electricity and for heat across the western United States.

                                     SOLAR

        We have also seen stunning progress with solar, if you
    would turn to page eight. Solar electric costs $1 per kilowatt
    hour in 1980, $1 per kilowatt hour. It is down to around 20
    cents per kilowatt hour today. And with continued R&D support,
    we see it going to around 10 cents in 2005. This is a result in
    part of the great work done by the national labs, the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia, in particular.
        And solar is now in use in all kinds of settings all over
    the United States and not just in the sunny parts of the
    country. If you turn to page nine, Mr. Chairman, Times Square
    in New York, a 50-story office building has recently been
    completed. The upper 20 floors of that building are wrapped in
    solar panels, replacing the skin of the building. So it is a
    partially self-powered building. It is also powered with fuel
    cells on the second floor.
        To the left of that is my home at 8 Heskus Street, where I
    have put solar panels on my roof a year ago. I can proudly
    report today, after 1 year of use, that my average electricity
    bill is $1 per day for the year, including air conditioning in
    my home in the Washington, DC, area.

                          INTERNATIONAL SOLAR INDUSTRY

        Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the United States is losing
    our lead in the multi-billion dollar solar industry to the
    Japanese, if you turn to the next page. Between 1998 and 1999,
    the Japanese surpassed us in terms of world market share in
    this multi-billion dollar market. Government support there is
    about three times what it is in the United States.

                                    BIOMASS

        Another renewable with huge opportunities and great
    adaptability is, of course, biomass. If you would turn to page
    11. Mr. Chairman, we know how to make all sorts of things, and
    starting with trees, grasses, crops, residues, animal waste and
    municipal solid waste. We have developed through support from
    this subcommittee, a number of technological conversion
    processes. And as you see on the right, we can make fuels,
    electricity, heat and a huge array of chemicals.
        Biomass now represents three percent of U.S. primary
    energy. It is a great emerging cash crop for farmers, for
    ranchers, for foresters. Mr. Lugar pushed successfully through
    the Senate in late February, a bill that would stimulate the
    growth of this industry in a very, very important way. And the
    President has set a goal to triple United States use of
    bioenergy by 2010.
        Two quick examples. On page 12, in Indiana and in several
    other parts of the country, coal fired utilities are now mixing
    their goal stream with biomass to make use of a local resource,
    to cut pollution, and to extend the life of these coal-based
    power plants.
        Down in Louisiana, Mr. Chairman, a new plant is under
    construction that will make ethanol, 20 million gallons a year,
    from waste from the sugar cane industry that that industry is
    now paying to get rid of.
        I visited New York State yesterday. There they will be
    getting under construction with a new ethanol plant that will
    make ethanol from municipal solid waste, 10 million gallons a
    year.

                                 HYDROELECTRIC

        Now, I need to make a very important point, if you would
    turn to page 13. And I think this is responsive to your opening
    statement. Maturing an energy source requires both time and
    money. In the case of hydroelectric, we have been at it since
    about 1903 with major investments of about $50 billion in
    today's dollars in dams across the United States. In the case
    of nuclear, we have been at it for about 50 years with
    investments in the $25 billion to $50 billion a year range.
    With renewables, Mr. Chairman, we have been at it for 20 to 25
    years with less than $13 billion.
        We are between 2 and 3 percent of U.S. electricity that
    comes from renewables. And we have seen almost a 20-percent
    growth in the last year in renewable-generated electricity
    versus a 1.3 percent overall electricity growth in the same
    year.
        Senator Domenici. Twenty percent is of what?
        Mr. Reicher. Twenty percent--the actual number is 18
    percent of--we saw about 18-percent growth in U.S. electricity
    coming from renewables, from 71.5--I can give you the numbers,
    but that is the approximate number, 18-percent growth between
    1998 and 1999.
        [The information follows:]

        ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATES OF INDUSTRY RENEWABLE ENERGY ELECTRICITY GENERATION 1997-1999
                      [Generation in Terawatt Hours, thousands of Gigawatts, billions of Kilowatts]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Fiscal years
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1999 \1\          1998            1997
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Geothermal......................................................          13.904          14.726          14.569
    Bioenergy.......................................................          62.819          53.012          54.647
    Wind............................................................           4.213           2.988           3.222
    Solar \2\.......................................................           1.143           0.856           0.869
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Renewable Subtotal........................................          82.079          71.582      \3\ 73.307
          Total Electricity.........................................       3,662.300       3,617.900       3,494.200
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Based on preliminary EIA 1999 table 60 net generation data, finals may vary slightly.
    \2\ Solar 99 estimated based on prior year PV trends.
    \3\ Non-hydro renewables.

    Note: Notable Changes in electricity generation: Electricity generation grew 1.0 percent in 1999; Renewables
      grew from 2 percent of all electricity generation in 1998 to 2.24 percent in 1999; Renewables' generation grew
      15 percent in 1999, from 71.6 GW to 82.1 GW.

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Reicher. Now, we have submitted a budget request, Mr.
    Chairman, that we believe is critical to advancing clean power
    technologies in the way we have supported other technologies.
    And if you turn to page 14, I will not go through this chart
    other than to point out that, whereas we have asked for a 32-
    percent increase between 2001 and 2000, we actually saw a
    fairly substantial cut between 1999 and 2000. So that increase
    relative to 1999 would be about 24 percent.

                          DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES

        Now I would like to highlight just one more important
    element of our work, and that is on page 15. Mr. Chairman,
    increasingly this country is moving to what are called
    distributed energy resources, moving the generation source
    closer to the end user, closer to industry, closer to
    commercial buildings, closer to homes. These include gas-fired
    microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells, and include
    renewables like photovoltaics and wind.
        And in this picture you will see a new fuel cell that
    General Electric will start selling in 2001 that will provide
    electricity and heat for a home. And we see this as an exciting
    new opportunity to generate electricity in this country, also
    very useful for ensuring the reliability of our electricity
    system. And it has environmental and economic benefits as well.

                              IMPROVED MANAGEMENT

        Finally, I would like to emphasize that underlying all this
    work on clean energy is what I believe to be improved
    management of our office. And I appreciate your compliments in
    your opening statement. If you turn to the final page, we have
    increased competition and merit review in our programs between
    1996--and you will see this on this chart--from 24 percent to
    88 percent.
        This is competition for the discretionary financial
    assistance. This is something you told us you wanted us to do,
    as they did in the House. And I think we have come quite a
    distance.
        And the National Academy of Public Administration did a
    multi-month review of the management of our office. And while,
    Mr. Chairman, we did not get an A, they definitely told us we
    are moving in the right direction and complimented the reforms
    that we have made, and they are many.

                                 NO-YEAR MONEY

        That leads me to my final point. And I guess it is in a
    sense almost a plea. We think we have improved our management
    to the point that the subcommittee should provide us with funds
    on a no-year basis instead of the 1-year funds that you moved
    us to in fiscal year 1998.
        No-year money is a far more flexible way to pursue R&D. The
    1-year funding that you gave us beginning in 1998 has severely
    restricted our work and made for decision making that I do not
    think is in the ultimate interest of the technologies and the
    companies and the laboratories that carry out this work. So I
    urge you to consider returning us to no-year money.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Reicher.
        [The statement follows:]

                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN W. REICHER

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
    the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Energy and
    Water Development portion of the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
    the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy (EERE).
        As we begin a new decade--and a new millennium--the Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's mission of advancing clean
    energy technologies, including energy efficiency, renewable energy and
    natural gas, will play an increasingly critical role in securing our
    energy future, improving our environment and maintaining our economic
    growth. EERE leads the nation in the research, development,
    demonstration, and deployment of affordable, advanced energy efficiency
    and renewable energy technology and practices, and, together with the
    Office of Fossil Energy advances natural gas research, development and
    demonstration.
        Mr. Chairman, in my testimony today, I plan to cover the following
    areas. First, I will discuss energy trends that have emerged over the
    last decade and that will drive great change into the next. Second, I
    will speak about how our EERE programs as relayed in our strategic plan
    will help to meet these emerging challenges, and in particular, I will
    discuss some recent exciting technology improvements and the
    opportunities and challenges still facing us. Finally, I will
    specifically highlight the fiscal year 2001 budget request as it
    relates to the EERE programs within the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee, primarily renewable energy technologies and advanced
    energy production, storage and transmission systems. The rest of the
    EERE budget is funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
    appropriations account and focuses on energy efficiency in industry,
    transportation and buildings.
        Mr. Chairman, as I noted, several energy trends have emerged over
    the last decade that will drive great change into the next decade. (1)
    Economic Competitiveness--the end of the Cold War in the early 1990's
    unleashed a global economy that is forecast to consume almost twice as
    much electricity in 2020 as it does today, providing new challenges and
    opportunities for U.S. energy technology exports and employment. (2)
    Climate Change--over the last 10 years, our confidence in the science
    of climate change has made greenhouse gas emissions an issue of concern
    for policymakers around the world, significantly changing our view of
    the role of energy efficiency and clean power in our nation's energy
    economy. Energy use as a whole generates most of the greenhouse gas
    emissions in the United States. (3) Clean Air--Energy and the
    environment are closely linked--the use of energy is the largest source
    of pollution in this country. Vehicles and power plants are the largest
    contributors to problems like ground-level ozone, acid rain, and
    particulates. In the past decade, we have seen increased regulatory
    support for urban and rural areas to mitigate their pollution problems
    by deploying energy efficiency and clean power technologies. (4)
    Electricity Industry Restructuring--The 1990s also saw significant
    change in electricity regulatory policies, with wholesale competition
    occurring across the country and about half of the states implementing
    retail competition, providing significant new market opportunities for
    clean energy technologies, as well as new challenges. Last year when I
    testified before this Subcommittee, only 14 states had adopted
    restructuring policies through legislation or regulation. Today, 24
    states have enacted legislation and the other 26 states are debating
    the option.
        And finally, Mr. Chairman, the most recent and fast-paced area of
    change is energy security. In 1999 we saw the price of crude oil rise
    from $10 per barrel in January to $26 in December and we saw the
    average U.S. gasoline price rise from $0.97 per gallon to $1.29. We saw
    home heating oil costs increase by 30 percent, residential natural
    gases increase by 19 percent, and residential propane costs increase by
    12 percent. And this trend continues in 2000. In January 2000, five
    leading U.S. airlines imposed a $20 per flight fuel surcharge on
    tickets. In February, oil prices reached $30 per barrel and U. S.
    gasoline prices rose to $1.41 per gallon, the highest prices since the
    Gulf war. In late February, in response to high fuel prices, hundreds
    of truckers came to the Capitol to protest. Mr. Chairman, these impacts
    are real and are being felt by most sectors of society. The Energy
    Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2000, projects
    that our dependence on foreign oil will increase from 50 percent in
    1999 to about 63 percent by 2015.
        My point, Mr. Chairman, is that EERE programs can help mitigate
    energy price spikes and slow our rising dependence on foreign oil. For
    example, through our multi-agency integrated bioenergy initiative, and
    our DOE core research and development programs, we are working to bring
    down the costs of ethanol as a substitute for conventional
    transportation fuels. With sufficient funding, we expect a substantial
    market share for cellulosic ethanol--i.e., ethanol produced from a
    variety of agricultural and forestry residue and wastes over the next
    two decades.
        And, Mr. Chairman, our energy security is not just about foreign
    oil. Last summer we were involved in a different type of energy
    security issue--the reliability of our electricity delivery system. In
    the summer of 1999, power outages occurred in New York City, New
    Jersey, and in the Southern and Central States. In Chicago, New England
    and the Mid-Atlantic region, power delivery disturbances were caused by
    high heat and humidity that strained the power distribution system. The
    Department of Energy's Power Outage Study Team, established by
    Secretary Richardson in August 1999, warned in their interim report
    ``that while the electricity industry is undergoing fundamental change,
    the necessary operating practices, regulatory policies, and
    technological tools for dealing with those changes are not yet in place
    to assure an acceptable level of reliability. A significant increase in
    electricity use, especially during times of peak demand, is stressing
    the electric system.''
        Mr. Chairman, our programs are working to remedy the situation. One
    example is our distributed generation/grid reliability work. As our
    electricity industry restructures, we expect that fewer central
    generating power stations will be built. As much as 40 percent of new,
    smaller-scale generation will be located closer to its point of use and
    should encounter fewer siting difficulties. Our work will enhance the
    systems operations while maintaining grid reliability to ensure a
    constant electricity supply and to get the most optimal energy
    generation, delivery and use system obtainable.

                              STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

        In March, we released our strategic plan. In the rapidly changing
    world I have described, strategic planning is critical to ensure that
    EERE's research, development, demonstration and deployment portfolio is
    adequately addressing our nation's clean energy needs. In addition to
    strengthening EERE's traditional sector work, our strategic planning
    activities are leading to increased emphasis on a number of cross-
    cutting initiatives that allow us to leverage our resources across
    multiple markets. A further discussion of our corporate cross-cutting
    initiatives is presented later in my testimony.
        Our strategic plan includes three overarching EERE goals which are:
    (1) to increase the supply and use of clean energy resources and the
    reliability of the energy system; (2) to increase the efficiency of the
    energy system; and (3) to continuously demonstrate EERE managerial and
    operational excellence.
        In particular, we have set three quantitative goals dealing with
    renewable energy. They are to:
      --Triple the non-hydroelectric renewable energy generating capacity
            to 25,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2010 and maintain
            the viability of hydropower as an important energy resource.
      --Triple U.S. use of bio-based products and bioenergy by 2010 from
            the 1999 level, which would create as much as $20 billion a
            year in new income for farmers and rural communities.
      --Achieve 20 percent market penetration of distributed energy
            resources by 2010 to help optimize electricity generation and
            use.
        Mr. Chairman, we have the strategies in place to achieve these
    goals. Most importantly, our R&D programs will provide the building
    blocks for a cleaner, more efficient and diverse energy economy in the
    twenty-first century. Decisions made now about energy production and
    use commit the nation to an energy path for future decades. To the
    extent that economically attractive, clean, and efficient technologies
    are chosen, both the economy and the environment benefit. Thus, a
    robust energy R&D program--the core of our work--is needed to enable
    the country to achieve a healthy and prosperous future.
        However, as a complement to strong and focused R&D, we also need to
    undertake field verification projects. Many of the technologies that we
    develop with our partners are considered ``high risk'' investments.
    While progress in the laboratory is critical to the eventual deployment
    of advanced clean energy technologies, taking the technologies from the
    laboratory to a testing and evaluation setting helps build confidence
    in advanced energy technologies and practices. The data collected from
    these field verification activities also provide important information
    used by scientists and engineers in the R&D activities, which in turn,
    brings further advances to the technologies.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, one of our key strategies is creating R&D
    partnerships among energy companies, energy-intensive industries,
    states, local governments, universities, and our national laboratories
    to advance the development of new energy technologies and practices.
    Such alliances help maximize the efficiency of the technology R&D
    process by leveraging public and private R&D resources, and bringing
    together interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers, and analysts
    to deliver technology results acceptable to energy markets. EERE works
    with its partners in both the planning and implementation phases of its
    R&D programs. In recent years, EERE has been making greater use of
    technology ``visions'' and ``roadmaps'' to develop shared goals among
    diverse groups within each sector and provide a framework for
    cooperative technology development efforts.
        I am proud to report, Mr. Chairman, that our strategies are
    generating substantial success. For example, EERE-funded researchers
    have won 25 R&D 100 awards from 1996 to 1999. The R&D awards are judged
    each year by a panel of 75 respected scientists and are given by R&D
    Magazine for the most outstanding technology developments with
    significant commercial potential. Let me share just one example:
      --High Efficiency Photovoltaic (PV) Modules.--This technology
            converts sunlight into electricity using copper indium
            diselenide based solar cells. Tests have demonstrated
            efficiencies of more than 12 percent, by far the highest of any
            commercial thin film module. Thin film PV modules have the
            potential of greatly reducing the cost of solar electricity and
            providing a wide range of new products with mass appeal.
            (Siemens Solar Industries and National Renewable Energy
            Laboratory).
        Mr. Chairman, in addition to our R&D and field verification
    strategies, we have other strategies to advance clean energy
    technologies and practices. The market of energy users is broad and
    diverse, including hundreds of millions of residential, commercial, and
    transportation users, hundreds of thousands of industrial users, and
    millions of users in the power sector. To enable deployment of advanced
    energy technologies and practices, we work with the leadership of high
    leverage public and private organizations that can influence energy
    decisions. In addition, we work with the banking, insurance, and
    bonding industries that determine where and how much capital is
    invested in the energy economy to look for opportunities to partner on
    initiatives that advance our mutual interests.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, when I testified last year, I informed you
    of my efforts to improve the management of my office--the third
    overarching goal of our EERE Strategic Plan. I want to report that I
    have continued to make management reform a major priority and I believe
    that we are achieving significant results. For example, the proportion
    of EERE Discretionary Financial Assistance (DFA) funding awarded on a
    competitive basis increased from 24 percent of funding in fiscal year
    1996 to 88 percent in fiscal year 1999.

    EERE Obligations for New Discretionary Financial Assistance Awarded on
    Competitive Basis

                                  [In percent]

    Fiscal year:
        1996..........................................................  24.4
        1997..........................................................  33.3
        1998..........................................................  56.7
        1997..........................................................  88.2

    Source: DOE Office of Procurement Policy and Procurement and Assistance
    Data System Percents do not include Congressional earmarks. If
    Congressional earmarks are included for fiscal year 1999, competitive
    percent increases to 93 percent.

        In fiscal year 1999, I also established a Chief Operating Officer
    and new EERE Office of Planning, Budget, and Management to oversee all
    corporate EERE planning, budget, and management activities. And, Mr.
    Chairman, while I am pleased with our results so far, I am committed to
    further improvements. Under the leadership of this new office, a key
    approach is the creation of a Strategic Management System. Based on the
    complexity of our Nation's energy markets, the range of energy
    technology options that could be pursued, and the need to invest
    federal resources wisely, it is essential that the EERE programs be
    carried out with superior corporate management and business acumen. As
    you know and can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the government cycles often
    involve the management of up to four budget years at any time. To do
    this in the most effective manner, an orderly, systematic approach is
    needed to the business of planning, budget formulation, budget
    execution and program analysis and evaluation. Mr. Chairman, for these
    reasons, I instituted our Strategic Management System.
        As I stated in my testimony last year, I welcome external reviews
    to assist us in identifying areas for further management improvements.
    The National Academy of Public Administration has undertaken one of
    these efforts and I expect their report to be released later this
    month.
        Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences has been reviewing our
    renewable R&D portfolio and we are awaiting their draft report late
    this month.
        While the actions and initiatives that I have described have
    resulted in significant management improvements, implementing and
    sustaining these improvements are dependent upon staffing levels and
    employee competencies. The modest increase that we are requesting in
    program direction is focused on the staffing levels and employee
    competencies that will support these management improvements.
        We acknowledge the EERE management issues raised by this
    Subcommittee that led to one-year funding limitations several years
    ago. We have diligently worked to address these concerns and to
    implement management systems that will prevent their reoccurrence in
    the future. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that one-year funds have
    limited the flexibility of the programs. I would therefore like to work
    with you and this Subcommittee on the restoration of no-year funds.

                               RECENT R&D SUCCESS

        In my testimony before this Subcommittee last year, I spoke to you
    about the tremendous strides we made in reducing the cost of
    electricity from our nation's vast renewable energy resources, which is
    down 80 percent since 1980.
        Today, I am pleased to announce that since last year we have
    achieved further successes that will help increase the supply and use
    of clean energy resources and the reliability of the energy system. Let
    me take a moment to highlight a few examples of these accomplishments:
      --In photovoltaics, research supported by the program has achieved
            two world solar cell efficiency records: (1) a 32 percent
            efficient gallium arsenide-based concentrator cell was produced
            under a project led by the National Renewable Energy
            Laboratory; and (2) a Thin Film Partnership project has
            produced a 12 percent efficient thin film photovoltaic module,
            using copper indium diselenide material, that is now
            commercially available.
      --Nearly 1000 MW of wind power generation capacity was installed in
            the U.S. in just the last 18 months--enough electricity for
            about 400,000 U.S. homes--bringing the total installed capacity
            in the United States to about 2500 MW. More than 400 MW was
            installed in the Upper Midwest alone, including a 107 MW
            facility at Lake Benton, MN, which is producing unsubsidized
            power at $0.04 per kWh. Additionally, Northern States Power
            recently announced that two proposed wind energy facilities are
            among six projects--including natural gas-fired generation and
            hydropower--that have been selected for contract negotiations
            in its competition for 1200 MW of new generation from all
            sources. This marks the first time that wind energy has been
            able to compete with conventional baseload, cycling and peaking
            technologies for new power generation.
      --As the world leader in high temperature superconductivity
            technology R&D, the U.S. program research focuses on developing
            advanced materials and technologies that will significantly
            enhance electric grid system reliability, reduce transmission
            losses, and substantially increase the efficiency in end-use
            applications such as large industrial motors. Recent research
            breakthroughs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory set the stage
            for the initiation of grid-connected field tests of high
            temperature superconductivity technology in Detroit, Michigan,
            Chicago, Illinois and Carrollton, Georgia in fiscal year 2001.
            Laboratory, industry, and DOE partnerships will continue to
            advance the development of thin, lightweight superconducting
            ``tapes'' that will be able to carry up to 100 times the
            capacity as much heavier copper wires--with essentially no
            energy losses.
      --The Energy Storage program, which is focused on addressing the
            growing number of grid reliability and power quality issues
            facing the U.S. and is helping to resolve intermittency issues
            faced by some renewable technologies, achieved a very notable
            success this past year. At S&C Electric--Chicago's largest
            manufacturing plant--a truck-sized 2 MW battery was installed
            to protect the facility's extrusion machinery which molds high
            voltage insulators. Such processes are particularly vulnerable
            to short power outages because the entire run must be discarded
            and equipment may be severely damaged. This new system ensures
            that power will continue to be supplied seamlessly whenever an
            outage or voltage sag happens. The system has been estimated to
            prevent production losses of approximately $500,000 annually--
            representing a one-year payback period. Similar systems can be
            developed to help protect other vulnerable industries such as
            semiconductor and pharmaceutical plants.

                           CONTINUING R&D CHALLENGES

        While we continue to make tremendous strides in these and other
    renewable and power delivery technologies, we still have much work to
    do. Competition in the power generation sector has led to significant
    decreases in the price of power from new sources of generation. In
    particular, natural gas-fired combustion turbine technology, which
    produces power at $0.03 per kWh or less, has set a new threshold for
    market penetration of new generation technologies in most locations
    here in the U.S. Strong efforts in core technology R&D, coupled with
    research on integrating renewable and renewable/hybrid systems, will
    help accelerate cost reductions and make these systems more attractive
    both domestically and overseas. As U.S. technologies continue to pursue
    the global market, where the need for energy far outstrips supply and
    electricity costs are typically much higher, sales will spur improved
    economies of scale in production and help lower costs.
        However, both self interest and the great economic potential in
    this international energy marketplace has also encouraged other nations
    to aggressively pursue their own renewable energy technology research,
    development, and deployment programs--oftentimes funded at much higher
    levels than our U.S. programs. For example, for several years now we
    have cautioned that Japan's very aggressive RD&D program threatened
    U.S. technology and sales leadership in the area of photovoltaics,
    which the U.S. regained in 1993. While U.S. companies still increased
    their overall sales volume in 1999, Japan's four to five-fold higher
    funding levels and favorable domestic policies have enabled them to
    recapture world sales leadership with 40 percent of the world market
    compared to 31 percent for the U.S. (In 1998, the U.S. held a slim
    lead--35 percent to 32 percent--over Japan.)
        How can we meet these challenges to our technology leadership?
    Increased and sustained levels of federal funding is part of the
    answer. Fluctuation in funding disrupts research efforts, can result in
    losses of key scientists, and delays achievement of goals. Better
    coordination among researchers in federal agencies, private sector
    organizations, and industry is another part of the answer.
        Another is to update and improve key facilities at our national
    laboratories--the workhorses of our core R&D. For example, the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is a global leader in renewable
    energy research, development, and field validation activities, and is
    home to the National Wind Technology Center and the National
    Photovoltaic Center. Upgrades in the highly specialized research
    instruments and the physical plant are needed annually to avoid
    critical failures and maintain world leadership. Unfortunately, NREL
    receives the least capital funding of DOE major research and
    development laboratories, and capital investment is well below the
    research and development industry average. Sustained capital
    reinvestment at NREL is essential to maintain American leadership in
    renewable energy research and development activities.
        An additional way to meet the challenges to U.S. technology
    leadership is to reduce institutional, regulatory, and trade barriers
    to the sales of our technology overseas. As a successful example, we
    have now established performance and reliability standards, and a
    globally recognized certification process, so that American-produced
    wind energy technologies will be accepted in countries around the
    world.
        Mr. Chairman, I am proud of our successes and I appreciate your
    support and the support of this Subcommittee for our activities.
    However, the promise of these programs is enormous and while we have
    made great progress, we continue to ask for your support to carry out
    our important mission.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        The following tables provide details of our fiscal year 2001 budget
    request. The sections following the tables describe ongoing programs
    and our fiscal year 2001 budget request in the areas of Solar and
    Renewable technologies, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    (NREL), the Departmental Energy Management program, and program
    direction. Solar and Renewable Resource Technologies (in millions of
    dollars)

                    SOLAR AND RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year
                                       -------------------------------------
                                                            2001   2000-2001
                                          1999     2000   Request    Change
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Power Technologies................    269.1    252.4    330.0      +77.6
        Solar Building Technology           3.5      2.0      4.5       +2.5
         Research.....................
        Photovoltaic Energy Systems...     70.6     65.9     82.0      +16.1
        Concentrating Solar Power.....     16.8     15.2     15.0       -0.2
        Biomass/Biofuels Energy            30.8     31.8     48.0      +16.2
         Systems--Power Systems.......
        Wind Energy Systems...........     34.1     32.5     50.5      +18.0
        Renewable Energy Production         4.0      1.5      4.0       +2.5
         Incentive....................
        Solar Program Support \1\.....  .......      4.9      6.5       +1.6
        International Renewable Energy      6.3      3.8     11.5       +7.7
         Program \1\..................
        Geothermal Energy Systems.....     28.2     23.6     27.0       +3.4
        Hydrogen Research.............     22.0     24.6     23.0       -1.6
        Hydropower Development........      3.2      4.9      5.0       +0.1
        Renewable Indian Energy             4.8      3.9      5.0       +1.1
         Resources....................
        Electric Energy Systems and        40.8     37.8     48.0      +10.2
         Storage......................
        Federal Buildings/Remote Power      4.0  .......  .......  .........
         Init.........................
                                       =====================================
    Transportation Technologies:           41.2     38.9     54.4      +15.5
     Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems--
     Transportation...................
                                       =====================================
    National Renewable Energy               3.9      1.1      1.9       +0.8
     Laboratory.......................
    Program Direction.................     18.1     17.7     18.2       +0.5
    Departmental Energy Management      .......  .......      5.0       +5.0
     Program..........................
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Solar and             332.3    310.1    409.5      +99.4
           Renewable Energy...........
                                       =====================================
    Use of Prior Year Balances........      1.0      0.8  .......       -0.8
                                       -------------------------------------
          Total, Solar and Renewable      331.3    309.3    409.5    +100.2
           Energy.....................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Excludes funding for international energy efficiency programs under
      Energy Conservation.

        Our fiscal year 2001 program level for Solar and Renewable Energy
    Technologies is $409.5 million--an increase of $99.4 million (or 32
    percent) over fiscal year 2000. The bulk of the EERE Energy and Water
    Development Appropriation supports the work of the Office of Power
    Technologies (OPT) at $334.6 million. OPT works with electric service
    providers and related industries to advance clean, competitive and
    reliable power technologies. It develops renewable energy technologies
    that use solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and biomass energy
    resources and conduct R&D that will enable a hydrogen energy
    infrastructure in the future. Our programs also develop advanced
    technologies--including high temperature superconducting materials,
    real-time power system controls, and energy storage--that will improve
    the energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the nation's electric
    systems. Finally, the office facilitates the export of renewable energy
    power generation internationally.
        Included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriation is $54.4
    million for the Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) to support
    R&D on production of biomass-based transportation fuels. The requested
    funds also include: $18.2 million for Program Direction, which provides
    the federal staffing resources and associated funding to support the
    management and oversight of the Solar and Renewable programs; $1.9
    million for the National Energy Renewable Laboratory (NREL); and $5
    million for the Department Energy Management Program (DEMP), to manage
    both the utility demand and supply functions at DOE sites.
        Included in our fiscal year 2001 request are several new and
    ongoing initiatives. Let me begin by discussing two initiatives that
    involve several EERE programs, the Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative
    and the International Clean Energy Initiative. I will also briefly
    discuss consolidation of our distributed generation activities and,
    finally, I will discuss our ongoing programs and the specific budget
    requests for those programs.

                   BIOENERGY AND BIOBASED PRODUCTS INITIATIVE

        Recent scientific advances in bioenergy and biobased products have
    created enormous potential to: enhance U.S. energy security; help
    manage carbon emissions; protect the environment; and develop new
    economic opportunities for rural America. This nation has abundant
    biomass resources (crops, trees, agricultural wastes). These resources
    have the potential to provide substantial amounts of power, fuels,
    chemicals and other biobased products. Today they already provide about
    3 percent of U.S. energy. This initiative can capitalize on the many
    separate but related activities across the government, industry, and
    academia by coordinating the planning projects designed to accelerate
    the use of bioenergy.
        In the past year, industry executives from the pulp and paper,
    agricultural commodity, major chemicals, and the fuel ethanol and
    biomass power utility industries, met in St. Louis and Washington, DC
    to develop a bioenergy vision for the industry and nation. ``The
    Bioenergy Vision: Achieving Integrated Development and Use of Our
    Nation's Biologically Derived Renewable Resources'' challenges industry
    and government alike to develop a sustainable energy future founded on
    domestic, renewable biomass. The vision document is currently being
    reviewed and will be published soon, but the message is clear, we can
    work in partnership towards a common goal with substantial national
    benefits.
        On August 12, 1999, the President issued an Executive Order on
    Biobased Products and Bioenergy that will coordinate federal efforts to
    accelerate the development of 21st century biobased industries that use
    trees, crops, agricultural, forest, and aquatic resources to make an
    array of commercial products including fuels, electricity and
    chemicals. The President set a goal of tripling U.S. use of biobased
    products and bioenergy by 2010. In the President's remarks at the
    Executive Order signing ceremony, he stated that reaching the tripling
    goal ``would generate as much as $20 billion a year in new income for
    farmers and rural communities, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions
    by as much as 100 million tons a year--the equivalent of taking more
    than 70 million cars off the road.''
        The Executive Order has been complemented by the introduction of
    several bills in Congress. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the
    National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999, which was adopted
    by the full Senate on February 29, 2000. This is a research and
    development bill designed to overcome technical barriers to low-cost
    biomass conversion by encouraging closer coordination and integration
    among federal agencies, national labs, universities, private sector
    companies, and environmental organizations. Companion biomass bills
    were introduced by Representatives Ewing (R-IL) and Udall (D-CO). The
    Congressional and White House support demonstrates the growing
    importance of investing in the development of biobased products and
    bioenergy industries today, which will help the country prosper in this
    new century.
        Through a newly-formed Interagency Council, the Administration is
    currently in the process of surveying all of the programs that have a
    direct role in meeting the goals of this initiative. This includes
    programs at DOE, USDA, NSF, DOC, and DOI. This survey will lead to the
    development of a strategic plan that will help us adjust our portfolio
    in coming years to concentrate efforts on the most promising
    technologies to realize our goals. At this point, we have already begun
    to respond to input and think more wholistically about the
    technologies. The fiscal year 2001 request directs new funds toward
    priority areas. Of particular importance are R&D activities designed to
    advance the development of ``biorefineries''--facilities that can
    process biomass into an array of fuels and products much like oil
    refineries do today. We are also beginning to focus more on
    intermediate chemicals such as sugars that can be used as platform
    chemicals, to be used to produce many different end products.
        To support the Bioenergy initiative, the Administration proposes an
    increase of more than $93 million over the amounts available for fiscal
    year 2000, with $49 million of this increase for programs managed by
    DOE and $44 million for enhanced efforts at USDA. For fiscal year 2001,
    efforts will follow the new strategic plan that will be developed under
    the Executive Order and roadmaps identified under the Bioenergy and
    Bioproducts Initiative. It is anticipated that new partnerships will
    come together for the first time in an integrated fashion, across the
    several sectors of the currently fragmented bioenergy and bioproducts
    industry, leading to new business opportunities. We are already funding
    in fiscal year 2000, per Energy and Water Development direction, new
    R&D that cuts across the biopower, biofuels and bioproducts sectors.
    New and broader innovative approaches will be encouraged through a
    multi-agency, industry peer review project selection process in fiscal
    year 2001. Below is a brief description of the two of the four base
    programs in EERE that directly or indirectly support the work of the
    initiative. The four programs are Biopower Technologies, Biofuels
    Technologies, Forestry and Paper Products and Agriculture: the Biopower
    and Biofuels programs are funded by this subcommittee; the Forest and
    Paper Products and the Agriculture programs are funded in the
    appropriation for the Interior and Related Agencies.
        Biopower Technologies--The budget request for the Biopower program
    within the Office of Power Technologies (OPT) is $48 million in fiscal
    year 2001. The mission of Biopower Technology is to integrate
    sustainable biomass feedstock production with efficient biomass power
    generation systems that can provide substantial energy, economic, and
    environmental benefits. Collaborative partnerships between OPT and the
    private sector will focus on critical research, development, and cost-
    shared technology verification activities. Biopower Technologies will
    include a full complement of efficient biomass technologies, size
    ranges, and feedstocks (agricultural residues, wood residues, energy
    crops, etc.). The program's goal is the establishment of 3,000 MW of
    new renewable biomass power generation capacity installed by 2010. The
    request includes $5.0 million for thermochemical conversion and $26.4
    million for systems development. Also included are $4.0 million for
    feedstock development; $1.6 million for the regional biomass energy
    program; and $11.0 million in support of integrated projects under this
    initiative.
        This request will support an expanded research effort that will aid
    in defining chemical characteristics of biomass under various forms of
    thermochemical conversion (e.g. gasification, combustion, etc.).
    Efforts will include laboratory modeling and process simulation which
    will reduce technical risks and development costs of biopower
    technologies. These efforts should also result in shorter development
    time during field validations. The Biopower Technologies will also
    examine methods to increase the net energy output of biopower systems
    per unit of carbon used through high efficiency power and thermal
    recovery. The systems development activity request is $9.4 million for
    the co-firing biomass with coal effort, $5.5 million for the small
    modular biopower systems, $4.0 million for biomass power for rural
    development, $4.0 million for the Vermont gasifier project, $2.0
    million for the international clean energy initiative to develop grid-
    systems and off-grid/mini-systems with biomass and other renewables,
    and $1.5 million is requested for a new agriculture residues to energy
    program.
        Biofuels Technologies.--Biofuels technologies managed by the Office
    of Transportation Technologies (OTT) has a budget request of $54.4
    million in fiscal year 2001. This RD&D effort will lead to cost
    competitive technologies for the production of renewable transportation
    fuels, in collaboration and partnership with industry, other government
    organizations, and academic institutions. In support of this mission,
    the program pursues the development of low-cost biomass feedstocks and
    cost competitive conversion technologies for liquid fuels production
    from agricultural residues, forestry wastes, and energy crops. The
    development and deployment of biofuels technologies can displace a
    substantial amount of imported petroleum while promoting rural economic
    development. Since biofuels produce almost no net carbon on a life-
    cycle basis, they are a very promising supply side option for reducing
    carbon emissions in the transportation sector. The Biofuels
    technologies request of $54.4 million includes: $38.4 million for
    ethanol production; $1.0 million for renewable diesel fuel
    alternatives; $4.5 million for feedstock development; $3.5 million for
    the regional biomass energy program; and $7.0 million in support of
    integrated activities under the initiative.

                     INTERNATIONAL CLEAN ENERGY INITIATIVE

        While Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and others forge
    ahead with international energy technology sales opportunities, the
    U.S. is losing its leadership role. U.S. firms are losing a significant
    share of the multi-hundred-billion dollar per year global market in
    energy supply technologies, most of which is and remains overseas.
    About 2-3 billion people lack access to a reliable supply of
    electricity. The International Clean Energy Initiative (ICEI)
    initiative will strengthen America's capacity for energy technology
    innovation and advance clean energy technology applications in large
    foreign markets.
        Its purpose is to help developing countries and countries with
    economies in transition to ``leap frog'' conventional approaches to
    energy production and instead make the best use of clean energy
    technologies. We will focus on providing technical assistance to
    countries and regions to develop their capacity to conduct sector-
    specific economic analyses of technologies and policies. ICEI will
    provide technical assistance to undertake project assessments, to
    identify the unique mix of clean energy technologies (e.g., wind,
    hydro, PV, biomass, solar thermal and natural gas) and to develop
    strategies that fit the country's climates, resources, and local needs.
    It will also provide in-country analysis of models that could be used
    to identify cost effective energy efficiency and fuel switching
    opportunities. ICEI will also help attract U.S. public and private
    financing sources to develop projects as well as create long-term
    relationships between U.S. public and private laboratories and
    organizations and those in developing and transition countries.

                       DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES (DER)

        Mr. Chairman, I also have begun to consolidate all distributed
    energy resources activities within the EERE portfolio from three
    distinct sectors into one Distributed Energy Resources program. The DER
    program will accelerate the development and deployment of cleaner and
    more efficient, affordable, and reliable distributed energy resources
    which include renewable, natural gas, enabling and power delivery
    technologies. We will create a plan for realizing the potentially large
    public benefits (e.g., 30-40 percent of new electric generation and use
    equating to over $5 trillion in annual sales), both domestically and
    internationally.

                         MILLION SOLAR ROOFS INITIATIVE

        In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $3.0 million (up $1.5
    million) to facilitate and expand deployment of solar energy systems
    throughout the U.S. through training and outreach programs with state
    and local partnerships. The initiative works with partners in the
    building industry, local governments, state agencies, the solar
    industry, electric service providers, and non-governmental
    organizations to remove market barriers and strengthen grassroots
    demand for photovoltaic and solar thermal technologies. We work with
    nearly 50 State and local partnerships that provide training and
    technical assistance to builders, solar equipment installers, utilities
    and financial institutions in order to develop the technology and
    support infrastructure to create sustainable solar energy markets.

                      THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will discuss our fiscal year 2001
    budget request, in the order of the budget submission. The proposed
    increase will support research, development and field validation
    activities in solar building technologies, photovoltaic energy systems,
    concentrating solar power technologies, biopower and biofuels systems,
    wind energy systems, international renewable energy, renewable energy
    production incentives, solar program support, the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory (NREL), geothermal, hydrogen, and hydropower
    technologies, renewable Indian energy resources, and electric energy
    systems and storage. Additionally, I will address the Departmental
    Energy Management Program, and Solar program direction; activities
    which cut across several EERE sectors.

                             SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

        Our Solar Energy programs request is $101.5 million. The request
    covers solar building technologies, photovoltaics systems and
    concentrating solar power technologies. These three items follow and
    will be discussed individually in the order that they appear in the
    budget.

    Solar Building Technologies
        Imagine ``zero energy, zero emission'' buildings that not only
    economically provide all their own energy, but also provide a
    comfortable environment in which to live or work and insure against
    power outages. To achieve this new goal, Solar Buildings Technologies
    is requesting $4.5 million--an increase of $2.53 million to conduct R&D
    to optimally combine solar energy technologies with energy efficient
    appliances and advanced construction techniques. Three areas of effort
    will be pursued in fiscal year 2001, including: the development of new
    polymer (plastic) solar collectors that provide inexpensive energy for
    water heating; research on a new technology that collects sunlight and
    distributes it into the interior rooms of a building through fiber
    optics; and coordination of complementary R&D activities.
        OPT requests $2.8 million for solar thermal R&D to develop a new
    generation of solar water heaters that is 50 percent less expensive
    than today's technology (from $0.08/kWh to $0.04/kWh delivered energy
    cost). This advanced lightweight system would replace heavier, more
    expensive copper tubing and glass systems and would enable a family to
    buy a solar water heater for about $1,000, with energy savings
    returning their investment within four years. Cost reduction will be
    realized through the development of industry concepts that use
    inexpensive polymers, improved manufacturing processes, and innovative
    design. Prototype systems will be built and tested during fiscal year
    2001.
        Solar building technologies will also determine the feasibility of
    using solar concentrating technologies (e.g. small scale parabolic
    dishes) with large-core optical fibers to bring sunlight into the
    interior of buildings. In addition, a proof of concept model will be
    built. Activities will be coordinated with DOE's Office of Building
    Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS) since this light source
    would have to be integrated with a building's conventional lighting
    system. This ``hybrid'' system uses the visible portion of the solar
    spectrum in its natural form (light) and supplements it with electric
    light when necessary. In fiscal year 2001, $0.7 is requested for this
    effort.
        Technology coordination will assess the optimum mix of solar
    technologies to provide all the energy needed by efficient buildings in
    representative U.S. climates. This assessment also will be coordinated
    with BTS. Two competitive solicitations will be issued to: (1) explore
    the potential of integrating solar technology with fossil fuel based
    heating systems (e.g. heat pumps and radiant heating); and (2) develop
    conceptual designs of zero energy buildings.

    Photovoltaic Energy Systems
        The strategic goal of Photovoltaic Energy Systems is to make
    photovoltaic (PV) technologies a significant part of the U.S. domestic
    economy, both as an energy source and a technology export industry. In
    order to achieve this goal, Photovoltaic Energy Systems has identified
    certain key milestones for each of the PV technologies that address
    conversion efficiency, cost, and reliability. For example, the
    Photovoltaic Energy System expects to set performance records in all
    leading PV technologies (i.e., thin film and crystalline silicon) by
    2004 and reduce the direct manufacturing cost of PV modules by 40
    percent from the current average cost of $2.50/watt to $1.50/watt
    (equivalent to 15 cents/kWh in an installed system). The Photovoltaic
    Energy System also intends to ensure that PV modules have a service
    lifetime greater than 25 years by improving reliability and reducing
    recurring costs.
        There are three main elements to the Photovoltaic Energy Systems
    mission and the fiscal year 2001 request--Fundamental Research ($20.3
    million), Advanced Materials and Devices ($27.0 million), and
    Technology Development ($34.7 million). The major fiscal year 2001
    program activities that will be carried out in each category are
    addressed below.

                Fundamental research

        Fundamental research involves three component programs: measurement
    and characterization; basic research/university programs; and high
    performance advanced research for which we are requesting $20.3 million
    (up $6.1 million). The first component measures and characterizes PV
    cell materials and devices, in part to identify and reduce defects,
    using state-of-the-art equipment. Through the National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory (NREL), Photovoltaic Energy Systems has access to more than
    40 techniques to measure electrical and optical properties of PV cells,
    as well as their chemistry, structure, and physical nature.
        Under the basic research/university programs, the Photovoltaic
    Energy System supports research to understand cell structures and
    properties of the four primary materials (i.e., amorphous silicon,
    cadmium telluride, copper indium diselenide, and thin silicon
    materials) used in thin film technologies. This component also looks at
    advanced and innovative materials and deposition methodologies, and
    works with universities to conduct cutting-edge research and explore
    innovative new ideas. In fiscal year 2000, we will issue a new
    solicitation for breakthrough, non-conventional PV technologies, such
    as liquid cells, polymers, and biochemical processes aimed at dramatic
    cost reductions. Continuation of both of these basic research
    activities are crucial to the program's efforts to develop the advanced
    technologies needed to meet the long-term goal of $0.06/kWhr
    electricity.
        The third component is high performance advanced research. This
    research activity, started in fiscal year 2000, is aimed at
    substantially increasing efficiency of two key photovoltaic
    technologies: large area, monolithically interconnected thin films; and
    (multi-junction III-V-based) concentrator cells. Fundamental
    innovations are required to essentially double the conversion
    efficiency of thin films from their current 8-10 percent to 15-20
    percent, and to increase multi-junction cell efficiency from 30 percent
    to 40 percent under 500X concentration. Successful development of a 40
    percent efficient, four-junction cell will enable the development of a
    33 percent efficient complete PV module. Both the enhanced thin film
    and the multi-junction III-V approaches should yield dramatic cost
    reductions.

                Advanced materials and devices

        The advanced materials and devices request of $27.0 million (no
    change) will support the specific research areas such as the thin film
    partnership and the crystalline silicon/high efficiency devices
    programs. The thin film partnership is a government/industry/university
    partnership to accelerate development of cost-effective, thin film
    technologies using the four primary materials discussed above. Thin
    film technologies are considered the best option for meeting the mid-
    and long-term cost goals. Some accomplishments of the thin film
    partnership are a new world record at NREL for an 18.8 percent
    efficient copper indium diselenide (CIS) cell, and a new world record
    and prestigious R&D 100 Award by Siemens Solar Industries for the
    highest module efficiency (12.1 percent) using CIS technology.
        Research on crystalline silicon/high efficiency devices
    investigates the role of impurities and defects in crystalline silicon
    technologies and seeks to develop new processes and device structures
    to increase performance. Core research on high efficiency III-V gallium
    arsenide (GaAs) materials and devices for concentrator and flat plate
    applications will also be continued in fiscal year 2001.

                Technology development

        The last major category, technology development, contains research
    activities in photovoltaic manufacturing R&D, systems engineering and
    reliability, PV building integrated opportunities, and partnerships for
    technology introduction, to support our request of $34.7 million (up
    $10.0 million from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation).
        Photovoltaic manufacturing R&D improves the manufacturing processes
    for thin film technologies and assists industry in developing advanced
    techniques for manufacturing higher performance and lower cost
    commercial products. Work is conducted through the photovoltaic
    manufacturing technology (PVMaT) project. PVMaT is designed to help the
    U.S. industry improve manufacturing processes, accelerate manufacturing
    cost reductions for PV modules, improve commercial product performance,
    and lay the groundwork for a substantial scale-up of U.S.-based PV
    manufacturing plant capacities. In fiscal year 2001, a new competitive
    solicitation will be issued for new in-line process diagnostics and
    state-of-the-art measurement and characterization equipment needed for
    module scale-up and successful manufacturing. These advanced
    manufacturing and processing techniques are key to achieving further
    cost reductions.
        The systems engineering and reliability research is essential to
    achieving the Photovoltaic Energy Systems goal of developing modules
    and systems that can last 30 years in the field. Cost competitiveness
    for PV generated electricity is directly dependent on payback over the
    life of the system under actual operating conditions. The fiscal year
    2001 program will continue to collaborate with industry to improve
    systems and balance of system reliability to reduce life-cycle cost by
    providing technical assistance, field engineering, accelerated
    durability testing, and system outdoor testing and evaluation. Specific
    to module reliability, this activity works to understand the photo/
    thermal/chemical/environmental factors that influence the stability of
    encapsulated materials and performance of cells in modules. This
    activity also supports development of domestic and international
    standards and codes, and procedures for certifying performance of
    commercial systems.
        The PV building integrated opportunities activity is a highly cost-
    shared R&D effort with industry to develop building integrated PV
    products. The PV industry's market projections show substantial growth
    opportunities in the next five years for building integrated PV
    products and systems, and this R&D responds to their need for continued
    development. The activities planned in fiscal year 2001 are to continue
    conducting R&D on advanced PV building products, concepts, tools, and
    modeling procedures in support of industry's development efforts.
    Technical and institutional barriers that inhibit market growth for PV
    in the buildings sector will also be addressed.
        The partnership for technology introduction is a collaboration
    between the U.S. utility industry and DOE to increase and accelerate
    electric utility use of grid-connected and grid-independent
    photovoltaics for the benefit of the utilities and their customers.
    This will also be continued in fiscal year 2001. Through the utility
    photovoltaic group's (UPVG) TEAM-UP program, a new competitive
    Partnership for Technology Introduction solicitation will be issued for
    highly leveraged projects emphasizing building integrated applications,
    including school buildings.

    Concentrating Solar Power Technologies
        The Concentrating Solar Power Technologies program works in
    collaboration with U.S. industry to develop solar technologies that can
    provide clean power, when it is needed, at prices competitive with
    current sources of peaking energy supply. With a fiscal year 2001
    funding request of $15.0 million, Concentrating Solar Power
    Technologies will focus its efforts on two five-year objectives: (1)
    developing highly reliable, kilowatt-sized power systems for
    distributed and stand-alone applications (including residential use);
    and (2) reducing the cost of fully dispatchable systems (from 10-12
    cents/kWh to 6-8 cents/kWh) capable of producing power on demand.
    Achieving both of these targets will provide both U.S. industry and
    U.S. citizens with green energy options that will create a broad range
    of jobs domestically, while contributing substantially to the world's
    need for cleaner power production alternatives.
        Ranging in size from several kilowatts (dish/engine systems) to
    multi-megawatt installations (parabolic troughs and power towers),
    Concentrating Solar Power Technologies are expected to satisfy
    substantial domestic and international energy needs, contributing over
    5,000 MW of power by 2010, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
    Energy from CSP systems is high-value renewable power because energy
    storage and hybrid designs allow it to be provided on-demand--even when
    the sun is not shining. This dispatchable feature is an added-value for
    CSP technologies that greatly enhances their acceptance by users. CSP
    Program efforts are in three areas: Distributed Power Systems
    Development ($4.3 million); Dispatchable Power System Development ($5.2
    million) and Advanced Components and Systems ($5.5 million).

                Distributed Power System Development

        Distributed Power System Development--$4.3M (down $0.8M from the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation). The CSP Program is currently cost-
    sharing the development and testing of two ``larger-scale'' (25kW)
    dish/engine designs for grid-connected applications. One industry team
    installed their first three units in 1999. These systems are currently
    undergoing reliability testing at utility sites in Arizona. A second
    industry team, with an alternate design, will operate and test several
    first-generation units in California while making component
    modifications and installing an advanced system in early 2001. Having
    two dish/engine technology teams strengthens the position of U.S.
    industry in their efforts to develop commercially viable products.
    Within the next three years, 25kW dish/engine systems will be providing
    power for an increasingly well defined market.
        Dish/engine technology is well suited to serve remote power needs
    where grid-connected power is not available. With initial system
    checkout completed in 1999 and off-grid capability achieved in 2000,
    the Concentrating Solar Power Technologies will complete the field
    installation and initiate testing of two second-generation 10kW dish/
    engine units on Native American lands in Arizona and New Mexico in
    2001. This project will provide Native Americans with access to power
    where there is none, and create job opportunities through system
    manufacture, installation, operation, and maintenance. In addition,
    comprehensive studies have recently shown that residential markets in
    the Sunbelt offer opportunities for ``smaller-scale'' (1-5kW) CSP
    systems. To initiate R&D in this area, competitive solicitations were
    issued in fiscal year 2000 to both universities and private industry to
    explore alternative solar dish-based system concepts. Prototype design
    efforts will begin in fiscal year 2001.

                Dispatchable Power System Development

        Dispatchable Power System Development--$5.2M (down $0.8M from the
    fiscal year 2000 appropriation). Concentrating Solar Power Technologies
    launched the USA Trough Initiative in fiscal year 1999 in order to work
    with a resurgent U.S. industry and achieve the first solar electric
    power for under 10 cents/kWh. Fiscal year 2001 activities include the
    development of innovative trough concepts and R&D on advanced trough
    components. CSPT is also working through U.S. industry with the current
    manufacturers of trough components to improve the reliability of
    receiver tubes and increase the performance of the solar collector.
    State-of-the-art components are being tested at California's working
    trough plants in fiscal year 2000, with new component designs expected
    in fiscal year 2001. Based on their low cost and ease of hybridization
    with fossil fuel, solar troughs are currently the leading candidate for
    MW-scale solar power projects, both domestically and internationally.
    Further, analysis by the World Bank suggests economical storage will
    greatly enhance the value of trough technology, especially in markets
    where solar-only dispatchable power is required. Accordingly,
    Concentrating Solar Power Technologies with U.S. industry to
    investigate both near-term and long-term storage options for trough
    plants.
        Recent events such as the ``royal decree'' in Spain (where the
    government is offering up to a 24 cents/kWh incentive for solar-only,
    dispatchable power), and the World Bank/Global Environment Facility
    approval of $200 million to support the installation of Concentrating
    Solar Power Technologies projects in four countries, have stimulated
    U.S. industry into forming strategic partnerships to capitalize on
    these near-term project opportunities. OPT will provide technical
    assistance to U.S. industry in all three technologies (troughs, towers,
    and dishes) to ensure the U.S. maintains a leadership role, in the form
    of jobs and manufacturing, as trough plants begin to enter world
    markets within the next three years.

                Advanced Components and Systems

        Advanced Components and Systems--$5.5M (up $1.4M from the fiscal
    year 2000 appropriated level). Advanced research on high-efficiency
    system designs and new component materials will produce the long-term
    technical advances required for Concentrating Solar Power Technologies
    to successfully compete in large-scale dispatchable and distributed
    power markets. Several broad-based competitive solicitations were
    issued to both universities and industry in fiscal year 2000 to
    diversify and strengthen the research base for the development of CSP
    technologies. Advances resulting from this work will enhance the
    technical and economic competitiveness of Concentrating Solar Power
    Technologies. This advanced research will provide the breakthroughs
    needed to achieve the long-term program goal of developing CSP
    technology capable of providing electric power in the 4-to-6 cents/kWh
    range. Balanced RD&D with laboratories, universities and industry
    working together will be employed.

    Biopower/Biofuels
        We are requesting $48.0 million for Biopower programs in fiscal
    year 2001, an increase of $16.2 million. The program supports biomass
    energy projects aimed at principal markets of electric power and
    transportation. For biofuels transportation programs we are requesting
    $54.4 million. This RD&D effort will lead to cost competitive
    technologies for the production of renewable transportation fuels, in
    collaboration and partnership with industry, other government
    organizations, and academic institutions. Biopower and Biofuels are two
    of the core programs that participate in the Bioenergy and Biobased
    Products Initiative as previously discussed in my testimony.

    Wind Energy Systems
        The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems
    program is $50.5 million, an increase of $18.0 million over the fiscal
    year 2000 appropriation. This increase reflects our belief that wind
    energy technology offers an important opportunity for America to gain
    important and substantial economic, environmental, and energy security
    benefits. While wind energy growth has been rapid and consistent on a
    worldwide basis during recent years, its growth in the U.S. remains
    highly uncertain as electric power markets deregulate and place
    increased emphasis on low cost of energy production. The key to
    positioning wind as an important clean energy technology for U.S.
    industry and competitive power markets, as well as export markets, is
    the innovative, world-class research being carried out under the Wind
    Energy Systems program. An essential near-term focus of these efforts
    are the program's partnerships with industry to develop wind turbines
    capable of producing energy as low as 2.5 cents per kWh at sites with
    good winds. This will help substantially in leveling the playing field
    in competition for new energy supply in the U.S. For wind to realize
    its full potential for America, Wind Energy Systems is continuing
    emphasis on completing the R&D that will further reduce costs, and
    thereby expand the range of wind resources that can be economically
    harnessed.
        In fiscal year 2001, we will begin implementation of WindPowering
    America, an aggressive activity with the goal of installing power
    generation facilities that will produce 5 percent of America's
    electricity by 2020. Next Generation Turbine research and development
    activities will accelerate to help achieve the market-driven 2002 goal
    of 2.5 cents per kWh on good sites.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Wind Energy Systems program will focus on
    applied research ($15.0 million), turbine research ($14.5 million), and
    cooperative research and testing ($21.0 million).

                Applied Research

        Applied Research (up $1.5 million from the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation) addresses fundamental engineering and technology issues
    with a broad range of applications, and is carried out at the national
    laboratories and numerous universities. Advancements to computer aided
    models for wind turbine design will be completed using key data
    obtained from full-scale turbine wind tunnel testing completed in 2000.
    The requested increase will accelerate the wind partnerships for
    advanced component technologies (WindPACT) project. The WindPACT
    project has identified promising wind turbine component and subsystem
    concepts for further development and testing. In 2001, industry
    partners will be competitively selected to fabricate and test these
    innovative component technologies in close collaboration with
    laboratory researchers. After performance and viability are proven
    through laboratory and field testing, the program will work with
    industry to incorporate WindPACT component technologies into leading-
    edge wind turbines for commercial markets.

                Turbine Research

        Turbine Research (up $2.0 million from the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation) is a cost-shared cooperative program with industry and
    utilities that supports competitively-selected research, testing, and
    field verification needed for advanced technology wind turbines. The
    requested increase for turbine research will support continuing
    partnerships with five U.S. companies located in California, Oklahoma,
    Vermont, and Washington. Two companies are designing turbines under the
    next generation turbine project, which is targeted to lead to wind
    turbines in operation by 2002 that are capable of achieving a cost of
    2\1/2\ cents/kWh at 15 mph wind sites by 2002. In fiscal year 2001,
    these companies will be completing fabrication, installation, and
    beginning field testing of their engineering and manufacturing
    development prototype turbines. Field tests of two prototype turbines
    under the small wind turbine project will be completed, and efforts
    will begin to obtain field verification experience with the
    manufacturers early production units. The program will also carry out
    R&D and field verification on the cold weather wind turbine, with
    prototypes in operation at the National Wind Technology Center and in
    Alaska. The advance turbine concepts project will be launched in fiscal
    year 2001, which will allow U.S. industry to explore the feasibility of
    moving toward larger scale, multi-megawatt or other advanced turbine
    architectures in response to a major trend in the European wind
    industry.

                Cooperative Research and Testing

        Cooperative Research and Testing (up $14.5 million from the fiscal
    year 2000 appropriation) focuses on addressing the near-term R&D
    priorities of the U.S. wind industry. A key focus of this activity for
    2001 will be the Wind Powering America initiative, a commitment
    announced by the Secretary of Energy in June 1999 to dramatically
    accelerate U.S. wind energy use, with a goal of meeting 5 percent of
    the nation's total electricity needs from wind power by 2020. Wind
    power now represents a major economic opportunity for the United
    States. Substantially increasing the amount of wind generation could
    lead to: as much as $60 billion in capital investment in rural America
    over 20 years, generating $1.2 billion in new income for American
    farmers, Native Americans, and rural landowners; displacing 35 million
    tons of atmospheric carbon; and creating 80,000 permanent U.S. jobs in
    the wind industry. The initiative is a broad-based, regionally-tailored
    program involving close coordination with a multitude of stakeholders
    across the country to communicate the opportunity for economic
    development from wind technology, provide technical and market support
    for pilot projects, and facilitate development and purchase of wind
    generated power on federal facilities and Native American lands.
    Funding for the initiative will support both regional program
    development, as well as targeted projects and activities coordinated at
    the national level. EERE's six regional offices will play a key role in
    developing and implementing the regional components of the initiative
    using funding supplied by the Wind Program.
        In fiscal year 2001, support will continue for the world-class
    National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in Colorado, which features a
    user facility that allows U.S. industries to expand testing of new wind
    energy technologies. A new wind performance monitoring network will be
    established to provide verifiable data on long-term performance of
    several large new wind projects. This information is needed for
    developing strategies to accelerate the use of wind energy under the
    new rules of the emerging competitive power markets. NWTC capabilities
    for providing accredited certification testing services will be
    expanded, and efforts will continue to support Underwriter's
    Laboratories (UL) in providing certification services to the wind
    industry. New wind turbine field verification projects will be
    undertaken to address unique siting, regulatory, technical, and market
    issues in key regions for wind power development. Under the
    international clean energy initiative, the Wind Energy program will
    support analytical efforts to maximize the benefits of grid-connected,
    distributed wind power, which is expected to be the prevalent mode for
    wind energy use in developing countries. In addition, performance of
    advanced wind hybrid power systems will be verified in remote off-grid
    and mini-grid applications in developing countries.

    Renewable Energy Production Incentive
        The request for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) is
    $4 million, a $2.5 million increase from fiscal year 2000 funding
    levels. Annual appropriations provide financial production incentives
    to stimulate the construction and operation of new, qualified renewable
    energy facilities owned by state entities, municipal utilities, and
    electric cooperatives that produce and sell electricity. We estimate
    that fiscal year 2001 payments to qualified Tier I facilities--which
    use solar, wind, geothermal or dedicated (closed-loop) biomass
    resources--will require approximately $0.3 million to pay for
    electricity generated and sold. Remaining funds will be applied to
    qualified Tier II facilities, and include non-dedicated (open-loop)
    biomass resources and landfill methane projects.
        REPI motivates the public power and electric cooperative sector of
    the nation's electric industry to make new investments in renewable
    energy. These highly leveraged investments in new renewable energy
    projects give important economic and environmental benefits to the
    local communities served. Moreover, these projects help move near-term
    deployment of renewable energy forward in a time of uncertainty due to
    electric industry restructuring. Continuing REPI payments is essential
    for continued progress in renewable energy deployment.
        However, a legitimate concern exists regarding the need to improve
    the incentive value of the REPI program. Unlike the certainty of a tax
    credit, the uncertainty associated with future REPI payments based on
    potentially variable annual appropriations does make it harder for a
    qualifying utility to convince financiers to provide long-term
    financing. The program will explore whether changes in the authorizing
    law would be needed to create a better incentive value, and, likewise
    will also use administrative rulemaking procedures should this
    mechanism offer effective improvement opportunities.

    Solar Program Support
        The fiscal year 2001 request for Solar Program Support is $6.5
    million (up $1.6 million compared to fiscal year 2000; excludes fiscal
    year 2000 funds for distributed power addressed under transmission
    reliability), $4 million at this level is for a competitive
    solicitation which would encourage innovative applications and field
    validation of renewable electric technologies, and $2.5 million is
    proposed for electricity restructuring.
        The $4 million requested for a competitive solicitation will speed
    early deployment of renewable technologies by seeking technology
    proposals on the best ways to use renewable technologies, either singly
    or in combination with other renewable technologies, or in hybrid
    configurations with fuel cells, natural gas or energy storage systems.
        The primary objectives of the competitive solicitation program are
    to: (1) prove the availability of clean, affordable, and reliable
    electric power supply options for the many remote and/or poor regions
    of the nation; and (2) obtain essential data on operational
    performance, reliability, and benefits of renewable energy and hybrid
    renewable energy systems in various geographic locations and climatic
    conditions.
        The information and experiences gained through this competitive
    solicitation will help overcome specific impediments to more widespread
    use of renewable electricity technologies. Currently, market
    penetration of renewable energy projects are hampered by the
    uncertainties of electric utility restructuring, the current low price
    and availability of natural gas, and improvements in gas turbine
    technology. The increasingly competitive restructured electric
    environment also favors technologies with low capital costs over
    technologies with higher capital costs, but lower life cycle costs.
    Rather than high technical or financial risk, the major hurdle often
    facing renewable energy projects is identification of renewable
    projects in the new marketplace that would allow acquisition of long-
    term power purchase contracts and project financing.
        This highly-leveraged activity would designate two targeted areas
    for competitive awards, systems benefitting Native Americans and
    systems addressing the needs of federal facilities, in addition to
    providing for an open solicitation for other applications of these
    systems. Remote power needs will continue to be addressed in all
    segments of this solicitation. Of the $4.0 million proposed for fiscal
    year 2001, up to $2.0 million of the solicitation will be dedicated to
    projects benefitting Native Americans. Native American projects will
    require a minimum 20 percent cost-sharing, and the open portion of the
    solicitation will require at least 75 percent non-DOE funding. For a
    number of reasons, there are tremendous synergies between renewable
    energy technologies and the energy needs of Native Americans. Renewable
    resources such as solar and wind are often abundant on tribal lands. In
    addition, Native Americans often have substandard or, in some cases, no
    electricity service at all. Renewable energy technologies can often
    provide the most cost-effective option for providing electricity on
    tribal lands and can also be a source of employment for tribes
    installing and operating such systems on-site.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for electricity restructuring
    is $2.5 million, which represents an increase of $1.5 million over
    fiscal year 2000 appropriations. The fiscal year 2001 electricity
    restructuring activity consists of two parts, the Technical Analysis
    and Assistance activity (request of $1 million), and the International
    Clean Energy Initiative (request of $1.5 million).
        The mission of the technical analyses and assistance activity is to
    provide unbiased technical analyses and assistance to Federal, Native
    American, and state officials on electricity restructuring issues with
    a primary focus on public purpose programs, particularly those relating
    to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This work is critical to
    renewable and energy efficiency technologies because the emerging
    restructured electricity markets and changes in the state laws and
    regulatory rules will have a major impact on future technology
    deployment.
        The transition to competition in electricity markets is challenging
    for a number of reasons due to the technical complexity of the
    electricity system, the intricate web of federal, state, and local laws
    and regulations, and regional differences. As a consequence, policy
    makers at all levels of government are requesting analyses and
    technical assistance on a portfolio of market and policy mechanisms to
    achieve their restructuring goals. Although each state and region face
    unique electricity policy challenges, there are many common issues.
    Furthermore, many states lack the resources and expertise needed to
    address the complexities of electricity restructuring and to keep track
    of what other States are doing. Consequently, it is often more cost-
    effective and efficient for certain technical assistance and analysis
    to be provided at the Federal level rather than duplicated on a state-
    by-state basis.
        In fiscal year 2001, the OPT proposes to add a component ($1.5M) of
    the international clean energy initiative to the electricity
    restructuring program. This international clean energy initiative will
    allow credible analysis of key utility restructuring concepts in the
    United States and their successful transfer to evolving electric
    markets in other countries. Technical reports, conferences, training
    workshops, and other communication mechanisms will be used to transmit
    the information from the analyses to as wide an audience as possible.
    Regional networking activities will be developed that include existing
    regulatory authorities as well as newly-established regulatory agencies
    from Central and Eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States.
    Support will be provided for the measurement and analyses of the social
    costs of energy production, transportation, and consumption, and for
    the social costs of rural electrification programs. The successful
    transfer of these key utility restructuring concepts will facilitate
    the increased use of U.S. energy technologies in these markets, thereby
    increasing the benefits of investments in our energy R&D programs.

    International Renewable Energy
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for International Renewable
    Energy is $11.5 million, an increase of $7.7 million from $3.8 million
    in fiscal year 2000. The mission of this activity is to encourage
    acceptance and use of renewable energy technologies by developed and
    developing countries in support of U.S. national interests and
    policies. With World Bank estimates indicating developing countries
    alone will require five million MWs of new electricity capacity over
    the next four decades (the world's total installed capacity today is
    three million MWs), international markets will provide growing
    opportunities for U.S. sales of advanced renewable energy and energy
    efficient technologies and domestic job creation. And these same
    technologies also hold the greatest potential for reducing emissions
    and mitigating global climate change.
        International Renewable Energy will expand U.S. renewable energy
    and energy efficiency technology exports to help meet the energy needs
    of developed and developing countries, reduce the rate of consumption
    of finite global resources, and address local and transnational
    environmental issues. Refocused in response to Congressional direction,
    the International Renewable Energy activity will be restructured into
    three broad program areas: emerging global environmental and energy
    issues; facilitating market and trade development; and advancing U.S.
    energy and environmental security interests.
        The emerging global environmental and energy issues will be
    implemented specifically through and in conjunction with the U.S.
    Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI). USIJI is a DOE-co-led
    interagency activity that supports the development of flexibility
    mechanisms under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
    (UNFCCC) such as Joint Implementation. This element will also focus on
    encouraging meaningful participation by developing countries in the
    effort to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
        The market and trade development element will accelerate reductions
    in U.S. technology production costs and advance clean energy technology
    deployment through overseas market expansion. Activities will focus on
    stimulating global economic development and regional economic
    stability, and accelerating domestic economic growth, market
    competitiveness, and employment. This element will be implemented in
    key regions through bilateral (e.g., Gore-Mbeki in South Africa) and
    multilateral (e.g., Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Hemispheric
    Initiatives and International Energy Agency) technology cooperation
    activities and information exchange and dissemination. Private sector
    technology development will be encouraged while seeking opportunities
    for leveraging U.S. funds and stimulating deployment in strategic and
    emerging markets through project-based activities.
        The energy and environmental security element is designed to
    advance U.S. strategic interests in bilateral and multilateral energy
    and environmental security activities and will provide specialized
    assistance in the utilization of appropriate technologies. This element
    will be implemented in support of existing and emerging bilateral and
    multilateral treaties and agreements. This element will also assist DOE
    in meeting U.S. obligations and commitments to provide disaster relief
    and assistance by facilitating private sector technology development
    and deployment in strategic and emerging markets.
        International Renewable Energy also includes the International
    Clean Energy Initiative (ICEI). This Initiative was discussed
    previously in my statement.

    National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
        The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is a world class facility,
    but is losing stature because of a slowly degrading physical plant. The
    fiscal year 2001 request of $1.9 million for the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory (NREL), (a 72.7 percent increase from the fiscal year
    2000 appropriation), includes the necessary repairs, maintenance,
    upgrades, new construction and facility modifications to protect the
    federal government's investment and ensure that NREL remains the
    nation's exemplary center for R&D of energy efficiency and renewable
    energy technologies. The request will fund: replacement of a Nuclear
    Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer which is essential scientific
    equipment; information technology equipment upgrades and replacements;
    a substantial upgrade of the fire detection and response capabilities
    in the Field Test Laboratory Building, NREL's oldest building; and a
    substantial addition to the Site Entrance building to house additional
    security personnel and equipment.

    Geothermal Energy Technologies
        The Geothermal Energy technologies request for fiscal year 2001 is
    $27 million, an increase of $3.4 million over fiscal year 2000
    appropriation levels. Geothermal Energy technologies works in
    partnership with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as a
    sustainable, environmentally sound, and economically competitive
    contributor to the U.S. and world energy supply. These joint efforts
    sponsor R&D that leads to advanced technologies to improve reliability,
    reduce environmental impacts, and lower costs of geothermal energy
    systems. Competition is key to the cost-effective management of
    geothermal R&D activities. Virtually all participants sponsored or
    funded by Geothermal Energy technologies outside the national
    laboratories will be chosen through competitive solicitations. The
    budget request supports three key goals: (1) reduce the levelized cost
    of generating geothermal power to 3-5 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2007;
    (2) double the number of states with geothermal power facilities to
    eight by 2006; and (3) supply the electrical power or heat energy needs
    of 7 million homes and businesses in the United States by 2010. The $27
    million request is allocated among: geoscience and supporting
    technologies ($11 million); drilling research ($5.5 million); and
    energy systems research and testing ($10.5 million).
        Based on the excellent potential of geothermal resources in 19
    western states, GeoPowering the West will be launched in fiscal year
    2001. The goal of this Initiative, providing 10 percent of the
    electricity consumed in western states by 2020, could be realized
    because it is estimated that about 300 cities and towns in the western
    U.S. are adjacent to geothermal deposits. Research and development
    activities to improve drilling efficiencies and recycling of waste-
    water will be accelerated.

                GEOSCIENCE AND SUPPORTING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH

        Geoscience and supporting technologies research ($11 million) will
    continue to improve and expand our knowledge base of how geothermal
    systems form and evolve. This knowledge is essential to finding and
    using geothermal resources in the most efficient and economic manner.
    The enhanced geothermal systems project will verify industry's most
    promising conceptual designs in cost-shared field experiments. These
    experiments will focus on extending the productivity and lifetime of
    geothermal reservoirs through rock fracturing and fluid injection.
    Exploration technology will remain a strong focus of the program with
    continued collaboration with industry on 3D-seismic techniques to
    locate and characterize new geothermal fields. Various geophysical
    exploration methods will be integrated to develop smart systems which
    will select more reliable targets. Greater effectiveness in locating
    geothermal resources will reduce the number of costly, non-productive
    wells.

                DRILLING RESEARCH

        Under drilling research ($5.5 million), Geothermal Energy
    technologies will give highest priority to development of the
    geothermal advanced drilling system which will give economic access to
    the extremely large geothermal resources contained in rocks at great
    depth. One element of the Geothermal Advanced Drilling System is a high
    speed data link that will transmit a variety of real-time drilling data
    to the surface for decision making while drilling. About 50 percent of
    the cost of developing the high speed data link will be provided by
    major private sector partners.

                ENERGY SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND TESTING

        Energy systems research and testing ($10.5 M) will see a major
    expansion in fiscal year 2001 as Geothermal Energy technologies seeks a
    broader, more substantial role for geothermal energy in the nation's
    economy. Field verification of small-scale geothermal power plants (<1
    MW) will bring about the use of geothermal energy in new locations.
    This effort is key to achieving the goal of doubling the number of
    states with geothermal power facilities by 2006. Geothermal Energy
    technologies will help U.S. industry to bring the benefits of
    geothermal energy to developing countries through the international
    clean energy initiative. Prefeasibility studies, resource assessments,
    technical assistance and outreach to enable countries to make informed
    decisions about the use of their resources will be used.

    Hydrogen Technologies
        The request for Hydrogen Technologies is $23 million, a decrease of
    $2.0 million from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Industry is
    investing substantially in both hydrogen production systems and the
    development of the Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells that
    require a hydrogen stream to operate. In a recent announcement, DOE
    joined the California Fuel Cell Partnership. This Partnership is
    comprised of the State of California (Air Resources Board and Energy
    Commission), auto manufacturers (Daimler Chrysler, Ford, Volkswagen,
    and Honda), energy providers (ARCO, Texaco, Shell), and a fuel cell
    company (Ballard Power Systems). By 2003 the Partnership will test 20
    fuel cell-powered buses and 50 fuel cell-powered light duty vehicles in
    regular service. These ventures will lead to early commercial
    activities for the distributed production, storage and utilization of
    hydrogen by 2003.
        Hydrogen technologies is authorized by the Hydrogen Future Act of
    1996 to fund those projects which are evaluated on a competitive basis.
    In fiscal year 2000, the Department funded 94 percent of the projects
    in Hydrogen technologies competitively. The fiscal year 2001 request
    will support a balanced portfolio to increase market penetration of
    renewable/hydrogen energy systems and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and
    long-term research and development in the production of hydrogen from
    renewable resources through a similar competitive process. The program
    focuses on three key activities: core research and development ($13
    million), technology validation ($7.5 million), and analysis and
    outreach ($2.5 million).

                CORE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        Core research and development (down $0.4 million from the fiscal
    year 2000 appropriation) supports R&D on hydrogen production, storage
    and utilization. The funding will support thermal conversion processes
    that produce hydrogen from natural gas with a 25 to 35 percent decrease
    in the cost of producing hydrogen over conventional processes and long-
    term research programs for photobiological and scaled-up
    photoelectrochemical processes. These key activities, in conjunction
    with the industrial development of the PEM fuel cell, will enhance the
    ability of the industry to consider low-cost hydrogen options for the
    power, industry and transportation market sectors by 2004.
        Hydrogen storage R&D is focused on developing and field validating
    hydride and carbonaceous materials for the high density storage of
    hydrogen at low temperatures for power and transportation applications.
    The funding will support one project to characterize the properties of
    compressed hydrogen in a series of environmental tests and compare the
    results to other gaseous fuels.
        Utilization technology research is focused on developing and
    demonstrating end-use power systems that are safe, and have near-zero
    or zero emissions with an overall generation efficiency greater than 45
    percent. A newly developed solid state hydrogen detector will be
    fabricated and integrated with a new, low-cost PEM fuel cell for a
    field test.

                TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION

        Technology validation (down $1.3 million from the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation) supports 50/50 cost-shared ventures with industry on
    hydrogen vehicle fueling stations, vehicle-mounted hydrogen storage
    systems, reversible fuel cells to operate with renewable systems, and
    small hydrogen fuel cell systems for remote power applications. The
    fiscal year 2001 request supports the operation of a reversible fuel
    cell with 60 percent round-trip efficiency; the incorporation of high-
    pressure hydrogen storage on vehicles; the completion of a quick-fill
    refueling station to service shuttle buses as well as the installation
    and testing of a PEM fuel cell system to provide on-site power in Las
    Vegas, Nevada; and the design and construction of small-scale fuel
    cells for remote applications.

                ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH

        Analysis and outreach conducts scenario planning, portfolio and
    technology analyses to determine what steps are required to transition
    to a hydrogen energy economy. Technology analyses will periodically
    review specific areas (i.e., photoelectrochemistry, storage, etc.) to
    ensure that research is of high quality and of significance to the
    overall objectives of the program.

    Hydropower Technologies
        For fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting $5.0 million for
    Hydropower Technologies, an increase of $0.79 million over fiscal year
    2000 funding. With this funding, Hydrogen Technologies will continue
    proof-of-concept testing of an innovative, ``fish-friendly'' turbine
    design (competitively selected in earlier activities) and continue
    experiments to develop biological performance criteria for advanced
    turbine design, as well as testing small environmentally-friendly
    turbines. OPT will also initiate the competitively selected testing of
    large ``fish-friendly'' turbines to determine operational environmental
    performance.
        Once complete, these new turbines can replace equipment at existing
    facilities where fish mortality concerns may cause a reduction in
    generation. Hydropower provides approximately 10 percent of the total
    U.S. electricity generation today. Diminished power production from
    this clean baseload power resource would have serious environmental and
    economic impacts on America. This cost-shared program with industry
    would maximize power generation from our existing hydropower facilities
    and help develop an important export market for U.S. companies.

    Renewable Indian Energy Resources
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Renewable Indian Energy
    Resources program is $5 million, an increase of $1.1 million from
    fiscal year 2000. Funding in fiscal year 2000 was earmarked for four
    projects in Alaska. America has over 550 tribes and many do not have
    access to clean, reliable, efficient sources of electricity. In fiscal
    year 2001, funds will be used to initiate the tribal energy program
    which will enable Native American Tribal governments, and organizations
    to gain expertise in energy planning capabilities, particularly for
    remote settings, and in developing both conventional and renewable
    energy resources.
        This effort reflects DOE's commitment to a government-to-government
    relationship as expressed in its American Indian Policy. Inadequate
    recognition and insufficient energy services on Native American lands
    are well documented even though many reservations have an abundance of
    fossil and renewable energy resources. Historically, Tribes have not
    had ready access to energy development, energy efficiency, and
    renewable energy assistance.
        The primary goal of the Tribal energy program will be to provide
    tribal governments the same supportive framework that is now in place
    for the states as in DOE's state energy program which funds projects
    through state energy offices across the country. It will serve as a
    focal point for a wide range of activities that promote a cleaner
    environment, provide economic development enhancement opportunities,
    and efficient use of Tribal energy resources consistent with cultural,
    Tribal, and environmental concerns.

    Electric Energy Systems and Storage
        For Electric Energy Systems and Storage, $48.0 million is requested
    in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $10.2 million from fiscal year
    2000. This activity is working with partners to develop advanced power
    delivery systems that will enable the efficient and reliable delivery
    of electric services for consumer use. The effort includes transmission
    reliability research ($11.0 million), high temperature
    superconductivity ($32.0 million), energy storage systems ($5.0
    million), and climate challenge (no funds requested).
        Within DOE, the Secretary has established an Energy Grid
    Reliability Initiative to address the growing number of electric power
    blackouts and brownouts, as well as the quality of electricity that is
    delivered. This initiative addresses the critical R&D needs for energy
    delivery systems. The electricity component of this initiative consists
    of transmission reliability (power system reliability and distributed
    power) and energy storage systems. The transition to restructured,
    competitive electric markets coupled with growing consumer demand for
    electricity and constraints in the nation's transmission and
    distribution systems, requires the development of an integrated set of
    advanced power delivery system technologies to enable the reliable
    delivery of electric services for consumers.
        Overcoming regulatory, technical, and institutional barriers to
    distributed power will provide more efficient use of the power delivery
    system by producing electricity close to its point of use. The
    development of lower cost, high performance power electronic
    controllers coupled with advanced energy storage systems will provide
    improved power quality; provide an ability to fully integrate and
    reliably operate the power delivery system with the full spectrum of
    central and distributed generation technologies; and enable real-time
    systems control of the existing transmission and distribution systems
    to result in additional operational capacity, security, and
    reliability.
        The development of high temperature superconducting equipment will
    significantly reduce losses in the generation, delivery, and end-use of
    electricity and will relieve power delivery system constraints,
    particularly in urban areas, through the deployment and use of very
    high capacity transmission and distribution cables in key locations.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for transmission reliability
    research is $11.0 million, an increase of $8.0 million from the fiscal
    year 2000 appropriated level. Transmission reliability has two key
    activities: power system reliability ($8.0 million), and distributed
    power ($3.0 million).

                POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY

        Power system reliability (up $5.5 million from the fiscal year 2000
    appropriated level) will develop advanced measurement/information
    systems and advanced power electronic controls to monitor and control
    the power delivery system in real-time, and facilitate the operation of
    efficient electric markets. In addition to the program carrying out
    activities to determine how new market structures are affecting grid
    reliability, it will develop reliability technologies and policy
    options to provide incentives for market participants to invest in
    adequate power system upgrades and R&D to assure reliable electric
    power delivery in the future. Real time control of the power delivery
    system will also facilitate the integration of distributed resources
    into the system, providing individual customers the opportunity to
    supply their own energy, enhance system reliability, and sell energy in
    a competitive market.

                DISTRIBUTED POWER

        Distributed power (down $0.5 million from the total fiscal year
    2000 funding when $3.0 million Solar Program Support fiscal year 2000
    appropriations for distributed power are included in the calculations)
    continues multi-year cooperative efforts with industry initiated under
    a competitive solicitation to address barriers to the use of
    distributed generation. These efforts focus on the development of
    advanced technologies for the interconnection of distributed power
    generation systems; modeling; and conducting engineering analyses, case
    studies, testing and evaluation to accelerate the development and
    validation of a national interconnection standard.
        It is anticipated that transmission reliability activities will
    last five to ten years in order to ensure that R&D for reliable systems
    and competitive markets is maintained until new market and/or
    regulatory structures are established and provide the incentives for
    the private sector to assume this work. The program will be reassessed
    each year to determine the need for federal involvement depending on
    the nature and implementation needs of new regulations, and the impact
    of market forces

                HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for high temperature
    superconductivity is $32 million, an increase of $0.6 million. Funding
    for this program is divided between the superconductivity partnership
    initiative ($14.0 million), second generation wire initiative ($8.0
    million), and strategic research ($10.0 million). The program is on
    track for accomplishing two major technological goals: solving the
    difficult problem of manufacturing electrical wires from high-
    temperature superconducting materials while, in parallel creating
    designs of super-efficient electrical systems. The outcome will be
    resistance-free electrical wires able to carry 100 times the current of
    conventional alternatives and advanced systems that have only half the
    energy losses, are half the size of conventional alternatives of the
    same power rating, and cut energy losses in half.
        The Superconductivity Partnership Initiative will support seven
    major projects to develop first-of-a-kind electrical systems that can
    provide quantum improvements to the efficiency and capacity of the
    national electrical grid. These include transmission cables,
    transformers, large motors, flywheel energy systems, and magnetic
    separation systems. The revolutionary equipment emerging from the
    program in the 2005--2010 timeframe will play a major role in meeting
    the new demands of a competitive electricity industry for increased
    capacity and reliability. Superconducting cables will relieve
    congestion at critical parts of the grid as well as improve delivery
    efficiency. They will also accommodate load growth in urban areas by
    repowering existing infrastructure ducts without the need for acquiring
    new property. Superconducting transformers will accommodate increased
    demand for electricity without the need for construction of new
    substations and will protect against accidental fault currents that now
    cause serious damage and power outages.
        The Second Generation Wire Initiative is crucial to producing
    superconducting wire that meets the program's performance goals. Four
    industrial consortia will be working with the national laboratories to
    scale up recent discoveries that are the basis for this initiative.
    Private sector participants leverage program funds with 50 percent
    cost-sharing.

                STRATEGIC RESEARCH

        The strategic research element (up $0.6 million from fiscal year
    2000 appropriations) is the incubator for discoveries and innovations
    that have characterized this successful program. The activities
    supported include in-house national laboratory research and research
    carried out collaboratively with private companies under 50 percent
    cost-shared agreements. The requested level of funding will adequately
    support multi-disciplinary research teams that have made major
    breakthroughs in the past, and will also support a number of
    cooperative research projects with industry. Important leveraging is
    obtained through integrating research funded by the DOE Office of
    Science and leveraged research at two NIST (National Institute of
    Science and Technology) laboratories where each program dollar is
    matched by two NIST dollars. The funding increase will be used to
    initiate high priority tasks identified in the cryogenic roadmap.
    Efficient and reliable cryogenic systems that also meet performance
    needs are needed for all superconducting power applications.

                ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS

        The $5.0 million request for the energy storage systems program (up
    $1.6 million from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation) will fund focused
    research on energy storage technologies which will be integrated with
    the power electronic control development under power system reliability
    to improve power delivery system reliability and operation, improve
    power quality, and enhance technology choices in a competitive utility
    environment. Program emphasis will be placed on battery systems
    integration and on the development and evaluation of advanced storage
    technologies. All projects will be carried out in close cooperation
    with industry.
        No funding is requested for the Climate Challenge program in fiscal
    year 2001.

                     DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        In today's environment where the electricity industry is being
    restructured, the reliability of the nation's energy supply is
    variable, and energy prices are fluctuating, DOE must have new
    strategies for improving energy efficiency and managing utility costs.
    The Federal Energy Management Program is requesting $5 million in
    funding to support a new initiative to manage both the utility demand
    and supply functions at DOE sites.
        This fiscal year 2001 budget request for a Departmental Energy
    Management Program (DEMP) will allow DOE to fund energy and efficiency
    projects at 71 DOE sites across the nation, develop model programs for
    energy efficiency and utilities management, and expand the use of
    energy savings performance contracts. We will evaluate renewable,
    natural gas and on-site use of combined heat and power to increase the
    reliability of our supply. We will evaluate and retrofit DOE office
    buildings to acquire Energy Star labels, actively participate in the
    procurement of energy efficient products, demonstrate the use of energy
    efficient technologies at DOE sites, and request cost-effective green
    power in our competitive electricity procurements.
        Our experience to date informs us that smart energy management--
    managing both the demand and supply aspects of utilities--is good
    business. Our total utility bill in 1985 was $330.7M. In 1998 our total
    bill was $257.0M--almost $74 million less. If we had done nothing to
    conserve energy and our energy consumption today were the same as 1985,
    our utility bill today would be $225M higher. This equates to a 47
    percent reduction in utility costs in 1998 dollars.
        We have already reduced our federal energy consumption by 36
    percent compared to 1985. This budget request will continue our
    movement toward reducing our energy use by 40 percent in 2005, while
    providing energy and water cost savings for the government and the
    taxpayer. Funding for this program will allow DOE to demonstrate strong
    leadership in energy management.

                               PROGRAM DIRECTION

        Program Direction provides the federal staffing resources and
    associated funding to support the management and oversight of the Solar
    and Renewable Energy Programs. This activity includes all funding for
    support service contractors, equipment, travel, crosscutting
    activities, and Assistant Secretary initiatives. This permits the
    continuation of a diverse array of Solar and Renewable projects to be
    integrated into a national portfolio of world renowned research.
    Program Direction encompasses two principal activities: (1)
    headquarters executive and program management; and (2) program
    operations at the Golden Field Office and the Idaho Operations Office.
    We have requested $18.159 million for this activity.
        The fiscal year 2001 request provides for continued implementation
    of Workforce 21 increases to off-set the adverse impacts of prior
    downsizing. In addition, EERE has adopted smarter, more effective
    business and management practices and, as revealed in a workforce
    analysis, these efforts have greatly reduced the need for most--but not
    all--of the staff lost due to downsizing. EERE's Workforce 21 strategy
    is to concentrate the majority of the critical hires to the technical
    and professional category, leaving the clerical/administrative, and
    manager/supervisor staffing levels virtually the same.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee
    for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2001 budget request. I
    hope you agree that the management improvements we have instituted--and
    continue to refine--are enhancing the value received by American
    citizens for their investment. We can now build on past success while
    planning for the future. The promise of clean energy technologies is
    clear and an increased commitment by the public and private sectors is
    needed to realize the full benefits of our investment. We will redouble
    our efforts to move our nation closer toward our goal of Clean Energy
    for the 21st Century.

                        STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD

        Senator Domenici. Mr. Magwood.
        Mr. Magwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee.
        Senator Domenici. I want to compliment you on your office,
    also. Obviously, we do not spend a lot of money there yet, but
    I really think your leadership is making a dent of a positive
    nature. And I appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Magwood. I appreciate those comments, Mr. Chairman. I
    am pleased to be here today to talk about our 2001 budget
    request. Our written statement has a great deal more
    information for the record.
        First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
    subcommittee for the vision that you have shown over the last
    couple of years in helping us revitalize the nuclear energy
    program. As you know, the nuclear energy program has gone from
    being one of the biggest programs in DOE at over half a billion
    dollars a year funding in about the early 1980s down to a low
    point in 1998 at almost zero. We have recovered significantly
    since then and I think we are moving in the right direction.
        With your support, the Department has led a resurgence
    internationally in the investigation of a wide range of nuclear
    technologies, and it has reenergized the research community in
    this country. We have seen hundreds of researchers with new,
    creative ideas compete for our NERI awards.
        We have seen the downward slide in the numbers of nuclear
    engineering students halted and a new option for nuclear
    education brought to students who never had that opportunity
    before. We have seen the international research community race
    to collaborate with us to develop Accelerator Transportation of
    Waste, and to provide additional funds to companies,
    universities and labs, and universities and companies in the
    United States who are working on DOE-funded research.
        DOE research has been very successful over the decades, Mr.
    Chairman. We have invested about $7 billion in the commercial
    light water reactor technology over the decades. And as a
    result, nuclear energy now provides about 22.8 percent--which
    is a high point for nuclear energy--of all the electricity
    generated in this country. Most nuclear power plants now
    generate electricity at around 1 cent per kilowatt hour, which
    is quite an accomplishment.
        The private sector has made great strides in reducing their
    costs. And a big success was achieved last month with the
    renewal of the license for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
    Plant. So we are very optimistic about the future. However, I
    think that we still have a lot of issues to deal with.
        For nuclear energy to expand in the future, we must deal
    with many important issues, such as the cost of constructing
    new plants, concerns about proliferation, and the issue of
    nuclear waste. All these must be addressed in order for nuclear
    energy to expand.
        But as you know, the inherent environmental benefits of
    nuclear are prompting new discussions across the world about
    the future of nuclear energy, as the world focuses on issues
    such as clean air, reducing CO2 emissions, reducing
    ground-level ozone, and preventing acid rain. Nuclear power
    provides a real option to deal with these issues.

                       NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

        At the core of our activities, we successfully launched the
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI, program. NERI is
    an investigator-initiated peer reviewed research program to
    advance revolutionary nuclear power technologies. There are
    currently approximately 46 research projects under way at 20
    universities, 8 research labs and 14 private sector companies
    working individually and collaboratively.
        This year we received proposals for another 120 projects.
    From these we will select the best and most creative 7 or 8
    proposed projects. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request would
    enable us to increase the number of research activities by more
    than 70 by the end of the next fiscal year.

                      GENERATION IV NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS

        A major area of focus for the NERI program this year and a
    growing area of interest internationally are the Generation IV
    nuclear power systems. Generation IV, which has become the
    worldwide lexicon to describe nuclear power systems that will
    be competitive with natural gas and other energy options for
    the future, use safe proliferation resistant technologies to
    provide a greater range of options for nuclear power across the
    world.
        In January, senior policy representatives from eight
    governments came to the United States to discuss the prospects
    for Generation IV and consider how we might work together to
    achieve its goals. We provided you in the package a joint
    statement issued by the representatives of the governments of
    Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, South Korea and the
    United Kingdom, as well as the United States, that initiates a
    multilateral consideration of this important subject.
        Last week international experts from these countries met
    again in Washington to discuss the research under way in our
    respective countries and how multilateral research on
    Generation IV technologies could be conducted. Next month about
    100 experts from the United States and these countries will
    meet to discuss the criterion attributes of Generation IV
    technologies. These activities will result in the preparation
    of a Generation IV roadmap which we plan to begin developing
    this fall. A proposed international NERI program could be the
    center point of this international effort.

                               MEDICAL IOSOTOPES

        Shifting now to another major focus of my office--medical
    isotopes. Many people do not know the enduring role the
    Department has served in developing, producing and delivering
    isotopes for research, medical diagnosis and treatment. Using
    our facilities at Los Alamos, Sandia and other sites, we are
    the provider of virtually all the important emerging medical
    isotopes available to American researchers.
        And this chart, which I think you will find particularly
    interesting, demonstrates that we have a wide range of emerging
    isotopes that are now under examination by researchers across
    the country. And it could some day lead to cures of everything
    ranging from breast cancer to prostate cancer to colonrectal
    cancer and many other maladies.
        Medical isotopes are a staple in today's advanced American
    medical infrastructure. Use of isotopes will expand
    dramatically in the future. A report issued by our advisory
    committee, NERAC, projects the demand for medical isotopes will
    dramatically increase in this century, growing 8 to 17 percent
    each year over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, despite the
    fact that the cure for many terminal illnesses, including brain
    and prostate cancers, may be laying in wait in our isotope
    program, funding for this program has been dropping
    dangerously.
        In the past, we were able to rely on revenues from the sale
    of commercial isotopes. But we are privatizing the commercial
    part of our program aggressively, and far less revenue comes in
    from researchers we are committed to support.

                  ADVANCED RADIOISOTOPES POWER SYSTEMS PROGRAM

        Even more disturbing trends have been experienced by our
    advanced radioisotope power systems program. For almost 40
    years the department has provided the power systems needed for
    space exploration and important ongoing national security
    applications.
        The unique characteristics of these systems make them
    especially well suited for application where large arrays of
    solar cells or batteries are not practical. For example, at
    large distances from the sun, where there is little sunlight,
    or in harsh environments.
        You may have heard of NASA's decision to once again extend
    the mission of the Galileo spacecraft. And there are plans to
    pair it with the Cassini probe for observations of the planet
    Jupiter later this year. You may not have heard that because of
    the truly remarkable performance of our power systems, the
    Pioneer spacecraft launched in 1972 and now 7 billion miles
    away is still sending signals to earth and will soon pass
    through the heliosphere, the very outer edge of the solar
    system.
        Senator Reid. How many miles away?
        Mr. Magwood. Seven billion. It is the farthest manmade
    object to exist. And we are still in communication with it,
    since 1972.
        But if we are to continue and expand our success, we must
    maintain an adequate infrastructure. While NASA and other users
    pay all the costs associated with actually providing these
    systems, DOE owns and must maintain the infrastructure to
    develop, build and test them.
        In recent years, the program has seen its budget drop
    dangerously. I would hope that we here today would not want it
    said that for the lack of a relatively small annual investment,
    we close the doors to space exploration for succeeding
    generations.
        While our budgets are shrinking, the future is calling for
    action. Most of the key missions for U.S. space exploration
    over the next 20 years, sustained exploration of Mars, human
    missions to the planets, nearly all the activities that capture
    the imagination of the American people, will require the use of
    space fission power systems. As illustrated by this chart,
    which we developed with NASA experts, the long lead time
    required for development of these power systems means we must
    begin our efforts very soon.
        We have proposed beginning with a very small, very modest
    interagency assessment of special purpose fission technology to
    determine the needs and requirements of these systems. With DOE
    leadership, other agencies are expected to participate,
    providing funds and personnel to support the effort. User
    agencies, such as NASA and DOD, will ultimately pay all the
    development costs. But because of the generic nature of these
    technologies and the expertise that exists at our laboratories,
    the responsibility falls to DOE to take the first critical
    step.
        In closing, over the last couple of years, we have made
    great strides in the nuclear energy program. We are very proud
    of how much we have accomplished with limited resources. Our
    program is firmly focused on the future, and we look forward to
    continuing to work with this subcommittee to bring that future
    closer. I look forward to answering your questions.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD

        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee: It's my pleasure to
    present the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2001 budget request for
    the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. We are proposing
    a $306 million investment in fiscal year 2001 to conduct vital research
    and development; to enhance the Nation's science, technology and
    education infrastructure; and to manage NE's Federal nuclear facilities
    and materials.
        The investments we propose to make in nuclear energy, science and
    technology are driven by the recognition that nuclear technology serves
    the national interest for reliable, affordable and environmentally
    sustainable electricity; for space exploration and expanding our
    understanding of the universe; and for advancing isotopes for medical
    diagnosis and treatment of devastating illnesses.
        These investments are also based on the understanding that in order
    to meet the challenges and accelerate innovation in the 21st Century,
    we must begin today training and preparing tomorrow's scientists and
    engineers and providing focused investments in the science and
    technology infrastructure. Finally, these investments are based on the
    1997 and June 1999 recommendations of the President's Committee of
    Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and DOE's Nuclear Energy
    Research Advisory Committee (NERAC).
        Mr. Chairman, this budget request builds on the Administration's
    and Subcommittee's investments of the last couple of years, with modest
    growth in our research initiatives to prepare for scientific innovation
    in this century and to continue rebuilding U.S. technology leadership,
    which had waned over the last decade. Principally, in fiscal year 2001
    we are requesting additional funding for Nuclear Energy Research
    Initiative (NERI), to enable support of more of the best ideas coming
    out of our universities, laboratories, and industry; and to launch an
    International-NERI program to leverage U.S. research activities on
    advanced nuclear technologies with new investments made by the research
    organizations of other countries. In total, we are proposing $56
    million for nuclear energy research activities in fiscal year 2001.
        This budget request also provides funding necessary to: begin
    design of depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion facilities; to
    maintain the Fast Flux Test Facility in a safe standby condition and
    begin implementing the Secretary's final decision on its future;
    continue implementing the decision made this year on whether to
    initiate full-scale treatment of DOE's remaining sodium bonded fuel;
    continue the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative by providing critical
    isotopes and financial support for medical research; and maintain the
    support, research, and utility infrastructure at the Test Reactor Area
    and Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership on this
    Subcommittee and for the commitment and support of the Subcommittee in
    advancing nuclear energy technologies. The last year of the last
    century was indeed a banner year for nuclear power. The Nation's
    existing nuclear power plants surpassed peak operating performance
    records set over the last few years, increasing plant capacity to 85.5
    percent. Nuclear plants generation increased to 728 billion kilowatt-
    hours, setting an all-time record for their share of electricity
    generation--almost 23 percent of total generation. Additionally, the
    industry is aggressively and successfully moving forward with plant
    relicensing--extending operation of the fleet of existing plants
    another twenty years. Last month, with the unanimous vote of the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the two Calvert Cliffs reactors in
    Maryland became the first in the Nation to have their operating
    licenses renewed. All of these significant changes and accomplishments
    bode well for continued use of nuclear power in the U.S. Also on the
    Federal front, with the Committee's support, we are engaged in many
    exciting, promising research projects and strategic planning activities
    that will help shape the future of nuclear energy in the United States
    and globally.
        We are in a time of tremendous opportunity, where the research and
    policies we engage in today will define the technologies that are
    deployed over the next 20 or more years when demand for energy is
    expected to increase substantially. The rate of turnover in energy
    supply systems is typically slow--energy technology life-spans are
    typically four or more decades; transmission system lifetimes even
    longer. For these reasons, we need to focus today on tomorrow's energy
    needs.
        I'd now like to discuss in more detail, drivers for nuclear energy
    research, how we have structured and improved our processes for
    conducting research, our major accomplishments, and provide more detail
    on the fiscal year 2001 budget request and how this request helps
    position the Nation for the next 50 years of innovation.

    Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Authority

                            [In thousands of dollars]

            Program Element                                          Request

    Nuclear Energy R&D:
        Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.......................   31,200
        Test Reactor Area.........................................    9,000
        University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support............   12,000
        Nuclear Energy Research Initiative........................   35,000
        Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization.........................    5,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................   92,200
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Isotope Support...............................................   17,215
    Termination Costs.............................................   74,000
    Fast Flux Test Facility.......................................   44,010
    Uranium Programs..............................................   53,400
    Program Direction.............................................   27,620
    Offset from revenue...........................................   (2,352)
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total nuclear energy, science and technology request....  306,093

                 TRENDS AND CHALLENGES IN NUCLEAR ENERGY SUPPLY

        The International Energy Agency projects that world energy
    consumption will increase substantially over the next twenty years,
    requiring over 3,500 gigawatts of new generating capacity by 2020.
    Clearly, the largest growth will take place in the developing
    countries--China and India alone will add over 20 gigawatts of
    generating capacity by 2020. Today, 434 nuclear plants provide
    electricity worldwide--16 percent of electricity supply worldwide.
        Although some countries may reduce their market share of nuclear
    energy for electricity generation, many countries, especially the
    developing countries or those with limited natural resources, are
    likely to increase their dependence on nuclear energy. In particular,
    the recognized benefits of nuclear energy are prompting new discussions
    on the future of nuclear energy as world attention focuses on clean
    air, preserving the earth's climate, avoiding ground-level ozone
    formation and preventing acid rain.
        Nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. today account for over
    20 percent of electricity generation and operate on average at less
    than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Over the last decade the nation's
    existing nuclear plants have steadily improved their operating
    performance, reaching record operating capacities in 1998 and again in
    1999 (79.5 percent in 1998 and 85.5 percent in 1999), thus increasing
    their share of electricity generation. Additionally, between 1973 and
    1997, nuclear generation avoided the emission of about 82 million tons
    of sulfur dioxide and more than 37 million tons of nitrogen oxides.
    This is a carbon avoidance of about 1.5 million tons per year per
    operating nuclear power plant. Continued operation of these plants is
    therefore, very important for meeting not just demand for electricity
    but today and tomorrow's environmental needs.
        In the decades ahead, the existing U.S. nuclear plants will remain
    an essential part of our nation's diverse energy resource portfolio,
    fueling our economy with a secure, domestic source of electricity. The
    safe, long term operation of the existing nuclear power plants serves
    our national interest by providing for energy security and diversity,
    and providing for reliable and affordable energy--a fundamental
    underpinning of economic prosperity.
        In the longer term future, for commercial nuclear power to expand,
    obstacles to its continued use must be satisfactorily resolved--issues
    such as unattractive economics caused by historically high construction
    costs, concerns about the links between nuclear fission systems and
    nuclear weapons development, and concerns about generation and disposal
    of nuclear waste.
        In 1997 and again in June 1999, the President's Committee of
    Advisors on Science and Technology affirmed both the important role
    that nuclear energy can play in the short and long-term future and
    articulated the challenges to nuclear energy, recommending that the
    Department initiate specific, focused research to address these
    challenges. The nature of our R&D initiatives has been shaped by these
    recommendations and by the guidance we have received from the NERAC.
          a strategic shift in nuclear energy research and development
        Over the past several years, we have reinvented the Federal role in
    nuclear energy research and development. Recognizing the realities of
    today's fiscally constrained environment, we have reorganized how we
    conduct research, how best to accelerate innovation and how to assure
    the best return on the investment for the Nation. We have returned to a
    more focused Federal role in conducting R&D--that is, investing most of
    our research portfolio on long term, higher risk basic research aimed
    at reducing or eliminating significant barriers to future use of
    nuclear energy. This is research that typically is not within the
    shorter-term planning horizon of industry. Our R&D programs are
    designed to promote innovation and breakthrough technologies while
    limiting both the rate and duration of federal investment--making good
    decisions on when to expand research that is promising, when to hand-
    off successful projects to the private sector and when to terminate
    projects that fall short. As mentioned above, we have also established
    an independent advisory board, the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
    Committee (NERAC) to help guide the future direction of our R&D
    initiatives, including identifying promising research that warrants
    additional investment.
        NE's largest research activity, the Nuclear Energy Research
    Initiative (NERI), reflects this fundamental shift in the way in which
    research is scoped, funded, conducted, and evaluated. Focused on
    obstacles to long-term use of nuclear energy, NERI promotes
    investigator-initiated, peer reviewed research, enabling us to consider
    a broad range of innovative ideas brought forth from industry,
    laboratory research organizations and the private sector, that in the
    future could lead to more significant stand-alone research initiatives.
        As I think most of us would agree, in order for nuclear energy to
    expand in the long-term, we must successfully deal with issues such as
    plant economics, waste, and proliferation. For example, in the longer
    term, by changing the way we manage and design commercial nuclear fuel,
    we may be able to quite effectively address proliferation concerns,
    making it more difficult to use nuclear power systems to advance
    nuclear weapons programs. Technology may be able to reduce or even
    eliminate the production of plutonium in spent fuel. This area of
    proliferation-resistant fuel cycles and reactors are an area of major
    investigation in our NERI program.
        In the first year of the NERI program, the Department awarded three
    research grants for the development of proliferation resistant reactor
    technologies and three others for the development of proliferation
    resistant fuel cycle technologies. By exploring these advanced
    technologies such as modular reactors with long life cores and thorium-
    based fuel cycles, we may find technology-based solutions to one of
    nuclear's greatest challenges.
        To further advance the research in this area, the NERAC has
    chartered a panel to identify, by Summer 2000, the various technical
    opportunities for increasing the proliferation resistance of fission
    systems and fuel cycles--both near-term opportunities for increasing
    proliferation resistance of existing technologies and long-term
    opportunities for advanced and future generation commercial nuclear
    power systems. In addition, we will be carefully coordinating NERI
    research in this area with the Long-Term Proliferation Program for
    Russia. Our office would co-manage the NERI proliferation-resistant
    technology component of this program with the Office of
    Nonproliferation and National Security.
        Another major area of focus for the NERI program this year, and an
    area of growing interest in the U.S. and with the international
    research community, are Generation IV reactor technologies. Generation
    IV reactor technologies are next generation advanced technologies that
    are economically competitive with combined cycle gas fired systems and
    deployed over the next 20 years when demand for electricity increases
    significantly worldwide. In January, the Department sponsored a
    workshop with representatives of the governments of Argentina, Brazil,
    Canada, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and the United
    Kingdom to begin discussing the attributes of Generation IV reactor
    systems. The workshop included observers from the International Atomic
    Energy Agency, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the U.S. Department of
    State, American Nuclear Society, and DOE's Nuclear Energy Research
    Advisory Committee. Following the conclusion of the workshop the
    participants issued a joint statement agreeing to pursue Generation IV
    nuclear power systems as a potential next generation energy option for
    the future.
        In April, as a follow-on to the January workshop, another
    international meeting with about 50 technical experts will be held in
    Washington, DC to develop specific recommendations on the future
    direction of multilateral cooperation on Generation IV technology. This
    May, we will also sponsor a meeting with established and emerging
    experts from U.S. and international universities, industry, and
    laboratory research organizations to begin the process of establishing
    requirements and attributes for Generation IV reactor systems and
    determining how those criteria would be satisfied. The results of this
    workshop will become the basis of a technology roadmap for Generation
    IV reactor technologies.
        In fiscal year (FY) 2000, another major shift in our research
    priorities occurred with the initiation of the Nuclear Energy Plant
    Optimization (NEPO) program. Recognizing the important role that the
    nation's existing nuclear power plants continue to serve over the next
    several decades in meeting demand for electricity in an environmentally
    sound manner, $5 million was provided in fiscal year 2000 for NEPO
    research conducted in cost-shared cooperation with the Electric Power
    Research Institute, the research arm of the electric power industry,
    for the purpose of improving existing plant operations, safety, and
    reliability.
        This $5 million represents a federal investment in intermediate
    term, higher risk research that is needed to increase the pace of
    innovation for developing new technologies for today's nuclear power
    plants. While industry's $85 million annual investment is focused on a
    short term horizon, funding ``just-in-time'' solutions to problems for
    existing plants, our investment serves to leverage federal research
    dollars with industry's matching funds in order to expedite and conduct
    intermediate term generic research needed by all of the nuclear utility
    industry to continue safe, economic, and reliable operation of the
    Nation's nuclear plants.
        Finally, over the last several years, our isotope program, has
    refocused the Federal role in promoting research, production and
    distribution of isotopes that benefit medical diagnosis and treatment.
    Our focused investments in the isotope program reflects this
    philosophy. Today, many of our former commercial isotope production
    activities have successfully transitioned to the private sector.
    Recognizing the important role that isotopes serve in medicine and
    their promise for the future, DOE proposed and Congress funded a new
    initiative this year--the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative--to
    apply DOE's unique expertise and capabilities in isotopes to advance
    nuclear medicine technology. This program sponsors nuclear medical
    science by providing isotopes for research, supporting research, and
    funds fellowships, scholarships and internships to advance nuclear
    medicine in the U.S.

                DOE'S NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Guiding the Future Direction of Nuclear R&D
        To help guide this shift in our research and development and shape
    the future direction of nuclear energy research and development, in
    November 1998, Secretary Richardson established an independent advisory
    committee, the NERAC, under the chairmanship of Dr. James Duderstadt,
    former president of the University of Michigan. NERAC membership
    consists of experts in nuclear power plant operations, research,
    nuclear medicine, economics, environmental programs, nuclear physics
    and engineering who are from universities, national laboratories, and
    the private sector.
        Currently, seven NERAC subcommittees are chartered on the following
    topics:
      --developing a long-range R&D Plan with a 20-year horizon,
      --developing a nuclear science and technology infrastructure roadmap,
      --providing independent review of operating reactor R&D,
      --providing independent review of accelerator transmutation of waste
            research,
      --recommending future federal investments in isotope research and
            production,
      --recommending focused research to increase proliferation resistance
            of fission systems, and
      --recommending the future direction of university nuclear engineering
            and research reactors.
        Let me point out just a few examples of NERAC's near-term
    activities.
        Presently, a NERAC chartered subcommittee under the lead of Dr.
    John Ahearne, Sigmi Xi, is developing a Long Term Nuclear Energy
    Science and Technology Research Plan to guide nuclear energy research
    out to the year 2020. Another subcommittee, under the lead of Dr. Dale
    Klein, Vice Chancellor, University of Texas, is developing the nuclear
    science and technology infrastructure roadmap to evaluate the ability
    of our nation's R&D infrastructure to meet current and future R&D
    demands.
        The R&D Plan will provide a critical input to the infrastructure
    roadmap, identifying the direction of nuclear energy research over the
    next 20 years. Other inputs come from the Office of Science, the new
    National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of Environmental
    Management, Defense Programs and others. The infrastructure roadmap
    will identify any gaps in our ability to conduct the research required
    to support likely missions in the areas of nuclear energy, medical and
    industrial isotopes, NASA-led space exploration, general nuclear
    sciences, and defense needs. Both the long range R&D plan and the
    infrastructure roadmap are to be submitted to the full NERAC this
    spring.
        This month, NERAC will sponsor a panel on the Technology
    Opportunities for Increasing Proliferation Resistance of Global
    Civilian Nuclear Power Systems. This panel, headed by Dr. John Taylor,
    Vice President Emeritus from the Electric Power Research Institute,
    will help us identify specific focus areas for further research into
    proliferation resistant systems and fuel cycles. The work of this panel
    will help us provide additional focus to future proliferation resistant
    research conducted under NERI and International-NERI.

                         FISCAL YEAR 2001 PROGRAM FOCUS

    Accelerating Technology Innovation
        Our research and development initiatives remain the cornerstone of
    the Department's nuclear energy, science and technology program. These
    initiatives are undertaken on the basis that nuclear science and
    technology will continue to provide important technological benefits
    and advancements for the Nation in the 21st century.
        For over 50 years, the Department and its predecessors have been
    involved in development of reactor technologies. This past July, in
    recognition of the important role that the Idaho National Engineering
    and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory have
    served in the development of prototype reactor technologies, and on the
    occasion of their 50th anniversary, the Office of Nuclear Energy,
    Science and Technology designated these laboratories as Lead
    Laboratories for nuclear reactor technology. In this capacity, we will
    work with these lead laboratories to apply their world-class technical
    capabilities to help us maximize the value of the various reactor
    research activities conducted by the Department. Also, we expect to
    establish additional centers of excellence for various aspects of
    nuclear energy research at other laboratories across the complex.
        The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), program supports our
    nation's future ability to apply nuclear technology to our energy,
    environmental, and economic goals. NERI, started in fiscal year 1999,
    funds innovative investigator-initiated, peer reviewed research and
    development at universities, national laboratories, and industry to
    advance nuclear power technology; thus paving the way for expanded use
    of nuclear energy in the future and for rebuilding U.S. leadership in
    nuclear technology.
        The goals of NERI are to develop revolutionary advanced concepts
    and scientific breakthroughs in nuclear fission and reactor technology
    to address: scientific and technical barriers to long-term use of
    nuclear energy; advance the state of nuclear technology to maintain a
    competitive position in overseas and future domestic markets; and
    promote and maintain the nuclear science and engineering infrastructure
    to meet future technical challenges.
        NERI research focuses on proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel
    technologies, high performance/efficient reactor technology, advanced
    nuclear fuels, new technologies for the minimization and management of
    nuclear waste, and fundamental nuclear science. A peer review process
    is used to evaluate and select research projects having the highest
    scientific and technical merit and relevancy to program objectives. The
    program is managed to promote collaboration among U.S. research
    institutions and information exchange with international organizations.
    Projects are conducted over a maximum of three years subject to annual
    appropriations.
        In the first year of this program, funded at $19 million, the
    Department received over 300 NERI proposals in response to the
    solicitation. The proposals were each reviewed by more than 120
    independent peer reviewers and in May 1999, the Department awarded
    funding to begin 46 research projects. These awards represented
    significant U.S. collaboration among universities, research
    laboratories and the private sector and significant international
    cooperation. By the end of fiscal year 1999, the appropriate contract
    mechanisms in place for the lead and collaborating organizations and
    this research is well underway today.
        This year, with the $3.4 million increase in funding over fiscal
    year 1999 levels, we will continue funding the projects started in 1999
    and award about seven new research projects. With limited funding for
    new projects, we are targeting research on the following areas:
    proliferation resistant reactors and fuel cycles, fundamental science,
    and Generation IV reactor technologies. Peer review of over 120
    proposals submitted this year is now underway and we expect to award
    the new projects this spring.
        By the end of the next fiscal year, the first three-year phase of
    NERI research will be complete. A process will be developed and
    implemented to evaluate these projects to identify the research that
    presents the most potential for future success and that should be
    consider for additional investment. With the $35 million proposed in
    fiscal year 2001, we will award about 20 new NERI projects, including
    as discussed below, projects conducted in cost-shared cooperation with
    international R&D organizations.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Department proposes to launch a new
    initiative within NERI, the International Nuclear Energy Research
    Initiative (I-NERI) with $7 million for bilateral and multilateral
    research. This program would focus on advanced technologies for
    improving cost, safety, waste management and proliferation resistance
    of fission energy systems by leveraging our federal investment with
    investments made by the international research community. In addition
    to accelerating innovation and leveraging costs, I-NERI would provide
    the United States and the Department, a key seat at the table in
    international policy discussions on the future direction of nuclear
    energy.
        I-NERI would allow us to leverage international resources through
    specific cost-share arrangements with each participating country,
    working with countries such as France, Japan, South Africa, and South
    Korea on a wide range of nuclear technology topics. This program, based
    on the recommendations of the June 1999 international PCAST report will
    feature a competitive, investigator-initiated, peer selection process
    directed by the Department with additional independent peer reviews
    using international experts from each of the participating countries.
        The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program started in
    fiscal year 2000, to develop key technologies that can help assure the
    long term reliability and efficiency of our nation's existing nuclear
    power plants. As discussed above, this program recognizes the important
    asset that existing nuclear plants are in meeting demand for
    electricity during the first half of this century, with low
    environmental impacts. The program is conducted in cost-shared
    cooperation with the research arm of the electric power industry, the
    Electric Power Research Institute and in coordination with the U.S.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Department is requesting $5 million
    for this program in fiscal year 2001, the same level the Administration
    proposed and Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
        In fiscal year 2000, we will begin 15 high priority research
    projects, based on the critical R&D needs identified in the Joint DOE-
    Electric Power Research Institute Strategic R&D Plan to Optimize U.S.
    Nuclear Power Plants, and guided by a chartered subcommittee of the
    NERAC. This strategic R&D plan includes short term R&D that industry
    should be doing on its own and short to medium term R&D in which a
    federal investment is leveraged with industry to apply the unique
    infrastructure or expertise of DOE or to accelerate solutions of
    generic technical issues affecting existing nuclear power plants. These
    first 15 projects will address technical issues associated with a range
    of topics, including material fatigue, fuel performance, component
    inspections, in-service inspections and testing, stress corrosion, and
    digital instrumentation and control.
        Some of the key projects include development of a technology for
    detection and characterization of defects in steam generator tubes, R&D
    on the mechanical behavior of irradiated structural steels, and an
    assessment of the natural aging effects on components. Although
    industry has made great strides, we believe that the NEPO program can
    accelerate innovation and provide intermediate-term research. As
    example, investigation into technologies for detection and
    characterization of defects in steam generators can have a profound
    effect on further reducing the potential for steam generator tube leaks
    such as recently experienced at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant
    in New York State.
        NEPO is jointly managed by DOE and EPRI, with either EPRI or DOE
    taking the lead on individual projects and with clear assignment of
    management responsibility at the task or subproject level. Each project
    consists of a program plan to which universities, laboratories, and the
    private sector can use as a basis for submitting proposals for specific
    projects/tasks. Research funding will be awarded based on technical and
    scientific merit and cost. In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to
    address the technology issues as guided by the Joint Strategic R&D Plan
    and the NERAC.
        In fiscal year 2000, Congress directed the Department to pursue
    research and development on an accelerator technology with potential to
    significantly reduce the radioactive toxicity and volume of civilian
    spent nuclear fuel while potentially producing electricity to help
    offset the life cycle costs of the program. Congress provided $9
    million to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, under
    Civilian Research and Development to establish the Accelerator
    Transmutation of Waste (ATW) program.
        The mission of the program is to conduct science-based research to
    derive system requirements, compare options, collect physics data, and
    address the major technical issues, and analyze programmatic and
    institutional issues associated with the deployment of an ATW system.
    The program will include leading edge scientific and engineering
    research in the areas of materials, high energy physics data, high
    powered accelerators, advance reactor coolants, and the unique areas of
    coupled subcritical reactors driven by accelerators. These new areas of
    nuclear science and engineering can open the door to advances in new
    reactor technologies and have the potential to enhance the
    proliferation resistance of nuclear power.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Department has requested no new funds for
    ATW research. While the roadmap prepared in 1999 by DOE provides a good
    basis to begin the program planning process, the Department plans to
    apply funds provided for fiscal year 2000 to complete critical trade
    studies, evaluate experimental data, and complete its detailed program
    plan. Once this is done, the program will be equipped to suggest the
    next stage of research.
        A chartered subcommittee of NERAC, headed by Dr. Burton Richter,
    Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physical Science at Stanford
    University, has been established to guide the Program Plan and provide
    recommendations on the research activities conducted this year and on
    future research. Once the plan is complete, it will be submitted to DOE
    management, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science
    and Technology Policy, and interested Congressional committees.
    Nuclear Science, Technology and Education Investments for the Future
        Government, industry, and academia alike face similar challenges
    today as we seek to preserve the aging but highly developed science and
    technology infrastructure the United States has developed over the last
    fifty years. This infrastructure is vital to delivering current and
    future mission critical technologies and products to the nation.
    Similarly, preserving the human and research facility infrastructure at
    our universities and colleges remains key to preparing tomorrow's
    nuclear scientists and engineers, to ensure an adequate knowledge base
    to support innovation and technological advancement.
        The University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program carries
    out the Department's commitment to maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear
    research and education. By supporting the operation and upgrade of
    university research reactors, providing fellowships and scholarships to
    outstanding students, and providing Nuclear Engineering Education
    Research grants, the program helps maintain domestic capabilities to
    conduct research, and address pressing environmental challenges. The
    program also helps to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to
    attract, educate and train the next generation of scientists and
    engineers with expertise in nuclear energy technologies.
        Our efforts to attract students to nuclear engineering careers
    continue to be a major focus of our program. Our scholarship and
    fellowship activity also pairs minority-serving institutions with
    nuclear engineering degree granting institutions to increase the number
    of minority students entering the field of nuclear engineering while
    simultaneously strengthening the infrastructure of nuclear engineering
    education. The Department is requesting $12 million for this program in
    fiscal year 2001, the same level that Congress appropriated in fiscal
    year 2000.
        University research reactors in the U.S. form a vital component of
    the nuclear science and technology and education infrastructure in this
    country. These facilities are an important source of neutrons
    supporting research that is critical to national priorities such as
    health care, materials science, environmental protection, food
    irradiation, and energy technology. Currently, there are 29 operating
    research reactors at 27 campuses in 20 states. This year and proposed
    in fiscal year 2001, we will continue to supply fresh fuel to and
    transport spent fuel from university research reactors; fund reactor
    equipment upgrades; and continue the conversion of university reactor
    fuel cores from highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium. Also,
    under the reactor sharing initiative, this year and proposed in fiscal
    year 2001, we will continue to pair 23 institutions with research
    reactors to those institutions without research reactors to increase
    their opportunities for training, education and research in nuclear
    science and technology.
        In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, the Department will
    provide 17 or more grants under the Matching Grants initiative to
    support education, training and innovative research at participating
    universities in 50-50 cost shared participation with industry.
    Beginning this year, we are increasing the funding to up to $60,000 to
    participating universities. We also expect to award up to 50
    scholarships and 24 fellowships this year and next. Along with this, we
    have restructured our scholarship and fellowship program to increase
    minority student entries into nuclear engineering by linking students
    at minority serving institutions to nuclear engineering programs at
    universities with nuclear engineering departments. We propose to
    continue these efforts in fiscal year 2001.
        The fiscal year 2001 request supports the Nuclear Engineering
    Education Research (NEER) program to stimulate innovative research at
    U.S. universities at a level of $5 million, the same level as
    appropriated this year. This investigator-initiated, peer reviewed
    research program is vital to attracting and retaining faculty and
    students in nuclear engineering programs. This year, with well over 100
    proposals received from universities, we will award at least 6 new NEER
    grants, increasing the total research projects underway to 45. In
    fiscal year 2001, previously awarded R&D will continue and with the
    completion of research projects that started in fiscal year 1998, we
    expect to award up to 15 new NEER projects.
        Finally, this fiscal year a NERAC-chartered Blue Ribbon Panel of
    experts from universities, government and laboratories, headed by Dr.
    Michael Corradini, Associate Dean of the College of Engineering at the
    University of Wisconsin, will evaluate the future of university
    research reactors and their relationship to the national laboratories
    in conducting nuclear engineering research. The recommendations of the
    panel expected this summer as well as other NERAC reviews related to
    university programs, will serve as a basis for recommending the future
    direction of these facilities, including recommendations for reactor
    upgrades.
        The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program is our nation's
    only program for developing and building advanced nuclear power systems
    for deep space exploration and national security applications. The
    program supports and funds DOE activities related to development,
    demonstration, testing, and delivery of power systems to the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other Federal agencies.
    In fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting $31.2 million for
    this program, which is the minimum amount required to sustain the basic
    capability.
        Critical national security activities and NASA missions to explore
    deep space and the surfaces of planets could not occur without these
    systems. To date, DOE has provided over 40 radioisotope power systems
    for use on a total of 25 spacecraft. Previous NASA missions that have
    used DOE-built power systems include: the Apollo lunar scientific
    packages, Pioneer, Viking, Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, Mars Pathfinder,
    and Cassini. As we consider the American enterprise in space in the
    first decades of this new century, it is clear that DOE's advanced
    power technology will be indispensable if we are to continue our
    exploration and advance human understanding of the universe. Projected
    future missions include the Europa Orbiter, Pluto/Kuiper Express, and
    Solar Probe missions planned for launch in fiscal year 2003, 2004, and
    2007, respectively.
        An expansion to the national security applications is also underway
    that will require delivery of several radioisotope power systems over
    the next decade. We are currently developing a new, more efficient
    thermoelectric generator for these national security applications and
    in fiscal year 2001, we will continue testing the thermoelectric
    element, proceed with design and initiate fabrication of an engineering
    unit of this new thermoelectric generator.
        During fiscal year 2001, the emphasis will be on supporting NASA's
    Europa Orbiter and Pluto/Kuiper Express missions scheduled for launch
    in 2003 and 2004, respectively. The program had been pursuing the
    Alkali-Metal Thermal to Electric Conversion (AMTEC) technology for
    these missions but recently shifted focus on a Small Radioisotope
    Thermoelectric Generator since the AMTEC technology could not be ready
    to meet the projected launch dates. Consideration is also being given
    to a new, more efficient, Stirling engine conversion technology since
    it would require less plutonium-238, the heat producing isotope that is
    used for all radioisotope power systems. Technology efforts may
    continue on the AMTEC technology for potential future missions but the
    major near term focus has shifted to the Small Radioisotope
    Thermoelectric Generator and Stirling technologies.
        Our efforts will also proceed in support of providing already
    fabricated Radioisotope Heater Units for several NASA Mars Surveyor
    missions. The first mission is currently targeted for launch in 2001.
    This effort includes safety and environmental analysis to support both
    NASA's environmental documentation and the Department's preparation of
    Safety Analysis Reports required to seek launch approval.
        The fiscal year 2001 request also includes funding to complete the
    scrap recovery line for plutonium-238 in Building TA-55 at the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory and to begin full scale operation of the
    process to recover several kilograms of plutonium-238. In addition, the
    request maintains the option to establish a domestic supply of the
    nonfissile plutonium-238 required to fuel these systems, includes a
    small effort on non-mission specific technologies for future
    applications, and provides for an assessment of special purpose fission
    technology, with particular emphasis on potential use in future space
    systems.
        This assessment of special purpose fission technology will evaluate
    potential future requirements and the types of generic fission
    technologies that may be required. The focus of the assessment will be
    to establish what efforts should be undertaken and the timing for
    initiating these efforts if fission systems are to be ready to support
    the potential applications that are currently being considered. The
    Department, as the nuclear development agency for the Federal
    government, must take the lead in this evaluation; however, it will be
    done in cooperation with user agencies, who would have the major
    responsibility for funding, if these programs move forward into full
    development.
        Finally, the advanced radioisotope power system program has been
    significantly streamlined over the last several years and we continue
    to seek opportunities for further savings. The overall funding of the
    program has decreased substantially, from $58.7 million in fiscal year
    1995 to the requested level today of $31.2 for fiscal year 2001. These
    reductions reflect the several actions taken by the Department,
    including a decision to maintain and consolidate the operation of
    assembly and testing operations at the Mound Site and assuring that
    user agencies fund mission-specific costs. Presently, user agencies
    fund mission-specific development and hardware and DOE provides funding
    necessary to sustain the critical program and facility infrastructure.
        The Isotope Support program exploits the Department's unique
    infrastructure that includes research reactors and particle
    accelerators to provide a reliable supply of stable and radioactive
    isotopes used in medicine, industry, and research. Continuing its
    emphasis on isotope-based research, the program continues the Advanced
    Nuclear Medicine Initiative, started this year at a level of $2.5
    million, to apply the Department's unique expertise to advance the
    state of U.S. medical research, diagnosis, and treatment. We believe
    that advanced isotope-based therapies may hold the key to creating safe
    and efficient treatments for many types of cancer. The isotope program
    provides isotopes to researchers across the country and remains
    indispensable to conduct of advanced research in the United States
    where isotopes are needed. Finally, the Department continues its effort
    to exit commercial markets and to encourage new isotope production
    ventures by selling or leasing its facilities to the private sector,
    where possible. The Department's fiscal year 2001 request is for $17.2
    million, reflecting a reduction in funding over last year's
    appropriated level of $20.4 and the nearly complete new beam spur at
    the Los Alamos Isotope Production Facility at the Los Alamos Neutron
    Science Center (LANSCE). The fiscal year 2001 program would also
    continue to serve its customers through the production and distribution
    of stable and radioactive isotopes necessary for medical, industrial,
    and research purposes.
        The Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, launched this year,
    sponsors nuclear medicine research for diagnosis and treatment of
    serious illnesses and diseases. This program is focused on using the
    Department's inventory of alpha particle-emitting isotopes to fight
    malignant diseases and to strengthen the nuclear medicine science and
    education infrastructure by providing scholarships and fellowships for
    nuclear medicine specialists. This summer, DOE will complete the peer
    review selection process for the first year of research projects,
    awarding grants on the basis of technical merit to individual and
    collaborating research organizations. We are very pleased with the
    response to this program, with over 40 organizations, representing
    private sector, teaching hospitals, universities, and research
    laboratories responding to the Department's solicitation for the first
    year of funding under this initiative, some of them submitting multiple
    proposals. Similar to our other peer reviewed R&D initiatives, ANMI
    projects will be awarded for up to three years, subject to annual
    appropriations. With the $2.5 million requested in fiscal year 2001, we
    propose to continue the research projects and assistance to students
    provided this year as well as begin a few more in 2001.
        The fiscal year 2001 request includes $0.5 million to complete
    construction of a building to house the Los Alamos Isotope Production
    Facility. When operational, the new 14.0 million isotope target
    irradiation facility will enable year-round production of vital, short-
    lived isotopes for medical research.
        The request also includes $0.3 million to develop a private
    partnership that will replace the aged stable isotope production
    facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee with a new, less costly production
    facility. Finally, the request includes $0.9 million to increase the
    supply of alpha-emitting isotopes to support the expansion of human
    clinical trials that are showing great promise for cancer therapy.
        Modification of facilities at Los Alamos and Sandia National
    Laboratories for molybdenum-99 production were completed with fiscal
    year 1999 appropriations and no funds were requested for the activity
    in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. At this point, production of
    molybdenum-99 can be mobilized on an emergency basis if foreign supply
    is significantly disrupted, and facilities will be ready for private
    sector investment to take the project to routine commercial production.
    This year, the Department will continue to pursue privatization of the
    production facilities for this vital medical isotope.
        Finally, as you know, this program operates under a revolving fund
    as established by the fiscal year 1990 Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-101), maintaining its financial
    viability with Congressional appropriations and revenues from the sales
    of isotopes and services. The last few years' efforts to privatize
    production and distribution of commercially viable isotopes, though
    successful, has placed additional pressure on the program's working
    capital. Commercial revenues, which contribute to the infrastructure
    fixed costs, are no longer available and as a result, we are unable to
    invest in maintenance and upgrades needed for our infrastructure--an
    infrastructure which is vital to providing isotopes to our research
    customers.
        Although we have taken steps to address infrastructure and facility
    issues to support nuclear medicine research, with the need for isotopes
    expected the increase significantly over the next 20 years, perhaps as
    much as 14 percent annually, the result is that we are more reliant
    today and tomorrow on federal appropriations. As such, we have asked
    the NERAC to examine the need for isotopes for medicine and research
    and to provide recommendations for the Department's long term research
    and production plan and for focused investment in the isotope
    production infrastructure. This plan, to be completed this Spring, will
    consider creative approaches such as public-private partnerships for
    new isotope production facilities to serve the longer term projected
    isotope needs.
    Managing Federal Nuclear Facilities and Materials
        The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology also is
    responsible for facilities and materials associated with current and
    past missions of the Office. In this capacity, NE serves as landlord at
    Argonne National Laboratory-West and the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory's Test Reactor Area (TRA), both of which are
    located in Idaho; at two of the gaseous diffusion plant sites, located
    in Kentucky and Ohio; and is responsible for the maintenance of the
    FFTF in Hanford, Washington in a safe shutdown condition, pending a
    decision on its future. As part of our stewardship over these
    facilities, we are responsible for the management and disposition,
    where appropriate, of nuclear materials. For example, NE is responsible
    for the management of depleted uranium hexafluoride inventories stored
    at the gaseous diffusion plant sites, including the former K-25 site at
    Oak Ridge, Tennessee--the current East Tennessee Technology Park
    (ETTP).
        The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), located at the Hanford Site in
    Washington, is a Government-owned, 400 megawatt, sodium-cooled reactor
    that operated from 1982 to 1992, providing a materials testing facility
    for nuclear fusion and fission programs. It is the largest and most
    modern facility of its kind. In April 1992, the FFTF was placed on hot-
    standby because the Department anticipated that it had enough nuclear
    research reactors in operation or planned to meet its needs. However,
    the Department later terminated one new reactor project and shut down
    two existing research reactors. As a result, the Department launched a
    process to determine whether the Nation requires additional research
    reactor capacity and, if so, whether the FFTF should serve a role.
        Pending the final decision on its future in fiscal year 2000, the
    facility is maintained in hot standby, defueled but with sodium coolant
    maintained at 400 degrees Fahrenheit and with continued surveillance
    and maintenance to ensure no degradation of key plant systems. The
    Department is proposing $44.0 million for FFTF in fiscal year 2001 to
    maintain it in a safe, environmentally compliant condition and support
    the activities required to restart or permanently shutdown and
    deactivate the facility.
        The Department is currently preparing the Nuclear Infrastructure
    Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and other cost and
    nonproliferation analyses that will help inform a final decision on the
    future of FFTF during fiscal year 2001. The Programmatic EIS is
    assessing the impacts of operating FFTF, other DOE facilities or
    entirely new facilities. It considers the range of missions for which
    steady state neutron facilities are required, e.g., reactor research,
    isotope production, plutonium-238 production, and materials research.
    The Department is currently proposing to the Congress, a reprogramming
    request of $9.0 million to provide the additional funds necessary in
    fiscal year 2000 to maintain the facility in compliance with applicable
    Federal and State environment, safety and health requirements.
        The activities of the Termination Costs program are focused on
    Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) shutdown and deactivation,
    treatment and disposition of EBR-II and Fermi reactor sodium coolant,
    and treatment of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The program also
    supports maintenance of the Argonne National Laboratory-West nuclear
    infrastructure, including maintaining a core capability to foster
    innovative nuclear reactor research and maintaining the safety,
    security, and safeguards infrastructure. We believe that the name of
    this program does not reflect the range of missions underway at Argonne
    National Laboratory-West. In fiscal year 2001, the Department is
    proposing $74.0 million for the Termination Cost program, near the
    level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
        The project to demonstrate electrometallurgical technology by
    treating 125 EBR-II spent fuel and blanket assemblies was completed in
    fiscal year 1999. During fiscal year 2000, the Department is evaluating
    the suitability of the electrometallurgical technology for full-scale
    treatment of the remaining EBR-II spent fuel assemblies through the
    preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. DOE's decision on
    whether to deploy this technology for full-scale treatment of the
    remaining fuel will be made this year based on the EIS and the results
    from the National Research Council reviews requested by the Department.
    No further treatment of spent fuel assemblies will occur until a final
    decision is made.
        Additionally, by the end of fiscal year 2001, the Department will
    complete draining of the EBR-II primary system and process 100 percent
    of all EBR-II sodium in compliance with Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory Treatment Plan. The schedule for this project
    has slipped by several months as technical difficulties were
    encountered with the process. As a result, the Department suspended
    operation of the sodium process facility while analyses and reviews
    were conducted. Those reviews are complete and we expect sodium
    processing operations to resume in May 2000 for process and product
    qualification operations. The Department has substantially increased
    its oversight of this project by assigning to the project, senior,
    highly experienced technical staff with proven experience in managing
    complex technical projects and by establishing a new, independent
    expert technical and project review organization to make ongoing
    recommendations to the Department on ways to assure the success of this
    project.
        Next fiscal year, we propose to carry out the activities at Argonne
    in accordance with the Record of Decision on the treatment of sodium
    bonded fuel, complete processing of all stored Fermi and EBR-II sodium
    and continue deactivation and closure of EBR-II surplus facilities. We
    would also continue research that supports Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission approval of disposal of metal and ceramic waste forms from
    the demonstration project in a geologic repository, and continue
    repackaging and removal activities for spent nuclear fuel that remains
    from an earlier fuel burn-up development program now stored by a
    commercial entity.
        The TRA Landlord program ensures reliable support for TRA
    activities such as naval reactor fuel and core component testing at the
    Advanced Test Reactor and supporting privatized production of isotopes
    for medicine and industry. The program also funds operations,
    maintenance and upgrade activities for site common facilities and
    utilities and ensures environmental compliance at the Test Reactor
    Area, including identification of legacy waste and mitigation in
    accordance with State regulations and DOE agreements with the State of
    Idaho. The Department is requesting $9.0 million for this program in
    fiscal year 2001, at about the same level as was requested and
    appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
        The fiscal year 2001 request would allow TRA Landlord activities to
    continue at the same level the Administration proposed and Congress
    appropriated in fiscal year 2000. This fiscal year and next, we propose
    to continue with major modifications to the existing fire protection
    systems in this area of the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory and to complete Title II design and begin the
    construction phase of the TRA Electric Utility Upgrade construction
    project.
        Uranium Programs support activities related to the Department's
    former uranium enrichment program that were not transferred to the
    United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC Inc), including management
    of the Department's inventory of 700,000 metric tons of depleted
    uranium hexafluoride stored in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. USEC,
    privatized in July 1998, operates the Department's gaseous diffusion
    plants in Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky under a lease
    arrangement.
        At the gaseous diffusion plants, DOE is responsible for the
    maintenance of numerous facilities, maintenance of the grounds, clean-
    up of PCB spills in leased areas, electricity contracts, legal
    expenses, payment of the post-retirement life and medical costs for
    retired contractor personnel, and conducting a project to convert the
    Department's depleted uranium hexafluoride inventory to a more
    chemically stable form. The increase for Uranium Programs in fiscal
    year 2001 reflects $12.0 million to be appropriated from the Treasury
    Fund holding depleted uranium disposition funds from USEC Inc to
    support the depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project.
        As you know, this past August, health and safety concerns were
    raised at the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant site. Concerns centered
    around the presence of plutonium and other contaminants in recycled
    uranium historically processed at Paducah, inadequate progress in
    environmental cleanup, and other alleged health and safety problems. In
    response, the Department conducted a two-phase investigation to
    determine whether environment, safety and health programs put in place
    since 1990 provided adequate protection for workers and the public and
    to provide for a full investigation of past practices. The reports of
    these investigations were issued in October 1999 and February 2000,
    respectively.
        In particular, the Phase I report identified potential criticality
    concerns related to storage of materials and equipment in certain DOE
    Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) that are the responsibility of the
    Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to resolve. DMSAs are
    areas containing spare parts, equipment and other items that were
    established during the transition and lease of enrichment facilities to
    the USEC, which DOE agreed to manage. DOE's investigation and
    subsequent review by the site contractor specifically identified 13
    potential higher risk areas of concern requiring near term
    characterization and mitigation. Although not anticipated in the fiscal
    year 2000 budget appropriation, we are deferring other work to proceed
    more quickly with the resolution of the DMSA concerns.
        This past year, we created a new office, the Office of Depleted
    Uranium Hexafluoride Management and increased program staffing to
    provide more focused support and oversight over landlord programs at
    the gaseous diffusion plant sites and the depleted uranium hexafluoride
    conversion program. The office has implemented a number of reforms that
    we believe will improve the effectiveness of our oversight of site
    operations, including the designation of staff dedicated to uranium
    hexafluoride conversion and conducting program reviews every four
    months with Oak Ridge, the site offices, and the Office of
    Environmental Management.
        In fiscal year 2001, $53.4 million is requested to manage Uranium
    Programs activities, of which $29.5 million will be used to manage the
    inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride: $16.6 million for cylinder
    storage maintenance; and $0.9 million for conversion development and
    $12.0 million for the depleted uranium conversion project.
        Consistent with Public Law 105-204, the Department is proceeding
    with plans for a project to build and operate conversion facilities to
    convert the inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride to a more stable
    form. In fiscal year 2001, the Department is requesting $12.0 million
    for the conversion project and later this year, will issue a Request
    for Proposals to the private sector to initiate design of conversion
    facilities. The Department plans to add an additional $12.0 million to
    this amount from funds obtained under Memoranda of Agreement with USEC
    Inc to further support this project.
        However, because of the possibility that the depleted uranium
    hexafluoride inventory could be contaminated with transuranic materials
    from the years in which recycled uranium was used as feed stock to the
    gaseous diffusion plants, this year we have initiated an assessment of
    historical data and a cylinder sampling program to obtain a better
    understanding of whether there will be an impact to the design of the
    conversion facilities or to worker safety programs at these facilities.
    We hope to soon issue a schedule reflecting the change this development
    has on the procurement strategy for conversion plants. The Department
    remains committed to meeting the deadline established in Public Law
    105-204 on constructing conversion facilities.
        The remaining $23.9 million requested in fiscal year 2001 will be
    used to: support the maintenance of leased and non-leased facilities at
    DOE's former gaseous diffusion plant sites, clean up PCB spills in the
    leased areas, defend lawsuits, and pay the post-retirement life and
    medical costs of retired contractor personnel as well as other pre-
    existing liabilities. The Department also remains responsible for
    safety documentation and assists the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
    preparing reports for Congress.

                               PROGRAM DIRECTION

        In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $27.6 million for salaries,
    travel, support services and other administrative expenses for 171
    headquarters and field personnel providing technical direction to
    Nuclear Energy Research and Development, uranium programs, isotope
    support, and other nuclear energy programs. A $2.9 million increase
    over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, the fiscal year 2001 request
    includes additional funding for five technical positions at the Paducah
    and Portsmouth site offices. This increase is important to providing
    for adequate oversight over activities at the gaseous diffusion plant
    sites, including improved oversight of environment, safety and health
    programs at these sites and technical activities associated with
    depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion and evaluating transuranics
    and recycled uranium. Our Program Direction funding also supports the
    many intensive activities of the NERAC.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy
    to answer any questions. Over the last couple of years, I believe we
    have made great strides in the nuclear energy program. We have launched
    three new research initiatives, are proposing more focused
    international collaboration and leveraging of the federal investment,
    have successfully demonstrated a major technology for treatment of
    spent fuel, would continue our enduring role in support of space
    exploration, and would continue providing for safe stewardship of our
    federal nuclear facilities and materials.
        As I said at the beginning of my testimony, we have a historic
    window of opportunity today to begin planning the next several decades
    of innovation. The decisions we collectively make today can
    significantly influence energy supply options and the environmental
    outcomes over the next fifty years. I look forward to working with you
    and the Subcommittee as we embark on preparing the technologies needed
    for this new century.

        Senator Domenici. Senator Reid, would you like to either
    query or make some observations, whatever you like?
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief. I
    am sorry I am late. I had a meeting at 9 o'clock that I had to
    attend.
        With gas taxes as high as they are, I think we need to
    really take a look at alternate energy. And as we have been
    through the last three times we have brought our bill on the
    floor, we have had a lot of problems on the floor on that
    issue.
        I have a letter here signed by approximately 60 Senators
    who feel we should provide more money in that program. So that
    is something we have to take a close look at. That is the
    reason these gentlemen are here, is to give us some expertise
    in doing that.
        I have a full statement that I would like to make part of
    the record. And in that I did not get here on time, I will not
    read it, but ask that it be made part of the record.
        Senator Domenici. It will be made part of the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

        Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for scheduling this third--
    and, as it turns out, final--oversight hearing as we prepare to begin
    writing the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
        Representatives of five important DOE programs have joined us this
    morning:
      --Dan Reicher, the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
            Renewable Energy
      --Bill Magwood, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
            and Technology
      --Dr. Ivan Itkin, the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive
            Waste Management
      --Carolyn Huntoon, the Assistant Secretary of the Environmental
            Management; and
      --Dr. James Decker, the Acting Director of the Office of Science
        I would like to welcome all of you to this morning's hearing. I
    have read each of your statements and have a number of questions for
    all of you.
        However, in the time available this morning, I want to focus my
    comments on only one or two of the topics before us, primarily Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
        With gas prices approaching $2 per gallon, now is the perfect time
    for Congress and the American people to re-engage in a conversation on
    the importance of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies
    to our nation's future.
        At best, Congress has moved in fits and starts over the years in
    its support for wind, solar, and geothermal power, biofuels, hydrogen,
    and other technologies that will allow us to lessen our ever-increasing
    dependence on imported oil.
        We need to do a better job.
        In recent years, many clean new energy technologies have emerged
    that are simply waiting for sufficient market incentives to enable
    widespread deployment. What is lacking is a clear, unambiguous stamp of
    approval from Congress for a range of policies, mechanisms, and funding
    to move forward.
        Many of these technologies are tremendously promising. For example,
    in the area of solar energy, collector technology has now improved to
    the point where we could cover an area the size of the Nevada Test Site
    with solar collectors and generate enough power to take care of ALL of
    the nation's needs.
        In fact, I think that covering the Test Site with solar collectors
    is a MUCH better use of this Subcommittee's dollars than some of the
    others we have talked about in recent years. The top of Yucca Mountain,
    in particular, is an exceptionally sunny spot.
        On a more serious note, all of us on this Subcommittee know that
    the benefits of a stronger commitment to renewable energy are clear: 1.
    Enhanced national security due to reduced dependence on foreign sources
    of oil; 2. Enhanced security of energy supply; 3. Revitalized and
    stabilized agricultural economy; 4. New manufacturing and service jobs;
    increased export markets; 5. Cleaner air and water; and 6. More
    sustainable use of productive lands and forests.
        However, for a variety of reasons, Congress has never been able to
    move forward in anything other than something of an ad hoc fashion. One
    of the big disadvantages of such an approach is that it inadvertently
    pits the various sectors against one another at a time when they really
    need to be rowing in the same direction.
        This is no longer a question of wind versus solar or geothermal
    versus biomass. All of these technologies potentially have a role in
    our nation's future.
        It is the role of the government to incubate these programs up to
    the point that they become viable and then kick them out of the nest
    and let the market dictate the path forward.
        Even with relatively small appropriations in recent years, many
    renewable technologies have moved forward to the cusp of being
    competitive with traditional sources of energy. Wind energy, in
    particular, has enjoyed great success putting them on the verge of
    being pushed into the market and weaned off of federal funds. Not this
    year or next or the one after that, but very soon.
        It takes time and money to develop mature energy sources. Our
    nation has invested over $50 billion in its pursuit of hydroelectric
    power; between $25 and $50 billion in its development of nuclear power.
    To date, the U.S. has spent less than $13 billion on ALL forms of
    renewables.
        We need to do better.
        We can do better.
        And we are going to do better.
        I have with me today a letter I received last week signed by 56 of
    our colleagues requesting that we provide full funding--$409 million--
    for the renewables program. I think that is a fine starting point.
        Senator Domenici, you and I are scheduled to talk about several
    Subcommittee matters tomorrow and this will be one of them. You might
    want to consider bringing the Subcommittee's wallet with you!
        Several other thoughts before I wrap up:
        Interrelated thoughts for Assistant Secretary Huntoon and Dr.
    Itkin:
        I am very concerned with reports of the inadequacy of the Nevada
    Test Site ground water monitoring program. It is my understanding that
    the peer review of the Frenchman Flat water flow model is being
    severely criticized.
        I have in the past and will continue to support additional drilling
    at the NTS to determine whether contaminated ground water is moving at
    the Test Site.
        Mr. Magwood, as you know I am interested in a continuation of
    funding for the Accelerator Transmutation Waste program. I realize that
    you have zeroed this program out in fiscal year 2001, but I hope you
    can give me an update on your thoughts in regards to this program.
        We have a lot of witnesses today, so I will stop here. Thanks again
    to all of you for coming. I look forward to working with all of you as
    we put together next year's funding bill. Thank you.

                              BIOENERGY INITIATIVE

        Senator Domenici. Do you have any questions?
        Senator Reid. Yes, I do have some questions.
        Mr. Reicher, you have requested a significant increase for
    programs within your bioenergy initiative. Tell us about that.
    And what is the potential for biomass power and biomass ethanol
    in the future?
        Mr. Reicher. Senator Reid, I think the potential is quite
    extraordinary. I think before you came in I said that today we
    get 3 percent of U.S. energy, U.S. primary energy, from
    biomass. And I think that we have the technologies today and
    under development that the goal that we have set to triple that
    by 2010 is quite realistic.
        We now know how to make a ton of biomass into fuels that
    can power vehicles, into electricity, and into chemicals and
    precursors to chemicals that increasingly the chemical industry
    is interested in using.
        So I think the opportunity is very, very large. What comes
    with it and what I think is so exciting to so many people on
    and off Capitol Hill is that we can do very good things for
    farmers and foresters, who obviously find themselves in a very
    tough situation right now economically; looking for new uses
    for what they grow, and looking for new uses for the wastes and
    residues that they leave behind.
        So I think with the support that we have gotten in Senator
    Lugar's bill that the full Senate adopted at the end of
    February, with the President's goal of tripling biomass energy
    use, with the technological breakthroughs we have seen, with
    the new plants that are under construction, with the interest
    ranging from the chemical industry to the power industry to the
    ethanol industry, I think the future is very, very bright.
        And what we strongly urge you to do is to strongly consider
    the funding request we have made so that we can move forward
    with this exciting opportunity.
        Senator Reid. If your program were not initiated--well,
    initiated is not the right word. If your program was not
    funded, what happens to this biomass?
        Mr. Reicher. Well, I think the big thing that we lose is
    the following. Over the last year and a half, we have brought
    major companies together from the chemical industry, the power
    industry, the fuel industry. They have all agreed that if we
    are going to make radical progress in biomass, we have to take
    a more integrated approach.
        We cannot have one company interested in making a liquid
    fuel, another company interested in making electricity, and a
    different company interested in making chemicals. This has all
    got to be integrated.
        So the big thrust of our work and what this extra money
    would fund is to spur integrated approaches, so that a ton of
    biomass would go into what we are increasingly calling a bio-
    refinery, just like an oil refinery. And out of that would come
    not only liquid fuels, but electricity, chemicals or chemical
    precursors.
        And we are moving to a day that we think we can accelerate
    with adequate funding where a ton of biomass can be a viable
    market competitor to a barrel of imported oil. We are moving
    towards that day. And that is a very exciting prospect for the
    economy, particularly in rural America.

                 REDUCING OIL IMPORTS THROUGH INCREASED BIOMASS

        Senator Reid. With oil prices in a state of flux, to say
    the least, right now, could biomass help alleviate this
    situation that we face? We are always talking about reducing
    the need for importing oil.
        Mr. Reicher. Well, let me say, we are all familiar, of
    course, with corn ethanol. And that has been an important
    contributor to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. What is
    exciting is with these new technologies, we now know how to
    make ethanol out of just about every other kind of biomass. For
    example, the rest of the corn plant, the cob, the stalk, the
    leaves.
        I think before you came in I mentioned there are new plants
    under way in New York State. They will be making ethanol out of
    municipal solid waste in Louisiana, out of waste from the sugar
    cane industry; in California out of waste from the rice
    industry that they no longer can burn in the fields under air
    pollution regulations; in North Carolina from the sweet potato
    industry; in the Dakotas apparently from sugar beets.
        So what we have is an opportunity, if we can push this
    technology forward, to make a lot more ethanol out of both corn
    and a variety of other products to displace our dependence on
    oil.

                         ENERGY EFFICIENCY INVESTMENTS

        Senator Reid. We always focus on the fact that when the
    first energy crisis came in the early seventies, we were
    importing 40 to 45 percent of our oil. Now it is up to 55, 56
    percent.
        But the thing we do not talk about, if we had not developed
    ethanol and some other programs that are in use now, it would
    be even higher than 55, 56 percent, would it not be?
        Mr. Reicher. If we had not developed those alternative
    sources and if we had not made the investments that we have
    made in energy efficiency, that level of dependence would be
    substantially higher. And equally or more important, our
    national energy bill would be substantially greater.
        We estimate that the investments in efficiency over the
    last couple of decades have left our economy on an annual basis
    about $200 billion better off than it would have been had we
    not seen those energy efficiency improvements and the
    development of these clean power sources as well.
        Senator Reid. You indicated that just with biomass alone
    you could increase the amount of our total energy cost from 3
    percent to three times that. So that would be 9 or 10 percent.
        Mr. Reicher. Correct.
        Senator Reid. I wonder what that would translate into
    barrels. You know, we are always talking about importing
    barrels of oil. What does that translate to?
        Mr. Reicher. Well, we are one-and-a-half billion gallons
    today. And we think we could be substantially above that,
    several billion gallons a day.
        Senator Reid. You indicated three times that, so that would
    be----
        Mr. Reicher. In the range of--what gets confusing, Senator
    Reid, is that we can do a variety of----
        Senator Reid. Those notes get confusing.
        Mr. Reicher. Yes. These get quite confusing. So I would
    throw them away. What gets very confusing is that biomass can
    be made into so many things. And tripling it, we might get some
    of that tripling by making liquid transportation fuels. We
    might get a part of that tripling by mixing it with coal and
    making electricity. We might get a part of that tripling by
    replacing the oil in the chemical industry, increasing it with
    biomass.
        So we cannot tell you exactly today where the economy will
    take us in that tripling. All we know is that prices of biomass
    technologies are coming down. And we think that tripling U.S.
    primary energy use from about 3 percent to about 9 percent is
    quite realistic. And as I say, both the President's goal and
    Senator Lugar's bill provide strong support for moving forward
    with that.

                               GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

        Senator Reid. Earlier, within the past few months, I
    participated in the announcement of a new initiative by the
    Department of Energy called Geopowering the West. This
    initiative is to substantially increase the use of geothermal
    power in 19 western States. Talk to us a little bit about what
    your ideas are with geothermal power.
        Mr. Reicher. Senator Reid, geothermal power today is seeing
    a very impressive price decline. We have brought the price down
    substantially since 1985. And we think through additional R&D
    we can bring it down further.
        There is a vast geothermal resource in the western States,
    a really phenomenal resource, and not only for making
    electricity, but for also using it for heat, heat for
    buildings, heat for industrial activities. And together, we
    think that it is--we could provide 10 percent, our goal is 10
    percent, of electricity in the western States from geothermal
    by 2020.
        Today, California alone gets 6 percent of its electricity
    from geothermal. Nevada has an extraordinary resource. Many of
    the western States do. And what we want to do is give much
    greater familiarity to the 250 to 300 communities across the
    West that are located adjacent to a good geothermal resource.
        We want to give them much greater experience than they have
    to date with this energy source. It is a clean source. It is an
    abundant source. And it is one that I think is worth the
    investment that we are seeking.

                            PROGRESS OF SOLAR ENERGY

        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, just one other question. Then I
    will ask permission to submit my others in writing.
        Tell us a little bit about solar energy. Are we making any
    progress? I went to the plant a number of years ago down by
    Barstow. And that is 200 megawatts, which is the largest in the
    world. But their technology is very old. Are we doing any
    better than that?
        Mr. Reicher. We are doing much better. We have come a long,
    long distance. I think in the briefing slides we were at $1 a
    kilowatt hour in 1980. Literally the only place we were using
    it was in space. And as a result of the work of the labs and
    industry, we literally brought this technology down from space.
    We are down to 20 cents a kilowatt hour. We think we can get in
    the range of 10 cents a kilowatt hour by 2005.
        Senator Reid. How does that compare to natural gas, for
    example?
        Mr. Reicher. Natural gas is substantially cheaper. Combined
    cycle natural gas plant is between 2 and 3 cents. But the
    interesting thing about solar is, number one, from an export
    perspective, there are 2 billion people who are not connected
    to an electricity grid in the world, 2 billion. And their solar
    can often compete well or can beat almost any other energy
    source for bringing electricity to developing countries.
        Within our own country, it brings a variety of
    environmental benefits. It is highly adaptable. I will just
    give you two--this is a roofing shingle. This is what would be
    an asphalt shingle. But actually the solar material is built
    right into the shingle. And instead of putting an asphalt roof
    on, you put this solar roof on. You have to put a roof on your
    house anyway. Wire it up, and you are making electricity.
        We are now getting to a point--and I think beginning next
    year we are going to see this--where glass--and this is
    relatively translucent. But literally transparent glass going
    into buildings will have a multi-fine layer of the photovoltaic
    material laid down on it. And so literally windows in buildings
    will be producing electricity. And it is an exploding market
    all over the world.
        And as I said, I think before you came in, the unfortunate
    fact is that we have lost our number one market share to the
    Japanese in the last year.

                        SOLAR ENERGY IN REMOTE LOCATIONS

        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I traveled earlier this year to
    Nepal, and 84 percent of the people in Nepal have no
    electricity. I got a letter yesterday from a Peace Corpsman
    there who sent a number of pictures and explained what he was
    doing. I asked him to do that.
        One of the pictures showed out in this remote part of Nepal
    a roof with a solar panel on it. And it is the first
    electricity they have ever had. And they are able to, with that
    solar panel--and the sun does not shine a lot there. They are
    able to have light in their houses, basically what it is for.
    And the panel was very small.
        Mr. Reicher. Yes. It is a highly adaptable technology. And
    as I say, the near term opportunity and the growth has been
    some 20 to 25 percent a year for the last many years, the
    opportunity is in developing countries. And we have some very
    strong U.S. companies that can sell abroad and are making
    money.
        Senator Reid. Explain to us, Japan has surpassed us in
    what?
        Mr. Reicher. In world market share, just this past year.
    Their government support is about three times what it is in the
    United States. And they have, frankly, a stronger domestic
    deployment program than we do in the United States, although I
    think we are doing a good job. But they have a much stronger
    one there.
        Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator, you are next.
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Dr.
    Decker, Mr. Reicher and Mr. Magwood. Thank you.
        Let me make a couple of observations first, because I know
    this administration right now is scrambling to try to publicly
    display an energy policy that frankly I think has been lacking.
    And I have been speaking out about that, as has other Senators.
    And I spent years with this type of budgeting that reflects an
    anti-nuclear and an anti-fossil fuel bias which has clearly
    emerged.
        And to spend the last good number of minutes talking about
    new emerging technologies, Mr. Reicher, is something that I
    will vote for, because I do not believe we ought to demonstrate
    narrow bias that shove large portions of our energy base out of
    the marketplace. I think we ought to work on a full basket. And
    clearly solar, photovoltaic and wind are a part of the total.

                     WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS

        But when I look at your map on page three, I see an
    emerging problem. I see Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and
    New Mexico as major wind-producing States potentially. The
    problem with that is that those are all public land States. And
    most of those areas that show that excellent opportunity is
    public land.
        Right now the bias in this country will not allow energy
    development on public land, will not allow drilling, will not
    allow coal mining. Why would it allow the slopes of the Rocky
    Mountains to be covered with windmills?
        Mr. Reicher. Senator, that is an excellent question. I do
    not know the total details of this, but I can tell you in a
    general way that when this ranking was put together, it took a
    count of a variety of constraints on land use.
        Senator Craig. But I bet it did not take account of
    environmental impact statements, the NEPA process and the
    public bias that wants to leave those vistas open and
    beautiful.
        Mr. Reicher. I actually think that it took into account
    areas where, for a variety of restrictions placed by Federal,
    State and local governments, you could not. But there is a more
    important point, Senator. And that is that what we have found
    is that these generally go well and are highly accepted in
    agricultural areas.
        Senator Craig. But those are private lands.
        Mr. Reicher. Private lands.
        Senator Craig. That is right.
        Mr. Reicher. And farmers----
        Senator Craig. The areas that you are saying here, most of
    these States are 60, 70, 80 percent public lands.

                          WIND ENERGY ON PRIVATE LAND

        Mr. Reicher. I understand that. But we do not need a huge
    land area for the kind of development we are talking about. And
    what we have found is that farmers, because they can plant
    their crops and graze their animals literally up to the base of
    these energy technologies and get paid for the use of their
    land, they love this technology.
        Senator Craig. Well, I do not dispute that. I totally agree
    with you. And I think in North Dakota and other places like
    that that are more private land, I agree. But what you are
    talking about is something that is well known. That is
    basically the wind tunnel of the Rocky Mountains that rolls
    down out of Canada, that generates that pattern that is
    demonstrated on your map. Any of us who understand the
    geography of the West understand that.
        Those are--that is public land. And I have been around wind
    farms. They are big. They are very visible. And they are loud.
    They make a whopping sound that I do not think the public out
    west is going to like very well when they are out recreating on
    these mountain slopes.
        Mr. Reicher. If I could----
        Senator Craig. Please do.
        Mr. Reicher. Actually, the modern turbines, the new
    turbines, developed in the last few years are quite quiet. They
    are----
        Senator Craig. They do not stand up on a large promontory
    and have large blades?
        Mr. Reicher. Oh, they are large.
        Senator Craig. Yes.
        Mr. Reicher. They have large blades. They are quite tall.
    But they are relatively quiet compared to the old versions that
    you might have see in California, for example, where the major
    development----
        Senator Craig. Well, I only bring that because my guess is
    that if you expect that explosion of development other than on
    private property, we are going to have to change our attitudes
    as a public.
        Mr. Reicher. Actually, I do have a note here from someone
    with me that the studies did take into account NEPA, public
    lands, et cetera, for wind. So we were quite conservative in
    the analysis of this.

                                   GEOTHERMAL

        Senator Craig. Good. The same is also true of your
    geothermal development. I know the Senator from Nevada has just
    expressed that. I watched a flurry of geothermal excitement in
    the 1970's, after the last energy spike. And they came to my
    State of Idaho. They drilled in a variety of places. And the
    result was relatively disappointing because of the high
    temperatures needed at that time.
        Now I know technology is bringing down the overall
    temperature requirement some, and that is valuable. Once again,
    the problem is that the great geothermal basic of Idaho is tied
    to Yellowstone. And there is a tremendous fear that we might
    deplete the geothermal energies that are tied to Old Faithful.
        If you look at that pocket on your map on page 7 in
    northeastern Idaho and into Wyoming, that is the geothermal
    basin of Yellowstone Park. I do not think there will be any
    drilling there, because it was disallowed at the time with a
    great fluffy of concern, and legitimately so. And I did not
    criticize it.
        I think what I am trying to suggest to you is that the
    public in whatever fashion is going to have to accept some
    degree of tolerance to allow any kind of energy development,
    especially when you target large public land States of the
    West. Less true of biomass and all of that. Although on public
    lands in the West, collection of biomass, if we are not allowed
    to enter those lands and do stewardship programs to reduce the
    bio-loading and therefore make that stuff available, which we
    are not being allowed to do today, largely because of biased
    inter-public lands. Those are all going to be factors.

                                   HYDROPOWER

        But certainly on private properties and in the West, those
    are going to be extremely valuable. The reason I point those
    out, I am going to vote for this budget. But I am going to vote
    to put more into nuclear. I am going to vote to put more into
    hydro. And the question I would like to ask of you, Mr.
    Reicher, the advanced turbine research and development program
    requested for fiscal year 2001 is $5 million. The budget
    justification for 2001 States that the plan is to complete
    laboratory biological studies of the effect of turbulence on
    turbine-passed fish.
        Now the reason this is important, Mr. Chairman, we are
    engaged in a major controversy in the Snake-Columbia River
    system that is probably one of the greatest hydro-networks of
    the western world. There is a discussion of the removal of four
    dams with a generating capacity of 1,000 megawatts, a peaking
    capacity of 3,000, a huge abundance. And that is at a time
    that, within a year, Bonneville Power is going to be reporting
    a deficit of energy supply in the region. And yet this
    administration, some in the administration, have been very
    active advocates in the removal of those dams.
        I, quite the opposite. In fact, one of the areas of
    research here is to make the turbines less damaging to fish,
    more fish friendly. And that research is applicable all over
    the world and most certainly in that area.

                             FISH FRIENDLY TURBINES

        So I guess my question to you is: Could you explain why
    there is no funding being requested for the pilot scale proof
    of concept testing of the conceptual design to verify
    biological criteria and the predicted biological performance
    using live fish? That is the next step that we have to get to.
    That is, if we do not have an anti-hydro bias, and we want to
    improve the fish-friendly character of our hydro systems.
        Mr. Reicher. Senator Craig, first of all, it is an
    important energy resource. It is an area of R&D that we are
    committed to. And I brought an example of what this work
    involves, which is literally testing the impacts of various
    turbine designs with respect to both the actual mechanical
    impacts that a turbine can have on fish and the impacts on the
    dissolved oxygen at the base of a turbine.
        We literally have what somebody joked as sort of like a
    crash dummy fish. These are wired electrically, and we can do
    all sorts of important experiments looking at these designs.
        So we are very, very supportive of making these dams, these
    turbines, as people say, more fish friendly. We do think it is
    critical to what I think a number of dams are facing or will
    face in terms of relicensing over the next several years.
        And so that $5 million is designed to in fact move this
    whole opportunity forward to put new turbine designs into
    greater use, particularly as dams face relicensing.
        Senator Craig. But there is no money requested for the
    pilot scale----
        Mr. Reicher. I did not understand that question. And I am
    told that in fact----
        Senator Craig. We could not find it, at least. If it is in
    there, could you identify it for us?
        Mr. Reicher. Yes. We will identify that. And we will be
    quite specific about what that money is for, because I thought
    that was what the next step involved.
        [The information follows:]

                       PILOT-SCALE FISH FRIENDLY TURBINE

        The Department of Energy is committed to the goal of developing
    hydropower technology which will reduce turbine-induced fish mortality
    to 2 percent or less. No fiscal year 2001 funding was requested for the
    proof-of-concept, pilot-scale, test of the fish-friendly turbine design
    developed by the Alden Research Laboratory, since fiscal year 2000
    funding was considered sufficient to cover this activity and allow it
    to continue through fiscal year 2001. In addition, fiscal year 2001
    funding is requested for biological research, including sensor fish
    refinement, to gain the necessary understanding of stresses and
    behavior of fish in the turbine environment. The DOE program will also
    explore other fish-friendly designs by providing funding support for
    biological testing of turbines provided by industry.

        Senator Craig. It is. We are really going to reach forward
    and make--we have already done some retrofitting. I think we
    did it at Bonneville in the Lower Columbia, and we are moving
    up the system. But what is most important is that we advance
    this design so it is applicable, both in large and small scale,
    for all of our hydro systems around the country.
        Mr. Reicher. Absolutely.

                        SODIUM BONDED SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

        Senator Craig. Mr. Magwood, would the environmental impact
    statement for treatment and management of sodium bonded spent
    nuclear fuel scheduled to be completed in December 1999, why
    has the final environmental impact statement not be finalized?
    And when do you expect the record of decision to be issued?
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, that is true, Senator. We have been
    delayed in getting that out. There are two primary reasons for
    that. I think the most important reason is that we have been
    waiting for completion of a study by the National Research
    Council on the viability of the electrometallurgical treatment
    technology demonstration project and the use of this technology
    for treating DOE sodium bonded fuel.
        And if you have ever worked with the National Research
    Council, they are not always the most time-efficient
    organization, but they do come out with good answers. I am
    pleased to tell you that I met with them last week and their
    final report is now complete. And I have been informed that
    they have a very favorable view of the use of
    electrometallurgical technology for the use of treatment of our
    sodium bonded fuels.
        So we are currently completing the environmental impact
    statement, and I expect that we will issue the final EIS in the
    next 3 or 4 weeks, and 30-days later the Record of Decision. So
    I think that in May or so, we will see the Record of Decision.
        Senator Craig. Well, thank you. I think that is obviously
    necessary and important.
        Mr. Chairman, I have other questions. Let me ask just one
    last one, and then we will go another round, if you feel it
    necessary.
        Senator Domenici. Sure.

                           NUCLEAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Craig. To help maximize the benefit of its nuclear
    energy research programs and facilities, DOE has selected
    Argonne National Laboratories and the Idaho National
    Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to serve as its lead
    laboratories for nuclear reactor technology.
        The lead laboratory's charter calls for Argonne and the
    INEEL to continually evaluate and integrate the results of
    research and consider the need for follow-on research
    development and demonstration programs, as required to meet the
    Department's long-term goals and serve as a technical resource
    to provide support for the DOE and decision making or R&D
    efforts.
        Mr. Magwood, would you please comment on the DOE's nuclear
    power programs?
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, I would be happy to. We have established
    a lead laboratory relationship with Argonne and INEEL in Idaho.
    And it has proven to be very, very helpful in dealing with
    nuclear reactor technology issues. For example, our efforts to
    develop Generation IV nuclear power systems has been
    facilitated in large part by the lead laboratories.
        The meetings that we have been having with the
    international community have been hosted by those laboratories.
    The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in particular has
    been instrumental in pulling together a large workshop that we
    are holding in May that will include about 100 experts from
    across the world to talk about next generation nuclear power
    technologies.
        They also have been helpful in working with the other
    laboratories that have nuclear expertise, integrating an
    overall picture on nuclear technology. Obviously, we are to a
    certain extent resource constrained, so we have not been able
    to push that relationship as far as we would like.
        But I am very hopeful that in the future we will be able to
    devote more resources to those laboratories to establish the
    kind of pool of experts that are constantly available to us to
    support future nuclear power needs in the United States.
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
    come back in the second round. Thank you.

                                 NUCLEAR ENERGY

        Senator Domenici. Senator, let me just say I personally am
    very proud of the fact that within the Department of Energy
    they are doing some nuclear work now. Two years ago, they were
    doing none--2 years ago, you would assume that nuclear energy
    did not belong in an energy department of the greatest nation
    on earth. And we are doing some exciting things, little by
    little. And Mr. Magwood has taken a real positive approach with
    small amounts of money.
        It is quite obvious that we have a long way to go, but we
    are catching up very, very fast in terms of these other
    countries that have taken our technology and are moving ahead.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has become much more
    realistic in terms of the way they are regulating the industry.
    It is with great success. But it would appear that it is not
    with the idea of making it difficult, making it prolonged
    beyond reason.
        And I very much appreciate your interest, because, frankly,
    the world is going to find a new reactor that is safe, and
    there will be no way for anybody to worry about it. And we will
    put that in the mix in the United States, also, sometime in the
    future, I believe.
        Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that
    you say that. And I must say the leadership for that turnaround
    has come largely from this committee and from your effort and
    those of us who are involved and interested. Because when I
    look at the scheme of things and I look at our desire to have
    clean air in this country, and we should----
        Senator Domenici. Exactly.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. I am not quite sure how we get
    there without at least the nuclear component and the hydro
    component sustaining a percentage of the share of the total. I
    do not think we get there. And yet we are wanting it as a
    country, and we deserve it with our capabilities and our
    technologies.
        So we will push in that area. And if we have to, we will
    lead. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I want to also make an observation,
    because I do not have time today. Mr. Reicher, having
    complimented you, I continue that compliment in terms of
    managing your office. It is very diverse and very difficult.
        But I do not have time today to engage in a series of
    questions with you whereby we would establish some of the
    limitations that are real with reference to solar energy and
    the other energies that you have described today.

                       PROS AND CONS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

        There are others who have looked at it and say yes, it
    should be pursued, but we ought to be realistic as to what it
    can accomplish. And we also ought to be realistic as to what
    pollution it will ultimately cause, if you use conventional
    solar apparatus and wind apparatus, and you really think you
    are going to add substantially to the national need, that there
    will be a huge amount of apparatus left over that assume
    gigantic status in terms of ground pollution.
        So I am going to try, in which event I will notify you, I
    am going to try to bring a witness from that side of the
    equation, that would come before the committee and say, you
    know, you are not going to touch the dependence on crude oil
    very much for the next 15 years, or tell us out of all of these
    which one has the best chance of doing something significant.
        I do not want anyone to think I am against these
    technologies. I cannot find enough money for all the solar
    energy requests and the others in the budget, in the
    appropriations. We might this year. We will try. But, frankly,
    I look at it from the standpoint of our growing dependence on
    oil.
        And I just do not see in the foreseeable future a very
    major reduction in crude oil dependence in the United States. I
    see more in conservation probably than any other thing we have
    addressed here today. That is real. We could do tremendously
    better, if we set about to do it. But I am not sure that the
    other technologies that have been spoken about here today are
    really going to make a very big dent.
        But I need somebody who knows more than I know, knows as
    much as you know, but knows it from a different slant. I need
    to have them come before the committee and tell us about it.
        And like I say, I will be fair. I will prompt you and tell
    you that we have that person. And if you want to come up, maybe
    you would come up with them. In any event, we are going to hear
    from somebody on the other side of this.
        Now having said that, let us----
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, just one brief comment.
        Senator Domenici. Sure.
        Senator Reid. And also, I think in fairness we need
    somebody to give us the other side of the nuclear----
        Senator Domenici. Sure. Whatever you would like.
        Senator Reid. I do not know what that is, but----
        Senator Domenici. We are not planning to build a new
    nuclear reactor, from what I can see, for a long time. So right
    now we are still stuck with what we have.
        Senator Reid. I have supported you in your efforts to
    develop transmutation and other programs like that. I think it
    is important we understand the full program.
        Mr. Reicher. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could just for one
    second?
        Senator Domenici. Sure.

                            RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

        Mr. Reicher. I also urge you to take a look at what some of
    the oil companies themselves, in terms of their own
    projections, are considering with respect to the role over time
    that various technologies are going to play in our energy mix.
    And it is very illuminating.
        You will see, for example, a variety of these oil companies
    take the opportunities with biomass very seriously, very
    seriously, and there are projections of----
        Senator Domenici. Right.
        Mr. Reicher. And hydrogen in a very fundamental way.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I heard that today. And we
    certainly are going to be asking questions about that. That is
    an exciting thing. If in fact we have it moving in that
    direction, we may get more biomass, also, than I have
    perceiving looking at what others predict.
        You may be more right on biomass. It may very well be a new
    combine is taking place in terms of generating the interest.
        Mr. Reicher. And with respect to solar, the breakthrough
    for the solar electric will be when we succeed, as we are
    moving towards actually building it into building materials,
    literally the materials that we build our houses and buildings
    and making them self-generating. We are moving in that
    direction, and it is very exciting to have a technology that
    literally will be part and parcel of the structures in our
    cities and other areas.
        Senator Domenici. Let me ask Senator McConnell, how long
    can you stay?
        Senator McConnell. Well, I have several things----
        Senator Domenici. I am going to have to leave shortly. And
    I had a few questions of this panel. Did you have questions of
    this panel?
        Senator McConnell. Yes, of Mr. Magwood.
        Senator Domenici. And then we have another panel of two.
    Would any of you be able to stay and call those people?
        Senator Craig. I think I can stay for a little while
    longer.

                                 NANOTECHNOLOGY

        Senator Domenici. All right. I just have a couple of quick
    questions. Dr. Decker, first, I understand you really had to go
    out of your way personally to be here today. You had something
    much more pleasant planned for your life. And you were entitled
    to that. And I very much appreciate your coming.
        The notion of nano science, which the President is now
    bantering around, and so people are beginning to take this
    technology and listen to it and look at it, it is obviously
    some of the most exciting science work that we have ever seen.
    I had occasion to see a little piece of nano science at Sandia
    National Laboratories, where they were talking about micro-
    engines and the production of little, tiny engines on a chip,
    like a computer chip. And they actually ran. Little engines run
    and produce power and do things, although mighty small.
        As a matter of fact, I was very privileged to have been in
    the presence of a young engineer who got the national award for
    engineer of the year for being the design engineer of a micro-
    engine on a computer chip. And I thought--I never thought
    engineers would recognize that that is engineering. I thought
    engineering is engineering.
        It is not making micro-engines that are as small as a
    strand of hair and putting thousands of them on a chip. And
    thinking that you might put them in the bloodstream some day
    and they will attack what you ask them to attack, perhaps the
    stuff that accumulates around the human heart. There are all
    kinds of uses.
        The President is asking for a lot of nano money spread out
    across six different agencies and departments. I would just
    like to ask you, could we be confident here that the national
    laboratories, who do a lot of work and those that are involved
    in nuclear weaponry, need nano science all the time. Theirs is
    the business of miniaturization. Will they be part of this
    effort, as you see it?
        Dr. Decker. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they certainly will. We
    have, I think, enormous capabilities within the national
    laboratories in the whole area of materials. In fact, the
    Department is, I believe, the leading supporter of material
    science.
        We have a terrific investment in facilities that are going
    to be incredibly important in characterizing and understanding
    science and technology at this scale. Our synchrotron light
    sources, our neutron sources, our electron micro
    characterization facilities, all will be incredibly important,
    I think, in carrying out this initiative.

                           SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE

        Senator Domenici. You have requested $262 million for the
    Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge. It had a little bit of
    a delay because of an overrun and a little bit of confusion
    with reference to management of the project. I assume we are on
    all four burners, moving right ahead now. Is everything in
    order?
        Dr. Decker. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to say that it
    is. We just had a very significant review of that project. And
    the review team concluded that in fact the project is on--can
    be built on cost and schedule. But we did do some significant
    restructuring, as you indicated, on the management of that
    project over the last year. We have an excellent management
    team in place now, and I think they are doing an outstanding
    job.
        Senator Domenici. Are there any technical, engineering,
    management or scientific issues that remain that could impact
    on the successful completion of this project?
        Dr. Decker. I think any time you build a facility like
    this, which is pushing the state-of-the-art, you always have
    some unknowns with regard to incorporating technology. But we
    believe that the risks, any risks that we have, are quite
    manageable. And we are quite comfortable that there will not be
    any technical show stoppers at this point.
        Senator Domenici. I just got that question on the record,
    fellow Senators, because we do not have a great record within
    the Department of Energy of building major kind of facilities
    and getting them done on time, or even getting them done. That
    is not complaining about anyone. It is just a statement of
    fact. And this is not one of the giant projects, but it is a
    pretty good sized one.
        Dr. Decker. It is.
        Senator Domenici. And I would very much not like to see
    this one go the way a number of them have. So we are going to
    follow it very carefully. And when we ask you these questions,
    we are very serious about your telling us on the record, so we
    do not have something new occur later.
        Dr. Decker. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you for your dedicated effort. You
    have put some really good people together.
        I yield now to Senator McConnell.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              CYLINDER CONVERSION

        Mr. Magwood, when I drafted the cylinder conversion bill
    which is now Public Law 105-204, it established a time table
    that would give the Department more than enough time to
    implement this legislation. Unfortunately, my lowest
    expectations for the Department have been exceeded.
        I am very skeptical that the budget offered by the
    Secretary is sufficient to keep this project on track and able
    to meet the time table that you have set forth. In fact, it is
    my understanding that this budget only provides enough funding
    for your office to complete one-third of the total design work
    for the facilities.
        Based on information from project experts, as well as
    information from your office, at least $60 million is needed to
    keep the project on track.
        Further, I am disappointed the Secretary offered only $12
    million of the available $24 million he had committed to
    provide last year.
        So I have several questions in that regard. Has the
    Secretary withdrawn his commitment on this project, Mr.
    Magwood?
        Mr. Magwood. No, Senator. I have spoken with the Secretary
    about this, and he is insisting that we proceed along with this
    project as efficiently as we can. I have also worked very
    closely with the Deputy Secretary, and he has spent a great
    deal of time with me personally discussing this, and how to
    keep it on track.
        There are obviously significant funding limitations, but I
    think that given where we are in the project, the need to do
    some sampling of the cylinders--I think you are very familiar
    with the issue that we have run into, where we are concerned
    about the possibility that there are transuranic materials in
    the depleted uranium that could affect the design of the
    facilities down the road.
        Given where we are, I think the amount of money we have
    asked for is just about right.
        Senator McConnell. What about the remaining $12 million in
    funding that has not been obligated?
        Mr. Magwood. Well, let me explain. We expect to issue an
    RFP in October. If we keep to that schedule, and I expect that
    we will, we will be able to award a contract probably around
    this time next year.
        Because of the fact that this will only leave a small
    amount of time left in the fiscal year to do work, we think
    that the $12 million we have asked for in appropriations and
    the $12 million we have matched it with--the available USEC
    monies--is sufficient to get through the rest of that fiscal
    year.
        What that means is that the $60 million you spoke of will
    probably be needed up in the 2002 budget or the balance will be
    needed in the 2002 budget to complete the design work.
        So it has not reduced the need. It has simply pushed it off
    into the future a bit. But we are still on track. We are
    obviously behind schedule because of the transuranic issue, but
    I believe we are on track and moving along as best as possible.

                          SALE OF LOW ENRICHED URANIUM

        Senator McConnell. Last year, the Secretary promised to
    commit the revenue from the sale of low enriched uranium held
    by the Department to fund the conversion of 57,000 cylinders of
    depleted uranium stored at Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge.
        The President's budget assumes that the sale will raise $21
    million in fiscal year 2001. Yet, as we have said, only $12
    million is budgeted for the conversion program.
        How do you explain this? Is this a budget sleight of hand
    or what? How would you explain that?
        Mr. Magwood. I did not answer the first part of your last
    question--or the second part of your last question.
        The $12 million that you spoke of, the rest of the $24
    million, is still available and can still be devoted to the
    project. We still plan to put that in the project in the future
    years. So it is not that we have used it elsewhere. We simply
    are deferring its use for now.
        The money that we expect to collect from the sale of LEU,
    my understanding--and I have talked with our CFO about this--is
    that we did provide some language to different members to try
    to get that into the budget so we could use it for this
    project.
        And for whatever reason--I am not as familiar with this as
    the CFO is--that did not happen. And I do not know what the
    plan is to go forward. So, I am not, perhaps, the best person
    to address that aspect of it.
        But we do expect to apply all of the available USEC funding
    to this project. And we have been working very closely with the
    staffs of the Kentucky and Ohio delegations as we try to apply
    those monies.

                           TRANSURANIC CONTAMINATION

        Senator McConnell. Well, going back to the transuranic
    waste that you mentioned, you informed my staff in a meeting
    last month that this waste was found in depleted uranium
    cylinders generated in 1988 and 1993.
        If the Atomic Energy Commission stopped using recycled
    uranium during the mid-1970s, how do you explain the fact that
    this material is found in these cylinders 10 to 15 years later?
        Mr. Magwood. I am not being facetious, but that is a really
    good question. We have been trying to figure that out. It is
    something that was a surprise to my office.
        We suspect that it may have come from the foreign research
    reactor field, but we are not really certain of that. It is an
    ongoing investigation to try to understand why that is there.
        As you indicated, we know that in the late 1950's to 1960's
    and late 1960's to early 1970's, the Department recycled
    uranium. Why material would show up 15 years later is something
    that we are still investigating.

                    GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS WORKER LAYOFFS

        Senator McConnell. You are probably aware that USEC is
    preparing to lay off 825 workers at the gaseous diffusion
    plants. It is my understanding that your office has control
    over $10 million in funds that have been obligated to cylinder
    maintenance between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2010. The
    level of funding would be more sufficient--this level of
    funding would be more than sufficient to provide these basic
    benefits.
        Is there any reason why this funding cannot be used
    immediately to provide a voluntary reduction in force benefits
    package? And what about worker health testing or accelerating
    cleanup?
        Mr. Magwood. I have not heard that idea come up. It is
    certainly something that, I am sure, if you would like to make
    a recommendation, we would certainly take it back to the
    Secretary and discuss it.
        It simply has not come up, and I do not know if there is a
    technical reason why some of the monies could not be diverted.
    Clearly, if we do not spend money on cylinder maintenance, we
    do have the risk that some of the cylinders could corrode. We
    could have a leak. But as you know, we do not think that that
    is the situation now.
        There is a possibility that we could take after reductions
    and use that money elsewhere. But it is something we would have
    to look into very, very thoroughly before doing so. We would
    certainly be willing to take that recommendation back if you
    want to state that formally.

                          CYLINDER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        Senator McConnell. Yes. Why do you not do that?
        I have a budget document that was prepared by your cleanup
    contractor that states that at the end of fiscal year 2001, the
    cylinder management program will have an uncosted balance of
    $9.2 million between Paducah and Portsmouth.
        How do you explain this? And why are you requesting such a
    massive increase, if the contractor will not be able to spend
    this amount of funding?
        Mr. Magwood. I do not believe that is correct. From what I
    understand, we actually have less money available right now
    than we need to complete the work that has been assigned to the
    contractors.
        So I would have to understand more about where that number
    comes from before I can really respond to that.
        [The information follows:]

                              CYLINDER MANAGEMENT

        It is my understanding that as part of the budget formulation
    process for the uranium programs' fiscal year 2001 budget request,
    various funding scenarios were developed for allocation of funding
    among Paducah, Portsmouth, and the East Tennessee Technology Park by
    the management and integration contractor. Although the Office of
    Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is not familiar with the budget
    document cited in this question, we are familiar with a scenario that
    maximized cylinder maintenance at Paducah and Portsmouth, and resulted
    in a somewhat lower uncosted balance. However, neither scenario is
    considered credible because of other program mandates that were not
    considered in the scenarios. As we proceed through the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations process, the Department will continue to analyze options
    for allocation of limited funding to meet the numerous priorities of
    the program at the three sites. Regardless, we do not envision the
    allocation of the funding among the sites to result in a high uncosted
    balance in fiscal year 2001.

        Senator McConnell. Would it not be better to just go on and
    spend the money on cylinder conversion to eliminate the threat,
    than to continue to maintain?
        Mr. Magwood. My view, Senator, is that you need a balance.
    It is going to take us 25 or 30 years to treat all of the
    depleted uranium. If we were not to keep a cylinder maintenance
    program going over that period of time, we would clearly,
    clearly have some environmental problems with some of those
    cylinders.
        As you know, some of the cylinders date back to the
    Manhattan Project, and they require a great deal of care and
    feeding, so to speak. We have to paint them; we have to inspect
    them. There are still some cylinders that we have not re-racked
    in the way that we can inspect them visually. So that work
    needs to continue.
        And obviously, as time goes on and as we complete the
    painting of at least one coat on each of the cylinders, the
    tempo of those activities can start to decrease.
        Quite frankly, I do not know whether we could spend a great
    deal more money than we have identified at this point because
    of the sampling issue and because of the fact that it simply
    takes time to award a contract like this and to do it right.
        So I do not think more money would help at this point.
        Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, if I could get in one more
    question, and then I will submit the balance of them to Mr.
    Magwood.
        Senator Domenici. Please proceed.

                              CYLINDER MAINTENANCE

        Senator McConnell. In testimony before the Energy Committee
    2 weeks ago, you claimed that your office has met the standards
    set by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    Recommendation 95-1 for depleted uranium cylinder management,
    and you are confident that the program has solved the cylinder
    storage problems.
        If you are in full compliance, how do you justify a 30
    percent increase in your budget for the cylinder--cylinder
    maintenance program at Paducah?
        Mr. Magwood. When I met with the Board, I believe it was in
    November, they asked why our funding for the cylinder
    maintenance program had decreased, because they knew our
    spending profile. And my response to that was that I had
    promised them that we would increase funding in the future to
    make up for the work that we had not done.
        And I believe that their dismissal of the recommendation
    was predicated on the program for cylinder maintenance that we
    have put in place and on the idea that we would make up for the
    work that had not been accomplished. So it is work that still
    needs to get done, and the Board recognized that.
        Senator McConnell. Well, Mr. Magwood, as I indicated, I
    have a number of other questions--which in the interest of
    time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to him and have the
    responses in writing at whatever time we----
        Senator Domenici. They will be submitted. And would you
    answer that as soon as possible?
        Mr. Magwood. Absolutely.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. I have a series of questions to be
    answered by all three of you, but I am not going to ask them. I
    will submit them to you.
        Senator Murray?
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have a
    series of technical questions. If I could just submit them, so
    that we can move along. I do have some questions for the second
    panel. So I would be happy to submit these.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Senator, do you have any further questions?

                            EBR-II SODIUM PROCESSING

        Senator Craig. I do have just two more. And let me ask one
    of Mr. Magwood and one of Mr. Reicher. Mr. Magwood first.
        There has been some criticism of delays and technical
    problems in processing the sodium coolant at EBR-II at the
    INEEL. Will you please describe what steps have been taken to
    correct those problems and assure that the sodium will be
    treated by March 2002, as the department has committed to do?
        Mr. Magwood. Yes, I will be happy to. Just to give a little
    bit of background for the Senators who may not be familiar with
    this, we have been treating the sodium that has been drained
    from the EBR-II reactor system as part of the process of
    shutting the reactor down. The first portion of that sodium was
    being converted to sodium hydroxide for disposal using a
    process that has been established at Argonne National
    Laboratory.
        We had been on track to treat all this material and treat
    it to a dry, cake-like substance that can be disposed of.
    Unfortunately, late last year we discovered that the process
    was not working as Argonne had anticipated, and that we had
    found some liquid in some of the drums, the process material.
    We traced the problem down to a faulty textbook that one of the
    Argonne scientists used in designing the process. The
    temperatures were not at the right level.
        We were very concerned about the fact that Argonne failed
    to refine this problem before they produced so much material.
    So I shut the process down, ordered Argonne's lab director into
    Washington to explain how this happened. I was very concerned
    about the fact that this went so long without being discovered.
        And since that time, I have authorized a recovery path to
    begin processing the material again. But at the same time, I
    have also instructed Argonne to reorganize, to make the sodium
    processing activity report much higher in the Argonne chain of
    command.
        And I have also established an independent technical expert
    that consists largely of the Merrick Corporation to observe
    what Argonne's activities are related to sodium processing, and
    report directly to my office on Argonne's technical progress.
        So we put some things in place that we think will prevent
    any further delays in the program. It is something that we are
    extraordinarily unhappy about, quite frankly. But Argonne has
    been very cooperative in trying to rectify the problem. And I
    think we are on track to get this done.
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much.

                              GEOPOWERING THE WEST

        Mr. Reicher, one last question of you as it relates to your
    2001 budget request for renewable resource technologies. It
    proposes $2 million to initiate a new program, and that is
    Geopowering the West to take advantage of the abundance of the
    geothermal resources that are found in the western States,
    including Alaska, Hawaii and my State of Idaho.
        The initiative proposes to increase the use of geothermal
    for electrical production, in addition to fostering the use of
    low temperature sources across the West to supply energy for
    residents, commercial establishments, and industrial
    applications. Before I ask the question, I think, while I may
    have sounded critical a few moments ago, I was attempting to
    sound probative, because I do believe that this initiative has
    some excellent opportunities.
        Literally hundreds of homes in Idaho are heated by
    geothermal. The statehouse in Idaho and a large portion of
    downtown Boise is heated by geothermal wells that a lot of
    people do not know about. It is obviously abundant, and it is
    clean. It is limited.
        But there is a great deal about the technology we do not
    know, and the replenishment of it that is critical, including
    injection wells and all of the kinds of things that would be
    necessary to return moisture to those levels, if we are going
    to attempt a full cycle system and all of those kinds of things
    with geothermal.
        Obviously, space heat can accept substantially cooler
    temperatures compared to electrical generation by turbines or
    steam turbines coming off the geothermal heat. So while I am
    concerned about it, I am aware of it and spent a great deal of
    time watching it, looking at it, studying it, during the decade
    of the seventies, after America stood in energy lines and then
    became frustrated, as did the department at that time launch
    out into these new areas.
        Is this an ambitious program? And could you explain
    specifically how the $2 million would be used that is in the
    budget now?
        Mr. Reicher. Senator, I think it is an ambitious program,
    but I think it is a realistic one, given how far we have come
    with the technology and given the quality of the resource in
    the West. You note absolutely correctly that we are looking at
    both the electric potential and the heat potential of
    geothermal.
        And those do differ substantially, and that this is why I
    think a subsidiary goal, in fact, of this Geopowering the West
    is to heat seven million homes using geothermal energy by 2010.
    I noted that the electricity goal is 10 percent of western
    electricity by 2020. So those two goals fit together quite
    nicely.
        In terms of the overall geothermal work, we are in fact
    focused on some of the issues that you raise. For example, how
    do we replenish the geothermal resource? And there is a variety
    of interesting things that we are working on. And I will give
    you one very interesting example.
        There are geothermal sites now in the West where the
    effluent from sewage treatment plants, which is difficult in
    some cases to dispose of, is literally injected down into the
    geothermal setting to replenish the moisture that you need to
    continue to make abundant use of the steam and the heat. So we
    are very mindful of that issue.
        With respect to the initiative itself, the Geopowering the
    West, what we have found with these relatively immature
    technologies is that we have to acquaint people with how they
    work.
        And most fundamentally, that, I think, is what Geopowering
    the West is about, to literally go into these hundreds of
    communities that have a good geothermal resource in the West
    and explore the possibilities of tapping that resource, from a
    technical perspective, from a financial perspective, and from
    an institutional perspective.
        It may well involve in some cases the issue you raised in
    terms of the use of public lands, although I am told that we
    did look at sensitive lands in our analysis of the western
    resource.
        So the opportunity is there in sort of a scientific sense,
    a technological sense. But what is missing is the kind of
    acquaintance that we think we need, community by community,
    State by State. And so the third goal of this is in fact to
    double the number of States with geothermal facilities to eight
    by 2006.
        We have found in our wind program that when we actually get
    wind turbines into States that have not had them before,
    Minnesota, Iowa, Vermont, Wisconsin, Texas, the technology
    begins to feed on itself. It begins to grow because people
    become comfortable with it. They understand it. And they know
    that it works and that it works well. And that is what we need
    to do for geothermal.

            DOE LABORATORY INVOLVEMENT IN GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RESEARCH

        Senator Craig. Would you care to comment on the status of
    your search for designating a geothermal laboratory in the
    department?
        Mr. Reicher. We today have a large number of our labs doing
    some geothermal work. And the decision that I made was that we
    needed to concentrate that work in a smaller number of labs.
    That has in fact been much of the focus in DOE and a whole host
    of programs, that we are spread too thin. And we are in the
    process, over the course of the next year, to identify both the
    lead labs for geothermal and then those that will remain in a
    supporting role.
        And to be very frank with you, we will make some decisions
    that will likely take a couple of labs out of the geothermal
    business, at least as funded by my office. I will get you the
    details of that, and we will keep you apprised of it as we go
    forward.
        [The information follows:]

                               GEOTHERMAL PROGRAM

        The process for selecting a lead laboratory and supporting
    laboratories for our fiscal year 2001 geothermal program is under
    development. The Department expects to announce its decision before the
    end of this fiscal year. We will notify the Subcommittee when the
    process has been completed.

        Senator Craig. I would like to know that. And I might
    suggest, just for your own information--and it would be worth
    your time or your people's time to observe if they have not--
    the State campus in downtown Boise, the Statehouse and many of
    its office buildings, are heated by geothermal. There is a
    marvelous avenue in Boise called warm springs with beautiful,
    old turn-of-the-century homes that have been heated since they
    were built by geothermal.
        Geothermal is a technology that has been used in Idaho for
    about 85 to 90 years and very successfully. But clearly, the
    greater efficiencies by technology and the application can come
    about, I think, and probably in most areas where the absence
    of--and I think maybe that is an ambitious figure to get
    electrical generation to where you want it, because we have
    studied that rather thoroughly.
        And while there is great opportunity for space heat, which
    is still as valuable in many instances, the opportunities for
    electrical generation, based on at least the exploration of the
    seventies and early eighties, would appear to be considerably
    more limited.
        But I am interested in that. Idaho is interested in that.
    We have been at the business for a good long while.
        Mr. Reicher. Well, Senator, I both look forward to working
    with you on this. And with respect to the electricity goal for
    2020, what gave me a degree of confidence about that goal was
    the fact that California today gets 6 percent of its
    electricity from geothermal.
        Senator Craig. Well, those are the fields in northern
    California that I have been to and looked at and that
    generation--and, of course, we are pretty knowledgeable in
    where it is today. The question is, can we create the turbines
    that are efficient enough to get more from them? I am not quite
    sure we can get more from the resource itself, as much as we
    can get more from technological development.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. I have to leave for a budget conference
    which starts at 11:00. And I am hoping to be through within a
    couple of hours. So we will have the budget finished. Would one
    of you be able to proceed with the next two witnesses? I would
    appreciate it immensely.
        Let me just say, Mr. Reicher, just because I remain silent
    while my good friend talked about geothermal energy does not
    mean that all of us are abandoning our enthusiasm to the
    enthusiasm of his State. There are others of us who have
    similar geothermal interests with long-standing R&D efforts.
    And to see it rekindled is exciting to me. It sort of dropped
    off the wall.
        Senator Craig. We think our geothermal is much better than
    his.
        Senator Domenici. I did not want to say that, because --you
    can say it. You are from that side of the aisle.
        Senator Craig. I do not come from a gambling State. I just
    know mine is better.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Domenici. Thanks to all three of you very, very
    much.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                 Question Submitted to the Department of Energy

                 Question Submitted by Denator Pete V. Domenici

                 WVU NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER

        Question. In the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations bill, I added $3.5 million to be used toward the
    construction of the proposed $18 million National Educational and
    Technology Center to be located on the campus of West Virginia
    University. This proposed facility will provide a centralized national
    clearinghouse to maintain a comprehensive holding of regulatory source
    information, policy documents, reference material and scientific
    literature pertinent to maintaining a Positron Emissions Tomography
    facility.
        Unfortunately, the distribution of these fiscal year 1999 funds to
    West Virginia University was delayed significantly until I was able to
    speak personally to Secretary Bill Richardson in December 1999. I am
    advised that these fiscal year 1999 funds were finally released to West
    Virginia University officials in mid-February of 2000.
        In the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
    bill, I secured an additional $1.5 million for this project. I
    understand that an application from West Virginia University will be
    submitted to the Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the
    Department of Energy in the very near future. This project is among my
    highest priorities in the Energy and Water Development bill. What
    assurances can you provide me that delays similar to last year will not
    occur and that the award of the fiscal year 2000 funding along with any
    future funding the Congress may provide for this project will be made
    in a timely manner?
        Answer. There is currently no delay on the release of funding for
    fiscal year 2000 Congressional earmarks. The fiscal year 2000 earmarks
    are being reviewed by the relevant program offices to ensure the funds
    will be appropriately spent and fit within the mission of the
    Department of Energy. The review requires cooperation between the
    program office and the entity to which the funds are proposed to be
    released. A detailed scope of work and process must be developed that
    may take several weeks or months. In addition, the Department must make
    a determination of competitive or non-competitive financial assistance
    that requires review by legal counsel. Once this review process is
    completed, each proposal is submitted to the Secretary for final
    approval.
                                     ______

       Questions Submitted to the Office of Energy and Renewable Science

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

            FUNDING FOR SOLAR AND RENEWABLES AT THE NEW MEXICO LABS

        Question. Mr. Reicher, I am concerned about a disturbing trend in
    the requested funding for some of your programs. For example,
    department-wide, the solar and renewable request increased 32 percent,
    while Sandia's solar and renewable work increased only 12 percent and
    LANL received a small 4 percent increase. All other labs doing solar
    and renewables work received between 25 percent and 40 percent increase
    in funding for fiscal year 2001.
        I have heard that funding was reduced for the New Mexico labs
    because you perceived a ``lack of support by the New Mexico
    delegation.'' Will you commit to me today that funding decisions will
    be based on merit rather than on political considerations?
        Answer. Solar and Renewable Energy funding is, and will continue to
    be, allocated based on the performer's ability to execute the technical
    and management tasks required by the programs. Political considerations
    do not influence DOE decisions on the distribution of funds, unless a
    specific mandate is included in the Energy and Water Appropriation
    Bill.
        In the case of Sandia National Laboratories, several factors
    influenced the apparently modest (12 percent) increase in the funding
    request for fiscal year 2001:
      --On October 1, 1999, Sandia significantly altered its cost
            structure. This resulted is an almost 4-fold increase in
            Sandia's overhead charge on subcontracts (from 7 percent to 26
            percent).
      --Much of the work in EE, and solar and renewable resources
            technologies in particular, is applied research that is done in
            cooperation with industry, therefore warranting a significant
            amount of subcontract work, with private sector partners.
      --To get the most for the taxpayer's dollar, prudent program
            management required these programs to shift as much of the
            subcontracted work as possible to other field offices/labs
            (e.g., ALO, GFO, NREL). While the benefits gained from direct
            management by Sandia were sufficient at the lower overhead
            rates, the four fold increase exceeds any benefits that might
            accrue from Sandia managing the subcontracts.
        It should also be noted that although this resulted in reduced
    subcontracting at Sandia, some of these funds went directly to
    subcontracts in New Mexico. These include the City of Albuquerque
    Development Services Division (a Million Solar Roofs partner), EG&G,
    KPMG, New Mexico State University--Las Cruces, Spectra Research, and
    the Laguna Native American tribe. This change will allow more money to
    reach our partners than if they had been fully burdened by Sandia's new
    overhead rates.
        New Mexico laboratories continue to be integral partners in the
    development of solar and renewable technologies. Sandia, for example,
    is the lead laboratory in the development of solar parabolic troughs
    and dishes, and provides essential engineering support to the
    development of photovoltaic and solar water heating technologies. The
    12 percent increase proposed for Sandia in the fiscal year 2001 DOE
    budget request indicates DOE's continuing support for this very
    important laboratory.
        In the case of Los Alamos National laboratory, funding will be
    essentially constant for fiscal year 2001, reflecting the constant
    budgets for the Solar and Renewables programs where Los Alamos receives
    substantial funding--High Temperature Superconductivity and Hydrogen.
        Los Alamos has an important role in the High Temperature
    Superconductivity program, having received $6,210K in fiscal year 1999
    and $5,700K thus far in fiscal year 2000. Since a substantial amount of
    the fiscal year 1999 funding was for new cooperative work with
    industry, this year's spending will actually be somewhat higher. In the
    future, this cooperative research is expected to be carried out in the
    new research park now under construction. This will build on Los
    Alamos' success in working with industry to rapidly bring high
    temperature superconductivity to commercialization.
        The Hydrogen program responsibilities for Los Alamos have increased
    with their being selected as Lead Laboratory on all research and
    development activities in the area of utilization. This includes all
    work on sensors, fuel cells, and other applications. In addition, Los
    Alamos is also responsible for managing the technology validation
    systems for the production of hydrogen from renewable energy resources.
    A budget increase for fiscal year 2001 is anticipated due to these
    increased responsibilities.

                             WIND POWERING AMERICA

        Question. Mr. Reicher, the budget request contains $5.0 million to
    initiate Wind Powering America--a new national program to accelerate
    use of wind power in America. Can you tell the committee how this
    program will be executed? How will DOE determine the appropriate use of
    the funding requested? What criteria or guidelines will be used to
    evaluate competitive requests or proposals?
        Answer. Wind Powering America will leverage federal dollars with
    states, industry, utilities, and rural communities to undertake
    regionally-based activities to identify and facilitate opportunities
    for increasing wind power use. DOE Regional Offices, National
    Laboratories, and selected stakeholder organizations will evaluate
    technical, institutional, and regulatory issues and provide appropriate
    assistance to overcome barriers to wind power development. In addition
    to in-house funding, specific competitive solicitations will be
    developed as required for activities to be carried out through
    stakeholder partnerships to achieve the goals of the initiative. These
    solicitations and their related evaluation criteria will be tailored to
    suit the specific topics for the procurement, and will be developed in
    accordance with Federal procurement regulations.
        Question. Specifically, how will the $5.0 million be used? Is this
    for lobbying, advertising, or just what?
        Answer. Funding will support regionally-based analyses and strategy
    development (including stakeholder meetings and workshops); technical
    support such as feasibility analyses, identification of power
    transmission constraints, distributed generation opportunities, and
    wind mapping; and outreach activities to involve key potential partners
    such as rural electric cooperatives, Federal agencies, and State
    regulatory agencies. The DOE Regional Offices will assist the Wind
    Program in determining the most effective use of Federal resources to
    address the technical and institutional challenges unique to each
    region.
        Question. What are the expected annual out year funding
    requirements?
        Answer. The estimated out year funding of $5 million annually for
    five years is expected to leverage over $100 million in new investment,
    driven by needs expressed by regional stakeholders.

    INTERNATIONAL CLEAN ENERGY INITIATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY
                              RESEARCH INITIATIVE

        Question. Mr. Magwood and Mr. Reicher, the budget request includes
    $6.8 million under Nuclear Energy to initiate the International Clean
    Energy Initiative/International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. I
    note that there are several additional new items under Solar and
    Renewable Energy programs where the Department is requesting new money
    for the International Clean Energy Initiative separately. Explain the
    scope of these initiatives and why it is necessary to begin these new
    programs in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The International Clean Energy Initiative (ICEI) and
    International Nuclear Energy Initiative (INEI) are important to assure
    access to these emerging markets by the U.S. private sector and to
    support economic development aspirations of the developing world.
    Economic development and quality of life improvements for most of the
    world's population will require a major expansion in the provision of
    energy services in the decades ahead. Most of the expected growth will
    take place outside the United States, especially in developing
    countries and countries with economies in transition, and these markets
    represent some of the most significant growth opportunities for U.S.
    energy firms in the coming decades. The World Bank has estimated that
    developing countries alone, over the next four decades, will require
    five million megawatts of new electrical generating capacity to meet
    anticipated needs (Today's total world installed capacity is about
    three million megawatt's). The result of satisfying the needs of the
    developing countries will be to double the world's installed capacity
    during the next four decades. This translates into investments
    approaching $15 to $25 trillion dollars and accounts for more than half
    of the projected global investments in energy supply during this
    period. Ninety percent of the markets for coal, nuclear, and renewable
    energy technologies are expected to be outside the United States.
    Improvements in efficiency would require additional investment.
    Strategic investments today--by the U.S. government and the private
    sector--will assure strong participation in those markets tomorrow.
        The private sector plays a major role in energy innovation and
    related international cooperation. Private sector investments alone,
    however, will not adequately capture the full range of public benefits-
    like reduced pollution, increased energy security, long-term technology
    innovation, and developmental equity issues. Government activities
    focused on filling gaps in private-sector investment can achieve
    significant benefits for the United States.
        Present government programs cannot meet the challenges of future
    global energy growth. In 1997, government expenditures on international
    cooperation on energy innovation amounted to about $250 million per
    year, but these funds were primarily in nuclear fission and fusion. The
    government has few programs to bridge the gap between R&D and
    commercial deployment. This gap impedes the commercialization of
    innovative energy technologies. Strengthening North-South cooperation
    on clean and advanced energy technologies is a promising approach which
    would help secure developing country participation in the international
    framework for addressing global climate change as requested by the
    Senate's 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Further, the United Nations
    Framework Convention on Climate Change--signed by President Bush and
    ratified by the U.S. Senate--explicitly calls for such cooperation from
    the United States and other Parties. This cooperation would help
    provide alliances, information, and foundations needed for developing
    countries to take on greenhouse gas emissions-reductions targets and
    timetables. Indeed, such cooperation can lead to sustainable
    development with the U.S. private sector playing a significant role.
        Question. What is the estimated total cost of these programs?
        Answer. The initiatives in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    would be $26 million, in Fossil Energy $13 million, in Nuclear Energy
    $7 million for fiscal year 2001, for a total of $46 million, in fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. What are the annual out year funding requirements
    expected?
        Answer. Following the PCAST recommendations, funding levels for the
    ICEI would increase for five years. Specifically, PCAST called for a 20
    percent increase in investments in international cooperation on energy
    innovation each year for five years from an initial program budget in
    fiscal year 2001 of $250 million. However, the President requests a
    smaller amount in fiscal year 2001--$100M for ICEI in fiscal year 2001,
    ($46M for DOE)--and no decision has been made on future funding levels.
        Question. What commitments does DOE have from other countries to
    support these programs?
        Answer. These programs promote U.S. technologies. Other countries
    have programs promoting their technologies. Because these activities
    are proposed new initiatives, no firm commitments have been obtained at
    this time. Once funding levels have been provided, strategies for
    obtaining optimal cost sharing with the host country will be developed
    and implemented.
        Question. Provide a chart for the record which shows each country
    participating and how much funding each country has committed to
    support the programs.
        Answer. Cost sharing information is not presently available.
        Question. Provide a detailed breakout for the record which shows
    the total amount requested for both of these programs and how that is
    spread by program throughout DOE.
        Answer. The distribution of International Clean Energy Initiative/
    International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (ICEI/INERI) is shown
    in the following table.

                 ICEI/INERI BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Organization                  Description                     Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         EETotal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy        $26,000,000
            Request
          BTotal Office of Building Technology, State and        4,500,000
            Community Programs
           Development of whole building design tools and        3,000,000
            building codes and standards, including energy
            efficient building equipment and appliance
            standards
           Development of cost-effective biomass-fuel-             500,000
            based stoves
           Develop International Energy Star training            1,000,000
            program
          OTotal Office of Industrial Technology                 2,500,000
           Establish an industrial best practice program         2,500,000
            and assist in the development and
            harmonization of standards
          OTotal Office of Power Technologies                   19,000,000
           Develop tools for resource estimation/mapping,        1,500,000
            data bases, etc
           Develop strategic options for deploying               6,000,000
            distributed grid-connected PV, wind, biomass
            power/coproducts
           Develop strategic options for minigrid/offgrid        6,000,000
            applications for PV, wind, bio-  mass
           Provide analytical support in development of            500,000
            country-specific models
           Provide technical assistance in developing long       1,000,000
            term relationships among U.S. industry, DOE
            laboratories, and host country institutions
           Provide technical assistance for regulatory           1,500,000
            reform, including support for the measurement/
            analysis of social/environmental costs
           Provide technical assistance in project               2,500,000
            assessments and prefeasibility analyses
           Total Fossil Energy Request                          13,000,000
           Develop new and adapt existing analytical tools       4,000,000
            to assess potential combined heat & power
            (CHP) sites. Collaborate on prefeasibility
            assessment of potential sites. Develop
            international performance based standards for
            CHP
           Develop strategic options for addressing              5,000,000
            methane leakage reduction
           Promote the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation         1,000,000
            (APEC) Natural Gas Initiative
           Develop strategic options for advanced coal           3,000,000
            power and hydrogen production and use
           Total Nuclear Energy-Fission Request                  7,000,000
           Support for the INERI the purpose is to               7,000,000
            preserve and enhance the possibility that
            nuclear power could play an expanding role in
            addressing climate change and other energy-
            related challenges in the next century
                                                           -----------------
                 Total                                          46,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    LIFE CYCLE EVALUATION OF ENERGY SYSTEMS

        Question. Do you concur that a study of the total life cycle costs
    and impacts of each energy source needs to be completed?
        Answer. The Department explores life-cycle impacts of energy
    choices in policy and program deliberations through both exploration of
    primary or total energy impacts and estimation of the costs and
    benefits of energy investments over the life of the investment. As an
    example of how consideration of primary energy flows can benefit energy
    analyses, we may look to the renewed interest in combined heat and
    power technologies, where the benefits are most clearly seen through a
    life-cycle framework that recognizes overall system efficiency.
        The Energy Information Administration provides detailed information
    on primary energy use that Department analysts and interested
    stakeholders can use to explore the environmental or other impacts of
    energy policy choices and programs. Programs such as the Federal Energy
    Management Program (FEMP) may report primary as well as site energy
    consumption in order to provide a fuller picture of energy impacts.
        The National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently undertook a
    series of somewhat more detailed studies on behalf of the Department
    utilizing computer models of energy and materials flows (``input-output
    models''). DOE also substantially participates in the U.S. Interagency
    Working Group on Industrial Ecology, Material and Energy Flows
    (chartered by the Council on Environmental Quality) which provides a
    useful platform for life-cycle explorations. A recent short report of
    this working group may be found at: http://www.oit.doe.gov/mining/
    materials.
        The consideration of energy cost savings over the life of equipment
    investments is utilized extensively by the Department in its
    formulation of policies, programs, and rulemakings, with analyses based
    as appropriate on OMB cost-benefit analysis guidelines, and guidance
    such as 10 CFR 436 on the use of lifecycle cost analysis for energy use
    in the buildings sector.
        These and similar on-going efforts provide the Department with a
    strong basis for exploring the life-cycle implications of energy
    policy, program, and investment choices and, as a result, a separate
    detailed study does not seem to be necessary at this time.
        Question. How would you recommend that this task be accomplished?
        Answer. Assessments of life cycle costs and impacts of energy
    sources should continue to be reflected in analytic efforts throughout
    the Department. Continued focus on enhancing the tools and capabilities
    that we utilize in undertaking these assessments can provide the
    Department and interested congressional committees with on-going, up-
    to-date information about the costs and impacts of energy policy and
    program choices.

                         CARBON COST SAVING INITIATIVE

        Question. Mr. Reicher, the budget request includes $1.5 million for
    a new Carbon Savings Initiative. What is the objective of this new
    program?
        Answer. The new initiative we propose seeks to reduce carbon
    emissions by increasing the net energy output of biopower systems per
    unit of carbon used and couples this feature to a carbon sequestration
    process. We envision this initiative being carried out in two steps.
    These are: (1) investigating ultra-high efficiency processes that
    optimize carbon utilization, such as combined heat and power systems,
    with overall objective of reaching 90 percent process efficiency; and
    (2) examining novel chemical processes for carbon management.
        The first step of this initiative is structured to introduce higher
    efficiency electricity generation technologies. By increasing
    electricity production capabilities and overall system efficiency, this
    maximizes energy production per unit of biomass and optimizes carbon
    conversion. For example, the majority of today's coal-based electricity
    capacity is only 33-35 percent efficient for electricity and recovers
    none of the waste thermal energy. If we can develop small utility scale
    systems that have high efficiency for electricity production (greater
    than 40 percent), and that also produce usable thermal energy (either
    steam or hot water), the net result will be higher overall efficiency.
    The European industry has realized this fact, and almost all biomass
    power facilities are combined heat and power systems that reach 33
    percent electrical efficiency and 85 percent overall efficiency.
        The second step is to investigate the potential of mineral-based
    carbon sequestration mechanisms that permit carbon capture in a stable
    mineral form during the production of electricity. It is well known
    that alkaline metals will capture carbon as demonstrated by the
    Co2 acceptor process that uses calcium. The initiative is
    designed to explore the ability of various minerals to form carbon
    containing inorganic compounds during thermochemical processes. These
    compounds may have even greater carbon sequestration potential than
    calcium.
        Question. What do you expect the annual out year funding
    requirement to be?
        Answer. The initiative will be carried out through multi-phase
    competitive solicitation process, starting with feasibility studies,
    and proceeding through proof of concept prototypes to field
    verification. The effort will require approximately $8 million over a
    period of four years.

                          PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEMS

        Question. Mr. Reicher, the budget request for Thin Film Partnership
    Program under Photovoltaic Energy System in previous years indicates
    that the funding level of around $19 million was considered appropriate
    ``based on staff experience and historical precedence in similar
    activities.''
        Are there any studies or analysis to support a funding request of
    $19 million in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Studies and publications that provide insight into the
    potential and critical importance of thin films for low-cost
    photovoltaics include:
      --``Millennium Special Issue, PV 2000--And Beyond,'' Jan 2000,
            Progress in Photovoltaics, V. 8 No. 1, M. Green, E. Lorenzo, H.
            N. Post, H. W. Schock, K. Zweibel, P. Lynn (eds), John Wiley,
            London, 200 p.
      --``Issues in Thin Film PV Manufacturing Cost Reduction,'' K.
            Zweibel, 1999, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, V. 59,
            p. 1-18.
      --``Thin Films: Past, Present, Future,'' K. Zweibel, 1995, Progress
            in Photovoltaics, Special Issue on Thin Films, John Wiley,
            London (also available as NREL report TP-413-7486), V. 3, 279-
            293.
        These studies describe the research activities in the Thin Film
    Partnership Program and their importance to DOE's mission to develop
    photovoltaics as an energy-significant source of electricity. The Thin
    Film PV Partnership Program is the central research activity in the
    development of a class of advanced PV technologies based on ultra-thin
    semiconductor layers. There are four thin film technologies under
    development: amorphous silicon, copper indium diselenide, cadmium
    telluride, and thin crystalline silicon. To date, each of these
    technologies has been brought from a very early, laboratory state to a
    successful pilot-scale manufacturing stage. Funding for each technology
    is about $4.5 million, which is much less than what was spent on single
    crystalline silicon in its similar stage of development.
        The PCAST study, Federal Energy Research and Development for the
    Challenges of the Twenty-First Century, addressed the need for
    photovoltaic R&D. In particular, it recommended that photovoltaic
    research be increased to $133 million for fiscal year 2001 (the DOE
    request for all photovoltaic research is $66 million in fiscal year
    2001). And though the document is silent on the specific funding for
    thin film research, this research comprised approximately fifty percent
    of the photovoltaic budget at the time of the recommendations. To
    extrapolate from the PCAST recommendations would suggest a thin film
    budget of $66 million, or over three times the current request of $19
    million.
        The DOE PV Program has chosen to emphasize thin films because they
    are widely seen as having the greatest potential to significantly
    reduce PV electricity costs in comparison to existing photovoltaic
    options, e.g., crystalline silicon wafer technologies. PV cost is the
    greatest barrier to using PV for energy-significant applications such
    as rooftops on residences and commercial buildings. Our work in the
    Partnership is the critical activity within this commitment to cost
    reduction. The Partnership funds research in materials science, process
    development, PV cell and modules. Over two-thirds of the funding in the
    Partnership is awarded to US universities and businesses on a
    competitive basis. The remainder funds the National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory's (NREL) internal research in thin films as well as the
    Partnership management costs. The NREL in-house researchers are
    acknowledged leaders in their fields, holding world records for cell
    efficiencies in two of the three leading thin film technologies and
    leading the National Research Teams made up of all the participants in
    the Partnership's research activities (about 150 PhD scientists
    nationwide).
        Funding for thin film research within the DOE Program has been
    level (at approximately the $15-19M/year) for the last decade. This
    lack of enhancement reflects the general static funding of the DOE PV
    Program. It does not reflect the needs of thin film semiconductor
    research, which are vastly larger than this level. For example, similar
    semiconductor research such as the development of flat panel displays
    (which also requires the low-cost deposition of thin semiconductors
    over large areas) absorbs significantly greater research funding. By
    comparison, the Federal resource commitment to thin film PV is small
    and generally viewed as sub-critical. We have leveraged our Federal
    research resources with those of forward-thinking members of the
    private sector to sustain our generally recognized progress in this
    field. We have also had the benefit of the DOE's ongoing commitment to
    thin films (i.e., allowing funding stability within a constrained
    funding environment) as well as the effective organizational leadership
    of the Partnership, which has received many national awards. Indeed,
    the Partnership has been the co-recipient (with industrial members) of
    four prestigious R&D 100 Awards that recognize new PV products based on
    these key thin films. Because of the successes of the Thin Film
    Partnership, the US leads the world in thin film photovoltaics, a major
    achievement of the DOE PV Program.
        In general, were funding for this key element of the PV Program to
    fall below its already sub-critical level, it would possibly end our
    Nation's chances of leading the world in the development of this new
    large-scale source of electricity.
        Question. Is there a minimum industry (non-Federal) cost share that
    is required on all contracts or grants under this fiscal year 2001
    solicitation?
        Answer. As in the past, businesses are expected to cost-share.
    Although the Partnership does not require 50 percent or greater cost
    sharing, we often receive it (see next question) because those who
    propose higher cost-sharing are more likely to be awarded funds. The
    Partnership breaks down contracts with companies into two categories:
    Technology Partners and R&D Partners. Technology Partners are companies
    with a clear commitment to near-term manufacturing. They are usually
    embarking on pilot production of a new thin film technology. R&D
    Partners are companies and universities who are developing the
    necessary innovations to maintain future progress toward truly low-cost
    PV energy production. Their work is further from commercialization, so
    they are required to provide a smaller proportion of cost-sharing.
        The Partnership also recognizes the much greater burden that cost-
    sharing can put on a small business by reducing those requirements as
    compared to a large business. The breakdown for the Partnership is as
    follows:

                                  [In percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Technology     R&D
             Corporate Cost-Sharing Required             Partner    Partner
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Large Business...................................          40         20
    Small Business...................................          20         10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEMS

        Question. Provide for the record a list of contracts or grants for
    the past 2 cycles which show the breakout of Federal and non-Federal
    costs.
        Answer.
        Thin Film Partnership 1998-2001 Subcontracts (3 years)
        Total: $53,830
        DOE Funding: $37,157
        Private Cost-Share: $16,673 (31 percent of all subcontracts,
    including universities)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           University
                                                            Small or                                         [Cost
                     Organization (state)                     Large             Period          Total $K    Share]
                                                            Business
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    United Solar (MI)....................................         S          5/5/1998-5/5/2001     5,560    [2,780]
    SSI (CA).............................................         L      11/24/1998-11/24/2001     5,409    [2,705]
    Solarex (VA).........................................         L          5/8/1998-5/8/2001     5,192    [2,792]
    EC/U. Delaware (DE)..................................         U      10/23/1998-10/23/2001     4,120      [360]
    AstroPower (DE)......................................         S      11/24/1997-11/24/2000     3,737    [1,475]
    First Solar (OH).....................................         S        5/30/1998-5/31/2001     3,735      [756]
    BP Solar (CA)........................................         L        6/30/1998-6/30/2001     3,509    [2,009]
    EPV (NJ).............................................         S        6/15/1998-6/15/2001     2,953      [591]
    Global Solar Energy (AZ).............................         S          4/4/1998-4/4/2001     2,475      [777]
    ISET (CA)............................................         S        6/29/1998-6/29/2001     2,169      [208]
    ECD (MI).............................................         S        5/10/1998-5/10/2001     1,888      [943]
    U. Toledo (OH).......................................         U          3/3/1998-3/3/2001     1,566      [623]
    USF (Tampa, FL)......................................         U        7/25/1998-7/25/2001     1,411      [433]
    CSM (CO).............................................         U        7/21/1998-7/21/2001       994  ..........
    Penn State (PA)......................................         U        9/16/1998-9/16/2001       825  ..........
    UF Gainesville (FL)..................................         U          9/7/1998-9/7/2001       810  ..........
    ITN (CO).............................................         S        3/25/1998-3/25/2001       796       [63]
    Iowa State U. (IA)...................................         U        8/30/1998-8/31/2001       702  ..........
    MV Systems (CO)......................................         S      12/31/1997-12/31/1999       565       [40]
    Harvard (MA).........................................         U        6/14/1998-6/14/2001       540  ..........
    CSU (CO).............................................         U        3/19/1998-3/19/2001       461  ..........
    UNC (NC).............................................         U        1/27/1998-1/27/2001       430  ..........
    Washington State U. (WA).............................         U        2/28/1998-2/28/2001       411  ..........
    Oregon (OR)..........................................         U        1/15/1998-1/15/2001       410  ..........
    Weizmann Institute...................................         U        9/26/1998-9/26/2001       405  ..........
    Syracuse (NY)........................................         U        5/23/1998-5/23/2001       405  ..........
    Daystar (CO).........................................         S        6/26/1998-6/26/2001       399       [80]
    MRG (CO).............................................         S          2/9/1998-2/9/2001       378       [38]
    U. Utah (UT).........................................         U        1/13/1998-1/13/2001       284  ..........
    CSM (CO).............................................         U        7/21/1998-7/21/2001       252  ..........
    Penn State (PA)......................................         U      12/14/1998-12/14/2001       156  ..........
    UCLA (CA)............................................         U        6/19/1998-6/19/2001       143  ..........
    U. Illinois (IL).....................................         U        9/15/1998-9/15/2001       140  ..........
    Florida Solar Energy Center (FL).....................         U          1/4/1998-1/4/2001       128  ..........
    Purdue (IN)..........................................         U          2/6/1999-2/6/2002       127  ..........
    NIST (CO)............................................       Lab        6/30/1999-6/30/2001       345  ..........
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
          Total..........................................                                         53,830   [16,673]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

        Question. Mr. Reicher, funding for the National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory increased from $123.3 million in fiscal year 2000 to $169.5
    million in fiscal year 2001. What accounts for the large (37.5 percent)
    increase?
        Answer. The funding increase in fiscal year 2001 at the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is primarily for three programs:
    Biopower and Biofuels Energy Systems; Wind Energy Systems; and the
    Photovoltaic Energy Systems programs.
        The Biopower and Biofuels Energy Systems Program is expanding its
    focus to include a full complement of efficient biomass technologies,
    size ranges, and feedstocks (agricultural residues, wood residues,
    energy crops, etc.) The program is working to balance research and
    demonstration efforts to most effectively advance the technology. To
    achieve these results, the budget request for Biopower has been
    increased for thermochemical conversion research which is performed at
    the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Thermal Conversion User
    Facility. The increased funding will also support A new initiative to
    increase the net energy output of biopower systems per unit of carbon
    used.
        The Wind Energy Systems Program is seeking increased support in the
    area of Cooperative Research and Testing. Cooperative Research and
    Testing is comprised of several programs such as: Wind Powering
    America, Regional Field Verification, and International Clean Energy
    Initiative. The Wind Powering America Program is a new nationally-led
    program to accelerate use of wind energy in the United States. This is
    a regionally-based program to coordinate and implement tailored
    strategies to help each region of the Nation benefit from harnessing
    their wind power resources. The Regional Field Verification Program
    will issue competitive solicitations in key regions for wind power
    development in the United States. These competitive solicitations will
    support projects addressing unique siting, regulatory, electric power
    system, and market issues in each region. The use of wind power in
    central station generation, distributed power, and off-grid or mini-
    grid applications will be targeted by this program. The International
    Clean Energy Initiative will play a vital role in meeting growing needs
    in developing countries for both distributed, grid-connected power, and
    remote off-grid and mini-grid power. This program will competitively
    award partnerships with industry for analyses of distributed wind power
    systems in weak grid applications, and to explore opportunities to
    enhance these applications through wind energy forecasting, grid
    control, storage options, and/or firming with natural gas or other
    generation sources. Competitive solicitations will be awarded for wind
    hybrid system verification projects in developing countries where local
    utilities or villages currently use stand-alone diesel power systems.
        The Photovoltaic Energy Systems Program is requesting increased
    funding to support: Fundamental Research in the areas of Measurement
    and Characterization, Basic Research/University Programs, and High
    Performance Advanced Research; and Technology Development in the areas
    of Manufacturing R&D, Systems Engineering & Reliability, PV Building
    Integrated R&D, Partnerships for Technology Introduction, Million Solar
    Roofs Initiative, and International Clean Energy Initiative.
        The funding table below reflects all Solar and Renewable Energy
    program funding in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 at NREL.

    FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST--NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY
                                   LABORATORY
                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year
                                        ------------------------------------
                                            2000        2001        Change
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Biopower Energy Systems............      $9,621     $14,506      $4,885
    Hydrogen Research..................       4,743       4,437        (306)
    Hydropower.........................         152         154           2
    Biofuels Energy Systems............      21,801      30,516       8,715
    Geothermal.........................       1,785       2,040         255
    Electric Energy Systems and Storage       1,644       3,475       1,831
        High Temperature                        928         945          17
         Superconductivity.............
        Energy Storage Systems.........          59          85          26
        Transmissions Reliability......         657       2,445       1,788
    NREL Facility Maintenance..........       1,100       1,900         800
    Wind Energy Systems................      25,172      39,136      13,964
    Concentrating Solar Power..........       6,288       6,218         (70)
    Solar Building Technology Research.       1,469       3,359       1,890
    Photovoltaic Energy Systems........      48,318      60,112      11,794
    International Renewable Energy            1,226       3,692       2,466
     Program...........................
                                        ------------------------------------
          Total........................     123,319     169,545      46,226
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

        Question. Mr. Reicher, the President proposes to spend $1.2 Billion
    in fiscal year 2001 in the Climate Change Technology Initiative within
    the DOE. Of this $1.2 Billion, $5 million is identified for nuclear
    energy and $56 million is identified for Fossil Energy.
        Most of the funds, about 95 percent of them, are set aside for
    Solar and Renewable Energy work and Energy Conservation. Since the
    combination of nuclear and fossil fuels account for about 70 percent of
    the electrical generation in this country, the trivial role identified
    for these sources in the Administration's Climate Change Initiative
    seems quite questionable.
        Why does the Department focus 95 percent of this Initiative's
    resources on energy sources that provide less than 1 per cent of our
    electrical energy, and allocate minimal funding for the fossil and
    nuclear resources that provide 70 percent of our electricity?
        Answer. The Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) is a cross-
    cut of Administration programs that are related in some way to climate
    change, including direct-combustion (e.g., in buildings and
    automobiles) as well as electricity production and use. As such, the
    CCTI encompasses only a portion of the Department's budget request.
    Because of it's focus on opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions, virtually all EERE expenditures are included, while only
    those portions of the fossil, nuclear, and basic science budgets that
    related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are included in the CCTI.
    In reviewing the CCTI components, it is important to remember that the
    EERE components related to the buildings and industry end use sectors
    are often related to electricity production in general, and to
    utilizing more effectively fossil- and nuclear-produced electricity.
        In developing its fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Department
    looks carefully at areas of opportunity to meet each of its strategic
    goals. The overall budget typically includes many programs that meet
    multiple Departmental goals and objectives, and many of the programs
    included in the CCTI address additional goals, and may even be included
    in other initiatives. Areas of opportunity for specific goals,
    objectives, or initiatives may or may not be proportionate to current
    energy use patterns. This is especially true for opportunities found in
    emerging energy resource areas, such as renewable energy and many
    advanced sources of energy conservation, where smaller current market
    share is a factor of historical technology development, and not
    necessarily indicative of future energy resource uses or opportunities
    for meeting environmental and related energy challenges. The
    Departmental request for renewable energy resources, both those that
    produce electricity and those that can be used in direct heat or other
    energy applications, is based on their large potential to help meet
    multiple environmental, security, and other national energy goals and
    objectives in our evolving energy markets.

                               FUNDING SHORTFALL

        Question. Mr. Reicher, I do not think the Subcommittee will be able
    to provide a 32 percent increase in Solar and Renewable Energy
    programs. Would you provide the Committee your recommendations of the
    allocation of funding at the current level?
        Answer. We appreciate the fact that there are budgetary constraints
    that may limit Congressional flexibility in meeting all the Solar and
    Renewable Energy funding requests made by the Department for fiscal
    year 2001. However, the request for these proposed programs was
    developed after long deliberation and is considered vital to addressing
    the country's need for clean, domestically-produced electric power
    generation, transportation fuel, heat energy, and transmission/
    distribution/reliability technologies. These proposed programs also
    contribute substantially to the energy security, economic and
    environmental needs of the country, and are an integral part of the
    broader budget package proposed by the Administration for fiscal year
    2001. Given the importance of these programs to both the near and
    longer term well-being of the Nation, we stand by the programs and
    funding levels as requested.

                             WORKING WITH NNSA LABS

        Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
    operation as a semi-autonomous agency with the Department on March 1.
    The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore have a long
    tradition of supporting a broad range of scientific initiatives beyond
    weapons activities. As the NNSA was created, I emphasized the
    importance of the NNSA labs continuing their multi-program support of
    the Department and other federal agencies.
        The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, state that: ``The
    Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish
    procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
    by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
        Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
    continue to receive high priority funding from the Department.
        Will each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively
    fund projects within the NNSA labs?
        Answer. The NNSA laboratories have been important resources for our
    renewable energy technologies in the past, and we expect these
    laboratories will continue to be valuable to our future research
    activities. We expect to continue using the expertise of these labs at
    levels consistent with our historical funding positions.
        Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
    NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for
    NNSA laboratory support to your Office and for your labs to support
    NNSA as required?
        Answer. We will continue to maintain strong communications with the
    Office of Defense Programs, and we feel we have agreement regarding the
    role of NNSA laboratories in our research programs.
        Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
    relations between your Office and the NNSA?
        Answer. No, we do not foresee any barriers to our currently strong
    working relationship with NNSA.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton

                              GEOTHERMAL PROJECTS

        Question. In your testimony, you made clear your support for
    geothermal energy and new programs to support developing this energy
    source. I also support these programs. However, this Administration is
    not unified in its support of this industry. There are two geothermal
    projects in California--the output of these projects are expected to be
    purchased by the Bonneville Power Administration and sold in the
    Northwest--that have their respective EIS process completed. They have
    been waiting approximately 18 months for the Forest Service just to
    make a decision on these projects, and if the decision is not made in
    the next few days they could miss another construction season. This
    delay is irresponsible and sends all the wrong signals to geothermal
    developers. I support these projects, as do many environmental
    organizations in the state of Washington. How can this industry expand
    when the Administration is not unified in its approach to this energy
    source?
        Answer. The Department of Energy continues to work closely with
    industry to conduct comprehensive research and development to establish
    geothermal energy as an economically competitive, environmentally sound
    contributor to the U.S. energy supply. We have recently announced three
    solicitations seeking industrial partners to identify, develop, and use
    geothermal resources. These solicitations offer substantive support to
    the Administration's new initiative, GeoPowering the West, which will
    bring the benefits of geothermal energy to 19 western states. As is
    addressed in the following question, other arms of this Administration
    are aware of the Administration's interest in advancing the use of
    alternative energy sources. We are confident that actions such as these
    will allow the nation to realize its considerable potential for new
    geothermal development over the coming decade.
        Question. What have you done to urge the Forest Service to make a
    decision?
        Answer. On March 2, 2000, I sent letters regarding the projects to
    high-ranking officials of the Department of Agriculture and the
    Department of Interior. I noted that both projects will contribute
    significantly to the President's energy and environmental policy goals,
    and they represent an economically-sound, productive use of energy
    resources on multi-use Federal lands. The letters expressed the wish
    that the remaining issues preventing the projects from moving ahead
    would be resolved in a timely manner.
        Question. What will you commit to do to get the Forest Service to
    make a decision before this construction season is lost?
        Answer. I stated my support for the projects in my letters of March
    2. However, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are solely
    responsible for the decision making process with regard to the
    projects. Those agencies are well aware of the timing issues, and I
    understand that decisions will be forthcoming in the near future.

                      AGRICULTURE AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        Question. As you know, the Energy Efficiency Budgets are in a
    separate Subcommittee, but I have a question relative to the Renewable
    Budgets. What is the overall strategy of the Department relative to
    Agriculture and Carbon Sequestration? As you know, there are several
    Bills that have been introduced in the Senate dealing with this issue.
    Please give me a short description of the Department of Energy's role
    in Agriculture relative to Renewable Energy, Bio-energy and Carbon
    Sequestration strategies.
        Answer. The Department of Energy has a long history of scientific
    and technical involvement in agricultural-related issues. In this
    fiscal year, the department is spending over $100 million in this area;
    most of that is focused on applied research on bio-based products and
    bio-energy, or the use of crops, trees and wastes to make
    transportation fuels, electricity and chemicals for a whole host of
    consumer goods, like plastics, paints and adhesives. A new Department
    of Energy report recently concluded that by the year 2010, the
    agricultural and forestry industries could help reduce greenhouse gases
    by producing and utilizing more of these bio-based products.
        The report, ``Emission and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from
    Agriculture and Food Manufacturing'', was the first comprehensive
    analysis of U.S. agricultural activities and their impact on greenhouse
    gas emissions. The report found that agricultural and forestry
    industries currently produce one-tenth of all greenhouse gases emitted
    in the U.S. A copy of the report is submitted.
        President Clinton's Executive Order 13134 on bio-based products and
    bio-energy, issued in August, 1999, was designed to stimulate
    development of a new bio-based industry. The President's goal of
    tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bio-energy by the year 2010
    could create billions of dollars in new income for farmers and rural
    Americans, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by tens of millions
    of tons of carbon. The use of advanced agricultural practices--such as
    improved forest and animal waste management, cultivation, and
    irrigation techniques--can also contribute to this initiative.
        Question. What is the role of the National Laboratories and
    Universities in the opportunities that exist, if there is an
    Agricultural-related initiative in the fiscal year 2001 Budget?
        Answer. We consider our National Laboratories and Universities full
    partners with the federal government, industry and growers in the
    implementation of the President's Bio-based Products and Bio-energy
    Initiative. For example, representatives of all of these important
    groups have been involved from the very beginning in the development of
    a new strategic vision for a bio-based industry, and they will
    participate in the drafting of a technology roadmap to guide our
    research and development spending. Planning is now underway for a
    workshop to discuss and showcase what the nation's state universities
    and land-grant colleges can contribute to the growth of this emerging
    industry. In addition, competitive solicitations for research and
    development proposals related to this area will be open to
    participation by both the national laboratories and the academic
    community.

                          MEMORANDUM FOR UNDERSTANDING

        Question. As you know, the DOE has signed a memorandum of
    understanding with the Association of State Energy Research and
    Technology Transfer Institutes ``ASERTTI'', The California Energy
    Commission ``CEC'', and the New York State Energy Research and
    Development Authority ``NYSERDA'' to work together to leverage state
    and federal resources through collaboration of energy R&D planning and
    research efforts. The state energy offices are also participating in
    these efforts though they do not have a specific MOU in place. This
    past budget there was roughly $6m put in place for joint energy R&D
    projects through the competitive process to work with state entities.
    It is my understanding that DOE received approximately 160 proposals of
    which 6 to 8 were from the MOU partners, which means non-MOU partners
    are also competing for the funds.
        It is important to note that California and New York have millions
    of dollars earmarked for energy R&D planning and projects as do other
    states in the public benefit charges. It is not unreasonable to expect
    the states will have as much money if not more than the federal
    government to spend on R&D. It is the goal of the MOUs to work together
    in planning and executing R&D to be good stewards of the resources and
    provide benefits to the people of the states and country. The basic
    premise of collaboration between states and the federal government is
    in its infancy and it would be advantageous to find ways to foster its
    growth and benefits rather than strangle it with unnecessary
    bureaucracy. How is the $6 million state R&D solicitation proceeding?
        Answer. In light of our close work with the committee staff, we
    have issued a solicitation requesting proposals from state energy
    offices and state energy research institutions for cooperative RD&D in
    seven technical areas. These areas were identified through a
    collaborative effort which began more than a year ago when DOE signed
    Memorandums of Understanding with the California Energy Commission
    (CEC), the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency
    (NYSERDA), and the Association of State Energy Research and Technology
    Transfer Institutes (ASERTTI). DOE, led by the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and working with the Office of
    Fossil Energy (FE), Office of Science (OS) and the Energy Information
    Administration (EIA), created a Joint Planning and Collaboration
    Committee to identify research opportunities for collaboration and to
    determine the best ways to do joint budget planning and form
    collaborations. Out of these discussions seven research areas of
    collaborative focus and collaborative teams resulted: Schools,
    Transportation, EIA data, Petroleum Oil Field Operations, Microturbines
    and Fuel Cells, and Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power.
    The solicitation is currently open and does not close until April 27,
    2000.
        The solicitation is posted at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/golden/
    solicitations.html.
        Question. How many responses did DOE receive to the solicitation?
        Answer. The solicitation for $6 million has drawn over 130 pre-
    application proposals. We expect to award projects in one or all of the
    technical areas identified by the DOE/State Joint Planning and
    Collaboration Committee (i.e. Schools, Transportation, EIA data,
    Petroleum Oil Field Operations, Micro-turbines and Fuel Cells, and
    Distributed Generation/Combined Heat and Power). We encouraged
    proposers to form teams with multiple state partners to improve
    selection chances. The goal of the solicitation was to make the $6
    million as responsive to multi-state collaboration interests as
    possible.
        Question. Is the competitive process the appropriate mechanism to
    meet the objectives of the MOUs with ASERTTI, CEC, NYSERDA, and NASEO?
        Answer. Yes, it is. A competitive process will draw the highest
    quality research proposals address multi-state agency needs, and foster
    collaborations among states on proposals. We encouraged proposers to
    form teams containing multiple state partners to improve their
    proposals' selection chances as well as to cooperate among states. The
    selection criteria awards additional selection points for having a
    multi-state proposal. The cost share requirement of 50 percent will
    leverage both DOE and State agency money.
        Question. Does DOE have plans to increase the amount of funds to
    collaborate with their MOU partners?
        Answer. Although the President's budget request did not propose
    funding for the State Collaborative Research and Development for fiscal
    year 2001, this program is a high priority. In fact, like the Congress,
    we believe that this program is a crucial element of our research and
    development efforts and should be continued on an annual basis at least
    at the same level of funding.
        The omission of a funding request for this program in our fiscal
    year 2001 budget was due to a timing issue. First, the fiscal year 2000
    budget was not enacted and signed by the President until November 18,
    1999. Second, the detailed elements of this program were not set forth
    in the Conference Report, and it was necessary for our Assistant
    Secretary and staff to conduct detailed analytical work and to work
    with the Subcommittee staff in reaching agreement on the full scope and
    objectives of the program. Such agreement was not reached until late
    December 1999, and by that time, our fiscal year 2001 budget already
    had been transmitted to and approved by OMB. At that point, EERE was
    not able to make funding modifications.
        In our discussions with the Subcommittee staff in December 1999, we
    discussed the need for multi-year funding to support the type of
    projects envisioned under the State Collaborative Research and
    Development Program and the fact that it was too late to include
    funding under our fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Subcommittee
    staff indicated that funding would be considered for fiscal year 2001,
    if EERE's progress was good in implementing the initiative in fiscal
    year 2000. Based on these discussions, EERE is soliciting projects for
    up to three years in its State Collaborative Research and Development
    Program solicitation. We believe that continuing on the path described
    in the above two approaches will increase the funding for joint
    collaborations with our MOU partners.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                                   HYDROPOWER

        Question. The advanced turbine research and development program
    request for fiscal year 2001 is $5 million. The budget justification
    for fiscal year 2001 states that the plan is to complete laboratory
    biological studies of the effects of turbulence on turbine-passed fish.
        Could you explain why there is no funding being requested for the
    pilot scale proof of concept testing of the conceptual design to verify
    biological criteria and predicted biological performance using live
    fish?
        Answer. DOE is committed to the goal of developing hydropower
    technology which will reduce turbine-induced fish mortality to 2
    percent or less. No fiscal year 2001 funding was requested for the
    proof-of-concept, pilot-scale, test of the fish-friendly turbine design
    developed by the Alden Research Laboratory, because fiscal year 2000
    funding was considered sufficient to cover this activity and allow it
    to continue through fiscal year 2001. Additional funds may be requested
    in fiscal year 2002 to complete full-scale testing. In addition, fiscal
    year 2001 funding is requested for biological research, including
    sensor fish refinement, to gain the necessary understanding of stresses
    and behavior of fish in the turbine environment. The DOE program will
    also explore other fish-friendly designs by providing funding support
    for biological testing of turbines provided by industry.

                  RENEWABLE ENERGY BENEFITS TO FAMILY FARMERS

        Question. Times are particularly tough on the family farm right now
    with low commodity prices and a farm safety net that has failed the
    agricultural community. Renewable energy sources--like wind energy and
    biomass--have potential to help struggling farmers through these
    difficult times. Could you paint a picture of how a family farmer might
    be able to make a profit by creatively using renewable energy sources?
        Answer. Renewable energy sources hold the potential to both reduce
    the energy cost of the farmer's operations, and provide new business
    opportunities. In the future, a traditional farm could be converted
    into a fully integrated system for producing energy, chemicals,
    plastics, and other products in addition to food. Some of these
    technologies are suitable for small and medium-size farms. To cite a
    few examples, the traditional farmhouse and barn could receive power
    from a photovoltaic array and advanced wind turbines. Livestock manure
    may be used to fuel a biogas plant. Trees genetically created to grow
    to maturity in two to three years, and other farm crops, potentially
    grown on currently underutilized agricultural land, could be used for
    biomass power.
        The Department of Energy supports the Clinton administration's
    analysis of the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act that was sent
    to Congress last year. The analysis underscores the substantial
    economic and environmental benefits since the advent of competition.
    The Administration's package is projected to benefit both urban and
    rural consumers in all regions of the country primarily due to the
    forces of competition being unleashed throughout the industry. However,
    several provisions are aimed specifically at rural areas, to ensure
    that rural residents garner the full benefits of restructuring. These
    include:
      --authorizing new grants for remote and rural electric service and
            electricity services to Native Americans;
      --retaining current arrangements for the provision of federal power
            at cost-based rates;
      --establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard that will generate new
            economic activity and raise farm income in rural areas as it
            promotes important environmental and energy security needs; and
      --providing for a rural safety net.
        As another renewable, wind power is already helping family farmers
    in Iowa and Minnesota. Assume a typical farm of 1000 acres in Iowa.
    Using very conservative spacing that does not pack turbines tightly and
    accommodates roads and property lines, one might expect about fourteen
    750 kW turbines installed. These would produce almost 35 million
    kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. Assuming typical royalties of 2
    percent of gross revenue and a selling price of 4 cents per kilowatt-
    hour, these turbines would provide revenue to the farmer of about 28
    thousand dollars per year or two thousand dollars per wind turbine. In
    North Dakota, with a better wind resource, revenues would be closer to
    40 thousand dollars per year. All of this is accomplished with limited
    impact on cultivated lands. Wind developers make as much use as
    possible of existing service roads and allow farmers to cultivate right
    up to the roads. All in all, no more than 5 percent of cultivated land
    is lost due to turbine pads, transformers, distribution lines and
    service buildings. Similarly, livestock would be minimally affected.
        In addition, Wind Powering America is an initiative announced by
    Secretary Bill Richardson last year to increase substantially
    deployment of wind energy through a regionally-based effort in which
    technical, institutional and environmental barriers to wind energy
    development are identified by local groups and resolved with the help
    of the Department of Energy, its laboratories, the wind industry and
    other stakeholders. The Department has just announced the award of 15
    projects, worth $2.7 million, that will support this initiative. In
    summary, a small Federal investment is expected to catalyze wind
    development in regions where there has been little or none, leading the
    way to a goal of 10,000 MW by 2010.

                                  WIND ENERGY

        Question. You are requesting $6.7 million for the Next Generation
    Turbine Project, an increase of $1.1 million from the fiscal year 2000
    Appropriation. What is this increase to be used for and when do you
    expect completion of the program?
        Answer. The Next Generation Turbine project is aimed at development
    of advanced wind turbines capable of generating electricity at a cost
    of 2\1/2\ cents per kWh at sites with winds that average 15 mph or
    better, which can be found in many areas of the country, particularly
    the Great Plains. This is a challenging task and we have two projects
    under way. The requested funding, including the increase of $1.1
    million, will support design and fabrication of final turbine
    prototypes, which is a highly cost-intensive phase of the projects.
    Because of the challenging nature of the goal, proof-of-concept
    turbines have been fabricated and will be tested in fiscal year 2000 to
    verify design concepts at a more modest scale. We plan to complete
    testing of final prototypes in fiscal year 2003 and close out the
    program by the end of that year.
        Question. You are requesting $5.0 million for a new effort called
    Regional Field Verification. Would you explain the purpose and outcome
    of this large new start?
        Answer. Regional Field Verification is intended to introduce
    advanced wind turbines into regions of the country having promising
    wind resources. Competitively selected wind projects will help the
    Department and industry verify performance and refine wind energy
    technologies while addressing unique siting, regulatory, and market
    issues in each region. The model would follow the Turbine Verification
    Program, in which a small amount of Federal funds were leveraged by
    utilities and industry to install several projects, varying in size
    from a few machines to over 5 megawatts. We expect that a small amount
    of highly leveraged funding and technology transfer will greatly expand
    understanding of the performance of wind energy in selected regions
    permit State regulatory authorities, land owners and investors to make
    informed decisions about wind energy technology. We estimate the
    Federal funds would be leveraged at least 4 to 1 overall in these
    projects.
        Question. You are requesting $5 million for the Wind Powering
    America initiative. Please explain the composition of this new effort
    and what you hope to accomplish through it.
        Answer. Wind Powering America is a grass roots effort to accelerate
    the use of wind energy throughout the United States. It is a
    regionally-based effort in which technical, institutional and
    environmental barriers to wind energy development are identified by
    local groups and resolved with the help of the Department of Energy,
    its laboratories, the wind industry and interested stakeholders.
    Initially, we have identified the Upper Midwest for emphasis, but we
    are working to establish activities in all regions. We've had a series
    of meetings across the country to define the strategy for this
    initiative. We are planning extensive involvement of the Department of
    Energy Regional Offices in carrying out this strategic plan to most
    effectively employ Federal funds in addressing technical and
    institutional challenges unique to each region. Through this
    decentralized effort we hope to leverage a small Federal investment to
    catalyze development in regions where there has been little or no wind
    energy market penetration goal is 10,000 MW by 2010.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

                      AGRICULTURE AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION

        Question. As you know, the Energy Efficiency Budgets are in a
    separate Subcommittee, but I have a question relative to the Renewable
    Budgets. What is the overall strategy of the Department relative to
    Agriculture and Carbon Sequestration? As you know, there are several
    Bills that have been introduced in the Senate dealing with this issue.
    Please give me a short description of the Department of Energy's role
    in Agriculture relative to Renewable Energy, Bio-energy and Carbon
    Sequestration strategies.
        Answer. The Department of Energy has a long history of scientific
    and technical involvement in agricultural-related issues. In this
    fiscal year, the department is spending over $100 million in this area;
    most of that is focused on applied research on bio-based products and
    bio-energy, or the use of crops, trees and wastes to make
    transportation fuels, electricity and chemicals for a whole host of
    consumer goods, like plastics, paints and adhesives. A new Department
    of Energy report recently concluded that by the year 2010, the
    agricultural and forestry industries could help reduce greenhouse gases
    by producing and utilizing more of these bio-based products.
        The report, ``Emission and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from
    Agriculture and Food Manufacturing'', was the first comprehensive
    analysis of U.S. agricultural activities and their impact on greenhouse
    gas emissions. The report found that agricultural and forestry
    industries currently produce one-tenth of all greenhouse gases emitted
    in the U.S. A copy of the report is submitted.
        President Clinton's Executive Order 13134 on bio-based products and
    bio-energy, issued in August, 1999, was designed to stimulate
    development of a new bio-based industry. The President's goal of
    tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bio-energy by the year 2010
    could create billions of dollars in new income for farmers and rural
    Americans, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by tens of millions
    of tons of carbon. The use of advanced agricultural practices--such as
    improved forest and animal waste management, cultivation, and
    irrigation techniques--can also contribute to this initiative.
        Question. What is the role of the National Laboratories and
    Universities in the opportunities that exist, if there is an
    Agricultural-related initiative in the fiscal year 2001 Budget?
        Answer. We consider our National Laboratories and Universities full
    partners with the federal government, industry and growers in the
    implementation of the President's Bio-based Products and Bio-energy
    Initiative. For example, representatives of all of these important
    groups have been involved from the very beginning in the development of
    a new strategic vision for a bio-based industry, and they will
    participate in the drafting of a technology roadmap to guide our
    research and development spending. Planning is now underway for a
    workshop to discuss and showcase what the nation's state universities
    and land-grant colleges can contribute to the growth of this emerging
    industry. In addition, competitive solicitations for research and
    development proposals related to this area will be open to
    participation by both the national laboratories and the academic
    community.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                          PHOTOVOLTAICS/SOLAR PROGRAMS

        Question. For a number of years the DOE has been putting
    significant funding towards various photovoltaics (solar) energy
    programs. What have been the gains of this program?
        Answer. When the Photovoltaic R&D Program began a number of years
    ago there was no industry, no terrestrial products, and no market. The
    first solar cells were developed in the 1960s and used to power
    satellites. In the late 1970s the U.S. Department of Energy began an
    R&D program to develop a clean alternative for use in terrestrial
    applications. At that time, the only known way to make a solar cell was
    with crystalline silicon, and this was a labor intensive process that
    produced six percent efficient cells that cost hundreds of dollars per
    Watt. Over the years the Department has built a successful program that
    has made dramatic improvements. Scientists in the national
    laboratories, industry and universities have steadily improved the
    silicon solar cell. As a result, the technology progressed
    significantly, with automated manufacturing capabilities, improved
    device efficiencies, greater reliability, and longer module lifetimes.
    Today, silicon cells and modules are 14 percent efficient and cost
    around $4.00 per Watt. More important to the Program, during this time
    scientists have discovered new, more innovative ways to make different
    kinds of cells that will ultimately cost less to make than the silicon
    cell. This new family of cell materials is called thin film
    technologies and consists of amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, and
    copper indium diselenide. In the 1970's thin films didn't exist. In the
    early 1980's scientists struggled to make six percent efficient devices
    in the laboratory. Today we have pilot-plant sized manufacturing lines
    producing 11-percent efficient thin film modules for the same cost as
    the more mature silicon technology. In summary, in a relatively short
    period of time the Department's Photovoltaic R&D Program has created a
    photovoltaic industry and a promising, clean alternative energy source
    where once there was none. Since 1980, the U.S. PV industry has grown
    an average of 20 percent a year and in 1999 manufactured over 60
    megaWatts of products.
        Question. Do you see value in continuing this type of expenditure
    in the area of photovoltaics?
        Answer. Yes. The return on investment for photovoltaic R&D is well
    worth the cost. In addition to the dramatic improvement in science,
    technology and the growth of the industry to date, we, and industry,
    believe this is just the beginning. Last June, about 35 representatives
    from the U.S. PV industry held an intensive workshop to develop an
    industry roadmap. The result of this meeting concluded that a sustained
    growth rate of 25 percent is achievable. At such a growth rate,
    worldwide shipments would approach 18 billion watts per year by 2020,
    representing a direct PV market of about $27 billion and an indirect
    market double that. Of this, U.S. PV shipments would reach 7 billion
    watts by 2020, with more than 3 billion watts for domestic use. This
    means that PV could be supplying about 15 percent of the nation's added
    generation capacity. And a large, growing industry bodes well for
    American workers. According to some estimates, the PV industry creates
    more than 3000 direct and indirect jobs for every $100 million in
    direct module sales. As this industry grows toward its potential, it
    will generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

                                     TRIBAL

        Question. The DOE currently has a Tribal Energy Program. What
    efforts has the DOE taken to work with tribes to develop renewable
    systems.
        Answer. The Tribal Energy Program is a reconfiguration of the pre-
    existing Renewable Indian Energy Resources Program for fiscal year 2001
    and represents an evolution in the Department's continuing work with
    the Tribes in assisting them to develop their energy resources and in
    addressing their energy needs. The Department recently released a
    report, ``Energy Consumption and Renewable Energy Development Potential
    on Indian Lands'' (March 2000), which discloses that some 14.2 percent
    of Native Americans, versus 1.4 percent of the general population, do
    not have access to electricity. The Department has been attempting to
    rectify that situation, beginning in fiscal year 1994 with our efforts
    under Title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 whereby 35 Tribes
    received competitive awards to construct renewable energy projects on
    Tribal lands; continuing in fiscal year 1999, where, through our Remote
    Power Program, we competitively awarded $1.9 million to eight Tribes to
    construct both grid-connected and off-grid renewable energy projects
    which will bring reliable power to Tribal residents; and culminating
    this year with $700,000 being made available to Tribal Colleges and
    Universities through our Competitive Solicitation Program for
    feasibility studies for renewable energy projects that will educate
    these future Tribal leaders on the benefits of renewable energy
    technologies. For fiscal year 2001, the Tribal Energy Program builds on
    these activities to develop expertise among Tribal leaders and
    communities on energy system design and implementation and to ensure
    that energy planning and installations are technically, economically,
    and environmentally sound.

                                 NO YEAR FUNDS

        Question. One issue that was addressed at last years appropriation
    hearing was the use of ``no year funds'' for Research and Development.
    I see that you are requesting language this year that would grant you
    ``no year funds'' for research and development. What would (sic) the
    Administration done to ensure that the administration of these funds is
    properly carried out?
        Answer. The Administration, through the Office of Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy, has instituted numerous management improvements
    over the course of the last 18 months. We began by conducting internal
    reviews to assess the management problems and identify those actions
    that could most improve our performance. This led to the establishment
    of a Chief Operating Officer who also serves as the Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Planning, Budget and Management (PBM). The Chief
    Operating Officer is the single point of focus for all business
    management and resource issues. The Chief Operating Officer oversees
    all planning, budget formulation, budget execution, program evaluation,
    field management, and human resources activities for the entire EERE
    enterprise.
        We also participated in an external review by the National Academy
    of Public Administration (NAPA). Their review identified areas for
    improvement and also acknowledged the improvement that has already
    occurred. Their report has been published and was the subject of a
    hearing before Congressman Regula's House Appropriation Subcommittee on
    Interior and Related Agencies, April 4, 2000.
        The NAPA report recommended two-year or no-year funding for the
    Energy Supply appropriations account. The report discussed the
    financial management problems associated with one-year funding and
    stated that, ``some unproductive project fiscal and administrative
    effort could be avoided'', by funding the account on a multi-year
    basis.
        The NAPA team also found that the Strategic Management System (SMS)
    through the Chief Operating Officer is sufficiently robust to achieve
    the level of funds control envisioned by Congress. The SMS is a
    systematic process that outlines all proper funds control mechanisms
    and ensures that proper checks and reviews occur in time to prevent
    problems. The system is over 75 percent implemented, and is on track
    for full implementation before fiscal year 2001.
    biomass research at the energy and environmental research center (eerc)
        Question. Last year, this Subcommittee included report at my
    request in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Report.
    The language, which was not negated in the conference report, read:

              ``Within the amount provided for systems development,
            $1,000,000 is for the continuation of biomass research at the
            Energy and Environmental Research Center on key barrier issue
            impeding the technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and
            environmental acceptability of biomass utilization processes.
            The funding is intended to advance the Center's work in
            integration of biomass with fossil fuels to increase baseload
            renewable electricity generation, development of practical
            methods for using biomass in advanced power systems, and
            improvement of efficiency and environmental performance in
            agricultural processing and forest-based product industries.''

        It is my understanding that the EERC has asked you and your staff
    to follow up on the implementation of this report language to date,
    there has been little action toward this end. Will you please give me
    some guidance about how the EERC should proceed?
        Answer. It is a primary objective of the Department to issue
    competitive solicitations whenever possible to ensure best value. As a
    result of discussions in Spring, 1999 between your staff and the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy (EERE), it became apparent that opportunities exist for the
    Department to expand its efforts in co-firing by including
    subbituminous and lignite coals, this would provide an opportunity for
    EERC's expertise. As a result, a solicitation was issued (Supplemental
    Announcement to the Broad Based Solicitation DE-PS36-99GO10383), with
    the objective of successfully demonstrating the viability of co-firing
    biomass with lignite for power production. Although DOE intended to
    make one award of up to $1.0M, no responses were received.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Department, requested proposals again
    through an open solicitation. This solicitation entitled ``Biomass
    Cofiring Opportunities'' (DE-PS26-00FT40775), administered through
    National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) on behalf of EERE, is
    aimed at cost-shared applications for research and development on co-
    firing biomass feedstocks with fossil fuels. It also included a
    component involving the co-firing of biomass with both lignite and
    subbituminous coals. It is our understanding that EERC has responded
    with an application. Although the review process has just begun, it is
    our intention to inform your office about the outcome as soon as the
    selection process has been completed.
                                     ______

       Questions Submitted to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
                                   Technology

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                       ACCELERATOR TRANSMUTATION OF WASTE

        Question. Mr. Magwood, during the current year, $9 million was
    provided for the Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW) program. ATW
    offers an exciting new option for dealing with spent nuclear fuel. I
    understand the Department recently completed a technology road map
    called for an expenditure of $280 Million over six years. This year was
    the first step down this road of technology exploration.
        Despite this road map and the promise of ATW, the proposed budget
    for next year is zero. Please explain why the Department's zeroed the
    funding for ATW after your road map effort expressed significant
    enthusiasm for if?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000 the ATW program is conducting trade
    studies on various technology pathways to identify the specific
    directions to conduct experimental research. The Department believes
    that a full evaluation of the various research activities needs to be
    accomplished and presented to both the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) before we
    consider any future integrated ATW research program.
        Question. I understand that there may be opportunities in a new
    advanced accelerator applications program that would combine the ATW
    program with the Accelerator Production of Tritium program (APT).
        Has a joint program combining APT and ATW been considered in your
    Office and could you comment on the national benefits that might accrue
    from such an approach?
        Answer. A joint APT/ATW program has been discussed between the
    Office of Defense Programs (DP) and the Office of Nuclear Energy,
    Science and Technology (NE). If a new program were established, for
    example, the investment of over $150 million in the Low Energy
    Demonstration Accelerator would be leveraged to provide the foundation
    of a test-bed for new frontiers of nuclear science and engineering that
    could be used in the ATW program. Of particular interest is the
    coupling of an accelerator to sub-critical reactor fuel assemblies, a
    new area of science which is not well understood today. This type of
    research could lead to new technology such as Generation IV reactors,
    advancements in proliferation-resistant reactors and fuel, advanced
    materials, and space nuclear power. In addition, an activity of this
    nature would help rebuild our critical nuclear infrastructure in terms
    of education, expertise and facilities.

                             NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM

        Question. Mr. Magwood, the budget request includes a new line,
    Special Purpose Fission Power Technology, for $2 million.
        Why is the work proposed under this request not duplicative of work
    performed under Radioisotope Power Systems?
        Answer. The funding request for the Special Purpose Fission
    Technology effort is included as one of four sub-items under the
    funding line Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems in the fiscal year
    2001 budget request. The other three sub-items are: Radioisotope Power
    Systems, Special Applications, and Pu-238 Acquisition and Processing.
    While the other three sub-items are focused only on efforts related to
    radioisotope power systems, the Special Purpose Fission Power
    Technology effort would focus only on an assessment of fission power
    technologies. Therefore, this proposed work does not duplicate work in
    the other sub-items.
        Question. Explain why the $2 million is needed.
        Answer. This funding is needed to support a technology evaluation
    effort to examine options and requirements for using small, compact
    fission reactor systems capable of meeting higher power requirements
    (both thermal and electrical) for emerging future needs. In the near-
    term, the effort would be focused on projected space exploration
    applications, and would provide for the assessment of performance
    attributes and requirements associated with use of these systems for
    meeting advanced propulsion and power needs (both for in-space and
    planetary surface operations). Due to the long lead time necessary to
    develop these systems, it is important that an evaluation effort be
    conducted at this point to provide credible information to support
    long-term planning. This near-term assessment would be an interagency
    effort with NASA funding significant portions of key technology areas.
    The DOE funding is critical to serve as the core of a coordinated U.S.
    assessment analysis. If the assessment identified a need for a large
    R&D effort in the future, most of the funding would be provided by the
    user agency.
        The requested funding would make possible a coordinated evaluation
    effort consisting of nuclear fission reactor system concept definition
    and technical evaluation; technology subsystem assessment; and
    identification of programmatic requirements associated with system
    development including safety, technology advancements, and test
    facilities. An interagency assessment report would be developed
    providing the results of this evaluation effort and options to support
    future mission planning, integration, and decision-making related to
    potential development of these systems for meeting future needs.

                          ADVANCED REACTOR DEVELOPMENT

        Question. Mr. Magwood, significant progress has been made in re-
    establishing a research base in nuclear engineering in this country.
    Despite this progress, I'm concerned that we are not doing enough,
    especially since nuclear energy is providing immense environmental
    benefits to the nation as it supplies 22 percent of our electricity.
    I've heard excitement among some groups about a Generation 4 reactor
    that would have lower costs and greater safety than current systems.
        Do you agree that the time is right to encourage technical
    evaluation of a Generation 4 reactor? Are there technologies in sight
    that make it feasible?
        Answer. This is absolutely the right time to evaluate Generation IV
    nuclear power systems. Both we and the international community
    recognize that the economic, reliable, and widespread availability of
    electric power is an essential element in all developing countries'
    plans to improve the quality of life for their citizens. Worldwide
    energy demand is predicted to increase substantially, as much as 65
    percent by 2020 (International Energy Agency, 1999). Because of its
    attributes, nuclear power will be a key option for many countries, both
    industrialized and developing. In order to meet demand and bring
    advanced technologies to commercial use over the next 15 to 20 years,
    the time is now to begin planning for tomorrow's nuclear energy
    systems.
        The United States has an indispensable role as a leader in
    developing nuclear technologies and has begun to reach out to our
    partners overseas to explore the potential for working on these
    technologies together. This past January, the Department sponsored a
    meeting with government representatives of eight other countries to
    begin discussing Generation IV advanced nuclear energy technologies. In
    April, a small group of experts from those countries met again to
    develop specific recommendations on the future direction of
    multilateral cooperation on Generation IV technologies. In early May,
    the Department sponsored a three-day workshop with a broader group of
    approximately 100 international and U.S. experts from the government
    agencies, research organizations, and representatives of the
    International Atomic Energy Agency and other multilateral organizations
    to begin the process of establishing requirements and attributes of
    Generation IV reactor technologies.
        The results of these discussions and considerations will help us
    initiate a DOE-led Generation IV technology roadmap, which will bring
    together the views and requirements of the entire U.S. and
    international research community to set a direction for advanced
    research to develop next generation nuclear power systems.
        From the discussions that we have had with the international and
    U.S. research community, it's clear that there are many innovative and
    enabling technologies that make Generation IV reactors feasible over
    the next fifteen years. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative research
    includes several Generation IV concepts such as secure transportable a
    LWR, encapsulated fission heat sources, reactors that directly convert
    energy from fission, and new designs that produce hydrogen or methane
    for alternative fuel sources. The United States has made a very
    promising start. Working with the research community, we hope to apply
    what we have learned in creating our Generation IV technology roadmap
    to set upon a path that will enhance the long-term prospects for
    building advanced nuclear power systems in the twenty-first century.
        Question. Would development of a Gen 4 reactor by the United States
    help re-establish some degree of international leadership and
    rejuvenate interest in the profession?
        Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology's
    initiation of its Generation IV activities, combined with other
    programs such as our Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, is helping
    reassert U.S. technology leadership in the nuclear R&D field. One of
    the most satisfying aspects of launching our new programs has been the
    eagerness with which the international community has embraced the
    return of the U.S. to leadership in the nuclear R&D field.
        The countries participating with us in our Generation IV
    international activities are as concerned as we about rejuvenating the
    nuclear science and technology profession. The primary focus of our
    efforts is to attract the best young talent available into the nuclear
    technology field. Apart from Generation IV activities, NE is actively
    working both domestically and with international partners to make
    advanced education in the nuclear science and engineering available and
    attractive to talented, ambitious students. It is our hope that these
    efforts will yield an increase in the number of students entering
    nuclear engineering programs at our universities and rejuvenate
    interest in the nuclear profession.

                    NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION (NEPO)

        Question. What led to cancellation of the original NEPO
    solicitation and when will grants be awarded?
        Answer. There was no cancellation of the original NEPO
    solicitation. The Department signed a Cooperative Agreement with the
    Electric Power Research Institute in May 2000 that provides for the
    solicitation and award of research contracts for 14 projects to be
    initiated this fiscal year. Research awards under NEPO will be made
    this summer.

                 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION LABS

        Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
    operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department on March 1.
    The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore have a long
    tradition of supporting a broad range of scientific initiatives beyond
    weapons activities. As the NNSA was created, I emphasized the
    importance of the NNSA labs continuing their multi-program support of
    the Department and other federal agencies.
        The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, stated that: ``The
    Secretary, in consultation with the Administration, shall establish
    procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
    by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
        Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
    continue to receive high priority funding from the Department. Will
    each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively fund
    projects within the NNSA labs?
        Answer. The NNSA Act allows the NNSA laboratories to continue to
    perform significant research for all DOE programs, for other federal
    agencies and non-federal organizations. It also permits the Department
    to continue the important role the NNSA laboratories have as part of
    the integrated laboratory system.
        The Department recognizes that non-defense research is important to
    maintain the vital overall science and technology base and core
    competencies of the NNSA laboratories. This point was recently
    reinforced by Secretary Richardson in a memorandum to the Heads of
    Departmental Elements on May 11, 2000, in which he reinforced the
    Department's strong commitment to encouraging and supporting the
    diversity of work performed by the Department's national laboratory
    complex, including the laboratories that report to the NNSA.
        The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) will
    continue work closely with the NNSA laboratories in research and other
    programmatic activities of our office. As part of NE's Isotope Program,
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative program, Accelerator Transmutation
    of Waste program, and our space power systems program, we are engaged
    in a number of important research and other mission-related activities
    with the NNSA laboratories, including Sandia National Laboratory,
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National
    Laboratory. We are committed to continuing to work closely with these
    laboratories as we accomplish the mission of NE.
        Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
    NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for
    NNSA lab support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as
    required?
        Answer. An Implementation Plan for the NNSA has been prepared and
    issued. This implementation plan is structured as the mechanism that
    provides maximum flexibility for both NNSA and non-NNSA laboratories,
    to continue to perform the type of research that they do best and to
    allow the initiating program sufficient control over their research.
    The Implementation Plan is structured to ensure continued utilization
    of the national laboratory complex by all parties. It allows the NNSA
    laboratories to continue to perform significant research for all DOE
    programs and to work together with the non-NNSA laboratories
    efficiently and effectively to complement each others' expertise in
    important scientific collaborations that can benefit all Departmental
    programs, including the NNSA.
        Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
    relations between your Office and the NNSA?
        Answer. No. The Implementation Plan for the NNSA adequately
    addresses the concerns you raise, and the Department is committed to
    maintaining a culture that permits the laboratories to continue this
    effective relationship.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton

                            FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY

        Question. Given the imminent approval of the Department's $9
    million reprogramming request on FFTF (and again, I very much
    appreciate the chairman's support for this reprogramming), what is the
    timetable for conducting the NEPA review on future restart or shutdown
    options for the FFTF?
        Answer. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
    addresses more than actions regarding the Fast Flux Test Facility
    (FFTF). As recommended by the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
    Committee and directed by Secretary Richardson, this review will
    evaluate through the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact
    Statement (EIS) enhancing the Department of Energy's nuclear facility
    infrastructure to meet growing civilian research needs over the next 35
    years. The alternatives of restarting or deactivating FFTF will be
    included in this evaluation. The Programmatic EIS is expected to be
    completed by the end of the current calendar year. The final decision
    on the future of the FFTF will be made as part of the broader decision
    on the nuclear research facility infrastructure. This decision is
    expected to be issued in January 2001, following completion of the
    Programmatic EIS and other related documents, including studies
    analyzing the costs and nonproliferation impacts of proposed actions,
    and a long-range nuclear technology research and development plan.
        Question. Again assuming the approval of the reprogramming, what
    are the Department's plans to maintain FFTF in a safe condition and to
    minimize layoffs?
        Answer. The funding available under the proposed reprogramming
    would be used by the Department to maintain the FFTF in a safe standby
    condition in compliance with applicable environmental and safety
    regulations, through the end of the fiscal year. Impact to FFTF staff
    will be minimized through reassignments, as practicable, to retain
    needed expertise and skills-mix.
        Question. Please describe the nuclear science and technology
    research missions that are suitable for FFTF, including the production
    of medical isotopes.
        Answer. The FFTF, if restarted, would be a reliable and versatile
    source of neutrons, and would provide the largest core volume for
    neutron irradiation among the Department's research and test reactors.
    Neutron irradiation in the FFTF could support a number of nuclear
    science and technology missions, meeting specific civilian nuclear
    technology needs in the areas of isotope production, domestic and
    international nuclear technology research and development (R&D) and
    plutonium-238 production for national needs.
        In isotope production, FFTF could provide critically needed medical
    isotopes used to diagnose and treat a number of conditions, including
    various cancers. Even conservative market surveys project that for many
    medical isotopes future demand will exceed supply.
        In the area of nuclear technology R&D, FFTF core space could be
    used to support research efforts in transmutation of radioactive
    wastes, development of proliferation resistant fuels, space power
    systems development, and materials development for advanced reactor
    applications and fusion research.
        FFTF could also support specific needs in plutonium-238 production
    for use as a source of heat and electricity in long-range space probes.
        Question. Our country's increasing dependence on foreign oil and
    the groaning [growing] concerns on global warming underscore the
    importance of maintaining nuclear power as an energy option. Yet our
    nuclear energy research infrastructure is deteriorating. Please explain
    the role the FFTF could play in supporting a robust nuclear energy R&D
    program.
        Answer. If restarted, the FFTF would operate as one of a suite of
    DOE-owned test and research reactors. As a nuclear science and
    irradiation user facility it would significantly increase the nation's
    available neutron flux capacity for materials and nuclear fuels testing
    crucial to nuclear technology R&D efforts. Working in tandem with other
    nuclear facilities such as the High Flux Isotope Reactor and the
    Advanced Test Reactor, FFTF, if restarted, could help the Department
    address growing civilian nuclear technology research needs over the
    next 35 years. As such, FFTF could directly support research and
    development under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI); for
    example, materials testing to support advanced fuel development.
    Materials testing could also provide data to support life extension of
    existing reactor plants. FFTF could also be an important tool in
    technology development to help reduce nonproliferation concerns and in
    expansion of cooperative international nuclear research efforts. A
    robust nuclear energy R&D program would include active U.S. involvement
    and leadership in international reactor research programs.
        Question. FFTF is the nation's most modern nuclear test reactor. If
    FFTF were to be decommissioned, what is the next newest research
    reactor that the Department would rely on to support the nation's
    nuclear R&D missions? How old is that reactor? Can it meet the
    Department's needs?
        Answer. The Department's nuclear R&D missions needs are met by a
    suite of facilities, including two operating research and test
    reactors, the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and the Advanced Test
    Reactor (ATR), which provide the currently available core capacity for
    neutron irradiation and testing. HFIR and ATR have operated for 33 and
    31 years, respectively. The FFTF operated for 10 years before being
    placed in standby in 1993.
        Since 1993 the DOE Complex has experienced a significant decline in
    the total availability of steady-state neutrons for research, testing,
    and isotope production, while the Department's nuclear R&D and
    production needs are increasing. The Department is evaluating how best
    it can meet these projected mission demands. In addition to the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the Department's
    nuclear research facility infrastructure, including the potential role
    of the Fast Flux Test Facility, the independent Nuclear Energy Research
    Advisory Committee is preparing a long-term nuclear energy research and
    development plan and an infrastructure roadmap. When these evaluations
    are complete, the Department will be in a position to make
    infrastructure decisions based on well-defined needs and capabilities.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell

                         DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE

        Question. Mr. Magwood, you are probably aware that USEC is
    preparing to lay-off 825 workers at the gaseous diffusion plants. It is
    my understanding that your office has control over $10 million in funds
    that have been obligated to cylinder maintenance between fiscal year
    2002-fiscal year 2010. This level of funding would be more than
    sufficient to provide these basic benefits.
        Is there any reason why this funding can't be used immediately to
    provide a voluntary reduction-in-force benefits package? What about
    worker health testing or accelerating cleanup?
        Answer. The $10 million identified in the question is part of a
    balance of $66 million received from the United States Enrichment
    Corporation (USEC Inc) under a Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) under which
    the Department voluntarily accepted responsibility from USEC for
    management and disposition of some 11,000 cylinders of depleted uranium
    hexafluoride. This arrangement was a ``work for others'' transition and
    the money the Department received from USEC for conducting this
    activity was ``miscellaneous revenues'' that are appropriated annually
    to the Department, enabling the Department to retain and use those
    revenues in the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
    Thus, we concluded that under current law, the Department must use
    those amounts just for the purpose they were received from USEC.
        The Department has worked closely and actively with USEC to
    formulate programs under which we can mitigate the effects on workers
    of anticipated USEC workforce reductions (now estimated by USEC to be
    625 positions rather than the earlier estimate of 825 referenced in the
    question). Those efforts have included the recent redirection of other
    appropriations balances to enhance voluntary separation benefits from
    amounts available for worker and community transition accounts.
        Question. I have a budget document that was prepared by your
    cleanup contractor that states that at the end of fiscal year 2001, the
    cylinder management program will have an uncosted balance of $9.2
    million between Paducah and Portsmouth.
        How do you explain this and why are you requesting such a massive
    increase if the contractor won't be able to spend this amount of
    funding?
        Answer. As part of the budget formulation process for the uranium
    programs' fiscal year 2001 budget request, various funding scenarios
    were developed for allocation of funding among Paducah, Portsmouth, and
    the East Tennessee Technology Park by the management and integration
    contractor. Although the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
    Technology is not familiar with the budget document cited in this
    question, we are familiar with a scenario that maximized cylinder
    maintenance at Paducah and Portsmouth, and resulted in a somewhat lower
    uncosted balance. However, neither scenario is considered credible
    because of other program mandates that were not considered in the
    scenarios. As we proceed through the fiscal year 2001 appropriations
    process, the Department will continue to analyze options for allocation
    of limited funding to meet the numerous priorities of the program at
    the three sites. Regardless, we do not envision the allocation of the
    funding among the sites to result in a high uncosted balance in fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. Instead of wasting this funding on cylinder maintenance,
    where it obviously can't be spent, wouldn't it be better applied to the
    cylinder conversion program to eliminate the threat?
        Answer. Although the Department is committed to addressing the
    final disposition of the depleted uranium hexafluoride
    (DUF6) inventory in an expeditious manner and is proceeding
    with plans for a project to build and operate conversion facility,
    maintenance of the inventory will be required in the interim and
    throughout the duration of conversion facility operation. The
    significant increase requested in the President's fiscal year 2001
    budget will enable us to rectify funding shortfalls in surveillance and
    maintenance in prior years.
        As you know, for decades as the Department continued its uranium
    enrichment program, it filled large steel cylinders with
    DUF6. This material, which results from the enrichment of
    uranium for commercial nuclear fuel or defense purposes, if properly
    maintained, has and can be stored safely for decades without causing a
    hazard to workers, the public, or the environment. However, proper
    maintenance of the inventory was neglected in prior years, resulting in
    cylinders that were stacked in a less than optimal manner and often in
    direct contact with the ground.
        Over the last seven years, DOE has taken positive steps to address
    this situation, putting a comprehensive program in place to maintain
    and monitor the inventory pending its disposition. These management
    activities are consistent with consent agreements involving the states
    and with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB)
    recommendations. In fact, last December, the DNFSB notified DOE that
    the Board considers the recommendation closed because the Department
    had met all of the relevant commitments. In large part, the Board's
    conclusions were based on the maintenance and surveillance program put
    into place as well as the fiscal year 2001 budget request, which with
    about $4 million more than this fiscal year, will rectify prior funding
    shortfalls and will enable us to manage the inventory in a manner that
    protects workers, the public and the environment.

                       DOE MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS (DMSAS)

        Question. I noticed that budget funding for the management of the
    148 DOE material storage areas (DMSA) was reduced by 16 percent, yet
    the Phase I Report identified 11 of the 148 sites pose a criticality
    threat. How do you justify a budget reduction?
        Answer. The funding reduction in fiscal year (FY) 2001 is the
    result of accelerating the characterization schedule for the 13
    critical DMSAs in fiscal year 2000. The Department reprioritized
    activities in fiscal year 2000 to fund the urgent work to address
    questions about potential criticality concerns in the 11 DMSAs that
    were identified in the Environmental, Safety and Health Phase 1
    Investigation Report and another 2 DMSAs subsequently identified by the
    Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
        Characterization of these DMSAs is proceeding, with completion
    expected by July 2000. As such, no increase in funding is required in
    fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Why aren't these projects being cleaned up?
        Answer. While there are 148 DMSAs on the Paducah site, only 13 have
    been identified as high priority for near-term action due to a
    potential for nuclear criticality concerns. Until recently, the
    strategy for management of the DMSAs at the Paducah and Portsmouth
    sites had been to take action as needed to maintain the materials in a
    safe configuration, pending final shutdown of the gaseous diffusion
    plants. This approach was based on the recognition that some of the
    material and equipment represented a potential strategic benefit to the
    Government or USEC. Further, it was considered more cost-effective to
    postpone disposition of the materials in the DMSAs to the time in which
    the overall decontamination and decommissioning of the facilities was
    performed.
        However, we are currently evaluating options for accelerating
    characterization of the DMSAs, and where appropriate, for transferring
    radioactive, hazardous and other waste identified in the DMSAs to the
    Office of Environmental Management for disposition. A characterization
    and disposition plan for the DMSAs at Paducah is under development and
    expected to be completed in the first quarter of the next fiscal year.
    However, that material and equipment that is of potential strategic
    benefit to the Government and USEC will continue to be retained in a
    safe configuration, pending its final disposition.

               DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE CYLINDER MANAGEMENT

        Question. In testimony before the Energy Committee two weeks ago,
    you claimed that your office has met the standards set by the Defense
    Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 95-1 for depleted
    uranium cylinder management and you are confident that the program has
    resolved the cylinder storage problems. If you are in full compliance,
    how do you justify a 30 percent increase in your budget for the
    cylinder maintenance program at Paducah?
        Answer. As the Department produced more and more depleted uranium
    hexafluoride over the years, it stacked cylinders in less than an
    optimal manner, often storing cylinders too closely together and some
    of the cylinders were in direct contact with the ground, resulting in
    corrosion. Over the last several years, DOE has taken positive action
    to address this situation. We put in place a comprehensive program to
    maintain and monitor the inventory pending its disposition. As a part
    of our commitment to the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board's
    Recommendation 95-1, Improved Safety of Cylinders Containing Depleted
    Uranium, we established a cylinder management program that requires
    continuous oversight to maintain the integrity of the cylinders through
    a systems engineering process. In December 1999, the DNFSB notified DOE
    that the Board considers the recommendation closed, because the
    Department has met all of the relevant commitments. In particular, the
    Board recognized DOE's efforts to develop a workable and justifiable
    cylinder management program and our commitment to continuing with
    cylinder maintenance as part of the accelerated conversion program.
        The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request provides $16.6
    million to maintain the cylinders, about $4 million more than was
    appropriated this year. Because of funding shortfalls in previous
    years, this increase is needed to enable us to follow through on
    commitments made to the States and DNFSB and is important to the safe
    and efficient management of the inventory in a manner that protects
    workers, the public and the environment. The increase in funding
    reflects our continued efforts to come into full compliance with the
    requirements of the plan approved by the DNFSB, particularly in the
    areas of cylinder painting and disposal of empty cylinders.
        Question. Mr. Magwood--the Programmatic Environmental Impact Study
    on the depleted uranium conversion facility specifically stated,
    ``depleted UF6 produced as a result of uranium recovered
    from spent nuclear fuel would not be expected to contain appreciable
    amounts of transuranic radionuclides.'' (Page 3-16, April 1999)
        Do you stand by this statement?
        Answer. Last summer when concerns were raised about the
    introduction of recycled uranium feed materials, the possibility that
    the DUF6 inventory could be contaminated with transuranic
    materials was identified as an issue requiring additional evaluation. A
    review of the historical data regarding the inventory, conducted last
    year, did not yield sufficient information to enable us to assure that
    future workers would be adequately protected. Because of this, we are
    proceeding this year with additional sampling of representative
    cylinders, dating back to the years in which recycled uranium was
    processed. This will enable us to obtain a clear understanding of
    whether the contaminants present in the cylinders will impact the
    design of conversion facilities or worker safety programs at the
    proposed conversion facilities. The sampling will be completed this
    year, the results of which will be used to finalize the DUF6
    conversion project Request for Proposals (RFP).
        Based upon preliminary samples, we believe that whatever the
    specific levels of contamination are they will not be appreciable
    enough to have a significant impact on the design, construction or
    operation of the conversion plants. However, it is important that we
    complete our current analysis and sampling so that sufficiently
    detailed information can be used in the design of the conversion plants
    and provide the confidence we need to allow contractors to bid on a
    contract for conversion plants.
        Question. Why didn't the Department ever disclose this information
    in its Plan for Conversion or the Record of Decision that were
    delivered to Capitol Hill prior to the Washington Post story?
        Answer. The Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium
    Hexafluoride was completed in July 1999, and delivered to Congress. The
    concerns regarding use of recycled uranium feed were not raised until
    last summer, and our analysis of this concern was initiated in August.
    The final results of that analysis will not be available until near the
    end of this summer. Therefore, no data were available for inclusion in
    either the plan or the Record of Decision last year. However, as stated
    in the response to the previous question, we do not believe that the
    levels or the extent of contamination are significant enough to have
    impacted either the Plan or the Record of Decision.
        Question. Earlier this year, the U.S. Army completed its analysis
    of the depleted uranium armor provided from the Department of Energy's
    depleted uranium stockpiles to determine if the transuranic
    contamination posed a threat to U.S. soldiers. Thankfully, the Army's
    evaluation found that the trace amounts of contaminants were within
    acceptable limits.
        Are your findings consistent with those of the U.S. Army?
        Answer. We will not have the final results of our analysis of
    transuranic contaminants until later this year; however, we anticipate
    that the level of such contaminants will not pose a health or safety
    concern to workers or the public in properly designed conversion
    facilities.
        Question. I find it astounding that the Army, which only recently
    learned about the contamination, has completed its inspection; while
    your office has tested only four cylinders despite having full
    knowledge of the transuranic contamination. Why is taking so long?
        Answer. There are nearly 50,000 cylinders in the Department's
    inventory. Determining which of those cylinders should be sampled has
    involved an extensive and time-consuming search of sometimes incomplete
    records, development of a sampling plan that balances cost against
    expected gain, peer review of that sampling plan, and modification of
    procedures to permit sampling using USEC leased autoclaves. Finally,
    conducting sampling and analyzing the results has also been time-
    consuming.
        Since December 1999, the Department has sampled six depleted
    uranium hexafluoride cylinders all of which were filled after 1989--two
    from Paducah, three from Portsmouth, and the ``heels'' from an empty
    cylinder at Paducah. Of the six, we are awaiting analysis of results or
    confirmation of the analytical results. Additionally, we are in the
    process of sampling two uranium hexafluoride ``feed'' cylinders from
    Paducah containing recycled uranium generated from processing reactor
    return material. The Department plans to empty these ``feed'' cylinders
    and sample the ``heels.'' Finally, we are evaluating approaches to
    obtaining samples from up to 12 additional depleted uranium
    hexafluoride cylinders at Paducah generated during the years in which
    recycling occurred. We are progressing with these activities and expect
    to have the results later this year, providing us a better
    understanding of the contaminants so that the final Request for
    Proposals can be issued this October.
        Question. DOE issued a Final Plan and a Programmatic Environmental
    Impact Statement for the depleted uranium conversion facilities at
    Paducah and Portsmouth. These documents describe a conversion plan with
    an estimated lifespan of nearly 25 years and an estimated cost of $2
    billion. The plan envisions converting this material either to uranium
    oxide, uranium metal or a combination of both.
        What form does the Department prefer this material be converted to
    for disposal?
        Answer. The Department believes that acceptable disposal paths
    exist for any of the product forms identified by the respondents to our
    request for expressions of interest. The Source Evaluation Board has
    not yet finalized a strategy on whether the Department should specify
    the final product form in the Request for Proposals or leave the
    product form open to potential bidders.
        Question. Your office has proposed beginning construction by 2003
    and operations to begin by 2005. What assurances can you give me that
    you will meet this schedule?
        Answer. The Department remains committed to dealing quickly and
    effectively with its depleted uranium hexafluoride inventory and to
    meeting the goals, objectives and requirements of Public Law 105-204.
    The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $12 million for the
    depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion project; an amount that we
    plan to match with an additional $12 million from funds obtained under
    the Memoranda of Agreement with USEC, bringing the total to $24 million
    in fiscal year 2001. Another $12 million is reserved for the conversion
    project and related activities. This funding will keep the project on
    track to issue the final Request for Proposals in October 2000, award a
    contract early next year and begin design in fiscal year 2001. Our
    budget request for fiscal year 2001 keeps the Department on schedule to
    meet the start of construction in 2003 and the start of operations in
    2005.
        Question. How much material is expected to be converted and what
    are the expected uses of this converted material? Where will this
    material be stored for the long term?
        Answer. There are about 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium
    hexafluoride stored in cylinders at Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth,
    Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which we plan to convert. The
    Department has prepared a roadmap for developing beneficial uses of
    depleted uranium products. Other than for the fluorine, no uses have
    been identified for the depleted uranium that would be required in the
    short-term future. However, we believe that there may be uses for the
    material in the longer term future. To more fully explore this option,
    the Department is initiating domestic research projects and is
    exploring collaborative research opportunities with the international
    community to define uses for the depleted uranium product.
        Question. The documents state that unused conversion products will
    require disposal. What does DOE mean by ``unused conversion products?''
    Where will DOE disposal of the unused conversion products? What are
    your alternatives?
        Answer. If an end use is identified for the conversion product, any
    material produced in excess of that need will require disposal.
    Although no decision has been made relative to disposal of unused
    conversion products, the Nevada Test Site, other DOE sites, and
    commercial low level waste disposal sites are among the options that
    would be available to the Department.
        Question. What are the impacts of the depleted uranium conversion
    facilities at Paducah on the sites cleanup schedule? Has the Office of
    Nuclear Energy coordinated with the Office of Environmental Management
    to address the potential impacts of cleaning the site? If so, what has
    been the result of this coordination?
        Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and
    the Office of Environmental Management have established a working
    group, with participation by DOE's Offices of Policy, Worker and
    Community Transition, and General Counsel, to develop an integrated
    plan to guide the completion of all non-United States Enrichment
    Corporation (USEC) activities occurring at the gaseous diffusion plants
    (GDP) sites.
        The integrated plan will be completed this summer, and will serve
    as a living document to reflect the Department's plans for addressing
    our responsibilities at the GDP sites. The plan will provide cost and
    schedule estimates for all of the DOE activities at these sites:
    conversion of the inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride;
    management of DOE Material Storage Areas; decontamination and
    decommissioning of excess facilities, eventually including those
    currently leased to USEC; waste management, remedial actions; and the
    final end state for the GDP sites. The plan will also take into account
    the impacts and uncertainties associated with GDP transition, funding
    levels, labor issues, and regulatory and stakeholder priorities.
        Question. Where do you envision locating the two conversion
    facilities and what has your office done to prepare the sites?
        Answer. Consistent with the Final Plan for Conversion of Depleted
    Uranium Hexafluoride issued in July 1999, and subject to the
    availability of appropriations, the Department plans on constructing
    two conversion facilities, one each located on the Paducah, Kentucky
    and Portsmouth, Ohio sites. As part of the acquisition process, in
    order to provide information to potential bidders, site
    characterization data is being developed for both sites and will be
    completed this fiscal year. Additionally, the Department is planning to
    request funding for fiscal year 2002 for site-specific preparation
    activities.
        Question. What are the funding requirements over the projected 25-
    year period of operation? What contracting approach do you envision
    using to construct and operate these two facilities?
        Answer. The total life cycle cost for the depleted uranium
    hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion project is under review;
    however, the current estimate ranges from $1.731 billion to $4.920
    billion, which was reported in the Department's fiscal year 1999
    Accountability Report. An independent cost estimate is being prepared
    for this project, to be completed this summer.
        Further, the Deputy Secretary has established a DUF6
    working group of procurement, program, and other experts from within
    the Department to develop the Management and Acquisition Strategy Plan
    to be utilized to guide the contracting approach for the final request
    for proposals.
        Question. What are the implications if the Governors of Kentucky,
    Ohio and Tennessee decided to regulate the cylinders as waste under the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act?
        Answer. The Department's position with regard to depleted uranium
    hexafluoride is that it is a source material as defined by the Atomic
    Energy Act, and not a waste. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    (RCRA) excludes source material, special nuclear material, and by-
    product material from regulation under RCRA (40 CFR 261). Depleted
    uranium hexafluoride, as a chemical compound of uranium and fluorine,
    is a chemical form of uranium, and thus, a source material. Further, as
    none of the Department's depleted uranium hexafluoride has been mixed
    with other materials that are regulated under RCRA, it is the
    Department's position that the material is excluded from RCRA
    definitions of solid and hazardous waste. A decision to regulate the
    material under RCRA would significantly impact the cost of storing and
    managing the material, potentially ranging into the billions of
    dollars.
        Question. The Decommissioning and Decontamination Fund was created
    to fund the removal and cleanup of the nation's three gaseous diffusion
    plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio.
    Nuclear utility companies contribute to this fund. The Department of
    Energy estimated in 1998, it could cost 10.7 billion to remove and
    cleanup the three plants. Is there any prohibition on the use of D&D
    funds to deal with the conversion of the depleted uranium cylinders?
        Answer. There is no prohibition in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 on
    the use of the Uranium decommissioning and decontamination (UE D&D)
    fund for the conversion of the depleted uranium cylinders.
    Traditionally, the UE D&D fund has been used to support cleanup
    activities at the three uranium enrichment facilities, including
    environmental restoration, waste management, and decontamination and
    decommissioning work, as well as, reimbursements to uranium and thorium
    licensees under Title 10.

                         DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE

        Question. Mr. Magwood, when I drafted Public Law 105-204, I
    established a timetable that would give the Department more than enough
    time to implement this legislation. Unfortunately, my lowest
    expectations for the Department have been exceeded. I am very skeptical
    that the budget offered by the Secretary is sufficient to keep this
    project on track and able to meet the timetable you have set forth. In
    fact, it is my understanding that this budget only provides enough
    funding for your office to complete one-third of the total design work
    for the facilities. Based on information from project experts, as well
    as information from your office, at least $60 million is needed to keep
    this project on track. Further, I am disappointed the Secretary offered
    only $12 million of the available $24 million that he had committed to
    provide last year.
        Has the Secretary withdrawn his commitment on this project?
        Answer. The Secretary remains committed to meeting the target date
    anticipated by Public Law 105-204 to begin construction of the
    conversion facilities not later than January 31, 2004. We believe that
    the funding requested in the Administration's budget request will allow
    us to meet and maintain this schedule.
        Question. What will the Department do with the remaining $12
    million in funding that hasn't been obligated?
        Answer. The Department is proceeding with plans for a project to
    design, build and operate conversion facilities at Paducah and
    Portsmouth that will convert the inventory of depleted uranium
    hexafluoride to a more stable form. As part of the Administration's
    budget request, we are proposing to apply $12 million to the depleted
    uranium hexafluoride conversion program in fiscal year (FY) 2001.
    Further, we plan to use an additional $12 million from funds obtained
    under a Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with the United States Enrichment
    Corporation (USEC Inc), bringing the total to $24 million in fiscal
    year 2001. This will enable the Department to issue the formal
    DUF6 conversion project Request for Proposals to the private
    sector by October 2000 and to initiate design activities in fiscal year
    2001. We anticipate applying the remaining $12 million of the USEC Inc
    MOA funding, along with additional appropriations in fiscal year 2002
    and beyond to maintain this schedule.
        Question. Mr. Magwood, you informed my staff in a meeting last
    month that transuranic waste was found in depleted uranium cylinders
    generated in 1988 and 1993. If the Atomic Energy Commission stopped
    using recycled uranium during the mid-1970's, how do you explain the
    fact that this material was found in those cylinders 10 to 15 years
    later?
        Answer. The Government ceased processing its recycled uranium in
    the mid-1970's. During the fiscal years 1986 through 1989, a small
    amount of recycled uranium was received by the Department from the
    French Company Comurhex, which was introduced to the diffusion cascades
    during that time frame. We suspect the transuranic materials found in
    some of the cylinders resulted from the French recycled uranium.
        Question. How much funding will this project require annually in
    order for the Department to fulfill its legal obligations to have two
    conversion plants operational by 2005?
        Answer. We will go out with an RFP in October, and once a contract
    is awarded, the Department will be in a better position to provide
    annual cost estimates. Prior to that time, all cost estimates by any
    source, including informal staff estimates, are procurement sensitive.
    Any estimate made public at this time could influence the responses
    that we hope to get from prospective bidders.
        We will provide Congress with the annual costs as soon as numbers
    are available for release.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                         NUCLEAR ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST

        Question. In the budget request, DOE recommended that the name of
    the Termination Costs budget line be changed to ``Nuclear Facilities
    Management.'' Can you discuss the reasons for this recommendation?
        Answer. Three components make up the Termination Costs or ``Nuclear
    Facilities Management'' program: infrastructure, facility termination
    activities, and technology activities. The infrastructure is required
    to satisfy safety, security, and environmental requirements; maintain
    facilities in a user-ready status with a capable, knowledgeable well-
    trained core staff; and provide support functions for the ongoing
    program work. It also includes operation of facilities not related to
    facility termination activities such as the storage and protection of
    facilities housing special nuclear materials. Facility termination
    activities consist of placing the EBR-II in a radiologically and
    industrially safe condition and deactivating associated facilities. It
    also includes the treatment of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel that
    was used in the reactor, which is performed in the Fuel Conditioning
    Facility. Technology activities provide for technical support for
    sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel treatment by developing and testing
    waste stream treatment process equipment of a scale suitable for
    inventory treatment. It also involves conducting long-term tests to
    characterize performance of reference waste forms and gain Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission approval for placement of metal and ceramic waste
    forms in a geologic repository.
        The majority of the fiscal year 2001 and future year funds that
    will be used in this budget line will involve nuclear infrastructure
    and technology activities. Therefore, we believe that a more
    representative title for this budget item is ``Nuclear Facilities
    Management.''
        Question. Can you provide a summary of the Department's objectives
    for closing the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II and treating EBR-II
    spent fuel?
        Answer. EBR-II was a research and test reactor at Argonne National
    Laboratory-West used to demonstrate the engineering feasibility of the
    sodium-cooled, liquid metal reactor with a steam electric power plant
    and integral fuel cycle. It operated from 1964 through 1994 and upon
    mission completion in 1994, it was shut down.
        EBR-II spent nuclear fuel contains metallic sodium. Metallic sodium
    reacts vigorously with water, producing heat, potentially explosive
    hydrogen gas, and sodium hydroxide, a corrosive substance. Metallic
    sodium is also pyrophoric. The current repository waste acceptance
    criteria exclude reactive and potentially explosive materials from
    being accepted into a geologic repository unless they exist in only
    trace quantities. In order to satisfy the waste acceptance criteria,
    the sodium, which is bonded to uranium metal alloy within the fuel
    cladding must be further treated in order for it to be removed from the
    spent fuel.

                 UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

        Question. DOE has proposed $12 million for the university program
    in fiscal year 2001, the same as was appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
    This program is essential to ensuring an adequate supply of nuclear-
    trained professionals for the nuclear power industry, the national
    laboratories, the environmental restoration industry, and a host of
    other industries. This program also provides funding to support the
    operation of more than two dozen university-based nuclear research
    reactors in the U.S. Given the importance of university nuclear
    engineering programs and university research reactors to maintaining
    the viability of nuclear power in the U.S., do you believe the
    requested funding level is adequate?
        Answer. The Department has requested $12 million for the University
    Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support Program for fiscal year 2001 which
    is the same funding level appropriated for fiscal year 2000. At this
    funding level, the Department will continue to provide critical
    assistance to the Nation's university nuclear engineering programs as
    they educate and train the next generation of nuclear engineers and
    scientists. University research reactors are a vital component of our
    national research and education infrastructure. Many university
    research reactors support the development of highly qualified,
    technically knowledgeable personnel needed by national laboratories,
    private industry, the Federal government, and academia. Through the
    Department's Reactor Sharing program, the university research reactors
    also serve as centers for education programs offered to other colleges
    and universities and high school students and teachers who visit the
    reactors for instructional programs and research.
        To help ensure the continued success of the university nuclear
    engineering programs, the Department provides assistance through
    activities such as the DOE/Industry Matching Grants program which
    leverages public sector funds with private contributions in a 50/50
    cost share arrangement. Fiscal year 2000 marked the first year that
    this program's private sector funding exceeded DOE's ability to match
    it. The Department also provides academic assistance to outstanding
    students through our Scholarships and Fellowships program with a new
    dimension in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 that supports
    students at minority institutions in achieving a nuclear engineering
    degree at a university with a nuclear engineering department. We
    continue to receive more applications from outstanding graduate and
    undergraduate students than we, typically, can support. However, the
    requested level of funding is adequate to maintain our participation at
    its current level.
        With respect to the future direction of this program, the
    Department's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) has
    convened a Blue Ribbon panel, led by Dr. Michael Corradini of the
    University of Wisconsin, to consider the best ways of preserving our
    irreplaceable university nuclear education infrastructure. This panel
    is evaluating the future of university research reactors and their
    relationship to the national laboratories in conducting nuclear
    engineering research. The recommendations of this panel, expected this
    Summer, as well as other NERAC reviews related to university programs
    will serve as a basis for recommending the priorities and funding needs
    for this program in the future.

                                 REPROGRAMMING

        Question. Your office took approximately $1.8 million in fiscal
    year 2000 funds from the TRA landlord program in Idaho to help pay for
    a $9 million reprogramming for the FFTF at Hanford surveillance and
    maintenance. The fiscal year 2001 request for TRA landlord is increased
    by only $97,000 compared to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $8.9
    million. Do you plan to restore to Idaho the remaining amount of the
    $1.8 million taken from TRA in fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The impact to the TRA Landlord scope of work from the
    reprogramming request has been to defer for up to one year, the
    Retention Basin System upgrade and the purchase of new portal monitors
    for radiation detection and one motorized man lift used to repair
    equipment. The Department plans to proceed with this project and the
    equipment procurements during the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted to the Office of Science

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                                 SUPERCOMPUTING

        Question. Dr. Decker, across the Department, $908 million is
    targeted for the Information Technology Initiative. $182 million of
    this program resides within the Office of Science in the Advanced
    Scientific Computing Research program.
        This is in addition to $726 million associated with the National
    Nuclear Security Agency's (NNSA's) Advanced Strategic Computing
    Initiative. That program has demonstrated significant improvements in
    computational power, both in hardware and software.
        Are these two major Departmental efforts in high performance
    computing benefiting from each other's research and capabilities?
        Answer. The total fiscal year 2001 funding requested by the
    Department for the Information Technology (IT) research initiative is
    $667 million of which $477 million is in NNSA's Advanced Strategic
    Computing Initiative (ASCI) and $190 million is in the Office of
    Science. Of the proposed investments in the Office of Science, $170
    million is in the Mathematical, Information and Computational Sciences
    (MICS) subprogram of the Office of Science's Advanced Scientific
    Computing Research program, and the remaining $20 million is
    distributed across the other programs in the Office of Science ($2
    million in Basic Energy Sciences, $8 million in Biological and
    Environmental Research, $3 million in Fusion Energy Sciences, and $7
    million in High Energy and Nuclear Physics).
        Investments in high performance computing research in NNSA and SC
    have been and will continue to be managed so that they take maximum
    advantage of each other. Basic research in applied mathematics
    supported by SC underpins many of the mathematical software libraries
    that are critical to NNSA's applications. Many of these same libraries
    are used by scientists supported by SC on unclassified computers to
    help solve problems in the science of materials, folding of proteins,
    plasma turbulence and understanding the fundamental structure of
    matter. In addition, for a number of years SC and NNSA have cofunded
    activities such as the Advanced Computational Testing and Simulation
    (ACTS) Toolkit to pioneer new ways of creating high performance
    parallel applications more quickly. We expect both the collaborative
    funding on common problems and the two-way exchange of technology and
    research to continue in the future.
        Question. Please discuss how these two programs within the
    Department are coordinated? Are advances in the NNSA being carefully
    evaluated in the Office of Science program, and vice versa?
        Answer. The two research programs are coordinated through ongoing
    direct interactions of the staff at DOE who are charged with managing
    these efforts. There are regular and ongoing discussions between the
    staff in MICS and the Associate Director for SC's Advanced Scientific
    Computing Research program and the staff in NNSA who are responsible
    for ASCI. In addition, staffs from both organizations regularly attend
    each other's Principal Investigator meetings and planning meetings and
    sit on each other's review panels. Finally, SC funds significant basic
    information technology research efforts at NNSA laboratories, and
    encourages its researchers to collaborate with researchers at NNSA
    laboratories on common problems. Yes, advances in both organizations
    are carefully evaluated.
        Question. What is the five-year plan for the ASCR program?
        Answer. On March 24, 2000, the Office of Science delivered to
    Congress its five-year plan, Scientific Discovery through Advanced
    Computing, which describes the investments across SC including those in
    its ASCR program. A copy of the plan is provided for the record.

                             FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

        Question. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board report on the
    Department's fusion program recommended a funding level of
    approximately $300 million for fiscal year 2001. However, the
    Department has only requested $247 million.
        Why is the Department not supportive of the fusion program funding
    level recommended by the Secretary's own advisory board?
        Answer. The fusion energy sciences program is a multi-purpose
    scientific research effort providing the science base for a fusion
    energy option in the long-term and producing valuable scientific
    knowledge and technological benefits in the near-term. The Secretary's
    Advisory Board's recommended funding level was arrived at without
    consideration of other Office of Science or Departmental budget
    constraints. Given the program's current mission and its focus on
    plasma science and fusion science, the Department feels that the
    current funding level is appropriate within the overall Office of
    Science budget constraints. However, the Department recognizes and is
    most appreciative of the strong support that the advisory committees
    and the Congress have provided for the restructured Fusion Energy
    Sciences Program, and it will give careful consideration to the
    requirements of this program in formulating future budget requests.

                           SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE

        Question. Dr. Decker, the funding request for construction of the
    Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) for fiscal year 2001 is $281 million.
    Explain how the project has been restructured. What were the reasons
    for the restructuring?
        Answer. In the Spring of 1999, the management of the SNS project
    was significantly strengthened by assigning a new leader, Dr. David
    Moncton, with recent experience in building a large scientific research
    facility (the Advanced Photon Source). As SNS Executive Director, Dr.
    Moncton immediately assembled a team of experts who completed a
    thorough assessment of the project and developed a plan for its
    completion. During the next few months, Dr. Moncton reorganized the SNS
    Project Office at Oak Ridge, proceeding to fill all of the project's
    senior management positions with experienced personnel, and fully
    integrated and optimized the SNS technical design to provide maximum
    scientific capability within cost constraints. In addition, a number of
    management improvements were implemented that strengthened the
    authority of the SNS Executive Director and the central SNS Project
    Office over the project's staff at the six partner laboratories.
    Business and project management systems were improved to better support
    construction activities.
        This restructuring resulted from the recommendations of a January
    1999 DOE Office of Science review of SNS, and served to meet certain
    funding language in the House report accompanying the fiscal year 2000
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
        Regarding the $281 million request for the SNS, please note that as
    a result of legislation passed by the Tennessee legislature that
    excludes the SNS from Tennessee sales and use taxes, the fiscal year
    2001 requirement is reduced by $2.5 million to $278.5 million.
        Question. What assurances can you give the committee that the
    project can now proceed and be completed on schedule and within the
    current cost estimate?
        Answer. The DOE managers in the Office of Science and at the Oak
    Ridge Operations Office who are responsible for the SNS have overseen
    the successful construction of several similar projects. Given their
    collective experience, I am very confident in their abilities to
    deliver the SNS on time and within cost. Please note that it was their
    prompt action in early 1999 that brought about the contractor
    management changes and project restructuring that have been credited
    with putting this project back on track.
        Since the beginning of this restructuring period, there have been
    two DOE Office of Science reviews (in July 1999 and March 2000), and a
    congressionally mandated Independent External Review, performed by
    Burns and Roe during the Fall of 1999. All of these reviews by outside
    experts have concluded that the SNS can be completed on time and within
    budget. In the case of the most recent review (March 2000), the review
    committee's report stated: ``Overall, the Committee judged that the SNS
    project is making good progress thanks to an extremely competent and
    experienced management team . . . Together with their staff, they have
    demonstrated clear ownership of all technical, cost, and schedule
    aspects of the project. The cost and schedule information presented to
    the Committee adequately supports the President's fiscal year 2001
    Budget Request, and the Committee expressed confidence that the project
    can be successfully completed as planned by June 2006 and within a
    Total Project Cost of $1,411.7 million (as spent).''
        Question. Are there any technical, engineering, management or
    scientific issues that remain that could impact successful completion
    of the project?
        Answer. Apart from any uncertainties in future annual funding
    levels, there are no known issues that are likely to impact the
    successful completion of the project. Although the SNS will be the
    first spallation source to use a liquid mercury target, this is judged
    to be a moderate technical risk which is being addressed by an ongoing
    research and development program. Results to date indicate that the SNS
    target will be able to meet its designed performance objectives.

                 NANOSCALE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

        Question. Dr. Decker, I've seen some of the exciting work on
    nanotechnology that is ongoing at our national security labs. I
    appreciate that nanotechnologies may revolutionize our ability to craft
    highly specialized materials with unique properties. I'm pleased to see
    the Department undertake this program.
        The Administration has requested approximately $84 M, an increase
    of $36 M, in the Office of Science to fund the science and technology
    of this new field. Government wide, the budget requests $495 M. I
    understand the funding is spread over the National Science Foundation,
    Defense, Energy, Commerce, NASA and NIH.
        Why are so many agencies involved in this research area, and can
    the program be effectively managed over 6 independent agencies?
        Answer. Many agencies are involved because nanoscale science
    affects science and technology broadly. Nanoscale science is important
    to the Department of Energy because the Department is the largest
    supporter of materials sciences and chemical sciences in the Federal
    government. This area is one which the Department helped pioneer
    because of its fundamental importance to the physical sciences for
    which the Department provides the most support among all of the
    agencies. The Department is also interested because with a better
    understanding of nanoscale science we can (1) improve catalysts for
    energy conversion, (2) improve photocells and photochemical solar
    energy conversion, (3) make better, lighter composites, (4) make much
    better and more sensitive sensors, and (5) improve the safety and
    reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. NSF is interested in
    nanoscale science because of its importance to fundamental science.
    NASA is interested in the development of nanotechnologies because it
    will significantly reduce the weight of satellites and space vehicles.
    DOD is interested in the nanotechnology effect on weapons and
    communications system. The DOC is interested in nanoscale science,
    through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, because of
    the problems that need to be addressed related to measurement
    technology and development of standards. NIH has many potential
    applications for nanotechnology, including drug delivery, diagnostics,
    and protective coatings for prosthetics.
        For over a year, the agencies have been working together through
    the National Science and Technology Council's Interagency Working Group
    on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. This Working Group has
    developed an extensive and comprehensive document detailing the
    priority areas for the initiative. Each agency agreed to these
    priorities. The priorities are both relevant to the missions of the
    agencies and to the national effort that will expedite progress with
    the agencies working together rather than separately.
        Question. Since the national security labs have considerable
    expertise and many applications for miniaturized systems and
    technologies, will the national security laboratories be participants
    in the Office of Science nanotechnology program?
        Answer. From the beginning, the Office of Science's planning for
    the nanoscale science, engineering, and technology initiative has
    involved the national security laboratories. Researchers from these
    laboratories participated in the workshop that developed the Office of
    Science's programs and in preparing a report titled ``Nanoscale
    Science, Engineering and Technology Research Directions,'' which is
    available at http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/NNI.htm. The
    Department's Office of Science and the Office of Defense Programs have
    signed a memorandum of agreement to form a joint Office of Defense
    Programs and Office of Science Nanoscience Network to create
    synergistic collaborations among DOE laboratories. A joint Office of
    Defense Programs and Office of Science workshop was held on April 27-28
    to establish this network. The network will operate very much like the
    Office of Science's Center of Excellence for Advanced Synthesis and
    Processing, which is run by Sandia National Laboratories, and involves
    the Department's laboratories (including the national security
    laboratories), industry, and universities. The Nanoscience Network is
    being organized now so that it can begin research promptly when the
    fiscal year 2001 starts in October should Congress appropriate the
    funding requested for the Nanotechnology Initiative.

                             MICROBIAL CELL PROJECT

        Question. Dr. Decker, the budget request includes about $10 million
    to start the Microbial Cell Project.
        Could you explain the objectives and potential applications of this
    effort?
        Answer. The Microbial Cell Project is a coordinated research effort
    between the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic
    Energy Sciences (BES) programs. The goal of the Microbial Cell Project
    is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the complete workings of
    a microbial cell, starting from the DNA sequence (the molecular parts
    list), to the identification of all the genes, to the production of all
    the proteins whose assembly instructions are contained in the genes, to
    the complex interaction of the genes and proteins in a cell that gives
    the microbe its life and its unique characteristics and behaviors. The
    Microbial Cell Project will identify and characterize a minimum set of
    genes, proteins, and metabolic capabilities that are both necessary and
    sufficient for a microbe to survive in various extreme environments.
    Eventually we will understand the detailed workings of individual genes
    and proteins, regulatory networks of genes and proteins, and their
    integration into whole functional interactive cells. Instead of simply
    inserting genes that encode pollutant degrading enzymes into radiation
    resistant cells, we may be able to ``tune'' microbes (just as we tune
    lasers) to a desired degree of radiation resistance and pollutant
    degrading capability so that they are maximally useful for a given
    cleanup challenge. Similarly, microbes will be ``tuned'' for the cost
    effective production of methane or hydrogen, maximizing fuel production
    and minimizing the production of unnecessary wastes, or for the
    sequestration of excess atmospheric carbon.
        Question. Can you tell the Committee what the total cost of this
    effort is expected to be? What are the annual out year costs for the
    program?
        Answer. Funding for this project is requested as part of the
    Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences
    (BES) program budgets. Total funding for this initiative could be in
    the range of $325 million over ten years or approximately $35 million
    per year after fiscal year 2001. Funding in fiscal year 2001 is
    requested at $12.5 million ($10 million for BER and $2.5 million for
    BES).

                   NEW ``MOUSE HOUSE,'' OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE

        Question. Dr. Decker, the budget request includes funding for
    construction of a new facility to house and protect the genetic mice at
    Oak Ridge in Tennessee.
        Dr. Decker, can you explain to the committee the nature of this
    project including the importance of these mouse populations to
    research? What are the overriding programmatic reasons for replacing
    the facility?
        Answer. The Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics
    (LCFG) will provide a modern gene function research facility to support
    Department of Energy research programs and provide protection for the
    genetic mutant mouse lines created during the past 50 years. The LCFG
    will replace the deteriorated mouse-housing facility located at the Y-
    12 Weapons Plant on the Oak Ridge Reservation to meet these
    programmatic needs. It will accommodate the entire DOE live mutant
    mouse colony in Oak Ridge, which will be reduced in size by utilizing
    cryogenic preservation technology. The facility will be designed to
    permit the establishment of specific pathogen free colonies of mice
    making the mouse strains more widely available to the broader
    scientific community than has been possible with mice from the current
    facility. The principle programmatic reasons for constructing the new
    facility are to ensure adequate, cost effective housing for the
    national resource embodied in the mutant mouse colony to support the
    next phase of the Human Genome Program--the identification of gene
    function. It will support an important future direction of mouse and
    genomics research, the determination of gene function on a genome-wide
    basis. There are a number of complementary strategies being used by
    biologists today to understand gene function in the human using the
    mouse. These different strategies include the complete ``knockout'' of
    a gene's function, the introduction of genes into mice, and the
    induction of recessive mutations in large numbers of genes. A major
    focus and strength of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory mouse genetics
    group is the production of ``recessive'' mutants that cannot be
    directly observed without inbreeding for 3 generations. This approach
    can only be accomplished efficiently by breeding large colonies of
    mice. This important, but labor intensive, genetics strategy is not
    possible without high quality facilities like the LCFG. The fiscal year
    2001 request for the facility is $2,500,000. The total project cost is
    $14,420,000.
        Question. What is the condition of the facility where the current
    activities are housed? Are there other major drawbacks to current
    operations?
        Answer. The building currently housing the animals has deteriorated
    with age and cannot be maintained cost effectively. An increasing
    fraction of the funds provided for research using the mice housed in
    this building need to be diverted each year to keep the facility
    operational. The building systems need to be upgraded to assure
    continued compliance with accreditation standards for animal research
    facilities. The facility nearly failed a final American Association for
    Laboratory Animal Care inspection several years ago that would have
    required either a complete shutdown of the facility or its operation
    without accreditation. In addition to being expensive to operate and
    maintain, the existing facility is classified as an ``open'' facility.
    That means the animals have not been derived from stocks that were free
    of specific pathogens. This has had a detrimental impact on the full
    utilization of the colony by the broader mouse genetics research
    community.
        Question. What programmatic benefits will be realized if the
    facility is replaced?
        Answer. A new mouse facility at Oak Ridge will be of programmatic
    value to the future of the DOE and the Nation's human genome programs
    because it will maintain, in a single location, valuable mice strains,
    expertise in mouse genetics, and technologies needed to conduct high-
    throughput mouse biology. The Department's functional genomics research
    facility at Oak Ridge includes a mouse colony that consists of
    approximately 70,000 live mice representing approximately 400 different
    genetic strains. In addition, approximately 375 strains are
    cryopreserved. These are currently not the subject of active
    investigation, but important for future genomics research. The
    cryopreservation will also allow the rederivation of these valuable
    mouse strains free of pathogens. The mouse colony is integral to the
    important part of the functional genomics research effort that is aimed
    at developing new ways to create and to genetically characterize new
    mutant strains of mice. These new strains serve both as important
    models of human genetic diseases and as tools with which to decode the
    functionality of the human genome as human DNA sequence becomes
    available. Several of these methodologies developed by Oak Ridge are
    also widely in use by research laboratories around the world.
    Discoveries resulting from this research program include identification
    of genes involved in obesity and cancer, neonatal cleft palate,
    oculocutaneous albinism, and neonatal liver failure, polycystic kidney
    disease, serotonin metabolism disorders, and epilepsy, to name a few.
    In addition, the facility has been a key component of numerous studies
    on the effect of dose and dose rate of radiation on risk of genetic
    defects being passed on to future generations, including pioneering
    studies on individual variation in susceptibility to genetic damage
    induced by radiation and potentially toxic chemicals.
        Question. Would it be possible to replace or reestablish this
    resource if lost or significantly damaged?
        Answer. Some components of this resource could be reestablished in
    other locations. However, it would be nearly impossible to reconstruct
    the mouse genetics capabilities, mouse strains, and high throughput
    technologies for biological analysis that currently makes Oak Ridge a
    leader in mouse genetics and biology. While there are indeed private
    companies that provide mice for experimental purposes, the issue is not
    obtaining mice for experimental purposes, but rather a cost-efficient
    facility to perform the functional genomics experiments pioneered by
    the Department at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). A major focus
    of the ORNL mouse genetics group is to produce ``recessive'' mutants
    (mutants that cannot be directly observed without inbreeding for 3
    generations). This approach can only be accomplished efficiently by
    breeding large colonies of mice. There is no private company offering
    that capability. While it is a very important approach, it is not a
    profitable business model and that is why it is left to government
    funded projects such as the one at ORNL. As a result, several companies
    have expressed interest and are discussing collaborative research
    arrangements with ORNL to benefit from this unique research facility.
    Academic researchers, on the other hand, produce ``dominant'' mutants
    (mutants where the phenotypic effects can be easily observed in all the
    offspring). These dominant mutants can be bred and sold very
    economically and easily in private companies. Finally, the mouse colony
    is an integral part of the Department's functional genomics research
    facility. Private ownership of the research facility would result in
    intellectual property situations that impede quick dissemination of
    research results and scientific progress. The loss of this resource
    would be a major setback for biology and genomics at the DOE and
    nationally.

                         ADVANCED COMPUTING INITIATIVE

        Question. Dr. Decker, the fiscal year 2001 budget includes a
    significant increase for Advanced Computing under the Office of
    Science. Explain why this enhanced scientific computing initiative is
    necessary.
        Answer. This initiative is needed to enable scientists across all
    Office of Science (SC) programs to take full advantage of multi-
    teraflop computers as tools for scientific discovery. Within the past
    two decades, scientific computing has become a contributor to
    essentially all scientific research programs. It is particularly
    important to the solution of research problems that are (i) insoluble
    by traditional theoretical and experimental approaches, e.g.,
    prediction of future climates or the fate of underground contaminants;
    (ii) hazardous to study in the laboratory. e.g., characterization of
    the chemistry of radionuclides or other toxic chemicals; or (iii) time-
    consuming or expensive to solve by traditional means, e.g., development
    of new materials, determination of the structure of proteins,
    understanding plasma instabilities, or exploring the limitations of the
    ``Standard Model'' of particle physics. In many cases, theoretical and
    experimental approaches do not provide sufficient information to
    understand and predict the behavior of the systems being studied.
    Computational modeling and simulation, which allows a description of
    the system to be constructed from basic theoretical principles and the
    available experimental data, are key to solving such problems. The
    increase provided for advanced computing under SC will provide
    investments to solve problems in core basic science research at DOE,
    such as the science of materials, folding of proteins, plasma
    turbulence, and the fundamental nature of matter. A more detailed plan
    is attached.
        Question. How is it different from the Accelerated Strategic
    Computing Initiative (ASCI) in the Defense Stockpile Stewardship
    program?
        Answer. The proposed initiative is different from ASCI because the
    applications are different and because the effort in SC supports the
    open scientific community. The computational modeling and simulation
    efforts in both the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), i.e., the
    Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), and the Office of
    Science (SC) are both focused on large scale scientific and engineering
    simulations. In the case of ASCI, the simulations are focused on
    complex nuclear weapons systems as a critical component of the
    Department's ability to guarantee the safety and reliability of the
    nuclear stockpile in the absence of testing. The ASCI program and its
    computers are fully dedicated to this mission. The investments in SC,
    however, cover a wide range of non-weapons related scientific problems
    such as understanding the fundamental properties of magnetic materials;
    understanding the chemistry of complex molecules such as hydrocarbon
    fuels and nuclear waste products; understanding the physics of plasma
    turbulence and its impact on energy transport; and understanding the
    fundamental properties of nuclear matter. SC, through its Advanced
    Scientific Computing Research program, provides the computing and
    communications infrastructure to support these simulation efforts as
    well as the advances in the underlying software, computer science and
    applied mathematics which are required to enable scientists to make
    progress on this class of complex simulation problems.
        The computing infrastructures to support NNSA must be separate
    because NNSA's investments are fully used in supporting its missions
    and because of the special security requirements of NNSA applications
    and programs. However, in the areas of software technology, computer
    science and applied mathematics many of the technical problems that
    arise are common. In this area, the investments in SC continue our long
    history of effective collaboration with research supported by ASCI.
        Question. What is the total cost of this effort expected to be?
    What is the total amount requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget and
    how does that compare to the fiscal year 2000 level of funding?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 estimated level of investment in the
    Office of Science in the Information Technology Initiative is $190
    million of which $170 million is in the Mathematical, Information and
    Computational Sciences (MICS) subprogram of the Office of Science's
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research program and the remaining $20
    million is distributed across the other programs in the Office of
    Science ($2 million in Basic Energy Sciences, $8 million in Biological
    and Environmental Research, $3 million in Fusion Energy Sciences, and
    $7 million in High Energy and Nuclear Physics). In fiscal year 2000 the
    comparable budget would be the budget for the MICS subprogram or $120
    million. On March 24, 2000 the Office of Science delivered to Congress
    its five-year plan, Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing,
    that describes in detail the investments across SC including those in
    its ASCR program. This plan was delivered to the Congress on March 24,
    2000, and a copy is being provided for the record in response to the
    Committee's questions.
        Question. What are the annual out year funding requirements
    expected to be?
        Answer. As described in the five-year plan, the proposed plan will
    have significant accomplishments if the fiscal year 2001 level is
    continued in the outyears without further increases. However, there are
    significant opportunities for further benefits if additional funding
    were available.
        Question. What elements of the ASCI program are transferable to the
    Office of Science Advanced Computing Initiative?
        Answer. The principal element that is transferable from the ASCI
    program to the Office of Science initiative is the understanding that
    ASCI develops on how to use multi-teraflop class computers effectively.
    This builds on our long history of collaborating with ASCI on basic
    research in applied mathematics and computer science problems.

                      LOW DOSE RADIATION EFFECTS RESEARCH

        Question. What is the Department's rationale for funding this
    critical program substantially below the Department's own program plan?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 funds requested ($12 million) for this
    program are $5.5 million less than the amount appropriated in fiscal
    year 2000; however, DOE's fiscal year 2001 request is $2 million
    greater than its request in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2000, DOE
    requested $10 million and Congress provided $19.5 million ($17.5
    million for low dose research and $2 million for neutron dosimetry
    associated with the atomic bomb at Hiroshima). The difference between
    DOE's request in fiscal year 2001 and its appropriation in fiscal year
    2000 reflects overall programmatic priorities in the BER program and
    across the entire Office of Science.

                           SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE

        Question. Please summarize the current status of the Spallation
    Neutron Source.
        Answer. Construction funding and associated design and procurement
    activities were initiated in fiscal year 1999 and continued in fiscal
    year 2000. The formal ``Start of Construction'' decision for the SNS
    was approved by the Department in November 1999, a groundbreaking
    ceremony was held, site preparation began, and major site excavation
    and grading to support civil construction has commenced. Preliminary
    design of technical systems and procurement of technical components is
    continuing. A new partner, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
    Facility has recently joined the project as a sixth partner lab to
    assist with a change in the linear accelerator design to incorporate
    superconducting technology. Design and construction management of the
    conventional facilities is being handled by a commercial architect
    engineer/construction management (AE/CM) team under a task order
    contract to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Research and
    development to reduce the moderate technical risk associated with the
    liquid mercury target is proceeding on schedule using the prototype
    facility constructed for this purpose at ORNL. In fiscal year 2001,
    design of all buildings will be complete and construction will begin.
    Major procurements will then be awarded for accelerator systems
    technical components.
        Question. Are the five laboratories now working as one team toward
    the common goal of finishing the SNS?
        Answer. Including the recent addition of the Thomas Jefferson
    National Accelerator Facility, the senior managers at all six SNS
    partner laboratories are fully committed to ensuring the successful
    completion of the project. Their specific responsibilities and
    commitments are defined in a revised inter-laboratory Memorandum of
    Agreement (MOA) between the SNS Executive Director and the laboratory
    directors. This MOA is a key part of the SNS Project Execution Plan,
    which has been approved by Secretary Richardson and is incorporated by
    reference in the laboratories' management and operating contracts.

                             WORKING WITH NNSA LABS

        Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
    operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department on March 1.
    The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore have a long
    tradition of supporting a broad range of scientific initiatives beyond
    weapons activities. As the NNSA was created, I emphasized the
    importance of the NNSA labs continuing their multi-program support of
    the Department and other federal agencies.
        The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, stated that: ``The
    Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish
    procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
    by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
        Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
    continue to receive high priority funding from the Department.
        Will each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively
    fund projects within the NNSA labs?
        Answer. The NNSA Act allows the NNSA laboratories to continue to
    perform significant research for all DOE programs, for other federal
    agencies and non-federal organizations. It also permits the Department
    to continue the important role the NNSA laboratories have as part of
    the integrated laboratory system.
        The Department recognizes that non-defense research is important to
    maintain the vital overall science and technology base and core
    competencies of the NNSA laboratories. Science support necessary to
    accomplish national projects is an important component of the
    interdisciplinary approach of all the laboratories, and it helps
    maintain and strengthen the multiprogram nature of the laboratories.
        The Office of Science will continue to consider and fund
    outstanding research proposals submitted by NNSA laboratories and to
    ensure their capabilities are utilized in carrying out important
    multilaboratory collaborations.
        I hope this adequately addresses the concerns you raise, and
    demonstrates that the Department is committed to maintaining a culture
    that permits the laboratories to continue this effective relationship.
    Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and NNSA
    to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for NNSA lab
    support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as required?
        Answer. The Implementation Plan for the NNSA is structured to
    permit non-NNSA laboratories to continue to do both national security-
    related research and science. It also allows the NNSA laboratories to
    continue to perform significant research for all DOE programs. The
    laboratories are able to continue to work together efficiently and
    effectively to complement each others' expertise in important
    scientific collaborations that can benefit all Departmental programs,
    including the NNSA. While unexpected barriers may, of course, arise
    from time to time, we are in a position to address them and solve them
    within the implementation plan.
        Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
    relations between your Office and the NNSA?
        Answer. No. Non-defense research is important to maintain the vital
    overall science and technology base and core competencies of the
    laboratories. Science support is an important component of the
    interdisciplinary approach of the laboratories necessary to accomplish
    national projects, and it helps maintain and strengthen the
    multiprogram nature of the laboratories. A high level of collaboration
    among the laboratories utilizing their respective core competencies,
    increases their collective contribution, making the system as a whole
    much more valuable than the sum of its parts. The Implementation Plan
    for the NNSA adequately addresses the concerns you raise, and the
    Department is committed to maintaining a culture that permits the
    laboratories to continue this effective relationship
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                               COMPUTING RESEARCH

        Question. What is the status of the Scientific Simulation
    Initiative? You may recall that the conference report for fiscal year
    2000 urged the Department to submit a comprehensive plan for a non-
    defense supercomputing program that would reflect a unique role for DOE
    in this multi-agency effort, and a budget plan with spending
    requirements over a five year budget cycle.
        Answer. The Department of Energy did not propose a Scientific
    Simulation Initiative (SSI) in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. As
    you may be aware, in the fiscal year 2000 request, the proposed SSI
    focused on two major applications, global climate and combustion
    systems, and requested funds for a new 5 Teraflop computing facility.
    The Advanced Scientific Computing Research request for fiscal year 2001
    focuses on a broad spectrum of basic science applications and includes
    modest funding investments for upgrades to existing computing
    facilities to enable scientists to make progress on scientific
    problems.
        On March 24, 2000, the Office of Science (SC) submitted to Congress
    a comprehensive plan for its supercomputing program, entitled,
    ``Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing.'' This plan provides
    a five year vision for scientific computing within the Office of
    Science. It outlines a carefully designed strategy for building both
    the scientific computing software infrastructure, which is needed to
    take full advantage of terascale computers, and the scientific
    computing hardware infrastructure, which provides the resources needed
    to solve challenging scientific and engineering problems.
        The Plan focuses on the scientific issues faced by all of the
    programs within the Office of Science--Basic Energy Sciences,
    Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, and
    High-Energy and Nuclear Physics--that can be expected to benefit from
    the extraordinary advances being made in computing technology as well
    as on the underlying computer science research supported by Advanced
    Scientific Computing Research. The funds requested in this Plan are
    essential to realizing the specific goals of the Department; however,
    the advances made with this funding will have a broad impact across the
    nation's scientific and engineering community. Outyear estimates are
    not provided in the Plan. However, it should be noted that the request
    for each fiscal year will be structured and implemented in such a
    fashion that it will deliver significant results with no additional
    increases in funding. A copy of the plan is attached.
        [Clerk's note: Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computer, by
    the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, March 24, 2000 can be
    found in the Energy and Water Subcommittee files.]
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

                           CIVILIAN RESEARCH PROGRAMS

        Question. There has been a lot of controversy over computational
    capabilities for the Department of Energy and its civilian research
    programs. Can you give us the philosophy of the Department relative to
    computational capabilities for its research programs, both those
    sponsored by Defense Programs in the Weapons Laboratories and those
    sponsored by Office of Science in the Civilian Laboratories? Also,
    would you explain under the auspices of NNSA how the ASCI Program and
    the ASCR inter-relate.
        Answer. The computational modeling and simulation efforts in both
    the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), i.e., the Accelerated
    Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), and the Office of Science (SC)
    are focused on large scale scientific and engineering simulations. In
    the case of ASCI, the simulations are focused on complex nuclear
    weapons systems as a critical component of the Department's ability to
    guarantee the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile in the
    absence of testing. The ASCI program and its computers are fully
    dedicated to this mission. The investments in SC cover a wide range of
    non-weapons related scientific problems such as understanding the
    fundamental properties of magnetic materials; understanding the
    chemistry of complex molecules such as hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear
    waste products; understanding the physics of plasma turbulence and its
    impact on energy transport; and understanding the fundamental
    properties of nuclear matter. The Office of Science, through its
    Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, provides the
    computing and communications infrastructure to support these modeling
    and simulation efforts as well as the advances in the underlying
    software, computer science and applied mathematics that are required to
    enable scientists to make progress on this class of complex scientific
    problems.
        The computing infrastructures to support NNSA must be separate
    because NNSA's investments are fully used in supporting its missions
    and because of the special security requirements of NNSA applications
    and programs. However, in the areas of software technology, computer
    science and applied mathematics many of the technical problems that
    arise in using terascale computing capabilities are generic to
    scientific simulation and apply equally to ASCI and SC applications.
    Areas of common interest include:
      --Scientific data management.
      --Analysis and visualization of petabyte data sets.
      --Scalable numerical algorithms for some fundamental computational
            tasks.
      --Computer operating systems.
        In these areas the SC Plan has been carefully coordinated with
    those of ASCI as well as those of the National Science Foundation.
    However, there are needs unique to SC's mission. Examples of such needs
    include:
      --Efficient access to petabyte data sets from both national
            laboratory and university computer and network environments.
            DOE operates a number of major scientific facilities for the
            nation with significant university use. These include high
            energy and nuclear physics experiments such as the Relativistic
            Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
            the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and
            experiments at Fermilab and the Thomas Jefferson National
            Accelerator Facility. In addition, the Office of Science
            operates high luminosity light sources such as the National
            Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the
            Advanced Photon Source at Argonne, and the Advanced Light
            Source at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Finally, the
            Office of Science operates high performance computing
            facilities with associated data archival facilities such as the
            National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at
            Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Many of these facilities
            produce tens of thousands to millions of gigabytes (petabytes)
            of data annually, which must be made accessible to researchers
            at national laboratories and universities. This requirement to
            efficiently manage access to petabyte-scale data resources by
            thousands of scientists nationwide is significantly different
            from the typical requirements faced by NSF. Even in the case of
            global climate modeling, where NSF supports a major facility,
            NCAR, the large data sets from the worldwide initiative to
            systematically compare the results of the different climate
            model codes, PCMDI (Program in Climate Model and Data
            Intercomparison), were stored at NERSC in its archival storage
            systems.
      --Collaboration technologies to support the integration of widely
            dispersed researchers.
      --Mathematical and software libraries and technologies specific to
            the scientific mission of the SC, e.g., global climate,
            molecular science, plasma physics, elementary particle physics,
            and accelerator physics.
      --Robust, easy-to-use scientific applications codes for use by the
            larger scientific community (``community codes'').
        In the areas of Information Technology Research supported by the
    Office of Science a significant portion of the effort is invested in
    teams which can not only advance the state of the art in basic research
    but also integrate the results of that research into software which can
    be used by scientists in other disciplines. This requirement for
    lifecycle support is critical to enable advanced information
    technologies to be adopted and used effectively by scientists. It is
    important to note, however, that the effort to integrate the products
    of basic research into software objects is itself a significant
    research activity and the Office of Science's work in this area, and
    especially software component technologies for high performance
    computing, has advanced the state of the art in software development
    methodologies.
        By building on the accomplishments of ASCI and working closely with
    ASCI on projects of common interest, SC will be able to focus more of
    its effort on the problems in computational science, computer science,
    and applied mathematics that are unique to SC's mission and research
    environment.

                       COMPUTATIONAL UPGRADE FOR THE EMSL

        Question. As you know, the Environmental Molecular Sciences
    Laboratory at PNNL was opened approximately three years ago. At that
    time, the Laboratory had one of the most sophisticated and advanced
    computational capabilities in the United States. Technology is moving
    rapidly, therefore, there is a continuing need for all of DOE's Science
    facilities to have access to continuing computational upgrades. What is
    the impact of not having continuing computational upgrade capabilities
    in the Biology and Environmental Research Program for EMSL or other
    facilities in that Program?
        Answer. The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program has
    a need for significant computational resources for modeling, data
    analysis, and simulation in structural biology, environmental molecular
    sciences, global climate change, and subsurface sciences. BER's current
    research needs will require access to approximately 5-8 teraflops of
    sustained, high-end computing capability distributed among three
    centers that also contain 1-3 Petabyte-scale data archives and Gigabit
    per second network access in the very near future. The current \1/4\
    teraflop system (the IBM SP) and the associated data storage and
    research systems and staff at the EMSL form the basis for one of these
    centers. Significant modeling and simulation research involving multi-
    disciplinary teams from multiple institutions across the country is
    being undertaken on EMSL's IBM SP, including research on biomolecular
    interfaces, the quantum chemistry of actinides, and the fate of
    contaminants in groundwater, among others. Results from these modeling
    and simulation efforts are expected to be quite useful for addressing
    DOE's environmental needs. Nevertheless, the BER Program recognizes the
    future need for upgrading the IBM SP, as well as its other systems.
        Question. Given the technological advances that are taking place in
    Biological and Computational Sciences, what are the potential
    capabilities that exist within EMSL relative to the Proteome Project,
    especially with the unique instrumentation that exists at EMSL?
        Answer. Although BER's fiscal year 2001 request is not specifically
    focused on a Proteome Project, the BER request does include a
    continuation of structural biology and functional genomics research, as
    well as the initiation of the microbial cell project. Primary
    instrument capabilities within the EMSL that are being applied to
    structural biology and functional genomics include the suite of nuclear
    magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, and the suite of mass
    spectrometers. Current computational capabilities within the EMSL that
    are being applied to structural biology studies include the high
    performance computer (IBM SP) within the Molecular Sciences Computing
    Facility (MSCF). However, most of the large, multi-institutional
    projects making use of the IBM SP are currently focused on DOE's
    environmental problems in groundwater, the vadose zone, and the
    atmosphere.
        The BER Program recognizes the need to enhance EMSL capabilities in
    structural biology and functional genomics, and as a first step, has
    requested an additional $3,000,000 in capital equipment for EMSL in the
    fiscal year 2001 President's Request to allow users to undertake
    functional genomics and structural biology research. The additional
    funding will be used for acquisition of NMR and mass spectrometers,
    including a 9.4 Tesla Fourier Transform mass spectrometer specifically
    for functional genomics and structural biology research.
                Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

    STATEMENT OF IVAN ITKIN, DIRECTOR

                       Office of Environmental Management

    STATEMENT OF CAROLYN HUNTOON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

        Senator McConnell. [presiding]. All right. With that, we
    will hear from Ivan Itkin, Director, Office of Civilian
    Radioactive Waste Management, and Carolyn Huntoon, Assistant
    Secretary, Office of Environmental Management.
        If you all would, plan that your opening statements be
    about 10 minutes each. And we will put what further
    observations you may have in writing in the record. That would
    be appreciated.
        Dr. Itkin, do you want to--I see you listed first here. So
    go right ahead.

                          STATEMENT OF DR. IVAN ITKIN

        Dr. Itkin. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee, I am Ivan Itkin. I am the director of the Office
    of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. And I appreciate the
    opportunity to present our fiscal year 2001 budget request and
    to discuss our scientific and technical activities at the Yucca
    Mountain site in Nevada. And with your permission, I will
    submit my written statement for the record.
        Our budget request of $437.5 million supports our Nation's
    policy for the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel and
    high-level radioactive waste. We are nearing the completion of
    scientific and engineering work that will be the foundation for
    a presidential recommendation on whether or not to proceed with
    a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. This
    decision should occur in 2001. It must be based on sound
    science, and it must include the documentation required by the
    Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Let me restate the importance of geological disposal. It is
    the cornerstone of our national policy for radioactive waste
    management. A permanent geologic repository will address the
    management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but it is also
    essential to achieve our nonproliferation goals, to dispose of
    materials from dismantled nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered
    naval vessels, and to manage waste from the cleanup of former
    weapons production sites.
        The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program has made
    significant accomplishments under this Administration. During
    the last 5 years, Program scientists and engineers have been
    examining Yucca Mountain. We completed a cross-drift tunnel
    above and through the rock formation that may house a
    repository.
        For almost 2 years, scientists and engineers have been
    examining that formation. We continue to conduct the world's
    largest thermal test of a geologic formation. We believe that
    we are close to a decision on whether we can recommend this
    site for further development as a repository.

                   SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        Let me now summarize the program's fiscal year 2001 budget
    request.
        We plan to devote $358.3 million, over 80 percent of the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request, to the Yucca Mountain Project.
    These funds will be principally devoted to completing remaining
    work. We will also address some work that was deferred because
    of past funding shortfalls.
        With the full support of the fiscal year 2001 budget, the
    Program can proceed to the license application, should the
    President and Congress, approve the site.

                              PERFORMANCE MEASURES

        By fully funding the fiscal year 2001 budget request,
    Congress will enable the program to meet the most critical
    performance measure: That is, to begin waste emplacement by
    2010. This has been the Department's stated goal since 1989. We
    remain on track to meet this goal.

                          FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTIVITIES

        Now, let me speak briefly on how the program will apply the
    funding requested in our fiscal year 2001 request. My written
    testimony provides greater details. I would like to point out
    some of the highlights.

                                 YUCCA MOUNTAIN

        In the 1998 Viability Assessment, the program identified
    the progress to date, the remaining work, and the cost for the
    remaining work.
        In fiscal year 2001, we expect to close out the remaining
    uncertainties that the Assessment identified. We will address
    aspects of design and engineering work suggested by the Nuclear
    Waste Technical Review Board, and build upon the quality
    assurance program to meet the expectations of the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission.
        A key task we have set for ourselves before a
    recommendation is the completion of the Site Recommendation
    Consideration Report. This report, with supporting documents,
    will be made available to the State of Nevada, the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission, and stakeholders to elicit their views.
        In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to support external
    oversight by the State of Nevada by again requesting the
    restoration of funding. We will again fund payments-equal-to-
    taxes, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
        We will continue to fund a cooperative agreement with the
    University and Community College System of Nevada. This
    agreement provides an independently derived body of scientific
    and engineering data concerning the study of Yucca Mountain.

                               CONCLUDING REMARKS

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as I said in my
    opening remarks, we have made significant progress. We are on
    track to make a decision on site recommendation in 2001 and a
    subsequent license application in 2002, with the overall goal
    of beginning emplacement by 2010.
        When we set out to characterize the Yucca Mountain site
    through an ambitious scientific program, we knew that we would
    be faced with challenges. I believe that by the end of 2001 we
    will have met those challenges. While there will likely be
    additional issues that we will have to address if we proceed to
    licensing, the Program is well positioned to move forward.
        The funding we have requested is needed to enable us to
    complete, on schedule, the activities that are necessary for
    informed policy decisions. Now, when we are so close, we should
    not allow resource considerations to undermine the public
    confidence in our decision-making process and delay this
    program.
        I urge you to consider favorably our appropriation request.
    I thank the committee very much for hearing our testimony this
    morning. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
    may have. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                        PREPARED STATEMENT OF IVAN ITKIN

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Ivan Itkin,
    Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive
    Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present our fiscal
    year (FY) 2001 budget request to you and to discuss our plans for the
    scientific and technical activities at the Yucca Mountain site in
    Nevada.
        Our fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million is devoted to
    advancing our nation's policy for the long-term management of spent
    nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This request provides
    for the near-term completion of scientific and engineering work that
    will be the foundation for a Presidential site recommendation on
    whether or not to proceed with a permanent geologic repository at Yucca
    Mountain, Nevada. We are nearing this Presidential decision, which
    should occur in fiscal year 2001. A recommendation of such national
    importance must be based on sound science. It must not only be
    accompanied by the documentation required by law, but must also inform
    our policy makers, our oversight agencies, and the public regarding the
    scientific basis for the decision.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, particularly the
    ongoing scientific and technical work at Yucca Mountain, is the
    cornerstone of our national policy for the management of nuclear waste.
    Permanent geologic disposal not only addresses our management of spent
    nuclear fuel from commercial electric power generation, but it is
    essential to advancing our non-proliferation goals. A permanent
    disposal solution will secure highly enriched spent nuclear fuel from
    foreign research reactors. It will also provide for the disposition of
    surplus plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons. In order to continue
    the operation of our nuclear-powered naval vessels, a permanent
    geologic repository is necessary for the disposition of spent nuclear
    fuel from our naval reactor program. Finally, a permanent geologic
    repository is vital for cleaning up the legacy of our past nuclear
    weapons production at sites throughout the country.
        Over the past few years, the Department has made significant
    progress toward a recommendation decision on a permanent solution for
    spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Construction of
    the Exploratory Studies Facility has afforded us almost five years of
    direct examination of the geology underneath Yucca Mountain. From this
    study, our scientists and engineers, including world experts from our
    nation's universities and from our national laboratories, have advanced
    our understanding of a potential repository system. This understanding
    has led us to further focus our investigations, responding in part to
    the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and other experts.
        This year, we will complete niches and alcoves in the cross-drift
    tunnel that will assist us in developing a more complete three-
    dimensional model of the geologic formation that might house a
    repository. For nearly two years, we have gathered and integrated data
    input from the cross-drift tunnel into our performance models to refine
    our predictions of repository performance. We continue to conduct the
    largest thermal test of a geologic formation in the world. This test,
    commonly known as the drift-scale test, assesses how long-term
    exposures to heat from waste packages might affect the hydrology and
    near-field environment within tunnels that may be constructed within
    Yucca Mountain. This work will help determine the effects of heat on
    waste package performance and assist in the further refinement of
    repository designs that must be accomplished as we move toward
    potentially licensing a repository, if the site is recommended for
    development.
        Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, our
    nation has made a substantial investment in permanent geologic
    disposal. Over $4 billion has been committed to the scientific and
    technical work at Yucca Mountain. After almost 18 years of cutting-edge
    science and engineering, we are very close to making a recommendation
    regarding the suitability of this site for further development as a
    repository.

               SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request is $437.5 million for the
    Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. This request includes
    a funding level of $325.5 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund
    appropriation, and $112 million from the Defense Nuclear Waste
    appropriation.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million is devoted
    principally to the activities that are most important to support a
    determination of whether the Yucca Mountain site is suitable and should
    be recommended for further development as a permanent geologic
    repository. A Secretarial decision to recommend the site to the
    President is expected to occur in fiscal year 2001. As required by
    Section 114 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, a recommendation by the
    Secretary to the President will be accompanied by documentation that
    provides a comprehensive basis for that recommendation.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request is 25 percent greater than our
    fiscal year 2000 funding level of $351.2 million. This increase
    reflects the program's effort to address the remaining work that is
    necessary for a site recommendation. This remaining work was described
    in substantial detail in the December 1998 Viability Assessment. The
    fiscal year 2001 request is also necessary to achieve to the work
    schedule published in the Viability Assessment. Regaining momentum with
    the fiscal year 2001 request will enable the program to meet its
    obligation to be responsive to emerging scientific issues, such as
    those raised during our extensive ongoing interactions with the Nuclear
    Waste Technical Review Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
    fiscal year 2001 budget request also provides the foundation, again as
    described by the Viability Assessment, to begin the activities
    necessary to submit a license application in the following fiscal year,
    if the President recommends and Congress approves the site for
    development as a repository. Our approach to address these issues with
    the Board and the Commission as we proceed toward submitting a license
    application, is provided in our recently issued and updated Program
    Plan (Revision 3).
        From the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million, we have
    proposed allocating $358.3 million, an increase of 27 percent above the
    fiscal year 2000 allocation, to the Yucca Mountain Site
    Characterization Project. For activities under the purview of the Waste
    Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project, $3.8 million is
    allocated. For essential program management and integration functions,
    including those that are required to support a quality assurance
    program in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations
    and to finalize the Environmental Impact Statement that must accompany
    a site recommendation, $75.4 million is allocated. In addition, we plan
    to continue our commitment to further streamline overhead functions.
        Consistent with the Department's contracting policy regarding
    management and operations contracts, and in conformance with direction
    provided in the enacted Energy and Water Development Appropriation, in
    fiscal year 2001 we are recompeting our management and operations
    contract. The program's current management and operations contract was
    awarded in 1991 and will expire in February 2001. We expect to award a
    follow-on performance-based contract in fiscal year 2001. With full
    support of our fiscal year 2001 request, we expect to successfully
    recompete and achieve our milestone for the decision on site
    recommendation. Within each budget element, we have allocated funds for
    contractor transition to ensure continuity of the technical work during
    fiscal year 2001.
        Also in fiscal year 2001, the Program will work closely with the
    Russian Federation to address radioactive waste management strategies.
    A new initiative to advance the Department's nonproliferation
    objectives with Russia is included in the Departmental budget request
    for the National Nuclear Security Administration. The funding requested
    for that initiative would be co-managed by the Office of Civilian
    Radioactive Waste Management and the Office of Non-Proliferation and
    National Security. We will address issues related to spent nuclear fuel
    storage and disposal through cooperative activities under bilateral
    agreements that we are developing with the Russian Federation.

                              PERFORMANCE MEASURES

        Our request reflects the funding that will be needed to enable us
    to meet a most critical performance measure: maintaining the schedule
    to begin waste acceptance by 2010. This has been the Department's goal
    since 1989. The Department takes seriously its obligation to accept
    commercial spent nuclear fuel, as well as the need to provide a
    permanent disposal solution for defense spent fuel and other
    government-owned high-level radioactive wastes.
        Our measures for fiscal year 2001 are: issuing the Final
    Environmental Impact Statement with the site recommendation decision in
    fiscal year 2001; and continuing to prepare a license application to
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for submission in fiscal year 2002,
    contingent on a site recommendation by the President and designation of
    the site by Congress.

                          FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTIVITIES

        I would now like to describe in more detail our fiscal year 2001
    objectives and how the funding requested in our budget request will
    support our activities. I have, as an attachment to my testimony,
    provided a summary of the program's accomplishments in fiscal year 1999
    and our ongoing activities this fiscal year.

                                 YUCCA MOUNTAIN

        In fiscal year 2001, the funds allocated to the Yucca Mountain Site
    Characterization Project will be used to advance the work identified in
    the Viability Assessment. This work includes addressing the remaining
    uncertainties by studying the presence and movement of water through
    the repository block, the effects of water movement on the waste
    package, and the effects of heat from the decay of radioactive
    materials inside the waste packages on the site's geologic and
    hydrologic behavior. In addition, the program is addressing some of the
    design and engineering work suggested by the Nuclear Waste Technical
    Review Board. Through our work activities, we will:
      --Complete the necessary scientific and engineering work for the
            characterization of the Yucca Mountain site.
      --Update the total system performance assessment of Yucca Mountain,
            supporting the development of a site recommendation and
            integrating process models refined to reflect our current
            understanding of the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry
            within Yucca Mountain.
      --Issue the Site Recommendation Consideration Report to inform all
            parties about our evaluation to date.
      --Hold public consideration hearings, before the Secretary decides
            whether or not to recommend the site to the President.
      --Issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic
            Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-
            Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.
      --Continue and increase our efforts to support the preparation of a
            high-quality, complete, and defensible license application to
            the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if the President recommends
            the site in 2001.
        The plan for fiscal year 2001 and beyond reflects the evolution of
    the project emphasis from scientific investigations to data synthesis,
    model validation, repository and waste package design, safety analysis,
    and documentation. The program's near-term priorities upon completion
    of site characterization will be to enhance and refine repository
    design features and to develop the remaining information required to
    continue to a license application if a decision to recommend the site
    is made.
        Our budget request for Yucca Mountain is allocated under the
    following project elements: Core Science, Design and Engineering,
    Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment, Environmental Review
    under the National Environmental Policy Act, Operations/Construction,
    External Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes, and Yucca Mountain
    Project Management. The activities planned under each of these
    categories are described below.

    Core Science:
        Core Science includes: collecting site characterization and
    performance confirmation data from the surface and subsurface;
    performing laboratory tests; monitoring and collecting environmental
    data; formulating scientific hypotheses; modeling individual and
    combined natural processes; compiling scientific information for
    technical data bases; and writing scientific descriptions and analyses
    used to document results and findings.
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $69.4 million to Core Science is
    a decrease of two percent ($1.2 million) below the fiscal year 2000
    funding level. In fiscal year 2000, we began to concentrate on data
    synthesis and documentation, model updating and validation, and
    definition of performance confirmation activities, reflecting our plans
    to complete site characterization. In fiscal year 2001, we will
    complete our effort to acquire and analyze site characterization
    information needed to reduce the scientific uncertainties identified in
    the Viability Assessment, prior to making a suitability evaluation site
    recommendation decision, and if appropriate, submitting a license
    application. In the coming years, Core Science activities will focus on
    confirmatory testing supporting a license application. Specific
    activities will focus on testing in the Exploratory Studies Facility,
    including the cross-drift and the drift-scale heater test; confirmatory
    field-scale tests; modeling; environmental, safety, and health
    compliance; and environmental monitoring and mitigation activities.
        Within the Exploratory Studies Facility, we will continue the long-
    term drift-scale heater test that began in December 1997. This test
    will allow us to determine how the rock and fluids in a repository
    system will behave over the long-term in the presence of heat generated
    by radioactive decay of the emplaced waste. We will continue testing in
    the cross-drift to collect data on hydrologic properties of the
    repository horizon. For example, we will study fracture-matrix
    interaction and fracture flow properties, particularly of the lower
    lithophysal unit where approximately 65 percent of the emplacement
    drifts are expected to be located.
        We continue to incorporate test results into geologic and
    hydrologic process models. These models underlie the total system
    performance assessment models that support both the site recommendation
    and license application. Confirmatory data collection and long-duration
    testing will continue.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $10 million for a
    cooperative agreement between the Department and the University and
    Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). The agreement started in
    fiscal year 1999 and will continue into fiscal year 2002. The
    cooperative agreement provides the public and the Yucca Mountain
    Project with an independently derived body of scientific and
    engineering data concerning the study of Yucca Mountain. Under this
    agreement, UCCSN will perform scientific and engineering research and
    will foster collaborative working relationships between government and
    academic researchers.

    Design and Engineering:
        Design and Engineering includes three major areas: waste package
    development, repository design, and systems engineering. In turn, waste
    package development includes two distinct areas: design of the waste
    package, and testing of waste forms and waste package materials.
    Repository design also includes two areas: subsurface and surface
    facilities. Systems engineering coordinates all aspects of design,
    construction, and operations to ensure that designs meet all
    requirements and that facilities are fully integrated.
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $111.2 million to Design and
    Engineering is an increase of 68 percent ($44.9 million) above the
    fiscal year 2000 funding level. This fiscal year 2001 funding level
    will allow the program to resume design work that was deferred due to
    budget shortfalls that forced the program to focus efforts on site
    characterization. As part of a natural design evolution, we will
    continue to refine the repository and waste package design features
    beyond the concept that was evaluated in the Viability Assessment. Our
    activities in this area will focus on providing the basis for decisions
    and advancing the designs consistent with the regulatory requirements
    for a license application, if the site is recommended. Program
    scientists and engineers will analyze the design features in a total
    system performance assessment that incorporates updated data from core
    science activities and process models. In part, the increased fiscal
    year 2001 allocation addresses requests and recommendations made by the
    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission for further design enhancements and details. This work is
    necessary to develop a repository and waste package design suitable for
    a site recommendation and, further, evolving to a license application
    design.

    Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment:
        Activities under Licensing/Suitability/Performance Assessment
    encompass compiling the technical documentation that serves as the
    basis of a suitability determination and a possible recommendation to
    proceed with developing the Yucca Mountain site. If the Yucca Mountain
    site is recommended by the President and Congress, for further
    development, the program will refine and subsequently document its work
    to shift the focus toward addressing the licensing expectations of the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Assessing the performance of a
    repository system at Yucca Mountain is critical to both a site
    recommendation in fiscal year 2001 and any subsequent licensing
    activities.
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $85 million to Licensing/
    Suitability/Performance Assessment is an increase of 38 percent ($23.6
    million) above the fiscal year 2000 funding level. The culmination of
    the program's site characterization efforts is to prepare the
    documentation required under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to support a
    decision on whether or not to submit a site recommendation to the
    President. In support of a recommendation, the program's focus for
    early fiscal year 2001 is to complete the Site Recommendation
    Consideration Report. This report will present general background
    information and descriptions of the site characterization program and
    the site. It will also include descriptions of the repository design,
    the waste form and waste packages, a discussion of data related to the
    safety of the site, and a description of the performance assessment of
    the repository.
        The Site Recommendation Consideration Report and its supporting
    documents will be made available to the State of Nevada, the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission, and stakeholders in fiscal year 2001. The
    program will then focus its efforts on addressing their comments and
    views. Public hearings will be held in the area around the Yucca
    Mountain site. We also expect to receive comments from the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission, and views and comments from the Governor and
    legislature of Nevada. These comments and our responses will be part of
    the basis for a site recommendation presented to the President.
        Assessing how a repository system at Yucca Mountain might perform
    is critical to a decision regarding whether to recommend the site. The
    performance assessment of a repository system at Yucca Mountain will be
    refined to incorporate advances in the program's scientific
    understanding of the natural systems at Yucca Mountain, and to
    integrate refinements in waste package and repository design. Even
    after a suitability evaluation and site recommendation decision is
    made, performance assessment iterations would continue to address the
    licensing expectations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to
    present the program's understanding of how a repository will perform at
    limiting human exposure to radionuclide releases.
        The license application technical data used for a repository and
    waste package design, total system performance assessment, and models
    for site processes and conditions, must be traceable and electronically
    retrievable in accordance with the Commission's regulation 10 CFR Part
    2, Subpart J. We will use the latest available web-based technologies
    to ensure that program data and records are easily retrievable and
    available to stakeholders.

    Environmental Review under the National Environmental Policy Act:
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.6 million to Environmental
    Review is an increase of 21 percent ($0.3 million) above the fiscal
    year 2000 funding level. During fiscal year 2001, we will complete all
    necessary Environmental Review documentation, including the Final
    Environmental Impact Statement, which is required by the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act to accompany a site recommendation. The fiscal year 2001
    activities include a Departmental and inter-agency review of all
    documents in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
    requirements, Environmental Protection Agency rules, and Department of
    Energy implementing regulations. The program will also complete the
    administrative work necessary to support the Final Environmental Impact
    Statement.

    Operations/Construction:
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $33 million to Operations/
    Construction is an increase of 10 percent ($3.0 million) above the
    fiscal year 2000 funding level. This budget request will support the
    completion of construction of the Exploratory Studies Facility.
    Following completion, the program's operations activities will
    transition to the maintenance of the underground facilities to conduct
    confirmatory testing. These activities are in part to verify what we
    have learned from our core science work, as well as to verify the
    effectiveness of waste package and repository design.
    External Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes (PETT):
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $21.8 million to External
    Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes is an increase of 33 percent
    ($5.4 million) above the fiscal year 2000 funding level. In its budget
    request, the Administration continues to support the oversight
    activities of the State of Nevada as required by the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act. These oversight activities are solely for independent
    review of ongoing scientific and technical work. The fiscal year 2001
    increase is the result of a newly negotiated payment-equal-to-taxes
    agreement with the State of Nevada and the local counties; it restores
    funding to the State of Nevada to support oversight activities.
        External oversight activities consist of financial and technical
    assistance to the State of Nevada and affected units of local
    government (i.e., Churchill, Clark, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln,
    Mineral, Nye, and White Pine Counties in Nevada and Inyo County in
    California). Payments-equal-to-taxes are made to the State of Nevada
    and Nye and Clark Counties.

    Yucca Mountain Project Management:
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $36.3 million to Project
    Management is a small increase--3 percent ($1.1 million)--above the
    fiscal year 2000 funding level.
        Project Management includes conducting public information and
    outreach programs to ensure open and informative interactions with the
    State of Nevada, units of local government, the public, technical
    review organizations, and other program stakeholders. In fiscal year
    2001, we expect increased interest due to the impending site
    recommendation and environmental review activities. Project Management
    will continue in fiscal year 2001 to further enhance project control
    activities, including planning, budgeting, and scheduling, in
    coordination with Program Management and Integration.

                  WASTE ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORATION

        The primary responsibilities of the Waste Acceptance, Storage, and
    Transportation (WAST) Project are to develop a process for the physical
    transfer of spent nuclear fuel to the federal government in accordance
    with applicable legal requirements. In preparation for such a transfer
    when a federal facility becomes available, the small budget request for
    this area maintains the core capability to implement a private sector-
    based national transportation capability for waste acceptance and
    transportation, and to resolve institutional issues with stakeholders
    in preparation for the implementation of the transfer.

    Transportation
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.75 million to Transportation
    represents the resumption of activities to develop a private sector-
    based national transportation capability that would be required if a
    positive site recommendation is made in fiscal year 2001. The
    Department plans to update and solicit comments on a draft request for
    proposals for waste acceptance and transportation services after fiscal
    year 2001, if the site is recommended by the Secretary and approved by
    the President and Congress. After considering comments on the draft
    request for proposals, we plan to release the final request for
    proposals in fiscal year 2002.

    Waste Acceptance
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.5 million for Waste
    Acceptance is a 20 percent ($0.25 million) increase from the fiscal
    year 2000 funding level. Waste Acceptance activities will focus on
    developing modifications to the Standard Disposal Contract to support
    the acquisition of waste acceptance and transportation services from
    the private sector. Fiscal year 2001 activities include updating the
    commercial spent nuclear fuel discharge projections, which are
    necessary to determine implementation of the Standard Disposal
    Contract.
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation will serve to integrate acceptance
    criteria and schedules for Department-owned spent nuclear fuel and
    high-level radioactive waste under the auspices of the Office of
    Environmental and Waste Management; surplus plutonium and mixed-oxide
    fuel under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security
    Administration; and spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from the
    naval reactor program.

                       PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION

        The Program Management and Integration Activity oversees the
    integration of Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office and Waste
    Acceptance and Transportation Project activities to ensure that they
    comply with all external regulatory requirements, Departmental
    reporting and accounting systems, and oversight organizations.
        The fiscal year 2001 allocation of $75.4 million to Program
    Management and Integration is a 10 percent increase ($7.2 million)
    above the fiscal year 2000 funding level. The increase reflects the
    need to assure that major programmatic decision documents expected in
    fiscal year 2001 comply with the statutory requirements of the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act, as well as regulatory requirements imposed by the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
    other federal oversight groups.
        A significant portion of the fiscal year 2001 Program Management
    and Integration allocation will go towards continuing to implement a
    Nuclear Quality Assurance program that sufficiently addresses the
    expectations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act, as amended, any facility that may be constructed must
    be licensed by the Commission, thus necessitating the implementation of
    an effective Nuclear Quality Assurance program.
        The Program Management and Integration allocation funds a critical
    element of the work required to reach the decision on site
    recommendation, and that support the completion of the Final
    Environmental Impact Statement, which must accompany a site
    recommendation. A specialist contractor continues to finalize the
    Environmental Impact Statement to develop an independent assessment
    that meets the requirements for environmental reviews.
        Finally, the fiscal year 2001 allocation will be utilized for
    federal salaries and benefits, and mandatory costs to utilize
    facilities and infrastructure for the federal staff.

                                   LITIGATION

        The Department is in litigation over the delay in meeting our
    contractual obligation to accept spent fuel from the nuclear utility
    companies by January 31, 1998. The issue of waste acceptance is clearly
    one that is high on our agenda and we are actively working with
    utilities in an effort to resolve it and the ongoing litigation.

                               CONCLUDING REMARKS

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as I said in my opening
    remarks, we have made significant progress. The Department is coming to
    the end of a long road. When we set out to characterize the Yucca
    Mountain site through an ambitious scientific program, we knew that we
    would be faced with challenges. I believe that by the end of fiscal
    year 2001, we will have met those challenges. While there will likely
    be additional scientific and institutional issues that we will have to
    address to support the licensing process if the site is recommended by
    the Secretary and the President approves the recommendation, the
    program is well positioned to move forward.
        The program is nearing a decision in fiscal year 2001 to determine
    if we can move ahead with a permanent solution to the management of our
    nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The
    funding we have requested is needed to enable us to complete, on
    schedule, the activities that are necessary for an informed policy
    decision. The program has been able to maintain the schedule for major
    milestones over the past years despite significant reductions from our
    request level, but only by deferring critical work. Now, when we are so
    close to significant decision points, we should not delay this program.
        I urge you to consider favorably our appropriation request.
        Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

                  FISCAL YEAR 1999-FISCAL YEAR 2000 HIGHLIGHTS

                                    SUMMARY

    Fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funding overview
        In fiscal year 1999, OCRWM received an appropriation of $358
    million. Of this, $4 million was allocated to evaluate the feasibility
    of Accelerator Transmutation of Waste technology, as directed by
    Congress. We allocated $282 million (79 percent) to the Yucca Mountain
    Site Characterization Project.
        In fiscal year 2000, OCRWM received an appropriation of $351.2
    million. Of that, we allocated over $281.2 million (80 percent) to the
    Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, the Program's principal
    focus.

    Focus of activities in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
        The near-term focus of the Program is to complete the work to
    support the Secretary's decision on whether or not to recommend the
    Yucca Mountain site to the President for further development as a
    repository. Since the publication of the Viability Assessment of a
    Repository at Yucca Mountain early in fiscal year 1999, the Program has
    continued to gain momentum toward this recommendation. The Viability
    Assessment has been used as a management tool to focus our site
    characterization activities to support this recommendation.
        In fiscal year 2000, as a result of a funding level below the
    President's budget request, we prioritized our technical
    investigations. Our focus in fiscal year 2000 was on the science and
    engineering activities that most effectively reduce the level of
    uncertainty in analyses of repository performance.
        We have continued the transition begun a number of years ago from a
    program previously dominated by underground construction activities and
    corresponding investigative science to data synthesis, model
    development and validation, performance assessment, and engineering
    related to repository and waste package designs. The Program also
    continues to place emphasis on Nuclear Quality Assurance activities to
    ensure that the data and models we utilize will support licensing,
    assuming the site is recommended and the President and Congress accept
    the site recommendation.

                              KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

    Yucca Mountain
        The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office has made
    significant progress toward completing the scientific investigations
    and engineering studies that are necessary to support a determination
    on the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site and a possible site
    recommendation. Our work focused on three areas identified in the
    Viability Assessment for further study: the presence and movement of
    water through the repository block, the effects of water movement on
    the waste package, and the effects of heat from the decay of
    radioactive materials inside the waste packages on the site's geologic
    and hydrologic behavior. Testing activities in all these areas have
    yielded important data that enhance our understanding of the natural
    characteristics and properties of Yucca Mountain and how a repository
    at that site would perform.
        In January 2000, we updated the Repository Safety Strategy. This
    strategy is the roadmap that lays out our postclosure safety case to
    support a site recommendation decision. It identifies the key factors
    that affect repository performance and provides the basis for focusing
    our remaining site characterization activities. As a result of this
    prioritization, we believe that the basic processes that could affect
    repository performance are understood, and that the main emphasis for
    completing site characterization is to reduce uncertainties and to
    validate our models.
        Among our scientific and technical accomplishments are:
      --Continuation of the drift-scale heater test, which we are
            conducting to obtain data on the mechanical, thermohydrologic,
            and thermochemical properties of the potential repository host
            rock, 1000 feet below the surface of Yucca Mountain. The test
            has been in operation since 1997 and will continue for several
            more years. We have heated the rock and are maintaining the
            drift wall temperature at 392 degrees Fahrenheit for two years,
            before beginning a cool-down cycle. We have bored holes into
            the drift walls at varying distances from the heater to collect
            data and measure the results as the test progresses.
      --Testing in the underground facility at Busted Butte near Yucca
            Mountain, which provides an analog to the rock that lies below
            the potential repository horizon. These tests are important to
            understand the potential transport of certain radionuclides
            from the repository area, through the unsaturated zone, and
            into the water table underlying Yucca Mountain. We have found
            that certain minerals, found naturally in the rock, bond with
            radionuclides and inhibit their movement.
      --Examination of the movement of moisture within the mountain. We
            completed the cross drift in the Exploratory Studies Facility
            and will complete construction of test alcoves this year. We
            have begun a final set of experiments that will introduce water
            above the Exploratory Studies Facility and will monitor
            humidity and seepage in the Exploratory Studies Facility. We
            are analyzing information from tracer injection experiments to
            validate our estimates of seepage.
      --Measurement of water levels from a series of monitoring stations
            located in deep bore holes.
      --Monitoring and collecting of information for the environmental
            baseline, including wind, air quality, rainfall, surface water
            runoff, and flora and fauna.
      --Materials testing on the nuclear waste types expected to be
            disposed in the repository to determine the effects on the
            waste and cladding from heat, moisture, and chemical reactions.
      --Continued testing of potential waste package materials to determine
            corrosion rates and to identify other potential changes due to
            heat, moisture, and chemical reactions.
      --Design and trade-off studies to select the repository and waste
            package reference design for the site recommendation and the
            final environmental impact statement.
        We recognize that uncertainty can affect confidence in decisions
    related to the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. In evolving the
    repository design concept over the past year, we have sought to select
    a design and to specify conditions on its implementation that are
    responsive to concerns about demonstrating performance, while at the
    same time balancing such significant factors as long-term public
    safety, intergenerational equity, worker safety, and cost.
        In September 1999, this natural evolution resulted in an enhanced
    design that addresses these overarching concerns and responds to
    recommendations by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. A key
    aspect of the enhanced design is a lower repository temperature,
    achieved through a set of thermal management techniques. We have also
    emphasized the need for flexibility to ensure that new scientific and
    engineering data gathered throughout the site characterization,
    construction, and operation and monitoring phases can be accommodated
    through reasonable changes in the repository design or operational
    concept. Similarly, our emphasis on flexibility allows for changes that
    might be driven by evolution in national policy at some future
    juncture.
        Our efforts to make necessary modifications to the regulatory
    framework for evaluating the suitability of the Yucca have progressed.
    On November 30, 1999, the Department published a proposed revision to
    its repository siting guidelines. The comment period closed on February
    28, 2000. The proposed revised guidelines reflect a shift away from a
    generic approach, which compared one site to another using individual
    technical criteria to a site-specific approach that relies on an
    overall, integrated systems evaluation of the expected performance of a
    repository at Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission took
    this same approach in its licensing regulation. These regulations must
    be compatible: a site that meets the Department's suitability
    guidelines should be one that is likely to satisfy the Commission's
    requirements and receive a license.
        If the repository is to be licensed, the dose to a member of the
    public, as predicted by our total system performance assessment models,
    cannot exceed the regulatory standards that are now being finalized. In
    fiscal year 1999, we developed the detailed bases of the performance
    assessment models that will support this evaluation. These models
    integrate data from site investigations and laboratory studies, expert
    judgment, and information about engineered barriers. We updated the
    performance assessment models to reflect new information from site
    investigations and laboratory studies, advances in the modeling of
    physical processes at the site, and the enhanced repository design. We
    also completed a comprehensive peer review of our total system
    performance assessment. This independent evaluation and critique
    supports ongoing model refinement, which will be completed in fiscal
    year 2000.
        The Program's completion of the initial performance confirmation
    plan for the repository is a forward-looking accomplishment that
    underscores our commitment to ensuring repository performance. This
    plan establishes that confirmatory testing will continue as long as
    necessary before repository closure to assure the Department and the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the repository system will isolate
    waste as planned.
        In July 1999, we reached a major program milestone by releasing the
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
    Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
    Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. The draft environmental impact
    statement presents the results of an analysis of potential impacts
    associated with constructing, operating and monitoring, and eventually
    closing a repository at Yucca Mountain and of transporting waste to
    Yucca Mountain from 77 sites across the United States.
        We recognize the need for public review of, and input into, this
    important document and have accommodated many requests from our
    stakeholders. During a 199-day public comment period, we conducted 21
    hearings throughout the country to solicit comments on the draft
    environmental impact statement. Over 2,600 individuals attended those
    hearings and over 700 provided comments; the total number of comments
    received at the hearings and in writing exceeded 3,300. The final
    environmental impact statement will accompany a decision by the
    Secretary on whether or not to recommend the site for development as a
    permanent repository.
        The U.S. leads the world in the science needed to develop a
    geologic repository, and the Program is active in efforts to share
    information and foster safe radioactive waste management around the
    globe. On October 31-November 3, 1999, the Department sponsored an
    international conference on geologic repositories. This conference
    highlighted global progress on the management of nuclear materials and
    radioactive waste, and provided a forum to discuss ongoing and planned
    activities to develop geologic repositories. Both the policy and
    technical aspects of geologic disposal were addressed, and conference
    participants were invited to tour Yucca Mountain. Conference
    participants issued a Joint Declaration reiterating the international
    commitment to the safe management of nuclear waste.
        As a separate initiative, OCRWM is working with the Russian
    Federation in a cooperative program to support our nation's
    nonproliferation objectives. We expect to complete a bilateral
    agreement with the Russian Federation in fiscal year 2000 that will
    foster collaborative repository research and assist the Russian
    Federation in developing a path forward for radioactive waste and
    surplus fissile materials disposition.
        The Program also evaluated the potential application of accelerator
    transmutation of waste to civilian spent nuclear fuel. In October 1999,
    in response to prior Congressional direction, the Department submitted
    to Congress ``A Roadmap for Developing Accelerator Transmutation of
    Waste Technology.'' To prepare the report, OCRWM established a steering
    group that included representatives from the key National Laboratories
    and from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, an
    international expert panel outlined a science-based research program to
    address key issues and possible implementation scenarios for
    development and deployment of accelerator transmutation of waste
    technology. One critical issue is whether the achievable benefits
    outweigh the costs. Research by the National Academy of Sciences found
    that accelerator transmutation of waste is technically feasible, but
    would require billions of dollars and many decades to implement, and
    would not eliminate the need for a repository.

                  WASTE ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION

        During fiscal year 1999 and to date in fiscal year 2000, the Waste
    Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project focused on planning the
    process for accepting spent nuclear fuel from utilities and Department-
    owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level wastes from the defense
    complex. Our activities included updating inventories of commercial and
    Department-owned materials destined for repository disposal, updating
    verification plans, and completing prelicensing interactions with the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Phase 1 Centralized Interim
    Storage Facility Topical Safety Analysis Report, the Dry-Transfer
    System for Spent Nuclear Fuel Topical Safety Analysis Report, and the
    Actinide-Only Burn-Up Credit Topical Report. The Department made
    progress in developing modifications to the Standard Disposal Contract
    to support the processes related to waste acceptance and transportation
    services that will be provided by private sector vendors.

                       PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION

        During fiscal year 1999 and to date in fiscal year 2000, the
    Program's management center continued to support the activities of the
    two projects--the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the
    Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project.
        Quality Assurance is a critical component of our work products to
    ensure that they can withstand scrutiny when the Site Recommendation
    Consideration Report is released in fiscal year 2001. Through audits,
    surveillances, and assessments, our QA personnel continued to work
    closely with technical personnel conducting scientific studies, design
    work, and performance assessment to identify the activities with
    greatest impact on levels of confidence related to evaluations of site
    suitability and possible license application. They examined whether
    that work was performed under appropriate QA requirements, whether
    requirements were fully understood, whether they were properly
    implemented, and whether compliance was adequately documented. For
    performance assessment, QA reviews focused on model validation,
    qualification of existing data, and software control. Deficiencies were
    evaluated and, where warranted, root causes were investigated. For each
    deficiency, a corrective action plan was implemented.
        We provided systems engineering and integration support for site
    characterization, waste package design, and repository design
    activities and for the waste acceptance and transportation initiatives.
    We continued to conduct systems analyses to support selection of design
    alternatives for the site recommendation and license application. We
    prepared updates of the total system life-cycle cost and the fee
    adequacy report. We updated interface control documents and refined the
    Program's waste acceptance criteria for non-commercial spent nuclear
    fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
        We coordinated and integrated the Program's activities with other
    Departmental elements. With the Office of Environmental Management and
    the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, we continued to develop
    and implement an integrated schedule for the Monitored Geologic
    Disposal System.
        We prepared updates to the OCRWM Program Plan and the Annual Report
    to Congress, and supported updates of the Department's Strategic Plan.
    In addition, we participated in numerous Nuclear Waste Technical Review
    Board and panel meetings and in pre-licensing meetings with the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission.
        Our current management and operations contract expires in February
    2001. We are currently recompeting this contract to ensure appropriate
    support as we plan, integrate and manage a complex program in a Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission licensing environment. In January 2000, we issued
    a draft request for proposals to announce our intent to recompete this
    contract, in accordance with Departmental guidelines and consistent
    with Congressional direction.
        We continued the development and implementation of a Program-wide
    information architecture to provide the foundation for definition,
    development, organization, management of, as well as access to, all
    Program data, records, and information systems.
        We continued to use the Internet to distribute a variety of
    information to interested stakeholders. Many of the Program's policy
    and technical documents are available to the public through our
    electronic databases.
        Finally, the Program met all Departmental Y2K milestones. Our
    mission-critical systems were subsequently independently verified and
    validated, and the transition to 2000 was problem-free.

        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Dr. Itkin.
        Dr. Huntoon.

                      STATEMENT OF DR. CAROLYN L. HUNTOON

        Dr. Huntoon. Senator McConnell, other members of the
    committee, it is a pleasure to be here today to appear before
    you. I have had the opportunity in the past several months to
    visit the sites that I am responsible for, the former nuclear
    weapon production sites. We are left with huge volumes of waste
    that must be managed and stored.
        There is extensive subsurface contamination that must be
    remediated and large quantities of nuclear materials left over
    from the production of the nuclear weapons--that we must store
    and protect to make the public safe, as well as our workers.
        We have a tremendous job to do. I have seen most of it
    firsthand. In the 10 years since Environmental Management, EM,
    was established, the department has made great strides in
    addressing these problems. We have characterized a lot of the
    waste streams and the subsurface contamination. We understand
    better the nature and extent of the waste.
        And we also have developed a life cycle analysis that we
    continue to refine to improve our baseline cost. And we are
    improving our project baselines to reduce costs.
        Through contract reform, we are trying to improve our
    performance and the accountability of our contractors. We have
    accelerated the cleanup at Rocky Flats, and we have shown that
    we know how to reduce costs and schedules, to improve project
    management, and to incentivize the contractor.
        In February, we signed a new performance-based contract for
    the closure of Rocky Flats, which----
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt just
    briefly. Senator Daschle has asked me to attend a meeting. I
    have a number of questions I would like to submit, and I will
    do those with your permission. And they can respond at their
    earliest convenience.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Reid. We will be
    happy to do that.
        Senator Reid. Pardon me for the interruption.
        Senator McConnell. Go ahead, Dr. Huntoon.

                         WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT

        Dr. Huntoon. Each year we are making significant progress
    all across the country. Last year we opened the Waste Isolation
    Pilot Plant, the world's first geological repository for
    nuclear waste.
        To date, we have made 48 shipments of transuranic waste to
    WIPP from Rocky Flats, Los Alamos and Idaho. This includes 3
    shipments from Rocky Flats under the new WIPP permit. This year
    we expect to begin shipping from Hanford and Savannah River. In
    fiscal year 2001, we plan to make about 485 shipments.
        We completed our cleanup work at three more sites in fiscal
    year 1999. We will complete two more sites this year and three
    more in 2001, which will bring a total of 74 sites completed,
    nearly two-thirds of our inventory.
        In fiscal year 1999, we vitrified 248 canisters of high-
    level waste at Savannah River and West Valley. And we expect to
    produce 400 more at Savannah River in 2000/2001.
        In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting $6.318 billion: $4
    billion in the defense and environmental restoration management
    appropriation, a little over $1 billion in the defense
    facilities closure project appropriation, $286 million in non-
    defense environmental management appropriation, and $303
    million for the uranium enrichment decontamination and
    decommissioning fund. In addition, $515 million is set aside in
    the defense privatization appropriation.
        Let me offer just a few highlights from our request. At
    Richland we are beginning to move corroding spent nuclear fuel
    from wet storage in the K Basins near the Columbia River to a
    new dry, safe facility away from the river. At Savannah River,
    we continue to process spent nuclear and plutonium-bearing
    materials in both the F and H Canyons, where these materials
    will be converted into safe forms for longer storage.
        Our request would significantly increase funds to
    accelerate the pace of cleanup at the gaseous diffusion plants
    at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. At Paducah we will
    complete removal of Drum Mountain by the end of the year using
    additional funds provided by Congress for fiscal year 2000.
        However, to reduce our cost and schedules further, we need
    new technologies. Our previous science and technology
    investments are beginning to pay off. We now have over 500
    deployments of new technologies across the complex. I plan to
    continue these necessary investments.
        Our laboratory in Idaho plays a critical research role as
    the lead laboratory for our EM science and technology programs.
    The Idaho site is developing technologies to fulfill our long-
    term stewardship responsibility. It also specializes in
    subsurface science to enable us to better understand the
    movement of the contaminants below the earth's surface.
        Also concerning our Idaho site, we submitted a
    reprogramming last week for $11.5 million to allow us to
    complete the transfer of the Three Mile Island spent nuclear
    fuel, from an old storage pond to a new dry storage facility.
    Without this reprogramming, we will have to stop work on this
    important project in May, putting commitments under the
    settlement agreement at risk. We would appreciate your
    consideration of this request.

                            PRIVATIZATION ACTIVITIES

        In August of this year, we will determine whether or not to
    authorize BNFL to proceed with the construction of a privatized
    facility to vitrify high-level waste at Hanford. Currently
    there are about 54 million gallons of waste stored in
    underground tanks near the Columbia River.
        These tanks were designed for temporary, not permanent,
    storage. Some of the older tanks have leaked radioactive waste
    into the ground water that eventually flows to the river. Our
    agreement with the State of Washington requires us to begin
    removal and treatment of the waste by 2007.
        Under the privatization approach, the department will not
    pay the contractor until vitrified waste is produced according
    to the terms of the contract. The assumption of financial risk
    by other contractors will provide more incentives for
    performance than traditional government contracting approaches.
        I assure you the department will not authorize construction
    of these facilities until we are convinced the contractor's
    proposal meets all of our requirements and is in the best
    interest of the Federal Government. We will provide a rigorous
    review of the contractor's financing mechanisms, technical
    approaches, work schedules and cost information.
        If BNFL is authorized to proceed, I request a $450 million
    in privatization budget authority that will enable the
    contractor to begin long lead procurement of items, start
    construction, and provide additional design. This will enable
    them to have a higher degree of confidence in the design prior
    to construction. At lower levels of funding, we would have to
    reevaluate the benefits of privatization approach.
        Finally, my philosophy has been to do all our work safely.
    We will not compromise the safety of our workers or the
    environment for a schedule. We have communicated that principle
    to all of our contractors. I intend to ensure that all the EM
    personnel understand and meet their safety and security
    responsibilities.
        In conclusion, cleaning up the legacy of environmental
    contamination from nuclear weapon production will fulfill a
    legal and a moral obligation that we owe to the States and the
    communities that helped us both in the Second World War and the
    Cold War. This is important work. I am enthusiastic about it
    and committed to meeting the challenge.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CAROLYN L. HUNTOON

        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Department of Energy's
    Environmental Management (EM) program and its fiscal year 2001 budget
    request.
        Our budget request of $6.318 billion for fiscal year 2001 for the
    EM program will enable the Department to continue our progress cleaning
    up our sites. The request seeks $5.803 billion in traditional budget
    authority and $515 million in budget authority to support privatization
    projects. This is a total increase of approximately $440 million over
    this year's current appropriation.
        This level of funding in our request supports critical safety
    programs for the protection of workers who carry out cleanup activities
    across the DOE complex; accelerates cleanup at key sites; enables the
    Department to be substantially in compliance with legal agreements and
    requirements; responds to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    recommendations; addresses significant safety risks; and continues
    efforts to develop alternative technologies that can reduce the cost
    and schedule of cleanup. The request keeps us on track with meeting
    accelerated closure schedules at Rocky Flats in Colorado, and at the
    Mound and Fernald sites in Ohio. We will be able to continue progress
    at all sites, including treatment and disposal of nuclear waste and
    safe management of nuclear materials.
        The fiscal year 2001 request for the EM program represents a
    significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, both in
    traditional budget authority and in funding for privatization projects.
    We are requesting an additional $113 million in traditional budget
    authority and $327 million more for privatization, an eight percent
    increase overall. These additional funds will enable the Department to
    make more progress in fiscal year 2001--more shipments of transuranic
    waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), accelerated cleanup at
    the Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and the completion
    of EM cleanup at Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho, Monticello
    Remedial Action Project in Utah, and Grand Junction Site in Colorado.
    With this request we will also be able to maintain the schedule for the
    design, construction, and operation of a privatized vitrification plant
    for high-level nuclear waste at the Hanford site in Washington. This
    waste is currently in underground storage tanks near the Columbia
    River.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Before discussing our fiscal year 2001 budget request, I would like
    to provide an overview of our program and describe some of the actions
    I have taken since being confirmed as Assistant Secretary for
    Environmental Management in July 1999, as well as highlight some of our
    accomplishments in the past year and our planned achievements for the
    current fiscal year.

    Meeting the Challenge of the Environmental Legacy
        The Environmental Management program is responsible for managing
    and cleaning up the environmental legacy of the nation's nuclear
    weapons program and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. If
    there is one common theme at all of the very diverse facilities across
    the country where the EM program is conducting cleanup, it is the
    challenge presented by the magnitude and complexity of the task we face
    in managing large volumes of nuclear wastes, safeguarding materials
    that could be used in nuclear weapons, and remediating extensive
    surface and groundwater contamination.
        In total, we are responsible for addressing an estimated 1.7
    trillion gallons of contaminated groundwater and 40 million cubic
    meters of contaminated soil and debris. EM is responsible for safely
    storing and guarding more than 18 metric tons of weapons-usable
    plutonium, enough for hundreds of nuclear weapons. Our inventory
    includes over two thousand tons of intensely radioactive spent nuclear
    fuel, some of which is corroding. EM is also responsible for storage,
    treatment, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste, including
    over 340,000 cubic meters of high-level waste stored at the Hanford,
    Idaho, New York and Savannah River sites; and for deactivation and
    decommissioning of about 4,000 facilities that are no longer needed to
    support the Department's mission. In addition, the EM program also has
    responsibility for critical nuclear non-proliferation programs to
    accept and safely manage spent nuclear fuel from foreign research
    reactors that contains weapons-usable highly enriched uranium.
        Completing the cleanup of the legacy from nuclear weapons
    production will meet our legal and moral obligation to those
    communities and states that supported our national defense effort and
    helped win both the Second World War and the Cold War. Completing this
    cleanup will allow us to turn lands and facilities to other public uses
    and allow the Department to focus on its science, security, and energy
    missions.

    Principles and Priorities for the EM Program
        The actual tasks of remediating contamination and storing,
    treating, and disposing of wastes are performed exclusively in the
    field, at the sites where the contamination and wastes are located. The
    role of Headquarters is to provide program guidance and management as
    to how this work will be conducted. I have established several
    management principles and priorities that will guide the program under
    my leadership. They are:
      --Safety first;
      --Reduce risks;
      --Meet our commitments;
      --Accelerate site cleanup and project completion; Strengthen project
            management;
      --Integrate nuclear waste and materials management and operations to
            take advantage of site capabilities across the DOE complex;
      --Build public confidence and involve stakeholders in our cleanup
            decisions and actions;
      --Develop an effective long-term stewardship program--at many sites
            after cleanup is completed the Department will retain
            responsibilities for long-term monitoring and maintenance; and
      --Apply the best science and technology to solve technical problems
            and reduce costs.
        The EM Headquarters office has recently been organized to implement
    these principles and better align the EM program with our goals. The
    new structure groups management of closure sites together to ensure the
    lessons learned about facilitating closure are shared across the
    complex. It also establishes specific organizations focused on safety,
    project management, and long-term stewardship, as well as science and
    technology and cross-complex integration. The re-organization, formally
    in place last November, provides stability to an organization that had
    seen significant personnel reductions in the past few years and
    establishes permanent managers and staff throughout the organization.
        We will continue to work towards cleaning up as many of the
    remaining contaminated sites as possible by 2006, safely and cost-
    effectively. By working toward this goal, we not only reduce the
    hazards presently facing our workforce and the public, but also reduce
    the long-term financial burden on the taxpayer. For every year that a
    site remains open because cleanup has not been completed, we are paying
    a ``mortgage'' of overhead costs for activities such as site security,
    facility operations, personnel, and safety. Our budget request, and our
    organization in Headquarters, is now structured to emphasize site
    closure, and site/project completion at our larger sites and our sites
    with continuing missions.

    Progress and Accomplishments in Cleaning Up and Closing Sites
        I am pleased to report that our program has produced substantial
    cleanup results at contaminated nuclear facilities around the country.
    Our accomplishments reflect the program's continued commitment to
    performance-based management, establishing stretch goals and
    performance measures that demonstrate our progress in on-the-ground
    environmental cleanup and meeting our goals. For example:
      --The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) opened and began disposal
            operations in March 1999. Since its opening through November
            1999, 44 shipments of transuranic waste have been sent to WIPP
            for disposal from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Rocky Flats,
            and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
            (INEEL). We expect that the Hanford and Savannah River sites
            will begin shipping waste to WIPP in fiscal year 2000.
      --We continued to successfully operate two high-level waste
            vitrification facilities in South Carolina and at West Valley
            in New York where last year we produced 248 canisters of
            vitrified high-level waste. In fiscal year 2000, we expect to
            produce at least 200 more canisters at the Savannah River Site
            facility, bringing the total canisters poured at this facility
            to more than 900 canisters since the facility began operating
            in 1996. We will vitrify five canisters of waste at West
            Valley.
      --At Rocky Flats, we continued to make great strides towards meeting
            our 2006 closure goal, including completing shipments of
            plutonium pits to the Pantex Plant in Texas and shipments of
            highly enriched uranium to the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge
            Tennessee. In addition, we demolished a plutonium research
            facility and made 12 shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP.
      --EM completed its cleanup work at three more sites in fiscal year
            1999 and will clean up two more sites by the end of fiscal year
            2000. This will bring the number of completed sites to 71, with
            42 sites remaining.
      --At the Hanford Site, we have made significant progress in reducing
            the urgent risks associated with the 177 underground high-level
            waste tanks at the Hanford site, some of which are known to
            have leaked to the surrounding soils threatening groundwater
            and the nearby Columbia River. We resolved high priority safety
            issues in several tanks, such as the generation of high heat in
            one tank and a rise in the surface level in another. We are
            also interim stabilizing single-shell tanks, transferring free
            liquids in the tanks to more secure double-shelled tanks. We
            have begun pumping free liquids from six single-shelled tanks,
            meeting all milestones in the Consent Decree with the State of
            Washington. Also at Hanford, we continue stabilization
            activities to reduce the risks posed by unstable plutonium
            materials. In addition, in August 2000 we expect to make a
            decision on whether to authorize the construction of the
            privatized facility to vitrify the liquid tank waste.
      --At Weldon Spring in Missouri, we finished treatment of waste pit
            sludge in the Chemical Stabilization and Solidification
            Facility in fiscal year 1999, with about 180,000 cubic yards of
            treated sludge placed in the disposal facility, and the
            treatment facility was decommissioned. We plan to complete
            waste placement in the 1.5 million cubic yard capacity disposal
            facility in fiscal year 2000, with only the completion of the
            facility cover remaining.
      --At INEEL, we completed construction of a dry storage facility for
            the Three Mile Island spent nuclear fuel and began transfer of
            the fuel to the facility. We also made four shipments of
            transuranic waste to WIPP, meeting a major milestone in the
            settlement agreement with the State of Idaho, signed in October
            1995. In addition, we expect to begin construction on the
            Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment facility in fiscal year 2000.
      --In fiscal year 1999, we disposed of 49,000 cubic meters of low-
            level waste, 14,000 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste, and
            282 cubic meters of transuranic waste at disposal facilities at
            DOE sites and at commercial disposal facilities.
      --At the Mound Plant in Miamisburg Ohio, we continue progress toward
            the 2004 closure goal. In fiscal year 1999, we completed
            shipment of all remaining legacy low-level and mixed low-level
            waste from the site. By the end of fiscal year 2000, we expect
            to complete the removal of all remaining nuclear materials from
            the site and complete decommissioning of three more buildings.
      --Also at Mound, we transferred two buildings and 27 acres to the
            City of Miamisburg in fiscal year 1999, and we expect to deed
            over two more buildings and another 100 acres in fiscal year
            2000.
      --We awarded the privatization contract for the design, construction,
            operation and capping of a waste disposal facility at Oak Ridge
            for up to 400,000 cubic meters of contaminated soils and
            debris. In addition, we expect to issue a Record of Decision
            for the transuranic waste treatment project at Oak Ridge.
      --In support of non-proliferation goals, we have now completed a
            total of fourteen shipments of spent nuclear fuel from foreign
            research reactors in 23 countries including Brazil, South
            Korea, and Venezuela.
      --On-the-ground use of new innovative technologies continues to
            increase. During fiscal year 1999, DOE sites used innovative
            technologies 218 times in cleanup activities. For example, the
            Segmented Gate System (SGS) was successfully used for projects
            at Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos. This technology
            is a computer-controlled mechanical sorter that separates clean
            soil from contaminated waste streams, thereby significantly
            reducing the volume of waste to be packaged and disposed of,
            and reducing costs by up to 75 percent.
      --Also in fiscal year 1999, 40 innovative technologies were made
            available for use for the first time. One such technology is
            the Multifunction Corrosion Probe now being used in the tanks
            at Hanford. This technology helps reduce the volume of tank
            waste by allowing workers to directly monitor the rate of tank
            corrosion and add only the minimum amount of sodium hydroxide
            necessary to inhibit corrosion.
      --During fiscal year 2000, the sites expect to deploy new technology
            at least 60 times in cleanup activities. For example, the
            Lasagna electro-osmosis process will be used to remove
            groundwater contaminants at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
            Plant.

                          THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $5.803 billion in
    traditional budget authority and $515 million in budget authority to
    support privatization projects will enable EM to continue making
    progress across the country. In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to
    give priority to high risk problems such as stabilizing and ensuring
    the security of plutonium at several sites; stabilizing tanks
    containing high-level radioactive waste; and ensuring the safe storage
    of spent nuclear fuel, including foreign research reactor fuel in
    support of non-proliferation goals. We will continue to move closer to
    the goal of completing the cleanup of Rocky Flats, the Mound Site and
    Fernald in Ohio, and Weldon Spring in Missouri by 2006. We will
    complete the cleanup of three additional DOE sites. We will accelerate
    the cleanup of the uranium enrichment plants at Portsmouth, Ohio, and
    Paducah, Kentucky, and will significantly increase the number of
    shipments to WIPP. We also are requesting funds to begin construction
    of the privatized high-level waste vitrification plant at the Hanford
    site.

    Safety First
        The safety of our workers is our highest priority. We will not
    compromise the safety of our workers in any of our activities. As our
    cleanup accelerates, we must ensure that we have truly implemented and
    institutionalized Integrated Safety Management--the systems,
    procedures, and behavioral attitudes in place to continually improve
    our safety performance. In the recent EM reorganization, I created the
    Office of Safety, Health and Security to consolidate EM's resources,
    expertise and experience in these areas. A primary objective of this
    office is to ensure all EM personnel understand their responsibilities
    in the areas of safety and security so that these concepts and
    practices are integral to all EM programs and activities. Safety
    culture flows from actions by the senior management of an organization.
    These actions enforce understanding at every level that constant
    attention to safety has incremental beneficial effects, and the absence
    of these actions can almost guarantee adverse consequences. We are
    improving our safety orientation and performance as we strive to become
    a leader in safety throughout the DOE complex, with an approach to and
    record in safety that meets or exceeds the best private industrial
    firms. Managers at all levels are responsible for monitoring, taking
    appropriate actions to ensure that a commitment to safety is engendered
    throughout the organization, and participating in feedback systems so
    that continual improvements can be realized. We will be successful when
    we consider safety in everything we do--whether it is budget
    allocation, work formulation and prioritization, or staffing.

    Making more Progress in Reducing Risks
        Move spent nuclear fuel from K Basins at Hanford.--The fiscal year
    2001 request furthers our efforts to protect the Columbia River by
    beginning the removal of spent nuclear fuel from K-Basins at the
    Hanford Site in Washington. Our request will enable us to meet the
    milestone to begin fuel removal in November 2000. This project will
    carry out a first-of-a-kind technical solution to move 2,100 metric
    tons of corroding spent nuclear fuel from at-risk wet storage
    conditions in the K-East and K-West basins adjacent to the Columbia
    River into safe, dry storage in a new facility away from the river.
        Achieving this milestone will represent a significant
    accomplishment for a project that previously suffered from technical
    and management problems that delayed schedules and increased costs. We
    are now on track with a new baseline established in December 1998 that
    provides a realistic means to move this spent fuel to a safer facility
    and location.
        Move Three Mile Island Spent Nuclear Fuel to Safe Storage.--At
    INEEL, we will complete the transfer of Three Mile Island spent nuclear
    fuel to dry storage and the transfer of spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho
    Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) from aging,
    deteriorating underwater storage to safer storage facilities. These
    transfers reduce environmental and safety risks and fulfill commitments
    in the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
        Stabilize Plutonium at Hanford and Savannah River Sites.--We are
    reducing risks by stabilizing plutonium-bearing materials at the
    Hanford and the Savannah River Sites. At Hanford, we will continue
    stabilization of plutonium-bearing materials and oxides at the
    Plutonium Finishing Plant. In addition, we will begin operating the
    bagless transfer system for packaging plutonium-bearing materials and
    complete brushing and repackaging of plutonium metal inventory. These
    stabilization activities support our commitment to the Defense Nuclear
    Facilities Safety Board and are a critical step in the deactivation of
    Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will significantly reduce mortgage
    costs at Hanford.
        The request supports critical work to stabilize plutonium residues
    and other plutonium-bearing materials from the Savannah River Site and
    other sites across the complex, including plutonium residues and other
    plutonium-bearing materials from the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, in
    the F-Canyon and H-Canyon at Savannah River. Stabilization of these
    ``at risk'' materials is critical in resolving health and safety
    concerns surrounding these radioactive materials, since they are now in
    liquid or unstable forms unsuitable for long-term storage; supporting
    closure goals at Rocky Flats; and responding to Defense Nuclear
    Facilities Safety Board recommendations.
        Stabilize High-Level Waste in Underground Storage Tanks at
    Hanford.--In fiscal year 2001, we will continue improving safety of the
    high-level waste tanks by resolving high priority safety issues such as
    flammable gas generation and continuing interim stabilization work that
    involves pumping liquid waste from single-shelled tanks into double-
    shelled tanks. The remaining two tanks which are suspected of having
    leaked in the past will be pumped during fiscal year 2001.
        Receive Foreign Research Reactor Fuel.--The fiscal year 2001
    request continues support for the return of spent nuclear fuel
    containing uranium originally enriched in the United States from
    foreign research reactors around the world. This program reduces the
    threat of nuclear proliferation by ensuring enriched uranium will not
    be used to make nuclear weapons. It also supports a U.S. nuclear
    weapons nonproliferation policy calling for the reduction and eventual
    elimination of the use of highly enriched uranium in civil programs
    worldwide.
        Spent nuclear fuel will be shipped from research reactors in
    Argentina, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Japan to the
    United States in fiscal year 2001, and the Department is working with
    other interested, eligible foreign research reactors in The
    Netherlands, Chile, and Indonesia in an attempt to include additional
    countries in the 2001 shipment schedule.
        Blend-down of Highly Enriched Uranium at Savannah River.--The
    fiscal year 2001 EM request includes $37.9 million to support a
    creative approach to convert the Department's store of surplus highly
    enriched uranium to low enriched uranium for use as a commercial
    reactor fuel, offering a means to eliminate the proliferation risk
    posed by this weapons-grade material. The ``Blend-Down'' project,
    managed by the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition, is a
    collaboration between DOE and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
    which will use the converted fuel in its nuclear power reactors. The
    project is highly beneficial to both agencies. First, blending down the
    highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium furthers DOE's non-
    proliferation goals. Second, it will reduce DOE's long-term liabilities
    and risks associated with storing the material as highly enriched
    uranium or converting it to a waste form for disposal. Third,
    transferring the low enriched uranium solution to TVA's vendors will
    satisfy a DOE commitment to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
    Board. Fourth, TVA will realize significant savings as compared to
    buying virgin fuel on the open market. Depending on actual program
    costs and uranium market prices, DOE may ultimately receive a share of
    the savings.
        The request will provide for a loading station at the Savannah
    River Site to transfer the uranium solutions from the H-area tanks to
    shipping containers and fund other infrastructure requirements for the
    project at the site. The project will use existing reprocessing
    facilities at the site and, as currently planned, will not extend the
    life of Savannah River reprocessing facilities or increase EM
    operational funding requirements.

    Meeting our Commitments
        At the fiscal year 2001 request level of $6.318 billion, EM will be
    substantially in compliance with applicable environmental and other
    legal requirements. Most of our activities are governed by federal and
    state environmental statutes and regulations and enforceable agreements
    between the Department and federal and state agencies. We are committed
    to complying with these legal requirements and agreements. In addition,
    we plan to meet our commitments to the Defense Nuclear Facilities
    Safety Board. In several cases, we need to work closely with our
    regulators and the Board as well as our stakeholders and Tribal
    Nations, on the appropriate schedule and milestones for our program. We
    will continue to work to reduce costs and accelerate schedules so that
    we can meet our compliance requirements in the most practical and cost-
    effective manner.

    Accelerating Site Cleanup and Project Completion
        Complete More Site Cleanups.--In fiscal year 2001, we will continue
    to make progress toward the goal of cleaning up as many of the
    remaining contaminated sites as possible by 2006, safely and cost-
    effectively. At the start of fiscal year 1997, shortly after the EM
    program first established this goal, 61 of the 113 sites in the EM
    program required active cleanup. We now have completed cleanup at 69
    sites, and have 44 sites that still require active cleanup. We plan to
    complete cleanup at two additional sites this fiscal year and at three
    sites in fiscal year 2001--Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho,
    Monticello Remedial Action Project in Utah, and Grand Junction Site in
    Colorado. In fact, we are accelerating the cleanup at Grand Junction to
    2001 from 2002 as initially planned. We plan to reduce the number of
    cleanup sites remaining to 39 by the end of fiscal year 2001.
        Complete Vitrification of High-Level Waste at West Valley.--At the
    West Valley Demonstration Project in New York, we will achieve
    significant milestones in carrying out the Department's
    responsibilities at this once privately-owned commercial nuclear
    processing facility. We will complete high-level waste vitrification
    processing, producing the final five canisters, and begin deactivation
    of the vitrification facility. At the end of the vitrification
    campaign, the Department will have vitrified 600,000 gallons of liquid
    high-level waste, reducing risks to the workers and public by
    converting the waste into a stable form. We will also complete the
    shipment of all spent nuclear fuel to INEEL. Removing the 125 spent
    fuel elements from the spent fuel pool at West Valley is a prerequisite
    for decontamination and decommissioning of facilities.
        Make Progress Toward Closing Rocky Flats by 2006.--The budget
    request of $664.7 million supports closure of Rocky Flats by December
    15, 2006, the closure date targeted in the new cost-plus-incentive-fee
    contract with Kaiser-Hill that took effect February 1, 2000. The Rocky
    Flats site is the largest site challenged to accelerate site cleanup
    and achieve closure in 2006 and, to date, significant progress has been
    made toward making this goal a reality. Despite the many challenges
    facing the closure of Rocky Flats, we are confident that the terms and
    conditions of the closure contract, including the schedule and
    performance incentives, better position us to achieve our goal of
    realizing substantial savings and dramatic risk reduction through
    accelerated closure. Critical elements in the closure strategy are
    stable funding for the life of the project and the ability to move
    nuclear materials and radioactive wastes from the site, which requires
    that other sites--often DOE sites--are available and prepared to accept
    the materials. The coordination of these planned shipping campaigns to
    the receiver sites demonstrates the Department-wide commitment to the
    goal of achieving accelerated closure of Rocky Flats.
        In fiscal year 2000, we began operating under a baseline that
    supports closure in 2006, which replaced a baseline for completing
    cleanup in 2010, and our activities and schedules for fiscal year 2001
    are consistent with this baseline. Under this baseline, by the end of
    2001, we will:
      --complete 98 percent of plutonium residues packaging for shipment;
      --complete the draining of the liquid plutonium from the pipes in
            Building 771 and remove the pipes in preparation for
            demolishing the building;
      --complete 88 percent of plutonium metal and oxides packaging for
            shipment;
      --complete 80 percent of plutonium metal and oxides off-site
            shipments.
        The new closure contract, valued at nearly $4.0 billion plus
    incentive payments, requires Kaiser-Hill to submit a revised baseline
    reflecting the terms and conditions of the contract by the end of June
    2000. The specific activities detailed within the fiscal year 2001
    request will be adjusted pending review and acceptance of the new
    baseline.
        Under the new contract, the Department and Kaiser-Hill are better
    positioned to safely achieve site closure by 2006. We have clearly come
    a long way since the previous contractor estimated a few years ago that
    it would take $30 billion and 30 years to complete cleanup at Rocky
    Flats.
        Increase Shipments to WIPP.--The fiscal year 2001 budget request of
    $194.5 million, a $13 million increase over the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation, supports more shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP in
    New Mexico. The fiscal year 2001 request supports shipments of contact-
    handled transuranic waste at a rate of 13 shipments per week by the end
    of fiscal year 2001, a significant increase over the end-of-year rate
    of two shipments per week in fiscal year 1999, and five shipments per
    week in fiscal year 2000. The number of shipments will increase from
    about 120 in fiscal year 2000 to about 485 in fiscal year 2001, from
    Rocky Flats, Los Alamos, INEEL, Hanford, and the Savannah River Site.
    We will also be completing remote-handled transuranic waste equipment
    upgrades and regulatory submittals, in preparation for beginning
    remote-handled waste shipments in fiscal year 2002.
        Begin the Construction Phase of High-level Waste Treatment Facility
    at Hanford.--The fiscal year 2001 request provides $450 million in
    budget authority to support the privatization project to develop
    treatment facilities to vitrify at least 10 percent by volume of the 54
    million gallons of high-level waste now stored in underground tanks at
    the Hanford Site in Washington, a project managed by DOE's Office of
    River Protection. This significant increase over the request of $105.7
    million in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation anticipates a decision in
    fiscal year 2000 authorizing the contractor, BNFL, Inc., to proceed
    with the start of the construction phase for the facilities. The
    project is now in a phase in which the contractor will complete 30
    percent of the design process, obtain financing, and submit a fixed-
    price bid. The Department will evaluate the contractor's proposal, as
    well as determine whether all other critical elements, such as the
    delivery of the waste to the facility, are in place and ready to
    support the project and the schedule. Based on this in-depth
    evaluation, the Department will make a decision, expected in August
    2000, on whether to proceed. If the Department authorizes construction
    to proceed, the amount requested in fiscal year 2001 will allow the
    contractor to initiate long-lead procurements and begin construction.
        We are requesting less for fiscal year 2001 than previously
    indicated because design work has progressed at a slower pace than
    originally anticipated. We are confident that we will have sufficient
    design completed to make the authorization to proceed decision in
    August as scheduled, but we intend to develop a robust and complete
    design before beginning construction and long-lead procurement. As a
    result, construction and long-lead procurement activities will not be
    at the same pace in fiscal year 2001 as indicated previously. This
    approach will provide the Department and the Congress with additional
    confidence in the project before we move forward.
        In addition, we are requesting $382 million in traditional budget
    authority for the Office of River Protection, a $44 million increase
    from last year. This funding enables the Department to mitigate the
    hazards associated with the high-level waste in the tanks and safely
    maintain them. It also funds the preparation of the tank farm retrieval
    system that will deliver tank waste to the privatized treatment
    facility. The schedule for developing the waste delivery system and
    preparing waste must be fully integrated with the privatized facility
    schedule in order for the treatment to begin on time. We will be
    determining the readiness of this waste feed system when making the
    decision next August regarding the authorization-to-proceed with a
    treatment facility. This part of the project will continue to be funded
    through traditional budget authority, as reflected in this year's
    request.
        Accelerate Cleanup at Portsmouth and Paducah.--Our fiscal year 2001
    budget request responds to concerns raised by investigations by DOE's
    Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) about the pace of
    cleanup, and fulfills the Secretary's commitment to seek additional
    funds to accelerate cleanup of environmental contamination at the
    gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio.
    This also meets the recommendations in the Conference Report for the
    fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to
    substantially increase funding for cleanup of these two sites. These
    plants were used to enrich uranium for defense and energy purposes and
    were transferred to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation in 1998.
        The Department is requesting $78 million for Paducah in fiscal year
    2001, nearly $24 million more than in fiscal year 2000 and almost a
    two-fold increase from the appropriation in fiscal year 1999. These
    funds will allow us to complete the removal of ``Drum Mountain,'' a
    large scrap pile containing thousands of drums, which is a suspected
    source of contamination of the Big and Little Bayou Creeks from surface
    run-off. We will remove the remaining 51,000 tons of contaminated scrap
    metal stored in outside storage areas, allowing characterization of the
    ground underneath the piles. The funds will be used to continue
    stabilization activities in two shut down buildings. We will also be
    able to characterize and dispose of the remaining 9,000 drums of low-
    level radioactive waste, some of which are currently stored in
    deteriorating drums, and ship 2,000 drums of mixed waste to an off-site
    disposal facility. These activities address specific concerns raised by
    the EH investigation team.
        The request provides $76.2 million for cleanup activities at the
    Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, about $30 million more than in
    fiscal year 2000. This funding will allow the site to complete final
    corrective actions for the groundwater plumes on the south side of the
    site containing such chemical contaminants as polychlorinated byphenyls
    (PCBs), trichloroethylene (TCE), and chromium and begin design and
    construction for soil and groundwater contamination on the north side.
    We will also dispose of contaminated soil and accelerate
    characterization and disposal of mixed hazardous and radioactive waste.
    The increased funding will keep us on track with completing
    environmental restoration activities by fiscal year 2002 and waste
    management activities by fiscal year 2006.
        We also have submitted a supplemental request for $16 million in
    fiscal year 2000 to accelerate work at the Portsmouth and Paducah
    plants. We appreciate this Subcommittee's favorable consideration of
    our request.
        Make Progress Toward Closure at Ohio Sites.--At the Fernald
    Environmental Management Project, we will continue accelerating closure
    of this former uranium production facility. We will place a permanent
    cap on Cell 1 of the On-site Disposal Facility using an innovative
    capping technology. This facility, designed to have seven cells with an
    option for an eighth, is enabling us to accelerate disposal of
    contaminated soil and debris resulting from cleanup and building
    demolition.
        At the Mound Plant in Ohio, we will accelerate tritium
    decontamination in buildings on the ``critical path'' to closure,
    completing decontamination of three of eight acres in the Semi-Works
    building, one of three significant contaminated buildings that comprise
    the tritium complex. We will also continue demolition of surplus
    buildings. Of the 107 buildings to be removed from the site,
    approximately 50 percent will be either demolished or auctioned off by
    fiscal year 2001.
        Begin Work at the Uranium Mill Tailings Site in Moab.--The budget
    request also includes a proposal that the Department undertake cleanup
    of a uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah, formerly owned by the
    now-bankrupt Atlas Corporation. The tailings contain low-levels of
    radioactivity from uranium, radium and their decay products, as well as
    hazardous constituents that present a small but continuing risk for
    contamination of the Colorado River. There have been concerns expressed
    by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as local communities and
    downstream states, about the risks posed to the river. Located next to
    the river, the site is in a major tourist area because of its proximity
    to two National Parks. The Department believes it is important to
    preserve these national treasures and restore the environment. Our
    experience with cleanup of older uranium mill tailings sites, many of
    which were located along streams and rivers, makes the Department well-
    suited to this task. We are proposing to work with Congress to develop
    legislation that would direct the Department to undertake this $200 to
    $300 million cleanup project to relocate and stabilize the Moab
    tailings at a secure site, away from the river. We are requesting $10
    million in fiscal year 2001 in the non-defense account to initiate
    activities at this site.

    Strengthening Project Management
        Project management principles and practices provide the discipline
    for EM to achieve its cleanup goals efficiently. To effectively oversee
    and manage our contractor workforce, we must be knowledgeable of and
    employ state-of-the-industry project management practices. I have
    created an Office of Project Management within EM to set project
    management policies and procedures, conduct independent project
    reviews, and train our staff in project management practices. This
    office is working with organizations such as the Construction Industry
    Institute, the Project Management Institute, and the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, to bring state-of-the-art project
    management tools and training into the EM program to enable us to
    better manage our projects.
        Many of our sites have improved their project baselines and project
    management practices in the last year. The Oak Ridge Operations Office
    completed a comprehensive revision of their baselines that provides the
    most complete and thorough baselines to date for their sites. The Idaho
    Operations Office implemented a process for re-estimating about half of
    their baselines, resulting in higher confidence in their estimates. A
    new baseline for the project at the Hanford site to move spent nuclear
    fuel from the aging K-Basins to safer, dry storage was established in
    fiscal year 1999 that provided the first realistic and achievable cost
    and schedule to accomplish the transfer of the fuel. The Rocky Flats
    site revised its baseline to reflect a 2006 closure rather than the
    2010 closure date in last year's baseline. Additional improvements in
    baselines are under way this year at Idaho and Rocky Flats with
    selected improvements elsewhere.
        Over the past year we have developed and implemented a system of
    internal controls. We are requiring that all work be organized into
    discrete projects and that baselines be documented, and have
    established a change-control system. EM has re-instituted a rigorous
    ``change-control'' and critical decision process with defined
    thresholds for approval to enable us to better control our projects.
    Finally, I am formalizing quarterly reviews of major systems and other
    high visibility projects.
        The Department has created the Office of Engineering and
    Construction Management within the Office of the Chief Financial
    Officer to provide a Department-wide focus on project management
    policies, tools, and procedures. EM is working closely with this office
    to develop and implement a new DOE Order governing project management.
    Included in this Order will be enhanced policies on change control,
    critical decision approval by the Deputy Secretary for Major Systems,
    quarterly project reviews, and monthly project performance reporting.

    Integrating Waste and Materials Management
        Sharing information and the unique capabilities for managing and
    treating nuclear wastes and materials at many of our sites is critical
    to our success. Our integration initiative seeks to consolidate
    treatment, storage and disposal facilities and use available capacity
    rather than construct new facilities; apply innovative technologies at
    multiple sites; and apply lessons learned and site successes complex-
    wide.
        We have several key initiatives to facilitate site closure by
    moving materials to other sites for interim storage, with requested
    funds supporting the necessary activities in both the receiving and the
    sending sites. The Department has made substantial progress in
    consolidating storage of certain special nuclear materials from the
    Rocky Flats site in Colorado. In fiscal year 1999, Rocky Flats
    completed shipments of plutonium weapons pits to the Pantex Plant in
    Texas and highly enriched uranium to the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge,
    Tennessee. Rocky Flats also began shipments of plutonium scrub alloy to
    the Savannah River Site in South Carolina in fiscal year 1999; we will
    complete these shipments this year. This consolidation of nuclear
    materials has supported our 2006 closure goal for Rocky Flats and
    reduced the cost of maintaining security for the remaining special
    nuclear materials. The Department is also preparing to ship containers
    of excess plutonium to the Savannah River Site for storage in modified
    K-Reactor Area facilities. These shipments are scheduled to begin in
    fiscal year 2000.
        The Department has made progress in identifying sites that will
    treat and dispose of similar waste generated by sites across the DOE
    complex. In December 1999, after extensive technical analyses and
    consultation with state representatives and other stakeholders, we
    announced our site preferences for disposal of DOE low-level and mixed
    low-level waste based on the Waste Management Programmatic
    Environmental Impact Statement. This allowed us to complete a formal
    Record of Decision in February 2000 on low-level and mixed low-level
    waste treatment and disposal facilities, after further consultations
    with the affected states. The decisions, when implemented, will result
    in more efficient waste disposal operations as well as development of
    capabilities that do not currently exist. These capabilities are needed
    to move waste from storage to disposal and support cleanup and closure
    of sites. The Department also has 340,000 cubic meters of high-level
    waste at four sites, and is storing spent fuel at a number of sites.
    These will be safely stored until a geological repository is available.
    The Department is now evaluating the suitability of Yucca Mountain in
    Nevada as a repository.
        The opening of WIPP in New Mexico for disposal operations in March
    1999 provides a good example of the benefits of integration. For
    decades a large amount of transuranic waste has been stored at about
    two dozen sites across the United States. Beginning disposal operations
    at WIPP provides a means for the Department to permanently dispose of
    this long-lived radioactive waste while reducing the number of sites
    where this waste is stored. WIPP is critical for closing sites like
    Rocky Flats; for meeting compliance obligations for more than a dozen
    other sites, including the Idaho Settlement Agreement; and for reducing
    storage costs and risks to the public. In October 1999, the State of
    New Mexico Environment Department issued a final hazardous waste permit
    that became effective in November 1999. The permit allows WIPP to
    dispose of mixed transuranic waste. The Department is working to
    implement the permit while challenging several provisions that we
    believe are inappropriate, such as financial assurance requirements and
    certain technical requirements. It is critical that these issues are
    successfully resolved so that our waste management commitments and
    goals for WIPP can be met. From March 26, 1999, when WIPP began
    disposal operations until November 1999 when shipments were temporarily
    stopped to align the program with requirements in the newly-issued RCRA
    permit, WIPP received 44 shipments of non-mixed waste from three
    sites--Los Alamos, Rocky Flats, and INEEL.
        Finally, the transport of radioactive waste and material between
    sites is critical to the success of our integration priorities. Our
    transportation program, which successfully moved spent nuclear fuel
    containing U.S. enriched uranium from research reactors around the
    world to the U.S. for safe storage, is applying its success to other
    DOE shipments. EM is working with other DOE program offices and with
    the sites to develop a corporate strategy that will enable us to
    identify future packaging and transportation needs, to support
    aggressive shipping schedules, and to utilize our transportation assets
    more efficiently.

    Building Public Confidence
        We have found that performing good technical work is not enough.
    Getting the job done requires cooperation with regulators and others
    outside of DOE that have a stake in our actions. By working
    cooperatively with regulators, stakeholders, local communities and the
    Tribal Nations, we have improved the efficiency of the EM program and
    have been able to meet our regulatory commitments in a more efficient
    and cost-effective way. Our request continues support for effective
    public participation through continued relationships with states, site-
    specific and national advisory boards, and Indian tribes potentially
    affected by our activities.

    Developing Effective Long-Term Stewardship
        As the Department completes stabilization, cleanup and disposal of
    waste, we must consider the next and final stage in the cleanup
    process: meeting our enduring environmental protection obligations
    through long-term stewardship. At most sites the Department is
    performing cleanup that will make the land available for other uses,
    but not necessarily unrestricted use, because of the presence of
    residual contaminants or deliberate entombment of waste or facilities.
    The Department has been completing cleanup that results in substantial
    risk and maintenance cost reductions. Similar to the cleanup of private
    sites, cleanup to levels allowing for unrestricted use often cannot be
    achieved at DOE sites for economic or technical reasons and has not
    been demanded by regulators. The Department has been able to take
    advantage of the Superfund administrative reforms developed by the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow anticipated future land
    use to be considered in developing cleanup remedies.
        The goal of long-term stewardship is the sustainable protection of
    human health and the environment after cleanup, disposal or
    stabilization is completed. A robust long-term stewardship program
    emphasizes good project management, the value of applying the best
    science and technology to manage residual hazards, and increasing
    public confidence through effective involvement of state and local
    governments, Tribal Nations, and stakeholders in long-term stewardship
    decision making. A reliable long-term stewardship program can also
    provide confidence to regulators and the public that non-removal
    remedies are acceptable because the Department can be trusted to care
    for the sites after the waste is contained in place.
        Most of the explicit long-term stewardship activities in the field
    are conducted by our staff in Grand Junction, Colorado. This office is
    responsible for long-term stewardship at approximately 30 sites across
    the United States in fiscal year 2000. These sites range from large
    uranium mill tailings sites (mostly in Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and New
    Mexico), former nuclear weapons productions facilities (e.g., Pinellas,
    Florida), and commercial nuclear fuel cycle facilities (e.g., AMAX in
    Parkersburg, West Virginia) that did work for the federal government.
        During the past year, the Department has taken action to strengthen
    its long-term stewardship program. First, we increased the budget for
    long-term stewardship to respond to the greater demand resulting from
    the completion of more cleanups. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request
    for the long-term stewardship program, managed by our Grand Junction
    Office, is more than $5 million, an increase of approximately 60
    percent over the fiscal year 2000 budget level. The budget largely
    reflects the expected transition of new responsibilities to the Grand
    Junction Office for long-term stewardship of the Monticello and Weldon
    Spring sites when they complete cleanup. This funding will provide
    continued cost-effective stewardship of approximately 35 sites in 2001,
    which is more than a 50 percent increase since 1999, when Grand
    Junction managed 25 sites. This funding will enable us to comply with
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) permit requirements for long-term
    surveillance and maintenance for closed uranium mill tailings sites, as
    well as for increased responsibilities under Superfund and hazardous
    waste laws for protecting human health and the environment at several
    additional sites where closure occurred with residual contamination in
    place.
        Second, we recently established an Office of Long-Term Stewardship
    at our Headquarters office. The office is addressing these emerging
    challenges with responsibility for field guidance and policy
    development, technical analysis, and identification of science and
    technology needs. While this may be the first office addressing long-
    term stewardship in the federal government, I would suggest to you that
    it will not be the last. This is because the issues we are grappling
    with are not unique to the Department of Energy. This new office is
    located within and funded through our Office of Science and Technology.
    This reflects the fact that we intend to continue investing in science
    and technology to help ensure that the protections provided by our
    remedies can be maintained as cost-effectively as possible for the
    necessary duration.
        There are a number of activities that this office will complete by
    the end of this year that will help establish the basis for a stronger
    long-term stewardship program. First, EM is responding to the mandate
    in the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to
    report to Congress by October 1, 2000, on the Department's long-term
    stewardship responsibilities. This report will provide the best
    available information on the cost, scope, and schedule for long-term
    stewardship at sites and portions of sites in sufficient detail to
    undertake the necessary stewardship responsibilities.
        Third, we are preparing a study on long-term stewardship pursuant
    to the lawsuit settlement agreement (Natural Resource Defense Council,
    et. al. v. Richardson, et. al., Civ. No. 97-963 (SS) (D.D.C. Dec. 12,
    1998)). The study will address national, programmatic, and cross-
    cutting issues related to long-term stewardship.
        The management system required for performing long-term stewardship
    as cost-effectively as possible will likely build on the existing EM
    system. However, there may also be an additional need for new
    technologies, new contracting mechanisms, and new specialized personnel
    to ensure reliable and cost-effective long-term stewardship. This is
    what we are now examining as we accelerate our efforts to complete
    cleanup and close more sites, which in turn will require more long-term
    stewardship.

    Solving Problems Through Science and Technology
        Our investments in science and technology are providing the
    scientific knowledge and new technologies necessary to help us reduce
    the cost and time frame of the complex-wide cleanup effort, and enable
    us to tackle cleanup problems that had no effective solutions. We are
    requesting $196.5 million in fiscal year 2001 for investments in both
    basic and applied research. These funds will target our highest
    priority needs and will be applied across the spectrum of science and
    technology work from basic research through deployment among EM's five
    major problem areas: mixed waste, high-level tank waste, subsurface
    contamination, deactivation and decommissioning, and nuclear materials.
        Our science and technology program has made a significant impact on
    how we conduct our cleanup operations. Over 75 percent of the
    approximately 250 innovative solutions made available for use over the
    past ten years are making real on-the-ground contributions. For
    instance:
      --Site characterization represents a large portion of the cost for
            environmental restoration activities. We now have very
            sophisticated, safe methods to identify, characterize, quantify
            and monitor contamination.
      --New remotely operated machines now exist to perform work in
            conditions that are too hazardous for humans, such as inside
            radioactive waste tanks.
      --Among the new technologies making a difference is a process that
            uses a concentrated caustic solution to dissolve and remove
            large quantities of unwanted nonradioactive elements in the
            sludge, thereby decreasing waste volume (Enhanced Sludge
            Washing). This process has been selected as the technology to
            be used to pretreat Hanford tank sludges where it is expected
            to avoid $4.8 billion in costs compared to other technology
            choices.
      --An in-ground ``wall'' of iron filings (Permeable Reactive Treatment
            Wall) has been installed at the Kansas City Plant and
            Monticello Uranium Mill Site to remove contaminants from
            groundwater as the water passes through the ``wall.'' This
            eliminates the need for a more costly ``pump and treat''
            system.
      --A third Passive Reactive Barrier is in place in the Solar Ponds at
            Rocky Flats to destroy nitrates and remove uranium from
            groundwater; compared against a thirty-year pump-and-treat
            baseline, this technology will save more than an estimated $20
            million. Other reactive barriers deployed at Rocky Flats have
            been designed to destroy chlorinated solvents and capture
            radionuclides.
      --Optimized use of the existing re-injection well network at the
            Fernald site in Ohio will enable the site to accelerate
            groundwater remediation. It may enable us to complete
            groundwater remediation as much as 17 years ahead of schedule,
            potentially saving the Department up to $50 million.
        EM's science and technology program is also now providing on-the-
    ground technical assistance, sending some of our top scientists out of
    the laboratory and into the field to help with specific technical
    problems. Our first formal technical assistance effort was to identify
    solutions for groundwater remediation at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
    Plant in Kentucky. The federally-led team, including four national
    laboratories, responded quickly and produced a strong plan for
    aggressive remediation of the contaminants in the groundwater and the
    soil. It is my intention to continue this approach to ensure our
    cleanup efforts are based on technically defensible decisions.
        We are also pleased with the progress of our EM Science Program
    (EMSP), which is conducted in partnership with DOE's Office of Science.
    Since its inception in fiscal year 1996, EMSP has invested over $224
    million in support of 274 research projects. Our open, competitive
    approach has ensured the highest caliber of research involving 90
    universities, 13 national laboratories, and 22 other governmental and
    private laboratories. Research is being conducted in 34 states and the
    District of Columbia, two Canadian provinces, Australia, Russia, the
    United Kingdom, and the Czech Republic. Our efforts are already
    providing some encouraging results. For instance, a high-level waste
    research project, being led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
    focuses on determining the effect of radiation on the stability of
    glasses and ceramics at an atomic, microscopic and macroscopic level.
    Because these materials are an integral part of the planning for the
    final waste forms of a number of DOE waste streams, an understanding of
    how radioactive materials influence their long-term stability is
    critical in material selection.
        The increasing number of deployments of new technologies to solve
    real cleanup problems demonstrates that the field is recognizing their
    value. Preliminary data, now being verified, indicate that during
    fiscal year 1999, DOE sites used innovative technologies 218 times in
    cleanup activities, 129 of which were first uses by the site. Of these
    deployments, 166 were science and technology-sponsored technologies.
    This is a definite and dramatic improvement over previous years. Since
    the inception of this program, we have seen nearly 450 deployments at
    DOE sites of 194 new technologies that were sponsored by EM's science
    and technology program. The accelerated site technology deployment
    effort initiated in fiscal year 1998 has contributed to these increased
    deployments. A total of 47 projects have been initiated that involve a
    total of 92 technologies. From a total life-cycle EM investment of $300
    million, we estimate $1.5 billion in life-cycle savings. Selections for
    new projects for fiscal year 2000 will be announced in March.
        To help ensure that this upward deployment trend continues, the
    Department is in the process of evaluating contracts with our site
    contractors to provide better incentives for them to use innovative
    technologies. We believe contract incentives, coupled with the
    integration of our technology developers and users, will ensure that
    the innovative technology we are providing is used to accomplish our
    cleanup goals cheaper, faster and safely.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, the Department is making progress in cleaning up the
    legacy of contamination left from the nuclear weapons production
    process. We are reducing our most serious risks, accelerating and
    finishing cleanup at sites across the country, safely storing and
    safeguarding weapons-usable nuclear materials, and reducing the long-
    term costs of the program. We will continue to improve our project
    management, make the most effective use of our unique resources across
    the DOE complex, use science and technology to reduce costs and
    schedules, and maintain our focus on worker safety. We pledge to
    continue to work closely and cooperatively with the Congress to ensure
    that this progress continues and that we can meet the challenges ahead
    in the most effective way.

               APPENDIX A--SUMMARY OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET

        The total fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of
    Energy's Environmental Management Program is $5.8 billion in
    traditional budget authority and $515 million of privatization funding.
    The fiscal year 2001 appropriation will fund cleanup at sites in 19
    states across the Nation. Five sites receive two-thirds of
    Environmental Management funding--Savannah River Site in South
    Carolina, the Richland Operations Office Hanford Site and Office of
    River Protection at the Hanford Site in Washington, Rocky Flats in
    Colorado, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in
    Idaho, and Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
        We are requesting $4,551.5 million in Defense Environmental
    Restoration and Waste Management (including $420 million for the
    Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
    Decommissioning Fund); $1,082.3 million in the Defense Facilities
    Closure Projects; and $515 million in Defense Environmental Management
    Privatization. This totals $5,633.8 million in traditional budget
    authority and $515 million for privatization funding in the Defense
    accounts. The current appropriations levels in fiscal year 2000 are
    $4,467.3 million in Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
    Management; $1,060.4 million in the Defense Facilities Closure
    Projects; and $188.3 million in Defense Environmental Management
    Privatization.
        Our fiscal year 2001 budget proposal provides details on each
    project, including performance measures, which we use to hold managers
    accountable, and expect to be held accountable by Congress. We would
    like to summarize the budget request and some major activities for
    several sites:
        1. Savannah River Site, South Carolina
        2. Hanford Site, Washington
        --Office of River Protection
        --Richland Operations Office
        3. Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado
        4. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho
        5. Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee
        6. Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio
        7. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico
        8. West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York
        9. Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico
        10. Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound), Ohio
        11. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky
        12. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio
        13. Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada
        14. Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Missouri
        15. Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York
        16. California Sites.

    Savannah River Site, South Carolina Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $452,871
    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................  814,013
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................1,266,884
    Pension Fund Offset...........................................  (50,000)
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................1,216,884

        The Savannah River Site continues its work to stabilize legacy
    nuclear materials and spent fuel from both the Savannah River Site and
    other sites across the complex, including plutonium residues and other
    plutonium-bearing materials from the Rocky Flats site in Colorado. This
    work is critical to resolve health and safety concerns, since these
    radioactive materials are now in liquid or unstable forms unsuitable
    for long-term storage, and to support closure goals at Rocky Flats. It
    is being carried out in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
    Board recommendations. In July 1997, the Secretary of Energy approved
    the operation of both the F-Canyon and H-Canyon for the stabilization
    of ``at-risk'' nuclear materials. In fiscal year 1999, these canyons
    stabilized plutonium residues and other nuclear materials. Activities
    were begun to characterize and repackage the Savannah River Site
    plutonium residues for stabilization.
        In fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, we will continue to
    operate the two canyons as well as FB-Line, 235-F, and HB-Line to
    stabilize plutonium-bearing materials and spent nuclear fuel. The
    budget request also includes activities associated with future
    vitrification of americium/curium solutions and, as discussed
    previously, the Highly Enriched Uranium Blend Down Project.
        We are not requesting funding for the Actinide Packaging and
    Storage Facility in fiscal year 2001. In light of the 1999 decision by
    the Department identifying Savannah River Site as the preferred
    location for new missions related to excess plutonium disposition, we
    have decided to temporarily suspend work on this facility until we can
    reevaluate the site's overall requirements and options to ensure, for
    example, that any facility developed is properly sized and integrated
    with other facilities, given these new missions. We are, however,
    continuing modification of facilities in the K-Area and are ready to
    receive surplus plutonium-bearing materials from Rocky Flats supporting
    the accelerated closure of that site.
        Much of the EM work at the Savannah River Site that will be
    completed after fiscal year 2006 involves management of approximately
    34 million gallons of high-level waste in tanks, including vitrifying
    waste for final disposal and removing waste from storage tanks so the
    tanks can be closed. In fiscal year 1999, the Savannah River Site
    workers closed another storage tank, removing waste and backfilling
    with grout, and produced 236 canisters of vitrified waste in the
    Defense Waste processing Facility (DWPF), 36 canisters above their
    fiscal year 1999 goal. As of February 2000, we had a total of 775
    canisters of vitrified waste in storage. The DWPF goal for production
    of canisters in fiscal year 2001 is 200.
        Due to the long-term nature of this project, we are able to develop
    and insert new and innovative technologies in the high level waste
    treatment train. We are currently moving forward with technologies that
    will make it easier to retrieve waste, to improve the way we
    decontaminate our canisters once they are filled, to reduce worker
    exposure through use of high efficiency filters that can be regenerated
    and reused, and to increase waste loading. These advances will allow
    DWPF to operate more efficiently and ensure that our goals for
    increasing canister production are realized.
        In-Tank Precipitation operations were terminated in January 1998
    because we were unable to successfully pre-treat the waste and limit
    the levels of benzene generation in the tanks to safe and manageable
    levels. Pre-treatment of the waste is necessary to separate the high-
    activity and low-activity wastes, in order to minimize the amount of
    waste that must be vitrified and disposed in a deep geologic
    repository. We undertook a systems engineering analysis, which was
    reviewed by a panel of independent experts, to evaluate all possible
    alternatives. The Department will continue research and development in
    fiscal year 2001 on technology alternatives to support a decision on
    which technology to pursue.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request continues support for receipt
    and storage at the Savannah River Site of spent nuclear fuel from
    domestic and foreign research reactors in support of national and
    international non-proliferation goals. In fiscal year 2001, we expect
    to receive 49 casks of spent nuclear fuel from foreign and domestic
    sources and safely store them at the Savannah River Site's basins. By
    the end of fiscal year 2001, we expect to have received almost one-
    third of the spent fuel assemblies that we know other countries plan to
    return.
        We will also continue to treat and reduce our legacy of mixed and
    low-level waste at the site through continued operation of the
    Consolidated Incinerator Facility (473 cubic meters will be treated in
    fiscal year 2001). The first shipment of Savannah River Site
    transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will occur in
    September 2000; four additional shipments are scheduled for fiscal year
    2001.
        We will also continue to aggressively pursue the use of new
    technology to characterize and cleanup contaminated release sites and
    ground waste plumes. We are using the Vadose Zone Monitoring System to
    determine how fast and in what concentration contaminants are traveling
    to the ground water. This approach provides sensitive early warning of
    aquifer contamination from the E-Area shallow disposal trenches. In
    fiscal year 2000 we will deploy a steam injection system, recently used
    at our Portsmouth site, to destroy chlorinated solvents beneath the
    321-M Solvent Storage Area. This could replace the technology currently
    being used at the site and reduce the time of cleanup by more than 20
    years. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete remediation of one release
    site and assessments for eight others. We will also operate eight
    groundwater remediation systems.
        Finally, scientists and engineers at the Savannah River Site have
    been collaborating to develop a cost-effective path forward for some of
    the spent fuel through research and development of new technologies.
    This work is helping to address one of our most daunting problems--how
    to manage spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear materials without
    chemical separations. Our investment in the Alternative Technology
    Program has shown progress. A draft Environmental Impact Statement
    (EIS) identifying the ``melt-and-dilute'' process as the preferred
    alternative technology to prepare aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel for
    geologic disposal was issued in December 1998, and a final EIS is
    expected to be issued in March 2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget
    contains funds for the construction and startup of the L-Area
    Experimental Facility to demonstrate the viability of the melt and
    dilute process which will provide a firm basis for the design and
    construction of the full-scale facility. As other countries begin to
    address similar problems, these new U.S.-developed technologies will be
    available to help.

    Hanford Site, Washington--Office of River Protection, Fiscal Year 2001
    Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................  $382,139
    Defense, Privatization........................................   450,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   832,139

    Richland Operations Office--Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Site/Project Completion..............................  $349,467
    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................   375,313
    Non-defense, Site/Project Completion..........................     1,500
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   726,280

        The Hanford Site in Washington remains perhaps our greatest cleanup
    challenge. The 560-square mile site was carved out of a broad curve of
    the Columbia River during World War II. It is now the nation's largest
    former nuclear weapons production site, and the cleanup of the Hanford
    Site is the largest, most technically complex, environmental cleanup
    project yet undertaken. The site contains large amounts of spent
    nuclear fuel, unstable weapons grade plutonium, 177 underground tanks
    containing 54 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste tanks,
    and more than 100 square miles of contaminated ground water. It is
    important not to lose sight of the successes and accomplishments that
    have occurred despite the serious remaining challenges. We believe that
    our fiscal year 2001 budget request for Hanford addresses the
    requirements for continued cleanup progress.
        Following Congressional direction in the Strom Thurmond National
    Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999, the Department
    established the Office of River Protection (ORP) in December 1998. ORP
    is responsible for all aspects of the Tank Waste Remediation System--to
    store, treat, and immobilize the high-level radioactive Hanford Site
    tank waste in a sound, safe, and cost effective manner. Roles,
    responsibilities, and authorities for ORP are more fully specified in
    the Integrated Management Plan submitted to Congress in January 1999.
    The ORP reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental
    Management.
        The Richland Operations Office manages all aspects of the Hanford
    Site except the Tank Waste Remediation Program.
    Office of River Protection
        ORP works with the Richland Operations Office to protect the health
    and safety of the public, workers, and the environment and to control
    hazardous materials to protect the Columbia River. Under the Defense
    Environmental Management, Post 2006 Completion account, ORP manages the
    Tank Waste Remediation System Project located on the central plateau
    (200 Area) of the Hanford Site. Treatment of the tank waste will be
    performed in two phases. Phase I will provide treatment for at least 10
    percent of the waste by volume and 20 to 25 percent of the
    radioactivity in the tanks and is being carried out by a contractor on
    a fixed price for services basis (privatization). The storage,
    retrieval, and disposition of the waste will be managed by ORP using a
    conventional cost reimbursement contract. In August 1998, the
    Department of Energy signed a contract with BNFL, Inc. that allowed for
    an initial 24-month period to enable the contractor to develop more of
    the design for the treatment facility and to obtain financing and
    submit a fixed-price bid.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Department will decide whether to
    authorize BNFL, Inc. to proceed to construction and operation, based on
    an evaluation of whether the proposal represents the best value for the
    taxpayer. To date, pilot testing has provided strong technical
    confirmation of pretreatment and vitrification capabilities. DOE and
    BNFL, Inc. have reached preliminary agreement on pricing methodology
    and major contractual terms. Financing of the project appears viable
    based on in depth discussions with financial institutions. BNFL, Inc.
    has mobilized a design and engineering team of over 600 people to
    support the privatization effort.
        Management of 177 underground high-level waste tanks remains one of
    the biggest challenges at the Hanford site. We have made significant
    progress in reducing the urgent risks associated with these tanks. The
    high heat safety issue was resolved in tank C-106 by diluting the waste
    and transferring it to a larger double-shell tank with a higher heat
    removal capacity. The surface level rise issue was resolved in tank SY-
    101 by dissolving the crust on the surface of the waste through a
    series of waste transfers and back dilutions. Elimination of the crust
    will reduce the retention of flammable concentrations of gas in SY-101.
    We signed a Consent Decree with the State of Washington which
    established a schedule for interim stabilization of the single-shell
    tanks. To date, we have met all Consent Decree milestones, which
    includes initiating pumping of free liquids from six single-shell
    tanks. The contract for maintenance and operations of the tank farms,
    which will provide waste feed to the privatized treatment facility, has
    been placed directly under ORP.
        For fiscal year 2001, ORP will continue improving tank safety by
    resolving high priority safety issues such as flammable gas generation
    and by transferring free liquids from single-shell tanks to double-
    shell tanks in accordance with the Consent Decree schedule. The
    remaining two tanks which are suspected of having leaked will be pumped
    during fiscal year 2001. In addition, design and construction will
    continue on tank farm retrieval systems and other infrastructure
    improvements necessary to support future waste feed delivery to the
    privatized treatment facility. One of these improvements is the use of
    a multi-function corrosion probe. This probe reduces the amount of
    sodium hydroxide that needs to be added to inhibit corrosion by
    allowing site workers to directly monitor the rate of tank corrosion.
    The potential savings from the use of this technology is in excess of
    $100 million.
        The fiscal year 2001 request for $450 million in privatization
    funding will be used to maintain momentum on high-level waste treatment
    design, initiate actions to proceed with long lead project procurement
    and construction, manage the project, and meet contractual commitments
    in the unlikely event of a termination of the privatization contract.
    It will provide the contractor and the financial community with
    assurance that costs incurred to mobilize the team, secure financing,
    and demobilize the team in the event of a contract termination will be
    fully supported.
    Richland Operations Office
        The goals for the Hanford Site are the restoration of the Columbia
    River corridor (the majority of the Hanford land, including the river
    shoreline); transition of Hanford's 200 Area ``central plateau'' to
    long-term waste treatment and storage; and utilization of the
    government's Hanford assets, including land, cleanup technologies, and
    experience for the taxpayers.
        The Department is continuing to remediate waste sites and dispose
    of the contaminated soil and debris in the Environmental Restoration
    Disposal Facility (ERDF). In fiscal year 1999, ERDF received over
    320,000 cubic meters of contaminated soil and debris from cleanup sites
    along the Columbia River corridor. In fiscal year 2000 ERDF will
    receive over 170,000 cubic meters to complete interim closure of Cells
    1 and 2, and will complete construction of new cells 3 and 4.
        We are also pursuing the use of innovative technology to solve
    problems in the subsurface. In 1999, we deployed the In-Situ Redox
    Manipulation (ISRM) technology to treat groundwater contaminated with
    chromium. ISRM creates a chemically altered treatment zone in the
    subsurface to reduce the mobility of chromium. This technology is
    expected to save more than $6 million compared to the pump-and-treat
    technology that the site had planned to use.
        In fiscal year 1999, we restarted stabilization of plutonium oxides
    at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. In fiscal year 2000, stabilization
    activities will be expanded to begin stabilization of plutonium-bearing
    solutions and residues, as well as the continuation of plutonium oxide
    stabilization. Stabilization activities will eliminate the risk posed
    by the plutonium bearing materials and is a critical step in the
    deactivation of Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will significantly
    reduce mortgage costs at Hanford.
        In addition, we continue to decommission the reactor facilities in
    the 100 Area through the Interim Safe Storage Project. In fiscal year
    1999, the D and DR reactor stacks were demolished, and F and DR reactor
    decommissioning is proceeding ahead of schedule. In fiscal year 2000
    and 2001, decommissioning activities will continue at the DR and F
    reactors as well as at the 233-S Plutonium Concentration Facility.
        The Spent Nuclear Fuel Project will complete fuel retrieval,
    drying, transport, and storage system testing in fiscal year 2000.
    Additionally, non-mixed transuranic waste has been prepared for
    shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and the shipments will be
    initiated in fiscal year 2000.
        In addition, our fiscal year 2001 budget request supports a number
    of key commitments, including:
      --Begin K-West Basin spent fuel removal, drying, and transport to the
            Canister Storage Building for dry storage. This effort will
            begin to remediate one of the highest risks at the Hanford Site
            posed by the fuel stored in the aging K Basins near the
            Columbia River.
      --Complete 13 waste site remediations in the Hanford 100 and 300
            Areas, and send 240,025 cubic meters of contaminated soil and
            debris to ERDF.
      --Complete 12 shipments of 55 cubic meters of transuranic waste to
            the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal.
      --Initiate and complete thermal treatment of 717 cubic meters of
            mixed low-level waste at a contract facility.
      --The Hanford Site Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration Project will
            implement the high-priority Science and Technology activities
            identified in fiscal year 2000.
      --Complete stabilization of 2,045 liters (cumulative total of 2,316
            of 4,300 liters) of plutonium-bearing solutions and 500
            containers (cumulative total of 1,050 of 5,845 containers) of
            plutonium metals and oxides at the Plutonium Finishing Plant.
      --Begin operations of the bagless transfer system for packaging of
            plutonium-bearing materials, and complete brushing and
            repackaging of plutonium metal inventory at the Plutonium
            Finishing Plant.

    Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado Fiscal Year 2001
    Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Facilities Closure Projects..........................  $664,675

        Almost two-thirds (61 percent) of the Defense Closure Account
    request supports accelerated cleanup at the Rocky Flats Site, a former
    nuclear weapons production facility located 16 miles northwest of
    Denver, Colorado. The site was used to shape plutonium and uranium
    weapons components and for other defense-related production work. The
    cleanup poses significant challenges because of the large amounts of
    plutonium and other compounds remaining in tanks and production lines,
    the significant volumes of hazardous and radioactive wastes stored
    throughout the site, and widespread contamination of soils, sediments,
    and groundwater.
        The Rocky Flats Site is one of the highlighted projects, and
    certainly the largest site, for our goal of accelerating site cleanup
    and closure by 2006. There are many challenges facing this project, but
    we are confident that by remaining focused on our goal we can produce
    substantial savings and provide dramatic risk reduction. We recently
    awarded Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C. a closure contract valued at approximately
    $4 billion (excluding incentive payments) to complete the closure of
    the site. The target closure date is December 15, 2006, although the
    contract includes incentives for accelerated completion and reduction
    in fee for any delay beyond the targeted end date. This contract became
    effective February 1, 2000, and Kaiser-Hill is in the process of
    developing a revised 2006 baseline which will reflect the provisions of
    the new cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. These provisions include cost
    and schedule incentives focused on ensuring the cleanup is conducted
    safely in full compliance with all safety, health, environmental, and
    safeguard and security requirements. The contract also stipulates an
    assumption that level funding at $657 million will be provided through
    December 2006. Under the contract terms, Kaiser-Hill is assuming more
    financial responsibility than any site management contractor in the
    history of DOE. Significant progress has been made over the past year
    to transition from the previous 2010 Closure Baseline to 2006 Closure
    Project Baseline submitted last May. However, this contract formalizes
    the Department's commitment to achieve the closure of Rocky Flats by
    the end of 2006, and better positions the Department and Kaiser-Hill to
    meet--or even exceed--this. We have clearly come a long way since the
    earlier estimates that it would take $30 billion and 30 years to
    complete cleanup at Rocky Flats.
        The key ingredient for closing Rocky Flats is being able to move
    nuclear materials and waste off of the site. Making progress in this
    critical area requires not only preparing the materials and waste for
    shipment, but also making sure that the receiving sites are ready. We
    have made some significant progress, such as exceeding our planned
    shipments of low-level and mixed-low level waste for offsite disposal
    in fiscal year 1999. Also, we initiated shipments of transuranic waste
    to WIPP, disposing of 65 cubic meters in fiscal year 1999, and we are
    expecting to receive approval from the New Mexico Environment
    Department to resume transuranic waste shipments under the RCRA Part B
    Permit very soon. Rocky Flats will be the first site to be certified by
    New Mexico as meeting the requirements of the permit. In total, there
    are nearly 15,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste and approximately
    100,000 kilograms of plutonium residues that need to be packaged and
    sent to WIPP. There are also approximately 2,300 containers of nuclear
    materials which must be shipped off site by the end of 2002 to allow
    for the closure of the Protected Area, a critical step in the 2006
    Closure Project Baseline.
        The Department has clearly made enormous progress both in reducing
    risks at the site, and in greatly improving our management plans for
    cleanup and closure. Approximately 35 metric tons of plutonium residues
    have been stabilized and/or repackaged to date, and we expect to
    stabilize or repackage 41 metric tons in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal
    year 1999 we completed the shipments of pits to Pantex and weapons-
    grade uranium to Y-12. We also shipped nearly half of the plutonium
    scrub alloy to Savannah River Site, and this campaign will soon be
    completed. Currently, we are continuing our preparations to initiate
    the shipment of plutonium metals and oxides to Savannah River for
    storage in the recently opened K-Area.
        We are making progress on demolishing buildings at Rocky Flats, not
    only reducing risks but also reducing mortgage costs required to
    maintain those excess buildings. The demolition of the Building 779
    cluster--which once held 133 contaminated glove boxes--was completed in
    early January. Our efforts to reduce risks and mortgages includes the
    use of innovative technology. For example, we are using new ways to
    stabilize and remove contamination using strippable coatings. These
    coatings are sprayed onto the surfaces of contaminated walls to reduce
    airborne contamination and worker exposure. In some cases airborne
    contamination is reduced by a factor of 900. In fiscal year 2000 we are
    moving forward with an automated robotic size reduction and packaging
    process. This technology which will be deployed in Building 776/777
    will improve worker safety and increase efficiency by allowing workers
    to remotely dismantle plutonium contaminated glove boxes.
        The fiscal year 2000 appropriation and fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for Rocky Flats ($664.7 million each year) fund the activities
    we have already identified as necessary for accelerated closure. We are
    committed to producing the following results:
      --Make significant progress in the decontamination and
            decommissioning of Building 771 by tapping, draining and
            removing remaining liquid process systems and dismantling, size
            reducing and packaging glove boxes, tanks and other equipment
            for shipment.
      --Ship nearly 8,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste offsite for
            disposal.
      --Process more than 16 metric tons of plutonium residues in
            preparation for safe disposition.
      --Package 960 containers of plutonium.
      --Ship over 1,000 containers of plutonium metals and oxides to the K-
            Area at the Savannah River Site.
        We are fully committed to maintaining our progress towards the
    accelerated cleanup at Rocky Flats, thereby reducing risk and long-term
    costs. We also understand the vital role of accelerated site closure to
    the community where commercial and residential development along the
    Denver-Boulder corridor has reached nearly to the fence line of Rocky
    Flats.

    Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Fiscal
    Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Site/Project Completion.............................. $100,692
    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................  348,711
    Non-defense, Site/Project Completion..........................    1,856
    Defense, Privatization........................................   90,092
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................  541,351
    Use of Prior Year Balances (Defense)..........................  (34,317)
    Use of Prior Year Balances (Privatization)....................  (25,092)
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   481,942

        The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Idaho National
    Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) supports the receipt
    and safe interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, including Naval and
    domestic and foreign research fuel; the storage and treatment of high
    level waste in 11 underground tanks; the cleanup of six ``release
    sites,'' or contaminated areas, and two surplus facilities; and the
    management of legacy waste, including transuranic waste to be shipped
    to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Many of the critical
    activities at the site are in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
    signed with the State of Idaho in 1995.
        One of the most complex challenges at INEEL is the remediation of
    buried wastes, contaminated release sites, contaminated soils, and
    ground water. Progress has been made under the Operable Unit 7-10
    Staged Interim Action Project for the cleanup of Pit 9 at the
    Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) with the insertion of 20
    probes into the pit and the planned sample coring of waste and soils
    later this year. A strategic review of the Pit 9/RWMC remediation
    effort is currently underway to determine an appropriate path forward.
    Progress at Test Area North is being made with the application of
    bioremediation to the cleanup of the ground water plume at the
    injection well. At the Test Reactor Area, remediation of identified
    release sites will be completed in fiscal year 2001, two years ahead of
    schedule. This includes four additional release sites added since the
    signing of the Record of Decision. At the Idaho Nuclear Technology and
    Engineering Center (INTEC), with the signing of the Record of Decision
    in fiscal year 1999, we are undertaking the complex process of
    remediating soil and ground water release sites while continuing to
    operate INTEC for spent fuel storage and waste management missions. In
    addition, we have plans to design and build the Idaho CERCLA Disposal
    Facility at this site, which will be used for the disposal of
    contaminated soils generated in the cleanup of INTEC and other
    contaminated sites at the INEEL.
        INEEL plays a key role in providing safe storage and management of
    spent nuclear fuel in support of the Administration's non-proliferation
    goals. INEEL received shipments of foreign research reactor fuel in
    fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 and will continue to receive
    shipments in fiscal year 2000 and 2001. In addition, INEEL is actively
    improving storage conditions at the site, transferring fuel from wet to
    dry storage, or from aging facilities to modern, state-of-the-art
    facilities. For example, we expect to complete the transfer of all
    spent nuclear fuel in wet storage in the CPP-603 South Basin to
    improved storage facilities well in advance of the Settlement Agreement
    milestone date of December 31, 2000. We will also complete moving Three
    Mile Island spent nuclear fuel and core debris from wet storage at Test
    Area North to dry storage at INTEC by the June 1, 2001, Idaho
    Settlement Agreement milestone date. The Department also plans to award
    a privatization contract in fiscal year 2000 for the packaging and safe
    interim storage of other spent nuclear fuel at the INEEL. The fiscal
    year 2001 budget request includes the use of $25 million in prior year
    balances for this project in the privatization account.
        A substantial portion of the INEEL budget request supports the
    management of high level waste. INEEL has about 1.3 million gallons of
    liquid sodium-bearing waste stored in 11 underground tanks, and about
    150,000 cubic feet of calcined mixed high level waste in separate
    robust temporary storage. Through June 2000, we will calcine a small
    percentage of the liquid. Calcined waste is in a more stable (solid
    granular) form for storage and is reduced in volume. After June 1,
    2000, the calcining facility will be placed in standby mode as required
    by the State of Idaho, until an environmentally safe, technically
    viable, and economic path forward can be identified for the final
    treatment of the calcine and liquid. A draft environmental impact
    statement (EIS) for the high-level waste alternatives has been issued,
    and a final EIS is planned for the end of fiscal year 2000. An
    associated Record of Decision is planned in early fiscal year 2001.
    Support activities include sampling and characterizing the liquid tank
    contents in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, the sampling and
    characterization of air emissions from the calcining facility in fiscal
    year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, and submission of the first tank
    closure plan to the State in early fiscal year 2001 to permanently
    close tanks as they are emptied and removed from service.
        In fiscal year 1999, we deployed the Light Duty Utility Arm (LDUA)
    in Tank WM-188. The LDUA is the core of a suite of technologies that
    can inspect, sample, and retrieve waste remotely through openings in
    the tank dome. In this case, we visually inspected the tank interior
    and obtained samples of the tank waste. We are moving forward in 2000
    to inspect and obtain samples from two additional tanks. This
    information is critical to the preparation of the first tank closure
    plan due to the State in early fiscal year 2001.
        INEEL has approximately 65,000 cubic meters of stored transuranic
    waste and mixed low-level waste contaminated with transuranic
    radionuclides that must be removed from the State of Idaho under the
    terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. We continue to make progress in
    characterizing and processing the transuranic waste for shipment to the
    WIPP for disposal. In fiscal year 1999, the INEEL completed its first
    shipment of non-mixed transuranic waste to the WIPP, meeting a
    Settlement Agreement milestone, and additional shipments for a total of
    26 cubic meters. In fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the amounts of
    transuranic waste to be shipped to the WIPP will increase to 96 and
    1,160 cubic meters, respectively. Progress also continues on the
    Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, a privatization project that
    will greatly increase the INEEL's processing capability for this waste.
    The National Environmental Policy Act evaluation for the project was
    completed in fiscal year 1999, and all environmental regulatory permits
    for the project are expected to be received in fiscal year 2000,
    enabling facility construction to begin in fiscal year 2000.
    Construction activities are targeted to continue in fiscal year 2001
    and fiscal year 2002, and the facility is expected to begin operations
    in fiscal year 2003. We are requesting $65 million in privatization
    budget authority for this project.
        INEEL now operates under the sponsorship of EM, and has been
    designated a lead laboratory assisting DOE with its Environmental
    Quality mission. The INEEL will continue to perform world-class
    scientific research and development, technology demonstration and
    deployment, and systems analysis and integration in support of EM
    across the DOE complex. A major initiative in subsurface science will
    improve the understanding of contaminant transport and fate in the
    subsurface environment. This will result in better decision-making and
    allow DOE to consider alternatives to baseline plans for cleanup,
    resulting in more efficient use of available resources. This initiative
    and other related activities will ensure a sound scientific basis for
    decision-making and full integration of science and technology into
    INEEL and EM operations.
        As part of EM's Lead Program Secretarial Office designation with
    respect to INEEL, EM assumes the function of landlord. This
    responsibility entails all construction, maintenance, and site-wide
    management of shared essential systems such as utilities, roads and
    infrastructure. This important function enables the safe and efficient
    accomplishment of the long-term and varied programs assigned to the
    INEEL.

    Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................  $293,896
    UE D&D Fund...................................................   118,838
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   412,734

        The Oak Ridge Reservation is comprised of three facilities--the Y-
    12 Plant, the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (formerly the K-25
    uranium enrichment facility), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    (ORNL). Funding for environmental management activities at Oak Ridge is
    included in the Defense, Post-2006 Completion Account, with funding for
    the cleanup of ETTP coming from both this account and the Uranium
    Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
        The Department continues its efforts to reindustrialize facilities
    in Oak Ridge, particularly at ETTP. The primary goal is to clean up
    ETTP as quickly and as safely as possible so that the site can be
    reused as an industrial park. As of September 1999, about 850,000
    square feet of space has been leased to 30 private companies in a total
    of 51 separate leases. In some cases, the Department has conducted
    cleanup of the building and, in other cases, the private company is
    undertaking the cleanup. Overall, we estimate that this strategy will
    save $165 million in life-cycle costs. We are making good progress on
    the largest decommissioning project to date at ETTP. Cleanup of K-33,
    the first DOE uranium enrichment facility to be decommissioned, is
    already 27 percent complete as of February 2000, and most of the
    project's infrastructure is in place. The K-33 building is the largest
    building the Department has decommissioned to date. We will begin
    operations of the supercompactor in October 2000, which will reduce the
    volume of waste generated by cleanup of the buildings at ETTP and
    thereby reduce disposal costs.
        The Department has developed a DOE-wide policy to ensure that the
    health and safety of private industry workers at ETTP and other leased
    facilities are protected. The Department plans to evaluate the
    application of the reindustrialization approach at other sites to
    accelerate cleanup, reduce costs, and create private sector jobs.
        The fiscal year 2001 request continues support for the
    decommissioning of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at ORNL. This
    experimental nuclear reactor was designed to use a fuel of highly-
    reactive uranium-233 blended with a molten salt coolant. After 4\1/2\
    years of operation, the reactor was shut down in December 1969. The EM
    program has made substantial progress, with input from the National
    Academy of Sciences, in stabilizing and deactivating this reactor. For
    example, the EM program has installed and continues operation of a
    system to remove reactive gases from the reactor tanks and keep the
    reactor systems below atmospheric pressure until the fuel salt can be
    removed. In fiscal year 2001, we plan to complete the equipment
    installation and readiness assessment for fuel salt removal and convert
    uranium captured in the sodium fluoride traps to a stable oxide for
    storage.
        We have completed cleanup of the fourth of eight highly radioactive
    waste storage tanks, called the ``Gunite Tanks,'' at ORNL and have
    started work on the next tank, expected to be completed six months
    ahead of schedule. The tanks were built in 1943 and were used for waste
    from chemical separations (reprocessing) operations until the late
    1970's. The tanks vary in size, with some having a capacity of 170,000
    gallons (approximately the size of a 4-bedroom house). The estimated
    cost of the project is now $80 million, less than half the original
    estimate of $200 million. A key factor in the accelerated schedule has
    been the development of a variety of remote remediation technologies,
    such as the ``Houdini'' vehicle and a robotic arm that provide access
    to the tank interior, which have allowed work to proceed on two tanks
    simultaneously, rather than sequentially as initially planned. The
    lessons learned in deploying new technologies in the Gunite tanks are
    being shared with the Office of River Protection to accelerate cleanup
    of the tanks at Hanford.
        The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) incinerator at Oak Ridge,
    permitted by the State to treat mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes
    regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and by EPA to
    treat PCB-contaminated wastes regulated under TSCA, offers unique
    capability within the DOE system. In addition to treating wastes
    generated by Oak Ridge facilities, the TSCA incinerator has also been
    used to treat wastes from other sites in the DOE complex, providing a
    cost-effective and integrated approach to managing these wastes.
    However, the Governor of Tennessee rejected the Department's proposed
    annual burn plans for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, citing
    equity concerns. Responding to these concerns, the Department limited
    the use of the incinerator to wastes generated at DOE sites managed by
    the Oak Ridge Operations Office. However, the publication of the Record
    of Decision for disposal of DOE low-level and mixed low-level waste in
    February 2000 based on the Waste Management Programmatic EIS should
    address the Governor's concern regarding the availability of disposal
    for waste from Oak Ridge.
        Construction of the Environmental Management Waste Management
    Facility is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2001, allowing
    operations to begin soon after. This facility has been designed for
    disposal of CERCLA wastes generated during the cleanup of the Oak Ridge
    Reservation. The facility is the critical component of the Department's
    cleanup plan for the Oak Ridge Reservation.

    Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Facilities Closure Projects..........................  $290,793

        The cleanup activities at Fernald Environmental Management Project
    account for more than $290 million, or 27 percent of the funding in the
    Defense Facilities Closure Projects Account. The Fernald site,
    encompassing approximately 1,050 acres near Cincinnati, produced
    uranium for nuclear weapons from 1951 to the end of Cold War in 1989.
    Nearly forty years of uranium production left the Fernald Site with
    soil and groundwater contamination, a large backlog of wastes,
    including some unstable liquids, as well as stored nuclear materials
    such as depleted and enriched uranium. Several years of cleanup
    progress have included stabilization of liquid uranium solutions, off-
    site shipment of low-level waste, and deactivation, decontamination and
    demolition of several large industrial buildings at Fernald. The
    current baseline calls for cleanup to be completed by fiscal year 2008,
    but the Department is seeking to complete work by fiscal year 2006.
    Groundwater remediation and long-term institutional controls will be
    necessary after active cleanup is completed.
        One approach we are taking to achieve the accelerated closure goal
    is the use of new technology. For example, we are saving time and money
    by using a suite of technologies that identify, in real time,
    radioactive contaminants in the soil. This rapid characterization
    reduces the amount of soil we have to excavate and improves worker
    productivity. We have already deployed this technology in three
    separate areas at Fernald. We estimate these technologies will reduce
    remediation cost by over $30 million.
        In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to dispose of waste into the
    On-site Disposal Facility, including debris from the completion of
    decontamination and decommissioning of all nuclear facilities and on-
    site contaminated soil. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete the
    placement of a permanent cap on Cell 1. The availability of this
    facility is enabling us to accelerate disposal of contaminated soil and
    debris resulting from cleanup and building demolition at a significant
    cost savings.
        For the Silos project, in fiscal year 1999 we awarded subcontracts
    for Silos 1 and 2, and Silo 3. In fiscal year 2000 we will initiate
    pre-operational activities for Silo 3 remediation and in fiscal year
    2001 plan to initiate remediation of Silo 3, submit draft Record of
    Decision Amendment to the Environmental Protection Agency, and continue
    construction of Silos 1 and 2 Accelerated Waste Retrieval.
        We will continue to excavate and load Waste Pit material into
    railcars and transport these materials by rail for disposal. In fiscal
    year 1999, we disposed of 32,241 cubic meters of treated waste and are
    planning to treat and dispose of 92,570 cubic meters in fiscal year
    2000 and 91,570 cubic meters in fiscal year 2001.
        Finally, Fernald personnel have continued the process of razing
    deactivated and decontaminated industrial buildings. They completed
    demolition of 6 of the 11 major facility complexes (Maintenance
    Building/Tank Farm Complex), and plan to complete Plant 5 Complex in
    fiscal year 2000, and, in fiscal year 2000, continue decontamination
    and decommissioning of Plant 6 Complex, and initiate the East Warehouse
    Complex resulting in outyear reductions in mortgage and landlord costs.

    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................  $194,498

        Opening and operating WIPP is a key element of the Department's
    strategy to provide for the permanent disposal of the Department's
    inventory of radioactive transuranic waste. Currently a large amount of
    transuranic waste, more than 100,000 cubic meters, is being stored at
    more than two dozen sites around the United States. In many cases, this
    waste has been stored for decades. By shipping this waste to WIPP for
    disposal, the Department will be able to reduce the number of sites
    where this type of waste is stored, reducing the costs of storing this
    waste and the long-term risks to the public and the environment.
        On March 26, 1999, WIPP began operations, receiving its first
    shipment of defense-generated, non-mixed, transuranic waste from Los
    Alamos National Laboratory. The first shipment from INEEL was made in
    April 1999, thereby meeting an important milestone in the Idaho
    Settlement Agreement between the Department and the State of Idaho. The
    first shipment from the Rocky Flats site to WIPP was made in June 1999
    and represented the first step in meeting the Department's commitment
    to complete cleanup and site closure by December 2006.
        On October 27, 1999, the State of New Mexico issued the final
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit, with an effective
    date of November 26, 1999. The permit contains numerous new provisions
    which must be incorporated in the generator and storage sites
    procedures, and staff must be trained to the new requirements. Quality
    assurance audits must be performed by DOE and audit reports must be
    submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department for approval before
    shipments under the permit can begin. The Department is striving to
    meet all permit requirements so that waste shipments can quickly
    resume, but has legally challenged certain provisions of the permit,
    including the financial assurance and certain technical requirements.
        Rocky Flats is the first site scheduled to resume shipments under
    the permit. DOE conducted a quality assurance audit at Rocky Flats in
    December, and submitted the audit report to New Mexico in late January.
    New Mexico approval of the audit report is expected by late February,
    and shipments are expected to resume within the next several weeks.
        The fiscal year 2001 budget request will allow WIPP to increase the
    receipt of contact-handled transuranic waste shipments from about 120
    shipments in fiscal year 2000 to about 485 shipments in fiscal year
    2001. The five sites scheduled to ship transuranic waste to WIPP in
    both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 are Rocky Flats, INEEL,
    Hanford, Los Alamos, and Savannah River Site.
        The Carlsbad Area Office and the Office of Science and Technology
    have teamed up to develop and introduce technologies that reduce risk,
    ensure proper certification of shipments, and increase the movement of
    waste from storage to disposal. One of these technologies, HANDS-55, is
    a robotic system that handles and segregates waste in 55 gallon drums.
    This technology not only improves worker health and safety but will
    increase the throughput of waste available for final disposal.
        The funding request for fiscal year 2001 includes $20.8 million
    that will be paid into a trust fund established by the Department to
    meet the financial assurance requirements of the RCRA permit. In
    previous years, these funds were used to provide economic assistance to
    the State of New Mexico, as required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of
    1996, but the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for
    fiscal year 2000 allowed the Department to use funds otherwise
    available to New Mexico for economic assistance to meet financial
    assurance requirements.
        The WIPP program also funds a variety of institutional programs
    that provide for operational oversight and other assistance for
    affected governments and stakeholder groups. Funds are included in the
    request for cooperative agreements with the Indian Tribes,
    Environmental Evaluation Group, Western Governors Association, and
    other State regional groups.
        The Department is relying on a privatization approach to procure
    shipping casks for transuranic waste transportation. This project
    received $19,605,000 in budget authority in the Defense Privatization
    account in fiscal year 1999 for the purchase of waste shipping
    containers to ship remote-handled transuranic waste from the generator
    sites to WIPP. The fiscal year 2001 budget request proposes to reduce
    this privatization funding to $15,513,000. This contract is expected to
    be awarded in June 2000.
        We have withdrawn the privatization project for transportation
    services for contact-handled transuranic waste and are funding this
    work through traditional appropriations. In 1999, Congress approved a
    reprogramming that allowed the EM program to acquire 12 contact-handled
    transuranic waste shipping containers to meet an urgent need for
    additional containers. EM reevaluated the acquisition strategy for the
    remaining transportation services and concluded that the project no
    longer fit the profile for privatization. The remainder of the capital
    equipment will now be funded from within the Post-2006 Account. The $21
    million for this privatization project will be used to offset the
    request for the Spent nuclear Fuel Dry Storage Project at INEEL.

    West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Non-Defense, Post 2006 Completion.............................  $107,353

        Cleanup of the West Valley Demonstration Project, located in
    upstate New York near Buffalo, is being conducted at the site of the
    only commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to operate in the
    United States. The private company processed commercial spent nuclear
    fuel to extract plutonium and uranium from 1966 to 1972, generating
    2,200 cubic meters of liquid high-level waste.
        The principal operation at West Valley is the solidification of the
    liquid high-level waste into borosilicate glass using a process called
    vitrification. The primary vitrification campaign began in June 1996
    and was completed ahead of schedule in June 1998. Vitrification of the
    high-level waste tank heels is currently underway and will be completed
    in fiscal year 2001.
        Following the vitrification of the high-level waste, the equipment
    and facilities used in carrying out the project will be decontaminated
    and decommissioned. The New York State Energy Research and Development
    Authority and DOE are working together and with stakeholders to
    formulate a preferred alternative for remediation and closure or long-
    term management of the site. The estimated completion date for West
    Valley may extend to 2015 or beyond, depending on the decisions made
    through this process.
        Another critical element of the EM program at West Valley is the
    safe management of 125 spent nuclear fuel elements stored at the site.
    EM will continue surveillance and maintenance of the spent fuel
    facility to ensure safe storage until the spent fuel can be shipped to
    the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in
    fiscal year 2001.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Department will continue vitrification of
    the high-level waste tank heels (producing approximately five canisters
    of solidified high-level waste) and preparations for shipment of spent
    nuclear fuel. We also plan to complete an Environmental Impact
    Statement Preferred Alternative for cleanup and management of the site
    and to resolve responsibility issues with the State of New York.
        In fiscal year 2001, we will complete vitrification activities
    (producing approximately five canisters of solidified high-level
    waste), complete shipment of the spent nuclear fuel elements to INEEL,
    complete the final design for the Remote Handled Waste Facility, and
    continue off-site shipments of low-level waste for disposal.

    Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................   $92,129
    Non-Defense, Post 2006 Completion.............................     3,981
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................    96,110

        Our goal at Los Alamos National Laboratory is to complete cleanup
    work by 2013 and disposition of legacy waste by 2015. Through fiscal
    year 1999, the Department completed remediation of 1,401 of 2,000
    ``release sites,'' or specific areas where releases of contaminants had
    occurred, and had decommissioned 41 out of 145 surplus facilities. We
    plan to complete cleanup of two release sites and two facilities in
    fiscal year 2000 and five release sites and one facility in fiscal year
    2001.
        A little more than half of the fiscal year 2001 request for Los
    Alamos funding is devoted to environmental restoration work, such as
    drilling new regional ground water wells to characterize the
    hydrogeology. It also includes cleanup work in anticipation of
    transferring land to the community. As required by law, DOE has
    identified ten parcels totaling about 4000 acres for potential transfer
    to the County of Los Alamos and the San Ildefenso Pueblos. We have
    published a final Environmental Impact Statement on the land transfers
    and a supporting Environmental Restoration Report, and are now
    preparing an implementation plan for cleanup of all land parcels that
    will be submitted to Congress in spring of 2000. DOE intends to follow
    a phased approach in accomplishing the land transfers, starting with
    the transfer of the relatively simple, uncontaminated parcels in 2000
    and continuing with the transfer of the more complex sites in the later
    years. The Department has budgeted approximately $4 million in fiscal
    year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 to address cleanup requirements for the
    ten parcels under consideration.
        The Los Alamos legacy waste project provides for the treatment,
    storage, and disposal of all legacy waste that is presently in storage
    at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The legacy waste consists of
    mixed low-level waste, transuranic waste, and mixed transuranic waste.
    The waste was generated at 33 Technical Areas and is treated, stored,
    and disposed of in compliance with applicable Federal and State of New
    Mexico requirements.
        Los Alamos has accelerated the treatment and disposal of legacy
    mixed low-level waste and retrieval of legacy transuranic waste (both
    transuranic and mixed transuranic) stored on asphalt pads under earthen
    cover, and now expects to complete these activities a year earlier than
    previously planned. Treatment and disposal of legacy mixed low-level
    waste with an identified path for disposal is now planned to be
    completed in fiscal year 2003. Retrieval of legacy transuranic and
    mixed transuranic waste stored on Asphalt Pads 1 and 4 has been
    completed. Retrieval of waste drums on Pad 2 will begin during fiscal
    year 2000 with completion now scheduled for fiscal year 2002.
        Los Alamos National Laboratory was the first DOE site to receive
    authority to certify transuranic waste for shipment to the WIPP and the
    first DOE site to ship transuranic waste to the WIPP. We have completed
    17 shipments of legacy transuranic waste to the WIPP during fiscal year
    1999. Los Alamos plans to make 28 shipments to WIPP in fiscal year
    2001, which includes transuranic waste from the EM and Defense
    Programs.
        The Department designated Los Alamos as the lead laboratory for
    research and development efforts to support the Department's nuclear
    materials management. In this capacity, Los Alamos provides solutions
    to complex-wide technical and operational issues associated with
    stabilization and storage of plutonium and other nuclear materials.

    Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound) Fiscal Year 2001
    Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Facilities Closure Projects..........................   $94,353

        The Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, a 306-acre
    facility near Dayton, Ohio used for tritium and plutonium operations,
    consists of 152 buildings and approximately 230 potentially
    contaminated soil areas. We have a goal of completing cleanup of the
    site prior to 2006 and we are making good progress. By the end of
    fiscal year 2000, nearly one-half of the 107 buildings scheduled for
    removal will have been demolished or auctioned off, a quarter of the 42
    buildings scheduled to be transferred to the City of Miamisburg will
    have been decommissioned and decontaminated, and two-thirds of the
    potential soil release sites will have been remediated.
        In fiscal year 1999, Mound completed the disposition of its legacy
    low-level, mixed low-level and hazardous chemical waste streams. In
    fiscal year 2000 the site will complete the disposition of its
    remaining legacy nuclear materials, generally sealed sources that were
    used to calibrate and test equipment. The site will remove or cleanup
    three additional buildings in each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and
    will remediate six soil areas in fiscal year 2000 and nine more in
    fiscal year 2001. More importantly, the site will continue to
    accelerate remediation of the tritium operations facilities. This
    project comprises three highly contaminated, complex buildings and
    constitutes the site's ``critical path'' for cleanup and closure.
        We have negotiated an agreement to transfer the ownership of the
    site to the City of Miamisburg as remediation of discrete parcels are
    completed. In 1999, we transferred two buildings and 27 acres and this
    year we expect to deed over two more buildings and another 100 acres.
    Currently, 30 private businesses, employing 350 workers, are leasing
    facilities at Mound. The Department's Office of Nuclear Energy's
    radioisotope heat source program will remain at Mound after the cleanup
    and transfer of the rest of the site is concluded. The program will
    retain three of the site's current buildings.

    Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    UE D&D Fund...................................................   $78,000

        This uranium enrichment facility occupies a 3,500 acre site in
    Paducah--including 750 acres within the fenced security area and 2,000
    acres leased to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife. Initially
    constructed to support the Federal government's uranium enrichment
    program, the facility now produces enriched uranium for commercial
    nuclear reactors under the auspices of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation
    (USEC). USEC is responsible for all primary process facilities and
    auxiliary facilities associated with the enrichment services and for
    waste generated by current operations. The Department has
    responsibility for facilities, materials, and equipment not needed by
    USEC for their operations. EM is responsible for the cleanup of
    existing environmental contamination at the site and management of
    legacy waste.
        The cleanup problems and contaminants at Paducah include both on-
    site and off-site contamination from radioactive and hazardous
    materials. The environmental problem receiving our earliest and most
    focused attention has been groundwater contamination, primarily
    trichloroethylene (TCE) and technetium-99, which has contaminated
    private residential wells. Two plumes traveling in a northeasterly and
    northwesterly direction extend more than two miles offsite in the
    direction of the Ohio River. A third plume, traveling southwest,
    extends 1,500 feet outside of the plant boundary. Dense non-aqueous
    phase liquids (DNAPLs) have also been found in the vadose zone on-site.
        There are also numerous contaminated areas around the site where
    chemical and radioactive wastes or trace amounts of plutonium and other
    transuranics were disposed or inadvertently spilled or otherwise
    released to the environment. We also must safely manage and disposition
    about 65,000 tons of scrap metal, and 6,000 cubic meters of low-level
    waste in drums, much of which is currently stored outdoors and exposed
    to the elements.
        The Department continues to pay municipal water bills for residents
    whose drinking water wells were affected by the groundwater
    contamination, and continues to monitor residential wells. We will
    continue to operate ``pump and treat'' systems installed at the
    northeast and northwest plumes during the early 1990's; approximately
    12,000 pounds of TCE have been extracted from groundwater since these
    systems began operation. In fiscal year 2000, an innovative technology,
    an in-situ permeable reactive barrier, will be installed in the
    Southwest Plume to treat the DNAPLs. In fiscal year 2001, we will issue
    a Record of Decision for final remedy for sources contributing to the
    northeast and northwest plumes.
        The fiscal year 2001 request for $78 million for Paducah cleanup
    activities is nearly $24 million more than in fiscal year 2000 and
    almost a two-fold increase from the appropriation in fiscal year 1999
    that will allow us to accelerate cleanup and respond to concerns raised
    by investigations by DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health
    (EH) about the pace of cleanup. In fiscal year 2000, DOE received an
    additional $6 million for Paducah through a budget amendment that has
    allowed us to accelerate the removal of ``Drum Mountain,'' a large
    scrap pile containing thousands of empty, radioactively-contaminated
    drums, which is a suspected source of contamination of the Big and
    Little Bayou Creeks from surface run-off. These drums will be removed
    in fiscal year 2000, and off-site disposal completed in fiscal year
    2001. Disposition of the remaining scrap metal will continue on an
    accelerated pace for completion by fiscal year 2003, a critical path
    activity to completing the burial grounds investigation and final site
    cleanup. We will complete an engineering and cost analysis for removing
    the scrap metal in fiscal year 2000 and initiate disposition in fiscal
    year 2001.
        The request also allows the Department to accelerate
    characterization and disposition of thousands of drums of low level
    waste which have been stored out of doors for many years and to begin
    removing contaminated equipment and materials from two large shut down
    facilities. The Department, U.S. EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky
    have identified these and other activities that could be accelerated to
    achieve cleanup completion in 2010 rather than in 2012 as planned under
    the current baseline. The Department continues to work with State and
    Federal regulators to ensure agreement on site priorities and to
    identify opportunities to accelerate cleanup.
        The Department has submitted to Congress a supplemental budget
    request for fiscal year 2000 funding that would provide an additional
    $8 million for cleanup activities at the Paducah site. The funds would
    be used to remove concrete rubble piles from the Wildlife Management
    Area, one of which was identified as having low levels of radiological
    contamination. The funds would also allow us to begin acceleration of
    other priority activities, such as stabilization of the shut-down
    facilities, in fiscal year 2000.

    Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    UE D&D Fund...................................................   $76,200

        Initially constructed to support the Federal government's uranium
    enrichment program, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant now produces
    enriched uranium for commercial nuclear reactors under the auspices of
    the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC). EM is responsible for the
    cleanup of existing environmental contamination at the site and
    management of legacy waste. Primary environmental problems include
    contaminated areas around the site where chemical and radioactive
    wastes were disposed or inadvertently spilled or otherwise released to
    the environment, remediation of several old landfills, disposition of
    legacy waste, and remediation and containment of groundwater
    contaminated with both radioactive contaminants, specifically uranium
    and technetium, and chemical contaminants such as trichloroethylene
    (TCE) and heavy metals. There is no off-site contamination, and
    groundwater contamination is contained within the shallow aquifer
    bedrock at 30 feet below land surface. With the requested increased
    funding in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, EM plans to complete
    active remediation by fiscal year 2002 and all legacy waste disposition
    by fiscal year 2006.
        In fiscal year 1999, the Department completed all corrective
    actions required for release sites, or areas where releases of
    contaminants had occurred, located on the west side of the plant. A
    phytoremediation project was completed which involved planting 765
    hybrid poplar trees over a small groundwater plume area contaminated
    with industrial solvents. Phytoremediation uses the natural growth
    process of plants to treat contaminated soils, sediments, and
    groundwater. In addition, a 1-year steam stripping pilot study was
    completed on the groundwater plume located in the vicinity of retention
    ponds for the old chemical cleaning facility (X-701B), which resulted
    in the removal of 824 pounds of solvent contaminants.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Department will complete current
    investigations and interim corrective measures and begin final
    corrective actions required by regulatory agreements. We will focus on
    closure of the remaining hazardous waste units, containment and
    contaminant removal of on-site groundwater plumes, treatment or
    disposal of legacy waste, and surveillance and maintenance of shut down
    facilities and post-closure sites. We will begin implementing the final
    corrective actions for groundwater plumes and burial grounds located in
    the southern portion of the site by constructing the final groundwater
    treatment systems and initiating the construction of caps on several
    landfills.
        In fiscal year 2001, we will initiate construction of the final
    treatment system for the X-701B groundwater plume and continue removing
    contaminated soils from areas associated with this plume and in other
    areas. We will also begin construction of the final corrective action
    for the groundwater plume located in the vicinity of the main process
    buildings, for completion in fiscal year 2002.
        The Department has submitted to Congress a supplemental budget
    request for fiscal year 2000 funding that would provide an additional
    $8 million for cleanup activities at the Portsmouth site. The funds
    would be used to accelerate the disposal of hundreds of containers of
    cleanup waste generated from earlier removal actions. We would also
    accelerate the characterization of thousands of drums of low level
    waste, a necessary step before the waste can be disposed. These wastes
    have been in storage for many years, and many of the drums are
    deteriorating and require constant surveillance. The fiscal year 2001
    request would continue acceleration of these activities.

    Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Post 2006 Completion.................................   $90,212

        The Nevada Operations Office manages $90 million for cleanup and
    waste management activities at the Nevada Test Site, as well as
    remediation of eight other inactive sites contaminated by past DOE
    nuclear testing in five states (Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada,
    and New Mexico). The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located 65 miles North
    of Las Vegas and encompasses 1,350 square miles (an area roughly the
    size of Rhode Island). In addition to the cleanup of radioactive
    contamination resulting from above- and below-ground testing of nuclear
    weapons and management of its on-site waste, NTS plays a crucial role
    for other DOE sites as one of the major low-level waste disposal
    facilities in the DOE complex.
        The Department expects to complete restoration of the surface areas
    at the inactive test sites other than NTS and to complete shipments of
    transuranic waste from NTS to WIPP by fiscal year 2006. The Department
    will continue to operate low-level waste disposal facilities at NTS for
    the DOE complex. Institutional controls and groundwater monitoring will
    be maintained at closed sites for the foreseeable future.
        We are making progress in cleaning up contamination at NTS and in
    addressing concerns about ground water contamination. We plan to
    complete the cleanup of 575, or about 28 percent, of the ``release
    sites'' at NTS by 2000. We will continue groundwater characterization
    efforts. Based on new scientific findings about transport of plutonium
    and other actinides in groundwater, the Department is increasing its
    efforts to characterize groundwater at NTS and improve our
    understanding of this complex issue. Two additional wells will be
    drilled in fiscal year 2001 at the underground test area at Frenchman
    Flat, per recommendation of the groundwater peer review group and the
    State, to validate ongoing monitoring and modeling of the site.
        NTS will continue its important role as a disposal site for low
    level radioactive waste from other DOE sites. In fiscal year 2000, the
    Department expects to dispose of more than 14,000 cubic meters of low-
    level waste, more than half of which is from other DOE sites and plans
    to dispose of 11,000 cubic meters of low level radioactive waste at NTS
    in fiscal year 2001. In December 1999, the Department announced its
    site preferences for disposal of DOE low-level and mixed low-level
    waste based on the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact
    Statement, identifying NTS as one of two disposal sites in the DOE
    complex, and on February 25, 2000, we published a formal Record of
    Decision.
        The fiscal year 2001 request provides for characterization of
    transuranic waste drums, in preparation for shipment to begin to the
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in fiscal year 2002. We expect to open the
    transportation waste corridor from the Nevada Test Site to WIPP in the
    end of fiscal year 2001.

    Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project, Missouri Fiscal Year 2001
    Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Non-Defense, Site Closure.....................................   $53,116

        The Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project in Missouri includes
    a decommissioned uranium processing plant, an abandoned quarry used as
    a dump site, as well as numerous vicinity properties that were
    contaminated by uranium and thorium processing operations conducted for
    nuclear weapons support in the 1950's and 1960's, similar to the
    Fernald Site in Ohio.
        Cleanup of the Weldon Spring Site is currently planned for 2003.
    All contaminated material will be placed in an on-site, above-grade
    cell for permanent disposal. Long-term surveillance and monitoring for
    the disposal facility will be conducted after project completion, and
    the remaining land will be released for unrestricted use.
        In fiscal year 1999, we continued waste placement in the 1.5
    million cubic yard capacity disposal facility, with about 650,000 cubic
    yards of material being placed in the facility in fiscal year 1999, for
    a total to date of over 1.3 million cubic yards in just 2 years. We
    expect to complete all waste placement in fiscal year 2000, with only
    the completion of the facility cover, begun in fiscal year 1999,
    remaining. In fiscal year 1999, we finished treatment of waste pit
    sludge in the Chemical Stabilization and Solidification Facility, with
    about 180,000 cubic yards of treated sludge placed in the disposal
    facility, and the treatment facility was decommissioned. We began
    remediation of the waste pits in fiscal year 1999 and plan to complete
    this work in fiscal year 2000. We began restoration of the quarry area
    in fiscal year 1999 and will continue this work in fiscal year 2000,
    including the start of operations of the quarry groundwater interceptor
    trench. The Record of Decision that will establish the remedy for
    groundwater contamination at the site is expected to be finalized in
    fiscal year 2000.
        In fiscal year 2001, the construction of the disposal facility
    cover will be nearly completed. We will complete the treatment of
    trichloroethylene contaminants in groundwater. Work will continue on
    cleanup of site facilities and the soil borrow area. We will also
    continue cleanup of the quarry area, including the groundwater
    interceptor trench operation.

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion..........................   $27,233

        At the Brookhaven National Laboratory, we are continuing to treat
    contaminated groundwater and, in September 1999, began operation of the
    first off-site groundwater treatment system, to complement several
    systems already in operation on the Brookhaven site. This off-site
    treatment system, installed under EM's Accelerated Site Technology
    Deployment program, uses innovative technology (in-well air stripping)
    to extract contaminants within the well. We have nearly completed the
    stakeholder and regulatory review process to finalize groundwater
    remedies, and expect the Record of Decision to be signed this Spring.
    Over the remainder of fiscal year 2000 and 2001, we will design and
    install additional groundwater treatment systems.
        In September 1999, DOE and state and federal regulators finalized
    the remedy for contaminated soil, which involves excavation and off-
    site disposal. Remedy design is underway, and we will begin soil
    excavation later this year. Soil excavation will continue over the next
    several years.
        The proposed remedy for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the
    Peconic River is currently under regulatory and stakeholder review. The
    proposed remedy involves excavation of contaminated sediments, with
    disposal off-site, and restoration of affected wetlands. We anticipate
    finalizing the Record of Decision for this project by the end of fiscal
    year 2000, with remedial design activities beginning in fiscal year
    2001.
        In February 1999, the Office of Environmental Management assumed
    responsibility for characterizing, stabilizing, and decommissioning the
    Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor. Since that time, we have
    undertaken substantial project planning, and field work has already
    begun. This project is being executed as a series of removal actions,
    allowing an early start to decommissioning. Under current planning, we
    will accomplish substantial field work by the end of fiscal year 2001,
    including removal of above-ground ductwork and below-ground piping.
        In fiscal year 2000, the EM program will continue disposal of
    legacy wastes and storage, treatment and disposal of wastes generated
    by on-going Brookhaven operations. In fiscal year 2001, management of
    newly-generated waste will transfer to the Office of Science. EM will
    continue management of legacy waste; we expect to complete legacy waste
    disposal in fiscal year 2001.

    Sites in the State of California Fiscal Year 2001 Request

                                 (In thousands)

    Defense, Post 2006 Completion--Lawrence Livermore National
        Laboratory................................................   $48,500
    Defense, Site/Project Completion--Lawrence Livermore National
        Laboratory................................................     2,000
    Non-Defense, Post 2006 Completion:
        Energy Technology Engineering Center......................    17,500
        General Electric..........................................     2,000
        Oakland Operations Office.................................        10
    Non-Defense, Site/Project Completion:
        Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.....................     5,000
        General Atomics...........................................       100
        Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research.............     6,500
        Stanford Linear Accelerator Center........................     1,400
        Oakland Operations Office.................................        90
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................    83,100

        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.--Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory consists of two geographical sites--the Main Site,
    an operating weapons research and development laboratory, and Site 300,
    located about 15 miles east of the Main Site, which has been used to
    test high explosives and other technologies for defense programs. The
    EM program is responsible for waste management of both legacy and waste
    generated from on-going operations. It also is responsible for
    remediation of the site, which includes cleanup of hazardous
    contaminant releases to the soil and ground water contamination at the
    Main Site, and releases of hazardous and radioactive materials to soil
    and ground water from landfills, drum storage areas, and dry wells at
    Site 300. Both sites are listed on the Superfund National Priorities
    List and have cleanup agreements with U.S. EPA and the State of
    California.
        At the Main Site, we are making significant progress using pump and
    treat technology to capture and contain contaminant groundwater plumes
    moving offsite. We are using an aggressive cleanup strategy to contain
    and extract groundwater contaminants, which supplements the existing
    permanent treatment system network with portable treatment units, and
    emphasizes specific source area removal. In fiscal year 1999, we
    expanded the permanent groundwater treatment facilities and installed
    several portable treatment units to remove contaminants at several
    locations. In fiscal year 2000 we are evaluating several advanced
    technologies that would enable us to cost-effectively remediate source
    areas in fine-grained sediments where contaminants are hard to reach.
    In fiscal year 2001, we plan to apply an electro-osmosis technology to
    remove groundwater contaminants more effectively and to install
    additional extraction wells and portable treatment units. Cleanup of
    the Main Site is scheduled to be completed in 2007.
        In fiscal year 1999, we began operation of a treatment facility to
    treat explosive wastes. In fiscal year 2000, we have completed testing
    of the Molten Salt Oxidation unit for treating mixed low-level and
    hazardous waste and have awarded a contract to a commercial vendor who
    will own and operate the treatment unit to treat waste. In fiscal year
    2001 we will complete construction of the Decontamination and Waste
    Treatment Facility, a treatment system for mixed low-level waste, and
    begin operational testing.
        At Site 300, we have focused on removal actions such as capping the
    Pit 6 Landfill to control release and getting groundwater treatment
    systems in place to contain off-site plume migration, and on
    characterizing the contamination at the site. In fiscal year 1999, we
    installed a cost-efficient portable groundwater unit to treat
    groundwater and control plume migration from the site. In fiscal year
    2000, we will issue final plans and schedules for site-wide cleanup of
    the site and begin design work in fiscal year 2001. We will also begin
    operation of an innovative groundwater treatment system in a canyon in
    the southeast part of the site using the Iron Filing/Geosyphon
    technology to remediate high concentrations of contaminants in
    groundwater. We plan to complete cleanup at Site 300 by 2008.
        General Atomics.--General Atomics is a privately-owned and operated
    site, located near San Diego. General Atomics has maintained and
    operated a Hot Cell Facility for over 30 years to conduct both
    government and commercially funded nuclear research and development. EM
    responsibilities have been cleanup of the Hot Cell Facility and
    surrounding contaminated soils. In fiscal year 1999, we completed the
    dismantlement of the Hot Cell Facility and soil remediation activities.
    In fiscal year 2000, after an independent verification certification is
    conducted, all EM activities at the Hot Cell Facility will be complete
    except for surveillance and maintenance of spent nuclear fuel. The
    spent nuclear fuel will remain on site until 2005, at which time it
    will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
    Laboratory for interim storage.
        Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research.--The Laboratory for
    Energy-Related Health Research is located at the University of
    California, Davis. Research at the laboratory originally was directed
    toward the health effects from chronic exposure to radionuclides using
    animal subjects to simulate radiation effects on humans. The Department
    terminated the research program and closed the laboratory in 1988. EM
    activities are directed toward cleaning up the DOE areas of
    contamination for eventual release back to the University without
    radiological restrictions. The site was put on the Superfund National
    Priorities List in 1994, and a Federal Facility Agreement was signed in
    fiscal year 1999.
        We are achieving significant cleanup progress at this site. In
    fiscal year 1999 we completed contaminated soil removal from the
    southwest trenches and shipping of low-level, legacy biowaste. In
    fiscal year 2000, we will complete the closure of the mixed waste
    storage facility and remove three dry wells, a distribution box and
    piping, and Domestic Tank 2. In addition, several removal actions will
    be completed in fiscal year 2001, including the Colbalt-60 source,
    Domestic Tanks 3, the radium tank, Imhoff Facility tanks and associated
    leachfield. However, due to additional contamination found and volumes
    of waste removed during soil excavation of the southwest trenches in
    fiscal year 1999 and additional regulatory requirements related to
    health and safety, project completion has been extended to fiscal year
    2004 from fiscal year 2002.
        Energy Technology Engineering Center.--The Energy Technology
    Engineering Center is a DOE facility located on 90 acres of land leased
    from Boeing North American Corporation in Simi Valley, California. EM
    activities at this site involve remediation of contaminated
    groundwater; decontamination and decommissioning of the remaining
    radiological facilities; deactivation and cleanup of existing sodium
    facilities; landlord functions; and characterization and off-site
    disposal of waste.
        In fiscal year 1999, the Department completed the decontamination
    and decommissioning of the Small Component Test Loop and Reactor Test
    Facility, with demolition planned for fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year
    2000, we will also decontaminate and decommission of the Former Sodium
    Disposal Facility, and begin work at the Hazardous Waste Management
    Facility. In fiscal year 2001, we will continue decontamination and
    decommissioning of the Hazardous Waste Management Facility and complete
    below-grade work at the Reactor Test Facility. We will also dispose of
    500 cubic meters of low-level waste; and continue landlord activities
    associated with deactivation, equipment divestiture and records
    retention. We now expect to complete EM's cleanup responsibilities and
    return the site to Boeing North American in 2007.
        Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.--This 426-acre site at Stanford
    University is managed for DOE by the University to conduct theoretical
    research in high-energy particle physics. Remediation activities at the
    site involve the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-
    contaminated soil areas and several solvent-contaminated groundwater
    and soil areas. Fiscal year 1999 activities involved characterizing the
    Lower Salvage Yard and completing restoration of the master substation
    area. In fiscal year 2000, contaminated soils in the Research Yard and
    the Lower Salvage Yard were excavated, and a remedial investigation of
    the IR-6 Drainage Channel was completed. We will complete the
    Feasibility Study and pilot testing of the soil vapor extraction system
    at the Former Hazardous Waste Storage yard in fiscal year 2001. The
    Department expects to complete cleanup at the site in fiscal year 2002.
        Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.--EM responsibilities at
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory include storage, treatment and
    off-site disposal of both legacy waste and hazardous and radioactive
    waste generated by current operations, and remediation of contaminated
    soil and groundwater created from past Departmental operations. In
    fiscal year 2001, we will continue to excavate contaminated soils at
    on-site locations and operate groundwater treatment systems to contain
    off-site plume migration, and will continue off-site disposal of
    hazardous and radioactive waste. The Office of Science will assume
    responsibility for newly generated waste in fiscal year 2001, but EM
    will continue to store, treat, and disposal of legacy waste. We plan to
    complete cleanup at the site by 2003.

                         PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLAN

        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Dr. Huntoon. Did I hear you
    correctly, that you are going to get Drum Mountain cleaned up
    by the end of the year, as you said last October?
        Dr. Huntoon. By the end of this year, that is correct.
        Senator McConnell. Yes. And you are working apace, are you?
    I mean----
        Dr. Huntoon. We----
        Senator McConnell [continuing]. Progress has been made?
        Dr. Huntoon. It is underway. We issued a request for
    proposal and have awarded the contract for it, and the work has
    begun.
        Senator McConnell. So that is a commitment we can count on
    being kept?
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you.
        I am sure you have reviewed the draft report by the General
    Accounting Office regarding the cleanup plan for the Paducah
    plant. GAO concluded that the Department has purposefully
    ignored numerous hazardous waste sites known as DOE Material
    Storage Areas, DMSAs, that are scattered across the site.
        It is my understanding that several of these waste piles
    pose a criticality threat. Overall, this material makes up 1
    million cubic feet of uncharacterized waste that is not
    included in the overall cleanup plan.
        GAO contends that as long as this waste remains
    uncharacterized, DOE can ignore the material and it will not be
    added to the long list of cleanup responsibilities. GAO has
    stated that as long as Mr. Magwood's Office of Nuclear Energy
    controls this material, it will remain outside of the overall
    scope of cleanup.
        So I have several questions in that regard. First, why are
    not the 148 DMSAs included in the overall site cleanup plan?
        Dr. Huntoon. Senator, I believe that the reason that is, is
    because these areas are comprised of potentially useful
    materials, excess materials if you will, that were brought
    there for use by the company doing the work. USEC reviewed it,
    and it is my understanding they concluded they did not need the
    material, and turned it back over to the Nuclear Energy Office.
        I do not know that the materials have been characterized as
    waste. I think it is considered excess materials. So it has not
    been turned over to Environmental Management to deal with it.
        Senator McConnell. Well, the staff tells me it is really
    not excess material, that it--that the cylinders really are
    part of the DMSAs.
        Dr. Huntoon. Okay. I am not aware of that.
        Senator McConnell. Okay.
        Dr. Huntoon. I thought the DMSAs were materials that were
    scavenged from the closure of other facilities and brought
    there for use.
        Senator McConnell. So the----
        Dr. Huntoon. I have not been brought up to speed, on
    exactly what is in all of those DMSAs. But that is what I was
    led to believe.
        Senator McConnell. So the rationale----
        Dr. Huntoon [continuing]. That is----
        Senator McConnell [continuing]. For giving----
        Dr. Huntoon [continuing]. Something we will be looking at.
        Senator McConnell. So the rationale for giving Mr.
    Magwood's office responsibility for material that, clearly,
    should be cleanup in our view, is what again?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, I did not make that decision, Senator,
    but let me tell you: I think it is because we are dealing with
    the materials that are no longer wanted by anyone, and that
    needs to be dealt with.
        I believe the DMSAs--and I will have to ask Mr. Magwood,
    but I believe the DMSAs were part of excess materials when the
    contractor took over the facility in Paducah. They are
    materials that need to be dealt with. But they have not been
    turned over to the EM program as waste to be dispositioned.
        That is probably something that we will have to consider,
    and certainly will, when we get the GAO report.
        Senator McConnell. But it is hard to imagine a reason why
    the 57,000 cylinders of depleted uranium should not be
    transferred to your office immediately, is there?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, I guess there is no reason why we should
    not consider it.
        Senator McConnell. You know, it----
        Dr. Huntoon. It is just not our responsibility the way the
    Department set it up.
        Senator McConnell. I know, but just sort of looking at it
    from outside, it is hard to conclude that this is not an
    attitude of indifference toward cleanup.
        So I would like to get you to commit to fully
    characterizing every single DMSA and building at the Paducah
    plant and ensure that it is included in the overall cleanup
    plan.
        I would hope you would provide me and the subcommittee with
    an appropriate time--time table and cost estimate for the
    cleanup of all of this material. Can you--can you make that
    commitment, Dr. Huntoon?
        Dr. Huntoon. I will commit to you, Senator, that I will go
    back to the Department and work with people to try to find out
    how we can best characterize that material and get an overall,
    total cleanup picture for Paducah.
        I share your frustration with the division of labor, at
    many of our sites. And this is a primary example, because
    different work is done by different programs within the
    Department. That is our current division of labor and it is
    awfully hard sometimes to get a total picture of it.
        So I will commit to you to go back to the Department and to
    work to provide you with a complete picture of the cleanup.
        Senator McConnell. And if you think it is hard for you to
    figure it out, imagine the frustration of those--of all of the
    rest of us.
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
        Senator McConnell. How long do you think it will take you
    to pull that together and give me a report on that?
        Dr. Huntoon. I do not know. But I will get back to you just
    as soon as I can muster a group to look at that.
        Senator McConnell. Well, do it as soon as you can.
        Dr. Huntoon. I will.
        Senator McConnell. I would really appreciate it.
        Dr. Huntoon. I will.

                  ADEQUACY OF THE URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND

        Senator McConnell. The decontamination and decommissioning
    fund was created to pay for the removal and cleanup of the
    nation's three diffusion plants. Nuclear utility companies
    contribute to this fund, which has a balance of $1.6 billion.
        Given the level of cleanup required at the three facilities
    and increased cost estimates, what is the likelihood that the
    fund will be adequate to cover all necessary cleanup
    activities?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, Senator, I believe the fund would be
    adequate. I am not sure that we have always asked for the full
    amount required from the fund, or that our requests for cleanup
    in the past have not always been approved.
        I think we are getting a better idea of what cleanup is
    going to cost at both Paducah and Portsmouth. As to whether
    there is enough money there, I cannot exactly say. I know that
    our cost for cleaning up those facilities has increased, as we
    have gotten better baselines, and particularly considering the
    ground water contamination. And we are working to understand
    that better.
        Taking into account the recent draft GAO report that I saw
    this week, they have certainly questioned a lot of the
    assumptions that were made in the total cleanup numbers. So I
    think we are going to probably have to address those issues
    also.

                      depleted Uranium cylinder conversion

        Senator McConnell. Finally, are there any specific
    prohibitions on the use of D&D funding for conversion of the
    depleted uranium--uranium cylinders that, as you know, have
    been rusting away for the past 50 years?
        Dr. Huntoon. Not to my knowledge. There may be, but I do
    not know of it.
        Senator McConnell. Okay.
        Senator Murray?

                CLEANUP OF THE HIGH-LEVEL WASTE TANKS AT HANFORD

        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Huntoon, certainly from my perspective, the
    department's most compelling environmental management need is
    the clean up of the high-level waste tanks at Hanford. These
    tanks are well beyond their expected life time, and many of
    them have already leaked. There are plumes of radioactive
    contamination that are slowly moving toward the Columbia River.
    And this is very disconcerting to those of us who live and work
    in the Pacific Northwest.
        As you know, the department has to work through a legally
    enforceable consent decree that is negotiated with the State of
    Washington to adhere to a clearly understood schedule for the
    removal of the waste from these tanks and for their
    vitrification into a form that is suitable for disposal. But
    negotiations to revise the tri-party agreement, as you know,
    recently broke down. And regulators with the State and the
    regional EPA office recently imposed deadlines to keep DOE on
    track for building the vitrification and treatment facilities.
        Can you describe for us what the Department's plans are to
    resolve the tri-party agreement dispute and to maintain the
    schedule for stabilizing and cleaning up the high-level waste
    in the Hanford tanks?
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, Senator Murray. As you cited, dealing
    with those high-level waste tanks on the banks of the Columbia
    River is one of our very highest priorities. And when we talk
    about things that we consider are risky to the environment and
    people, those tanks certainly stand out in our minds as the
    most important.
        And that is one of the reasons we undertook this
    privatization approach with a contractor to deal with the high-
    level tanks. That is now on schedule: we are to get a proposal
    from the contractor for that on April 24, I believe. And then
    we will spend the next several months, of course, negotiating
    with them.
        If after working through that it is acceptable, in July, we
    owe a report to Congress. And if there are no problems with
    that and we get the go-ahead, we will sign the contract in
    August. And that is the schedule to begin the work on that
    plant.
        And I mention that, when you asked what we were doing,
    because that is the first step toward dealing with the high-
    level waste, to have a contractor in place to build the
    vitrification facility. That will--the August date for signing
    that contract is critical to meeting the tri-party agreement
    milestones.
        Another milestone that is very important to us is 2007,
    when we are supposed to begin treating waste in that new
    facility. That would be correct, according to our contract and
    according to the TPA milestones. So we have moved forward to
    meet these commitments.
        Back to the first part of your question. As you know, we
    have worked with the State of Washington for many years through
    some rather turbulent times trying to reach agreements and deal
    with problems that we have out at Hanford. Most recently, we
    have been working with them, I think, for about the past year
    and a half to try to resolve some questions that they had about
    the Department of Energy's ability to meet some of the
    milestones required by the tri-party agreement.
        You mentioned that the talks had recently broken down. I
    think maybe everyone just got tired, after about a year and a
    half of this. The parties have recently talked on the phone,
    and we are getting back to it again. Secretary Richardson and
    the Deputy Secretary have both engaged in this and plan to meet
    with State officials. The Deputy Secretary was due to go out
    this week. I understand he has had to delay the trip for
    personal reasons, so maybe in the next week or so he will get
    out there.
        Senator Murray. So talks are going to resume.
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes. And we will try to resolve these issues.
    Everyone wants the same thing. And it is just a matter of being
    able to agree to things that we know just may not be possible
    to get the State and the regulators to have enough confidence
    in our efforts to meet these milestones.
        When you ask about our confidence in doing this, you know,
    the first demonstration of our commitment that I point out is
    our request for a budget increase this year for this effort. We
    are quite serious about it. We have worked very hard this year
    with the contractor.

          SHIPMENTS OF LOW-LEVEL AND MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTE TO HANFORD

        Senator Murray. Can you tell me more specifically how the
    Secretary plans to address the concerns that Governor Gary
    Locke and others have in my State, that they should not be
    asked to accept shipments of additional DOE low-level and mixed
    radioactive waste for disposal at Hanford until we do have an
    absolute commitment that the department will maintain the
    schedule for cleaning up the high-level waste in the Hanford
    tanks?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, as I mentioned, they have asked for a
    show of commitment for cleaning up. And I think our schedule
    with the contractor to receive a proposal, to deal with the
    proposal and to try to sign a contract in August, in addition
    to the extra money we have put into the budget, I think,
    demonstrates our commitment. I know that the State has asked us
    to wait until we have an opportunity to have that in place
    before we continue the low-level waste shipments there. That is
    part of what we are working out with them now.
        Senator Murray. Okay. So that will be part of the
    discussions you have this week or next week.
        Dr. Huntoon. We are having those discussions whenever we
    can.

                  PRIVATIZATION OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTE TANK WASTE

        Senator Murray. All right. You have talked a little bit
    about the vitrification plant. Can you tell me, will the use of
    a privatization contractor for the Hanford tank waste
    vitrification be more cost effective to the taxpayer than the
    use of traditional DOE management and operating contractors?
        Dr. Huntoon. What we have planned and discussed in the past
    and what we are anticipating is a proposal that would be most
    beneficial to the taxpayer. The reason I qualify what I am
    saying is that there is much to be worked out between now and
    next August--we have not seen yet the plan that the contractor
    is bringing for the financial part of this program.
        As you know, the idea of the privatization is that the
    contractor is assuming risk by using their own facilities and
    resources and all. And I think that is one of the things that
    we are also hoping will help us keep on track with this,
    because the contractor does have a lot more at risk than in the
    traditional way we usually do projects.
        However, depending on the scoring of the money, depending
    on the cost to the contractor for financing the project we will
    have to assess exactly what is the best deal for the
    government. But that is what we are after.
        Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Dr. Huntoon. I really
    believe the vitrification plan at Hanford is really essential
    to meet the government's obligation to clean up this area. This
    area gave a lot in the war to win it, and we have an obligation
    as a country to clean it up. And we need to move forward on
    that. So I look forward to working with you and members of this
    committee to move that forward.
        Dr. Huntoon. Thank you.
        Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Dr. Huntoon, Dr. Itkin, thank you very much for being with
    us today. I have several questions I will be asking. But first
    of all, Dr. Itkin, thank you for restating the importance of
    the deep geological repository development as it relates to the
    overall need to handle our high-level waste, our high-level
    materials, and to do so in the timely fashion that we are
    already well out of step with. But with your energy and
    commitment and the dedication that this budget shows to it,
    hopefully we will meet those time lines that are really
    fundamentally very critical.
        I also am going to submit for the record a policy paper
    from a group, the National Taxpayers Union. I would have done
    this, if I had had the information with me at the time, when
    Mr. Reicher was with us, because I think it is important when
    we talk about the energy initiatives that are present in this
    budget and the wind initiative.
        Simple calculations based on these new 750 kilowatt wind
    turbines is that to meet the projection that is within the
    overall plan of the Department of Energy, these objects are as
    tall as the Capitol dome of the United States Capitol. They are
    as high as the Statue of Liberty. And it would take about
    123,000 of them to meet that 5-percent factor that was talked
    about this morning.
        So while we are talking these things, we need to make sure
    we maintain the perspective as to what we are doing or what we
    might be doing and the effects of that, and the public's
    acceptance or willingness to accept these kinds of initiatives.

              LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

        Dr. Huntoon, last year--well, last year's Energy and Water
    Appropriations bill prohibited the use of environmental
    management funds for laboratory-directed research and
    development. I did not agree with that action. I took
    opposition to that action. I have believed, and I still
    strongly believe, that LDRD is critical to the development of
    innovative and cost-effective cleanup technologies.
        Last month, in testimony before the Senate Energy
    Committee, Secretary Richardson pledged to help get this
    restriction lifted in fiscal year 2001. Do you support the use
    of environmental management funds for LDRD? And do you think
    LDRD returns a value to the taxpayer?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, yes, Senator Craig, I do support it. I
    know that the LDRD work done in our laboratories for
    environmental management has been very valuable in the past.
    And I would assume it would be in the future. I know that the
    Secretary made this commitment. I know that the language to
    have that added back has been approved and sent forward.
        So I am, as you are, very hopeful that it will be added
    back. We sorely miss the opportunity to use LDRD to solve some
    of our problems.

             ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR TREATING HIGH-LEVEL WASTE

        Senator Craig. Well, when we are on the edge of technology
    and attempting to develop new technology in these areas that
    your area is certainly a part of, to do it in the best and
    soundest of ways, that kind of flexibility properly managed is
    critical, I think. For 3 consecutive years, beginning in fiscal
    1997, the energy and water appropriations conference report has
    included language recommending that DOE fund backup technology
    for vitrification of DOE's high-level waste.
        A recent national academy report, entitled Alternate High-
    Level Waste Treatment at the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory, states that a technology, which would
    produce high-level waste by melting waste, is in the same
    cannister it will be disposed in had advantages over the
    current continuous melder process now in use.
        In the past, DOE funded such a technology, the advanced
    vitrification system, but has recently discontinued funding
    this promising technology.
        My question is: For Idaho's calcined waste, is DOE
    exploring alternatives to the type of high-level waste glass
    now being produced at Savannah River, alternatives which might
    have higher waste loading and more durability?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, I would like to answer you in two ways.
    One, the advanced vitrification system that you referred to, we
    are going to continue funding that to help resolve some of the
    questions that came out of the review. It is an alternative--
    and for the very reasons you just stated. It is the only thing
    that has come to us recently that showed any promise for
    dealing with this issue without vitrification in the more
    traditional Savannah River way and would allow it to be done in
    the cans, as you mentioned.
        The review of it, the technical review, had some real
    problems because a lot of the work had not been demonstrated at
    a scaled-up test, if you will. Because of our own requirements
    for such technology, if we could get it developed, we decided
    to fund work that would allow us to answer some of the
    questions that came out of the review. So we are going to
    continue funding to answer those questions.
        One of the reasons we need alternative technologies would
    be the calcining work that you mentioned that is going to be
    set aside until we have a way to deal with its problems.

               ADEQUACY OF FUNDING TO MEET COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS

        Senator Craig. Dr. Huntoon, under current budget
    projections for the out years, which are relatively flat at all
    DOE sites, is the Department of Energy concerned about its
    ability to meet all of its compliance agreements for cleanup
    nationwide? That would be one question. And if there is not
    going to be enough money, how will DOE then prioritize the
    cleanup initiatives?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, Senator, the out years costs continue to
    hover around $185 to $200 billion total life cycle costs for
    the DOE complex. And we are trying to take care of high risk
    problems first and taking care of our compliance agreements,
    and doing the legally correct things in the States that we have
    our regulators working with us to meet our compliance
    agreements.
        The total cost is something that is, to me, almost
    unbelievable. I believe that the baselines are getting better
    for these long-term projects, whose completions are out there
    in the future. We have seen that as we get closer to closure on
    some of our sites, like Rocky, Fernald, and Mound, our cost
    estimates, our baseline costs, are much more accurate because
    they are in the immediate time frame, closer to the center of
    the radar screen.
        The sites that are obviously either not closing or that
    have large problems, such as the tanks at Hanford, those costs
    are in the out years up to 2070. And those are very hard for us
    to predict. But I will tell you that with our compliance
    agreements, according to the budget that we have requested now,
    we are in substantial compliance across the board.
        We have some challenges for the out years. I think some of
    those will have to be revisited depending on our various
    schedules and these long-term projects. I think about the tank
    vitrification we were just talking about at Hanford. We are due
    to have 10 percent of that waste, 10 percent, dealt with by
    2018. One of our compliance agreements with the State of
    Washington wants all of the waste dealt with by 2018.
        So we have to go back and revisit these issues with our
    regulators. But I believe we have to show our commitment to
    them and the path that we are taking forward in order to ask
    regulators for some relief on some of these out year compliance
    agreements.

           PIT 9 AT IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAB

        Senator Craig. What is the status of the cleanup effort at
    Pit 9 in Idaho?
        Dr. Huntoon. Pit 9 is part of a waste area group, WAG 7, as
    it is referred to out at INEEL. And that entire waste area
    group is about 88 acres, I believe. And Pit 9 was a 1 acre
    portion of it. And as you know, it was chosen to demonstrate
    whether we could privatize the cleanup of this area.
        In the past 2 years after we ceased the contract on Pit 9
    because it was not working, we have continued, in our
    characterization of Pit 9 and in working the cleanup of the
    entire waste area group.
        Right now, I am talking with the folks out at Idaho about
    the possibility of considering an approach based on the data we
    have received from the more exploratory work we have done at
    Pit 9. This work puts probes inside the pit, as well as around
    the pit, to define the conditions inside the pit, and to take
    that information and use it for the entire WAG 7, giving me an
    idea of what it would take to deal with that entire 80-some
    acres of buried waste.
        So we have utilized knowledge we gained from Pit 9. We are
    going to continue working with Pit 9. But I want them to
    address the entire waste burial ground there.

                     ADVANCED MIXED WASTE TREATMENT PROJECT

        Senator Craig. Okay. My last in the series of questions,
    Dr. Huntoon, we have spoken privately about the Secretary's
    recent decision to defer the incinerator portion of the
    advanced mixed waste treatment facility at Idaho. Are you still
    confident, in light of the action, that DOE will meet its
    milestone commitments to the State of Idaho?
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir, I am. And as we said, when you and I
    discussed this earlier, that it was, I think, one of the most
    primary, if not the primary reason that the Secretary asked for
    us to proceed with requesting a permit, but to set aside the
    incinerator in the permit until we could identify another
    technology, or make sure there was no other suitable technology
    available before we asked the State to permit the incinerator.
        By doing that, we were able to make that request, and, I
    believe, on Friday afternoon the letter went forward to the
    State to ask for the permit to build, from both the contractor,
    BNFL, and the Idaho laboratory. It is a dual permit, a dual-
    requested permit. When that permit is issued, the contractor
    will begin working immediately to build this facility and will
    be on schedule then to meet all the agreements that we have for
    starting the shipment of waste off of the site, et cetera.
        I think the idea, also, that maybe everyone did not fully
    understand is that the incinerator portion of the facility
    would only deal with about 3 percent of the waste. Therefore,
    we can deal with a lot of the waste, get on with it, and meet a
    lot of our commitments, and still work on how to best deal with
    that remaining 3 percent of the waste. It might be an
    incinerator. But it might also be that we can find some
    technology, and with additional resources to better define the
    problem, and be ready to deal with that portion of the waste
    before we need to. So we are on track to meet those agreements.
        Senator Craig. Well, to your knowledge now, are you
    personally aware of any alternatives to incineration which
    currently have the appropriate level of EPA approval?
        Dr. Huntoon. No, sir, I am not aware of any. And we asked
    the EPA that question. And I received a letter back from the
    EPA headquarters office saying there are currently no other
    technologies available to treat mixed waste of this sort,
    except for incineration, or a thermal-type of treatment.
        So that was one reason incineration was in the plan all
    along, because we knew that. But we asked again recently, and
    there is still nothing else available. We asked if there were
    any technologies about to be permitted, or were they studying
    some, had they had a request or something. And the answer was
    no to that.
        The third thing is what the Secretary has established a
    blue ribbon committee to look out on the horizon, if you will,
    at the next level. Is anyone working on technology that shows a
    great deal of promise that DOE could sponsor some increased
    activity to have it ready? So we are trying every avenue we can
    to avoid building the incinerator. But it might be necessary at
    the end.
        Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Doctor. That ends
    my questioning. I will have some questions that I will submit
    to the record and to you, Dr. Itkin, I think there are
    important that we have as relates to Yucca Mountain and the
    progress that is going on there.
        I know the chairman wishes he were here. His absence does
    not in any way reflect how he prioritizes this budget and its
    importance. We have encouraged the chairman of the budget
    committees in the House and the Senate to move very quickly to
    get a conference report out and to stay on or ahead of schedule
    with the budget process. And that is why he is not here at this
    moment.
        But I know that others may have questions that they will
    submit, as did the chairman. And I have a few. We will submit
    those for your response.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        So we thank you very much for your time here this morning.
    Your areas of responsibility are critical to our country and,
    in some instances, to our States. And we appreciate the
    opportunity to work with you on these things.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                             WORKING WITH NNSA LABS

        Question. For all witnesses: The National Nuclear Security
    Administration started operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the
    Department on March 1. The NNSA labs of Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence
    Livermore have a long tradition of supporting a broad range of
    scientific initiatives beyond weapons activities. As the NNSA was
    created, I emphasized the importance of the NNSA labs continuing their
    multi-program support of the Department and other federal agencies.
        The enabling legislation, in Section 3264, stated that: ``The
    Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall establish
    procedures to provide for the use . . . of the national security labs
    by elements of the DOE not within the Administration . . .''
        Despite the legislation, I am concerned that the NNSA labs will not
    continue to receive high priority funding from the Department.
        Will each of you assure me that you will continue to aggressively
    fund projects within the NNSA labs?
        Answer. (Dr. Huntoon) Under the NNSA Implementation Plan, the
    Office of Environmental Management (EM) maintains responsibility for
    environmental restoration activities throughout the DOE complex
    including remediation activities at NNSA facilities. As such, EM will
    continue to fund environmental cleanup projects and activities at NNSA
    facilities. In addition, EM will continue to fund projects conducted at
    NNSA laboratories that support the goals and mission of EM as
    appropriate.
        Answer. (Dr. Itkin) Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended,
    the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is conducting site
    characterization activities at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As part of the
    site characterization, numerous activities such as performance
    assessment and modeling, hydrological studies, and waste package
    development, are conducted by the three national laboratories through
    the Program's Management and Operating (M&O) contractor. The Program
    expects to continue funding these activities to support the site
    characterization effort and, if the site is found suitable,
    confirmatory testing.
        Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
    NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaboration, both for
    NNSA lab support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as
    required?
        Answer. (Dr. Huntoon) Yes, discussions have been initiated between
    EM and NNSA on these issues. We will continue to coordinate to ensure
    the necessary support for both NNSA and our office.
        Answer. (Dr. Itkin) The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
    Management has an ongoing relationship with all three laboratories and
    will continue to have the same collaborative relationship in the
    future. We are coordinating with NNSA in our effort to develop a
    bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation to collaborate on
    science related to geologic repositories. We anticipate funding from
    the nonproliferation initiatives to support work in this area in 2001,
    if approved by the Congress.
        Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
    relations between your Office and the NNSA?
        Answer. (Dr. Huntoon) No, I do not foresee any barriers to
    maintaining close working relations between EM and the NNSA.
        Answer. (Dr. Itkin) Our current relationship both with the NNSA
    laboratories and the NNSA is excellent. In the future, we expect that
    the national laboratories will continue to be key participants in our
    program if the site is approved.

                 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL CLEANUP PROGRAM AT HANFORD

        Question. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Program has had problems in the
    past. The fiscal year 2001 budget request included $191.3 million to
    continue cleanup activities. Costs have grown substantially and
    completion schedules have slipped several years since the program
    began.
        Up date the committee on the current costs and schedules to
    complete the removal and storage of the spent nuclear fuel in the K
    Basins at Hanford.
        Answer. The Project to remove N-Reactor spent nuclear fuel from the
    K Basins at Hanford is currently on schedule to begin fuel removal from
    the K-West Basin in November 2000, complete fuel removal in fiscal year
    2004, and complete deactivation and decommissioning of the K-Basins in
    fiscal year 2007 at a total project cost of $1.7 billion. All major
    milestones since establishment of the revised baseline in December 1998
    have been met, including several interim Tri-Party Agreement
    milestones. To ensure that the first fuel removal milestone is met on
    time, the project is undertaking a phased startup initiative to test
    the various critical components and systems well in advance of November
    2000.
        This project will move 2,100 metric tons of degrading N-Reactor
    spent nuclear fuel from the present deficient wet storage in the K-East
    and K-West basins, which are within 1,500 feet of the Columbia River,
    into safe, dry, interim storage in the Canister Storage Building in the
    Hanford Site 200 Area Central Plateau (which is located about 15 miles
    from the Columbia River). The fuel will be stored in the Canister
    Storage Building until ultimate disposal in an offsite geologic
    repository.
        Question. Are there any engineering, technical, or other issues
    that would significantly alter the current costs and completion
    schedule?
        Answer. There are currently no known engineering, technical, or
    other issues that would significantly alter the current costs or
    completion schedule. The phased startup initiative is now underway to
    test the critical components and systems; this initiative will allow
    early identification of any problems in fuel removal, stabilization,
    and storage. The contractor has just recently proposed, and DOE has
    approved, a revised outyear strategy that will accelerate sludge
    removal, and more efficiently utilize personnel and budget resources.
    This revised strategy is supported by the regulators, and the schedule
    is currently being negotiated, since several Tri-Party Agreement
    milestones will need to be changed to accommodate this change in
    strategy. Essentially, the strategy will level project resources in the
    outyears by eliminating the overlap between fuel removal in the two
    basins, allow deletion of requirements for additional processing
    equipment, and accelerate completion of sludge removal by about 12
    months, thereby reducing the largest risks to the environment sooner.
        Question. What actions have been taken to comply with the
    recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    Recommendation 94-1?
        Answer. There are four commitments that apply to the Spent Nuclear
    Fuel Project at Hanford from Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board
    (DNFSB) Recommendation 94-1, Revision 2: (1) Commence fuel removal from
    K-Basins in November 2000; (2) Complete fuel removal from K-Basins in
    December 2003; (3) Commence sludge removal from K-Basins in July 2004;
    and (4) Complete sludge removal from K-Basins in August 2005.
        Actions taken to date to meet these commitments include completing
    major construction activities at the Canister Storage Building and the
    Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, and completing upgrades to equipment at K-
    West Basin in support of commencing fuel movement in November 2000.
    Testing of new equipment and facilities and closeout construction
    activities have commenced at all three facilities in preparation for
    startup in November.
        A revised outyear strategy that would accelerate sludge removal was
    recently approved by DOE, and is supported by the regulators and the
    DNFSB. This revised strategy would more efficiently utilize personnel
    and budget resources. The revised schedule for the strategy is
    currently being negotiated with the regulators and the DNFSB, since
    several Tri-Party Agreement and DNFSB commitments will need to be
    changed to accommodate this change in strategy. Essentially, the
    strategy will level project resources in the outyears by eliminating
    the overlap between fuel removal from the two basins, allow deletion of
    requirements for additional processing equipment, and accelerate
    completion of sludge removal by about 12 months, thereby reducing the
    largest risks to the environment sooner. The result is that commencing
    sludge removal is accelerated 18 months to December 2002; completing
    sludge removal is accelerated by one year to August 2004; and
    completing fuel removal is deferred seven months to July 2004. Overall
    completion of the final Spent Nuclear Fuel Project DNFSB commitments,
    represented by completion of sludge removal, will occur about one year
    earlier under the revised strategy.
        Question. What assurances can you give the committee that the
    changes to this program will ensure the project proceeds on schedule
    and remain within the current cost estimate?
        Answer. The project to remove N-reactor spent nuclear fuel from the
    K-Basins at Hanford is currently on schedule to begin fuel removal from
    the K-West Basin in November 2000, complete fuel removal in fiscal year
    2004, and complete deactivation and decommissioning of the K-Basins in
    fiscal year 2007 at a total project cost of $1.7 billion. All major
    regulatory milestones since establishment of the revised project
    baseline in December 1998 have been met. To ensure that the first fuel
    removal milestone is met on time, the project is undertaking a phased
    startup initiative to test the various critical components and systems
    well in advance of November 2000.
        Fiscal year 1999 work had excellent cost and schedule performance.
    The budget execution resulted in less than 1 percent cost variance, and
    all activities were completed on schedule with less than 3 percent
    negative schedule variance in fiscal year 1999. The contractor is
    working diligently to deliver similar results in fiscal year 2000.
    Activities this year include closeout of construction activities and
    commencement of testing of systems in K-West Basin, the Canister
    Storage Building, and the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility. The Operational
    Readiness Reviews, which demonstrate readiness to start removing fuel,
    are scheduled for the summer and fall of 2000.
        In addition to the above activities, DOE recently approved a
    revised outyear strategy, which is supported by the regulators, that
    would accelerate sludge removal, and more efficiently utilize personnel
    and budget resources. The revised strategy is currently being
    negotiated with the regulators, since several Tri-Party Agreement
    interim milestones will need to be changed to accommodate this change
    in strategy. Essentially the strategy will level project resources in
    the outyears by eliminating the overlap between fuel removal from the
    two basins, allow deletion of requirements for additional processing
    equipment, and accelerate sludge removal by about 18 months, thereby
    reducing the largest risks to the environment sooner.
        Monthly project reviews are held with the contractor to review
    technical, cost, and schedule performance and issues. The Deputy
    Secretary reviews the project on a periodic basis and reviews updates
    on a monthly basis.

           SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)--NUCLEAR MATERIALS STABILIZATION

        Question. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued follow
    up recommendations in January regarding the stabilization of nuclear
    materials around DOE's weapon production complex. The top 4 priority
    items dealt with issues at the Savannah River Site.
        Are you aware of the Defense Board's Recommendation 2000-1? What is
    your response to their recommendations?
        Answer. Recommendation 2000-1 cites the Defense Nuclear Facilities
    Safety Board's (DNFSB) previous Recommendation 94-1 and discusses the
    progress made in nuclear material stabilization to date. It further
    details the remaining activities which need to be completed to
    stabilize and ensure safe storage of those materials. Recommendation
    2000-1 specifically criticizes the Department for failing to meet
    stabilization schedules due to insufficient funding. The Recommendation
    describes the Board's interpretation of their enabling legislation
    relative to this circumstance, specifically that the Department must
    advise Congress and the President of any shortfall in funding that
    impacts Recommendation 94-1 commitments.
        The Department sent its response to Recommendation 2000-1 to the
    DNFSB on March 13, 2000. In the response, the Department accepted the
    technical portions of the recommendation relating to nuclear materials
    stabilization. However the Department does not agree that funding is
    the primary factor in schedule delays and did not accept the portions
    of the recommendations dealing with funding.
        The Department is working aggressively to complete resource loaded
    baselines to finish the stabilization work begun under Recommendation
    94-1. By the end of May, we plan to provide the DNFSB with an
    implementation plan for completing the remaining Recommendation 94-1
    activities, and satisfying the risk-reduction requirements of
    Recommendation 2000-1. It is our intention that this combined plan will
    serve as the Department's 2000-1 Implementation Plan, and enable
    Recommendation 94-1 to be closed.
        Question. Why is it taking so long to resolve these issues at the
    SRS?
        Answer. While significant progress on nuclear material
    stabilization has been made at SRS, factors contributing to slowing
    that progress include: suspending construction of a new plutonium
    stabilization and storage facility that was planned to be built at SRS,
    based on a determination that the Department needed to reevaluate
    plutonium storage needs at the site in light of both significant
    estimated construction cost increases for the facility and a
    Departmental decision to name SRS as the preferred location for a new
    plutonium disposition facility; the need to reassess the Americium/
    Curium Vitrification Project because development of the vitrification
    equipment and process proved to be more formidable than originally
    estimated; and the longer-than-anticipated length of time needed to
    both finalize an interagency agreement between DOE and the Tennessee
    Valley Authority (TVA) for making surplus uranium available to TVA for
    use in reactor fuel. DOE is now finalizing a revised implementation
    plan for submittal from the Secretary to the Board that reflects a
    resource-loaded path forward to complete all Recommendation 94-1
    stabilization activities.
        Question. What is DOE doing to stabilize the uranium solution in
    tanks outside H-Canyon? Specifically, why should this stabilization
    work wait on plans to convert the uranium to fuel for TVA and the
    Defense Board states?
        Answer. DOE is continuing to work with TVA to make this surplus
    uranium available for use in reactor fuel. This program will result in
    stabilization of the existing uranium solution and solutions to be
    produced by dissolving certain SRS spent nuclear fuel that requires
    stabilization. The first step in solution stabilization is to blend it
    down to a low enrichment level (for this program, about 4.9 percent U-
    235). This activity will take place at SRS. The final step in
    stabilization, converting the low enriched solution to a solid oxide
    form, will take place at a commercial facility under contract to TVA.
    This work cannot begin until DOE and TVA finalize an interagency
    agreement, which is expected to occur this summer, and the necessary
    SRS [and commercial] facilities are constructed, which must be
    authorized by Congress. Language authorizing the start of project
    design in fiscal year 2000 is contained in an emergency supplemental
    appropriations bill. The Department cannot initiate project design
    until Congress acts to authorize this project.
        SRS does not currently have the capability to convert the low
    enriched solution to oxide; however, preliminary design work to develop
    this capacity using on-site facilities or via a commercial vendor has
    begun. DOE believes it is prudent to pursue this path in parallel with
    the efforts to provide the uranium to TVA in the event that the TVA
    fuel program is not successful. If this comes to pass, SRS will blend
    the uranium solution to an enrichment of less than one percent U-235,
    convert it to an oxide either in SRS facilities or at a commercial
    vendor, and store the material at SRS pending ultimate disposition.
    This form of the material would have no commercial value and would
    likely be classified as waste. Even if DOE decided to devote full
    resources to this alternative now, it is unlikely that stabilization of
    the uranium solution could be accomplished as soon as with the program
    to provide the material to TVA.
        Question. What are the costs, schedules and major milestones in
    dealing with this issue?
        Answer. The Department's cost for the design and construction of
    the capital project required at SRS to enable transfer of the surplus
    uranium to TVA for use as reactor fuel is estimated to be approximately
    $100 million during fiscal years 2001-2003. An estimated additional
    $200 million in operating costs would be required for activities at SRS
    and the Y-12 Plant (Oak Ridge) during fiscal years 2001-2007. These
    costs cover not only the 8.7 metric tons (MT) of SRS uranium that is
    subject to DNFSB Recommendations 94-1 and 2000-1, but also 24 MT of
    other off-specification highly enriched uranium at SRS and the Y-12
    Plant. DOE and TVA will share costs, as well as any potential savings
    generated by use of the fuel, in accordance with an Interagency
    Agreement expected to be finalized this summer. In comparison, the
    estimated cost to disposition all of the material as waste is over $900
    million.
        Schedules and major milestones for this and other SRS nuclear
    material stabilization activities will be provided in an updated plan,
    expected to be forwarded to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    by the end of May 2000, to address both Board Recommendations 94-1 and
    2000-1.
        Question. Another high priority problem cited by the Board was
    remediation of highly radioactive solutions of Americium and Curium in
    F-Canyon at the SRS. Could you explain the issues there, particularly
    why DOE plans to defer vitrification of this material?
        Answer. The Department intends to continue with its plan to vitrify
    the Americium/Curium solution currently stored in the F-Canyon facility
    at SRS as expeditiously as possible. The Department has encountered
    delays in stabilizing this material because development of the
    vitrification equipment and process proved to be more formidable than
    originally estimated. As a result, the Americium/Curium Vitrification
    Project was reassessed, and a new cost and schedule baseline was
    recently approved by DOE. DOE is committing the necessary resources to
    complete this stabilization project in accordance with the new
    baseline. A revised Implementation Plan, to be submitted to the Board
    by the end of May 2000, will reflect that baseline.
        Question. How does DOE plan to process this material?
        Answer. The Americium/Curium solution will be stabilized by
    vitrification, i.e., it will be encapsulated in a glass form. This will
    be accomplished by installing and operating new equipment, which is
    currently undergoing detail design, in the Multi-Purpose Processing
    Facility inside F-Canyon.

                                  ROCKY FLATS

        Question. Dr. Huntoon, I am impressed by the work that is being
    done to clean-up and close Rocky Flats by 2006. The contractor
    continues to make good progress on shipments of material and
    decontamination and decommissioning of buildings. The sooner we
    complete the project, the more money the department will save on
    safeguards, security and other overhead expenses. However, the DOE has
    never completed a clean-up of this scale and complexity.
        Is the DOE committed to completing the clean-up by December 15 of
    2006?
        Answer. The Department is fully committed to its target for
    achieving closure of Rocky Flats by December 15, 2006. On January 24,
    2000, the Department signed a new contract with Kaiser-Hill that
    formalizes this commitment.
        The new Rocky Flats ``closure'' contract, which became effective
    February 1, 2000, includes contractor incentives for closure by 2006,
    as well as reductions in fee for schedule slippages. It also includes a
    detailed process for the identification and provision of Government-
    furnished services and items necessary to support the closure schedule.
    These services and items include the identification of receiver sites
    for materials and wastes, the certification of shipping containers, the
    coordination and resolution of issues, and other support activities.
    Kaiser-Hill will submit a revised Rocky Flats 2006 Closure Project
    Baseline in June 2000. This baseline will reflect the terms of the
    contract including an assumed annual funding level of $657 million.
        Question. Are you confident that the regulatory framework
    established under the Rocky Flats clean-up agreement will stay in
    place, and no new regulatory changes will occur to increase the current
    work scope?
        Answer. The Department is committed to the framework established by
    the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA). The RFCA, which was signed in
    1996, is a legally binding agreement between DOE, the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), and the Colorado Department of Public Health
    and Environment (CDPHE) to achieve cleanup at the Rocky Flats site. On
    December 10, 1999, DOE, EPA and CDPHE jointly issued a memorandum in
    which they committed to: expedite the closure of Rocky Flats by 2006;
    provide DOE sufficient regulatory flexibility to achieve the 2006
    closure goal; set priorities for cleanup work done at the site to
    emphasize reductions in risk and ``mortgage'' costs, and continue the
    closure process; and continue to ensure public and environmental safety
    consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
    and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and
    other relevant statutes.
        The regulatory framework of the RFCA identifies the processes
    through which final end-state decisions are made regarding the Rocky
    Flats site, and it grants authorization of interim cleanup actions. It
    also provides for interim radionuclide soil action levels. The contract
    for closure of Rocky Flats signed between DOE and Kaiser-Hill in
    January 2000 recognizes the RFCA framework. While the underlying
    framework of the RFCA is not expected to change, it is possible that
    the interim assumptions and decisions carried out under the 1996
    agreement will be revised or finalized through the RFCA amendment
    process. If these changes result in increased work scope, a contract
    modification will be implemented.
        Currently, the Department is in the process of responding to the
    recommendation from the independent oversight panel that a revised,
    more stringent radionuclide soil action level be formally adopted in
    the RFCA. The panel's recommendation is based on an assumed future land
    use that would allow greater access than the land use assumed in the
    current RFCA. A significant change to the action levels would likely
    require additional remediation activities, a possible extension in the
    remediation schedule, and a possible increase in total cost of cleanup
    for the Rocky Flats site.
        Question. What kind of challenges would prevent the DOE from
    completing clean-up of Rocky Flats on time?
        Answer. There are several basic factors that could prevent the
    Department from completing the cleanup of the Rocky Flats site on time.
    These include any significant reductions to the planned funding level
    of $657 million assumed in the new closure contract; significant
    changes to the regulatory assumptions underlying the Department's
    current cleanup plans, particularly assumptions about future land use,
    which guide the cleanup; inadequate contractor performance; and the
    Department's failure to provide the Government-furnished services and
    items identified in the contract, including availability of sites to
    receive various materials and waste streams from Rocky Flats. The
    Department is developing a detailed process for the identification and
    provision of Government-furnished services and items. The Department
    and Kaiser-Hill are actively working to resolve issues related to
    finalizing disposition paths for all material on site and will continue
    to work to ensure the primary receiver sites for Rocky Flats waste and
    material remain available as currently planned. These primary receiver
    sites are the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the Savannah River site.

                              ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE

        Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes $664.7
    million to continue clean up activities at Rocky Flats. This is the
    same as the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
        Does the fiscal year 2001 budget request for Rocky Flats maintain
    the 2006 clean up schedule? If not, why?
        Answer. Yes, the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget request of
    $664.7 million for Rocky Flats fully supports the 2006 cleanup
    schedule.
        Question. Dr. Huntoon, your statement mentions ``challenges''
    facing the closure of Rocky flats by 2006. What specifically are these
    challenges, and how will they impact DOE's ability to bring about
    closure by 2006?
        Answer. At Rocky Flats, the scope of work required to close the
    site by 2006 is well understood and will be documented in the revised
    Rocky Flats 2006 Closure Project Baseline. This new baseline will be
    submitted to the Department by Kaiser-Hill in June 2000. While the
    schedule is ambitious, the new closure contract is a valuable tool for
    incentivizing the resolution of any obstacles impeding site closure.
    One of the key challenges that must be met to successfully close the
    site is the removal of all special nuclear material from the site in
    2002. This requires the identification of firm disposition paths for a
    number of nuclear material and waste streams and coordination with and
    availability of sites to accept the materials and waste. The Rocky
    Flats site also needs to finalize the details of the anticipated end
    state through regulatory and public processes. However, the Department
    and Kaiser-Hill are actively working to address these challenging
    issues, and the Department does not believe they will adversely impact
    DOE's plans to close Rocky Flats in 2006.
        Dr. Huntoon, your statement cites stable funding and the ability to
    move nuclear waste and material from the site as possible obstacles.
        Question. What are the critical issues related to movement of
    materials that could adversely impact the 2006 completion schedule?
        Answer. The critical issue related to the off-site shipment of
    material and waste from Rocky Flats is the identification of firm
    disposition paths for a number of nuclear material and waste streams.
    This includes the identification of DOE sites receiving these materials
    and wastes, securing final agreements with these sites, storage
    capacity and acceptance criteria at the receiver sites, the requisite
    National Environmental Policy Act and regulatory approvals, and the
    timely certification and procurement of shipping containers and
    transportation services. These issues are being resolved through the
    Government-furnished services and items process defined under the new
    Rocky Flats closure contract.
        Question. What is DOE's strategy for successfully making the
    required shipments?
        Answer. The Department's strategy for successfully making the
    required shipments is embodied within the terms and conditions of the
    new Rocky Flats closure contract. The process for the identification
    and delivery of Government-furnished services and items (GFS/I)
    provides the framework for identifying and resolving issues related to
    nuclear materials and waste shipment. The delivery of the GFS/I
    requires careful coordination among various Departmental sites and
    organizations. The strategy requires continued interaction with the
    sites receiving wastes and materials, particularly the Waste Isolation
    Pilot Plant and the Savannah River Site. The strategy also assumes
    continued management attention to resolve National Environmental Policy
    Act and other policy issues affecting shipment.
        Question. Would providing additional funding in fiscal year 2001
    over the budget request significantly affect the 2006 closure schedule?
        Answer. The Department's budget request of $664.7 million for Rocky
    Flats fully supports the fiscal year 2006 closure schedule.
        Question. Are there any on going WIPP related issues that would
    impact the 2006 closure schedule?
        Answer. The Rocky Flats site has planned an aggressive shipping
    campaign for transuranic waste to achieve the 2006 closure schedule.
    The site currently expects to dispose of about 15,000 cubic meters of
    transuranic waste through 2006. While shipments to the Waste Isolation
    Pilot Plant (WIPP) continue, some WIPP-related issues could potentially
    impact the Rocky Flats shipping campaign. However, these issues are
    actively being addressed to avoid any impact to the 2006 closure
    schedule.
        One potential issue relates to obtaining the remaining approval
    needed to ship all forms of transuranic waste. On March 9, 2000, Rocky
    Flats received approval from the State of New Mexico to characterize,
    certify, and ship debris waste under WIPP's Resource Conservation and
    Recovery Act (RCRA) permit. Efforts are underway to obtain a similar
    approval for Rocky Flats solid homogeneous waste by the end of calendar
    year 2000.
        Another issue that could affect Rocky Flats closure relates to an
    ongoing judicial challenge to the WIPP RCRA permit by the Southwest
    Research and Information Center. The current schedule for shipping
    transuranic waste from Rocky Flats assumes that the existing RCRA
    permit remains in effect and that shipments are not affected by the
    litigation.

                 HANFORD TANK WASTE REMEDIATION PROJECT (TWRS)

        Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $450 million
    to support the TWRS privatization project at Hanford, Washington. This
    is a significant increase over the $105 million appropriated in fiscal
    year 2000. DOE expects to make a decision in August of this year on
    proceeding with the construction phase of the privatization project.
        What is the status of the project particularly the scientific,
    technical and engineering basis needed to make the project a success?
        Answer. Based upon monitoring the technical progress of British
    Nuclear Fuels Limited, Inc., (BNFL) during the Part B-1 period and
    review of its April 24, 2000, proposal for the Hanford TWRS
    privatization project, the Department has concluded that the processes
    proposed for treating and immobilizing the tank wastes will meet DOE
    requirements. In addition, it appears that the planning, engineering,
    and safety basis for the process and facility will provide a successful
    remedy for the high-level waste tanks at Hanford. However, the
    Department has determined that other aspects of BNFL's April 24, 2000,
    proposal, including cost, schedule, management, and business approach,
    were unacceptable. Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced
    that the privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated. The
    Department will compete a non-privatized design and construction
    contract with a new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001. This
    effort may use the technical and design approaches developed by the
    Part B-1 contractors. Plant operating expertise, needed as input to the
    design, will be transitioned from BNFL to an existing contractor. The
    Department will solicit competitive bids for operation of the facility
    at an appropriate future date.
        Question. How is it possible to have a credible design, one that
    reflects firm work schedules and milestones if these issues are not
    thoroughly understood?
        Answer. Based on monitoring the technical progress of the BNFL team
    during the Part B-1 period and the review of its April 24, 2000,
    proposal, no significant technical issues have been identified. The
    technical work performed under Part B-1 is credible and may continue to
    be the basis for the treatment facility at Hanford under the new non-
    privatized contract that will replace the BNFL contract.
        Question. Each nuclear waste project is unique, and TWRS is no
    exception-it is truly one of a kind. Therefore, what have you learned
    from other privatization projects that would be helpful with the TWRS
    project at Hanford?
        Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
    proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable in
    many areas, including cost, schedule, management, and business
    approach. The price of the proposal included high contingency, fees,
    and return on investment which essentially shifted the financial risk
    from BNFL back to the Federal Government. Thus, a key benefit of
    privatization, in this case, was lost. Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the
    Secretary announced that the privatization contract with BNFL will be
    terminated. The Department will compete a non-privatized design and
    construction contract, with a new contractor being selected by January
    15, 2001. Plant operating expertise, needed as input to the design,
    will be transitioned from BNFL to an existing contractor. The
    Department will solicit competitive bids for operation of the facility
    at an appropriate future date.
        Question. How confident is DOE that this is the best approach and
    that all major issues are resolved such that the project may proceed
    without significant delays and cost increases attributable to unknown
    factors?
        Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
    proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable in
    many areas including cost, schedule, management, and business approach.
    Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced that the
    privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated. The Department
    will compete a non-privatized design and construction contract, with a
    new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001. Plant operating
    expertise, needed as input to the design, will be transitioned from
    BNFL to an existing contractor. The Department will solicit competitive
    bids for operation of the facility at an appropriate future date. Even
    though this change in acquisition approach has been necessary, the
    technical concept and the design work accomplished to date provide a
    sound approach to treatment of the high-level waste at Hanford.
        Question. The GAO has indicated in their report RCED 99-13 that the
    BNFL melter technology is unverified for Hanford application. Do you
    agree with the GAO assessment? If not, why?
        Answer. We do not agree with the GAO assessment. The assessment was
    completed at a point in the project in which little specific
    vitrification testing had been completed. Since that time, BNFL/GTS
    Duratek has used its pilot melter facility with simulated wastes to
    demonstrate that the vitrification technology for low activity waste
    will produce an acceptable glass product at production rates that meet
    or exceed design requirements. Approximately 80 metric tons of glass
    have been produced with this melter during Phase I, Part B-1. The team
    has also successfully tested its technology for high activity waste
    using actual high-level wastes at a bench scale. In addition, a number
    of the design concepts (e.g., glass bubblers, pouring system design)
    have been verified, and production rates 20-50 percent above design
    requirements have been achieved. From this information BNFL/GTS Duratek
    has been able to further refine the vitrification technology process
    and equipment.
        Question. Should the BNFL joule melter be demonstrated with Hanford
    high activity wastes (either simulated or actual) with the anticipated
    waste loading prior to proceeding with construction or agreeing to a
    price for processing vitrified waste?
        Answer. Pilot melter testing using simulated high-level waste feed
    compositions and laboratory vitrification of actual Hanford tank waste
    samples have been completed by BNFL/GTS Duratek. Testing will continue
    to further refine glass compositions and process strategies.
        Question. Hanford high level wastes are known to vary widely in
    chemistry due to on going chemical reactions in the tanks. How does
    this variability affect DOE's plans for obtaining a homogenous waste
    feed by blending the wastes?
        Answer. DOE does not plan on blending tank wastes prior to the year
    2018. DOE has had numerous samples of tank waste tested and has found
    that the waste feed specifications capture the composition of
    approximately 90 percent of all Hanford wastes. These wastes can be
    processed in a vitrification facility without blending. The equipment
    in the tank farms, planned upgrades, tank space availability, and
    operational experience will be sufficient to accomplishing blending
    needed for 2018.
        Question. What is the government's liability in the event DOE
    cannot deliver a homogenous waste feed to BNFL?
        Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
    proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable in
    many areas, including cost, schedule, management, and business
    approach. Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced that the
    privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated. The Department
    will compete a non-privatized design and construction contract, with a
    new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001. Under either a
    privatized or non-privatized contract, the Government would be liable
    if the proper feed cannot be delivered. However, in the latter type of
    contract, the liability would not include costs specifically associated
    with privatization, such as financing and return on investment.
        Question. Has blending of nuclear waste on the scale necessary at
    Hanford ever been demonstrated or accomplished?
        Answer. Planned blending to achieve acceptable feed will not occur
    until after the year 2018. Incidental mixing of waste from different
    tanks takes place currently in the routine transfers at Hanford. Waste
    from one tank is transferred into another after verifying compatibility
    of the two wastes. One of the most recent examples occurred in 1998-99
    with the transfer of waste from Tank C-106 (about 190,000 gallons) to
    Tank AY-102 (about 700,000 gallons). The purpose for the transfer was
    to eliminate a safety concern in Tank C-106; however, as part of the
    process, wastes from both tanks were successfully combined in a one
    million gallon tank.
        Question. Is substantial piping required in the blending process
    and in delivery of the waste to BNFL for vitrification? Can the piping
    become clogged and if so, what steps will be taken to avoid clogging?
        Answer. The equipment presently in the tank farms, along with the
    planned upgrades to the tank farms, will fully support all future
    blending (after 2018) and feed delivery activities. Currently, Hanford
    is planning to upgrade existing equipment (pump pits, ventilation,
    valves, etc.) and install new pipelines that connect the various tank
    farms to each other and to the processing facilities. These are
    necessary for general retrieval, not blending, but will also be
    utilized for blending activities after 2018. The piping has the
    potential to become clogged; however, several preventative measures are
    in use and are planned for the future. DOE is performing laboratory
    tests on physical properties of the waste in order to determine
    dilution and thermodynamic parameters that will prevent formation of
    solids in the pipes. Control of these parameters is incorporated in the
    current plans for waste feed delivery. DOE plans to dilute the waste
    prior to and during transfers. Also, DOE has included redundancy in the
    piping plans. DOE will connect four pipelines to the processing
    facilities, two primary lines and two back-ups. If a primary line
    clogs, DOE will use a back-up line during the period the primary line
    is being unclogged. Hanford occasionally experiences pipeline clogs on
    some of the tank-to-tank transfers. These are readily unclogged by
    injecting hot water flushes into the clogged pipeline.
        Question. What is the expected cost to the government for making a
    blended, homogenous waste feed?
        Answer. The waste that will be delivered to the processing plant
    prior to 2018 will not need to be blended or homogeneous. This waste
    will conform to waste feed specifications without blending. The
    equipment presently in the tank farms and the planned upgrades will be
    sufficient to accomplish any blending needed after 2018. Costs to
    perform those future blending operations will be comparable to current
    costs for routine transfers.
        Question. Will it be possible to insert new, more efficient and
    less costly waste treatment technologies into the TWRS project at
    Hanford? Please explain.
        Answer. Based on monitoring of the technical progress of the BNFL
    team during the Part B-1 period and review of its April 24, 2000,
    proposal, the Department believes the technical approach and design are
    sound. The process facilities and equipment concepts for the treatment
    facilities are being designed for remote maintenance and replacement.
    Using these design concepts, it is possible that newer, more efficient
    technologies could be employed in the treatment facilities as they
    become cost effective to do so. Examples include higher temperature
    melters and the use of different radionuclide separation technologies
    (e.g., improved resins and/or inorganic engineered materials). DOE
    continues to invest in related science and technology development
    through its High-Level Waste Focus Area. The results from this program
    are targeted toward eventual applications at TWRS.

                             SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

        Question. The budget request for Science and Technology totals
    $196.5 million for fiscal year 2001 compared to $236.7 million for
    fiscal year 1999 and $229.4 million for fiscal year 2000.
        Are the basic science and technology needs of the program declining
    or is there some other reason that accounts for this continued downward
    trend in the Science and Technology program?
        Answer. The Office of Science and Technology continues to review
    technology needs as sites modify their cleanup programs or identify
    more aggressive approaches to conducting their work. While intractable
    problems still exist, and there is still a definite need for the
    further development of new technology, our thrust has turned to
    ensuring widespread deployment of innovative technologies to meet
    closure site schedules. We are working with our field offices to ensure
    that new technologies are applied where they are most needed.
        We are now placing added emphasis on the deployment of technologies
    that are already developed. During our recent reorganization of the EM
    program, we created a Deployment Assistance Team whose mission is to
    provide the tools needed to accelerate and increase the deployment of
    new technology and the delivery of key products to address the needs of
    site closure and project completion activities.
        Question. For example, is DOE pursuing any alternatives that could
    be used in the event the BNFL vitrification melter process proposed for
    the Hanford waste cleanup program fails or does not perform as
    expected? Please explain.
        Answer. The successful operation of high-level waste (HLW)
    vitrification at the West Valley Site and at the Defense Waste
    Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site has provided confidence
    that vitrification of HLW at Hanford can be equally as successful.
    Additionally, BNFL has successfully vitrified simulated Hanford (low
    activity) wastes in the Duratek facility in Columbia, Maryland, at
    production rates 20-50 percent above design requirements. The
    Department continues to seek technical improvements in current
    vitrification methods for better cost effectiveness and reliability.
        However, the recognized complexity and diversity of HLW at Hanford
    and the high total life cycle costs at Hanford have led the Department
    to commission a review of alternatives, in order to provide
    recommendations by the end of this calendar year on the specific new or
    different technologies that should be comprehensively developed as cost
    saving alternatives over the next several years. Specific emphasis is
    on alternatives to vitrification that could reduce the total life cycle
    costs, including final disposal costs.

                                EM PRIVATIZATION

        Question. Dr. Huntoon, as you know, CBO has changed the outlay
    scoring for DOE privatizations. As a result, the outlays for the
    Hanford tank privatization jump up to 53 percent. There is now no
    scoring advantage to the Appropriations Committee for DOE to use
    privately financed contracts for these projects because they cost the
    Appropriations Committee the same (in the near term) as a standard,
    multi-year procurement.
        In fact, since the private financing rates are substantially over
    government borrowing rates, the total project costs are much higher
    under the privatization contracts.
        Why should the Congress proceed with a privatization proposal that
    will dramatically increase the cost of a project as a result of the
    cost of private financing versus the cost of government financing?
        Answer. The Department determined that British Nuclear Fuels
    Limited, Inc.'s, (BNFL) April 24, 2000, proposal for the Hanford
    privatization contract was unacceptable in many areas, including cost,
    schedule, management, and business approach. Therefore, on May 8, 2000,
    the Secretary announced that the privatization contract with BNFL will
    be terminated. The Department will compete a non-privatized design and
    construction contract, with a new contractor being selected by January
    15, 2001. Plant operating expertise, needed as input to the design,
    will be transitioned from BNFL to an existing contractor. The
    Department will solicit competitive bids for operation of the facility
    at an appropriate future date.
        Question. Do you still expect construction to be complete in fiscal
    year 2007 at a cost of $5.4 billion for Phase I?
        Answer. The Department determined that BNFL's April 24, 2000,
    proposal for the Hanford privatization contract was unacceptable.
    Therefore, on May 8, 2000, the Secretary announced that the
    privatization contract with BNFL will be terminated, and the Department
    will compete a non-privatized design and construction contract. The
    request for proposals, to be issued in August 2000, will ask for
    proposals that would enable the Department to meet the 2007 milestone
    under the Tri-Party Agreement. The costs will not be determined until a
    new contractor is awarded by January 15, 2001.

                             NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

        Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Nuclear Waste
    Disposal program at Yucca Mountain totals $470.3 million. This includes
    $358.3 million of non-Defense discretionary funding and $112 million
    for the Defense portion of the program.
        The Department will issue a comprehensive Final Environmental
    Impact Statement contemporaneously with the finalization of the Site
    Recommendation. A Site Recommendation Consideration Report will be
    prepared, and if the site is determined to be suitable and the
    Secretary of Energy decides to recommend the site for repository
    development, the Site Recommendation Report will be submitted to the
    President in fiscal year 2001. If the President and then the Congress,
    accept the Site Recommendation, a License Application will be prepared
    and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 2002.
        Since the submission of the Viability Assessment in December 1998,
    have you found any scientific or technical fault with the Yucca
    Mountain site that would suggest that it is not a suitable site for a
    permanent geologic repository?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Nuclear Waste
    Disposal program at Yucca Mountain totals $437.5 million. This includes
    $325.5 million of non-Defense discretionary funding and $112 million
    for the Defense portion of the program.
        The scientific studies and analyses we have conducted since the
    Viability Assessment indicate that Yucca Mountain remains a promising
    site for a geologic repository. We are therefore pursuing the work that
    will support a Secretarial decision in 2001 on whether to recommend the
    site to the President for development as a repository.
        Question. There have been ongoing concerns related to the migration
    of water at the site. Is this something new, and have you been able to
    assess the problem? Do you believe this to be a problem?
        Answer. To date, Yucca Mountain remains a promising site for
    development as a geologic repository. The movement of water is an
    important consideration which is being examined. Our understanding of
    how water flows through the saturated and unsaturated zones is
    integrated in a total system performance assessment that models and
    predicts how a repository may perform within Yucca Mountain. At this
    time, given our understanding of how a repository may perform, we do
    not anticipate problems with the migration of water at this site.
        Question. What is your schedule for major repository milestones?
    Have you met last years goals? What, in your judgement are the
    impediments to meeting future milestones?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, we met the major milestones for that
    year of issuing the Viability Assessment and Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement and completing a formal, independent peer review of the total
    system performance assessment (TSPA) that supported the Viability
    Assessment. The peer review findings and recommendations will be
    considered in developing the TSPA to support decisions on site
    recommendation. We also completed repository and waste package designs
    for use in developing the TSPA and other documentation that will
    support decisions on site recommendation. We are now further developing
    those designs based on the results of our analyses to reflect
    recommendations made by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
        Milestones leading to the opening of a permanent repository, and
    potential impediments to the schedule, are identified and discussed
    below. Because these milestones are on the critical path to the start
    of repository operations, a factor that jeopardizes one date may
    jeopardize subsequent dates. The greatest impediment to the schedule
    would be inadequate funding, and recently, our ambitious schedule has
    been made more challenging by a funding shortfall in excess of $100
    million during the past three years. Note that the discussion of
    milestones below assumes that the Department's work would not be
    curtailed or delayed by court orders due to potential lawsuits filed by
    parties who oppose implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
    (NWPA).
      --Prepare Site Recommendation Consideration Report, late 2000. OCRWM
            will issue a Site Recommendation Consideration Report in late
            2000. After that, OCRWM plans to hold public hearings in the
            vicinity of Yucca Mountain to inform residents of a possible
            site recommendation.
          Potential schedule risk: At this time, we identify no major
            factors that would jeopardize this date.
      --Complete final environmental impact statement (EIS) to support the
            Secretary's submittal to the President of a site
            recommendation. The NWPA requires that an EIS accompany a
            Secretarial site recommendation. The Department issued a draft
            EIS for public comment in fiscal year 1999 and comments are now
            being reviewed. The final EIS will be completed in fiscal year
            2001.
          Potential schedule risk: At this time, provided sufficient fiscal
            year 2001 funding, we identify no major factors that would
            jeopardize completion of the EIS in fiscal year 2001.
      --Prepare and submit a site recommendation, fiscal year 2001. After
            holding public hearings in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and
            reviewing public comments, OCRWM will advise the Secretary on
            site recommendation. If the Secretary decides to submit a site
            recommendation to the President, this may trigger a series of
            steps defined by the NWPA. At least 30 days prior to that
            recommendation, the Secretary must notify the Governor and
            legislature of Nevada of his intent to submit the
            recommendation. If the President, upon receipt of the
            Secretary's recommendation, decides to recommend the site to
            Congress, the Governor and legislature of Nevada may submit a
            notice of disapproval to Congress. If a notice of disapproval
            is submitted, Congress may act in accordance with the timetable
            and procedures in the NWPA to approve the Presidential
            recommendation. If Congress approves it, the site designation
            takes effect.
          Potential schedule risk: Insufficient funding could affect this
            schedule. In addition, decisions by the Secretary, the
            President, or Congress not to recommend or approve the site for
            development as a repository will affect the timetables and
            procedures to be followed under the NWPA.
      --Develop and submit a license application, fiscal year 2002. If the
            President and Congress approve development of a repository at
            the Yucca Mountain site, the Department will submit a license
            application to the NRC.
          Potential schedule risk: A license application is a complex
            document, the preparation of which requires long lead time.
            Because of budget shortfalls over the past few years, OCRWM has
            had to defer much of the work on the license application in
            order to remain within budget and on schedule for the site
            recommendation. The fiscal year 2002 date for submittal of a
            license application will be jeopardized if OCRWM receives less
            funding than the current funding profiles indicate is required.
      --Obtain construction authorization from the NRC, fiscal year 2005.
            The NWPA requires the NRC to issue its decision on
            authorization of repository construction within three years of
            the date that the Department submits a license application.
          Potential schedule risk: Our careful planning for many years with
            the NRC to prepare for licensing should serve to mitigate any
            delays. However, the NWPA allows NRC to extend their review for
            an additional 12 months. If this provision is exercised, our
            schedule would be impacted. An additional factor that might
            impact this schedule is scientific uncertainty.
      --Submit license application amendment to receive and possess waste,
            fiscal year 2008. The Department will have to update its
            license application and submit it to the NRC in order to obtain
            authorization to receive and possess waste.
          Potential schedule risk: With sufficient funding, we see no
            factors that would jeopardize this milestone. An additional
            factor that might impact this schedule is scientific
            uncertainty.
      --Start waste acceptance and emplacement, fiscal year 2010. If
            construction begins in 2005 and proceeds as planned, waste
            emplacement could begin by 2010.
          Potential schedule risk: Inadequate funding would jeopardize this
            date. An additional factor that might impact this schedule is
            scientific uncertainty.

                         OUT-YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

        Question. Budget constraints forced Congress to reduce the funding
    for the program in fiscal year 2000. What impact has the funding
    reduction have on your progress in fiscal year 2000? Would you give the
    Committee your views on the out-year funding requirements for the
    Radioactive Waste Management Program?
        Answer. Over the past three years (FY 1998, fiscal year 1999, and
    fiscal year 2000), the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
    has received over $100 million less than the Administration's budget
    request for the Program. In each of those years, the Program has
    adjusted its efforts to focus on those science and engineering
    activities most essential to support a decision on site recommendation.
    Although we have deferred planned work, the Department is still on
    schedule to complete the work necessary for a site recommendation in
    2001 and a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
    2002. The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million is
    necessary to complete work the Program deferred due to the funding
    shortfalls.
        Should the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
    receive less than the requested amount in fiscal year 2001, and
    depending on the extent of the reduction, the overall quality of the
    science and engineering supporting a site recommendation decision could
    be jeopardized and potentially delay that decision. In turn, submission
    of the license application in 2002 could be substantially delayed.
        If the site is recommended by the President and approved by
    Congress, the need for adequate funding will become necessary to
    maintain schedules for waste emplacement in 2010. The total funding
    profiles, including Yucca Mountain, transportation, and program
    management, for fiscal year 2001-2010 is as follows:

                              FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Program     Fiscal      Program
                 Fiscal year                funding      year       funding
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2001................................         438        2006       1,397
    2002................................         438        2007       1,341
    2003................................         871        2008       1,220
    2004................................         935        2009       1,210
    2005................................       1,289        2010         950
                                         -----------------------------------
          Total.........................                              10,089
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What is the annual out-year funding requirements to keep
    the program on schedule?
        Answer. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
    will require significant increases in funding if the site is
    recommended by the President and the site designation is effective. Our
    outyear estimates, that we provided in the recently issued revision to
    the Program Plan, range from over $870 million in fiscal year 2003 to
    almost $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2005.
        The Program funding estimates reflect the Department's best
    projections, given the scope of work identified and the planned
    schedules. The total funding profiles, including Yucca Mountain,
    transportation, and program management, for fiscal year 2001-2010 is as
    follows:

    Funding Requirements

                            [In millions of dollars]

            Fiscal year                                      Program funding
    2001..............................................................   438
    2002..............................................................   438
    2003..............................................................   871
    2004..............................................................   935
    2005.............................................................. 1,289
    2006.............................................................. 1,397
    2007.............................................................. 1,341
    2008.............................................................. 1,220
    2009.............................................................. 1,210
    2010..............................................................   950
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................10,089

                DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE APPROPRIATION REQUIREMENTS

        Question. What is the status of the Defense Nuclear Waste
    appropriation requirements? Is it paid up?
        Answer. Through fiscal year 1999, approximately $1.2 billion has
    been appropriated from the Defense Nuclear Waste Appropriation. As of
    the end of fiscal year 1999, the outstanding defense obligation was
    approximately $1.5 billion, which needs to be fully paid up before the
    defense waste can be accepted.

                DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE FUTURE GROWTH REQUIREMENTS

        Question. How must the Defense portion of the program grow in order
    to meet your major milestones and completion schedule?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Department is
    requesting Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriations that are level
    with fiscal year 2000. However, this does not reflect the necessary
    appropriations to ensure that the defense obligations are fully paid up
    prior to the acceptance of defense waste for disposal.
        The outstanding defense obligation must be fully paid up prior to
    accepting defense waste for disposal. The outstanding balance as of the
    end of fiscal year 1999 is approximately $1.5 billion. Various funding
    scenarios have been developed that will result in a zero outstanding
    defense balance by 2010. The following table depicts three such
    scenarios. The first scenario mirrors the fiscal year 2001 budget
    request for fiscal year 2002-2005 and then shows the increase that is
    required for the fiscal year 2006-2010 outyears to reduce the balance
    to zero. Alternative 1 is the profile assumed in the ``Report on
    Assessment of Fee Adequacy Based on fiscal year 1999 TSLCC Update,''
    prepared by our M&O contractor, which is available on OCRWM's Internet
    Home Page. Alternative 2 is a profile that has the advantage of
    producing a zero balance while also smoothing out the large increases
    that would be required with either the fiscal year 2001 budget request
    profile or the profile in the fee adequacy report.

                  DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL APPROPRIATION
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal
                                         year 2001
                Fiscal year               budget    Alternative  Alternative
                                          request        1            2
                                          profile
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2002..............................         112          200          250
    2003..............................         113          200          350
    2004..............................         116          200          450
    2005..............................         122          630          540
    2006..............................         810          630          540
    2007..............................         810          630          540
    2008..............................         810          630          540
    2009..............................         810          630          540
    2010..............................         810          620          535
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

             NUCLEAR WASTE FUND CURRENT BALANCE AND FUTURE ESTIMATE

        Question. What is the current balance in the Nuclear Waste Fund,
    and what is the current estimate to construct the waste storage
    facility at Yucca Mountain?
        Answer. As of February 29, 2000, the current balance in the Nuclear
    Waste Fund was $9.0 billion. This balance does not take into account
    outstanding one-time fee payments and defense appropriations. The
    Program funding estimates reflect the Department's best projections,
    given the scope of work identified and the planned schedules. The total
    funding profiles, including Yucca Mountain, transportation, and program
    management, for fiscal year 2001-2010 is as follows:

    Funding Requirements

                            [In millions of dollars]

            Fiscal year                                      Program funding
    2001..............................................................   438
    2002..............................................................   438
    2003..............................................................   871
    2004..............................................................   935
    2005.............................................................. 1,289
    2006.............................................................. 1,397
    2007.............................................................. 1,341
    2008.............................................................. 1,220
    2009.............................................................. 1,210
    2010..............................................................   950
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................10,089

                      NNSA IMPACTS AT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

        Question. Dr. Huntoon, the NNSA legislation placed the tritium
    operations at the Savannah River Site under the NNSA, but the overall
    Savannah River Site is being managed by Environmental Management..
        Are NNSA activities at SRS under the control of NNSA personnel, or
    EM personnel?
        Answer. Under the NNSA Implementation Plan, the SRS Field Manager
    is also serving as the Field Manager for NNSA Operations and in this
    capacity is accountable to the NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense
    Programs. Therefore, NNSA activities are under the control and
    direction of the NNSA, not EM.
                                carlsbad issues
        Question. When the Request for Proposals for a new contractor to
    manage the WIPP site was issued, it dropped requirements for economic
    development activities. These activities have been essential in
    building a supportive local community and infrastructure around key
    department facilities. It has proven its value to Department missions
    with the progress at Sandia and Los Alamos.
        Why were economic development requirements dropped from the
    solicitation for the next WIPP management contractor?
        Answer. The current WIPP Request for Proposals (RFP), like other
    recent RFPs and contracts issued by DOE, does not require the
    contractor to fund economic development. This approach is consistent
    with current Departmental policy.
        However, it is the policy of DOE to be a constructive partner in
    the geographic region in which DOE conducts its business. The basic
    elements of this policy include: (1) recognizing the diverse interests
    of the region and its stakeholders, (2) engaging regional stakeholders
    in issues and concerns of mutual interest, and (3) recognizing that
    giving back to the community is a worthwhile business practice. The
    current WIPP contract solicitation requires the prospective contractors
    to address this policy in their proposals.
        Question. Dr. Huntoon, does the Department intend to live up to its
    commitment to the Carlsbad region to support missions in the area that
    go beyond operation of WIPP? What is it doing to support this
    commitment?
        Answer. It is DOE's policy to be a constructive partner in the
    geographic region in which DOE conducts its business. The basic
    elements of this policy include: (1) recognizing the diverse interests
    of the region and its stakeholders, (2) engaging regional stakeholders
    in issues and concerns of mutual interest, and (3) recognizing that
    giving back to the community is a worthwhile business practice. The
    current WIPP contract solicitation requires prospective contractors to
    consider and address this policy in their proposals.
        Question. Does the Department support a leadership role for the
    Carlsbad Office, as they have already demonstrated in the application
    of technologies to address problems along the border?
        Answer. The Department is supporting the President's Southwest
    Border Initiative to bring the collective expertise of the Department
    and other Federal agencies to bear on issues in the border region.
    Additionally, on April 6, Secretary Richardson announced the Southwest
    Border Energy & Technology Collaboration Program to partner with
    universities in border states to focus on ways to reduce pollution
    while introducing new energy-related manufacturing options that will
    result in sustainable economic development in the region.
        We expect to use the expertise of our national laboratories, field
    offices and area offices, including Carlsbad, and Headquarters program
    offices in these efforts. However, due to the cross-cutting nature of
    the issues and the need to coordinate across the Department and with
    other Federal agencies, we plan to retain the leadership role at
    Headquarters. Not only will this allow for maximum ability to leverage
    the necessary resources, it will allow Carlsbad to maintain its focus
    on achieving its critical mission of getting WIPP fully operational so
    that we can complete cleanup at our sites.
        Question. When the Secretary made his April 6 announcement of a new
    technology collaboration in the border region, which sounds very
    similar to S.397, he did not mention leadership by the Carlsbad office
    as the bill demands. Why not?
        Answer. As you know, DOE supports the President's Southwest Border
    Initiative by using the resources and expertise of all of the
    Department's programs and national laboratories to address border
    issues. On April 6 of this year, Secretary Richardson announced the
    ``Southwest Border Energy & Technology Collaboration Program'' to
    partner with universities in border states to focus on ways to reduce
    pollution while introducing new energy-related manufacturing options
    that will result in sustainable economic development in the region. We
    expect to manage this program from Headquarters in order to coordinate
    most effectively with other DOE offices and other Federal agencies.
    Because of the cross-cutting nature of the initiative and the need to
    ensure that Carlsbad stays focused on its critical mission--getting
    WIPP fully operational so that we can complete cleanup at our sites--we
    prefer to coordinate this program from Headquarters.

                                      WIPP

        Question. Dr. Huntoon, why did the Department remove $9.3 Million
    from Sandia National Laboratories' WIPP-funding for waste
    characterization costs at other sites, when waste characterization
    costs are not a part of the WIPP budget? [Such costs have always been
    part of individual site budgets.]
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 WIPP budget was realigned in order to
    implement the provisions of the WIPP Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act (RCRA) permit, which was issued in October 1999. These funds were
    used by the Carlsbad Area Office and the sites to realign their
    transuranic waste programs to meet the requirements of the permit,
    enabling them to ship to WIPP. By realigning these funds, the
    Department was able to pay for the work required under the permit and
    more effectively manage the national transuranic program in order to
    resume shipments under the RCRA permit.
        Question. The funds in question supported key work at Sandia that
    is essential for WIPP continued performance, especially for the re-
    certification required on five year intervals. Will the Department
    restore the $9.3 Million to Sandia in Fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Sandia National Laboratory's efforts on WIPP primarily
    support the requirement to recertify the facility to meet EPA standards
    on a five-year cycle. The Department believes, now that WIPP is
    operational, efficiencies will be realized that eliminate the need to
    restore the $9.3 million fiscal year 2000 funding to Sandia National
    Laboratory in fiscal year 2001. Proposed fiscal year 2001 funding for
    Sandia National Laboratory for the WIPP recertification effort is $19.8
    million.

                   WIPP--WASTE STORAGE TRANSPARENCY TEST BED

        Dr. Huntoon, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
    2000 stated that ``The committee directs the Department of Energy to
    develop a Plan to establish a demonstration and training program using
    the WIPP repository system as a test bed facility to develop
    transparent monitoring technologies for waste storage and to
    demonstrate them to the international community. The Department will
    report its plan to the Congress by March 1, 2000.''
        This Report is now long overdue.
        This use of WIPP could be used to enhance the mission of the
    Carlsbad facility to support an area of international importance.
        Question. When will the DOE report on the use of WIPP as a test bed
    for international transparency of waste storage technologies be
    delivered to Congress?
        Answer. The Office of Environmental Management and the Office of
    Nuclear Non-Proliferation are preparing this report. The report will be
    forwarded to the Congress in the near future.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                            VITRIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

        Question. The DOE Safety Division, the National Academy of Sciences
    and the GAO have warned against DOE placing all its reliance on a
    single high level nuclear waste vitrification technology. Should DOE
    have a backup vendor and an alternate technology under development?
        Answer. Given the extensive and successful testing, demonstration,
    and independent reviews conducted to date on the vitrification
    technologies proposed for treatment of Hanford's tank wastes, DOE has
    confirmed, with a high degree of confidence, the technical performance
    of the proposed vitrification technologies. The proposed technologies
    are mature and robust and are expected to perform as designed and be
    capable of processing essentially all of Hanford's tank wastes. The
    technologies are in existence and in use around the world, and have
    been extensively and successfully tested during the design phases on
    Hanford's tank waste. The technologies have been applied on a
    production scale basis using validated simulants and on a bench scale
    basis using actual high-level wastes. Additional samples have been
    tested on a pilot-scale basis using validated simulants; and a pilot-
    scale melter, operating successfully in Columbia, Maryland, is
    continuing to test the technologies. In addition, similar technologies
    are currently being used for high level waste (HLW) vitrification at
    the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York and the Defense Waste
    Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
        Nevertheless, given the significant life-cycle costs related to HLW
    disposition across the EM complex and in response to previous years'
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Conference Report language,
    the Department is looking at alternatives to the current pre-treatment
    processing and vitrification processes. Fiscal year 2000 activities
    include funding for additional bench-scale tests of the Advanced
    Vitrification System (AVS), a concept to vitrify high-level waste in
    individual canisters. Future development and funding of AVS and other
    technologies will be contingent on results showing potential high
    payback.
        Question. Concerns have been raised that DOE's Waste Acceptance
    Product Specifications' focus only on existing technology and a
    borosilicate glass vitrified product may serve as a barrier to the
    development of better technology for waste vitrification. What is your
    response?
        Answer. The Department issued the Waste Acceptance Product
    Specifications (WAPS) in 1996 and the latest revision (3) in 1999. The
    WAPS were coordinated with the Department's Civilian Radioactive Waste
    program and cover the requirements that a producer of a high-level
    waste (HLW) form must meet. The present HLW glass production at West
    Valley and at the Defense Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah
    River Site are producing glass that will meet these requirements. The
    glass product must be comparable to a ``benchmark'' glass, and any
    product that is comparable in characteristics is considered to meet the
    requirements.
        Development of HLW glasses in the United States and abroad has
    focused on borosilicate glass. Thus, the highest degree of confidence
    and experience is with borosilicate glass. However, if there were
    sufficient incentive and adequate performance, other HLW forms may also
    be determined to be acceptable in the future. Such a determination will
    require that valid data are available to meet the WAPS, including
    leaching data acceptable to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
    allow delisting of components that are regulated as hazardous under the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
        The Department is reviewing the incentives and performance
    requirements for other forms of HLW and the available technologies to
    produce other waste forms with lower volumes. The results of this
    review will provide a basis for longer term research and development.
        Question. Is there any high level waste vitrification technology
    (existing or under development) with the potential to accept variable
    chemistry waste feeds with minimal or no blending? In answering this
    question, please address the Advanced Vitrification System and its
    potential use at INEEL.
        Answer. Each situation is unique and requires specific
    investigations as to the variability of the chemistry that may be
    acceptable. In all cases, the product must be evaluated against
    predetermined criteria to determine its consistency, homogeneity, and
    acceptability as the composition varies. Blending of the initial feed
    materials is considered necessary to establish uniformity for quality
    control of the solidified product in canisters, because sampling of a
    canister filled with glass is not practical.
        A number of technologies exist that have the potential to process a
    wide variability in feed compositions, with comparable blending, by
    achieving higher temperatures, e.g., cold-wall crucible melters under
    development in France and Russia, various plasma arc furnaces, and the
    Advanced Vitrification System under development by the Radioactive
    Isolation Consortium. As concentrations of certain chemicals become
    higher, higher melting temperatures are required to produce an
    acceptable product. We anticipate that wastes from some of the tanks at
    Hanford and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
    waste may benefit from vitrification at higher temperatures to assure
    an economical low volume of solidified waste.
        Question. Is there any high level waste vitrification technology
    (existing or under development) with the potential to allow the HLW
    feed loading to be above 60 percent, greatly reducing the number of
    canisters for disposal?
        Answer. The amount of waste oxides that can be included in a waste
    form directly affects the melting temperature and the quality of the
    final product. At present, we do not have data that show that we can
    achieve an acceptable product with waste oxide loadings at 60 percent
    or above. A number of technologies exist that have the potential to
    process higher waste oxide loading by achieving higher temperatures,
    e.g., cold-wall crucible melters under development in France and
    Russia, various plasma arc furnaces, and the Advanced Vitrification
    System under development by the Radioactive Isolation Consortium.
    However, no assurance exists that the products are acceptable according
    to the DOE Waste Acceptance Product Specifications.
        Question. The DOE standards for vitrified product have been judged
    by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be unrelated to the regulatory
    standards for disposal in a repository. DOE terms the standards ``Waste
    Acceptance Criteria.'' Why is DOE specifying a product to be delivered
    when that product has not been approved by the NRC for disposal?
        Answer. The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
    (OCRWM) has developed acceptance requirements for commercial spent
    nuclear fuel and Government-owned nuclear materials expected to be
    disposed of by DOE in a licensed geologic repository. These were
    established in an attempt to ensure compliance with applicable statutes
    and regulations including Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
    requirements contained in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
    60 (10 CFR 60) for the ``Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in
    Geologic Repositories.'' The DOE Office of Environmental Management
    (EM) developed the ``Waste Acceptance Product Specification'' (WAPS) to
    meet specific OCRWM acceptance requirements for high-level waste (HLW),
    and support the treatment of HLW in parallel with separate efforts
    aimed at determining the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a
    geologic repository. These criteria will continue to be refined, as
    more is understood about long-term disposal, and as regulations are
    updated. The NRC is updating 10 CFR 60 to 10 CFR 63, and there are no
    expected changes in the proposed waste acceptance criteria concerning
    HLW. The NRC will not evaluate the acceptability of HLW products, but
    rather will issue a license based on the ability of the repository to
    safely contain HLW and spent nuclear fuel from the accessible
    environment. DOE plans to submit a license application for a geologic
    repository in 2002.
        OCRWM works with the NRC, and EM works closely with OCRWM on the
    development of the waste acceptance criteria contained in the WAPS. The
    WAPS are specified for the vitrified HLW being produced by the Defense
    Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site and the West
    Valley Demonstration Project. The Department initiated radioactive
    operations at these two sites, in order to place the waste in a safer,
    more stable vitrified form, recognizing that there was some
    programmatic risk in beginning to produce HLW canisters without final
    acceptance requirements. However, the risk is minimal because these
    vitrified products meet the WAPS waste acceptance criteria, and DOE
    believes that they can be safely disposed of in a repository licensed
    under NRC repository disposal requirements. For the same reasons, the
    WAPS are specified for vitrification of the Hanford HLW.
        Question. In 1997, and for two years following, Congress requested
    the Department to invest in a promising technology that would vitrify
    waste in its final storage container, thereby offering a potential
    alternative technology for nonhomogeneous tank wastes at Government
    facilities. What is the status of DOE's investigation into this
    technology? Does DOE have plans for its further development?
        Answer. Through fiscal year 1999, the Department has provided a
    total of $3.3 million to support the development of an Advanced
    Vitrification System (AVS). Under the terms of the contract with the
    AVS developer, Radioactive Isolation Consortium, the Department
    conducted a technical and programmatic review in October 1999 to
    determine if AVS had met all of the technical criteria required to
    proceed to an advanced development phase of the project, which would
    have included the construction of a pilot facility. Based on the
    research and development conducted by the developer, the review panel
    concluded that the AVS did not meet the technical criteria needed to
    move to the next phase of development.
        However, given the inherent complexities associated with treating
    high-level waste and the consequent life cycle cost, the Department is
    working expeditiously to consider viable technology options to address
    the treatment of high-level waste at Hanford and other sites. In view
    of the initial AVS review, which found the process to have merit, the
    Department has decided to structure continued work on the AVS
    technology in a manner that addresses the identified technical
    weaknesses and supports additional bench-scale tests during fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. Is DOE aware of a recent National Academy of Science
    report entitled ``Alternative High-Level Waste Treatment at the Idaho
    National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory'' in which a single
    use melter concept is described as having advantages over continuous
    single melters? What is DOE's view of the single use melt-in-final-
    disposal container development program? Should it be extended to cover
    the Idaho (INEEL) high level waste?
        Answer. Yes, we are aware of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    report, which covers many of the options for treatment and production
    of various waste forms for the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) high-level waste. The single-use
    melter concept is one among several alternatives that are candidates.
    As the report states, ``the committee concluded that, in short, not
    enough information is available to make a sensible choice among
    technical alternatives.'' DOE's view is to technically review the many
    options available, including the Advanced Vitrification System under
    development by the Radioactive Isolation Consortium, on a comparable
    basis to determine the course of developments best applicable to future
    Hanford applications as well as INEEL. We currently expect to complete
    this review by the end of the fiscal year. In addition, the Department
    is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the INEEL high-
    level waste that evaluates various technologies and programmatic
    alternatives; this EIS will lead to a Record of Decision (ROD) late
    this calendar year that will document the path forward for high-level
    waste disposition at INEEL. The results of this review, the NAS report,
    and the final EIS and ROD will provide a basis for future funding and
    development of melters and waste forms.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton

                                 HANFORD TANKS

        Question. The Department's most compelling environmental need is
    the cleanup of the high-level waste tanks at Hanford. These tanks are
    well beyond their expected lifetime and many have already leaked.
    Plumes of radioactive contamination are slowly moving toward the
    Columbia River--the very lifeblood of my region.
        The Department is obligated through a legally enforceable consent
    decree negotiated with the state of Washington to adhere to a clearly
    understood schedule for the removal of the wastes from these tanks and
    for their vitrification into a form suitable for ultimate disposal. But
    negotiations to revise this Tri-Party Agreement recently broke down and
    environmental regulators with the state and regional EPA office
    recently imposed deadlines to keep DOE on track for building the
    vitrification and treatment facilities.
        What are the Department's plans to resolve this Tri-Party Agreement
    dispute and to maintain the schedule for stabilizing and cleaning up
    the high-level waste in the Hanford tanks?
        Answer. On May 10, 2000, following a meeting with Washington
    Governor Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire, Secretary
    Richardson announced new commitments to the State of Washington. They
    include amending an existing consent decree to include two new
    milestones for selecting a new Hanford high-level waste treatment
    design and construction contractor, attempting to negotiate a new
    consent decree to establish commitments aligned to the new contract,
    committing to no shipments of waste to Hanford from new sources while
    the Department works to get the new contract on firm footing,
    discussing with the State longer term commitments on shipment of waste
    into the State, and engaging the Department, the State and the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency in a discussion on realigning Hanford
    cleanup commitments to ensure they are achievable and address the most
    important problems first.
        Question. Specifically, how does the Secretary plan to address the
    concerns of Governor Locke and others that my state should not be asked
    to accept shipments of additional DOE low-level and mixed radioactive
    waste for disposal at Hanford until we have an absolute commitment that
    the Department will maintain the schedule for cleaning up the high-
    level waste in the Hanford tanks?
        Answer. On May 10, 2000, following a meeting with Washington
    Governor Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire, Secretary
    Richardson announced new commitments to the State of Washington. They
    include amending an existing consent decree to include two new
    milestones for selecting a new Hanford high-level waste treatment
    design and construction contractor, attempting to negotiate a new
    consent decree to establish commitments aligned to the new contract,
    committing to no shipments of waste to Hanford from new sources while
    the Department works to get the new contract on firm footing,
    discussing with the State longer term commitments on shipment of waste
    into the State, and engaging the Department, the State and the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency in a discussion on realigning Hanford
    cleanup commitments to ensure they are achievable and address the most
    important problems first.
        Question. Please describe the Department's commitment to proceed
    with the privatization project for vitrifying the high-level waste in
    the Hanford tanks.
        Answer. The Department is strongly committed to treating the wastes
    in the tanks at Hanford for subsequent permanent disposal using the
    most cost-effective contracting mechanism. The Secretary's May 8
    announcement maintains this commitment, but through a different
    acquisition strategy.
        Question. Will the use of a privatization contractor for the
    Hanford tank waste vitrification be more cost-effective to the taxpayer
    than use of traditional DOE management and operations contractor?
        Answer. The Department determined that British Nuclear Fuels
    Limited, Inc.'s (BNFL) April 24, 2000, cost proposal for the Hanford
    privatization contract was unacceptable in many areas, including cost,
    schedule, management, and business approach. Therefore, on May 8, 2000,
    the Secretary announced that the privatization contract with BNFL will
    be terminated. The Department will compete a design and construction
    contract, with a new contractor being selected by January 15, 2001.
    Near-term operating responsibility will be transitioned to an existing
    contractor, and later the Department will solicit competitive bids for
    operation of the completed facility.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

                              STATUS OF LITIGATION

        Question. What is the status of the utility lawsuits against DOE
    for failure to begin removing spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites in
    1998?
        Answer. Several utilities have sued DOE for breach of contract in
    the Court of Federal Claims. However, those cases are stayed pending
    resolution of special appeals to the Federal Circuit on the issue of
    whether the utilities first must exhaust administrative remedies and
    file claims with the Department. DOE believes the proper forum is with
    DOE's contracting officer. Oral arguments in the special appeals were
    heard on May 3, 2000.

                         RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS

        Question. Prior to your confirmation, you and I had a private
    discussion about the need for some common sense in setting a radiation
    standard for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The EPA has
    proposed 15 millirem, with 4 millirem allocated for groundwater. The
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed 25 millirem as fully
    protective of public health and safety. You committed to look into this
    matter. What have you concluded regarding the radiation standard?
        Answer. The NRC's proposed licensing requirements for Yucca
    Mountain differ in two important respects from the standards in EPA's
    proposed rule. First, NRC proposes an all-pathways individual dose
    limit of 25 mrem per year, consistent with standards applicable to
    commercial nuclear facilities, and as opposed to the 15 mrem all-
    pathways per year limit proposed by EPA. More importantly, NRC does not
    include separate groundwater protection requirements.
        EPA's proposed 15 mrem/year all-pathways individual protection
    standard is extremely rigorous. The Department believes a 25 mrem/year
    all-pathways standard is more reasonable and fully adequate as the
    generally applicable standard for all nuclear facilities.
        The Department is particularly concerned with the proposed
    groundwater standard. While the Department supports the general goal of
    protecting individuals from exposures through any potential pathway,
    including groundwater, the proposed groundwater standard is redundant
    and unnecessary for the protection of public health and safety because
    the all-pathways standard adequately protects human health and safety
    without the need for another standard.
        The Department has provided comments to EPA on the issues discussed
    above and urged the adoption of a 25 mrem/year standard, which, if
    adopted, would result in a stringent but implementable rule, and would
    provide appropriate protection of the public and the environment. If
    EPA were to select unrealistic or unnecessarily conservative standards,
    the result could be the rejection of an otherwise suitable site, and
    the de facto rejection of the geologic disposal option without
    commensurate benefit to the protection of public health and safety.
    Such rejection would not avoid the consequences of radioactive waste
    management, but it would require society to resort to a different and
    currently undefined approach.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM FUNDING

        Question. The National Energy Technology Laboratory located in
    Morgantown, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, administers
    nearly half of the Department of Energy's Deactivation and
    Decommissioning focus area, which seeks to promote the rapid deployment
    of better technologies to treat, stabilize, and dispose of nuclear
    waste at Department of Energy sites across the nation; reduce risks to
    site workers, the public, and the environment; and to provide a
    practical approach for testing a technology's capabilities. I
    understand that the DOE's deactivation and decommissioning backlog is
    currently estimated at $33 billion. I am further advised that one-third
    of all technologies deployed by the EM science and technology program
    have been in the D&D focus area. Despite successes of the Deactivation
    and Decommissioning focus area thus far and its potential to continue
    to help address the nation's $33 billion clean-up backlog, the D&D
    science and technology funding been cut from $27 million in fiscal year
    2000 to $18 million in fiscal year 2001, which constitutes a 33 percent
    cut.
        Should not the program be increased, rather than reduced, in view
    of the savings that even a small increase in efficiency in cleanup
    operations could yield? My figures indicate that if the Deactivation
    and Decommissioning program could stimulate a mere 3 percent in
    efficiency in the $33 billion cleanup effort, the taxpayers could save
    nearly a billion dollars. Why is the program being cut instead of
    increased?
        Answer. In developing its fiscal year 2001 budget request, the
    Department had to make a number of tough decisions among the competing
    demands for funding. One resulted in a slight reduction ($9.1 million)
    in the Science and Technology budget request. Similarly, there are also
    competing science and technology needs. Our Science and Technology
    investments are planned and managed in conjunction with EM's cleanup
    project managers and stakeholders. The allocation of funding among our
    Science and Technology activities is done based on needs that have been
    identified by cleanup project managers and ranked using a national
    multi-attribute prioritization system. This process takes into
    consideration major cleanup cost drivers, technology deployment, site
    needs, and technical risk.
        Based on our total budget request for Science and Technology and
    competing priority needs, such as the high-level tank waste and nuclear
    material technology areas, we consider $18.4 million an appropriate
    level for deactivation and decommissioning activities.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Craig. Thank you very much. And the subcommittee
    will stand recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 12 noon, Tuesday, April 11, the subcommittee
    was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
    chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
    are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2001
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]

                   CALIFORNIA NAVIGATION AND RELATED PROJECTS

                   Prepared Statement of the Port of Stockton

        Mr. Chairman: I am LeRoy F. Hieber, Port Director of the Port of
    Stockton in Stockton, California.
        The San Francisco Bay to Stockton Ship Channels Project is an
    authorized project.
        The Port of Stockton is primarily a bulk port that serves industry
    and agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley in California, and the bulk
    imports and exports of the Western States.
        The Port of Stockton recognized as far back as 1952 that deeper
    channels would be needed for the movements of bulk cargoes and
    requested the Corps of Engineers to deepen the channel in 1952. Coal,
    grain, fertilizers and many other bulk materials require deeper
    channels to serve the larger bulk carriers.
        The Nation needs ports that can handle larger, more economical and
    more fuel-efficient vessels close to the production areas, both
    agricultural and industrial.
        The Port of Stockton is such a port.
        The dredging of the Stockton Channel portion of the project to
    thirty-five feet was completed in 1987. A copy of the Port of
    Stockton's most recent annual report is attached. Cargo volume has
    increased since the dredging of the Stockton Channel was completed; and
    the project is certainly paying off.
        Therefore, we requested the Corps of Engineers for a new navigation
    study (reconnaissance study) to deepen the Channel further, to forty
    feet or more, if economically feasible. The funding for this study was
    appropriated in fiscal year 1998. The reconnaissance study determined
    that there is a Federal interest in further deepening the Channel.
        For the 2001 fiscal year, we are requesting $300,000 for the
    feasibility study. Because this study has to be coordinated for proper
    timing with the U.S. Navy's project to deepen the Channels to the
    Concord Weapons Station, this study needs to be done now. The
    feasibility study is fifty percent cost-shared.
        The President's proposed 2001 budget only contains $150,000 for the
    feasibility study, but the feasibility study and the eventual
    construction, needs to be closely tied to the deepening of the Channel
    through San Pablo Bay, and this project needs to be timed appropriately
    with that construction. Deferring $150,000 now could cost millions in
    extra cost later.
        The President's proposed 2001 budget includes $2,028,000 for
    maintenance. This is insufficient. Every time insufficient funds are
    provided for complete maintenance, and the maintenance dredging,
    therefore, cannot be completed at one time, an additional mobilization
    and de-mobilization cost of between $500,000 and $1 million is incurred
    when it is completed. $3 million is required for an average, complete
    maintenance dredging job. Appropriating less than $3 million results in
    extra mobilization and de-mobilization cost between $500,000 and $1
    million each time each additional maintenance job, which increases the
    cost by thirty percent to sixty percent, not counting staff time,
    testing cost, permitting cost, et cetera. It could very well double the
    actual cost.
        We urge you to appropriate $300,000 for the Stockton Deep Water
    Channel Feasibility Study. We also strongly urge that $3 million be
    appropriated to maintain the Channels so that the present benefits also
    may continue to accrue, and to avoid the additional cost incurred when
    insufficient funds are provided to complete the required maintenance at
    one time.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Port of Long Beach

        I am E. D. Allen, Chief Harbor Engineer for the Port of Long Beach,
    California. The Port of Long Beach is this nation's largest container
    port. I have been authorized by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of
    the City of Long Beach to represent the Port of Long Beach in regard to
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Los Angeles and Long Beach
    Harbors Model Study and Wave Data Collection Program; Los Angeles River
    maintenance dredging; Feasibility Studies for beach erosion; assessment
    study of LA Ocean Disposal Site 3; and Reconnaissance and Feasibility
    Studies for Contaminated Sediment Disposal.
        My more specific requests follow for listed projects.

    Harbors Model Maintenance (Civil Works Budget Category--O&M)
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Section 123,
    authorized the Chief of Engineers to operate and maintain the Los
    Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Hydraulic Model at the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi as
    part of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study. This model
    encompasses both port complexes in San Pedro Bay, which, as the third
    largest container port complex in the world, are ports of national
    strategic and defense significance. The hydraulic model, along with
    several numeric models, provide state-of-the-art methodology that can
    be used to provide operational improvements to the San Pedro Bay ports
    and many other harbor complexes. In addition, the Port, as the local
    agency, is assisting in the Corps effort to provide collection of
    continuous wave-gauge data by providing necessary support personnel and
    equipment for the maintenance of portions of the systems located at the
    Port.
        In fiscal year 2000, $165,000 was appropriated for maintenance of
    the physical model of San Pedro Bay. Recently, the Port used the model
    to analyze necessary navigation-related modifications to our upcoming
    port expansion and validate numerical model results. This effort is
    being funded by the Port and is on-going. It is necessary that the
    model remain ready for service such as this. Funding in fiscal year
    2001, in the amount of $170,000, would continue annual maintenance on
    the model. Additionally, we are requesting $335,000 in continued
    funding for the wave gauge (prototype) data acquisition and analysis
    program. The wave data gathering program is essential as it provides
    real-world information to compare to model performance. The wave data
    acquisition program began in 1987 to provide validation of the design
    of the 2020 Plan, our Master Plan for port expansion and navigation
    improvements. This program has now evolved to construction monitoring
    and model verification which needs to continue to confirm expected
    levels of impacts of the expansion plans. The shipping industry's
    increasingly larger vessel size continues to challenge port engineers.
    The need for modeling and wave gauge data acquisition continues to be a
    critical tool supporting the ports ability to create facilities
    compatible with changing trade conditions and operations. As a local
    agency, we are funding a new numerical modeling effort in the amount of
    $755,000 and this effort by us requires wave gauge data for
    verification. In summary, Congress is respectfully requested to
    appropriate $505,000 for fiscal year 2001 to perform this needed model
    data acquisition work.

    Los Angeles River Maintenance Dredging (Civil Works Budget Category--
            O&M)
        The Port of Long Beach also concurs with and supports the
    recommendation of C-MANC and the City of Long Beach to federal fund
    remedial maintenance dredging to remove accumulated flood-deposited
    silt in the mouth of the Los Angeles River. During the storms of 1995,
    flood-deposited silt closed the mouth of the Los Angeles River to
    navigation. This restricted regularly scheduled water route
    transportation between the cities of Long Beach and Avalon, creating an
    economic emergency. Reacting to this, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
    removed 300,000 cubic yards from the channel which allowed for minimal
    resumption of navigation.
        On a yearly basis substantial quantities of silt accumulate and
    remain in the channel. These silt deposits create the likelihood of
    future serious restrictions and safety hazards to commercial and
    recreational boating activity in, and adjacent to, the Long Beach
    Harbor District and the associated businesses in Long Beach. Such
    restrictions and hazards have resulted in prior accidents and
    litigation against the City and Federal Government.
        The Port supports the City in recommending that these silt deposits
    be removed on an annual basis as a scheduled work item. In the draft of
    ``Project Plan for Los Angeles River Estuary Maintenance Dredging, Long
    Beach, CA, October 1994'' (Draft Project Plan-1994), the Corps of
    Engineers estimated an average annual deposit of silt in the estuary of
    485,000 cubic yards. It is imperative for current operations, that a
    long range remedy be found for the Los Angeles River mouth, if
    navigational utility and effective flood control capability is to be
    maintained.
        It is estimated by the Corps of Engineers, that maintenance
    dredging of the channel to a minimum usable width requires removal of
    approximately 185,000 cubic yards at an annual cost of over $2,000,000.
        Since work has not been annually done, Congress is therefore
    requested, to appropriate $3,800,000 for silt removal. This work is
    included in the line item known as Los Angeles Long Beach Harbors in
    the Civil Works Budget.

    LA-3 Site Designation Study (Civil Works Budget Category--General
            Investigation)
        The Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    initiated a study in fiscal year 1999 to permanently designate an Ocean
    Disposal Site (referred to as LA-3) in the deep waters offshore of
    Newport Beach. As the LA-3 study progressed, it was concluded that the
    annual capacity of a currently designated Ocean Disposal site referred
    to as LA-2 offshore of the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los
    Angeles needed to be reassessed for potential expansion. We believe
    that the reassessment of LA-2's annual capacity could best be
    accomplished by combining this effort into the LA-3 study. LA-2 has
    historically played a vital role in the economic expansion of both the
    Port's of Long Beach and Los Angeles by providing a receiving site for
    material dredged to deepen our navigation channels. Expanding the
    capacity of LA-2 would ensure the continuation of our economic
    vitality. Therefore, we request the Federal funds in the amount of
    $1,000,000 be applied to the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site Study in fiscal
    year 2001 to allow this study to incorporate the LA-2 annual capacity
    reassessment work effort and to continue the site designation work
    effort for LA-3.

    Los Angeles County Regional Dredge Management Plan (Civil Works Budget
            Category--General Investigations)
        The Contaminated Sediment Task Force, of which the Los Angeles
    District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a key member, is
    charged with investigating the major issues involved in formulating and
    implementing a regional contaminated sediment management strategy
    including four major issues:
      --Upland Disposal.--Blending of contaminated sediments with clean
            sediment to make structural fill as a promising disposal
            option. However, there is no quantitative data on proportions,
            handling methods, and desired end products that would support
            management decisions on disposal/reuse options. There is great
            need to undertake a pilot handling project to collect that
            information.
      --Screening Guidelines.--Quantitative sediment chemistry guidelines
            are required to screen sediments for aquatic disposal and
            necessitate gathering historical regional data on sediment
            chemistry, toxicity, and bio-accumulation to be analyzed for
            region-specific relationships between sediment chemistry and
            toxicity.
      --Watershed Management.--Control of future contamination via land
            runoff as a key management issue. Field and modeling study of
            sediment and contaminant transport in the Los Angeles region
            are required both to build on existing watershed efforts and to
            acquire specific data on the movement of contaminants into
            harbors.
      --Aquatic Disposal.--A regional confined aquatic disposal facility is
            a promising management tool which provides a multi-user site
            active over a period of many years. The approach requires an
            engineering feasibility study of such issues as: quantifying
            the containment disposal capability, the interface chemistry
            between sediments of multiple users, and determining best
            management practices.
        The program would be managed by the Los Angeles District and
    requires $400,000 in Federal funding; substantial additional funding
    would come from State and local sources. Congress is therefore
    requested to appropriate $400,000 in fiscal year 2001 to support the
    Contaminated Sediment Task Force in their effort to continue
    development of a Los Angeles County Regional Dredge Management Plan.

    Feasibility Study Beach Erosion (Civil Works Budget Category--General
            Investigations)
        The Port of Long Beach also supports C-MANC and the City of Long
    Beach on their request for federal funding to initiate a Corps of
    Engineers feasibility study on beach erosion. This beach erosion
    problem is directly related to the focusing affect the federal
    breakwater has on our large commercial harbor complex and surrounding
    beaches. In southeastern Long Beach, east of the Port's land and
    channels, and directly effected by openings in the federal breakwater,
    a beach and seawall protects approximately $200,000,000 worth of homes
    based on the 1990 U.S. census. We expect the current home value to be
    significantly higher. Steady erosion constantly reduces the beach from
    an optimum of 175 feet to as little as 50 feet when in late 1994 the
    City was forced to rebuild the beach. Winter storms continue to reduce
    the beach width.
        The City has also experienced erosion in the west beach area.
    Although homes are not endangered, public improvements, including
    lifeguard stations, public restrooms, a bicycle and pedestrian trail,
    and a parking lot, are at risk. The cause of the new problem is
    unclear, indicating the need for a thorough study of the beach erosion
    problem inside the federal breakwater.
        The primary method of protecting the homes has been annual
    rebuilding of sand berms during high tides or expected storms. The City
    has invested over $5,500,000 in capital improvement projects, annual
    beach rebuilding, and storm protection to control the beach erosion
    over the past 17 years. Despite this effort, in 1989 and 1993, storm
    waves eroded the beach and breached the protective seawall, causing
    damage to homes. The City is also defending itself against a lawsuit by
    one of the homeowners who is claiming that the City failed to halt
    erosion that narrowed the beaches in front of his home to less than the
    desired width adopted in the 1980 Local Coastal Plan.
        In fiscal year 1997, $252,000 was appropriated to complete the
    reconnaissance study of the beach erosion problem within the City of
    Long Beach. It is now requested that Congress appropriate $500,000 in
    fiscal year 2001 to initiate the follow-up feasibility study.
        Attached hereto is a Resolution that was adopted by the Board of
    Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach on February 28, 2000,
    which contains data relating to the background of the Los Angeles and
    Long Beach Harbors Model Study, the Los Angeles River dredging, LA-3
    Site Designation Study, the Los Angeles Count Regional Dredge
    Management Plan, the beach erosion problem in Long Beach, and other
    related navigation and economic matters. The resolution stresses the
    need for federal assistance in developing economic, technical and
    environmental background information essential to the design and
    permitting of Port facilities vital to regional and national interests.
    The Port of Long Beach is the largest container port in the United
    States and is an integral part of an economic engine bringing $3.7
    billion annually in customs receipts into the Federal Treasury and has
    generated approximately 500,000 jobs locally, regionally and
    nationally. We are truly a port and harbor of national significance.
        We kindly ask that Congress continue its support of these projects
    in fiscal year 2001 by appropriating the requested funds.
        Thank you for permitting me the privilege of this testimony.

                             RESOLUTION NO. HD-2002

        A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF
    LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
    APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN ORDER
    TO CONTINUE THE LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH HARBORS MODEL STUDY RELATING
    TO IMPROVEMENTS IN SAN PEDRO BAY, TO CONDUCT MAINTENANCE DREDGING AT
    THE MOUTH OF THE LOS ANGELES RIVER, TO EXPAND THE LA-3 SITE DESIGNATION
    STUDY, TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDIES OF BEACH EROSION, AND TO CONTINUE
    THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL DREDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
        WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in San Pedro Bay,
    California, are two of a limited number of sites on the West Coast of
    the United States which possess the potential for deep water port
    facilities as recommended in the West Coast Deep Water Port Facility
    Study conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and
        WHEREAS, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have a record of
    both physical and fiscal growth to the extent that together the two
    ports are presently handling over 200 million metric revenue tons
    including 8.2 million twenty-foot equivalent units of container cargo
    annually (calendar year 1999), and the international cargo handled is
    valued at over $160 billion annually (calendar year 1998); and
        WHEREAS, the growth and activity of the Ports of Long Beach and Los
    Angeles have a significant regional and national economic effect; and
        WHEREAS, in 1998 the Los Angeles Customs District remained the
    Nation's top entry and exit point for international cargo, valued at
    over $181 billion, generating approximately $3.7 billion in Federal
    revenues collected as United States Customs duties, approximately 85
    percent of which is generated by the Long Beach and Los Angeles Ports;
    and
        WHEREAS, both Ports are now, and are increasingly becoming, hard-
    pressed to provide facilities to meet the needs of the shipping
    industry, and to that end are conducting extensive studies, in
    conjunction with federal studies, to determine navigational,
    transportation, and environmental requirements necessary to provide
    economic and adequate surge-free berthing and cargo handling
    facilities; and
        WHEREAS, all existing land in the Port of Long Beach which can be
    developed for shipping operations has been utilized or is in the
    process of being developed and, in order to meet the needs of the
    following decade, the design, permitting and construction of new lands
    must continue; and
        WHEREAS, continuation of the studies currently underway by the
    United States Army Corps of Engineers, consisting of the Los Angeles
    and Long Beach Harbors Model Study, including maintenance and operation
    of the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic Model at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as
    authorized by Section 123 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1976, is needed for use in the design and permitting processes for
    future landfills for port development; and
        WHEREAS, the Los Angeles River is the largest of numerous flood-
    control channels constructed and maintained jointly by the Los Angeles
    County Flood Control District and the United States Army Corps of
    Engineers, and silt deposit from storm runoff accumulating in the mouth
    of the Los Angeles River in the City of Long Beach constitutes a
    restriction and hazard to both commercial and recreational boating; and
        WHEREAS, the Southern California region has a significant volume of
    contaminated sediments from area runoff and other activities and the
    Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a key
    member of a Task Force charged with the investigation of major issues
    involved in formulating and implementing a Los Angeles County Regional
    Dredge Management Plan; and
        WHEREAS, at southeastern Long Beach in front of Alamitos Bay a
    beach and seawall protects $200 million worth of homes (1990 U.S.
    census data). The primary method of protecting the homes has been
    annual beach rebuilding and sand berms during storms. Steady erosion
    has reduced the beach from optimum width of 175 feet to as little as 50
    feet and continues to reduce beach width despite rebuilding efforts in
    1994. The City has invested over $5.5 million in capital improvement
    projects, annual beach rebuilding, and storm protection to control the
    beach erosion over the past 17 years. Despite this effort, in 1989 and
    1993, storm waves eroded the beach and breached the protective seawall
    causing damage to homes; and
        WHEREAS, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long
    Beach, as a properly constituted and financially responsible local
    agency, by its Resolution No. HD-890, adopted August 3, 1965, expressed
    its intent to enter into such agreements as may be reasonably required
    to further federal projects for the development and improvement of Long
    Beach and Los Angeles Harbors.
        NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of
    Long Beach resolves as follows:
        Section 1. That the Congress of the United States be, and is
    hereby, respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
    necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
    Engineers, to maintain the San Pedro Bay Hydraulic Model at the
    Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as part of the
    Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Model Study.
        Sec. 2. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
    respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
    necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
    Engineers, to continue the existing wave gauge (prototype) data
    acquisition and analysis program.
        Sec. 3. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
    respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
    necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
    Engineers, in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Flood Control
    District, to engage in the necessary maintenance dredging at the mouth
    of the Los Angeles River to remove silt deposits which have accumulated
    at that location.
        Sec. 4. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
    respectfully requested to support the Chief of Engineers, United States
    Army Corps of Engineers, to reassess dredge Ocean Disposal Site LA-2
    when conducting LA-3 Site Designation Study.
        Sec. 5. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
    respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
    necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
    Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop and implement a
    Los Angeles County Regional Dredge Management Plan for Southern
    California.
        Sec. 6. That the Congress of the United States be, and is hereby,
    respectfully requested to appropriate simultaneously the funds
    necessary for the Chief of Engineers, United States Army Corps of
    Engineers, to complete feasibility studies to develop protective
    measures to prevent beach erosion within the City of Long Beach.
        Sec. 7. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor
    Department be, and he is hereby, directed to send copies of this
    resolution to the United States Senators and to Members of the House of
    Representatives from California, with a letter requesting their
    assistance in presenting this resolution before the proper
    Congressional committees.
        Sec. 8. That the Executive Director of the Long Beach Harbor
    Department be, and he is hereby, further directed to send copies of
    this resolution to the President of the United States; the Director,
    Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary of the Army; the Chief
    of Engineers, the Director, Directorate of Civil Works, the Division
    Engineer-South Pacific Division and the District Engineer-Los Angeles,
    all of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; and to such other
    interested persons as he may deem appropriate.
        Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Board shall certify to the passage of
    this resolution by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of
    Long Beach, shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) conspicuous
    places in the City of Long Beach, and shall cause a certified copy of
    this resolution to be filed forthwith with the City Clerk of the City
    of Long Beach and it shall thereupon take effect.
        I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the
    Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach at its meeting
    of February 28, 2000 by the following vote:
        Ayes: Commissioners--Calhoun, Hancock, Peres, Kashiwabara, Hearrean
        Noes: Commissioners--None
        Absent: Commissioners--None
        Not Voting: Commissioners--None
                                               Carmen O. Perez,
                                                             Secretary.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

        Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate
    the opportunity to provide testimony to this Subcommittee, and extend
    our sincere appreciation for your past support of this community's
    efforts to protect the citizens and properties in the Capital City of
    California. In our continuing efforts to protect the Sacramento
    Metropolitan Area, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA),
    and its member agencies, support the following Federal appropriations
    for fiscal year 2001:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            FY 2001  FY 2001
                            Project                          Admin.   SAFCA
                                                            Request  Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Folsom Modifications: Modifications to Folsom Dam to    \1\ 5.0  \1\ 12.
     provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage                  0
     in Folsom Reservoir. NEW START.......................
    South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of flooding of     \2\ 0.2  \1\ 5.0
     portions of Sacramento from the south, where four
     creeks convey foothill runoff through urbanized areas
     into Beach Lake and the Delta. NEW START.............
    American River Common Elements: 24 miles of levee       \1\ 10.  \1\ 13.
     improvements along the American River and 12 miles of        0        0
     improvements along the Sacramento River levees, flood
     gauges upstream of Folsom Dam, and improvements to
     the flood warning system along the lower American
     River. Request includes $1.0 million to begin work on
     levee parity, authorized in WRDA 1999................
    Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct harmful  \1\ 3.3  \1\ 5.0
     erosion along the banks of the American River that
     threatens the integrity of the existing levees.......
    American River Watershed (Natomas): Reimbursement to    .......  \1\ 5.0
     SAFCA for the Federal share of the flood control
     improvements undertaken by the local project sponsor.
    American River Plan: Funds to continue previously       \2\ 3.2  \2\ 5.0
     authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood          85
     protection projects..................................
    Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump          \3\ 0.1  \3\ 0.5
     Station): a feasibility study to restore 100-year            5
     level of flood protection to Chicken Ranch Slough
     drainage to the American River. This area has flooded
     four times since 1986................................
    Magpie Creek: Authorized under the Corps= Section 205   \4\ N/A  \1\ 2.5
     Program, this project will provide a high degree of             \3\ 0.5
     flood protection on Magpie Creek. McClellan AFB......
                                                           -----------------
          Total...........................................   21.935     48.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Construction.
    \2\Preconstruction Engineering and Design.
    \3\ Surveys.
    \4\ The Corps has requested $25.0 million for the Section 205 Program,
      which funds these two projects. Individual projects are not itemized
      in this request.

        Sacramento continues to have the ignoble distinction of being the
    urban area with the lowest flood protection in the nation according to
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Addressing this problem is
    our region's most critical infrastructure issue as evidenced by the
    formation of a joint powers agency, the Sacramento Area Flood Control
    Agency (SAFCA) to solve the problem and the millions of dollars spent
    over the past ten years on improvements and countless engineering
    studies. A major flood on the American River would cause between $7 and
    $16 billion in damage and likely result in lives being lost. The
    floodplain is home to over 400,000 residents, 150,000 homes, 5,000
    businesses, the State Capitol, and 1,300 government facilities.
        As part of the 1999 water Resources Development Act (WRDA),
    Congress authorized the most significant set of flood control
    improvements since Folsom Dam was constructed in 1955. While these
    improvements do not meet SAFCA's long term goal of providing 200-year
    flood protection, they will raise the minimum level of protection from
    about 85-year to 140-year and provide a foundation for additional
    improvements that will reach our goal. All interests from engineers to
    environmentalists; small businesses to corporations; community
    activists to the local homeowner agree Sacramento needs to move forward
    with these improvements as rapidly as possible. The five largest floods
    on the American River this century have all occurred since 1950. The
    last two floods, 1986 and 1997 were the largest ever recorded. When a
    new record flood occurs, and there is about 1 chance in 3 it will occur
    in the next 30 years, it will likely produce the worst flood disaster
    in this nation's history unless these improvements are complete. We
    hope you can understand our desire for appropriation levels that will
    allow the projects to proceed forward in an aggressive time frame.
        Sacramento has not been sitting idly since our near disaster in
    1986. Over $90.0 million in local funds have been spent on flood
    control improvements, engineering studies, public education and other
    activities to further our region's flood control objectives. We have
    been a very proactive and innovative community. Accomplishments to date
    include strengthening levees along the Sacramento River; raising and
    constructing new levees in North Sacramento and Natomas; raising levees
    protecting the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant; negotiating an
    agreement for more flood space at Folsom; restoring bank erosion sites
    along the Lower American River; and development of a flood management
    plan including evacuation plans and development guidelines. The flood
    control improvements to our system played an important role in avoiding
    the devastating flood damages experienced by our neighbors to the north
    and south during the past few years. In addition, we have worked
    closely and cooperatively with the Corps and the State of California in
    systematically re-evaluating the flood control system protecting this
    region and identifying the projects necessary to significantly reduce
    our chances of a catastrophic flood. That work led to the 1999 WRDA
    authorizations and to the specific appropriations request summarized
    earlier and described in more detail below.
        Folsom Dam Modifications.--Folsom Dam was originally designed in
    the 1950s to provide a very high level of flood protection (250 to 300-
    year). However, five major floods since the project was completed have
    caused the Corps to conclude that the level of flood protection
    actually provided is less than 100-year. This is substantially less
    than other similarly situated major urban areas around the nation
    including St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Omaha, Minneapolis, and
    Pittsburgh.
        Following unsuccessful efforts to obtain authorization of a new
    flood control structure at Auburn in 1992 and 1996, the Corps, the
    State and SAFCA have focused their attention on identifying
    improvements to Folsom Dam and other existing flood control features
    that will cost effectively increase flood protection. As a result of
    these efforts, Congress authorized flood control improvements in 1992,
    1996 and again in 1999.
        The most recent improvements are to the outlet works at Folsom Dam
    which represent the most important steps for improving public safety in
    Sacramento. We believe the extreme existing risk and the consequences
    of a flood clearly justify an aggressive schedule. The Administration
    has included a new start and $5.0 million in its proposed budget for
    this project. This amount is predicated on a very relaxed schedule that
    assumes the Corps will not begin to prepare a Project Cooperative
    Agreement (PCA) until they have completed a decision document setting
    forth their decision on design details. SAFCA is asking that Congress
    direct the Corps to prepare the PCA in the most expeditious manner
    possible, and believes that this direction will allow the Corps to
    begin construction of this project three months sooner. With the
    earlier start of construction, more funds are needed, and SAFCA is
    requesting that the appropriation for this project be increased to
    $12.0 million.
        South Sacramento Streams Group Project.--In 1995, homes in the
    South Sacramento area were threatened by rain swollen creeks which
    reached to within a foot, and in some areas less, of overtopping the
    levees and channels and flooding adjacent residential subdivisions. The
    Corps 1998 feasibility study concluded much of the urban area of South
    Sacramento has less than 50-year flood protection from these urban
    streams. There are over 100,000 people and 41,000 structures in the
    floodplain of Morrison, Unionhouse, Florin and Elder Creeks that make
    up the South Sacramento Streams Group Project. Congress authorized the
    NED plan recommended by the Corps as part of the 1999 WRDA. The
    Administration's budget however includes only $0.2 million for
    continuing preliminary engineering and design (PED) based on an
    erroneous assumption that considerably more preconstruction design work
    needs to be done. In fact, we will be ready to begin construction early
    in fiscal year 2001 and SAFCA respectfully requests that this project
    be designated for a new start, with an initial appropriation of $5.0
    million. This will allow the Corps to move to construction of this
    project on an optimum schedule, thereby providing the citizens of South
    Sacramento with improved flood protection at least a year sooner than
    the Administration's proposal.
        American River Common Elements Project.--As part of the 1996 WRDA,
    Congress authorized flood control features that were common to all the
    long-term alternatives being considered for Sacramento. These included
    26 miles of levee stabilization along the Lower American River, raising
    and strengthening 12 miles of the east levee of the Sacramento River.
    As the 1997 floods in Northern California demonstrated, we must
    continue to rehabilitate our existing system of levees to insure they
    can carry even their intended design flows. The levee modifications
    authorized under this project complement work done by the Corps in the
    early 1990s and will complete the job of stabilizing the existing
    levees protecting this community. The Corps will have three major
    contracts underway this year, and plans to add two more in 2001. We are
    requesting an appropriation of $13.0 million, the amount necessary to
    continue this project and to start on additional improvements added to
    this authorization in the 1999 WRDA.
        Sacramento Bank Protection Project (American River Levees).--SAFCA,
    the State of California and the Corps have found that bank protection
    improvements are needed to stop erosion, which threatens urban levees
    along the lower American River. Over the last four years SAFCA has led
    a collaborative process through which flood control, environmental and
    neighborhood interests have reached agreement on how to complete this
    work in a manner which protects the sensitive environmental and
    aesthetic values of the American River in addition to improving the
    reliability of the levee system. As a result, an American River Bank
    Protection Construction Program was implemented under the Sacramento
    River Bank Protection authorization. The President has included $3.3
    million in his budget to fund bank protection projects. SAFCA is
    requesting an appropriation of $5.0 million the amount necessary to
    complete the small increment of work remaining on the American River
    and important projects at other locations in the Central Valley.
        American River Watershed (Natomas Features).--In 1992, the
    recommended plan for the American River was construction of a flood
    detention dam at Auburn and levee improvements around Natomas and lower
    Dry and Arcade Creeks. Congress did not include the recommended project
    in the 1992 WRDA, but in subsequent legislation did authorize the levee
    improvements around the Natomas basin and North Sacramento. The
    authorizing legislation included provisions to reimburse the local
    agency for the Federal share of constructing levee improvements that
    were consistent with the Federal project. With over 75,000 residents at
    risk, subject to life threatening flood depths of 20 feet in some
    areas, SAFCA decided to initiate construction of the project using
    local funds with the potential for future Federal reimbursement. By
    borrowing heavily from other sources and debt financing through a
    capital assessment district, SAFCA proceeded to rapidly construct a
    $60.0 million project that was consistent with the 1992 authorization.
    However, the Corps 1992 report described levee improvements that were
    consistent with controlling flow in the American River with a dam at
    Auburn. SAFCA felt the construction of that project was uncertain and
    therefore decided to construct higher levees and make other
    improvements than those described in the Corps' report. These
    improvements were instrumental in preventing flooding in 1995 and 1997.
    However, the borrowing of funds, coupled with additional future flood
    control obligations, has severely strained SAFCA's financing
    capability. The Corps has agreed to reimburse SAFCA $21.0 million,
    their estimate of the costs of building the project described in their
    1992 report and Congress has appropriated funds consistent with that
    agreement. The Corps has also agreed to consider reimbursement for
    higher levees, and SAFCA is preparing the documentation necessary to
    support a Corps' review. We are asking for an additional appropriation
    of $5.0 million. One million is to finance the Corps' review and
    analysis of SAFCA's request, and the remaining $4.0 million would be a
    first payment on the second phase of reimbursement.
        American River Plan.--As noted above, the modifications to Folsom
    Dam provide a significant increment of additional flood protection to
    Sacramento, but do not allow us to reach our goal of at least 200-year
    flood protection. Congress recognized the need for additional flood
    protection in the 1999 WRDA, and directed the Corps to proceed with
    additional studies and report back in March 2000. The Corps has done
    their best to comply with Congressional direction and has prepared a
    report that is moving through headquarters on its way to Congress.
    Unfortunately, additional work may be needed to supplement the results
    of that study, including further environmental analysis consistent with
    the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. The Administration has included an
    allocation of $3.385 million to allow the Corps to complete a more
    detailed analysis on the matters identified by Congress. SAFCA supports
    an increase to $5 million to speed up this important study.
        Lower Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs.--SAFCA, in cooperation with
    Sacramento County, is seeking appropriations of $0.5 million to allow
    the Corps to complete it feasibility study for Lower Strong and Chicken
    Ranch Sloughs. Floodwaters from these urban streams are collected at
    the base of the American River levees and pumped into the river. In
    1986 and again twice in 1997, the limited channel and pumping capacity
    led to significant flood damages to a number of residential and
    commercial structures. Most of the flooding occurs when the American
    River is at a high stage due to releases from Folsom Dam. The original
    pump station was built by the Corps as part of the American River and
    Folsom project in the 1950s, but does not have sufficient capacity to
    prevent flooding from today's larger storms. The Corps has completed a
    reconnaissance evaluation and concluded that there is a Federal
    interest in completing a feasibility study. This appropriation would
    allow that study to move forward on an optimal schedule.
        Magpie Creek (Section 205 Continuing Authorities Program).--The
    Magpie Creek Diversion Project, constructed by the Corps in the 1950s
    as an extension of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, is
    inadequate for even the 100-year flood event using new hydrologic data.
    The resulting floodplain encompasses residential and commercial
    developments downstream and would close Interstate 80, the major east-
    west transportation route through Sacramento. The Corps has developed a
    Section 205 project for the off-bas portion of Magpie Creek. The
    Congress last year also included a separate Section 205 authorization
    for the on-base portion under WRDA 99. A Corps study of the off-base
    portion indicates these improvements have a benefit to cost ratio of
    2.5 to 1 and not only protect existing urban development and are
    essential to provide capacity for future improvements on McClellen Air
    Force Base to allow for orderly redevelopment activities as part of the
    base conversion process. Congress designated funds in last year's
    Energy and Water Appropriations bill to initiate work on the off-base
    project, but construction has been delayed. SAFCA supports the
    Administration's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the Section 205
    Program and requests the Corps be directed to initiate construction of
    the Magpie Creek Diversion Project within these available funds. In
    addition, we are seeking funding designation of $500,000 to begin work
    on the off-base portion of the project as authorized in WRDA 99.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the City of Phoenix

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the City
    Council and the residents of Phoenix, the sixth largest city in the
    country, I would like to submit the following testimony for the record.
    I am pleased to present this testimony in support of appropriations to
    help our city and region continue to foster a partnership with the
    Federal Government to achieve our shared objectives. We have been
    working with our delegation, this Committee, the Corps of Engineers,
    the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies to promote
    environmental restoration and flood control needs in the most effective
    and economical way. We sincerely appreciate the past support of this
    Committee and trust we will continue our partnership to see several
    critical projects through to a successful conclusion.
        There are several initiatives under way which this Committee has
    supported in the past and are included in the President's Budget.
    Continued support is essential to achieve the public benefits for which
    the projects are being designed.

                       RIO SALADO AND RIO SALADO PHASE II

        We have been working for nearly six years with the Corps of
    Engineers in a cost-shared partnership to study a project to restore
    riparian wetlands along the Salt River in downtown Phoenix and Tempe.
    The wetlands were lost over many years as a result of diversion of Salt
    River flows for irrigation of the surrounding region.
        In cooperation, the Corps, the City of Tempe, and we have developed
    a cost-effective plan called Rio Salado to restore about seven miles of
    the lost riparian wetlands. The plan has been approved by the Secretary
    of the Army and the Administration and was authorization in the 1999
    Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
        The Rio Salado project is the centerpiece of our efforts to
    revitalize the environment and the economy of a part of our city that
    has not enjoyed the fruits of progress as have other parts of the city.
    The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget included a request for $1.5
    million for the Phoenix portion of the project. The Rio Salado project
    was one of only two Corps of Engineers environmental restoration
    projects to receive New Start Construction funding. While we are
    delighted at receiving the new start designation in the budget, we are
    seeking a substantially higher level of funding (a total of $20
    million) to allow the project to remain on schedule for completion. We
    are eager to keep the $81 million dollar Phoenix portion of the Rio
    Salado project on its planned course of the three-year construction
    period at a 35 percent local, and 65 percent federal cost.
        In addition, we are urgently seeking the approval of the Committee
    early this calendar year to negotiate an agreement with the Corps to
    provide a credit against the local share of project costs for advanced
    funding of key features of the project. The Report of the Chief of
    Engineers recommending the project authorization envisioned
    construction by the City of a low flow channel and development of
    plantings needed for the project in advance of Federal funding. Based
    on these commitments, the City has worked with Maricopa County to
    obtain $11 million in county funding and has also identified an
    additional $3 million in city funding to move forward with the City's
    commitment to this project. We are ready to proceed to construction and
    have begun preliminary work to obtain the needed plants for the
    project. However, we do not want to jeopardize our ability to receive
    credit for local work done. Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request your
    approval of the credit agreement this year and your support for the $20
    million in fiscal year 2001 to accelerate the project's schedule and
    begin construction.
        The Rio Salado Phase II portion (Rio Este and Rio Oeste) of this
    environmental restoration project was included in the Corps of
    Engineers Reconnaissance Study in 1996. The study led to a feasibility
    level report and authorization of the Rio Salado project, consisting of
    only a portion of the original reconnaissance level study area. We
    would like to move beyond the reconnaissance level for the rest of the
    original study area. This would essentially be a continuation of the
    Rio Salado project and would connect the project east (Rio Este) toward
    the Tempe portion or west (Rio Oeste) toward the Tres Rios project at
    our 91st Avenue Treatment Plant. We are seeking $675,000 for the Corps
    of Engineers Feasibility Study for Phase II, including the $175,000 in
    the President's budget for both the Rio Este and Rio Oeste portions and
    a $500,000 increase for Rio Oeste to allow us to accelerate that study.
    The Feasibility funding will be matched 50 percent by the local
    sponsor. We strongly urge your support for this appropriation.

                                   TRES RIOS

        This is a truly unique project the outcome of which holds promise
    to benefit the entire nation as well as the Phoenix region in
    particular. The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed a demonstration
    project which uses wastewater from the regional wastewater treatment
    plant to create wetlands near the discharge location. The Bureau's
    project is authorized under their general research and demonstration
    authorities under their Title XVI Water and Wastewater Reclamation and
    Reuse Program. We are seeking the $550,000 included in the Bureau's
    budget to continue this research effort to be able to include in the
    pilot study measures to control mosquito vectors, an important public
    health issue.
        In addition, we embarked on a cost-shared feasibility study with
    the Corps of Engineers to expand the project to create approximately
    800 acres of high quality wetlands along a 7 mile stretch of the Salt
    and Gila Rivers. The feasibility study is nearing completion and
    Congress provided an initial $50,000 in fiscal year 2000 to initiate
    planning, engineering and design. This year's budget requests an
    additional $250,000 toward that effort. The City is seeking an increase
    of $250,000 to accelerate that effort.
        The City is also requesting funding from the Bureau of Reclamation
    in the amount of $300,000 to allow the Bureau to begin studies on the
    Agua Fria River groundwater recharge project under the authority of
    section 1608 of the Bureau's Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse Program.
    It is important to have that portion of the study completed in about
    the same time frame as the rest of the study and design work to avoid
    losing the water coming from the wetlands restoration project.

                      GILA RIVER, NORTHEAST DRAINAGE AREA.

        This is another innovative study designed to anticipate potential
    flood control problems from the rapidly expanding development on the
    alluvial plains in the Northeast section of the greater Phoenix area.
    The results of the study will allow local jurisdictions to plan and
    regulate development in a coordinated way throughout the region to
    avoid creating flooding problems as has happened in many other rapidly
    growing areas in the nation. We believe that spending a little time and
    planning effort now will reap large savings in flood control costs and
    flood damages in the future. The Corps budget contains $212,000 for
    this study which we believe is enough to keep it on schedule.

                                    SUMMARY

        All of these projects, the Rio Salado and Phase II of the Rio
    Salado project (``Rio Este'' and ``Rio Oeste''), Tres Rios, and the
    Gila River, will act in synergy to restore lost environmental quality
    and provide for creative management, conservation, and reuse of scarce
    water quantities in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. We sincerely
    appreciate the opportunity to present this request and thank you very
    much for your support in the past. We would be pleased to provide any
    additional information you may need.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the City of San Leandro, California

        Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members, thank you for this
    opportunity to present testimony. I am Shelia Young, Mayor of San
    Leandro, California. It is my aim to provide the Subcommittee with a
    brief overview of the history and importance of performing maintenance
    dredging on the San Leandro Marina Channel, a project that was
    unfortunately omitted from the President's fiscal year 2001 budget.
        The San Leandro Marina Channel connects deeper waters in the San
    Francisco Bay to the San Leandro Marina and the San Leandro Shoreline
    Recreation Area. First dredged in 1962, it provides a host of benefits
    to the immediate San Leandro community and the entire San Francisco Bay
    Area. The Marina and Shoreline Recreation Area includes 455 boat
    berths, three restaurants, a small-boat sailing lagoon, two golf
    courses, extensive park facilities, the San Leandro Shoreline
    Marshlands, a trail system along most of the shoreline and a unique
    Dredged Material Management Site, or DMMS. Additionally, in the event
    of an aircraft crash at the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport,
    the Marina Channel provides water access for boats leaving San Leandro
    to provide search and rescue functions.
        Simply stated, without regular dredging, the Marina and Shoreline
    Recreation Area would be cut off from the rest of San Francisco Bay. To
    ensure that the Marina Channel remains open, San Leandro formed a
    partnership with the Federal government through the Army Corps of
    Engineers to perform dredging activities. Congress first authorized
    funds for maintenance dredging in 1971, and the City and the Corps have
    worked collaboratively ever since to proactively address dredging
    needs. Local and Corps analysis of Channel build-up has led to a
    quadrennial dredging cycle. Maintenance funds were included in
    President Bush's fiscal year 1993 budget and President Clinton's fiscal
    year 1997 budget. It then came as a great surprise that funds were not
    included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, especially
    considering that the Corps has already worked with the City to obtain
    permits for fiscal year 2001 dredging.
        There have been no significant changes in the rate of Channel
    build-up that would necessitate a change in the quadrennial dredging
    cycle. Changes in water depth are following the same pattern as those
    preceding the 1997 dredging. In fact, the current cycle spaces dredging
    activities as far apart as possible. Prior to 1997 dredging,
    controlling water depth in the Channel dropped to less than two feet.
    As I sit here today, navigation problems are already beginning to occur
    as we approach the end of this cycle.
        I want to stress San Leandro's commitment to the Marina Channel
    through the expenditure of local funds and overall environmental
    stewardship, most visibly through the creation and operation of a
    Dredged Materials Management Site. As in-bay aquatic disposal of
    dredged materials is environmentally undesirable, the Army Corps and
    the Environmental Protection Agency are developing a Long Term
    Management Strategy (LTMS) for Bay Area dredging and disposal
    activities. Recognizing the need to properly dispose of dredged
    materials, San Leandro has been a pioneer in developing an alternative
    to in-bay disposal. The DMMS not only effectively stores material, it
    functions as a shorebird habitat. The City has borne the full financial
    responsibility for the operation of the DMMS since its initial use in
    1973, and pays the full cost to dispose of dredged materials. Together,
    this requires an annual expenditure of over $2 million.
        As you can see, the Marina Channel is a vital economic and
    environmental link for San Leandro's entire shoreline. Failure to
    dredge will lead to immediate negative economic consequences. The San
    Leandro Marina, at the heart of our coastal community, will cease to
    exist. The millions of dollars the Marina generates for the local
    economy will be lost. Public recreation along the shoreline will
    diminish, and environmentally sensitive areas of shoreline restoration
    will be in jeopardy.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, I support and
    admire your efforts as you perform the difficult job of meeting
    America's energy and water needs. I firmly believe that San Leandro's
    request is reasonable and necessary, and I urge the Subcommittee's
    approval of $1.5 million for this project. Thank you again for your
    time.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the City of Oceanside, California

      OCEANSIDE HARBOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND OCEANSIDE SHORELINE
                                PROTECTION STUDY

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of the City of Oceanside, California. The City of Oceanside
    respectfully requests your favorable consideration of two Corps of
    Engineers projects that are critically important to our community.
        First, the City of Oceanside requests an appropriation of
    $2,035,000 under Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance, for
    Oceanside Harbor, California. The majority of the funds requested
    ($1,535,000) are included in the president's budget submission to pay
    for on-going maintenance dredging of Oceanside Harbor. The additional
    $500,000 above the budget request is needed for the one-time costs
    associated with removing a submerged jetty from the Harbor entrance.
        Removal of the jetty will eliminate a significant hazard to
    navigation and expand the width of the navigational channel, which was
    reduced when the entrance was modified in 1994.
        The Corps of Engineers modified the Oceanside Harbor entrance to
    reduce storm damage, provide surge protection to the harbor
    infrastructure and provide significant reduction of navigational
    hazards. Part of the project included a 180-foot stub groin off the
    south jetty. This groin protrudes significantly into the previous
    channel, reducing the width by approximately 50 percent. It is
    currently not possible to realign the channel to widen the entrance to
    the Harbor due to the submerged jetty that borders the north side of
    the Harbor entrance.
        The close proximity to the navigational channel is a hazard to
    navigation for vessels that stray from the channel limits. During heavy
    surf and storms, the entrance becomes very hazardous and was closed by
    the U.S. Coast Guard during the 1998 El Nino events. Breaking waves
    have come in as far as the submerged jetty light #5.
        The elimination or relocation of the submerged jetty is necessary
    to provide for the channel to be returned to its original width. The
    submerged jetty is an old structure that was in place prior to the
    outer jetty's construction. It may not be necessary to eliminate the
    submerged jetty. Relocating the rock material closer into shore would
    provide for a restored channel width, while continuing to provide a
    marine life habitat.
        Second, the City of Oceanside requests an appropriation of $500,000
    under Corps of Engineers, General Investigations, to continue a special
    study to develop plans to mitigate the impacts of the Camp Pendleton
    Harbor on Oceanside's shoreline.
        The Committee provided $100,000 in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations bill to initiate a study to determine
    the extent of the erosion impact caused by Camp Pendleton Harbor. That
    study is now underway and will provide a summation of all historic and
    current documentation of the impacts of the federal construction on the
    Oceanside beach.
        Oceanside has a 57-year history of beach erosion resulting from the
    Camp Pendleton Harbor construction that began in 1942. The Federal
    Government acknowledged responsibility for Oceanside's beach erosion in
    1953. A later report to the U.S. Navy from the Army Corps of Engineers
    noted that the construction of the Camp Pendleton jetties had
    compartmentalized the littoral cell and resulted in the loss of 1.5
    million cubic yards of sand in Oceanside during 1950-1952. An
    additional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report to Congress in 1956
    concluded that the restoration of the protected beach at Oceanside
    would protect the upland area and restore and maintain a satisfactory
    recreational beach. In 1958, the Navy extended the north jetty to
    reduce the entrance channel maintenance problems. This action further
    aggravated the erosion of the beaches.
        In 1967, Congress authorized a review study of beach erosion at
    Oceanside, resulting in the office of the Chief of Engineers confirming
    100 percent federal responsibility for shoreline damages. Despite
    numerous and significant efforts in placing sand on the beach, periodic
    nourishment of sand from maintenance dredging of the harbor and sand
    bypassing project, no permanent solution to the massive erosion problem
    has been achieved.
        Tourism is the San Diego region's second largest industry. The
    areas beaches, including Oceanside, represent a key attraction for our
    residents and our tourists. The San Diego Convention and Visitors
    Bureau notes that the majority of the region's visitor lodgings are
    located along the coastline. Total tourism dollars are identified as
    $4.7 billion annually. San Diego and Oceanside's beaches are clearly an
    economic contributor to the region's economic well-being.
        Significant portions of Oceanside's beaches are not able to provide
    full recreational and tourism revenue benefits due to the eroded beach
    conditions. Furthermore, the beaches are too narrow to provide full and
    adequate protection to public infrastructure, commercial facilities and
    residential structures. Addressing this problem will significantly
    decrease storm damage costs along the City's shoreline.
        Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Oceanside, I request
    the Committee's support for these two critically important projects.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for
    your consideration of the request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and
                             Conservation District

        Mr.Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you once again
    for the opportunity for me, Roy Curless, as President, on behalf of the
    Board of Commissioners of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and
    Conservation District in Eureka, California to submit prepared remarks
    to you for the record in support of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
    Water regular appropriations measure to fund the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers in the first full year of the new millennium. The Humboldt
    Bay Harbor District's Chief Executive Officer David Hull and I will
    represent the Commission and District in meetings with subcommittee
    staff and agency representatives and respond to any project-related
    questions that arise during those meetings and appearances.
        Today the citizens of the North Coast region--and the First
    Congressional District of California have reason to celebrate. We stand
    on the threshold of a new era in navigation safety and future economic
    development. Our traditional forest products industry continues to
    suffer from a precipitous decline, and our fisheries industry is facing
    a potential catastrophe with a moratorium on bottom fishing, and the
    listing of several species. However, sometime next month, construction
    of the Humboldt Harbor and Bay Navigation Project authorized in the
    Water Resources Development of 1996, is expected to be substantially
    completed. Given a ten day project delay triggered by a frivolous legal
    challenge, and our notorious winter weather conditions, the near
    completion of this project represents a magnificent accomplishment by
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the private contractors. We
    commend them for their efforts.
        The commission recognizes and expresses its debt of gratitude to
    our congressional delegation, including Chairman Packard and the
    members of this subcommittee, our Congressman Mike Thompson, and to
    Senators Boxer and Feinstein for their continuing efforts in funding
    the Humboldt Harbor and Bay Navigation Project. This project is of
    critical importance to the future development of Humboldt Bay and
    County, and the entire northcoast region of the State of California.
        We are likewise grateful to the subcommittee for including $4.189
    million in the operations and maintenance general account for fiscal
    year 2000. We support the President's budget request for an additional
    $4.710 in the operations and maintenance general account for fiscal
    year 2001 and request the subcommittee increase this amount to $6.210
    million.
        The increased budget request for fiscal year 2001 is necessary to
    perform additional work on the channel boundaries at Humboldt Bay's
    entrance in the paramount interests of navigation safety and
    environmental protection. In addition, expanded survey work to monitor
    the new hydrodynamics of the channel after completion of project
    construction is essential for safety and future maintenance planning.
    Our additional request above the President's budget is based upon a
    recent Corps survey south of the navigation channel. Sand accumulation
    in this area is impacting the main channel and requires additional
    maintenance dredging with the intended result of saving additional
    money, lives and the bay environment over the long term.
        Completion of the long sought new construction project will make us
    more of a year round safe harbor and help U.S. compete to restore our
    traditional forest products industry based upon sustainable yields,
    while at the same time diversify our maritime economy reeling from
    recent closures of our bottom fisheries.
        For those unfamiliar with the geography, Humboldt Bay is the only
    deep-draft natural harbor strategically situated along five hundred
    miles of Pacific coastline between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon.
    Prevailing winter wave conditions at the Humboldt Bar and entrance have
    posed extreme navigation safety hazards, resulting in loss of life and
    significant property damage over the years.
        To us, periodic maintenance can be a life and death, as well as
    economic, survival matter. We are extremely grateful for the
    commendable efforts by the San Francisco District of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers to combine maintenance and construction dredging
    last year to alleviate severe shoaling conditions at our bar and
    entrance which posed additional safety risks of grounding over and
    beyond those inherently unsafe seasonal conditions now largely remedied
    by the channel improvement project itself.
        Project completion will provide unique economic development
    opportunities for the North Coast Region. These capitalize upon our
    natural resources base enabling us to ship our commodities to world
    markets at competitive freight rates, and ship more of our imports and
    exports by water rather than transship them long distances by road or
    rail to market. At the same time it will permit us to diversify our
    economic base by improving our transportation infrastructure and
    attracting new industrial activity to an area largely dependent upon
    the economic well-being of the Forest Products Industry. We are
    currently suffering from closure of major facilities and continuing
    uncertainty surrounding the industry's future as a major contributor to
    our long term economic base.
        With the support of then Congressman Riggs, Congress authorized the
    Humboldt Harbor and Bay 38 foot deep draft navigation project in
    section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (WRDA 1996)
    (Public Law 104-303) at an estimated total construction cost of
    $15,178,000 with a required local contribution of $5,180,000, and a
    first federal cost of $10,000,000. The project has a 1.9 to 1 favorable
    benefit cost ratio. It enjoys the consensus support of federal, state,
    regional, and local agencies.
        In June 1998, with the support of the California Maritime
    Infrastructure Authority in the first of its kind issuance of revenue
    bonds to finance a federal navigation project, we were able to raise
    $3.9 million matched by an additional $1.0 million in local
    redevelopment agency funds from the City of Eureka to meet our required
    local contribution to project construction cost.
        In order to provide an additional revenue stream from which to
    service the debt incurred in meeting its financial obligations, the
    district has implemented the first of its kind harbor user fee (harbor
    improvement surcharge) under section 208 of WRDA 1986 so that vessels
    and cargo benefitting from the navigation improvements will share in
    the cost of providing them.
        This time last year thanks to an accelerated final review by
    Secretary Westphal's staff, we were able to sign our project
    cooperation agreement here in Washington paving the way for
    advertisement and contract award and now anticipated completion of
    construction this year.
        On behalf of the members of the commission and district, we
    appreciate those prior occasions in which we have had the opportunity
    to appear before the subcommittee. We look forward to appearing before
    this subcommittee on future occasions to provide updated reports on the
    economic benefits and progress we expect will follow the successful
    completion of this project. We are prepared to supplement our prepared
    remarks for the record in response to any questions that the Chair,
    subcommittee members, or staff may wish to have us answer.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This
    concludes my prepared remarks.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the City of Sacramento

        On behalf of the City of Sacramento, I would like to thank you for
    the opportunity to provide testimony to the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in support of fiscal year
    2001 funding for flood protection projects in Sacramento. First, I
    would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for its
    efforts in past years to fund flood control measures for the City.
    Sacramento, California, continues to face the highest flood risk in the
    nation. During the past several years, the Subcommittee has recognized
    the dire need for flood protection in and around the Sacramento area
    and has provided funds for a variety of previously authorized projects.
    In order to continue our efforts, we must once again request your
    support for funding vital Sacramento area flood control projects in
    fiscal year 2001.
        This year, the City of Sacramento is seeking $48.5 million in
    federal funding in order to finance both ongoing and newly authorized
    projects, which are described in the enclosed chart. These figures
    represent the most recent estimates developed by the Sacramento Area
    Flood Control Agency and are derived from their discussions with the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Most importantly, the City is
    seeking funding for two ``new starts'' that were authorized by the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 99): modifications to
    Folsom Dam and construction of the South Sacramento Streams Group.
    These two projects will form the backbone of a system of improvements
    that may someday once and for all remove the threat of catastrophic
    flooding from the streets of downtown Sacramento, site of our State
    Capitol and home to 400,000 residents. We have worked closely with the
    Corps in planning these projects and have determined that they are in
    line with the Corps ability to spend for their fiscal year 2001 budget.
    Obtaining new start funding for these important projects is a task that
    will greatly benefit from your leadership.
        The overall Corps of Engineers' budget request for all of
    Sacramento's flood control projects is $21.9 million, meaning that
    Congress must double the Administration's request in order to meet the
    City's flood control needs. The Administration's budget request is
    nearly $12 million below its request last year and over $13 million
    below the amount Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The City
    urgently needs the Subcommittee's leadership and support to obtain our
    full funding request in order to move forward with these previously
    authorized projects.
        The City is pleased that the Administration has proposed ``new
    start'' construction funding for modifications to Folsom Dam, which
    will enable the dam to release flows from Folsom Lake more quickly in
    order to better protect the City from flooding during large storms.
    However, the Administration's proposed funding of $5.0 million for the
    Folsom modifications project falls far short of the full amount needed
    next year. We urge the Subcommittee to support our full request of
    $12.0 million to begin this urgently needed construction on Folsom Dam.
        Due to the significant flood risk along creeks in the South
    Sacramento area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized in
    WRDA 99 to begin construction on the South Sacramento Streams Group,
    which would protect areas in south Sacramento from catastrophic
    flooding in the four creeks that convey foothill runoff through this
    urbanized area. The Administration has requested $200,000 for
    preconstruction engineering and design (PED). This amount is far below
    our request. We urge the Subcommittee to fund $5.0 million to begin
    both PED and construction for this project.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed budget provides $10.0
    million for continuation of construction of the Common Elements, which
    comprise levee improvements and other measures authorized by WRDA 96.
    This level of funding is below the amount necessary to keep the project
    moving forward, and we ask that the Subcommittee instead support our
    request $13.0 million, which includes $1.0 million to begin work in
    levee parity which was authorized in WRDA 99. The Common Elements
    Project is a vital first step in our flood control efforts, and full
    funding to keep this project on track is essential.
        The City of Sacramento has been working in cooperation with the
    Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) on the construction of
    bank protection improvements which are vital to correct harmful erosion
    along the banks of the American River which threatens the integrity of
    our existing levees. Additional improvements will be needed over the
    next several years to prevent erosion at other American River sites.
    This work is already authorized under the Sacramento River Bank
    Protection Project, which is used to fund erosion control projects
    throughout the Sacramento River System. The President's budget proposes
    $3.3 million for the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which is
    below the amount requested. We request that Subcommittee support our
    request for $5.0 million.
        For the American River Watershed (Natomas) improvements which were
    authorized by Congress in 1992, we are seeking continued construction
    appropriations in the amount of $5.0 million for reimbursement to SAFCA
    for the Federal share of the flood control improvements.
        The President's Budget for fiscal year 2001 provides for $3.285
    million in PED funds for the American River Watershed plan, which will
    continue previously authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood
    control projects. We urge the Subcommittee to instead support our
    request for $5.0 million in PED funds for the American River Watershed
    plan.
        This is the second year that the City is seeking funds for the
    Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump Station) project. This
    is a feasibility study to restore 100-year level of flood protection to
    Chicken Ranch Slough drainage to the American River. The President has
    requested $150,000 for this project. We urge the Subcommittee to fund
    our full requested amount of $500,000.
        Under the Corps' Section 205 program, a feasibility study and
    environmental documentation have been completed for a project that
    would provide a high degree of flood protection on Magpie Creek. This
    year, the President has requested $25.0 million for all Section 205
    flood control projects. We urge the Subcommittee to support Section 205
    funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget and recommend that the Corps of
    Engineers be directed to provide $2.5 million for completion of the
    Magpie Creek project and $500,000 for McLellan Air Force Base in its
    distribution of Section 205 funds.
        Once again, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement
    and for your consideration of the funding that the City of Sacramento
    needs to protect its residents. As the Mayor of the most flood prone of
    American cities, adequate flood protection is the number-one priority
    for my administration. I thank you again for your commitment in
    previous years to providing this vital protection and ask for your
    renewed support in assuring its continuation.

              FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001--SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      FY 2001      FY 2001
                        Project                        Admin.     SAFCA/City
                                                      Request      Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Folsom Modifications: Modifications to Folsom           5.0         12.0
     Dam to provide greater efficiency in managing
     flood storage in Folsom Reservoir. NEW START.
    South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of                 0.2          5.0
     flooding of portions of Sacramento from the
     south, where four creeks convey foothill
     runoff through urbanized areas into Beach
     Lake and the Delta. NEW START................
    American River Common Elements: 24 miles of            10.0         13.0
     levee improvements along the American River
     and 12 miles of improvements along the
     Sacramento River levees, flood gauges
     upstream of Folsom Dam, and improvements to
     the flood warning system along the lower
     American River. Request includes $1.0 million
     to begin work on levee parity, authorized in
     WRDA 1999....................................
    Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct          3.3          5.0
     harmful erosion along the banks of the
     American River which threatens the integrity
     of the existing levees.......................
    American River Watershed (Natomas):             ...........          5.0
     Reimbursement to SAFCA for the Federal share
     of the flood control improvements undertaken
     by the local project sponsor.................
    American River Plan: Funds to continue                3.285          5.0
     previously authorized planning and design of
     Sacramento flood protection projects.........
    Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (DO5 Pump         0.15          0.5
     Station): a feasibility study to restore 100-
     year level of flood protection to Chicken
     Ranch Slough drainage to the American River..
    Magpie Creek: Authorized under the Corps'           \1\ N/A          2.5
     Section 205 program, this project will
     provide a high degree of flood protection on
     Magpie Creek.................................
    McClellan AFB.................................  ...........          0.5
                                                   -------------------------
          Total...................................       21.935         48.5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Corps has requested $25.0 million for the Section 205 program,
      which funds these two projects. Individual projects are not itemized
      in this request.

            Prepared Statement of the Colusa Basin Drainage District

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Colusa Basin
    Drainage District requests the Committee's support for $1 million for
    fiscal year 2001, under Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Project,
    Sacramento River Division, for the Colusa Basin Drainage District
    Integrated Resources Management Plan.
        The 650,000-acre Colusa Basin Drainage District, located on the
    west side of the Sacramento River, serves a watershed exceeding one
    million acres. It covers three counties: Glenn, Colusa and northern
    Yolo Counties. It is not only a rich agricultural area, but a rich
    wildlife area as well, including three national wildlife refuges.
        Over the decades, devastating floods have repeatedly struck the
    Colusa Basin resulting in costly damage to public and private property,
    and loss of life. In 1995, and again in 1998, these three counties
    suffered an estimated $100 million in losses and one death due to
    floods. In November 1995, a majority of landowners voted to implement
    the District's Integrated Management Plan to address flood dangers
    while achieving other benefits: increasing groundwater supplies and
    surface water storage, and improving environmental and wildlife uses in
    the watershed.
        Through a stakeholder/local, state and federal agency collaborative
    process, four projects have been selected to serve as a demonstration
    of the region's integrated resources management. Under the program,
    hydraulic studies were completed in 1998, basin-wide programmatic
    environmental documentation commenced during 1998 and is scheduled for
    completion later this year. Project specific environmental
    documentation will commence and be completed during fiscal year 2001.
        The Colusa Basin Drainage District, working collaboratively with
    the Bureau of Reclamation and a variety of local and agency
    stakeholders, has developed an Integrated Resources Management Plan for
    water management that addresses flooding and will provide opportunities
    for future conjunctive use of water resources to meet the diverse needs
    of agricultural, urban and wildlife interests in the Colusa Basin. The
    District's Plan consists of three components: structural facilities,
    nonstructural flood control measures, and environmental restoration/
    enhancement measures, including the restoration and protection of 3,000
    acres of wetlands. All new water supply developed as a result of flood
    control improvements will be dedicated to the environment.
        The Colusa Basin Drainage District appreciates your past support
    for our integrated resources management plan for water management that
    addresses flooding and provides opportunities for future conjunctive
    use of water resources.
        Thank you for your continued support.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bruce
    George, and I am the Manager of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation
    District in the eastern San Joaquin Valley of California. Thank you for
    the opportunity to present testimony regarding the fiscal year 2001
    budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
        The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Corps of
    Engineers includes $500,000 to continue construction of a project to
    increase the water storage capacity of Terminus Dam at Lake Kaweah in
    California's San Joaquin Valley. The project would add approximately
    43,000 acre-feet of flood control and conservation storage space to
    Lake Kaweah by raising the Terminus Dam spillway by 21 feet. The
    estimated total first cost of the project is $35 million.
        Unfortunately, the level of funding in the President's budget will
    not allow the project to proceed on an optimum timetable. As a result,
    total costs to the federal government, the State of California and the
    local sponsors will be increased.
        We respectfully request that the Subcommittee support an
    appropriation of $3 million for construction in fiscal year 2001. This
    will allow work to go forward at an efficient pace that is within the
    Corps' capabilities.
        The Corps of Engineers studied and planned this modest project for
    more than 10 years. Last year, Congress appropriated $2.5 million to
    initiate construction in fiscal year 2000. The State of California is
    the lead non-federal sponsor of the project and has appropriated the
    necessary funds for construction. In addition to the Kaweah Delta Water
    Conservation District, the other local sponsors are the counties of
    Kings and Tulare, the City of Visalia and the Tulare Lake Basin Water
    Storage District.
        The California Water Commission supports a $3 million General
    Construction appropriation for the Terminus Project in addition to the
    amount requested in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for
    operation and maintenance.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District was formed in 1927 to
    conserve and protect the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta.
    The District serves 337,000 acres, which include the cities of Visalia
    and Tulare and several other incorporated and unincorporated areas in
    Kings and Tulare counties. Those two counties consistently rank among
    the most productive agricultural counties in the nation.
        Terminus Dam and Lake Kaweah, located on the Kaweah River three and
    one-half miles east of the District, was completed in 1962 by the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the project is to provide
    storage space for flood protection and irrigation on the Kaweah River.
    The Conservation District manages the irrigation and flood control
    releases for Lake Kaweah, as well as assisting in the conjunctive use
    of the surface and groundwater of the Kaweah delta.
        Flooding downstream from the dam occurs when flows from individual
    creeks blend together and form a sheet flow through urban and
    agricultural areas. Included in the flooded areas are the communities
    of Visalia, Farmerville, Tulare, Ivanhoe and Goshen. Since construction
    of Terminus Dam, 10 damaging floods have occurred, the most recent in
    1997 and 1998.
        Inadequate flood protection and a long-term groundwater overdraft
    in the region have created a need for greater reservoir storage space
    for flood control and irrigation storage. With a maximum capacity of
    143,000 acre-feet, Lake Kaweah currently provides a less than 50-year
    level of flood protection for communities downstream. Raising the
    spillway at Terminus Dam (by the installation of fuse gates) would
    increase the reservoir storage capacity by 30 percent, thus providing a
    much higher level of flood protection for the region.
        California's growing population will place ever-increasing demands
    on its water supply and flood control infrastructure. Improving
    existing facilities such as Terminus Dam is one of the most economical
    and environmentally sensitive ways to meet those new demands. It is
    important for Congress to encourage such projects.
        We are grateful for the Subcommittee's continued support of the
    Terminus project.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Natomas Mutual Water Company

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Natomas
    Mutual Water Company, I request the Committee's support for an
    allocation of $3,000,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations bill, under Bureau of Reclamation, Central
    Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, Anadromous Fish
    Screening Program, for the American Basin Fish Screen and Habitat
    Improvement Project. The requested funding will be used to complete the
    environmental review, design and engineering phases of the project as
    well as initiate construction on a new flat plate screen and diversion
    point just north of the City of Sacramento.
        Currently, five river diversions from the Sacramento River of
    Natomas Mutual Water Company, located within a 20-mile stretch, need
    upgrading to prevent capture of endangered species. Individually re-
    designing those diversions and installing positive fish barriers on
    each would be prohibitively expensive. Two of the diversions take water
    from a body of water called the Natomas Cross Canal at the northern-
    most point of the service area. That channel receives flows from both
    the Sacramento River and the Auburn Ravine foothill runoff. During dry
    years, the Canal is artificially filled with water from the Sacramento
    River, in order to feed the pumps. Any alternative which could remove
    the need for those pumps, especially in dry years, would enhance the
    Cross Canal's potential as a special habitat preserve.
        The project will provide fish protection to one of the largest
    remaining unscreened diversions on the Sacramento River as well as
    provide important benefits for fish habitat. In addition, the project
    could provide benefits to other regional water users, including the
    City of Sacramento, Sacramento County and Placer County Water Agency,
    all of which are exploring diversion options on the Sacramento River.
        The Natomas Water Company would greatly appreciate the Committee's
    support for this project. Thank you again for your attention to this
    important project.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council

        On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, I express our
    appreciation for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
    fiscal year 2001 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) budget. A summary of our
    fiscal year 2001 funding request follows:
      --Support Administration's position that existing laws provide
            authority to support Trinity River Division fish and wildlife
            management and restoration activities. Further, the Hoopa
            Valley Tribe supports the Administration's position that
            Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) funds are
            authorized for expenditure in the Trinity River Basin.
      --Request that $11,500,000 be provided for Trinity River fishery
            management requirements within the Trinity River Division of
            the Central Valley Project for continuing fish and wildlife
            management programs of tribal, state, federal and local
            entities and continuation of the Comprehensive Co-Management
            Agreement between Hoopa Valley Tribe and BOR at a funding level
            of $2,500,000.
      --Request $150,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for a
            feasibility study for upgrading the Lewiston generator, and for
            Trinity River green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey population
            studies.
      --Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget and request an
            increase of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian
            tribes.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The Trinity River in northern California is the largest tributary
    to the Klamath River, the second largest river system in California.
    Since time immemorial, the Klamath Basin provided sustenance to Native
    Americans of the region. The Klamath River Basin is the aboriginal
    territory of Hoopa Valley, Karuk, Klamath, and Yurok Tribes. Moreover,
    utilization of fishery resources of the Klamath River has been
    fundamental to the economic health of northern California providing
    viable recreational and commercial salmon fisheries.
        In 1963, BOR completed construction of the Trinity River Division
    of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The Trinity River Division
    currently provides an estimated fourteen-percent of the total water
    yielded by the CVP.
        Shortly after completion of the Trinity Dam, and subsequent
    diversion of up to 90 percent of the stream flows at the diversion
    point (near Lewiston, California) from the Trinity River, the fishery
    began to decline. Through the 1980s, corresponding declines of up to 80
    percent of the salmon and steelhead populations occurred. In response
    to declines in Trinity fish stocks, the Secretary of Interior approved
    development of a flow evaluation study in 1981 to determine stream flow
    needs for fish restoration. Further, Congress recognized the
    seriousness of the problem, and enacted the Trinity River Restoration
    Act (Public Law 98-541, 1984) which, with subsequent amendments,
    authorized approximately $70,000,000 in an attempt to reverse the
    decline of the fishery resources within the Trinity River Basin.
    However, the downward trend in Trinity fish populations has continued
    as reflected by listing of coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) (May 6, 1997). Steelhead were recently declined for listing under
    the ESA. Klamath/Trinity Basin chinook stocks were included in a West
    Coast review of all chinook stocks. The NMFS concluding that Klamath/
    Trinity chinook did not presently warrant listing under ESA.
        While much work has been accomplished to date, it is recognized
    that continued monitoring and research will be necessary to provide
    insight on status of resources, evaluation of restorative measures, and
    effective management recommendations for further restoration. Primary
    among the scientific achievements to date has been the development of
    in-stream flow criteria that quantify the benefits to salmonids of
    retained flows in the Trinity Basin. These criteria, developed over the
    entire course of the Restoration Program, provide a basis for the
    Secretary's flow decision, due in fiscal year 2000. The Secretary's
    Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study Report was published in June 1999,
    and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled for
    completion by July 2000.
        In spite of many years of research into Trinity River ecosystem
    processes, considerable uncertainty persists in regard to downstream
    impacts of water releases from Lewiston Dam. These uncertainties are to
    be addressed via an Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) under the direction
    of the Interior Secretary. Long-term monitoring and research are
    essential to the AMP: hypotheses underlying the Trinity River Flow
    Evaluation Study recommendations will be tested through research; and
    monitoring data will be used to measure how well river ecosystem health
    objectives are met.

                  NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS

      --The Tribe is in agreement with the Administration's legal
            conclusions contained in the fiscal year 2001 Budget
            Justification and Annual Performance Plan--Trinity River
            Division--that existing authorities provide ample justification
            for expenditures on fish and wildlife restoration within the
            Trinity River. The 1955 Act creating the Trinity River
            Division, Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act as
            amended, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)
            mandate that the Department of the Interior restore and
            maintain fish and wildlife populations with CVP funds.
            Furthermore, Congress acknowledged the reserved fishing rights
            of the Hoopa Valley Tribe in the CVPIA.
      --Funding Request for Fish and Wildlife Management--In August 1999,
            agencies responsible for managing the Trinity River fishery
            resources determined that $11,500,000 was needed annually to
            fund comprehensive management within the Trinity River Basin in
            order to restore the fishery resources to pre-dam levels. The
            Hoopa Valley Tribe participated in the development of this
            management plan. Specifically, the Hoopa Valley Tribe requests
            that an additional $5,000,000 in funds be provided for
            restoration of Trinity Basin fish and wildlife resources.
            Presently, the Administration has proposed a fiscal year 2001
            budget of $5,600,000
        Therefore, the Tribe requests that the Committee provide
    $11,500,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development within the
    Trinity River Division budget and that $2,500,000 of this amount be
    allocated specifically for the maintenance of the Comprehensive Co-
    Management Agreement between the Tribe and BOR. The requested funding
    would ensure the Tribe's involvement in water project operations
    planning, environmental impact analysis, hatchery investigations,
    fisheries management, and would accelerate resource restoration through
    unified, inter-governmental management actions. Most of these
    activities will be addressed via the Adaptive Environmental Assessment
    and Management process (AMP) as described in the Trinity River Flow
    Evaluation Final Report.
        In its seventh year, the Co-Management Agreement between Hoopa and
    BOR has contributed not only to the fulfillment of the Federal trust
    responsibilities to Native Americans, but has also served to bring
    Federal, State, Tribal and local management agencies together into a
    constructive and cooperative forum for managing fishery and water
    resources within the Trinity River Basin.
      --Request $150,000 from the General Activities Planning budget for a
            feasibility study for upgrading the Lewiston Hydro-power
            generator, green sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey studies. It is
            expected that the Interior Secretary's Trinity River permanent
            fishery flow decision will result in reduced diversions of
            Trinity River flows into California's Central Valley. While
            being greatly beneficial to Trinity River fishery resources and
            upholding the federal trust obligations to Indian tribes, the
            decision will likely reduce the amount of electricity generated
            from diverted flows. To compensate for this situation, the
            Tribe requests that $100,000 be provided from Reclamation's
            General Activities Planning budget for determining the
            feasibility of increasing the capacity of the Lewiston
            Powerhouse generators in anticipation of the increased releases
            to the Trinity River. An expected benefit of increased
            generation of electricity from the Lewiston powerhouse is the
            possibility of using its revenues to pay for future fish and
            wildlife restoration activities within the Trinity River Basin,
            thereby reducing long-term costs to the Federal Government.
        In addition, the Tribe requests that $50,000 be provided for
    conducting population and fish health studies for Trinity River green
    sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey, both of which are important species to
    the Klamath and Trinity River Indian tribes and have been negatively
    impacted by the construction and management of the Trinity River
    Division.
      --Support the Native American Affairs proposed budget request and an
            increase of $1,000,000 for additional assistance to Indian
            tribes. The Reclamation Native American Affairs program has
            proven to be very beneficial to both the Federal Government and
            Indian tribes while trying to resolve inter-governmental water
            and fishery management issues. Without a doubt, the Native
            American Affairs Program has been instrumental in reducing the
            possibility of costly litigation and disputes between
            Reclamation and Indian tribes.

                              RESULTS ANTICIPATED

        Trinity Restoration Program: Effective restoration of fisheries,
    critical to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes and the economic
    stability of the fishery dependent communities of northern California
    and southern Oregon, would be promoted through collective actions of
    the Trinity Restoration Program. Identification and implementation of
    specific remedies and monitoring of fishery trends are expected results
    of Restoration Program.
        While many on-the-ground achievements have already been realized,
    many critical elements have yet to be completed. Among the expected
    outcomes of the Program for 2000 is the completion of the Environmental
    Impact Statement to assist the Secretary with implementation of in-
    river flows required for full restoration of salmonid populations in
    the Trinity River as mandated under Public Law 102-575. The Secretary's
    fishery flow allocation decision, originally mandated for fiscal year
    1997, was delayed due to incomplete environmental documentation. It is
    now anticipated that completed environmental documentation shall be
    available to support the Secretary's Decision expected in fiscal year
    2000.
        Tribal/Reclamation Co-Management Agreements and Native American
    Affairs Program.--The Co-Management Agreements will continue to assist
    in the coordination of Federal, State, Tribal and local activities
    (management and research) impacting salmon fisheries and salmon
    habitats of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Accomplishments under this
    agreement in fiscal year 1997 included maintenance of data collection
    and analysis programs critical to the integrated management of the
    Klamath and Trinity fishery resources. Both Reclamation and the Tribe
    agree that a wise investment has been made in developing a
    comprehensive foundation for fishery restoration.
        This foundation includes on-the-ground restoration work, assembly
    of scientific data on fisheries and habitat, and the coordination
    across multiple jurisdictions affecting salmon survival. It is now
    important to insure that this investment provides the desired results
    of a fully restored Trinity River Basin.
        The General Activities Planning budget request will assist the
    Tribes, agencies and private interests to develop opportunities for
    compensating for the loss of electricity caused by increased Trinity
    River flows. The Green Sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey population and
    survival studies will provide basic information for development of
    long-term management programs for these species. While green sturgeon
    and Pacific Lamprey are important species to Indian tribes, and their
    maintenance is part of the Federal Government's trust obligations, lack
    of funding has prevented the development of management programs for
    these species.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Hoopa Valley Tribe's relationship with BOR has improved
    significantly in recent years; however, it is clear that the fishery
    management problems associated with the Central Valley Project and
    Klamath Project operations still persist. Resolution of these issues
    may only be assured through the continued commitment by the Tribe and
    BOR to ongoing co-management of these important resources.
        Again, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding
    BOR's fiscal year 2001 budget. I am available to discuss these matters
    with you in more detail at your convenience.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
    year 2001 funding for the Department of the Interior with respect to
    the federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
    Congress has designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
    Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado
    River Basin. This successful and cost effective program is carried out
    pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean
    Water Act. California's Colorado River water users are presently
    suffering economic damages estimated at about $750 million per year due
    to the river's salinity. The potential impact of failing to move
    forward with the Plan of Implementation for salinity control would be
    to permit these damages in the Lower Basin to reach an estimated $1.25
    billion annually by the year 2015.
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the state agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River System.
    In this capacity, California along with the other six Basin States
    through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
    interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States'
    salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria, in June 1975,
    for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were
    established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States as
    well as assist the United States in delivering water of adequate
    quality to Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International
    Boundary and Water Commission. The goal of the Colorado River Basin
    salinity control program is to offset the effects of water resource
    development in the Colorado River Basin after 1972 rather than to
    reduce the salinity of the River below levels that were caused by
    natural variations in river flows or human activities prior to 1972. To
    maintain these levels, the salinity control program must remove
    1,480,000 tons of salt loading from the River by 2015. To date, only
    721,000 tons of salt load reduction have been achieved. In the Forum's
    last report entitled 1999 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity,
    Colorado River System released in June 1999, the Forum found that
    additional salinity control measures were necessary to meet the
    implementation plan that had been adopted by the seven Colorado River
    Basin States and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The
    Forum identified a ``backlog'' of salinity control measures which
    stands at 384,000 tons. This is in addition to future controls designed
    to lower the River's salt loading by 372,000 tons by 2015 in order to
    meet the established salinity standards. The Forum has presented
    testimony to Congress recommending that the salinity control efforts
    through Reclamation's Basinwide Salinity Control Program be accelerated
    to continue to meet the salinity standards through 2015. It has
    developed a plan that recommends the removal of at least 87,000 tons
    per year of salt loading through 2005.
        The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001 contains only
    $10,850,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's Basinwide Salinity Control
    Program. The Colorado River Board is pleased with the Administration's
    efforts, however, implementation of salinity control measures has
    fallen behind the needed pace to prevent salinity concentration levels
    from exceeding the numeric criteria adopted by the Forum and approved
    by the EPA. The seven Colorado River Basin states, which cost-share
    with the Federal Government up to 30 percent of the construction costs
    of Reclamation's salinity control measures, have carefully evaluated
    the federal funding needs of the program and have concluded that an
    adequate budget is needed for the plan of implementation to maintain
    the river salinity standards. The Forum, at its meeting in San
    Francisco, California, in October 1999, recommended a funding level of
    $17,500,000 for Reclamation's Basinwide Program to reduce the
    ``backlog'' of projects.
        In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the Federal
    Government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
    and to the seven Colorado River Basin states with regard to the
    delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
    be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2001 and in future
    fiscal years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation
    for the continued operation of completed projects through Operation and
    Maintenance funds.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California.
    Preservation of its quality through an effective salinity control
    program will avoid the additional economic damages to users in
    California.
        The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
    federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again
    asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding
    for this program.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
                                     Agency

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to provide this
    testimony for inclusion in the hearing record on the fiscal year 2001
    Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. But most importantly,
    let me express my sincere appreciation for your continued support for
    the Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program, and specifically, the
    funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project. During the past six
    years, this subcommittee provided $8.2 million for our project. I am
    pleased to report that the funds appropriated thus far have been well
    spent on our project, which began construction in August 1995. The new
    facility was dedicated in October 1997 with full operation beginning in
    April 1998. In calendar year 1999, the plant produced over 10,000 acre-
    feet (AF) of recycled water.
        The project will ultimately provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled
    water per year to land south and west of Castroville where abandonment
    of wells threatens agricultural production and the loss of a portion of
    rural America. It will also reduce discharge of secondary treated
    wastewater to the recently created Monterey Bay National Marine
    Sanctuary. In addition, the California State Water Resources Control
    Board specifically indicated its strong support for the Salinas Valley
    Reclamation Project in a prior letter to the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation.
        The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), a
    joint-powers entity formed under the laws of the State of California,
    was created in 1971 to implement a plan that called for consolidation
    of the Monterey Peninsula and northern Salinas Valley wastewater flows
    through a regional treatment plant and an outfall to central Monterey
    Bay. The plan also required studies to determine the technical
    feasibility of using recycled water for irrigation of fresh vegetable
    food crops (artichokes, celery, broccoli, lettuce, and cauliflower) in
    the Castroville area. These studies were initiated in 1976 and included
    a five-year full-scale demonstration of using recycled wastewater for
    food crop irrigation. California and Monterey County health departments
    concluded in 1988 that the water was safe for food crops that would be
    consumed without cooking. Subsequently, the Salinas Valley Seawater
    Intrusion Committee voted to include recycled water in their plan to
    slow seawater intrusion in the Castroville area.
        In addition, a supplemental water-testing program (October 1997
    through March 1998) was initiated to confirm the new plant's removal of
    what are termed ``emerging pathogens.'' These organisms, which include
    Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Cyclospora, and E. Coli, were not evaluated
    in the original five-year field study. The results of the follow-up
    testing program again verified that the water is safe for irrigation of
    food crops.
        As in the past, we have been in close consultation with the Bureau
    of Reclamation and the other Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program
    participants in an attempt to provide the Committee with a consensus
    budget request that has the support of the Administration and the Loan
    Program participants. Based on these discussions, the Administration
    requested, with our support and endorsement, sufficient funding for the
    Salinas Valley Reclamation Project as part of the Bureau of
    Reclamation's Public Law 84-984 Small Reclamation Projects Loan Program
    for continuation of loan obligations. This appropriation amount, $0.8
    million, when combined with other federal funding which is available
    from the U.S. Treasury pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of
    1990, will yield a total loan amount that we believe will meet the
    Federal Government's commitment for fiscal year 2001. The amount
    requested, when combined with the additional Treasury portion, is
    intended to fulfill the Bureau's eight-year loan commitment for
    assistance to construct the project.
        As I indicated, the funding request is the result of a lengthy and
    complex financial agreement worked out with the other Loan Program
    participants and the Bureau. The agreement represents the absolute
    minimum annual amount necessary to continue with the project. The
    MRWPCA worked under the premise of accommodating the Bureau of
    Reclamation's budgetary constraints and is expending considerable local
    funds to bridge the Federal Government's budgetary shortfall. Any
    additional cuts in federal funding will jeopardize the complex
    financing plan for the project.
        The MRWPCA has received Federal Grant and Loan Funds in Federal
    fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998,
    fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 through February 9, 2000, as
    follows:

    Federal Appropriations \1\

                            [In millions of dollars]

                                                                        SVRP
    Received:
        1995................................................................
        1996..........................................................   2.0
        1997..........................................................   1.5
        1998..........................................................   1.3
        1999..........................................................   1.7
        2000..........................................................   1.7
    Requested 2001....................................................   0.8
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................   9.0

    \1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $9.155 million for SVRP.

        Even though the additional private debt service and bridge
    financing will increase the project costs, the critical problem of
    seawater intrusion demands that the project be continued. The Bureau of
    Reclamation loan is a crucial link in project funding, and it is
    imperative that annual appropriations continue, even at the planned
    reduced rate over eight years. The federal funds requested under the
    Public Law 84-984 program will be repaid by landowners in the Salinas
    Valley with assessments that are currently in place. Local funds
    totaling $16.3 million have already been spent getting to this point.
        Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the subcommittee to
    give your continued support to the Small Reclamation Projects Loan
    Program, and specifically, funding for the Salinas Valley Reclamation
    Project. Your support and continued assistance for this critical
    project is greatly appreciated.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
    for inclusion in the hearing record of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations bill. The people of the Salinas Valley
    in California's 17th Congressional District appreciate your willingness
    to accept our statements in support of the Castroville Seawater
    Intrusion Project. I would further like to express our deep
    appreciation for this Subcommittee's efforts on past Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations bills. I am pleased to report that the
    project is complete and operational and provided over 10,000 acre-feet
    of recycled water in calendar year 1999.
        As with the past six years the Monterey County Water Resources
    Agency has worked diligently to present the Subcommittee with an fiscal
    year 2001 funding request that is supported by the Administration as
    well as all the other Small Reclamation Loan Program participants.
    Through close consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation and other
    Program participants, we have developed the funding plans that were
    included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the Public Law
    84-984 Small Reclamation Loan Program. I therefore respectively request
    that the Subcommittee provide the full Administration request for the
    project of $1.3 million.
        This is the seventh year of an eight-year fiscal strategy designed
    to meet the requirements of all the projects in the Program while
    recognizing the fiscal constraints facing all levels of government.
    Originally, the Program was to provide all appropriations ($16,500,000)
    over a three-year period. During the past six years this Subcommittee
    provided $11.864 million for our project. The current appropriation
    amount of $1.3 million, when combined with other federal funding which
    is available from the U.S. Treasury in the amount of
    approximately$2.275 million pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act
    of 1990, should yield a total loan amount of $3.575 million for fiscal
    year 2001 that will allow the project to proceed on schedule.
        The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) is a local
    government entity formed under the Monterey County Water Resources
    Agency Act. It is an agency with limited jurisdiction involving matters
    related primarily to flood control and water resources conservation,
    management, and development. The Salinas Valley is a productive
    agricultural area that depends primarily on ground water as a water
    supply. The combination of the Valley's rich soils, mild climate, and
    high quality ground water makes this Valley unique among California's
    most fertile agricultural lands and has earned the Valley the
    distinction as the ``Nation's Salad Bowl''. As agricultural activity
    and urban development have increased in the past forty years, ground
    water levels have dropped allowing seawater to intrude the coastal
    ground water aquifers. Seawater intrusion is extensive adjacent to the
    coast near the town of Castroville. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion
    Project will provide 19,500 acre-feet of recycled water annually for
    agricultural irrigation to over 12,000 acres and help solve the
    seawater intrusion problem by greatly reducing groundwater pumping in
    the project area. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project is an
    essential component in the MCWRA's plan to deal with basin-wide ground
    water overdraft and seawater intrusion.
        The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 when combined with the
    additional Treasury portion is intended to fulfill the Bureau's seventh
    year of an eight-year loan commitment for assistance to construct the
    project. As stated above, the funding request that we anticipate is the
    result of a lengthy and complex financial agreement worked out with the
    other Loan Program participants and the Bureau. The agreement
    recognized the tight federal budgetary constraints and represents the
    absolute minimal annual amount necessary to proceed with the project.
    The MCWRA has been extremely accommodating of the Bureau's budgetary
    constraints and has agreed to expend considerable local funds to bridge
    the Federal Government's budgetary shortfall. Any additional cuts in
    federal funding will jeopardize the complex financing plan for the
    project.
        In August 1992, the original loan request was submitted to the
    Bureau. Subsequent approval was received from the Secretary of the
    Interior in May 1994. Through extensive discussion and negotiations
    between the MCWRA and the Bureau, a project-financing plan was created.
    The Bureau made it quite clear that the original provisions in the loan
    application of full disbursement during the three years of construction
    could not be met due to federal budget shortfalls. As defined in the
    repayment contract, the Bureau will disburse funds to the MCWRA over an
    eight-year period. This means that the MCWRA will receive these funds
    for five years after the project is operational. The fiscal year 2000
    funding provided monies for the third year after completion of the
    project. The MCWRA had to acquire ``bridge financing'' to meet the
    needs of the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project construction costs.
    Even though the additional private debt service has increased the
    project costs, the critical problem of seawater intrusion demanded that
    the project proceed. The Bureau loan is a crucial link in project
    funding, and it is imperative that the annual appropriations, even at
    the planned reduced rate over eight years, continue. Federal
    appropriations have been received in fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997,
    1998, 1999, and 2000 as shown in the table below and must continue in
    subsequent years in accordance with the negotiated agreement in order
    for the projects to be successful. The federal funds requested under
    the Public Law 84-984 program will be repaid by landowners in the
    Salinas Valley with assessments that are currently in place. The MCWRA
    has spent approximately $36.0 million of its own funds getting to this
    point.

    Federal Appropriations \1\

                            [In millions of dollars]

                                                                        CSIP
    Received:
        1995.......................................................... 1.064
        1996..........................................................   1.5
        1997..........................................................   2.0
        1998..........................................................   2.1
        1999..........................................................   2.6
        2000..........................................................   2.6
    Requested 2001....................................................   1.3
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................13.164

    \1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $13.642 million for CSIP.

        Mr. Chairman, we urge you and the members of the Subcommittee to
    give your continued support to the Small Reclamation Program and we
    urge the inclusion of funds for the Castroville Seawater Intrusion
    Project. Without your continued support, we will not be able to realize
    the benefit of the work completed over the past several years and the
    Salinas ground water basin will continue to deteriorate, creating a
    significant threat to the local and state economies as well as to the
    health and welfare of our citizens.
        Again, thank you for your support and continued assistance.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Moss Landing Harbor District

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity for me, James Stilwell, as general manager of the Moss
    Landing Harbor District in California to submit prepared remarks to you
    for the record in support of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
    regular appropriations measure.
        With the help of fiscal year 1998 emergency, and fiscal year 1999
    regular, appropriations (and assistance from the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency) we have just completed the first operations and
    maintenance cycle of both the federal channel and non-federal berthing
    areas maintained by the district since 1993 despite three intervening
    declared natural disasters which left hundreds of thousands of cubic
    yards of additional material to be dredged and disposed of.
        On the heels of this achievement, we now turn our sights on the
    future. No harbor district in the country has had to go though more
    hoops to get its harbor dredged to authorized depth. No harbor in the
    country should have to go through what we have gone through ever again!
        Over the past year under the auspices of the San Francisco district
    of the Corps of Engineers, we have convened an ecological risk
    assessment working group to develop a consensus decisionmaking approach
    to reviewing options for dredged material disposal for the next
    scheduled operations and maintenance cycle focusing on the continued
    use of the nearshore SF-12 disposal site.
        This working group is comprised of every state, federal and local
    agency with responsibility for the conduct and statutory oversight of
    dredging activities. The site is located within the boundaries of the
    Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), including the
    Sanctuary, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
    (USACESFD), USEPA Region IX, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
    California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game,
    the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, along with
    representatives of related local agencies, the commercial fishing
    industry, public interest groups and marine research community based in
    the Harbor District.
        The members of this working group unanimously support the request
    of the Harbor District for $700,000 in additional appropriations from
    the fiscal year 2001 operations and maintenance general account of the
    Corps of Engineers to complete a long term dredged material management
    plan and ecological risk assessment under both Corps and EPA guidance.
    This assessment will identify and establish a management plan for the
    disposal of dredged material from both the federal channel and locally
    maintained berthing areas for the next twenty years to avoid a repeat
    of the nightmare we have experienced since 1993.
        Having previously determined the eligibility of using O&M general
    account funds for this purpose, a preliminary analysis is already
    underway that will establish the scope of work for the dredged material
    management plan and the ecological risk assessment. Part of that effort
    is putting the economic issue of continued federal interest in
    maintaining our federal channel out there for reevaluation. As the
    harbor is home to the largest commercial fishing fleet on the central
    coast of California and the largest concentration of federal, state and
    private marine research and millions of dollars in capital investment
    in vessels and facilities on the west coast, I am confident of the
    results of that analysis.
        Anticipating the committee's fiscal concerns, we have already put
    our local money where our mouth is before we would request additional
    federal funds for this purpose! As part of voluntary local cost sharing
    contribution, the local sponsor has expended over $120,000 to date for
    sedimentary transport studies of both mud and sand and associated
    contaminants from various sources in the SF 12 area including the
    unique Monterey Bay Marine Canyon, $16,000 for the collection of
    sediment samples (some of which need critical testing and evaluation
    before their expiration), $12,000 for an extensive literature search,
    and $25,000 in coordinating with, and sponsoring meetings of the
    working group. USEPA Region IX has also contributed financially to this
    important endeavor providing funds for the peer review process.
        We are concurrently seeking the reprogramming of in excess of
    $150,000 in fiscal year 2000 funds from the operations and maintenance
    general account of the district and Southern Pacific Division to get
    the management plan under way this year. The additional amounts are
    requested on a one-time basis to complete the plan this next fiscal
    year. Some of the work we expect will be done in house by the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers waterway experiment station in Vicksurg,
    Mississippi. All of the work will be useful to other cities, states,
    and port authorities across the United States as a model for
    collaborative effort in dredged material disposal consensus
    decisionmaking in unique situations such as ours. If we can resolve the
    thorny issues of dredged material disposal in the ecologically unique,
    only Submarine CANYON and largest marine sanctuary in the United
    States, we can solve these problems anywhere!
        This effort is intended to save current and future expenditures by
    providing a proven analytical and scientific framework with which to
    balance the costs and risks of upland and unconfined aquatic disposal
    of dredged material, a problem affecting ports and harbors across the
    nation and threatening to have an adverse impact on future Corps
    maintenance budgets.
        In this regard, the commission recognizes and expresses its
    gratitude to our distinguished senator from California, the Honorable
    Dianne Feinstein, a member of this committee for her continuing efforts
    on behalf of California's ports in the Congress of the United States,
    and especially for her efforts in the fiscal year 1998 emergency and
    regular 1999 regular appropriations, in funding deferred operations and
    maintenance of the Moss Landing Navigation Project of critical economic
    importance to the commercial fishing industry, University and Private
    Oceanographic Research Fleet, and Monterey County in the central coast
    region of the State of California. We are the working port of the
    central coast of California!
        At this time last year, we were in the throes of a dire emergency.
    The last complete maintenance cycle of our authorized fifteen foot
    channel was in 1993. Since then three declared natural disasters, the
    most recently being the 1998 El Nino event, left hundreds of thousands
    of cubic yards of silt material in our channel and berthing areas, in
    many instances reducing channel depth to six feet in places, and
    threatening navigation closure with untold economic loss to the region.
        Today, with the committee's assistance, the Corps of Engineers has
    dredged the main channel to authorized depths. Under Corps permit we
    have likewise dredged our berth areas. As a result of those
    unprecedented three flooding events, as the innocent victim of upstream
    runoff of agricultural pesticide laden material, we became a downstream
    repository for material that initially failed testing for suitability
    for unconfined aquatic disposal at an historic site five hundred yards
    offshore. The difference between upland and aquatic disposal is between
    less than five dollars per cubic yard and over thirty dollars per cubic
    yard for either channel or berth material, prohibitively expensive to a
    small harbor district like ourselves.
        More recent testing results have borne out that much, if not all,
    of our material is indeed safe for aquatic disposal within existing
    guidelines. We feel sufficiently certain of this, that we are willing
    to contribute our own limited resources to a cooperative effort in the
    form of a dredged material management plan. This plan calls for the
    Corps of Engineers to marshall the necessary scientific evidence and
    documentation to support a first-of-its-kind in the Nation Ecological
    Risk Assessment with the participation of the Corps waterway experiment
    station and Environmental Protection Agency scientists in this effort.
    We hope that the eventual report will help bring about a consensus on
    this issue in our local region, and serve as a model for other ports
    and harbors across the nation. We fully expect that the expenditure of
    funds for this purpose will save countless federal and local sponsor
    dollars in navigation and other projects nationwide.
        The Corps will lead in this effort with expenditures from their
    operations and management, general appropriations account with the
    initial planning effort commencing in the current fiscal year. Most of
    the necessary scientific field work (sampling, testing, and evaluation)
    will occur in fiscal year 2000.
        Concurrently, the Ecological Risk Assessment (``ERA'') to be
    undertaken will consist of three main phases: (1) problem formulation;
    (2) analysis; and (3) risk characterization.
        The first phase will consist of a screening ERA to identify those
    chemicals, ecological receptors, and exposure pathways requiring
    further evaluation in subsequent phases and to identify additional data
    needs. This phase will address elements of problem formulation, and
    utilizes mostly existing data.
        The problem formulation phase includes the following components:
      --Data evaluation and chemical of potential concern selection.--An
            evaluation of dredged material characteristics to select
            chemicals of potential concern for further evaluation;
      --Ecosystem characterization.--Identification of the habitats and
            aquatic, wildlife, and human receptors of potential concern;
      --Conceptual ecological model development.--An evaluation of complete
            and potentially complete exposure pathways (disposal
            characteristics), selection of indicator species (sensitive
            species representative of different levels of the food chain),
            and identification of assessment and measurement endpoints; and
      --Data gap analysis.--Identification of data needs and studies
            required to complete the assessment.
        Because of the nature of the Moss Landing dredged material disposal
    (hydraulic dredging to a highly dispersive site) and the similarities
    of the disposal process to the ongoing sediment deposition to Monterey
    Bay from the local watershed, the initial evaluation will focus on
    these ongoing processes. The ongoing sediment deposition and its
    effects on the Monterey Bay ecosystem can provide a real-time
    indication of the stressor-response relationship. Existing data will be
    reviewed and additional data collected as deemed necessary in the data
    gap analysis described above.
        The second phase analysis will include the following elements:
      --Watershed characterization.--An evaluation of the sediment and
            chemical loading to Monterey Bay from the surrounding watershed
      --Hydrodynamic evaluation.--An evaluation of the dispersional/
            depositional patterns/zones
      --Sediment characterization.--An evaluation of sediment chemical
            concentrations in depositional zone(s)
      --Biota characterization.--An evaluation of resulting biota
            concentrations (benthos and fish); some benthic community
            analysis may be conducted as well
      --Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE).--An evaluation of toxic
            effects and identification of toxicants
      --Exposure and effects assessments.--An evaluation of food chain
            effects and an evaluation of human health effects
      --Risk characterization.--Integration of the above elements to
            estimate risks.
      --Uncertainty analysis.
        The first phase of this evaluation will include a screening level
    assessment using conservative assumptions. As necessary, additional
    data will be collected to refine these assumptions and provide more
    realistic estimates of exposure and effects.
        The third phase of risk evaluation will determine if no significant
    risks are predicted in the above evaluation. Subsequent phases of the
    ERA will estimate the level of additional deposition (i.e., dredged
    material disposal) that could occur before resulting in unacceptable
    risks. If significant risks are predicted in the ambient level
    assessment, the subsequent phases will include predicting the
    incremental risk from disposal of dredged material. Project
    deliverables will include:
      --A work plan, sampling and analysis plan, and quality assurance
            program plan;
      --Draft, draft final, and final reports; and
      --A monitoring plan.
        The draft report is anticipated to be released by the end of
    Federal fiscal year 2001. The combined field work and phase I
    ecological risk assessment is anticipated to cost approximately
    $700,000.
        In the final analysis we are just a small harbor with a big problem
    not of our creation in search of a comprehensive solution. This
    subcommittee and committee took first step in funding the long overdue
    maintenance of our channel last year. We seem to return the favor by
    serving as a working laboratory for all interested parties in the
    future of dredging and dredged material disposal. Our location adjacent
    to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and serving as homeport
    to a large scientific population lends itself to this effort.
        On behalf of the Harbor Commission and the commercial fishing fleet
    we serve, we appreciate the silent support we have had in the past
    reflected in your insistence in funding the operations and maintenance
    budget of the Corps of Engineers at a level adequate to maintain small
    ports like ours recognizing our unique contribution to the national
    economy. We look forward to appearing before this subcommittee on
    future occasions to provide progress reports on our Ecological Risk
    Assessment, and efforts to both preserve navigation and improve the
    environment in Moss Landing Harbor, California.
        Lastly and especially we wish to recognize the efforts of departing
    San Francisco District Engineer, Colonel Peter Grass, for his vision,
    leadership and commitment, and without whose encouragement and personal
    involvement this historic undertaking would never have evolved. We wish
    him Godspeed in his next career assignment and we eagerly look forward
    to working with his successor to successfully complete this process.
        I am prepared to supplement my prepared remarks for the record in
    response to any questions that the chair, subcommittee members, or
    staff may wish to have me answer.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This
    concludes my prepared remarks.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the City of Morro Bay, California

        During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) designed and
    constructed a new harbor entrance at Morro Bay with two rock
    breakwaters. Since the initial construction, over 50 years ago, the
    Federal government has maintained the harbor entrance, breakwaters and
    navigational channels.
        In fiscal year 1995 the ACOE completed the Morro Bay Harbor
    entrance improvement project to improve safety for commercial fishing
    and navigation. The City of Morro Bay was the local sponsor and
    contributed over $900,000 in cash and in-kind services. Morro Bay is a
    small city of 10,000 with very limited resources but made this project
    one of its highest priorities for almost 10 years because of the
    regional importance of the harbor. Without continued Federal
    maintenance, all of the past local and federal investment will be lost.
        Morro Bay Harbor is the only all-weather harbor of refuge between
    Santa Barbara and Monterey on the West Coast. Our Harbor directly
    supports almost 250 home-ported fishing vessels and marine dependent
    businesses. We provide irreplaceable maritime facilities for both
    recreational and commercial interests. Businesses that depend on the
    harbor generate $53,500,000 annually and employ over 700 people. The
    United States Coast Guard (USCG) maintains a 15 person search and
    rescue station at Morro Bay Harbor to provide the Coast Guard services
    for the entire Central California Coast. Legislation has been
    introduced in the California legislature to designate Morro Bay and
    several other small ports along the California coast as ``Harbors of
    Safe Refuge''. This legislation recognizes the critical role many small
    harbors play in affording a safety zone for commercial and recreational
    vessels transiting the California coast.
        Exposure to the open ocean and strong winter currents carrying
    sediment into the harbor create the need for a routine maintenance
    schedule to insure that the harbor entrance and federally designated
    navigation channels remain safe and navigable. It is imperative that
    the federally constructed navigation channels and protective jetties be
    maintained to insure safe commerce and navigation on a 300 mile stretch
    of the California Coast.
        The President recommends $170,000 for dredging project engineering
    and design in the fiscal year 2001 budget. For the first time in four
    years there are no funds in the fiscal year 2001 budget recommended for
    the operation of the ACOE dredge Yaquina. The Yaquina dredging assures
    a minimum level of safety depth in the entrance of Morro Bay Harbor and
    we respectfully request that your distinguished subcommittee add $1.2
    million in dredging funds for Morro Bay Harbor to keep our harbor open
    and safe in all conditions.
        In addition to being home port to over 250 commercial fishing
    vessels, Morro Bay Harbor is part of the federally designated National
    Estuary Program. The Morro Bay Estuary was the subject of an ACOE
    reconnaissance study (funded by Congress in 1998) of potential projects
    to and restore sensitive habitat through improving tidal circulation.
    The Bay Foundation, a local non-profit conservation group, has put
    together a coalition to act as local sponsor for the Feasibility Phase
    of the Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project. We fully support the
    President's recommendation for $250,000 to initiate a feasibility study
    for this project in fiscal year 2001.
        Our thanks again for your actions and continued support. I am
    grateful for the opportunity to present these requests to your
    subcommittee on behalf of the citizens of the City of Morro Bay.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
                        California Ozone Study Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
    (CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
    record in support of our fiscal year 2001 funding request of $1 million
    from the Department of Energy (DOE) for CCOS as part of a Federal match
    for the $8.6 million already contributed by California State and local
    agencies and the private sector.
        Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
    California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
    to for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
    expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
    Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
    Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
    necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
        Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central
    California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
    Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
    use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program will be conducted in
    the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
    PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature,
    and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central California.
    CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis,
    modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous
    SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of
    northern California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the
    nature of the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong
    scientific foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal
    attainment plans. The study includes six main components:
      --Developing the design of the field study (task already underway)
      --Conducting an intensive field monitoring study, scheduled for June
            1 to September 30, 2000
      --Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
      --Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
      --Designing and conducting a deposition field study
      --Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
            attainment plans
        CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
    representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as
    private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
    Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
    Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
    environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
    provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
    state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
    $8.6 million for the field study. In addition, CCOS sponsors will
    provide $4 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
    continuing to seek additional funding ($9.0 million) for a future
    deposition study, data analysis, and modeling. California is an ideal
    natural laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the
    scale and diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region
    (crops, woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
        There is a national need to address national data gaps and
    California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
    gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
    particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
    will take place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate
    Matter Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local
    and private sector funds. Thus, CCOS is timed to enable leveraging of
    the efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and
    personnel can serve dual functions so that CCOS is very cost-effective.
    From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently is
    a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter
    and ozone control efforts. CCOS will also be cost-effective since it
    builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin
    Valley Ozone Study. To effectively address these issues requires
    federal assistance and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California
    pays half the cost of work that the Federal Government should pursue.
        For fiscal year 2001, our Coalition is seeking funding of $1
    million in fiscal year 2001 from Department of Energy (DOE).--Energy
    Commission is a key participant, having contributed $3 million.
    Consistent with the recently signed memorandum of understanding between
    the California Energy Commission and the DOE, joint participation in
    the CCOS will result in: (1) enhanced public interest energy research,
    development, and demonstration programs; (2) increased competitiveness
    and economic prosperity in the United States; and (3) further
    protection of the environment through the efficient production,
    distribution and use of energy.
        Particularly in light of the latter goal, the oil and agricultural
    sectors in California have been working jointly for several years to
    identify innovative partnerships and programs that address how changes
    in those sectors can cost-effectively reduce particulate matter and
    ozone-related emissions. The Department of Energy has also been a
    participant in many of those programs. In addition, the oil and
    agricultural sectors in California have been aggressively pursuing
    demand-side services in order to lower energy consumption, which in
    turn further reduces the cost of electricity, typically the most
    significant cost associated with production in California. The demand-
    side actions will also have the impact of reducing air quality
    emissions.
        The CCOS program in California has reached a crossroad where the
    next level of studies and research will help identify the most cost-
    effective means of controlling or reducing emissions. Energy efficiency
    options such as improving oil field equipment and water pumping
    efficiency, as well as agricultural energy management, can play a major
    role in this approach. Not only will these be critical options to
    reduce emissions, while producing economic benefits and helping
    stabilize local economies, they will also be effective in other parts
    of the nation.
        By becoming a partner in this program DOE will be furthering its
    own goals, as addressed in their ``Initiatives for Energy Security'',
    of aiding domestic oil producers to enhance their environmental
    compliance while reducing their costs. The program will further DOE's
    goals of identifying cost-effective energy efficiency and management
    practices. The work in California also can pave the way for furthering
    the pilot program of the National Association for State Energy
    Officials in addressing oil producer energy efficiency.
        Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California

        Chairman Domenici: the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
    California (MWD) is pleased to submit the enclosed testimony for the
    record, regarding programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation's and the Army Corps of Engineers' Fiscal-Year 2000 budget
    for your Subcommittee's hearing record.
        MWD strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation fiscal year
    2001 budget that includes funding for San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San
    Joaquin Delta Estuary restoration activities, as requested in the
    President's budget. We also recommend your approval of the full budget
    request for Corps participation in these Delta restoration activities.
    MWD urges your support for additional federal funding for Reclamation's
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. MWD requests that
    Congress appropriate $17.5 million, $6.65 million over the President's
    budget, for implementation of the basinwide program that will ensure
    protection of water quality for this important source of water supply.
    MWD also urges your support for Reclamation's Endangered Species
    Conservation/Recovery projects that will provide for conservation of
    endangered and threatened species and habitat along the lower Colorado
    River, and provide mitigation for impacts associated with Reclamation's
    projects. MWD requests an additional $1 million for the Lower Colorado
    River Ops program. MWD urges your full support for Reclamation programs
    that will help stretch existing water resources, such as water
    reclamation and groundwater recovery projects for Southern California
    agencies. Finally, MWD urges your support of funding necessary to begin
    the environmental work required to remove the radioactive tailings in
    Moab, Utah. These programs are essential for regional water supply
    reliability We look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee.
    Please contact Brad Hiltscher, MWD's Legislative Representative in
    Washington, D.C. at (202) 296-3551, if we can answer any questions or
    provide additional information.
        Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee: The Metropolitan
    Water District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity
    to submit testimony regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
    (Reclamation) and the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) fiscal year 2001
    budget, for the Hearing on Energy and Water Appropriations. MWD is a
    public agency created in 1928 to meet the supplemental water demands of
    those people living in what is now portions of a six-county region of
    Southern California. Today, the region served by MWD includes 16
    million people living on the coastal plain between Ventura and the
    international boundary with Mexico. It is an area larger than the State
    of Connecticut and, if it were a separate nation, would rank in the top
    ten economies of the world. Included in our region are more than 225
    cities and unincorporated areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
    San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide more than
    half the water consumed in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD's
    water supplies come from the Colorado River via the district's Colorado
    River Aqueduct and from northern California via the State Water
    Project's California Aqueduct.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Our testimony focuses on Reclamation's water resources management
    and ecosystem restoration programs that are of major importance to MWD
    and other Southern California water supply agencies. Specifically, MWD
    strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation fiscal year 2001
    budget that includes funding for San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San
    Joaquin Delta Estuary restoration activities. We also recommend your
    approval of the full budget request for Corps participation in these
    Delta restoration activities. MWD urges your support for adequate
    federal funding for Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program that will ensure protection of water quality for this important
    source of water supply. MWD also urges your support for Reclamation's
    Endangered Species Recovery Implementation projects that will provide
    for conservation of endangered and threatened species and habitat along
    the lower Colorado River. MWD also strongly urges your full support for
    Reclamation's Lower Colorado River Operations Program that will greatly
    advance completion of environmental documentation for several new
    initiatives needed by Arizona, California, and Nevada. MWD urges your
    full support for Reclamation programs that will help stretch existing
    water resources, such as water reclamation and groundwater recovery
    projects for Southern California agencies. We urge your support for
    funding desalination and water recycling research. Finally, MWD urges
    your support of funding necessary to begin the environmental work
    required to remove the radioactive tailings in Moab, Utah. These
    programs are essential for regional water supply reliability.

                       U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BUDGET

    California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration and Water Security
        The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary serves as the hub of
    California's water system, fueling the State's $750 billion economy,
    supplying more than two-thirds of the State's 33 million residents with
    a portion of their drinking water and irrigating 45 percent of the
    nation's produce. Federal money for the Bay-Delta funds an array of
    critical improvements, including habitat restoration, watershed
    protection, fishery enhancement, water supply reliability and water
    quality improvement. Recognizing the importance of the Bay-Delta to
    California's economic and environmental health, the California voters
    approved a $1 billion general obligation water bond in November 1996
    and a $2 billion bond in March 2000. These bonds contain monies for
    ecosystem restoration, watershed protection, water supply and water
    quality improvement, flood control, and conservation and recycling.
        In 1996, Congress passed the California Bay-Delta Environmental
    Enhancement and Water Security Act, which authorized $430 million over
    three years for ecosystem restoration and water management improvements
    in the Bay-Delta Estuary. Since 1996 Congress has appropriated $220
    million, or approximately 50 percent of the original authorization. In
    fiscal year 2000, $60 million was appropriated for the Bay-Delta
    Estuary ($30 million for ecosystem and $30 million for non-ecosystem
    activities). For fiscal year 2001, the Administration requested $60
    million ($36 million for ecosystem and $24 million for non-ecosystem
    activities). Metropolitan strongly urges you continue the balanced 50/
    50 split between ecosystem and non-ecosystem activities and support the
    $60 million in total funding requested by the Administration.

    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
        The Colorado River is a large component of the regional water
    supply and its relatively high salinity causes significant economic
    impacts on water customers in MWD's service area, as well as throughout
    the Lower Colorado River Basin. MWD and the Bureau of Reclamation
    completed a Salinity Management Study for Southern California in 1999.
    The study concluded that the high salinity from the Colorado River
    causes significant impacts to residential, industrial and agricultural
    water users. Furthermore, high salinity adversely affects the region's
    progressive water recycling programs, and is contributing to an adverse
    salt buildup through infiltration into Southern California's
    irreplaceable groundwater basins. In 1999, Metropolitan's Board of
    Directors authorized implementation of a comprehensive Action Plan to
    carry out Metropolitan's policy for management of salinity. The Action
    Plan focuses on reducing salinity concentrations in Southern
    California's water supplies through collaborative actions with
    pertinent agencies, recognizing that an effective solution requires a
    regional commitment. Based on a 1988 study, Reclamation estimated that
    water users in the Lower Basin were experiencing in excess of $750
    million in annual impacts from salinity levels in the river in 1995,
    and that impacts would progressively increase with continued
    agricultural and urban development upstream of California's points of
    diversion. As part of the Salinity Management Study, the economic
    impacts have been refined for MWD's service area and have been
    submitted to Reclamation for its use in updating its Lower Basin
    estimate. Droughts will cause spikes in salinity levels that will be
    highly disruptive to Southern California water management and commerce.
    The Salinity Control Program has proven to be a very cost-effective
    approach to help to mitigate the impacts of higher salinity. Continued
    federal funding of the program is essential.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
    interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states'
    salinity control efforts, issued its 1999 Review, Water Quality
    Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1999 Review) in June
    1999. The 1999 Review found that additional salinity control was
    necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water
    quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
    approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
    supply conditions. For the last five years, federal appropriations for
    Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the
    portion of the program the Federal Government has the responsibility to
    implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation's
    basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric
    criteria to be met again under average annual long-term water supply
    conditions, making up the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the
    shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize
    upfront cost sharing from the Basin states to supplement federal
    appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation and is
    reflected in the President's proposed budget.
        The President's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding
    of $10.85 million for implementation of the basinwide program. MWD
    requests that Congress appropriate $17.5 million for implementation of
    the basinwide program. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
    salinity control activities schedule in order to maintain the state
    adopted and federally approved water quality standards. The Forum
    supports this level of funding. MWD as well as the Forum supports the
    level of funding proposed by the President for operation and
    maintenance of the salinity control units already constructed, and
    investigations.

    Endangered Species Recovery Implementation and Lower Colorado River
            Operations Program
        MWD is presently engaged in an innovative partnership with
    Reclamation and other Department of the Interior agencies, as well as
    other water, power, and wildlife agencies, and Indian Tribes in the
    states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, to develop a multi-species
    conservation program for the Lower Colorado River. The program will
    address the conservation, enhancement, and recovery needs of a broad
    suite of more than 70 listed and sensitive species and their associated
    aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats in the three states, while
    providing long-term regulatory certainty for all parties. An effort of
    this nature can only succeed through the development of innovative
    voluntary public-private partnerships.
        The President's budget requests $12.179 million for fiscal year
    2001 to fund programs under the ``Endangered Species Recovery
    Implementation'' activity and $13.729 million to fund programs under
    the ``Lower Colorado River Ops Program'' (LCROP) activity. Included in
    the former amount are funds to support preservation, conservation, and
    recovery of native and endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate
    species in the Lower Colorado River region. Included in the latter
    amount are funds to implement measures required by the interim
    biological opinion on Reclamation's lower Colorado River operations,
    and develop the multi-species conservation program. MWD strongly
    supports funding at the requested level for both programs, and requests
    your support for an additional $1 million under the LCROP (for a total
    of $14.72 million) to accelerate the preparation of environmental
    documentation for Reclamation/State initiatives of critical importance
    to Arizona, California, and Nevada.

    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) facilitates
    implementation of fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement programs
    associated with Reclamation's projects through cost-sharing
    partnerships with local, state, tribal, and/or nongovernmental
    organizations. The Foundation is able to leverage federal dollars on at
    least a 1:1 matching basis. The Foundation's support for programs like
    the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program is
    extremely important to the development of comprehensive solutions to
    these complex endangered species issues. An effort of this nature can
    only succeed through the development of innovative voluntary public-
    private partnerships. The President's budget requests $1.3 million for
    fiscal year 2001, which anticipates a two dollar nonfederal match for
    each federal dollar. MWD strongly supports the President's requested
    level of funding.

    Water Recycling, Groundwater Recovery and Water Conservation
        Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
    Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) and the
    Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law
    104-266) as well as the Bureau's Loan Program will greatly improve
    Southern California's water supply reliability and the environment
    through effective water recycling and recovery of contaminated
    groundwater. MWD expects to contribute about $17.4 million in fiscal
    year 2001 to recycled water and groundwater recovery projects in the
    region, and the State is assisting with low-interest loans. Funding in
    the fiscal year 2001 budget for previously unfunded projects as well as
    the continued support for previously-funded projects is a positive step
    toward realizing regional water supply reliability. The Bureau of
    Reclamation's budget request for research into the technologies and
    science of water recycling is another vital step toward making water
    reuse a viable alternative for communities faced with limited water
    supplies. MWD urges your full support for the $22 million for Title XVI
    and $9.4 for the Loan Program in the President's fiscal year 2001
    budget, as well as future funding for all Southern California projects
    that might move forward under the jointly-funded Southern California
    Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. Finally, MWD supports
    the President's request for $3.169 million in funding for the Bureau's
    Efficiency Incentives Program. Federal cost sharing and other
    assistance for innovative water efficiency improvements by urban and
    agricultural water districts is appropriate.

    Brackish Water Desalination
        Metropolitan requests federal funding for desalination activities
    aimed at developing new and innovative technologies. Technologies to be
    investigated include innovative pretreatment options such as
    nanofiltration, ultra low pressure reverse osmosis membranes and ultra
    violet (UV) light technology for disinfection and oxidation. Brackish
    water desalination represents a potentially viable alternative water
    source to reduce reliance on imported water supplies and minimize the
    economic impact associated with high salinity water. Current salinity
    removal technologies are energy-intensive and expensive. Treating
    Colorado River water to the secondary total dissolved solids (TDS)
    standard of 500 milligrams/liter, using conventional membrane
    technology, can cost $300 or more per acre-foot. These high costs have
    precluded the widespread implementation of brackish water desalination
    technologies, especially for large scale applications. Breakthroughs in
    desalination technology will offer potential benefits to water
    utilities with sources impaired by high salinity levels. It is
    estimated that $3 million will be required to continue this research
    being sponsored by Metropolitan and its member agencies.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    REMOVAL OF RADIOACTIVE TAILINGS IN MOAB, UTAH
        For 28 years the Atlas Corporation processed uranium ore for the
    military and other government uses from its privately owned mill in
    Moab, Utah. When it closed in 1984, the company left a 10.5 million ton
    pile of radioactive tailings which is now 110 feet high and covers 130
    acres. It is estimated that the mountain is leaking 28,000 gallons of
    radioactive fluid into the Colorado River each day. While not a serious
    problem yet, this situation could pose a serious threat to California's
    drinking supply as uranium is a proven human carcinogen. The Department
    of Energy has requested $10 million for the environmental work
    necessary to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Department of Energy, Department of the Interior and the Ute Indian
    tribe on remediating the Moab issue. Metropolitan urges Congress to
    appropriate such amount as it determines necessary in fiscal year 2001.

                            ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

        The Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) comprehensive civil works
    program has the capability to contribute to the social, economic, and
    environmental well-being of California. MWD is primarily interested in
    the Corps' environmental restoration studies and projects that address
    the needs of the Bay-Delta Estuary. The President's proposed fiscal
    year 2001 budget includes numerous programs in the Corps' South Pacific
    Division, which includes California. Several ecosystem restoration
    studies and projects specifically address significant habitat issues at
    various locations in the Bay-Delta watershed. Corps programs that will
    contribute to the long-term Bay-Delta solution include environmental
    restoration studies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds,
    habitat conservation and mitigation elements of flood damage prevention
    projects, and ecosystem restoration programs. MWD urges Congress to
    fully support these Corps programs as the fiscal year 2001 federal
    appropriations process moves forward.
        Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
    comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation
    and Corps' water resources management and ecosystem restoration
    programs that are critical for water supply reliability in Southern
    California.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Contra Costa County, California

        SAN FRANCISCO TO STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA SOUTHAMPTON SHOAL CHANNEL
                               DEEPENING PROJECT

        The Southampton Shoal Channel with the San Francisco Bar Channel,
    form the entrance into the San Francisco Bay and Delta, providing
    foreign and domestic deep draft merchant, military, commercial fishing
    and other vessel access to ports within the region. Changing deep draft
    vessel operations and design requires deepening the -45 foot
    Southampton Shoal channel to -50 feet. Deepening the Southampton Shoal
    Channel will provide safer and more efficient navigation of oil tankers
    entering the bay by allowing vessels to be loaded more fully, which
    will require fewer vessel trips to deliver the same amount of cargo. In
    addition, deepening of the Southampton Shoal Channel to -50 feet will
    allow heavily laden vessels to proceed directly to off-loading
    facilities, rather than lightering (off loading) onto smaller ships at
    open water anchorages in south San Francisco Bay.

                                FUNDING REQUEST

        Contra Costa County requests that funding of $100,000 be added to
    the Federal fiscal year 1999 budget to allow the Army Corps of
    Engineers to revise early work on project studies to reflect changes in
    scope and design of the Southampton Project which accommodate recent
    changes in operations and other regulatory requirements of industry
    located within Contra Costa County, the Project's Local Sponsor.
    Therefore the County, as Local Sponsor, is requesting an fiscal year
    2001 Budget allocation of $100,000 to complete work prior to entering
    the Feasibility phase of the Project.

                               PURPOSE OF FUNDING

        Funding will be utilized to allow revision of project scope and
    content, prior to moving ahead into the Feasibility phase of the
    project. Significant changes have occurred with industry operating
    within the County, in turn affecting ship channel traffic, vessel size,
    and scope and content of the Southampton Project. The Southampton
    Project will be redesigned to reflect these changes, and a revised
    cost/benefit prepared for the project by the Army Corps of Engineers.
    Redefining the Project is necessary prior to entering into the
    Feasibility Phase, which is expected to occur upon completion of the
    above-mentioned revisions to the Project.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

        Chairman Domenici, Los Angeles County respectfully requests that
    the Congress of the United States include funds in the fiscal year 2001
    Energy and Water appropriations bill for the following U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers studies and Marina del Rey dredging.

    Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study--Los Angeles County
            ($500,000).
        Los Angeles County has over 30 miles of public beaches, serving
    over 50 million visitors annually. The 1998 impact of California's
    beaches on the national economy has been estimated by San Francisco
    State University, at $73 billion. Direct Federal taxes are estimated at
    $2.6 billion, with total tax revenues reaching $14 billion.
    California's beaches create 883,000 jobs nationwide. Yet, California
    receives only $12,000 Federal dollars per mile of coastline, compared
    to $800,000 per a mile in New York and New Jersey.
        Los Angeles County's beaches contribute a disproportionate share to
    the economic benefits described above. Its beaches are not naturally
    sandy, however, having 35 million cubic yards of sand placed on them
    since the 1930s. The County's beaches provide recreational
    opportunities for many more millions than visit our National Parks.
    They also provide protection from ocean storms for major highways,
    utilities, public improvements and private property.
        Los Angeles County formed a multi-agency Beach Replenishment Task
    Force in 1998. Its goal is to establish a long-term management plan for
    the beaches. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Coast of California
    Study is critical to the achievement of this goal, as it is designed to
    assess long-term shoreline changes along the Los Angeles County
    coastline based on actual field data and predictive numerical models.
    It will also provide critical coastal processes information to plan and
    design future shore protection and beach nourishment projects.
        In response to last year's request from Los Angeles County,
    Congress added $100,000 to the fiscal year 2000 budget to fund the
    reconnaissance phase of this study. The timing of this study precluded
    the Corps from requesting its funding in the President's fiscal year
    2001 budget. Therefore, your support for an additional appropriation,
    of $500,000, in fiscal year 2001 is requested for continuation of this
    very important study.

    Marina del Rey and Ballon Creek Feasibility Study ($500,000)
        For the past five years Congress has funded the federal share of
    this study and the County has provided the required local sponsor's
    share. The study was scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2000. Its
    goal was to develop a dredged material management plan for Marina del
    Rey's contaminated sediments, as well as a sediment control plan within
    the Ballon Creek watershed. To meet the objectives of this study, it is
    now necessary to extend the study for two years for development of a
    trash and debris management plan.
        Trash and debris in Ballona Creek and Marina del Rey have the
    potential to impede sediment removal and control; therefore, the
    removal and management of trash and debris must be addressed. Without
    this study, and its resultant plan, other mitigation measures and
    improvements will not be effective. Completion of this study, and
    implementation of the plan, will not only facilitate optimum sediment
    removal and control, it will also improve water quality in the Santa
    Monica Bay. Unfortunately, the scope of work for this study was not
    developed in time for its funding to be included in the President's
    fiscal year 2001 budget. We, therefore, request your support for the
    addition of $500,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget for this critical
    work.

    Los Angeles County--Regional Dredged Material Management Plan
            ($400,000)
        It is estimated that approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of
    contaminated marine sediments will need to be dredged from the harbor
    waters of Los Angeles County over the next five years. Unfortunately,
    permanent sites for the disposal of these sediments are not available.
    As a result, routine maintenance dredging and port expansion activities
    have been critically hampered, impeding both navigational safety and
    the livelihood of the area's economy. In addition, the continuous
    buildup of contaminated sediments within the Los Angeles Region's
    coastal waterways raises concerns with respect to potential impact to
    the public health and the health of the marine environment.
        A multi-agency task force, funded largely by the State of
    California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the County of
    Los Angeles, was established in 1997 to develop a long-term management
    strategy for dredging and disposal of the region's contaminated
    sediments. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a critical participant
    in this process and this study will enable the task force to achieve
    its goal. Without the completion of this study, the region's
    contaminated sediment problems will not be solved. Safe navigation in
    small craft harbors will be jeopardized by shoaling that cannot be
    removed and disposed of safely and economically, and the nation's
    largest port complex will not be able to grow to meet increased demand.
        Responding to request from Los Angeles County last year, Congress
    added $100,000 to the fiscal year 2000 budget for the reconnaissance
    phase of this study. While the President's budget for fiscal year 2001
    does contain $225,000 for continuation of this study, the
    reconnaissance phase has developed an aggressive study plan that will
    require $400,000 in Federal funding for fiscal year 2001. Therefore,
    your support for an additional $175,000 in fiscal year 2001 is
    respectfully requested.

    Marina del Rey Dredging ($5,335,000)
        With nearly 6,000 slips, Marina del Rey is the largest, man-made
    small craft harbor in the nation. The Marina is also the homeport for
    the Coast Guard cutter, Point Bridge, and other rescue agencies that
    respond to air-sea disasters off of LAX. The safe navigation of the
    harbor's entrances is needed to provide for the safety of thousands of
    boaters who use the Marina annually and to enable prompt emergency
    response to a variety of life-threatening ocean emergencies.
        In the last two years, Congress has appropriated a total of $5
    million, which has been combined with nearly $4 million in County
    funds, to take advantage of an extraordinary opportunity to remove
    300,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment. The contaminated
    material has been permanently and safely disposed of in a landfill
    project in the Port of Long Beach. In addition, approximately 200,000
    cubic meters of clean sand have been taken from the Marina to replenish
    a badly eroded, but very heavily used, public beach.
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2001 includes $5,335,000 for
    dredging in Marina del Rey. The County and Corps are planning on using
    these funds to further improve navigational safety, test methods for
    remediating contaminated sediment for beneficial reuse, and
    constructing measures that will reduce shoaling and future dredging
    costs. We, therefore, ask your support of the President's budget
    request of $5,335,000 for fiscal year 2001.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' excellent execution of its
    Congressionally mandated missions--creating and maintaining safe
    navigation channels, flood control, and shoreline protection--make it
    an invaluable partner in Los Angeles County. Your continued support of
    appropriations for these missions is critical and very much appreciated
    by Los Angeles County.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Ventura Port District

        The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:
      --Include $2,240,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
            Development Appropriations Bill as requested by the
            Administration for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintenance
            dredging of the Ventura Harbor federal channel and sand traps.
      --Add $1,500,000 to the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development
            Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
            repair the serious structural damage to the north head of the
            Federal Breakwater at Ventura Harbor.
      --Include $400,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
            Development Appropriations Bill as requested by the
            Administration to continue a cost shared Feasibility Study to
            determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal
            navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass
            system.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Ventura Harbor, homeport to 1500 vessels, is located along the
    Southern California coastline in the City of San Buenaventura,
    approximately 60 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles. The harbor
    opened in 1963. Annual dredging of the harbor entrance area is usually
    necessary in order to assure a navigationally adequate channel. In
    1968, the 90th Congress made the harbor a Federal project and committed
    the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide for the maintenance of the
    entrance structures and the dredging of the entrance channel and sand
    traps.
        The harbor presently generates more than $40 million in gross
    receipts annually. That, of course, translates into thousands of both
    direct and indirect jobs. A significant portion of those jobs are
    associated with the commercial fishing industry (over 25 million pounds
    of fish products were landed in 1999), and with vessels serving the
    offshore oil industry. Additionally, the headquarters for the Channel
    Islands National Park is located within the harbor, and the commercial
    vessels transporting the nearly 100,000 visitors per year to and from
    the Park islands offshore, operate out of the harbor. All of the
    operations of the harbor, particularly those related to commercial
    fishing, the support boats for the oil industry, and the visitor
    transport vessels for the Channel Islands National Park are highly
    dependent upon a navigationally adequate entrance to the harbor.

                         OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE NEEDS

    Dredging
        The Corps of Engineers has determined that $2,240,000 will be
    required to perform routine maintenance dredging of the harbor's
    entrance channel and sand traps during fiscal year 2001. This dredging
    work is absolutely essential to the continued operation of the harbor.
    Breakwater Repairs
        It is estimated that $1,500,000 will be required during fiscal year
    2001 for the Corps of Engineers to repair extensive storm damage to the
    north head of the Federal Breakwater. This structure is a critical
    component of the harbor's entrance system and its repair must be
    accomplished expeditiously in order to assure that the integrity of the
    balance of the 1800-foot structure is not compromised. Delaying the
    necessary repairs will not only rapidly escalate the repair cost for
    the breakwater itself but will also result in increased maintenance
    dredging costs in subsequent years.

                                  STUDY NEEDS

        The Corps of Engineers has determined that $400,000 will be
    required during fiscal year 2001 to continue a cost shared Feasibility
    Study to determine the advisability of modifying the existing Federal
    navigation project at Ventura Harbor to include a sand bypass system.
    Given the continuing need for maintenance dredging, it is appropriate
    to determine if a sand bypass system or other measures can accomplish
    the maintenance of the harbor in a manner that is more efficient and
    cost effective than the current contract dredging approach.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California

        As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2001
    Energy and Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring a
    very important environmental restoration project to your attention.
        The Corps of Engineers and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have
    been working on a cost-sharing feasibility study to investigate Federal
    improvements to restore pristine environmental areas along the Pacific
    coastline since 1995. The Presidents fiscal year 2001 Budget Request
    does not contain enough money to perform both pre-construction design
    and modeling tasks.
        I would like to take this opportunity to request that your
    distinguished Subcommittee include $325,000 in the fiscal year 2001
    Budget Request for the continuation of the pre-construction engineering
    and design. The addition of $125,000 to the proposed budget will allow
    the modeling to take place in conjunction with preliminary engineering.
    The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is prepared to commit their portion of
    the cost-share to complete the study next year.
        The area along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline that is being
    studied has been severely degraded as a result of landslide movement of
    material and coastal erosion causing sediment and continuous turbidity
    that has buried sensitive habitat. The Study involves investigations to
    define landslide and erosion relationships, impacts on the environment
    and potential restoration benefits. This project should be considered
    as essential mitigation for large local port projects.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Santa Cruz Harbor

        Santa Cruz Harbor is an active small craft harbor at the north
    section of Monterey Bay, California. It was authorized as a federal
    navigation project in 1958, constructed in 1964, and expanded in 1972.
    A 1986 joint-venture between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
    Santa Cruz Port District provided for a permanent sand bypass system to
    solve the ocean-driven shoaling problem at its entrance. The Port
    District has successfully operated that system for the past fourteen
    winters. However, the Port District has been unable to solve the
    siltation problem emanating from the three-square mile watershed which
    terminates at the north end of Santa Cruz Harbor.
        Silt from Arana Gulch fills berths, fairways, and channels in the
    harbor, making them hazardous and unusable. At this time, the siltation
    is not solvable by the existing sand bypass system. The soil
    characteristics of the watershed make beach disposal impractical at
    this time. Arana Gulch sediment must either be taken upland or
    delivered by barge offshore--both of these disposal options are quite
    wasteful. They are also extremely expensive and cost the Port District
    hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Additionally, the 1998 El
    Nino storms brought 15,000 cubic yards of material into the north
    harbor alone from Arana Gulch. The event was declared a federal
    disaster, and FEMA and the State of California are spending in excess
    of $500,000 to return the harbor to charted depths.
        On June 25, 1998, the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure passed Resolution Docket 2565 authorizing the Secretary
    of the Army to review the Arana Gulch watershed siltation problem.
        The Port District respectfully requests that $100,000 be
    appropriated for the Arana Gulch reconnaissance study for fiscal year
    2001.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the City of San Rafael, CA

        Chairman Domenici: Periodic maintenance dredging of San Rafael
    Canal is necessary because it is an important and valuable element of
    our community's infrastructure.
        It serves as a flood control channel for central San Rafael,
    draining approximately five square miles where 25,000 residents and
    businesses reside.
        The San Rafael Canal is important to the boating interests. There
    are five yacht harbors that provide berthing for over 750 vessels.
    While these facilities are primarily recreational, there are commercial
    benefits in the form of sales tax revenue generated from purchases made
    in ships' chandleries, vessel repair yards, fueling facilities,
    supermarkets and employee compensation.
        Over $10 million in revenue is generated by the 25 marine related
    commercial interests that rely on the San Rafael Canal for their
    livelihood. These commercial enterprises generate fees, sales taxes,
    and employment to 65 individuals. These enterprises are divided into
    the following categories: yacht harbors (5), vessel inspection,
    maintenance and repair (14), storage (3), vessel sales (3), commercial
    fishing (4), and commercial freight hauling (1). The continued
    viability and operation of these businesses requires that the San
    Rafael Canal receive the necessary appropriations to allow the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers to perform the overdue maintenance dredging.
        Lastly, the City of San Rafael maintains and operates a fire and
    search and rescue vessel in the San Rafael Canal and in the lower
    portion of San Pablo Bay. This operation became vital when the Coast
    Guard no longer provided these services over 10 years ago. This vessel
    is berthed in the Canal and must be able to respond to emergencies
    without having to wait for high tide. In the past year, this vessel has
    responded to 100 calls for emergency response, has rescued 215 people
    who required assistance, and has prevented approximately $6 million in
    damage to vessels in need of emergency response.
        The San Rafael Canal is much more than a recreational amenity. It
    supports a healthy and thriving marine oriented business community. It
    supports the employment of individuals and generates revenue to the
    City of San Rafael. It provides for public safety on the water.
        We understand that the appropriation to fund the maintenance
    dredging is not in the President's budget. We understand that the Corps
    of Engineers has estimated that it needs $1.8 million to perform the
    maintenance dredging. The San Rafael City Council, as well as the
    business enterprises who rely on the San Rafael Canal for their
    livelihood, urgently request your consideration to appropriate these
    funds to the Corps of Engineers to perform the much needed maintenance
    dredging of San Rafael Canal.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District

        Presented herewith is testimony in support of $28,000,000 for the
    construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers to continue the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes flood control
    project and testimony in support of $1,584,000 appropriation to
    reimburse the non-federal sponsors, Clark County and the Clark County
    Regional Flood Control District, for work performed in advance of the
    federal project pursuant to Section 211 of the Water Resources
    Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. This project is located in the rapidly
    growing Las Vegas Valley in Southern Nevada.
        The Las Vegas Valley continues to experience unprecedented growth.
    This growth has occurred over the past twenty plus years. People have
    moved into the area from all parts of the nation to seek employment,
    provide necessary services, retire in the Sunbelt, and become part of
    this dynamic community. It is estimated that 5,000 people relocate to
    the Las Vegas Valley every month of the year. Currently the population
    is over 1.3 million. The latest statistics show that more than 30,000
    residential units are built annually. Once all of these factors are
    combined, the result is that the Las Vegas Valley continues to be one
    of the fastest growing areas in the nation.
        The Federal project being constructed by the Corps of Engineers
    (Corps) is designed to collect flood flows from a 160 square mile
    contributing drainage area. The Corps project includes four debris
    basins, four detention basins, 28 miles of primary channels, and a
    network of lateral collector channels. The debris basins are designed
    to collect flood flows from undeveloped areas at the headwaters of the
    alluvial fans and trap large bedload debris before it enters the
    channels and causes erosion damage. The detention basins will function
    to greatly reduce the magnitude of the flood flows so that the flows
    can be safely released and conveyed through the developed urbanized
    area at non-damaging rates. The outflow from the debris basins and the
    reduced flows from the detention basins will be contained in the
    primary channel system that will also serve as outfalls for the lateral
    collector channels. While this latter element (lateral collector
    channels) is considered to be a non-federal element of the entire plan,
    it is a necessary element for the plan to function properly and afford
    flood protection for the community. Since flood flow over the alluvial
    fans, which ring the Las Vegas Valley, is so unpredictable in terms of
    the direction it will take during any given flood all of the components
    of the Corps' plan are critical.
        Torrential rains deluged the Las Vegas Valley the morning of July
    8, 1999, causing widespread drainage problems and major damages to
    public and private properties. Some of the largest rainfall depths
    occurred over the southwest portions of the Las Vegas Valley resulting
    in significant flows in the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes. The runoff
    that resulted from this intense rainfall caused widespread street
    flooding and record high flows in normally dry washes and flood control
    facilities. The news media reported two deaths resulting from this
    flood event, one of which was a drowning in the Flamingo Wash. Damages
    to public property resulting from this storm are estimated at
    $20,500,000. President Clinton declared Clark County a federal disaster
    area on July 19, 1999, recognizing the severity of damages to public
    and private properties. Significant damages could have been avoided if
    the Corps' Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project had been fully
    implemented. However, those features of the Corps' project that were
    completed worked to mitigate damages. The storm of July 8, 1999,
    further reemphasizes the need to expeditiously implement all flood
    control projects in the Las Vegas Valley.
        The Feasibility Report for this project was completed in October
    1991, and Congressional authorization was included in the WRDA of 1992.
    The first federal appropriation to initiate construction of the project
    became available through the Energy and Water Resources Development
    Appropriations Bill signed into law by the President in October 1993.
    The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was fully executed in February
    1995. Federal appropriations to date have totaled $87,700,000, allowing
    the project to continue to be implemented. The total cost of the
    project is currently estimated at $271,000,000, primarily due to the
    delay in anticipated federal appropriations.
        The local community has already constructed certain elements of the
    Corps' plan. These project elements require modifications in order to
    fit into the Corps' plan and fulfill the need for a ``total fan
    approach'' to the flooding problems of the Las Vegas Valley. The Red
    Rock Detention Basin was constructed by Clark County in 1985 and
    modifications by the Corps were completed in December 1996. The flood
    flow released from the basin has been reduced, and the basin's capacity
    to hold floodwaters was enhanced, thereby increasing the level of
    downstream protection provided by this feature. Although the Red Rock
    Detention Basin expansion was the first feature completed, the
    immediate benefit realized by the community was the removal of
    approximately five square miles and 4,754 parcels from the alluvial fan
    flood zones.
        The non-federal sponsors also constructed the Flamingo Detention
    Basin. This facility was completed in February 1992, and is one of the
    main components of the Federal project. Under the Corps' plan, the
    flood flows released from this feature will be reduced and the storage
    capacity increased. The non-federal sponsors have been working with the
    development community in order to remove the excess sand and gravel
    from the impoundment area of this facility. Our goal is to have local
    contractors remove surplus material from the basin for their own use at
    no cost to either the federal or local governments, thus providing a
    significant cost savings on this project. The work performed by the
    non-federal sponsors, construction of Red Rock Detention Basin and
    Flamingo Detention Basin, prior to the Project Cooperation Agreement
    being executed have been accounted for in Section 104 credits and total
    $9,906,000.
        As non-federal sponsors for this important flood control project,
    both the Clark County Regional Flood Control District and Clark County
    are looking forward to the construction start of each feature of this
    project and the project's ultimate completion.
        Details of the Administration's fiscal year 2001 Civil Works Budget
    Request indicate that $20,000,000 is proposed for the continued
    construction of this project. The Los Angeles District of the Corps
    informs us that their capability for fiscal year 2001 is $28,000,000.
    Funding at the Corps' capability level will allow:
        Complete construction of the following:
      --Lower Red Rock Complex
      --Red Rock Channel (Segment 10A)
      --Blue Diamond Detention Basin
      --Red Rock Outlet and Scour Protection
      --R-4 Debris Basin and Channel
        Start construction of the following:
      --Lower Flamingo Diversion Channel
      --F-1 Debris Basin and Channel
      --F-2 Debris Basin and Channel
        The non-federal sponsors are anxious to see all of the above flood
    control facilities constructed. Further delays in funding the project
    place portions of the federal project and non-federal projects at risk.
        In 1996, the local sponsors were notified that federal funding
    would be reduced for the Corps' flood control project in Las Vegas due
    to reductions in the Corps' overall federal budget. Our community has
    already suffered a five-year delay in project completion due to past
    reductions in federal funding. Any further delays in federal funding,
    in the fastest growing community in the nation, will mean increased
    project costs due to lost opportunities compounded by inflation. It
    might also mean further loss of life.
        In order to provide the required flood protection in a timely
    fashion, the non-federal sponsors are implementing certain features in
    advance of the federal government pursuant to Section 211 of WRDA 1996.
    An amendment to the PCA was fully executed on December 17, 1999, that
    formalizes the provisions of Section 211 of WRDA 1996. Section 211(f)
    of WRDA 1996 identifies the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Project as
    one of eight projects in the nation to demonstrate the potential
    advantages and effectiveness of non-federal implementation of federal
    flood control projects. The work funded by the non-federal sponsors and
    completed to date pursuant to Section 211 of WRDA 1996 totals
    approximately $2,111,711 and is summarized in the following table:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Sponsors
              Project Element                Nature of Work         Costs
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tropicana Detention Basin Outfall--  Design, Construction &      $88,298
     Russell Road Box Culvert.            Construction
                                          Management.
    Tropicana Detention Basin Outfall--  Design, Construction &      174,240
     Valley View Boulevard Box Culvert.   Construction
                                          Management.
    Blue Diamond Channel--Las Vegas      Design (Project             430,210
     Beltway (Segment 7A).                element constructed
                                          by Corps).
    Blue Diamond Channel--Las Vegas      Design (Project             588,355
     Beltway (Segment 7B).                element being
                                          constructed by
                                          sponsor).
    Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Beltway  Design (Project             278,451
     (Segment 8).                         element being
                                          constructed by
                                          sponsor).
    Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Beltway  Design (Project             193,000
     (Segment 9).                         element being
                                          constructed by
                                          sponsor).
    Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas Beltway  Design (Project             359,157
     (Segment 10A).                       element being
                                          constructed by Corps).
                                                                ------------
          Total Sponsors' Costs........  ......................    2,111,711
                                                                ============
          Estimated Federal Share......  ......................    1,584,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The non-federal sponsors are asking the committee to appropriate
    funding of $1,584,000 to reimburse the non-federal sponsors the federal
    proportionate share (75 percent) of the completed work pursuant to
    Section 211 of WRDA of 1996 and the PCA amendment. The non-federal
    sponsors are continuing to pursue the design and construction of
    additional features with the primary purpose of providing flood
    protection as quickly as possible. The total cost of all Section 211
    work to be performed by the non-federal sponsors is estimated at
    $24,604,855.
        In summary, the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes project is an
    important public safety project designed to provide flood protection
    for one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation. We ask that
    the committee provide the Secretary of the Army with $28,000,000, the
    Corps of Engineers' capability in fiscal year 2001, in order to
    facilitate continued design and construction of additional phases of
    this critical flood control project. We are also asking that the
    committee provide the Secretary of the Army with $1,584,000 to
    reimburse the non-federal sponsors the federal proportionate share of
    the work completed by the sponsors in advance of the federal
    government.
        The committee is aware that flood control measures are a necessary
    investment required to prevent loss of life and damages to people's
    homes and businesses. Flood control is a wise investment that will pay
    for itself by preserving life and property and reducing the probability
    of repeatedly asking the federal government for disaster assistance.
    Therefore, when balancing the federal budget, a thorough analysis would
    prove that there is substantial future federal savings in disaster
    assistance that supports sufficient appropriations through the Civil
    Works Budget.
                                     ______

                 CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

             Prepared Statement of the California Water Commission

        The California Water Commission is an official agency of the State
    of California. It is composed of nine representative citizens from
    throughout the State. The Commission is charged by statute with
    representing State of California and local interests before your
    Committee. The Commission is coordinating the filing of the statements
    of a number of State and local agencies. On behalf of the California
    Water Commission, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for
    the support this Committee has given California water, fishery and
    flood control appropriations over the years. I am privileged to submit
    to you the official recommendations of the State of California for
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations and request it be included in the
    formal hearing record along with the testimonies listed on the attached
    Statement List.
        The Commission would like you to know that it supports projects as
    shown on the attached document entitled, California Water Commission--
    Final Recommendations for fiscal year 2001 Federal Appropriations for
    California Water, Fishery and Flood Control Projects, March 3, 2000.
    That document contains recommendations adopted by the Commission at its
    March 3, 2000 meeting in Sacramento, California, where individuals from
    throughout the State testified on individual projects.
        This year the recommended add-ons to the President's budget for the
    Corps of Engineers are not as extreme as in past years. However, the
    proposed amounts in some of the large ongoing flood control
    construction projects are inadequate to maintain the construction
    schedule. Stopping and starting construction projects can significantly
    increase the cost, as well as putting the respective project areas in
    jeopardy of severe damage from flooding of a partially completed
    project. The Commission has supported projects over the years that are
    funded under ``Continuing Authorities'', such as Sections 205, 206, 503
    and 1135. These projects compete for very limited funds. Last year the
    Commission voted to request Congress consider increasing the funding in
    these Authorities, so more of the needed projects in these categories
    can be funded. The Commission is still supportive of additional funds.
        The California Water Commission has long recognized water recycling
    as an important element in the management of California's water
    resources. It is the Commission's view that water recycling projects
    should be supported in concert, within the limitations of available
    federal funds, giving due consideration to other potential sources of
    funds that could be available to effect their implementation. The
    Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the
    local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also
    encourage sponsors to go ahead with expanded facilities with greater
    expectation of out-year funding.
        On March 3, 2000 the Commission also supported a similar program
    within the Corps of Engineers new authority (WRDA-99, Section 502);
    however, they added the condition ``if additional funding can be
    secured''.
        Special recommendations for funds.--The Commission recommends that
    special consideration be given for appropriation of funds for projects
    of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as
    shown in the following table. The Commission believes that these
    projects merit special consideration for the reasons set forth in the
    information shown on the tables on the following page.
        CWC 90--Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED).--The CALFED Bay-
    Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-federal-stakeholder
    effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to restore
    ecosystem health and improve water management for beneficial uses of
    the Bay-Delta system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an official
    part of the ongoing effort and needs to be adequately funded to allow
    the Corps' experts to officially participate in CALFED activities. A
    comprehensive package must:
      --Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve
            ecological functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable
            populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species.
      --Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses.
      --Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current
            and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta
            system.
      --Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities,
            water supply infrastructure, and the ecosystem from
            catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
        The Corps of Engineers is an official part of the ongoing effort
    and needs to be adequately funded to allow the Corps' experts to
    officially participate in CALFED activities.
        CWC 110--Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study.--In
    January of 1997, the Central Valley of California was confronted with
    the largest and most extensive flood disaster in the State's history.
    The Sacramento River and its tributaries sustained two major levee
    breaks. In the San Joaquin River Basin, extensive damages resulted from
    over two dozen levee breaks, sedimentation, and deposition of sand and
    silt in the fields where flood water poured through the levee breaks.
    As a result, Congress appropriated $3 million in fiscal year 1998 and
    $3.5 million in fiscal year 1999 to initiate a comprehensive flood
    damage reduction and environmental restoration assessment for the
    Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.
        The State of California and the Army Corps of Engineers have
    initiated a four year Comprehensive Study. The Comprehensive Study will
    build on existing data outlined in investigations such as the
    Sacramento River Watershed Management Plan, the State's San Joaquin
    River Management Program, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
    (CVPIA), and integrated with these and other existing programs. The
    first phase of the Comprehensive Study was 18 months long. This interim
    report was sent to Congress in April of 1999.
        Phase II will result in full development and calibration of basin-
    wide hydrologic and hydraulic models. Phase II report will include a
    programmatic EIS/EIR which describes a broad range of potential flood
    damage reduction measures and integrated ecosystem restoration
    measures. Some ``early implementation projects'' will be identified,
    developed, and to the extent possible recommended for authorization and
    implementation. Early implementation projects must (1) address
    identifiable flooding problems, (2) be consistent with the strategy,
    (3) be singularly effective in achieving program goals, (4) demonstrate
    broad acceptability, and (5) be readily able to be implemented.
        CWC 162--Lopez Dam.--Lopez Reservoir serves as the primary drinking
    water supply for several South San Luis Obispo communities of Arroyo
    Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and Oceano. In addition, the
    reservoir attracts recreational users from Central and Southern
    California that are critical to the economic viability of the South
    County area.
        Recent studies have found that the dam could fail during a large
    magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Because of this
    potential failure, the California Division of Safety of Dams has
    mandated that the dam be seismically re-mediated to withstand a large
    magnitude earthquake, or that the operating level of the dam be reduced
    by 80 percent.
        The current cost estimate for the re-mediation of the dam is $26
    million. Construction is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2000, and is
    scheduled to be completed by June 2002.
        San Luis Obispo County is seeking a cost sharing partner to help
    offset the significant financial impact to the communities effected by
    the needed restoration of this structure. The California Water
    Commission's Appropriation Committee agreed to do all it could to help
    secure federal funds.
        CWC 238--Arroyo Pasajero.--The Draft Feasibility Investigation
    Report and draft EIS/EIR, which identifies two candidate alternatives
    that show a federal interest in a Corps flood control project were
    released in March 1999. The two projects, the enlarged Westside
    Detention Basin and the Pasajero Gap Detention Dam, are estimated to
    cost approximately $238 and $225 million with benefit cost ratios of
    roughly 1.7:1 and 1.1:2, respectively. During the public review
    process, both candidate alternatives were challenged. The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game issued
    a joint letter conveying their position that endangered species impacts
    of the project could not be mitigated. This position was maintained
    during follow-up meetings with staff and management of these agencies.
    Consequently, the Gap Dam was dropped as a viable alternative.
        Interests east of the Aqueduct challenged the Westside Detention
    Basin, as presented in the Report, because an over chute would
    discharge flood water across the Aqueduct and on to nearly a hundred
    thousand acres of rich farmland in a manner inconsistent with recent
    historical flooding patterns that occurred prior to construction of the
    Aqueduct. Consequently, the investigation was redirected to eliminate
    the over chute and focus on a larger Westside Detention Basin that
    stores more flood water. Due to other developments following a review
    of the draft, the investigation in being redirected further to include
    another alternative that takes a large amount of flood water into the
    Aqueduct, conveys it several miles to the south and releases it to
    storage on less productive farm land east of the Aqueduct. As a result
    of these changes in scope, the Draft Feasibility Investigation Report/
    EIS/EIR is expected to be re-released during the summer of 2001 and the
    Final Report submitted to the Corps South Pacific Division and
    Washington Headquarters Offices in early 2002.
        CWC 317--American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Modifications).--
    Located at the confluence of two major rivers, a large portion of the
    Sacramento area is threatened by flooding from the American River and
    the Sacramento River. The area of risk covers over 100,000 acres and
    consists of over 160,000 homes and structures, 400,000 residents and
    over $37 billion in developed property.
        In 1997, the January flood resulted in the largest recorded peak
    inflow to Folsom Dam, but because of the re-operation of Folsom
    Reservoir (more flood space in the winter), the releases were kept
    within the 115,00 cfs safe channel capacity of the lower American River
    levee system. In response to the January 1997 floods, the Corps re-
    evaluated the rain flood flow versus recurrence frequency for the
    American River at the Fair Oaks gage. This new evaluation, which was
    verified by the Corps' Hydrologic Engineering Center, indicates that
    the Sacramento area has a higher risk of flooding than previously
    believed. The evaluation shows that the existing flood control system,
    after completion of the Common Features Project, provides the area with
    a level of protection equal to about 1 in 90 in any year. Therefore,
    over a 30-year period, the risk of a storm that would overwhelm the
    existing levee system is about 28 percent.
        The Reclamation Board supported a minimum Congressional
    Authorization of Folsom Dam modifications as part of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999. This would increase the level of
    protection from 1 in 63 to about 1 in 140. Therefore, over a 30-year
    period, the risk of a storm that would overwhelm the existing levee
    system in about 19 percent. The Folsom modifications are common to all
    plans currently under consideration by Congress. The Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999 was passed with this element. The eight
    existing river outlets in Folsom Dam would be enlarged from 5 feet wide
    by 9 feet high to about 9 feet wide by 16 feet high. This would
    increase the dam's controlled flood releases capacity from the
    reservoir while the water surface is still well below the spillway
    crest.
        CWC 333--Kaweah River.--Terminus Dam was authorized by the 1944
    Flood Control Act and was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers in 1962. Since construction of Terminus Dam, damaging floods
    have occurred in many years. Downstream communities and areas adjacent
    to the flood plain are at risk of future flooding.
        Initially, various alternatives were evaluated, including
    alternative storage sites, detention basins, construction alternatives,
    and nonstructural measures. Based on technical, economical, and
    environmental criteria, the only feasible alternative is to raise and
    widen the spillway at Terminus Dam. The Corps' Authorized Plan includes
    raising the elevation of the existing Terminus Dam spillway. Reservoir
    storage capacity would be increased by 42,600 acre-feet (about 30
    percent). This feature will save an estimated seven million dollars of
    the approximate 40 million dollar Project cost.
        The State of California sponsor is The Reclamation Board and the
    local sponsors of the Project are the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation
    District (lead agency), City of Visalia, Tulare Lake Basin Water
    Storage District, Tulare County, and Kings County.
        CWC 353--Guadalupe River.--The Guadalupe River Flood Protection
    Project will provide flood protection to downtown San Jose's high-tech
    and commercial industries and established residential neighborhoods,
    with potential damages from a 1 percent flood exceeding $526 million
    (1993 value) avoiding impacts to the environment, protecting fish and
    wildlife, complying with the Endangered Species Act, protecting water
    quality, and preserving the beneficial use of water.
        The Guadalupe River, which flows through the Silicon Valley, is the
    second largest watershed in Santa Clara County, draining 170 square
    miles. The project will extend through downtown San Jose from
    Interstate 880 to Interstate 280. Flood protection works include
    channel widening, bridge replacement, and underground bypass box
    culvert, streambed erosion protection features, and terraces. On-site
    and off-site environmental mitigation work would enhance steelhead
    trout and Chinook salmon runs. This project is an integral component of
    San Jose's downtown revitalization efforts.
        An appropriation add-on of $10.5 million is requested, in addition
    to the $3.5 million included in the fiscal year 2001 for a total of $14
    million to fund a bypass box culvert, additional right-of-way
    acquisition for the bypass box culvert, and continuance of mitigation
    work.
        CWC 382--Santa Ana River Mainstem (includes San Timoteo).--The
    project is located along a 75-mile reach of the Santa Ana River in
    Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties southeast of and
    adjacent to metropolitan Los Angeles, California. Construction of this
    project will primarily provide protection to lands and improvements
    within Orange County downstream of Prado Reservoir. A severe flood
    threat exists in this area, which could cause damages in excess of $15
    billion and could endanger and disrupt the lives of over three million
    people living or working in the floodplain.
        The $18 million request includes funds for San Timoteo and Prado
    Dam. This feature of the SAR Project is the key link in providing the
    level of flood protection envisioned by Congress when it authorized the
    SAR Project in 1986.
        CWC 400--Flood Control Act of 1948, Section 205, Flood Damage
    Prevention.--The California Water Commission's Appropriations Committee
    heard testimony on March 3, 2000 requesting support on individual
    projects. Each of these projects have merit and are needed to prevent
    recurring flood damages in the local areas. The Commission supports
    these projects for funding from this Continuing Authority for small
    projects.
        The Commission has witnessed many successful projects in California
    over the years that have been funded from this Authority. However, the
    list of project requests are exceeding the funding level. The
    Commission voted in March, 1999 to support a request to Congress to
    increase the nationwide funding level from the present $26,000,000 to
    $50,000,000.
        CWC 420--Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 206,
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--The California Water Commission's
    Appropriations Committee heard testimony on March 3, 2000 requesting
    support on individual projects. The Commission supports these projects
    to improve the quality of the environment. Section 206 directs the
    Secretary of the Army to carry out such projects if the Secretary
    determines that the project will improve the quality of the environment
    and is in the public interest; and is cost-effective. The cost-sharing
    provisions state that the nonFederal interests shall provide 35 percent
    of the cost of the construction of any project carried out under this
    section, including provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
    and necessary relocation.
        The Commission voted in March of 1999 to support a request to
    Congress to increase the nationwide funding level.
        CWC 435--Water Resources Development Act, 1999, Section 212, Flood
    Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Program (Challenge 21 Program).--
    This is a new program that endeavors to fund projects that have joint
    flood control/riverine ecosystem restoration goals. The section lists
    23 priority areas nationwide. The Coachella Valley, Riverside County,
    California project is listed as the No. 2 priority area. This project
    will be undertaken at the delta area where the Whitewater River feeds
    into the Salton Sea. The area is at risk of flooding but with the
    proper project, could develop into a prime riverine habitat. In
    addition to improving habitat along the Pacific flyway, it could
    utilize wetland plants as a natural nutrient removal system for the
    Salton Sea.
        CWC 440--Water Resources Development Act, 1999, Section 502,
    Environmental Infrastructure (F) Additional Assistance--CWC 441--
    Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling.--The Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling
    Project will annually develop up to 48,000 acre-feet of recycled water
    for municipal, industrial, and environmental purposes in the Los
    Angeles area. Customers for the recycled water developed by the project
    have already been identified. They include the ARCO, Chevron and Mobil
    refineries in Los Angeles County, as well as the Wilmington/Los Angeles
    Harbor industrial area, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and the Los Angeles
    International Airport/Westside area. The cities of Gardena, Carson,
    Culver City, Torrance and Lomita will also be served by the project.
        The House and Senate recently passed the Conference Report to H.R.
    1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, which includes a
    provision authorizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide
    assistance to the West Basin Municipal Water District for the
    construction of the Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling Project. The Corps
    is authorized to provide up to $15 million for this project. The
    legislation limits the federal share to 25 percent of the total cost of
    the project. The West Basin District expects to spend more than $60
    million on the Harbor/South Bay project through fiscal year 2001.
        The California Water Commission's Appropriation Committee reviewed
    this project on September 3, 1999 and on March 3, 2000 reviewed a
    similar project (San Ramon Valley Recycling Water Project) and had some
    reservations concerning splintering of federal funding support for
    recycling projects between the activities of the U.S. Corps of
    Engineers and recycling projects requesting funding through the U.S.
    Bureau of Reclamation. On March 3, 2000 the Committee supported funding
    of projects under this authority if additional funding can be secured.
        CWC 450--Water Resources Development Act, 1996, Section 503,
    Watershed Mgt. Restoration & Development.--The California Water
    Commission's Appropriations Committee heard testimony on March 3, 2000
    requesting support on individual projects. The Commission supports
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the projects. This provision gives
    the Secretary of the Army the authority to have the Corps provide
    technical, planning and design assistance to nonFederal interests for
    carrying out watershed management, restoration and development projects
    at locations listed in Section 503, Water Resources Development Act,
    1996. Last March, the Commission supported a request to Congress to
    increase the nationwide funding level from the present $15,000,000 to
    $30,000,000.
        CWC 460--Water Resources Development Act, 1986, Section 1135,
    Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment Program.--The
    California Water Commission's Appropriations Committee heard testimony
    on March 3, 2000 requesting support on individual projects. The
    Commission supports fiscal year 2001 appropriations for each of these
    projects. Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Section 1135,
    directs the Secretary of the Army to review the operation of water
    resources projects constructed before the date of the Act to determine
    the need for modifications in the structures and operations of such
    projects for the purpose of improving the quality of the environment in
    the public interest. Last March, the Commission supported a request to
    Congress to increase the nationwide funding level from the present
    $8,500,000 to $20,000,000. Additional funds are needed as this list of
    important projects increases.
        CWC 500--Bay-Delta Program Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED).--At the
    confluence of California's two largest rivers, the Sacramento and San
    Joaquin, the San Francisco Bay and adjoining Sacramento-San Joaquin
    Delta (Bay-Delta) together form the largest estuary in the western
    United States. The Bay-Delta is a haven for plants and wildlife,
    supporting over 750 plant and animal species. The Bay-Delta supplies
    drinking water for two-thirds of California's citizens and irrigation
    water for over 7 million acres of the most highly productive
    agricultural land in the world.
        The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-
    federal-stakeholder effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term
    plan to restore ecosystem health and improve water management for
    beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The Program is fundamentally
    different from previous efforts because it seeks to address ecosystem
    restoration, water quality, water supply reliability, and levee and
    channel integrity as co-equal program purposes.
        On December 18, 1998, CALFED released the Revised Phase II Report
    which outlined the draft preferred alternative for solving the problems
    in the Bay-Delta system. The CALFED Program released a Revised Draft
    EIS/EIR on June 25, 1999. This release will be followed by a public
    comment period and further refinement of the proposed plan which will
    conclude on September 23, 1999. The goal is to have a final EIS/EIR in
    April 2000, with implementation to begin in June 2000.
        CWC 600--Trinity River Restoration Program.--On June 21, 1999, the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the completion of a 15-year
    comprehensive study of the Trinity River in California which recommends
    habitat restoration projects and increasing instream fishery flows from
    340,000 acre-feet to an average of 595,000 acre-feet to restore salmon
    and steelhead runs. Significant declines in salmon and steelhead
    populations and associated habitats occurred after the completion of
    the Trinity River Diversion (TRD) of the Central Valley Project in
    1964. Coho salmon were listed as threatened in 1997 under the
    Endangered Species Act.
        This restoration requires removal of riparian berms at selected
    sites to promote the creation of alternate bar sequences similar to
    those which existed prior to the construction of the TRD. The
    restoration will be accomplished by mechanical removal of berms at
    selected sites. The project also will increase annual instream
    allocations above the current 340 TAF allocation, ranging from 369 to
    815 TAF, with an average of 595 TAF. A program to balance the coarse
    and fine sediment budget of the upper river that has been disrupted by
    the construction and operation of the TRD will be conducted. The
    project will also establish an Adaptive Management Program.
        CWC 612--Coleman National Fish Hatchery.--The Coleman National Fish
    Hatchery was built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) on Battle
    Creek in 1942 to mitigate damages to salmon spawning areas in the
    Sacramento River system caused by the construction of Shasta and
    Keswick Dams. Federal custody and operation were transferred to the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1948. Title 34 of Public Law
    102-575 (Central Valley Project Improvement Act) specifies that USBR
    provide funding for completion of the rehabilitation of the Coleman
    National Fish Hatchery: 50 percent will be reimbursable from water and
    power users and 50 percent non-reimbursable.
        Remaining rehabilitation facilities are additional water treatment
    facilities which include one sand filter, an air compressor, and one
    ozone contact/stripper capable of treating 15,000 gallons per minute
    and installation of various ozone equipment. Also, installation of a
    54-inch pipeline from the ozone treatment plant to the large raceways.
    The replacement of facilities for administration, the fish health
    laboratory and public contact area will be the final items to complete
    the modifications at Coleman NFH.
        With the new fish restoraton program that is being developed on
    Battle Creek, fish will again spawn and rear above Coleman NFH.
    Therefore, in the future, water diversions from Battle Creek to the
    hatchery will need to be screened. This is estimated to cost about $5.5
    million. Discussions are underway to determine the best source of
    funding for this part of the project.
        CWC 621--Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program.--The
    captive broodstock program arose from shared concerns for the fate of
    the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. Active participants
    have included representatives of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bodega
    Marine Laboratory of the University of California, Steinhart Aquarium
    of the California Academy of Sciences, California Department of Fish
    and Game, California Department of Water Resources, Pacific Coast
    Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Tyee Club and California Water
    Commission.
        The program has promoted the genetic conservation of winter-run
    chinook salmon. Analyses of the effective size of the winter-run stock
    showed that a properly managed artificial propagation program to which
    the captive broodstock program contributes gametes is not likely to
    have a negative effect and may, instead, be helping to maintain or
    slightly increase the genetic diversity of the stock.
        The captive broodstock program was initiated as a rapid response to
    the endangerment of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon. To
    date, the program has realized many of its objectives. Gametes from
    captively reared broodstock have contributed to artificial propagation
    of the winter-run population. In each year since its inception, the
    program has provided progressively better spawners, gamete quality,
    fertilization and production of juvenile fish. The artificial
    propagation program now works in concert with BML researchers to
    confirm run identification of wild-trapped adult winter and spring run
    salmon destined for spawning at the Coleman and Livingston Stone
    National Fish hatcheries to avoid hybridization. Since the completion
    of the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery below Shasta Dam, one
    year class of winter-run chinook salmon has been reared successfully in
    that facility. Rearing at that facility allows the growing fry to
    imprint on Sacramento River water thus helping ensure that, when
    adults, they return to spawn in their natal stream.
        These and other developments will lead to significant changes in
    conventional salmon hatchery practices and reduce impacts of hatchery
    releases on wild Central Valley chinook salmon. Although much good work
    has been completed, some critical questions remain to be answered
    through additional research. These questions include: Are progeny from
    captive parents as fit as those from wild parents? How do we
    synchronize growth and sexual maturation of captive salmon so that both
    sexes are ready to spawn at the same time? If we can't achieve
    synchrony in sexual maturity, how can the potency of frozen sperm be
    increased? Answering these questions can help balance the need and
    effectiveness of hatchery supplementation for listed runs while helping
    identify management actions to move towards ecosystem based salmon
    restoration.
        CWC 660--Arroyo Pasajero Studies--CWC 661--Arroyo Pasajero
    Implementations--CWC 662--Arroyo Pasajero (Flood Easements).--The Draft
    Feasibility Investigation Report and draft EIS/EIR, which identifies
    two candidate alternatives that show a federal interest in a Corps
    flood control project were released in March 1999. The two projects,
    the enlarged Westside Detention Basin and the Pasajero Gap Detention
    Dam, are estimated to cost approximately $238 and $225 million with
    benefit cost ratios of roughly 1.7:1 and 1.1:2, respectively. During
    the public review process, both candidate alternatives were challenged.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
    Fish and Game issued a joint letter conveying their position that
    endangered species impacts of the project could not be mitigated. This
    position was maintained during follow-up meetings with staff and
    management of these agencies. Consequently, the Gap Dam was dropped as
    a viable alternative.
        Interests east of the Aqueduct challenged the Westside Detention
    Basin, as presented in the Report, because an over chute would
    discharge flood water across the Aqueduct and on to nearly a hundred
    thousand acres of rich farmland in a manner inconsistent with recent
    historical flooding patterns that occurred prior to construction of the
    Aqueduct. Consequently, the investigation was redirected to eliminate
    the over chute and focus on a larger Westside Detention Basin that
    stores more flood water. Due to other developments following a review
    of the draft, the investigation in being redirected further to include
    another alternative that takes a large amount of flood water into the
    Aqueduct, conveys it several miles to the south and releases it to
    storage on less productive farm land east of the Aqueduct. As a result
    of these changes in scope, the Draft Feasibility Investigation Report/
    EIS/EIR is expected to be re-released during the summer of 2001 and the
    Final Report submitted to the Corps South Pacific Division and
    Washington Headquarters Offices in early 2002.
        CWC 663--Cantua Creek Strm Group-EIS.--The Cantua Creek Stream
    Group consists of seven western San Joaquin Valley ephemeral streams,
    as well as several smaller unnamed drainages located west of the San
    Luis Canal segment of the California Aqueduct extending between 20 and
    50 miles north of the Arroyo Pasajero.
        Flood water overtopped the western embankment of the Canal in 1969
    and 1995, causing extensive damage to the concrete lining. Since the
    1960s, over 40,000 acre-feet of Cantua Creek Stream Group flood water
    and an estimated 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment have entered the
    Canal from overtopping or through the drain inlets. These streams have
    also deposited as much as 2.9 million cubic yards of sediment upslope
    of the Canal, eliminating 1,600 acre-feet (about 50 percent) of the
    original impounding capacity. The Cantua Creek Stream Group poses a
    flood risk with a potential to breach the Canal and disrupt water
    service to millions of people in southern California and the southern
    San Joaquin Valley. In addition, the cost associated with the
    degradation to water quality from uncontrolled flood inflow is a
    substantial expense to both the Canal operators and water customers.
    The situation is continually worsening as additional sediment is
    deposited along the west side of the Aqueduct.
        The Department of Water Resources, with cost sharing by USBR, is
    completing a reconnaissance study of these drainage and sedimentation
    problems and will be performing feasibility level investigations during
    fiscal year 2000 to seek solutions. In addition, interim improvements
    to restore diminished impounding capacity and improve sediment
    decanting capabilities for smaller flood flows will extend into fiscal
    year 2000. Under the San Luis Unit Joint-Use Facilities Agreement, USBR
    is responsible for 45 percent of the cost of this work.
        CWC 900--Public Law 102-575, Title XVI and Amended by Public Law
    104-266 (Mid-Pacific Region)--CWC 1000--Public Law 102-575, Title XVI
    and Amended by Public Law 104-266 (Lower Colorado Region).--The
    California Water Commission has long recognized water recycling as an
    important element in the management of California's water resources,
    both for cleanup of municipal, industrial and agricultural discharges
    and to improve the quantity and quality of water supplies. The
    Department of Water Resources' Bulletin 160-98, California Water Plan
    Update, January 1998, identifies up to 800,000 acre-feet of total
    potential additional water recycling in California by the year 2020.
        It is the Commission's view that both water recycling programs and
    the other ongoing USBR programs are highly important and that they
    should be supported in concert, within the limitations of available
    federal funds, giving due consideration to other potential sources of
    funds that could be available to effect their implementation. The
    Commission agreed to work with USBR on language which will give the
    local sponsor greater assurance of future year support. This will also
    encourage sponsors to go ahead with expanded facilities with greater
    expectation of out-year funding.
        CWC 1001--Water Recycling Research and Development Program.--In
    July 1999, a partnership of 18 water and wastewater agencies, the State
    Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    released a draft regional water recycling plan. This plan would connect
    recycling systems in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa and
    San Francisco counties. The regional recycled water system could
    generate an additional 125,000 acre-feet a year of recycled water by
    2010, and 240,000 acre-feet by 2020, according to the draft plan.
        Recognizing the very real need for substantial quantities of
    recycled and the reluctance of a few users to accept recycled water
    because of cost or water quality considerations, the Commission
    encourages the Bureau to ensure that adequate funding will be available
    in the near-term to conduct the necessary research and development
    studies to support the next generation of water recycling projects. The
    proponents of water recycling projects have demonstrated that there is
    a present need for further research and development of the capabilities
    of emerging treatment technology to improve the cost-effectiveness of
    water recycling and address potential threats to public health.
        Federal participation in a comprehensive water recycling research
    and development program would support the identification of more cost-
    effective, feasible water recycling projects and encourage project
    implementation at the local level.
        CWC 1108--Salton Sea Research Project.--Over the last several
    decades there has been concern over the increasing salinity of the
    Salton Sea and the impacts it has had on the Sea's ecology. Increasing
    salinity and other water quality issues are threatening biological
    values and recreational uses of the Sea. An additional concern is the
    rising water surface elevation. The raising water surface has flooded
    much of the developed area and the shoreline wildlife habitat used by a
    number of different bird species. The rising sea also has inundated
    much of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge at the south end of the
    sea. The full impacts of increasing salinity, the decline in other
    water quality attributes, and water surface elevation on endangered
    species that inhabit the sea are unknown, but studies are presently
    ongoing. In order to identify and evaluate possibilities for improving
    the condition of the sea, a program of additional planning, research,
    and environmental impact analysis are needed.
        The objectives of this program are to identify and evaluate
    alternatives to: improve water quality conditions; maintain quality
    habitat for migratory birds and endangered species; enhance the
    fishery; and protect human recreation values in and around the Salton
    Sea. Environmental scoping and scientific research of remediation
    alternatives currently is underway.
        CWC 1304--Colorado River Salinity Control Program-Basinwide.--The
    California Water Commission's Appropriation Committee recognizes the
    need to support federal funding levels that are required to meet the
    numeric criteria and standards that have been established for salinity
    on the Colorado River.
        The Commission supports fiscal year 2001 appropriations for Title I
    of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, which covers delivery
    of water to Mexico, pursuant to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty and
    Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
        CWC 1500 Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED).--The CALFED Bay-
    Delta Program is an open collaborative, state-federal-stakeholder
    effort seeking to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to restore
    ecosystem health and improve water management for beneficial uses of
    the Bay-Delta system. A comprehensive package must:
      --Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve
            ecological functions in the Bay-Delta to support sustainable
            populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species.
      --Provide good water quality for all beneficial uses.
      --Reduce the mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and current
            and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay-Delta
            system.
      --Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activities,
            water supply infrastructure, and the ecosystem from
            catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is an official part of the
    ongoing effort and needs to be adequately funded to allow the Service's
    experts to officially participate in the CALFED activities.
        CWC 1600--Ballast Water Control Programs (Invasive Species).--The
    National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 re-authorized and amended
    the Non indigenous Aquatic Nuisance and Prevention and Control Act of
    1990. The purpose of the legislation was to provide tools for the
    management and control of the spread of aquatic nuisance species, such
    as zebra mussels. Ballast water carried by ships is one of the major
    factors for the introduction of non indigenous species to North
    American waters. NISA re-authorized a mandatory ballast management
    program for the Great Lakes, an area already heavily infested with
    zebra mussels, and created an enforceable national ballast management
    program for all U.S. coastal regions. The U.S. Coast Guard is mandated
    under the Act to:
      --Develop and issue ballast water guidelines for all vessels entering
            U.S. waters.
      --Establish reporting and sampling procedures to monitor compliance.
      --Develop a mariner education and technical assistance program.
      --Conduct ecological and ballast water surveys of the Columbia River
            system.
      --Report to Congress by 1999 on progress on ballast water programs
            and on any intent to make regulations mandatory in any region.
        California has established a state policy aimed at preventing the
    introduction of aquatic nuisance species and pathogens via ballast
    water. In 1998, the Western Governors' Association adopted a resolution
    supporting actions to prevent the spread and introduction of
    undesirable aquatic and terrestrial species, and in 1999 established a
    State work group to collaborate with the Western Regional panel created
    by NISA. The California Water Commission supports full funding to
    implement the U.S. Coast Guard's ballast water regulations program.

                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the California Resources Agency Reclamation Board

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     President's     Board
              Corps of Engineers' Projects              budget    recommends
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS--SURVEYS:
        Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins           $1,500      $3,200
         Comprehensive Study.......................
        Lower Cache Creek, Yolo/Woodland and                 300         500
         Vicinity..................................
        San Joaquin River Basin:
          Corral Hollow Creek......................           65         140
          Frazier Creek............................           65         140
        Poso Creek (Kern)..........................          150         400
    PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN:
        American River Watershed...................        3,285       3,285
        Yuba River.................................          400         500
        South Sacramento County Streams............          200       3,000
        San Joaquin River Basin--Tule River........          400         400
    CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL:
        Sacramento River Bank Protection...........        3,300       5,000
        Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction.......        2,000       2,000
        Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction..          760         760
        West Sacramento Project....................        1,775       1,775
        American River Watershed (Levee                   10,000      13,000
         Improvements).............................
        American River Watershed (Folsom Dam               5,000      12,000
         Modifications)............................
        Kaweah River (Tulare)......................          500       3,000
        Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction.        1,485       1,485
        Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction.        1,665       1,665
        Merced County Streams......................          500  ..........
        San Joaquin Basin--Stockton Metropolitan     ...........      10,000
         (Section 211).............................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    THE RECLAMATION BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS

        The Reclamation Board, as the state agency which furnishes required
    local assurances for a majority of the federal flood control projects
    in California's Central Valley, respectfully submits this statement of
    support for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects.
        The Board in general supports the President's budget for federal
    flood control projects in the California Central Valley. The projects
    described below are of particular importance to the health, safety, and
    well-being of Central Valley residents and are especially important to
    the Board that they are started and/or kept on schedule.

                        GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS--SURVEYS

    Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study
        The study area includes the entire Sacramento River Basin and San
    Joaquin River Basin in Northern and Central California, respectively.
    Local, state and federal water resources agencies support a coordinated
    multiobjective investigation to balance flood damage reduction,
    environmental restoration, and other water resources proposed along the
    Rivers. The Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement was executed in February
    1998. An interim status report was released in April 1999. The Study is
    scheduled to be complete in September 2002. The Board recommends
    funding to continue this Study.

    Lower Cache Creek, Yolo/Woodland and Vicinity
        A feasibility study is evaluating increased levels of flood
    protection for the City of Woodland and the town of Yolo. Completion is
    scheduled for June 2004. The Board supports funding to continue the
    feasibility study.

    San Joaquin River Basin
        This survey, authorized in 1964, is a study of the San Joaquin
    River and its tributaries in regard to flood control measures. The
    following are interim study proposals.

    Corral Hollow Creek
        A reconnaissance study is being conducted to evaluate increased
    flood protection for the City of Tracy and major water conveyance and
    transportation facilities in San Joaquin County. The Board recommends
    funding to initiate the feasibility study.

    Frazier Creek
        A reconnaissance study has been initiated to evaluate flood control
    alternatives for the town of Strathmore in Tulare County. The Board
    recommends funding to initiate the feasibility study.

    Poso Creek (Kern)
        A reconnaissance study was conducted to evaluate increased flood
    protection for the town of McFarland in Kern County. A feasibility
    study will be initiated in July 2000. The Board recommends funding to
    continue the feasibility study.

                     PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

    American River Watershed
        The Sacramento urban area has only a 77-year level of protection
    from flooding by the American River. Although incremental actions have
    occurred, a long-term plan for high levels of protection must be
    developed and implemented. The Board recommends funding to continue
    long-term planning.

    Yuba River
        The Marysville and Yuba City areas have experienced seven major
    floods. A feasibility study was completed in April 1998. The Board
    recommends funding to continue preconstruction engineering and design.

    South Sacramento County Streams
        The completed feasibility report recommends levee and channel
    improvements to protect the urbanized area of south Sacramento. The
    Board recommends funding for continued PED.

    San Joaquin River Basin--Tule River
        The proposed enlargement of Success Dam on the Tule River will
    improve flood protection for the City of Porterville and surrounding
    community. The Board recommends funding to continue PED.

                             CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL

    Sacramento River Bank Protection
        The project, authorized in 1960, is a long-range federal/state
    effort to preserve the existing project levee system along 192 miles of
    the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River Bank Protection Project work
    consists of providing some form of bank stabilization at those points
    which are identified each year as the most critical. The Board
    recommends funding to continue construction.

    Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction
        An evaluation of about 240 miles of the Sacramento River Flood
    Control Project levees in the Sacramento Mid-Valley area identified
    about 20 miles of levees that are structurally deficient and require
    reconstruction. The Board recommends funding to continue construction.

    Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction
        This program will reconstruct 44 miles of the 134 miles of
    federally authorized levees that protect the Marysville/Yuba City area.
    The first of three construction contracts was awarded in July 1995.
    Flooding in 1997 demonstrated the need to extend the work sites, modify
    the design, and investigate new sites in the project area. The Board
    recommends funding to continue construction.

    West Sacramento Project
        The Board is the nonfederal sponsor for the West Sacramento Flood
    Control Project that was authorized for construction by WRDA 1992. The
    Board supports funding to complete construction.
    American River Watershed (Levee Improvements)
        The 5 miles of levee improvements were authorized in WRDA 1996 as
    part of the Common Elements Project. This Project consists of levee
    raising and strengthening that would be common to any long-term project
    selected for the American River. The Board recommends funding to
    complete construction.

    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Modifications)
        Modifications to the existing outlets of Folsom Dam to provide for
    earlier and higher flood releases were authorized in WRDA 1996. The
    Board recommends funding to initiate construction.

    Kaweah River
        This project would provide flood protection to the communities of
    Visalia, Farmersville, Tulare, Ivanhoe, and Goshen. The Board
    recommends funding to continue construction.

    Lower Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction
        An evaluation of about 295 miles of the Sacramento River Flood
    Control Project levees in the lower Sacramento Valley area identified
    about 47 miles of levees that are structurally deficient. The project
    includes reconstructing about 2 miles of these levees. The Board
    recommends funding to complete construction.

    Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction
        Federally authorized flood control levees in the upper Sacramento
    Area were evaluated and 12 miles were determined to be deficient and
    requiring reconstruction. The Board recommends funding to complete
    construction.

    Merced County Streams
        This project provides increased levels of flood protection to the
    Cities of Merced and Atwater and associated urban areas. The first
    phase of construction has been completed. The Board recommends funding
    to complete the General Evaluation Report.

    San Joaquin Basin-Stockton Metropolitan (Section 211)
        Construction of the flood control project has been completed by the
    local sponsors. The Board recommends funding to reimburse the federal
    cost-share portion.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the County of Santa Cruz

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the County
    of Santa Cruz, California, we are requesting $1.9 million from your
    committee in fiscal year 2001 for the Pajaro River at Watsonville Flood
    Control Project to be conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    While the President's budget request does not reflect this funding
    level, the Corps San Francisco District has recently indicated, based
    on recent changes to project, that $1.9 million for Preliminary
    Engineering and Design (PED) is its capability for this project in
    fiscal year 2001.
        The substantial difference in the Administration budget request of
    $600,000 and the present capability of the Corps of $1.9 million is due
    in large part to the recent agreement with the Corps to merge the flood
    control design measures along the Salsipuedes and Corralitos Creek
    tributaries with the Pajaro River mainstem project. This decision,
    which both the Corps and project sponsors agree has great merit,
    increases the size of the project by providing greater protection to
    those in the Pajaro River Basin.
        By way of background, areas of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties
    along the Pajaro River have been ravaged by flood events for decades. A
    1963 report by the Corps concluded that the Pajaro River levee system
    constructed in 1949 was ``inadequate,'' providing only 25-year
    protection along the Pajaro River and 7-year protection along two
    Pajaro tributaries, the Salsipuedes and Corralitos Creeks, instead of
    the 100-year protection that was intended. As a result, the Flood
    Control Act of 1966 authorized the Pajaro River Flood Control Project,
    as did the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. However, to date,
    no work on the project has been conducted pursuant to those
    authorizations.
        Over the years, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and other federal,
    state, and local agencies have spent vast sums to provide emergency
    assistance, disaster relief, and recovery services to the Santa Cruz
    and Monterey County areas in the wake of these damaging floods. The
    Corps alone, for example, has spent $18 million on flood response
    efforts between 1995 and 1998. Even more recently, storm events of the
    past several weeks have also resulted in flooding along the Salsipuedes
    and Corralitos. In addition, the numerous lawsuits that are filed in
    the wake of these floods--$50 million in the case of a 1995 flood--
    threaten to cripple local flood control agencies.
        It is for these reasons that we believe that work on the Pajaro
    River Flood Control project should begin as soon as possible. Residents
    of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties continue to live in fear that
    lives, businesses, and valuable agricultural land will be lost in a
    100-year flood from which they were to be protected from over 30 years
    ago. In addition to Santa Cruz County, area supporters of this project
    include: Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Clara Counties; the cities of
    Watsonville, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and Hollister; and the Santa Cruz
    County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Santa Clara
    Valley Water District, and San Benito Water District.
        Both the Corps and project sponsors believe that $1.9 million is
    necessary to proceed expeditiously with the project. We thank you for
    your consideration of this vital request and urge you and your
    colleagues to support the full amount when crafting your fiscal year
    2001 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Whitewater River Basin

        This project is the result of the Whitewater River Basin,
    California, Reconnaissance Report (USACE 1992). The project feasibility
    study is now being completed and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    (Corps) has identified an alternative with a high benefit/cost ratio.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the alternative and in
    a letter to the Corps, Los Angeles District, indicated ``that the
    future with project conditions will likely be better than the future
    without project conditions for the biological resources in the area.''
        The project will provide flood protection for the majority of the
    Thousand Palms unincorporated area in northern Coachella Valley.
        Flood protection below the Indio Hills in this alternative consists
    of three levees described below:
      --Transmission Corridor Levee: This levee would run in an east-
            southeasterly direction, starting just south of the mouth of
            Westwide Canyon and then following the transmission corridor to
            the western Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Preserve
            boundary.
      --Wind Corridor Levee: This levee would run along the western and
            southwestern boundary of the Preserve (on the south side of the
            wind corridor).
      --Cook Street Levee: This levee would run along the north side of
            Interstate 10 and across the southern boundary of the Preserve
            (the same as with the other alternatives).
        In addition to the right-of-way acreage, this project would require
    purchase of an additional 700 acres of floodway. This land (running
    along the upslope side of the levees) would be purchased by the Corps
    in order to prevent flow along the levees from damaging private
    property.
        In order to continue this project, we need two congressional
    actions this session. First, in the Water Resources Development Act of
    2000, language similar to the following needs to be added:
      --Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms), California
      --The project for flood control and incidental endangered species
            preservation, Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms),
            California, is authorized for construction, subject to a Chief
            of Engineers Report completed no later than December 31, 2000,
            at an estimated Federal cost of $16,900,000 and an estimated
            total cost of $26,000,000. The feasibility analysis will
            include high priority flood damage reduction and reduced future
            flood proofing costs for economic justification.
        Secondly, in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, language
    similar to the following needs to be added:
      --Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms), California
      --The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
            is directed to initiate Preconstruction Engineering and Design
            for the Whitewater River Basin (Thousand Palms), California
            Project. Funds of $500,000 are provided for this purpose.
        This project has full local support and your assistance in getting
    the project to the preliminary engineering and design phase is greatly
    appreciated.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District

        The Coachella Valley Water District, located in Riverside County,
    California, is the local sponsor of a federal project authorized in the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1999 under Section 212, Flood
    Mitigation and Riverine Restoration Pilot Program. Section 212 lists
    priority projects for the new program and the Coachella Valley,
    Riverside County, California Project is shown as Priority No. 2.
        The project as proposed would consist of developing a wetlands
    habitat area at the delta where the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
    (Whitewater River) feeds into the Salton Sea. It is anticipated that
    the project will widen the levees of the stormwater channel allowing a
    natural delta area to form. This would allow the hydraulic grade line
    to be lowered thereby alleviating sediment deposition in the area. This
    would lessen flood risk in the area as well as upstream.
        The habitat created by the project would provide a nesting area for
    several endangered species of migratory birds. The Salton Sea is a key
    stopover on the Pacific Flyway and this project would enhance the
    nesting habitat.
        Funds to conduct the studies required to implement this project
    have not yet been appropriated. The district is requesting that
    language be added to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill of 2000
    that will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin work in
    October 2000.
        Draft language for the bill would be as follows:
      --Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California
      --The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
            is directed to complete a reconnaissance study for Flood
            Mitigation and Riverine Restoration, Coachella Valley,
            Riverside County, California, as authorized in section 212 of
            the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. Funds of $100,000
            are provided for this purpose.
        Thank you in advance for your support on this important project.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District

                            CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

        Background.--In an average year, half of Santa Clara County's water
    supply is imported from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
    Delta estuary (Bay-Delta) watersheds through three water projects: The
    State Water Project, the federal Central Valley Project, and San
    Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Project. In conjunction with locally-developed
    water, this water supply supports 1.7 million residents in Santa Clara
    County and the most important high-tech center in the world. In average
    to wet years, there is enough water to meet the county's long-term
    needs. In dry years, however, the county could face a water supply
    shortage of as much as 100,000 acre-feet per year, or roughly 20
    percent of the expected demand. In addition to shortages due to
    hydrologic variations, the county's imported supplies have been reduced
    due to regulatory restrictions placed on the operation of the state and
    federal water projects.
        There are also water quality problems associated with using Bay-
    Delta water as a drinking water supply. Organic materials and
    pollutants discharged into the Delta, together with salt water mixing
    in from San Francisco Bay, have the potential to create disinfection-
    by-products that are carcinogenic and pose reproductive health
    concerns.
        Santa Clara County's imported supplies are also vulnerable to
    extended outages due to catastrophic failures such as major earthquakes
    and flooding. As demonstrated by the 1997 flooding in Central Valley,
    the levee systems can fail and the water quality at the water project
    intakes in the Delta can be degraded to such an extent that the
    projects cannot pump from the Delta.
        Project Synopsis.--The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is an
    unprecedented, cooperative effort among federal, state, and local
    agencies to restore the Bay-Delta. With input from urban, agricultural,
    environmental, fishing, and business interests, and the general public,
    CALFED is developing a comprehensive, long-term plan to address
    ecosystem and water management issues in the Bay-Delta.
        Restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem is important not only because of
    its significance as an environmental resource, but also because failing
    to do so will stall efforts to improve water supply reliability and
    water quality for millions of Californians and the state's $700 billion
    economy and job base.
        Although the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a long-range planning
    process, ecosystem restoration is an immediate priority because of the
    substantial lead time needed to produce ecological benefits. Species in
    the Bay-Delta continue to be proposed for listing under the Endangered
    Species Act. Recovery efforts cannot begin until adequate funding
    becomes available to implement the array of critical ecosystem
    restoration and water quality projects.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$60 million was authorized in fiscal
    year 2000 for CALFED Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration and non-ecosystem
    improvements.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support the $60 million included in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget to finance Stage 1
    implementation, including ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta,
    critical improvements in water supply and water quality, and levee
    stability.

                            GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

        Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
    through a highly developed area of San Jose, California. A major flood
    would damage homes and businesses in the heart of Silicon Valley.
    Historically, the river has flooded downtown San Jose and Alviso
    community. According to the 1991 General Design Memorandum, estimated
    damages from a 1 percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over
    $526 million. The Guadalupe River overflowed in February 1986, January
    1995, and March 1995, damaging homes and businesses in the St. John and
    Pleasant Street areas of downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains
    resulted in breakouts along the river that flooded approximately 300
    homes and business.
        Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the local community requested that the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reactivate its earlier study.
    Since 1972, substantial technical and financial assistance have been
    provided by the local community through the Santa Clara Valley Water
    District in an effort to accelerate the project's completion. To date,
    more than $85.8 million in local funds have been spent on planning,
    design, land purchases, and construction in the Corps' project reach.
        The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction
    under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design
    Memorandum was completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was
    executed in March 1992, the General Design Memorandum was revised in
    1993, construction of the first phase of the project was completed in
    August 1994, construction of the second phase was completed in August
    1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental
    concerns.
        To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of
    flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental
    impacts, and project maintenance costs, a multi-agency ``Guadalupe
    Flood Control Project Collaborative'' was created in 1997. A key
    outcome of the collaborative process was the signing of the Dispute
    Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which resolved major mitigation issues
    and allowed the project to proceed. Completion of the last phase of
    flood protection construction is estimated in 2002 and is dependant on
    timely federal funding and continuing successful mitigation issue
    resolution.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$5 million was authorized in fiscal year
    2000 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
    continue construction to provide critical flood protection for downtown
    San Jose and the community of Alviso, it is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $10.5
    million, in addition to the $3.5 million in the Administration's fiscal
    year 2001 budget for a total of $14 million to continue the
    construction and mitigation work on the Guadalupe River Flood
    Protection Project.

                         UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER PROJECT

        Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
    flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
    California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has
    flooded the central district and southern areas of San Jose. According
    to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study, severe
    flooding in the upper Guadalupe River's densely populated residential
    floodplain south of Interstate 280 would result from a 100-year
    flooding event and potentially cause $280 million in damages.
        The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
    flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed
    in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
    and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
    in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
    and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
    parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
        Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
    (District) requested the Corps to reactivate its earlier study. From
    1971 to 1980, the Corps established the economic feasibility and
    federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between Interstate 880 and
    Interstate 280. Following the 1982 and 1983 floods, the District
    requested that the Corps reopen its study of the upper Guadalupe River
    upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a reconnaissance study
    in November 1989, which established an economically justifiable
    solution for flood protection in this reach. The report recommended
    proceeding to the feasibility study phase, which began in 1990. In
    January 1997, the Corps determined that the National Economic
    Development Plan would be a 2 percent or 50-year level of flood
    protection rather than the 1 percent or 100-year level. The District
    strongly emphasized overriding the National Economic Development Plan
    determination, providing compelling reasons for using the higher 1
    percent or 100-year level of protection. In 1998, the Acting Secretary
    of the Army did not concur to change the basis of cost sharing from the
    National Economic Development Plan 50-year plan to the locally
    preferred 100-year plan, resulting in a project that will provide less
    flood protection, and therefore, be unable to reduce flood insurance
    requirements and reimbursements, as well as eliminate recreational
    benefits and increase environmental impacts. Based on Congressional
    delegation requests, the Assistant Secretary of the Army has directed
    the Corps to revise the Chief's Report to reflect more significant
    federal responsibility. The Corps feasibility study determined the cost
    of the locally preferred 100-year plan is $153 million and the Corps
    National Economic Development Plan 50-year plan is $98 million. The
    District has requested that the costs of providing 50-year and 100-year
    flood protection be analyzed again during the preconstruction
    engineering design phase for the determination of the National Economic
    Development Plan. The federal cost share has yet to be determined.
    Project cost sharing will be reconsidered for further federal
    responsibility in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The
    project was approved for construction by the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999 (Section 101).
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$300,000 was authorized in fiscal year
    2000 for the Upper Guadalupe River Project to proceed with
    preconstruction engineering and design.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
    of flood damage from the upper Guadalupe River and the need to continue
    preconstruction engineering and design, it is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support the $500,000 in the Administration's
    fiscal year 2001 budget for the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection
    Project.

                         UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK PROJECT

        Background.--The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in
    northeast Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the
    San Francisco Bay. In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in
    1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1998. The January 1995 flood damaged
    a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The
    February 1998 flood also damaged many homes, businesses, and surface
    streets.
        The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote
    Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of
    San Jose and Milpitas. The floodplain is completely urbanized;
    undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and
    a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers' (Corps) 1995 reconnaissance report, 4,300 buildings in
    the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in the flood prone
    area, 1,900 of which will have water entering the first floor. The
    estimated damages from a 1 percent or 100-year flood exceed $121
    million.
        Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
    Flood Prevention Act (PL 83-566), the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service completed an economic feasibility study (watershed plan) for
    constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia
    Creek. Following the 1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Bill, the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed plan stalled due to
    the very high ratio of potential urban development flood damage
    compared to agricultural damage in the project area.
        In January 1993 the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)
    requested the Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994
    fiscal year while the Natural Resources Conservation Service plan was
    on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and
    the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 1994. The
    reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the
    recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The
    feasibility study, initiated in February 1998, is scheduled for
    completion in 2002.
        Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
    District is intending to submit a Section 104 application to the Corps
    for advance approval to construct a portion of the project. The advance
    construction would be for a 2,500 -foot long section of bypass channel
    between Coyote Creek and King Road. If approved, the District would
    commence construction on this portion of the project in 2001.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$250,000 was authorized in fiscal year
    2000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
    project investigation.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
    of flood damage from the Upper Penitencia Creek and the need to proceed
    with the feasibility study, it is requested that the Congressional
    Committee support $300,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2001
    Budget for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project.

                              LLAGAS CREEK PROJECT

        Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
    Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
    Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
    1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
    The 1997 and 1998 floods damaged many homes, businesses, and a
    recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan Hill and San
    Martin. These are areas where flood protection is proposed. Overall,
    the proposed project will protect the floodplain from a 1 percent flood
    affecting more than 1,100 residential buildings, 500 commercial
    buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.
        Project Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
    Flood Prevention Act (PL-566), the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982 for
    constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Llagas Creek. The
    Natural Resources Conservation Service completed construction of the
    last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing
    protection to the project area in Gilroy. The Santa Clara Valley Water
    District (District) is currently updating the 1982 environmental
    assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in
    Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to
    protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the
    creek's habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current
    environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include
    the presence of additional endangered species including the red-legged
    frog and steelhead, listing of the area as probable critical habitat
    for steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat than were considered
    in 1982.
        Until recently, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
    traditional PL-566 federal project funding agreement with the Natural
    Resources Conservation Service paying for channel improvements and the
    District paying local costs including utility relocation, bridge
    construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to a steady decrease
    since 1985 of annual PL-566 appropriations, the Llagas Creek Project
    has not received adequate funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture
    to complete the PL-566 project. To remedy this situation, the District
    worked with congressional representatives to transfer the construction
    authority from the Department of Agriculture to the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) under the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
    (Section 501). An initial budget of $250,000 was appropriated for the
    Corps planning and design.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--An initial $250,000 was appropriated in
    fiscal year 2000.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
    of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support the addition of $760,000 to the
    $240,000 included in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget, for
    a total of $1 million for planning and design for the Llagas Creek
    Project.

               SANTA CLARA BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

        Background.--The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative
    (Initiative) was spearheaded in 1996 by the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San
    Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for the purpose of
    establishing a practical management process to oversee the effort to
    balance natural systems with urban development in the Santa Clara
    Basin. Recognizing the importance of quality of life and diversity, the
    Initiative's goal is to establish an on-going process of managing
    activities and natural processes to maximize benefits and minimize
    adverse environmental impacts for the benefit of the community as a
    whole. The Santa Clara Basin watershed includes areas in northern Santa
    Clara County which drain into San Francisco Bay, and portions of
    Alameda and San Mateo counties.
        The Initiative addresses the integration of activities within the
    watershed while focusing on water quality protection. Some of the
    specific issues being addressed include land use and development, water
    supply, flood management, environmental restoration, and the regulatory
    process.
        The Santa Clara Valley Water District is one of many stakeholders
    who continue to demonstrate commitment to this multi-year effort by
    providing funds and actively participating with the Initiative Core and
    Working Groups. Providing direction, the Core Group includes
    representatives of the business community, local government,
    environmental groups, agriculture, resource and regulatory agencies,
    and other interested stakeholders.
        The 4-year planning phase began in 1998 and will result in the
    development of four major reports focused on the effective management
    of resources to improve and protect water quality and the aquatic
    habitat of the Santa Clara Basin. The first of the four reports will be
    the Watershed Characteristics Report which will provide a description
    of the physical and political characteristics of the Santa Clara Basin.
    This report will be followed by the Watershed Assessment Report, a
    preliminary assessment of the watershed's condition based on available
    data. The Watershed Characteristics and Assessment Reports, are
    scheduled for public review in April and December 2000 respectively,
    will provide a basis for the development of the Alternatives Watershed
    Management Report which will present alternatives to managing the
    watershed. The target date for public review of the Alternatives
    Watershed Management Report is in June 2001. The final product of the
    planning phase will be a comprehensive Watershed Action Plan,
    incorporating stakeholder input and extensive public outreach, intended
    to guide watershed activities as the Initiative moves into its
    implementation phase.
        Section 503 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, authorizes
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide technical and
    planning assistance in the development of a watershed plan for the
    Santa Clara Valley. The Initiative has progressed to the point where
    the Corps' participation is now necessary for continuing the watershed
    assessment and addressing pressing regulatory issues. Due to inadequate
    funding of the Section 503 program in recent years, the District has
    requested the Corps to be included in the Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
    Restoration Program.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation was authorized
    in fiscal year 2000 for the Initiative.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--In order to continue the
    Initiative's progress to date, it is requested that the Congressional
    Committee support $300,000 in funding from the Section 206 Aquatic
    Ecosystem Restoration Program to cost-share Initiative work, including
    the preparation of the Alternatives Watershed Management Report, the
    Watershed Action Plan, and the conduct of stakeholder meetings.

        COYOTE/BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT, BERRYESSA CREEK PROJECT ELEMENT

        Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
    Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
    Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
    drains a large area in the City of Milpitas and a portion of San Jose.
    At 320 square miles, the Coyote Creek Watershed is the largest
    watershed in Santa Clara County, encompassing all of Milpitas and
    portions of San Jose and Morgan Hill.
        On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every four years. The most
    recent flood in 1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and
    automobiles. The proposed project on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras
    Boulevard to Old Piedmont Road, will protect portions of the Cities of
    San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely urbanized with a mix
    of residential and commercial development. Based on the Army Corps of
    Engineers 1993 draft General design Memorandum, a 1 percent or 100-year
    flood could potentially result in damages of $52 million with depths of
    up to three feet.
        Study Synopsis.--In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water
    District (District) applied for federal assistance for flood protection
    projects under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water
    Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the
    Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a combined Coyote
    Creek /Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the Cities of
    Milpitas and San Jose.
        The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The
    Berryessa Creek Project element proposed in the Corps' 1987 feasibility
    report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. The Corps
    and the District are preparing a General Reevaluation Report which
    involves reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local
    community and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will
    include setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas
    (minimizing the use of concrete), revegetation mitigation to protect
    the riparian environment, and sediment control structures to limit
    turbidity and protect water quality. The project will also accommodate
    the City of Milpitas' adopted trail master plan. Estimated total costs
    of the General Reevaluation Report work are $3.5 million to be
    completed in fiscal year 2002.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation received in
    fiscal year 2000.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based on the continuing
    threat of significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to
    continue with the General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $2.3 million
    for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
    Berryessa Creek Project.

                     COYOTE CREEK NEAR ROCK SPRINGS PROJECT

        Background.--Coyote Creek flows through the cities of Milpitas and
    San Jose. The Rock Springs neighborhood is upstream of the recently
    completed, federally-supported flood protection works on Coyote Creek.
    The neighborhood suffered severe damages to approximately 25 apartment
    buildings in January 1997 when Coyote Creek flooded in the vicinity of
    the Rock Springs neighborhood. This event was estimated to be a 15-year
    event.
        Status.--In February 1999, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
    (District) initiated discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    (Corps) for a Section 205 study to reduce flood damage in Rock Springs
    neighborhood. A cost-sharing agreement for the Section 205 Small
    Projects Program $1.16 million three-year feasibility study was signed
    by the Corps and the District on January 4, 2000. Funding is a 50/50
    cost share.
    Project Timeline
      --District requested federal assistance from Corps under Section
            205--Feb. 1999
      --Feasibility cost sharing agreement signed--Jan. 2000
      --Public Workshop--Jun. 2000
      --Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--Mar.
            2002
      --Final Detailed Project Report/EIS--July 2002
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation was requested
    in fiscal year 2000.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--In order to continue the
    Coyote Creek near Rock Springs Project Feasibility Study, it is
    requested that the Congressional Committee support an earmark of
    $200,000 within the Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects Program
    for fiscal year 2001. This will provide the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers fiscal year 2001 share of the Feasibility Study costs.

                             PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED

        Background.--Pajaro River flows into the Pacific Ocean at Monterey
    Bay, about 75 miles south of San Francisco. The drainage area
    encompasses 1,300 square miles in Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey,
    and Santa Cruz counties. Potential flood damage reduction solutions
    will require cooperation between four counties and four water/flood
    management districts. There is critical habitat for endangered wildlife
    and fisheries throughout the basin. Six separate flood events have
    occurred on the Pajaro River in the past half century. Severe property
    damage in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resulted from floods in
    1995, 1997, and 1998. Recent flood events have resulted in litigation
    claims for damages approaching $50 million. $20 Million in U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood fight funds have been expended in
    recent years.
        Status.--Two separate Corps activities are taking place in the
    watershed. The first activity is a Corps reconnaissance study
    authorized by a House Resolution in May 1996 to address the need for
    flood protection and water quality improvements, ecosystem restoration,
    and other related issues. The second activity is a General Revaluation
    Report initiated in response to claims by Santa Cruz and Monterey
    Counties that the 13 mile levee project constructed in 1949 through
    agricultural areas and the city of Watsonville is deficient. The
    reconnaissance study on the entire watershed has not been initiated due
    to priorities at the San Francisco District of the Corps. Watershed
    Stakeholders have pledged to work cooperatively to support the Corps'
    reconnaissance study, which will provide information to help reach an
    understanding and agreement about the background and facts of the
    watershed situation. Legislation passed by the State of California
    (Assembly Bill 807) titled ``The Pajaro River Watershed Flood
    Prevention Authority Act'' mandates that a Joint Powers Authority be
    formed by June 30, 2000. The purpose of the Joint Powers Authority is
    ``to provide the leadership necessary to . . . ensure the human,
    economic, and environmental resources of the watershed are preserved,
    protected, and enhanced in terms of watershed management and flood
    protection. The Joint Powers Authority will consist of representatives
    from the Counties of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz,
    Zone 7 Flood Control District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency,
    San Benito County Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water
    District.
        Funding Issues.--Although the Corps received fiscal year 2000
    federal appropriation of $100,000 for initiation of Reconnaissance
    Study, the appropriation was held while Corps staff worked on the
    Pajaro River General Revaluation Report.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$100,000 was authorized in fiscal year
    2000 for the Pajaro Watershed Reconnaissance Study.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support the Administration's fiscal year 2001
    budget $600,000 for continuation of the General Revaluation Report. It
    is also requested that the committee support $50,000 for the
    Reconnaissance Study of the Pajaro River Watershed.

      CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF SAN LUIS UNIT
                              JOINT USE FACILITIES

        Background.--The San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project is
    located by the city of Los Banos on the west side of the San Joaquin
    Valley. This unit originates from San Luis Reservoir and extends 102
    miles south, spanning Fresno, Kings, and Merced counties. The San Luis
    Unit is an integral part of the Central Valley Project, delivering
    water and power supplies from the American, Shasta and Trinity rivers
    to users located in the service area.
        Specific facilities of the San Luis Unit are owned, operated, and
    maintained jointly with the state of California. These Joint Use
    Facilities consist of O'Neill Dam and Forebay, San Luis Dam and
    Reservoir, San Luis Pumping-Generating Plant, Dos Amigos Pumping Plant,
    Los Banos and Little Panoche reservoirs, and the San Luis Canal. These
    facilities are essential to the State Water Project's ability to serve
    numerous agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users in the San
    Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Funding for the Joint Use
    Facilities are divided to 55 percent state and 45 percent federal,
    under provisions of Federal-State Contract No. 14-06-200-9755, December
    31, 1961.
        Within the Central Valley Project, the Joint Use Facilities of the
    San Luis Unit are an important link to the San Felipe Division, which
    serves as the largest source of water imported into the Santa Clara
    Valley Water District (District) and the San Benito County Water
    District. All of the Central Valley Project water delivered through the
    San Felipe Division must be pumped through O'Neill Dam and Forebay and
    San Luis Dam and Reservoir.
        Project Synopsis.--Annual invoices from the state of California for
    the federal share of operation and maintenance costs average
    approximately $10 million. For several years, federal funding was
    inadequate to cover the pro-rated federal share of Joint Use Facility
    costs. The District intervened by using the contributed Funds Act to
    direct a $20 million advance payment of its Central Valley Project
    capital costs toward an operations and maintenance payment.
        As a contractor of both the Central Valley Project and the State
    Water Project, the District hopes to expediently resolve the issue of
    unreimbursed operations and maintenance expenses. These expenses are
    carried by the state without interest, seriously impairing the cash
    flow and financial management of the State Water Project.
        In fiscal year 1998, an agreement was reached between the U.S.
    Bureau of Reclamation and project contractors to provide direct funding
    for project conveyance and pumping facilities, reducing annual
    appropriations from approximately $10 million to $3.5 million.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$4.525 million was authorized in fiscal
    year 2000 for operations and maintenance of the San Luis Joint Use
    Facilities.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon past
    expenditures, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support
    $4.551 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget to
    continue operations and maintenance of the San Luis Unit Joint Use
    Facilities.

      SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM (SOUTH BAY WATER
                               RECYCLING PROGRAM)

        Background.--The San Jose Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Program,
    also known as the South Bay Water Recycling Program, will allow the
    city of San Jose and its tributary agencies of the San Jose /Santa
    Clara Water Pollution Control Plant to protect endangered species
    habitat, meet receiving water quality standards, supplement Santa Clara
    County water supplies, and comply with a mandate from the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency and the California Water Resources
    Control Board to reduce wastewater discharges into San Francisco Bay.
        The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is participating
    with the city of San Jose in the development of the reclamation and
    reuse program. Toward this end, the District is assisting the city of
    San Jose by providing financial support and technical assistance, and
    acting as a liaison for water retailers. The design, construction,
    construction administration, and inspection of the program's
    transmission pipeline and Milpitas 1A Pipeline was performed by the
    District under contract to the city of San Jose.
        The city of San Jose is the program sponsor for Phase 1, consisting
    of almost 60 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines, pump
    stations, and reservoirs. Completed at a cost of $140 million, Phase 1
    peak operation occurred in October 1999 with actual deliveries of 10
    million gallons per day of recycled, nonpotable water.
        Phase 2 planning is now underway. A study, to be completed in 2000
    at a cost of approximately $3.5 million, will provide a master plan for
    the years 2010 and 2020. Phase 2's near-term objective is to increase
    deliveries by the year 2010 to 15,000 acre-feet per year.
        In 1992, PL 102-575 authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to work
    with the city of San Jose and the District to plan, design, and build
    demonstration and permanent facilities for reclaiming and reusing water
    in the San Jose metropolitan service area. The city of San Jose reached
    an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to cover 25 percent of
    Phase 1's costs, or approximately $35 million; however, federal
    appropriations have not reached the authorized amount. To date, the
    program has received $14.6 million of the $35 million authorization.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--$3 million was authorized in fiscal year
    2000 for project construction.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $6.5
    million, in addition to the $3.5 million included in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget, for a total of $10 million to
    fund the Phase 2 study and continue Phase 1 work.

      SAN FRANCISCO AREA WATER RECLAMATION STUDY (BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER
                               RECYCLING PROGRAM)

        Background.--The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is
    participating with 16 Bay Area water and wastewater agencies,
    California Department of Water Resources, and U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation to develop master plan for regional water recycling
    program. Study identifies regional markets and tools for maximizing Bay
    Area water recycling. 125,000 acre-feet per year of potable water
    potentially available for other uses by 2010, and 210,000 acre-feet per
    year potentially available by 2040.
        Regional effort between water and wastewater agencies in five
    counties surrounding San Francisco Bay, including the cities of San
    Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland.
        Status.--Step 1, completed in 1996, studied feasibility of
    transferring recycled water from San Francisco Bay Area to three nearby
    agricultural regions. Step 2, completed in September 1999, consisted of
    a regional water recycling master plan to maximize local recycling
    programs with an estimated cost of $3 million to $5 million. Funding
    for the master plan is available from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    and local agencies, including in-kind services.
        Fiscal year 2000 Funding.--No federal appropriation was authorized
    in fiscal year 2000.
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $1 million
    to the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget to follow up on actions
    identified in the master plan, and to begin Environmental Impact
    Report/Environmental Impact Statement preparation for Project Set 1 as
    identified in the master plan (includes South Bay Water Recycling,
    South County Regional Wastewater Authority, and Sunnyvale).
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the City of Oceanside, California

        Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: the City of
    Oceanside respectfully requests an appropriation of $502,325 for the
    City's Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
    Development Project. We would greatly appreciate your assistance in
    funding this important facility.
        The existing Mission Basin Groundwater Desalting Facility has been
    an unqualified success. Since its completion in 1994, the facility has
    produced 2 million gallons per day of superior-quality water from
    previously unusable brackish groundwater. This represents seven percent
    of the City's daily water supply needs--enough water to serve 4,000
    Oceanside households. As our only water source that does not cross
    major earthquake fault lines, it is also a critically-needed emergency
    water supply.
        The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
    Development Project will be of genuine local, regional and state-wide
    benefit. It will expand the capacity of the facility to 6.2 million
    gallons per day, serving twenty-two percent of Oceanside residents. By
    reducing our dependence on imported water from the Colorado River and
    the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Oceanside will be part of the
    solution to California's water supply dilemma. Closer to home, the
    project will significantly increase the reliability of our water
    supply--an essential ingredient in the long-term health of our regional
    economy. When the facility expansion becomes a demonstrable success,
    the City will explore the use of reclaimed water injected into the
    groundwater basin to increase its capacity to 20 million gallons per
    day.
        The cost of the expansion is estimated at $11,600,000. The
    authorization for this project included funding for twenty-five percent
    of 3 million gallons per day of the 4.3 million gallons per day
    expansion. It is estimated that the 3 million gallons per day expansion
    will cost $8.1 million. Oceanside has received $1.5 million to date for
    this project and is requesting the residual federal cost share under
    the provisions of the authorization. This remaining funding increment
    of $502,325 from the Bureau of Reclamation will enable the City to
    complete the project while reducing the financial impact on rate
    payers, and will advance the City towards our ultimate goal of
    producing 20 million gallons per day. The funding will create a ripple
    effect in Southern California and beyond by demonstrating the efficient
    use of groundwater desalting technology and stimulating other agencies
    to develop their own projects. Ultimately, appropriating funds to the
    City of Oceanside will provide some much-needed relief to the water
    supply crisis affecting the entire Southwestern United States.
    Construction is due to begin in mid-2000, and to be complete in 2002.
        The City of Oceanside respectfully requests the residual federal
    cost share of $502,325 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriation bill for this project. Thank you for your
    consideration of this request.

                          APPROPRIATION REQUEST--2001

        The City of Oceanside is requesting an appropriation of $502,325 in
    the Fiscal Year 2001 budget for the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater
    Desalting Research and Development Project. This amount is the
    remaining funding increment that has already been authorized.
        Construction cost estimate is $11,600,000.
        Benefits to the City of Oceanside and the Southern California
    Region include the following:
      --Provides an emergency water supply for the City and the Camp
            Pendleton Marine Corps Base.
      --Creates a highly reliable water supply, which is critical to the
            region's long-term economic health and its ability to attract
            and retain businesses.
      --Provides benefits to California and the rest of the nation by
            reducing the region's demand for imported water from the
            Colorado River and the environmentally sensitive Sacramento-San
            Joaquin River Delta.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The City of Oceanside owns and operates a 2 million-gallon-per-day
    facility that recovers and desalts brackish groundwater from the San
    Luis Rey Mission Groundwater Basin. Oceanside proposes to expand this
    facility to 6.3 million gallons per day.
        Water from the Mission Basin was previously considered unusable as
    a municipal water source due to its high salinity and mineral content.
        The current desalting facility produces 2,200 acre-feet of potable
    water annually--enough water to meet the annual needs of 4,000
    households.
        Oceanside's local water supply development has received support
    from many agencies including the State of California, which loaned the
    City $5 million to build the initial small-scale demonstration project.
        proposed brackish groundwater desalting and development project
        The project will increase production capacity of the existing
    desalting facility to 6.3 million gallons per day, or 6,400 acre-feet
    per year. This new water supply will be sufficient to meet 22 percent
    of the City's average annual water supply needs.
        The project will benefit Oceanside and the larger San Diego region
    by creating a local, highly reliable water supply. Unlike imported
    water, this local water supply does not cross major earthquake fault
    lines to reach consumers. A reliable water supply is critical to the
    region's long-term economic health, and its ability to attract and
    retain businesses.
        The project will also serve as a model for other groundwater
    desalting projects in San Diego County and elsewhere in Southern
    California. The proposed expansion involves the use of Energy Saving
    Polyamide (ESPA) reverse osmosis membrane elements. The membranes offer
    significant savings in both investment and operation expenses that
    exceed other membrane elements currently on the market.
        The Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and
    Development Project will use reverse osmosis technology to produce
    potable water of higher quality than the City's imported water supply.
        The reverse osmosis process involves pumping water at high pressure
    through semi-permeable membranes. Membrane pores are large enough to
    let water molecules through, but small enough to remove salts, metals,
    and other dissolved impurities.
        Groundwater pumped from the basin is treated first with chemicals
    to optimize membrane operations, then filtered.
        The pretreated water then is pumped through the reverse osmosis
    membranes to remove all but the smallest molecular compounds. Dissolved
    minerals and other impurities removed by the reverse osmosis membranes
    are discharged to the City's ocean outfall for disposal.
        The water receives additional chemical treatment to meet drinking
    water standards before it is added to the City's potable water system.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
                             Conservation District

      RESOLUTION NO. F2000-9 SUPPORTING FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FLOOD
                     CONTROL PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

        WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives Committee on
    Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the
    United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development are holding hearings to consider
    appropriations for Flood Control and Reclamation Projects for fiscal
    year 2001 and have requested written testimony to be submitted to the
    committees prior to March 31, 2000; and
        WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
    District supports the completion of construction for the project to
    reduce flooding and bank destruction along the Santa Ana River at Norco
    Bluffs, California; the initiation of design efforts for a flood
    control project on Murrieta Creek; the completion of construction
    activities on the Gunnerson Pond Environmental Restoration project; the
    initiation of a flood control feasibility study for the San Jacinto
    River; the continuation of construction activities on the Santa Ana
    River Mainstem project; and the continuation of construction activities
    at Prado Dam; now, therefore,
        BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County
    Flood Control and Water Conservation District in regular session
    assembled on March 7, 2000, that they support appropriations by
    Congress for fiscal year 2001 for the following projects:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    Santa Ana River at Norco Bluffs/Construction--General...      $4,000,000
    Murrieta Creek/Preconstruction Engineering & Design.....       1,000,000
    Lake Elsinore--Gunnerson Pond/Section 1135 Environmental
        Restoration.........................................       1,400,000
    San Jacinto River/Feasibility Study-Flood Control.......         225,000
    Santa Ana River Mainstem/Construction--General..........       8,000,000
    Prado Dam/Construction--General.........................      10,000,000
    San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds
        (Riverside County) Special Area Management Plan
        (SAMP)..............................................       2,000,000

        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager-Chief Engineer is
    directed to distribute certified copies of this resolution to the
    Secretary of the Army, Members of the House of Representatives
    Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Energy and Water
    Development, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development, and the District's Congressional
    Delegation--Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressmen
    Ron Packard and Ken Calvert, and Congresswoman Mary Bono.

              MURRIETA CREEK--PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & DESIGN

        Murrieta Creek poses a severe flood threat to the cities of
    Murrieta and Temecula. Over $10 million in damages was experienced in
    the two cities as a result of Murrieta Creek flooding in 1993. The 1997
    Energy and Water Appropriations Act dedicated $100,000 to conducting a
    Reconnaissance Study of watershed management in the Santa Margarita
    Watershed ``including flood control, environmental restoration,
    stormwater retention, water conservation and supply, and related
    purposes''. The study effort was initiated in April 1997 and completed
    the following December. The Reconnaissance Study identified a Federal
    interest in flood control on the Murrieta sub-basin, and recommended
    moving forward with a detailed feasibility study for a flood control
    project on Murrieta Creek. Efforts on the Feasibility Study began in
    April 1998, and are on schedule for completion in August 2000.
        The District will be requesting a ``Conditional Authorization'' of
    the project through inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act
    Bill of 2000 (WRDA 2000). The project's authorization would be
    contingent upon the receipt of a favorable Chief's report by December
    31, 2000. The District is confident of the Corps completing the
    Murrieta Creek Feasibility Study in August 2000 and issuing a favorable
    Chief's Report by the end of the calendar year. The Corps will then be
    in a position to initiate the detailed engineering design necessary to
    develop construction plans and specifications for a Murrieta Creek
    Flood Control Project. The District respectfully requests that the
    Committee support an fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $1,000,000 for
    the Corps to initiate an expedited Preconstruction Engineering and
    Design phase for a Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project.

                        SANTA ANA RIVER AT NORCO BLUFFS

        The purpose of this project is to protect a susceptible 65 to 80-
    foot high bluff in the City of Norco from further retreat into a
    residential neighborhood. Severe bank sloughing results when flood
    flows within the Santa Ana River attack the toe of the bluffs. The
    floods of January and February 1969 undermined the toe of the bluff,
    causing severe bank sloughing. Although 50 to 60 feet of the bluff
    retreated to the south, and no improvements were lost, the threat to
    improvements from future river actions became apparent. The floods of
    1978 and 1980 impinged further, causing another 30 to 40 feet of bluff
    retreat, and the loss of one single family residence.
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1996, at Section 101b (4),
    provided for the authorization of the project based on a Chief's Report
    dated December 23, 1996 that recommends the project for construction.
    Design of the project was completed by the Corps in early 1999, and the
    first of two phases of construction contracts began in May 1999. The
    ``Phase 1'' contract is scheduled for completion in June 2000. Certain
    geotechnical/safety design considerations, coupled with extensive
    efforts required to adequately de-water the site for construction of
    the toe protection structure have resulted in an increased cost for the
    overall project. We, therefore, are now seeking the Committee's
    approval of supplemental funding in the amount of $4,000,000 in fiscal
    year 2001 for completion of construction of the Santa Ana River at
    Norco Bluffs Bank Stabilization Project. The Riverside County Flood
    Control and Water Conservation District is fully prepared to meet its
    cost-sharing obligation on this project.

                GUNNERSON POND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT

        Gunnerson Pond is a Section 1135 environmental restoration project
    that will restore approximately 60 acres of degraded riparian and
    woodland area adjacent to the Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel, a Section
    205 project in the City of Lake Elsinore, completed in 1994. The
    project would enable both floodwater from Lake Elsinore and discharge
    from a nearby wastewater treatment plant to flow into Gunnerson Pond,
    thereby creating a permanent wetland. Such a wetland would serve to
    enhance and develop waterfowl habitat, endangered species habitat,
    emergent wetlands vegetation, and riparian vegetation.
        The Reconnaissance phase of the project was completed with the
    approval, in July of 1996, of the Project Restoration Plan at the
    Washington level of the Corps. In fiscal year 1998 the project received
    a Federal appropriation in the amount of $2.1 million to fully fund the
    Feasibility Study, and to initiate engineering design for the project.
    The feasibility phase (Project Modification Report) of the project was
    completed in April of 1998. In fiscal year 1999 we sought a $1,500,000
    Federal appropriation for Gunnerson Pond from available Section 1135
    funds to provide the Federal funding necessary to complete final plans
    and specifications, to provide for an early Federal contribution toward
    land acquisition, and to partially fund construction. The design of the
    project is essentially complete. The Corps anticipates advertising for
    construction bids in May 2000, with a construction start in September
    2000. The District respectfully requests the Committee's support of an
    fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $1,400,000 to fully fund the Federal
    share (75 percent) of the overall project.

    SAN JACINTO & SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT
                                      PLAN

        The County of Riverside recognizes the interdependence between the
    region's future transportation, habitat, open space, and land-use/
    housing needs. In 1999, work was initiated on Riverside County's
    Integrated Planning program (RCIP) to determine how best to balance
    these factors. The plan will create regional conservation and
    development plans that protect entire communities of native plants and
    animals while streamlining the process for compatible economic
    development in other areas. The major elements of the plan include
    water resource identification, multi-species planning, land use, and
    transportation.
        Water resources are the critical element of any regional planning
    effort. The County of Riverside has therefore requested that the Corps
    initiate work on what are termed Special Area Management Plans (SAMP)
    for both the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds to
    qualitatively identify existing and future water resources requirements
    in each area. The Corps effort will include facilitating meetings
    between all potential watershed partners, and the integration of the
    joint study effort with the planning efforts of the balance of the RCIP
    project. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support
    a combined $2 million appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
    2001 for the Corps to initiate work on Special Area Management Plans
    for the San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds.

                               SAN JACINTO RIVER

        The 730 square mile San Jacinto River watershed drains into Lake
    Elsinore in Western Riverside County. The San Jacinto River originates
    in the San Jacinto Mountains and passes through the cities of San
    Jacinto, Perris, Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. The only major flood
    control structures on the river are levees in the city of San Jacinto
    built by the Corps of Engineers in the early 1960's. In the 30-mile
    reach of the river between Lake Elsinore and the city of San Jacinto,
    only minor channelization exists as the river is characterized by
    expansive overflow areas including the Mystic Lake area.
        Flooding from the river has caused major damage to agricultural
    areas and rendered Interstate 215 and several local arterial
    transportation routes impassable. The river is, however, an important
    resource that provides water supply, wildlife habitat, drainage and
    recreation values to the region. The fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water
    Appropriations Act dedicated $100,000 to conducting a Reconnaissance
    Study of watershed management in the San Jacinto River Watershed
    ``including flood control, environmental restoration, stormwater
    retention, water conservation and supply, and related purposes''. The
    study effort will be initiated in March 2000 and completed the
    following September. We anticipate that the Reconnaissance Study will
    identify a Federal interest in flood control on the San Jacinto River,
    and recommend moving forward with a detailed Feasibility Study for a
    flood control project. Other studies may also be recommended. The
    Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an appropriation of
    $225,000 to move into a Feasibility Study for the San Jacinto River.
    The District therefore respectfully requests the Committee's support of
    a $225,000 appropriation.

                           SANTA ANA RIVER--MAINSTEM

        The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
    authorized the Santa Ana River--All River project which includes
    improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief
    of Engineers' Report to the Secretary of the Army. The Boards of
    Supervisors of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties continue
    to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions to
    Congress.
        The Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) was signed in December 1989
    by the three local sponsors and the Army. The first of five
    construction contracts started on the Seven Oaks Dam feature in the
    Spring of 1990 and the dam was officially completed on November 15,
    1999. A dedication ceremony was held on January 7, 2000. Significant
    construction has been completed on the lower Santa Ana River Channel
    and on the San Timoteo Creek Channel. Construction activities on Oak
    Street Drain and the Mill Creek Levee have been completed.
        For fiscal year 2001, an appropriation of $6 million is requested
    to complete funding necessary to construct ``Reach 9'' (immediately
    downstream of Prado Dam), a section of streambed to receive some
    floodwall and slope revetment work to protect existing development
    along its southerly bank. The removal of accumulated sediment within an
    already completed section of the Santa Ana River Channel near its
    outlet to the Pacific Ocean, will necessitate an fiscal year 2001
    appropriation of $2 million. This dredging work is necessary prior to
    project turnover to the Local Sponsors for operation and maintenance.
        The Prado Dam feature of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project
    continues to edge closer to a construction start. Engineering design
    for the dam embankment and outlet works is on schedule to be completed
    in June 2000. Design work is underway on several interior dikes
    included in the project.
        Additional design contracts are ready to be let for the balance of
    engineering work necessary prior to construction. An fiscal year 2001
    appropriation of $10 million would allow the Corps to complete all of
    its design efforts on the Prado Dam project, and to initiate
    construction on Prado Dam's outlet works and embankment. Additionally,
    $2 million of these funds would be earmarked for the completion of the
    State Highway 71 Dike construction project, which is scheduled to
    commence late this fiscal year.
        We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support an
    overall $18 million appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal year
    2001 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project, which is the amount
    included in the Administration's budget.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the County of Tulare

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: the County of Tulare
    request your consideration of an appropriation of $250,000 in the
    fiscal year 2001 Federal budget for the United States Army Corps of
    Engineers for the commencement of a feasibility study for the Frazier &
    Strathmore Creeks flood control project.
        The Corps of Engineers have started the reconnaissance level study
    of Frazier & Strathmore Creeks as your committee provided the funding
    therefore in the fiscal year 2000 budget for which we are most
    grateful.
        Frazier & Strathmore Creeks are uncontrolled streams that continue
    to devastate agricultural lands in Tulare County, flood the community
    of Strathmore and disrupt commerce on a major highway arterial, State
    Route 65.
        The Corps of Engineers typically expend $2-million for a
    feasibility study and require two years for preparation. Under the 50/
    50 cost sharing agreement and the Corps capability in fiscal year 2001,
    the Federal government would need to budget $250,000 in fiscal year
    2001 with the remainder in fiscal year 2002 for the Frazier &
    Strathmore Creeks feasibility study.
        The local sponsors urge the subcommittee's appropriation of
    $250,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the Frazier & Strathmore Creeks
    feasibility study by the Corps.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Cawelo Water District

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: the Cawelo Water
    District, North Kern Water Storage District and Semitropic Water
    Storage District request your consideration of an appropriation of
    $500,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Federal budget for the United States
    Army Corps of Engineers for the continuation of a feasibility study for
    the Poso Creek flood control project.
        The Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance study of Poso
    Creek in fiscal year 1999, and found that there was a Federal interest
    in proceeding to a feasibility level study. Local sponsors have been
    identified for the 50/50 cost sharing of the feasibility study.
        Poso Creek, is an uncontrolled stream that continues to devastate
    agricultural lands in Kern County, flood the community of McFarland,
    and ravage the Kern National Wildlife Refuge. Major highway arterials,
    State Route 99 and SR 43, have been closed due to Poso Creek
    floodwaters, resulting in the disruption for several days of commerce
    by time delaying detours.
        The Corps of Engineers estimate the feasibility study will cost in
    excess of $2-million and require two years for preparation. The fiscal
    year 2000 federal budget included an appropriation of $250,000 for the
    Poso Creek flood control feasibility study. For an orderly continuation
    of the flood control investigation $500,000 is needed in fiscal year
    2001 with the remainder in fiscal year 2002.
        The local sponsors urge the subcommittee's appropriation of
    $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 for continuation of the Poso Creek
    feasibility study by the Corps.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors

                        SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM PROJECT

    Project Description
        The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project includes seven interdependent
    features: Mill Creek Levee, Oak Street Drain, San Timoteo Creek, Lower
    Santa Ana River, Seven Oaks Dam, Prado Dam and Santiago Creek. Seven
    Oaks Dam, Mill Creek Levee, Oak Street Drain, San Timoteo Creek Reaches
    1, 2 and 3A and the Lower Santa Ana River Reaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
    and 10 are complete. Completion of all of the features will provide (a)
    the necessary flood protection within Orange, Riverside and San
    Bernardino Counties; (b) enhancement and preservation of marshlands and
    wetlands for endangered waterfowl, fish and wildlife species; (c)
    recreation amenities; and (d) floodplain management of the 30 miles of
    Santa Ana River between Seven Oaks Dam and Prado Dam.

    San Bernardino County Features Status
        Seven Oaks Dam.--The main embankment contract was completed in
    November 1999. Some minor modifications are underway and scheduled for
    completion in August 2000.
        San Timoteo Creek.--Reach 1 construction was completed in September
    1996. Construction on Reaches 2 & 3A was completed in June 1998.
    Overall, construction is approximately 60 percent complete. A proposed
    alternative is currently undergoing NEPA/CEQA review to complete the
    remainder of the project.

    Funding Required
        The required funding amount matches the President's proposed in the
    amount of $18,000,000. A total of $10,000,000 is requested for Design
    and Construction start for Prado Dam and $8,000,000 is requested to
    continue construction of the Mainstem Project on schedule, in fiscal
    year 2000/2001. Federal funding in the amount of $18,000,000 would be
    as follows:
                Lower Santa Ana River:
      --Engineering Design, Construction, Landscaping, and Sediment
            Removal.--$8,000,000.
                Prado Dam:
      --Design and Construction start.--$10,000,000.
        Project Authorized.--Public Law 94-587, Section 109, Approved
    October 22, 1976, Public Law 99-662, Water Resources Development Act of
    1986.
        Total Project Cost.--$1.4 billion--Includes $473 million local
    share.
        President's Budget.--$18,000,000.
        Requested Action.--Approval of $18,000,000 for Santa Ana River
    Mainstem.

                               SAN TIMOTEO CREEK

    Project Description
        The San Timoteo Creek is a major tributary to the Santa Ana River
    in the east San Bernardino Valley. A large watershed of approximately
    126 square miles drains into the Creek which flows through the Cities
    of Redlands, Loma Linda and San Bernardino before discharging into the
    Santa Ana River. The existing Creek, in all three Cities, was an
    earthen bottom and partially improved embankments reinforced with rail
    and wire revetments.
        Major storm flows along the Creek in 1938, 1961, 1965, 1969 and
    1978 caused considerable damage to the Creek itself as well as
    overtopping the banks and causing loss of life and severe property
    damage.
        The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1988
    authorized improvement of San Timoteo Creek as part of the Santa Ana
    River Mainstem Project. The improvements include the construction of
    approximately 5.5 miles of concrete-lined channel from the Santa Ana
    River upstream through the Cities of San Bernardino, Loma Linda and
    Redlands plus the construction of debris retention facilities at the
    upstream end of the project in the form of in-channel sediment storage
    basins.

    Project Status
        Overall project construction is 60 percent complete. An alternative
    design has been developed for Reach 3B, the upstream 40 percent of the
    project, that will include the construction of approximately 0.2 mile
    of improved channel and 18 in-channel sedimentation basins. Plans for
    the final phase will be developed during the remaining 1999/2000 fiscal
    year with completion of construction anticipated in October 2002.

    Completed Phases:
        Reach 1.....................  0.7 mile of Channel.............  COMPLETED........  September 1996
                                      Waterman Avenue Bridge..........  COMPLETED........  September 1996
        Reach 2.....................  1.9 miles of Channel............  COMPLETED........  October 1997
                                      Redlands Boulevard Bridge.......  COMPLETED........  March 1998
        Reach 3A....................  0.8 mile of Channel.............  COMPLETED........  June 1998
    Remaining Construction and
     Schedule:
        Reach 3B:...................  0.2 mile of channel and 18        .................  .........................
                                       sedimentation basins along 2.2
                                       miles of channel.
                                      Plans and Specifications........  .................  April 1999--July 2000
                                      Right-of-Way Acquisition........  .................  May 2000--August 2000
                                      Construction Start..............  .................  September 2000
                                      Construction Completion.........  .................  October 2002

    Estimated Project Cost
        The total estimated project cost is approximately $67,000,000 with
    the federal participating cost at 75 percent or $50,250,000 and the
    local participating cost at 25 percent or $16,750,000. The cost of the
    remainder of the project is estimated to be $35,000,000, with the
    Federal share at $26,250,000 and the local share at $8,750,000.
        Requested Action.--Approval of continued funding for the San
    Timoteo Creek Project.
              upper santa ana river watershed reconnaissance study
        The area will focus on the watershed of the Santa Ana River and
    tributaries located above Prado Dam, primarily in San Bernardino
    County. The study is to describe all watershed characteristics and
    uses, to define problem areas under present and future conditions and
    assist the County and local interests in developing a long-term master
    plan for watershed management in the interest of improving specific
    water resource uses including environmental preservation and
    restoration, urbanization water supply and conservation and water-
    related recreation activities.
        The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
    reconnaissance study for management of the Upper Santa Ana River
    Watershed.
        Requested Action.--Approval of $100,000 for Upper Santa Ana River
    Watershed.

        ORANGE COUNTY, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY--(CHINO
                           AGRICULTURE PRESERVE AREA)

        The Chino Dairies are located in a 30 square-mile area immediately
    north of Prado Dam reservoir, in the unincorporated portion of San
    Bernardino County. The study provides information on the following
    elements: operations of Chino Dairies, water conservation in Chino
    Groundwater Basin, flood control facilities to relieve runoff from
    upstream development in the City of Ontario, water quality concerns of
    Orange County residents and the regulatory enforcement of the Chino
    Dairies. The Chino Dairies provide 25 percent of all the milk consumed
    in California and it is a one billion dollar industry.
        The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
    feasibility study to help with flood control facilities, water
    conservation and keep the dairies maintain their viability.
        Requested Action.--Approval of $100,000 for Orange County, Santa
    Ana River Basin.

                    MOJAVE RIVER FORKS DAM FEASIBILITY STUDY

        The Mojave River flows north out of the San Bernardino Mountains
    into the desert communities of Victorville and Barstow. The Mojave
    River Forks Dam (Dam) is an ungated facility designed and constructed
    by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to alleviate flooding. Since that
    time, environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species and
    Clean Water Acts and the recent water rights adjudication have changed
    the river's usage. The study will consider factors such as the current
    water rights adjudication while facilitating balance among the River's
    competing usage and diverse interest. Alternatives include modification
    of the Dam's operation and outlet works, construction of a release
    tower and operable gates and construction of one or more off-line
    detention basins.
        The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports this
    feasibility phase study to evaluate viable water conservation
    alternatives while optimizing the balance between environmental, flood
    control and water supply needs.
        Requested Action.--Approval of $300,000 for Mojave River Forks Dam.

                    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FEASIBILITY STUDY

        Wilson, Potato and Wildwood Creeks originate in the San Bernardino
    Mountains and flow in a south and southwesterly direction through the
    City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County. The study would investigate
    methods to control erosion and reduce the impacts to the downstream
    open space areas, residences and commercial areas within the watershed.
    The runoff creates a large volume of debris and sediment within the
    City of Yucaipa. Flooding along these Creeks is threatening to damage
    residential and commercial development and infrastructure facilities.
        The San Bernardino County Flood Control District is requesting this
    feasibility study to evaluate the systems and determine appropriate
    methods of protection through new facilities and management of the
    existing floodplain.
        Requested Action.--Approval of $100,000 for San Bernardino County.

                     MISSION ZANJA CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY

        The area is located in the City of Redlands, San Bernardino County.
    The Mission Zanja Creek (Creek) project begins at about 2,000 feet east
    of Interstate 10 to the Reservoir Canyon Drain, just west of 8th
    Street. Floods of 1965, 1976 and 1980 caused about $4.3 million (1988
    price level) in damages. Frequent flooding along the Creek is caused by
    inadequate capacity of the existing inlet to the covered channel near
    9th Street. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study indicates that
    expansion of inlet on the Creek will result in a small increase in the
    level of protection, but will increase flooding the areas surrounding
    Reservoir Canyon Drain. Even though, this project will cause flooding
    at the downstream area, but it will be much smaller.
        The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports the
    feasibility study to improve the inlet of Mission Zanja Creek to reduce
    flooding area.
        Requested Action.--Support of Mission Zanja Creek, fiscal year
    2000/2001.

                        SAN SEVAINE CREEK WATER PROJECT

    Project Description
        The San Sevaine Creek Water Project includes ten recharge
    facilities, two miles of levees; construction of seven miles of
    drainage ways to convey runoff to the recharge facilities; six miles of
    linear parkways; and the preservation of 137 acres of sensitive
    wildlife habitat. This project will provide water conservation and
    flood protection to a drainage area of approximately 51 square miles
    within the cities of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario as well as
    San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. There will be an average of
    approximately 25,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater recharge from
    the San Sevaine and Etiwanda Creeks' tributaries in the project area.

    Project Status
        The Loan Application was signed by the Bureau of Reclamation
    Commissioner Eluid Martinez on April 11, 1996, approved by the
    Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt on May 9, 1996. As of July 15,
    1996, the San Sevaine Creek Water Project completed 60-day
    congressional approval process. On December 17, 1996, the project
    Repayment Agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors of San
    Bernardino County and approved on January 8, 1997 by Robert Johnson,
    Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has
    indicated an eight-year construction schedule with project completion
    by the Year 2006. The Bureau is attempting to complete the funding of
    this project by the Year 2002.
        Although considerable levee, channel and interim basin work has
    already been completed at various locations of this major water
    project, continued federal assistance from this Small Reclamation
    Project Act loan and grant are required to complete the project's
    construction. Without these funds it will be decades before local
    interests can accrue sufficient funds to construct this vital water
    project. To date, the Bureau of Reclamation has provided approximately
    $16.1 million towards construction of the project.
        The California Water Commission has consistently, since the late
    1980s, supported the construction of this project.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Public Law 84-984, as
                 Federal Authority                     amended in 1956
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Reclamation--Grant Contribution.  Approximately $27.4 million.
    Bureau of Reclamation--Loan Contribution..  Approximately $19.2 million.
    TOTAL B of R--Project--(Not Additive).....  Approximately $52.9 million.
    Total Local Contribution..................  Approximately $33.7 million.
    1997/1998 fiscal year Federal Budget--(New  $1.333 million.
     Project Start).
    1998/1099 fiscal year Federal Budget......  $1.177 million.
    1999/2000 fiscal year Federal Budget--      $10.18 million--($3.94
     (Approved).                                 million received to date).
    President's Budget fiscal year--2000/2001.  $11.21 million.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The District and County have coordinated with the Bureau of
    Reclamation and the National Water Resources Agency in a cooperative
    effort to obtain the continued funding for this project. The District
    and County appreciate the continuing support provided by the Bureau of
    Reclamation towards this project.
        Requested Action.--Support President's proposed fiscal year 2000/
    2001 budget in the amount of $11.21 million.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Merced Irrigation District

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ross Rogers,
    General Manager of the Merced Irrigation District. I am respectfully
    submitting this statement on behalf of the County of Merced, the City
    of Merced, and the Merced Irrigation District, which jointly form an
    informal coalition commonly known as the Merced County Streams Group
    for the purpose of performing maintenance functions along portions of
    the Merced County Streams Project. The County of Merced, together with
    the State of California, is the sponsor of the Merced County Streams
    Project. The El Nido Irrigation District and the Le Grand Athlone Water
    District are also concerned in this matter.
        Federal authorization for the project construction was granted as
    part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985. Authorized
    facilities include constructing dry dams on Canal (Castle Dam) and
    Black Rascal Creeks (Haystack Mountain Dam), enlargement of the
    existing Bear Creek Dam, and modifications of levees and channels along
    more than 25 miles of Fahrens, Black Rascal, Cottonwood, and Bear
    Creeks. The completed project will provide flood protection worth more
    than $10,000,000 per year to 263,000 acres of urban and agricultural
    lands. Total project cost is currently estimated to be $133,000,000 of
    which $40,000,000 or roughly 31 percent will be paid during
    construction by the local beneficiaries.
        When completed, more than 240,000 residents occupying 55,000
    housing units within the greater metropolitan Merced area will live
    with assurance of 125-year flood protection, while the lower rural area
    will receive 25-year protection.
        The first component of the project, Castle Dam, was completed in
    1992. This component was constructed under budget, ahead of schedule,
    and without a lost-time accident. Without Castle Dam during the intense
    storms of January, February, March 1995, January 1997 and January,
    February, March, 1998, the city of Merced would have been partially
    inundated.
        As a result of a request by the County of Merced, the Corps of
    Engineers has reevaluated project components and will extend the
    boundaries of the levee and channel portion of the project to better
    match growth that has taken place in the city of Merced. This
    willingness to remain flexible throughout the lengthy planning and
    design process is also a credit to the Corps and its staff.
        The Merced County Streams Project is a modification and expansion
    of an earlier flood project constructed between 1948 and 1957. It has
    undergone considerable review and modification since first authorized
    as part of the Flood Control Act of 1970. Approximately $18,500,000 has
    been spent to date on the Merced County Streams Project. This has been
    matched with local contributions of approximately $3,000,000. As
    partners in the construction of this project, the local agency sponsors
    have worked closely with the Corps to establish an economic balance
    between costs and benefits. As a result of this combined effort,
    nonessential project components were first scaled back and eventually
    eliminated. This scaling to fit the economic reality resulted in
    substantial federal and local savings.
        On January 15, February 3 and March 25, 1998, due to El Nino-driven
    storms, Bear Creek overtopped its banks in several locations within and
    downstream of the city of Merced, flooding 33 homes, county, city and
    Merced Irrigation District infrastructure, and thousands of acres of
    prime agricultural land, with total damages in the millions of dollars.
    The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, with input from the National Weather
    Service, estimates that the January 15th and March 25th events were
    both 1-in-100 year events, unprecedented for the area. The greatest
    storm intensity in both storms centered in northeastern Merced County
    in and around the watershed of Black Rascal Creek, tributary to Bear
    Creek, upstream of the Merced County Streams Project's proposed
    Haystack Mountain Dam site. According to Corps of Engineer's rating
    tables for the Black Rascal Creek Bypass gaging station, January flows
    reached 4,300 cubic feet per second (cfs) in a channel with a rated
    maximum capacity of 3,000 cfs, 143 percent of channel capacity. March
    flows exceeded 4,700 cfs, or 157 percent of channel capacity. Had the
    Merced County Streams Project's Haystack Mountain Dam been in place, no
    flooding would have occurred along Bear Creek during the January,
    February or March events.
        Due primarily to the New Years, 1997 devastating California flood,
    the U. S. Congress and the California legislature authorized a four
    year study, identified as: ``Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Comprehensive Study.'' The study was authorized under the Flood Control
    Act of 1962 (Sacramento River) and the 1964 Congressional Resolution
    (San Joaquin River). According to a brochure distributed by The
    Reclamation Board of the State of California and the U. S. Army Corps
    of Engineers, Sacramento District, the study:

              ``. . . will initially identify problems, opportunities,
            planning objectives, constraints, and measures to address
            flooding and ecosystem problems in the study area. It will
            ultimately develop a strategy for flood damage reduction and
            integrated ecosystem restoration along with identification of
            projects for early implementation. Solutions will include
            consideration of both structural and non-structural measures .
            . .''

        According to the study timeline, in April, 1999, an interim report
    was presented to Congress. In 2001, a Draft Strategy for Flood
    Management and Related Environmental Restoration will be completed. By
    the Spring of 2002, the final Strategy and EIS/EIR, including an
    implementation plan will be completed.
        There is great concern on the part of the City of Merced, County of
    Merced and the Merced Irrigation District officials that the Merced
    County Streams Project will be ``swallowed up'' by the Comprehensive
    Study, becoming one of many new flood control projects that have not
    yet received Congressional authorization. The Merced County Streams
    Project has been authorized by Congress. This important and urgent
    Project must not lose its priority for Congressional funding or be
    further delayed while the Comprehensive Study is undertaken.
        The project has the support of state and local authorities and
    funding of the non-federal portion has been addressed.
        We request the Committee's support for the inclusion of $500,000 in
    the fiscal year 2001 budget, as recommended by the California Water
    Commission and the Corps of Engineers, for the orderly progress of the
    Merced County Streams Project, which is so vital to the community,
    state, and the nation.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Tule River Association

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Tule River
    Association, an association of all the water rights holders at and
    below Success Reservoir, request your consideration of an appropriation
    of $425,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Federal budget for the United
    States Army Corps of Engineers for completion of the preconstruction
    engineering and design (PED) for the Tule River Success Reservoir
    Enlargement Project. Initial funding for PED was authorized by the
    congress in fiscal year 2000.
        The Success Reservoir Enlargement Project would increase the
    reservoir storage capacity 28,000 a.f. by raising the spillway 10 feet
    and by widening the existing spillway 165 feet. The additional flood
    control storage space improves the protection for the City of
    Porterville and downstream highly developed agricultural lands from a
    return period flood event occurring once in 47 years to once in 100
    years.
        The Success Reservoir Enlargement Project was conditionally
    authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The
    authorization was subject to the conditions recommended in a favorable
    final report by the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers which occurred
    December 23, 1999, copy attached for reference.
        The design of the Success Reservoir Enlargement Project will
    commence upon the execution of a cost sharing agreement between the U.
    S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State of California and the Tule River
    Association. Construction of the Success Reservoir Enlargement Project
    is scheduled to commence in fiscal year 2002 with completion in fiscal
    year 2003 subject to appropriations by the Congress.
        The Tule River Association urges the continued support of your
    committee with an appropriation of $425,000 in fiscal year 2001 for
    completion of PED by the Corps for the Success Reservoir Enlargement
    Project.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Butte County, California

              NUISANCE FLOODING AT THE 3B'S FLOOD RELIEF STRUCTURE

        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined the above
    referenced nuisance (low flow) flooding problem may qualify for a
    Reconnaissance Investigation Report under Section 205. This nuisance
    flooding severely impacts agriculture, infrastructure, interstate
    commerce and economics within the Butte Basin, consisting of three
    Counties in California. The economic and interstate commerce impacts
    adversely affect areas throughout the United States.
        The primary goal of the project is to provide a permanent overflow
    facility that will allow flood flows from the Sacramento River to be
    diverted to area where the least amount of damages will occur while
    providing protection to those same areas to prevent flows which are
    below flood stage from entering the Butte Basin.
        At this time we are asking The Honorable Members of the United
    States Senate to support Federal Funding for the U. S. Army Corps of
    Engineers to proceed with a Reconnaissance Investigation for this
    critical flood control project in fiscal year 2000/2001.

              CHEROKEE CANAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT

        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a Reconnaissance
    Investigation for aquatic ecosystem restoration on a flood control
    project previously constructed under their direction.
        The primary goal of the restoration is to create an aquatic
    ecosystem restoration project that can be operated and maintained,
    within the existing flood control project, in compliance with all
    environmental regulations. Besides aquatic ecosystem restoration,
    reduced sediment removal in the existing flood control project may be
    associated with the Section 1135 project. Reductions of sediment load
    in Cherokee Canal could substantially improve flood control operations
    and reduce maintenance costs.
        At this time we are asking the Honorable Members of the United
    States Senate to support Federal Funding for the U. S. Army Corps of
    Engineers to proceed with an Ecosystem Restoration Report, under
    Section 1135 for this critical project in fiscal year 2000/2001.

                 ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

        Butte County in cooperation with the California Reclamation Board
    and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is currently in the
    Feasibility Study Phase of the project review with several important
    milestones to occur in the near future. In March the Corps is expected
    to provide 5 project construction alternatives for review and
    discussion by the Working Group. When the components of the
    alternatives have been agreed upon they will be subject to an
    Environmental Review through the California Environmental Quality Act
    (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes.
        In May we expect development of the NED Plan (National Economic
    Development Plan) to start. M-CACES (Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimate
    System) of this plan is planned for October with the establishment of
    projected project construction cost by November 1, 2000.
        Our goal is to have the project properly reviewed, designed and
    constructed in the shortest possible time. This does not mean we want
    to cut any corners or bend any rules. It means we do not want to miss
    any deadlines or waste any time waiting for something to start which
    should have already been completed, including project budgeting.
        At this time we are asking The Honorable Members of the United
    States Senate to support Federal Funding for the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers to proceed with the Preliminary Engineering Design (PED), in
    fiscal year 2000/2001 for construction of this critical Flood Control
    Project in their fiscal year 2000 recommended flood control projects.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the City of Stockton

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The City of Stockton
    supports the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation
    water, flood control and fishery projects:

    Water Commission Recommendation

                               [Fiscal year 2001]

            Project                                           Recommendation
    U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS:
        Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive
          Study.............................................      $1,500,000
        Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Investigation..........         300,000
        San Joaquin River Basin, Corral Hollow Creek........          65,000
        San Joaquin River Basin-Stockton Metropolitan Area
          (Section 211).....................................         180,000
        San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater
          Recharge & Wetland Restoration Project............         150,000
        Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel......         ( \1\ )
        San Joaquin River Basin-Consumnes and Mokelumne
          Rivers............................................         150,000
        San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater
          Recharge & Wetland Restoration Project
          (preconstruction and engineering studies).........       1,050,000
        Water Resources Dev. Act, 1986, Improvement of
          Environment Program, Mormon Channel...............         300,000
    BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
        South Delta Barriers................................          92,000
        Water Acquisition-VAMP..............................       1,500,000
    The following project is recommended with conditional
        support:
        BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: Bay-Delta Ecosystem
          Restoration (CALFED)..............................      60,000,000

    \1\ New Corps project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Sacramento & San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study--$1,500,000
        The San Joaquin River Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $26.5
    million study of the water resources needs of the San Joaquin and
    Sacramento Rivers. Flood control and environmental needs will receive
    equal consideration. We expect setback levees and reoperation of
    existing reservoirs will receive a careful review in this Study. A
    status report to Congress was released this last year, outlining $16 to
    $20 million in studies to be performed. The President approved $3.58
    million for fiscal year 2000 and $1.5 million for fiscal year 2001. At
    this time, the exact allocation between each of the river basins is
    unclear, although 50-50 seems likely. The State is the cost-sharing
    partner in these studies.

    Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Investigation--$300,000
        This is a special study and a regional planning report which
    addresses multiple resource needs, including flood control, recreation,
    environmental restoration, navigation, water supply, etc. The
    California Department of Water Resources is the cost-sharing partner
    with the CALFED process. To date, field tests of levee-strengthening
    methods have been pursued and the study provides input to the CALFED
    process. The President's budget for this investigation for fiscal year
    2001 is $300,000.

    San Joaquin River Basin, Corral Hollow Creek--$65,000
        This is a new project investigating flood control improvements to
    protect adjacent lands in the southern portion of the County and the
    nearby Deuel Vocational Institute correctional facility. The
    President's budget for this investigation for fiscal year 2001 is
    $65,000.

    San Joaquin River Basin-Stockton Metropolitan Area, Section 211--
            $180,000
        Before federal dollars can be appropriated to reimburse the local
    agency (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a Section 211 Report must be
    completed and approved by the Secretary of the Army. The 211 Report was
    completed at the Sacramento office of the United States Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) in late 1999 justifying a reimbursement of as much as
    $38 million. This same report was forwarded to the Corps' office in
    Washington, D.C. for final review and approval. The President's 2001
    budget of $180,000 is adequate to compete the required 211 report and
    begin the feasibility report addressing rural flood control
    Improvements. However, the Corps and the Federal Committee on
    Appropriations should allocate $10 million for fiscal year 2001 as a
    start for new construction in anticipation that the reimbursement will
    be approved during the current fiscal year 2000. The California Water
    Commission will be requested to recommend an increase in funding in the
    amount of $10 million as a start for new construction.

    San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater Recharge & Wetland
            Restoration Project--$150,000
        The study costs for this investigation will determine if a federal
    interest may exist for utilizing Farmington Dam for multiple purposes
    inclusive of flood control, groundwater recharge, and environmental
    enhancement. The President has included $100,000 in his fiscal year
    2001 budget for completing this feasibility study; all federal funds
    must be matched by local funds. The sponsor for this study is Stockton
    East Water District , the City of Stockton and other east side water
    purveyors of San Joaquin County. An additional $150,000 has been
    budgeted for fiscal year 2001 to start the preconstruction and
    engineering work.

    San Joaquin Rivers--Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$150,000
        A reconnaissance study of ecological restoration and non-structural
    flood control improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and
    Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 2000 funding is $50,000, and
    the President's fiscal year 2001 budget is $150,000. Separate studies
    and reports are continuing for the Cosumnes River (between the Delta
    and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River (between the Delta and
    Camanche Reservoir). The East Bay Municipal Utility District and
    Woodbridge Irrigation District are the local sponsors working with the
    United States Army Corps of Engineers on the Mokelumne River
    investigations.

    Port of Stockton and San Joaquin River Channel--New Corps Project
        This is a new feasibility study which is being performed for
    dredging and deepening the San Joaquin River channel, through the Delta
    to the Port of Stockton, to depths greater than 35 feet. Greater depths
    will enhance navigation through the Delta to and from the Port. No
    federal budget has been proposed; and as of February 9, 2000, this
    project was not included on the California Water Commission's project
    listing.

    San Joaquin River Basin-Farmington Groundwater Recharge & Wetland
            Restoration Project (Preconstruction and Engineering Studies)--
            $1,050,000
        These are the preconstruction and engineering studies to be
    performed during fiscal year 2001. These studies and preliminary plans
    for fiscal year 2001 have been budgeted for $150,000. It is anticipated
    that additional funds will be needed in future years if a project
    proves to be feasible. At this point, it is too early to define a
    project or anticipate needed funding.

    Water Resources Development Act, 1986, Improvement of Environment
            Program, Mormon Channel--$300,000
        This is a new project that is being investigated to turn water back
    into the lower reaches of Mormon Slough below the Stockton Diverting
    Canal. This project was not funded in fiscal year 2000, nor is any
    funding allocated for fiscal year 2001. The City of Stockton and the
    San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency are the local sponsors working
    with the United States Army Corps of Engineers in overseeing the
    investigation and feasibility study on this project.

                             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

    South Delta Barriers--$92,000
        The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
    improve water quality in the lower San Joaquin River. The fiscal year
    2000 budget included funding for $20,000 and the President's fiscal
    year 2001 budget includes funding for $92,000.

    Water Acquisition-VAMP--$1,500,000
        This project provides funds for the purchase of water to meet water
    quality and flow goals in the Delta (April-May and October). VAMP flows
    could reduce San Joaquin river flows in summer months. In fiscal year
    1999, VAMP was funded at $2 million; in fiscal year 2000 it was not
    funded, but $1.5 million is recommended for fiscal year 2001.
        The City of Stockton conditionally supports the following project:

                             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

    Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--CALFED--$60,000,000
        Current fiscal year 2000 funding is for $95 million and the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget has included $60 million. Funds for
    this program have been used primarily for acquisition of lands and
    development of the habitat and improvements for fishery enhancement or
    protection. Although the City of Stockton appreciates CALFED's
    assistance with Woodbridge Irrigation District's efforts to enhance the
    Mokelumne River and with other potential conjunctive use projects such
    as the Farmington Recharge project, the City is concerned that the
    overall CALFED program is overlooking the need for surface water and
    groundwater supply requirements within the County of San Joaquin and
    the relationship these projects bear to Bay-Delta ecosystem
    restoration. The CALFED program does not recognize area of origin
    protections; and CALFED has not developed water quality improvement
    objectives for San Joaquin County water supplies. CALFED has not
    provided documentation or explanation of the benefits that will be
    derived from the expenditure of funds, particularly to displace
    agricultural lands. The City of Stockton cannot be fully supportive of
    the CALFED program until these discrepancies are corrected.

                             STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

        WHEREAS, the California Water Commission has developed preliminary
    recommendations to Congress for funding of water, flood control, and
    fishery projects for fiscal year 2001; and
        WHEREAS, the Commission is scheduled to meet in Sacramento on March
    3, 2000, to adopt final funding recommendations; and
        WHEREAS, each year the Congressional committees consider funding
    for flood control and reclamation appropriation; and
        WHEREAS, the projects that staff suggest that Council support this
    year may affect flood control or represent potential surface water
    supplies for the Stockton area, or are projects which affect our
    environment; now, therefore
        BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:
        1. That the City of Stockton supports the recommendations of the
    County Board of Supervisors to Congress for federal funding of water,
    flood control, and fishery projects for fiscal year 2001.
        2. That corresponding statements be forwarded to the City's federal
    legislators and to the Congressional Subcommittees on Energy and Water
    Development.
        PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED FEB. 29, 2000.
                                               Gary A. Podesto,
                                         Mayor of the City of Stockton.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works

        We strongly support the California Water Commission's
    recommendation to the Committee for $9.821 million to fund the
    completion of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) project.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We appreciate your
    Committee's continued support of critical flood control and water
    conservation projects in Los Angeles County, California.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Floods are a part of the history of the Los Angeles area.
    Widespread floods have periodically devastated vast areas of the region
    and were responsible for taking lives, damaging property and
    interrupting commerce and trade.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and County of Los Angeles, acting
    on behalf of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, have built
    one of the most extensive flood control systems in the world.
    Construction of the major elements of the system began in the 1920s and
    consisted of 20 major dams, 470 miles of open channels, and many other
    appurtenant facilities. Fifteen of these major dams are owned and/or
    operated by the County while the remaining five dams (Hansen, Lopez,
    Santa Fe, Sepulveda and Whittier-Narrows), are owned and operated by
    the Corps. Since the major segments were completed, it is estimated
    that the system has prevented $3.6 billion in potential flood damage.
        Development which occurred after World War II exceeded the
    projections the Corps used in the 1930s and has increased runoff to the
    point where, even in a moderate storm, the runoff could exceed the
    design capacity of portions of the system. For example, the lower Los
    Angeles River in the City of Long Beach came close to overtopping in
    1980 from a 25-year flood. A storm of greater magnitude would have a
    tremendous impact, both personal and economic, on Los Angeles County,
    the nation's second largest metropolitan area.
        At the request of the County of Los Angeles, the Corps analyzed the
    adequacy of the existing major flood control facilities serving the Los
    Angeles basin in the LACDA Review study. In 1990, a project to upsize a
    portion of the LACDA system received Congressional approval subject to
    a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers (received in 1995), and
    signature of the Record of Decision by the Secretary of the Army, which
    was obtained in July 1995. The final report by the Corps identified
    100-year flood damages totaling $2.25 billion covering an 82-square-
    mile area which houses over 500,000 people. These damages would occur
    in the heavily-urbanized Los Angeles basin, where adequate protection
    from a 100-year flood was previously provided.
        The LACDA project is a critical modification to existing
    facilities. Obtaining funds to do the modification is critical for two
    reasons:
        1. The threat of flooding to over one-half million people.
        2. The large economic impact FEMA's final Flood Insurance Rate Maps
    (FIRMs) have on the overflow area that became effective July 6, 1998.
        Until the project is completed, any delay in construction will
    cause great financial hardship on thousands of people, who thought the
    existing river provided adequate protection and now need to buy flood
    insurance (an impact of $33 million annually).
        This project, currently estimated to cost approximately $200
    million, is scheduled to be completed by December 2001, pending
    adequate funding. The following table shows the history of federal
    funding for the project:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Federal   Expenditure of federal
             Federal fiscal year            funding           funding
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1994-1995...........................         0.5  Initiation of first
                                                       construction contract
                                                       awarded in September
                                                       1995.
    1995-1996...........................        11.3  Continuation of first
                                                       contract and
                                                       initiation of two
                                                       contracts awarded in
                                                       August and September
                                                       of 1996.
    1996-1997...........................        14.4  Completion of first
                                                       three contracts.
    1997-1998...........................        20.7  Initiation of four
                                                       contracts awarded in
                                                       February, May and
                                                       September 1998.
    1998-1999...........................        50.0  Completion of contract
                                                       awarded in May 1998;
                                                       Continuation of
                                                       contracts awarded in
                                                       February and
                                                       September 1998; and
                                                       Initiation of three
                                                       contracts awarded in
                                                       December 1998 and
                                                       August 1999.
    1999-2000...........................        50.0  Completion of
                                                       contracts awarded in
                                                       February, September
                                                       and December 1998,
                                                       and August 1999; and
                                                       Continuation of other
                                                       contracts awarded in
                                                       September 1998 and
                                                       August 1999.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The final seven construction contracts will be ready for
    advertising later this fiscal year allowing the entire project to be
    completed by the end of 2001.
        In light of the serious flood threat and the devastating financial
    impacts of the mandatory flood insurance premiums, it is critical to
    maintain the level of construction activity at $9.821 million this
    upcoming fiscal year. As a result, we strongly support the California
    Water Commission's recommendation for $9.821 million of Federal funds
    to complete the LACDA Project.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The San Joaquin Area
    Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) completed construction of the Stockton
    Metropolitan Area, Phase I--Urban Portion of the Flood Protection
    Restoration Project (FPRP) in November 1998. The FPRP restored the 100-
    year level flood protection the community enjoyed prior to a FEMA
    restudy and publication of draft Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The
    draft FIRMs indicated FEMA's intent to remap a vast new floodplain in
    both the City of Stockton and adjoining portions of San Joaquin County.
    New FIRMs reflecting the new 100-year flood plains after construction
    of Phase I--Urban Portion are expected from FEMA this year.
        The FPRP was split into two phases. Phase I--Urban Portion was
    planned, designed and constructed by SJAFCA. Phase II--Rural Portion
    has been preliminarily studied by SJAFCA in 1995 and studied as part of
    a Federal Corps of Engineers (COE) Reconnaissance study of the Stockton
    Metropolitan Area covering both the Urban and Rural Portions. The COE
    Reconnaissance Study was completed in 1997 and found that there was a
    Federal interest in both the Urban and Rural Portions. The COE is about
    to complete a Section 211 Study of the completed Phase I--Urban Portion
    to establish the eligible Federal reimbursement as specified in WRDA
    1996, Section 211. The SJAFCA project was one of eight specific
    demonstration projects named throughout the nation and will be the
    first such project to be completed from the beginning to end by a local
    entity. The COE is also currently beginning a Feasibility Study for the
    Phase II--Rural Portion of the SJAFCA project. However, there is no
    current budget for the Corps of Engineers to begin any Section 211
    reimbursements to SJAFCA for the Phase I completed project as specified
    in Section 211 of WRDA 1996 and 1999.
        SJAFCA has already received a $12,625,000 reimbursement from the
    State of California. This represents the estimated State's share of the
    local share of a normal Federal project for Phase I--Urban Portion of
    the FPRP. We are now requesting that money be added to the Federal
    budget in fiscal year 2001 to allow at least the start of the Federal
    reimbursement for the customary Federal share of the Phase I--Urban
    Portion of the project.
        Under the provisions of Section 211 of WRDA 1996 and 1999, SJAFCA
    and the COE are finalizing a Section 211 Report, which will document
    that the Phase I--Urban Project meets Federal standards and the amount
    of the project costs that will be eligible for reimbursement by the
    COE. We expect this report to be completed by the Sacramento District
    in March 2000 and forwarded to the Secretary of the Army for his
    approval. However, the ability to receive any Federal refund requires
    an appropriation in the Federal budget.
        We are endeavoring to include the necessary funds in the fiscal
    year 2001 COE budget in the anticipation of the Secretary of the Army's
    approval in early 2000 so we can realize the benefit of Federal
    reimbursement as quickly as possible. Accordingly, we understand it is
    necessary to obtain a line item for a ``New Project--Construction
    Start'' authority in the fiscal year 2001 construction portion of the
    budget for the COE. The total reimbursement, which is recommended for
    approval is $38 million. However, we understand that the Congress
    enacted legislation, which would limit the reimbursement to $10 million
    per year for each 211 project in the COE budgeting process. We also
    understand that there is an additional constraint to the total
    nationwide maximum amount of COE 211 reimbursements. Accordingly, we
    now anticipate that we would at best receive $10 million in fiscal year
    2001, 02 and 03 and the balance in fiscal year 2004.
        At this time, SJAFCA is requesting that funding of $10 million be
    provided under the COE Construction General account in the fiscal year
    2001 budget for the Stockton Metropolitan Area, Section 211
    reimbursement. The importance of obtaining the fiscal year 2001
    ``construction start'' is crucial to reduce the bond interest charges
    that local property owners incur to repay bond debt and interest. The
    bond interest is approximately $2.5 million per year and the total debt
    repayment amount is about $4 million per year. It should be noted that
    Section 211 of WRDA 1996 and 1999 does not allow Federal reimbursement
    of interest costs.
        SJAFCA has been able to design and construct a $70 million project
    in just 3\1/2\ years. SJAFCA also believes those local jurisdictions
    that do accomplish local flood control projects which are shown to have
    a Federal interest should be rewarded promptly and receive a high
    priority in the Federal budgeting process.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin
              County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

        San Joaquin County, located in the heart of California's central
    valley, has both a vibrant agricultural economic base and a burgeoning
    metropolitan growth. Both of these vital elements are vulnerable to the
    forces of nature. The 1997 flood inundated thousands of acres and
    threatened our major urban areas. The actual economic loss to the
    County in 1997 was staggering ($100+ million) and the potential loss
    due to flooding construction continues to be enormous. The San Joaquin
    Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) has been formed and has constructed
    a $70 million flood control project with local funds to restore the
    Stockton Metropolitan Area to a 100-year level of flood protection. We
    have aggressively moved ahead with this work to protect our people in
    anticipation that a credit for our work would be forthcoming against a
    Corps developed project. We are anxiously waiting for the Corps to
    obtain funds to pay for the federal interest in this project.
        At the other extreme of the weather spectrum, San Joaquin is very
    vulnerable to drought-induced water shortages. Due to the export of our
    water by East Bay Municipal Utility District to the Oakland area and by
    the Bureau of Reclamation to the CVP, San Joaquin County is deficient
    of an adequate water supply in quantity and quality. Our ground water
    levels dramatically drop during a less than average water year. During
    these drops, the threat of salt water intrusion in our groundwater
    basin from the Delta is a major concern. We need to have the Corps
    complete the feasability study of the Farmington Groundwater Recharge
    and Wetland Restoration Project in order to increase the yield of the
    severely limited Stanislaus River supply, and we need to have Delta
    water quality protected by implementation of the United States Corps of
    Engineers and the United States Bureau of Reclamation delta projects.
        As you can see, we are willing to invest in our future and we will
    continue to do so. The timely funding of these important studies is
    crucial to the economic well being of San Joaquin County. These
    projects represent studies that need to be conducted in order to
    resolve problems on flood control, water supply, water quality,
    groundwater and the environment in San Joaquin County. We need Federal
    help in several of these projects and we request Federal appropriations
    during fiscal year 2001 for the following Corps of Engineers and Bureau
    of Reclamation projects:

                          U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

        Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study--$1,500,000
        Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Investigations--$300,000
        San Joaquin River Basin Corral Hollow Creek--$965,000
        San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211)--
    $10,180,000
      --Reimbursement Study--($180,000)
      --First Year of $38 Million Reimbursement--($10,000,000)
        San Joaquin River Basin Farmington Groundwater Recharge and Wetland
    Restoration Project--$400,000
      --Feasibility Study--($100,000)
      --Pre-Construction Engineering and Design--($150,000)
      --Start of New Construction--Phase 1--($150,000)
        San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$150,000
                             bureau of reclamation
        South Delta Barriers--$92,000
        Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--CALFED--$60,000,000
                               detailed comments

                          U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study--$1,500,000
        The San Joaquin River Comprehensive Study is an ongoing $26.5
    million study of the water resources needs of the San Joaquin and
    Sacramento Rivers. Flood control and environmental needs will receive
    equal consideration. We expect setback levees and reoperation of
    existing reservoirs will receive careful review in this Study. The
    Phase 1 Comprehensive Study Interim Report to Congress was released
    this last spring, outlining $16 to $20 million in studies to be
    performed. The interim report developed the formulation of new master
    plans for flood control systems which incorporate ecosystem
    restoration. The report also provided a complete post flood assessment
    for the floods of 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Hydrologic models and
    hydraulic UNET models will be developed during the current Phase 2
    studies. An EIR /EIS will be published in 2002. The President approved
    $3.58 million for fiscal year 2000 and $1.5 million is proposed for
    fiscal year 2001. At this time, the exact allocation between each of
    the river basins is unclear, although 50-50 seems likely. The State is
    the cost-sharing partner in these Studies.

    Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Investigations--$300,000
        This is a special study and a regional planning report which
    addresses multiple resource needs, including flood control, recreation,
    environmental restoration, navigation, water supply, etc. The
    California Department of Water Resources is the cost-sharing partner
    with the CALFED process. To date, field tests of levee-strengthening
    methods have been pursued and the study provides input to the CALFED
    process. The President's for this investigation is $300,000
    San Joaquin River Basin Corral Hollow Creek--$65,000
        This is a new project investigating flood control improvements to
    protect adjacent lands in the southern portion of the County and the
    nearby Deuel Vocational correctional facility. The President's Budget
    for this investigation for fiscal year 2001 is $65,000.

    San Joaquin River Basin Stockton Metropolitan Area (Section 211)--
            $10,180,000
        Before Federal dollars can be appropriated to reimburse the local
    agency (up to 75 percent reimbursement), a Section 211 Report must be
    completed and approved by the Secretary of the Army. The 211 Report was
    completed at the Sacramento office of the United States Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) in late 1999 justifying a reimbursement of as much as
    $38 million. This same report was forwarded to the Corps' office in
    Washington, D.C. for final review and approval. The President's 2001
    budget of $180,000 is adequate to complete the required 211 Report and
    begin the feasibility report addressing rural flood control
    improvements. However, the Corps and the Federal Committee of
    Appropriations should allocate $10 million of the $38 million for
    fiscal year 2001, as a start of new construction in anticipation that
    reimbursement will be approved during fiscal year 2001. Thus, a total
    funding of $10,180,000 is requested for fiscal year 2001.

    San Joaquin River Basin Farmington Recharge and Wetland Restoration
            Project--$400,000
        The Study costs for continued investigations will determine if a
    Federal interest may exist for utilizing Farmington Dam for multiple
    purposes inclusive of flood control, groundwater recharge, and
    environmental enhancement. The President has included $100,000 in his
    fiscal year 2001 budget for completing this feasibility study. All
    Federal funds will be matched by the local sponsor, Stockton East Water
    District and other eastside water purveyors of San Joaquin County. Pre-
    construction Engineering and Design Plans for fiscal year 2001 have
    been budgeted for $150,000. It is anticipated that an additional
    $150,000 is also needed above the budgeted amount to continue with the
    studies and designs before commencing with an early pilot (Phase 1)
    portion of the anticipated project. The total project funds need to
    further all three phases of the project during fiscal year 2001 is
    $400,000.

    San Joaquin River Basin Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers--$150,000
        A reconnaissance study of ecological restoration and non-structural
    flood control improvements is being performed on the Mokelumne and
    Cosumnes Rivers. The current fiscal year 2000 funding is $50,000 and
    the President's fiscal year 2001 budget is $150,000. Separate studies
    and reports are continuing for the Cosumnes River (between the Delta
    and Michigan Bar) and the Mokelumne River (between the Delta and
    Camanche Reservoir). The East Bay Municipal Utilities District and
    Woodbridge Irrigation District are the local sponsors working with the
    United States Corps of Engineers on the Mokelumne River investigations.
    The Nature Conservancy is the local sponsoring agency with interests on
    the Cosumnes River.

                             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

    South Delta Barriers--$92,000
        The project provides temporary barriers in the south Delta to
    improve water quality. The fiscal year 2000 budget included funding for
    $20,000, and the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget includes funding
    for $92,000.
        The following project is recommended with conditional support:

    Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration--CALFED--$60,000,000
        Current fiscal year funding is for $95 million and the President's
    fiscal year 2001 Budget has included $60 million. Funds for this
    program have been used primarily for acquisition of lands, development
    of habitat, and fishery enhancement/protection improvements. Although
    the County supports CALFED's assistance with Woodbridge Irrigation
    District's efforts of enhancing the Mokelumne River and other potential
    conjunctive use projects such as the Farmington project, the County is
    concerned that the overall CALFED program is overlooking the need for
    surface water and groundwater supply requirements within the County of
    San Joaquin. The CALFED program does not recognize county area of
    origin protections; and there are no water quality improvement
    objectives to improve the water quality of San Joaquin County water
    supplies. There is no documentation of the benefits that will be
    derived from the expenditure of funds, particularly to displace
    agricultural lands.
                                     ______

                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

                  Prepared Statement of Ohio State University

        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: As Chair of Board on
    Agriculture Budget Committee of the National Association of State
    Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the importance of inter-agency partnerships
    research in energy, environmental and natural resource programs.
        The Board on Agriculture represents a national network of Land-
    Grant University-based nonprofit State Agricultural Experiment Stations
    (SAES) and State Cooperative Extension Services (CES). The Land Grant
    University system (LGU) and the Cooperative State Research, Education,
    and Extension Service (CSREES) have had a thriving partnership of many
    years, providing the technology which has made American agriculture the
    most productive and efficient in the world. Our universities are
    committed to advancing scientifically based decision making at the
    local level by capitalizing on the Land-Grant University comparative
    assets in research, education, and extension. From the Land Grant
    University program base, the Fund for Future Agriculture and Food
    Systems has bio-based technologies as a key goal. This grant program
    provides a mechanism to generate competitively awarded research,
    extension and education (technology transfer). However, this is not
    enough. Partnerships with the Department of Energy and others need to
    be created for bio-energy research to thrive.
        President Clinton's recently announced bipartisan bio-energy and
    bio-products tax incentives proposal is a crucial step for the
    advancement of these technologies. As you know, the President's fiscal
    year 2001 budget includes $976 million in tax incentives over 5 years
    and $2.1 billion over ten years to accelerate the development and use
    of bio-based technologies, which convert crops, trees, and other ``bio-
    mass'' into a vast array of fuels and products. These tax credits
    support the August 1999 Executive Order 13134 and Memorandum on
    Promoting Bio-based Products and Bio-energy, aimed at tripling U.S. use
    of bio-based products and bio-energy by 2010. This initiative will
    increase the viability of alternative energy sources, help meet
    environmental challenges like global warming, support farm incomes, and
    diversify and strengthen the rural economy.
        I wholeheartedly endorse these targeted tax credits for the
    advancement of biomass technology. As important as they are to this
    technology's advancement, tax credits alone won't get us there. I
    believe technology transfer models like those in place at our Land
    Grant Universities are crucial to our ultimate success. Specifically,
    university and federal joint venture partnerships could be formed to
    integrate intellectual assets and science infrastructures, and then
    move-out the products of these joint ventures quickly into practical
    applications to be used in the real world.
        It is important to note that one of the keys to advancing this
    ``big'' technology may be found in small-scale capacity. In the area of
    small farms, extensive research expertise already exists among the Land
    Grant system, especially in our Historically Black Universities and
    Colleges (1890 institutions), about how agriculture is practiced on
    small-scale farms. I believe small farmers collectively could have a
    big contribution to make in the future development of biomass.
        As a key anchor in the real world of agriculture, the State
    Cooperative Extension Services would be the cornerstone of our proposed
    technology transfer and education delivery model to the ultimate end
    user--the American Farmer.
        SAES and CES's major focus in the energy and related environmental
    areas include:
      --Bio-mass/bio-fuels energy system technology development;
      --Global climate change or carbon sequestration/forming;
      --Environmental modeling and forecasting;
      --Renewable energy research and production;
      --Earth science applications and technologies; and;
      --Environmental education and outreach.
        Through a variety of means, a partnership between the Department of
    Energy and the Land Grant University system as well as NASA, NOAA, NSF
    and other agencies would increase:
      --The rate of technology transfer and development between the
            partners;
      --the amount of LGU participation in agency peer review processes;
      --the quantity/quality of proposals submitted by the Land-Grant
            Universities for government funded competitive grants in
            related energy/agricultural areas;
      --the exchange of scientists between LGU institutions and the
            government for collaborative projects.
        For example, the Department of Energy and USDA (through the Land
    Grant System) could jointly develop bio-mass technology, which could
    lead to increased use of ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. Recent
    prospective breakthroughs in genetic engineering and processing are
    radically changing the technical possibilities in favor of ethanol as a
    viable transportation fuel. New biocatalysts of genetically engineered
    yeast and bacteria are making it possible to use virtually any plant or
    plant product through cellulosic bio-mass to produce ethanol. This new
    technology may decisively reduce cost to the point where petroleum
    products would face competition. Genetically engineered micro-organisms
    and new processing techniques can similarly make it possible to utilize
    most plant matter for fuel.
        To expand the explanation provided earlier about this technology's
    environmental value, increased use of bio-mass fuels stands out as an
    excellent way to introduce an environmentally friendly energy
    technology that has a chance of having a decisive impact on the risk of
    climate change. Renewable fuels produced from plants are an outstanding
    way to substantially reduce greenhouse gases. Although ethanol
    consumption as a fuel releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it
    is the same carbon dioxide that was fixed by photosynthesis when the
    plants were living. Of course, the CO2 released from burning
    fossil fuels comes from sources deep underground which would never have
    been released unless removed by mankind.
        In addition, the issue of global climate provides an excellent
    partnering opportunity. By its very nature, it is an extremely complex
    issue involving a wide range of disciplines and one which crosses a
    considerable number of agencies. It is this type of issue which lends
    itself to the establishment of partnerships. The very nature of the
    problem is something that the agricultural community has in effect been
    attempting to accomplish from the time mankind began to cultivate
    crops, i.e., increase the growth of food and fiber, a process that
    depends upon the incorporation of CO2. In this regard,
    agriculture and the Land Grant University system has spent vast amounts
    of research and has a unique structure that could certainly contribute
    to a partnership concerned with CO2 mitigation.
        Within the last two decades, agriculture has seen a change in
    farming known as ``no-till'' farming. It is the practice of returning
    organic (carbon containing materials) back to the land. In parts of the
    U.S.A. where soil organic matter falls below I percent, the re-
    incorporation results in a more productive soil and there is an
    effective means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus
    there are two winners, the grower who produces more food or fiber on
    the land with improved productivity and the environmentalist who
    witnesses a lower CO2 level in the atmosphere. Such
    situations not only provide a win for each of the participants in the
    partnership, but because of a joint success, there is increased support
    from the supporters of the research.
        DOE and other agencies have existing and new initiatives to address
    many of the nation's energy and environmental problems. The Land Grant
    University system plans to encourage interagency communication and to
    broaden Land-Grant Universities federal participation in USDA at the
    local level. A well-planned initiative could unify representatives from
    the State Agricultural Experimentation Stations and the State
    Cooperative Extension Services, Natural Resource Conservation Service
    (NRCS), the Forest Service, and the Agricultural Research Service and
    extend this unified expertise to the energy and environmental missions
    of DOE. SAES and CES have identified existing resources in agencies for
    various programs which are targeted at addressing the scientific
    infrastructure between agriculture, the environment and the nation's
    need for energy.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Endorsed programs areas                 Department/Agency
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bio-mass/biofuels energy systems:       DOE
     Alternative Fuels Development.
        Carbon Sequestration..............  DOE/EPA/USDA
            Global Climate................  DOE/NOAA
    Socio-economic Dimensions.............  DOE/NOAA
        National Renewable Energy           DOE
         Laboratory.
        Precision Agriculture and Forestry  DOE/NASA/OES
    Remote Sensing Applications...........  DOE/USDA/NASA
    Geospatial Extension..................  DOE/NASA

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        SAES and CES would be pleased to provide an expanded ``on-the-
    ground'' and ``in-the-field'' role for the LGU System on energy and
    environmental issues and research. I hope I have highlighted the
    science benefits and value of partnerships between the Land Grant
    system and DOE and other agencies to solve some of the nation's
    pressing energy and environmental problems. The Land-Grant University
    System stands ready to help.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History

                  ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

        Founded in 1869, the American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is
    one of the nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and
    public education. It is home to one of the world's largest natural
    history collections and premier research programs. Throughout its
    history, the Museum has pursued its joint missions of science and
    education, of examining critical scientific issues and educating the
    public about them. It is renowned for its exhibitions and collections,
    which serve as a field guide to the entire planet and present a
    panorama of the world's cultures. Its explorers and scientists have
    pioneered discoveries and offered us new ways of looking at nature and
    human civilization. The Museum's power to interpret wide-ranging
    scientific discoveries and convey them imaginatively has inspired
    generations of visitors to its grand exhibition halls and educated its
    three million annual visitors--500,000 of them schoolchildren--about
    the natural world and the vitality of human culture.
        The American Museum in many ways is similar to a research
    university, with its scientific faculty from diverse fields such as
    earth and planetary sciences, astrophysics, biology and genomics
    science, anthropology, and all branches of zoology. Today more than 200
    active Museum scientists with internationally recognized expertise, led
    by 47 curators, conduct laboratory and collections-based research
    programs as well as field work and training. Scientists in five
    divisions (Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences;
    Invertebrate Zoology; Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology) are
    sequencing DNA and creating new computational tools to retrace the
    evolutionary tree, documenting changes in the environment, making new
    discoveries in the fossil record, and describing human culture in all
    its variety. The Museum also conducts graduate training programs in
    conjunction with a host of distinguished universities, supports
    doctoral and postdoctoral scientists with highly competitive research
    fellowships, and offers talented undergraduates an opportunity to work
    with Museum scientists.
        The AMNH collections of some 32 million natural specimens and
    cultural artifacts are a major scientific resource providing the
    foundation for the Museum's interrelated research, education, and
    exhibition missions. They often include endangered and extinct species
    as well as many of the only known ``type specimens,'' or examples of
    species by which all other finds are compared. Within the collections
    are many spectacular individual collections, including the world's most
    comprehensive collections of dinosaurs; fossil mammals; Northwest Coast
    and Siberian cultural artifacts; North American butterflies; spiders;
    Australian and Chinese amphibians; reptiles; fishes outside of their
    home countries; and one of the most important bird collections.
    Collections such as these are historical libraries of expertly
    identified examples of species and artifacts, associated with data
    about when and where they were collected, providing an irreplaceable
    record of life on earth. Such collections provide vital data for Museum
    scientists as well as more than 250 national and international visiting
    scientists each year.
        The Education Department builds on the Museum's unique research,
    collections, and exhibition resources to offer rich programming
    dedicated to increasing scientific literacy, to encouraging students to
    pursue science and museum careers, and to providing a forum for
    exploring the world's cultures. Each year hundreds of thousands of
    students, teachers, and schools participate in workshops, courses for
    college credit, and Museum visits; more than 500,000 students and
    teachers visit on school trips, prepared and supported by curriculum
    resources and workshops. The Museum is also reaching beyond its walls:
    through its National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and
    Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership with NASA, it is exploiting
    new technologies to bring learning and discovery, materials, and
    programs into homes, schools, museums, and community organizations
    around the nation.
        Exhibitions are among the Museum's most potent educational tools,
    translating AMNH scientific knowledge and discovery into three
    dimensions. The Museum is proud to continue its tradition of creating
    some of the world's greatest scientific exhibitions. In February 2000,
    in one of the most exciting chapters in the Museum's long and
    distinguished history of advancing science and education, it opened the
    spectacular new Rose Center for Earth and Space. The Rose Center
    includes a newly rebuilt and updated Hayden Planetarium that allows
    visitors to journey among the stars and planets in our own and in other
    galaxies; and the Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Hall of the Universe,
    where interactive technology and participatory displays elucidate
    important astronomy and astrophysics principles. The centerpiece of the
    Rose Center is an 87-foot-diameter sphere housed in a glass cube. Its
    top half contains the planetarium's state-of-the-art Space Theatre; its
    bottom half, the Big Bang, a dramatic multimedia recreation of the
    first moments of the universe.
        Adjoining the Rose Center is the Hall of Planet Earth, which opened
    in 1999 and explores the processes that determine how the Earth works--
    how it has changed though time; why ocean basins, continents, and
    mountains exist; what causes climate change; and why the Earth is
    habitable. Its exhibits explore the question of natural resources: what
    are they; what resources are necessary to generate energy (oil, coal,
    geothermal); where are they located; and how are they formed. The Hall
    of Planet Earth in turn leads to the recently opened Hall of
    Biodiversity. Together, the new planetarium and halls provide visitors
    a seamless educational journey from the universe's beginnings to the
    Earth's formation and processes to the extraordinary diversity of life
    on our planet.

               SUPPORT FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MISSION AND GOALS

        The American Museum shares with DOE fundamental commitments to
    cutting-edge research, technology in support science and education, and
    science education and literacy. As the nation's third largest
    government sponsor of basic research and a major source of support for
    laboratory equipment and instrumentation, DOE is one of the world's
    preeminent science organizations. Its primary strategic goals also
    include promoting science literacy and educating the next generation of
    scientists. The Museum seeks a partnership with DOE to leverage our
    complementary resources and mutually strengthen our abilities to
    advance our shared goals.

    Genomics Science
        DOE is a leader in genomics research, instrumentation, and advanced
    sequencing technologies. The American Museum, in turn, is home to a
    preeminent molecular research effort. Indeed, natural history and
    genomic science are intricately related. The AMNH molecular systematics
    program is at the forefront of the analysis of DNA sequences for
    evolutionary research. In its molecular laboratories, now in operation
    for nine years, more than 40 researchers in molecular systematics,
    conservation genetics, and developmental biology conduct genetic
    research on a variety of study organisms.
        The Museum is also expanding its collection techniques to include
    the preservation of biological tissues and molecular libraries in a
    super-cold storage facility for current and future genetic study. This
    collection is a unique and valuable resource for worldwide research in
    such fields as conservation genetics, systematics, and medicine. Such a
    tissue collection will preserve genetic material and gene products from
    rare and endangered organisms that may go extinct before science fully
    exploits their potential. With nearly 40,000 samples already collected,
    it will be the largest super-cold tissue collection in the world and
    will increase the possibilities for DNA research exponentially. We also
    plan an on-line geographically based collection database to ensure
    access to the public as well as to facilitate loans to scientists
    outside the Museum.

    Parallel Cluster Computing
        Parallel computing is an essential enabling technology in
    phylogenetic analysis. A new, 256-processor cluster recently
    constructed in-house by Museum scientists is the fastest parallel
    computing cluster in an evolutionary biology laboratory and one of the
    fastest installed in a non-defense environment. It allows Museum
    scientists to examine the effectiveness and computational behavior for
    large real-world data sets, and will be central to all Museum projects
    in evolutionary and genomics research.

                       INSTITUTE OF COMPARATIVE GENOMICS

        The Museum proposes to establish, in partnership with DOE, an
    Institute of Comparative Genomics so as to contribute its unique
    resources and expertise to the nation's genomic research enterprise. A
    full understanding of the impact of the knowledge we have gained from
    genomics and molecular biology can come from placing genomic data in a
    natural history perspective; comparative work in genomics will enrich
    our knowledge not only of biodiversity, but also of humans, medicine,
    and life itself.
        With the advent of DNA sequencing, museum collections have become
    critical baseline resources for the assessment of the genetic diversity
    of natural populations, as well as for pursuit of research questions
    pertinent to DOE's interests. Genomes, especially those of the simplest
    organisms, provide a window into the fundamental mechanics of life. One
    of the goals of DOE's Human Genome Project is to learn about the
    relevance to humans of nonhuman organisms' DNA sequences. DOE also
    supports an area in which the AMNH is expanding its expertise--
    microbial genomics, the study of organisms that have survived and
    thrived in extreme and inhospitable environments. This research can
    yield information that can be applied in solving challenges in health
    care, energy sources, and environmental cleanup. The AMNH comparative
    genomics program could provide vital tools in these endeavors and
    support DOE's biological and environmental research function (the BER
    account).
        Over the past year the Museum has established its parallel
    computing facility, enhanced the molecular labs with state-of-the-art
    DNA sequencers, and initiated the super cold storage facility. Thus
    initially equipped, the Institute will be one of the world's premier
    research facilities for mapping the genome across a comprehensive
    spectrum of life forms, drawing on comparative methods and biological
    collections.
        The Institute will focus on molecular and microbial systematics;
    expanding our understanding of the evolution of life on earth through
    analysis of the genomes of selected microbes and other non-human
    organisms; and constructing large genomic databases for conservation
    biology applications. Research programs may include the study of the
    utility of genomic information on organismal form and function;
    microbial systematics; the construction of large genomic databases for
    conservation biology applications; and the use of broad scale
    comparative genomic studies to understand the function of important
    biomolecules.
        The Institute's scope of activities will include: an expansion of
    the molecular laboratory program that now trains dozens of graduate
    students every year; the utilization of the latest sequencing
    technologies; employment of parallel computing applications that allow
    scientists to examine the effectiveness and computational behavior of
    large real world datasets; and operation of the frozen tissue
    collection as a worldwide scientific resource, with at least 500,000
    samples accessioned in the first phase alone, an active loan program,
    and ready public on-line access.
        In addition to research, the Institute for Comparative Genomics
    will include education and outreach activities, an international
    conference featuring leading scientists and policymakers, and a major
    public exhibition on genomics. In conjunction with the exhibition, the
    Museum may also publish an electronic bulletin on genomics to be
    located in the Hall of Human Biology. The bulletin would be modeled
    after the popular Earth, Bio, and AstroBulletins in the newest exhibit
    halls that display changing science news, linked to interactive kiosks
    and websites.
        In establishing the Institute, the Museum plans to expand its
    curatorial range in microbial work; add lab space to accommodate
    additional curators and students; grow the super-cold tissue
    collection; and draw on our exhibition and educational expertise to
    offer enhanced public education and outreach.
        We seek $10 million to partner with DOE in establishing the
    Institute for Comparative Genomics at the Museum.--In partnership, the
    Museum and DOE will be positioned to leverage their unparalleled
    resources to advance joint genomics research, education, and technology
    goals. As well, development of the super-cold tissue collection will
    increase exponentially the possibilities for DNA research and provide
    an invaluable resource to scientists worldwide. Our planned collection
    database available on the Internet will ensure public access to
    genomics information, furthering DOE's own goals for fostering public
    understanding of human genomics and the fundamental building blocks of
    life.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
                                    Research

        On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    (UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
    research and related education, training and support activities, I
    submit this written testimony for the record of the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
    Development.
        This year UCAR, a university membership consortium composed of 63
    North American institutions that grant the Ph.D. in atmospheric,
    oceanic, and related sciences, celebrates its fortieth anniversary of
    scientific discovery and university partnerships. The UCAR mission is
    to support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university
    community, nationally and internationally; to understand the behavior
    of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment; and
    to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment
    of life on earth.
        UCAR is a non-profit, Colorado-based corporation that manages and
    operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the
    UCAR Office of Programs (UOP). It is supported by the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies including the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD),
    and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition to its
    member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately
    100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
    historically black and minority-serving institutions and 38
    international universities and laboratories.
        Within the Department of Energy, we would like to comment on the
    following programs:

                  BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (BER)

        On behalf of this country's atmospheric sciences community, we urge
    the Committee to support the fiscal year 2001 request of $445.3 million
    for BER. This is a $12.4 million increase over the fiscal year 2000
    appropriated amount of $432.9 million. BER programs, particularly those
    involving support of peer-reviewed research at universities and
    national laboratories, are of great importance to the atmospheric
    sciences researchers focussing on climate change and climate change
    impacts. BER's Environmental Sciences Division is particularly critical
    as its programs improve our understanding of the Earth's radiative
    energy balance, improve predictions of climate change induced by
    greenhouse gases, quantify sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and
    aerosols, and improve our ability to assess the potential consequences
    of climate change.
        Division programs in which we have much interest include the
    following:

    Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program
        Within the Environmental Processes Area of the BER proposed budget
    under Climate and Hydrology, we urge the Committee to support the
    fiscal year 2001 request of $14.1 million for ARM Program research.--
    This is a 7.6 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 amount of
    $13.1 million. ARM is a key component of DOE's research strategy to
    address global climate change and is an important component of the
    interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). ARM data are
    critical to the improvement of General Circulation Models (GCMs), which
    simulate the entire global circulation of the atmosphere, and to our
    understanding of climate change responses to increasing greenhouse
    gases. Current ARM research foci include the significant role of clouds
    in climate, the radiation balance of the atmosphere, and the
    interactions of solar and infrared radiation with water vapor and
    aerosols. These atmospheric processes are critical to understanding and
    predicting changes in global and regional temperature and precipitation
    patterns that result from anthropogenic and natural influences.
    Approximately 50 principal investigators, most of them from the
    university community, will be supported in fiscal year 2001, and
    interactions and collaborative work with prominent climate modeling
    centers will be enhanced.
        ARM also performs a great service to the atmospheric sciences
    community by supporting several students involved in the UCAR-managed
    program, Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science
    (SOARS). SOARS is a four-year graduate and undergraduate program for
    students pursuing careers in the atmospheric and related sciences. In
    its relatively short history, SOARS has already increased the number of
    under-represented students in this scientific area by a significant
    percentage. ARM is contributing to the SOARS effort to ensure that
    tomorrow's scientific workforce reflects the diversity of our citizenry
    and provides opportunity to all students.

    Climate Modeling
        Also within Climate and Hydrology within the Environmental
    Processes area of BER, we urge the Committee to support the fiscal year
    2001 request of $27.9 million for the Climate Modeling effort.--This is
    a 17.2 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 amount of $23.8
    million for this important contribution to the USGCRP and integrates
    the BER climate modeling programs, including the successful Computer
    Hardware, Advanced Mathematics, and Model Physics (CHAMMP) activity.
    This increase will support the development of the next generation
    circulation models and smaller scale climate model simulations for
    global and regional studies of environmental changes. Technologies and
    computational resources will be developed that will help the scientific
    research community work efficiently with large datasets of
    observational and modeling data. Teams involving national laboratories
    and the university community will be assembled to produce and apply the
    datasets to the study of both global and regional climate change and
    accompanying environmental impacts. This work is of great importance to
    our understanding of the manner in which climate change, natural or
    otherwise, affects specific areas of the country with ramifications to
    local environmental and economic systems.

                     ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

        We urge the Committee to support the DOE initiative, Advanced
    Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), at the proposed fiscal year 2001
    level of $182.0 million.--This is a 42.2 percent increase over the
    fiscal year 2000 amount of $127.9 million for this important
    contribution to computational science. ASCR activities complement the
    work of and enable progress in the Climate Modeling initiative
    described above. ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance
    to atmospheric scientists involved with coupled general circulation
    model development, research that takes enormous amounts of computing
    power. If the United States is to continue to play a key role in
    determining the components that influence climate behavior and further
    developing scientific methods to successfully predict climate change,
    then the country's scientists must have access to enhanced computer
    simulation and modeling technology and software.
        Specifically, the fiscal year 2001 ASCR increase will support the
    development and deployment of new mathematical models, computational
    methods, and scientific codes to take full advantage of the
    capabilities of terascale computers to solve critical scientific
    problems in the atmospheric and oceanographic sciences. Software will
    be developed and deployed to accelerate the development of and protect
    long-term investments in scientific codes, to achieve maximum
    efficiency on high-end computers, and to enable a broad range of
    scientists to use simulation in their research. Research will also
    include network technologies and software research to link
    geographically separated researchers, to facilitate movement of large
    (petabyte) data sets, and to ensure that academic scientists can fully
    participate in terascale computing. Proposals from teams involving
    national laboratories and the university community will be peer
    reviewed and competitively selected to participate in the research.
        On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the Committee for the important
    work you do for U.S. scientific research, education, and training. We
    appreciate your attention to the recommendations of our community
    concerning the fiscal year 2001 budget.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the University of Rochester

                          SUMMARY AND REQUESTED ACTION

        The inertial confinement fusion (ICF) program is a key element in
    the Department of Energy's (DOE) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
    It was formally initiated by the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization
    (Public Law 103-160) to ``establish a stewardship program to ensure the
    preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the
    United States in nuclear weapons.'' The ICF program provides access to
    high-energy-density physics data important in the design and
    understanding of nuclear weapons. In fiscal year 2001 the program will
    be focused on the use of available facilities. The principal facilities
    include the OMEGA laser at the University of Rochester's Laboratory for
    Laser Energetics (LLE) and the Z machine at Sandia National
    Laboratories (SNL). Smaller facilities--the Nike laser at the Naval
    Research Laboratory (NRL) and the Trident laser at the Los Alamos
    National Laboratory (LANL)--will also be used. The 1999 decommissioning
    of the Nova laser at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
    required many experiments conducted by the weapons laboratories to
    shift to the OMEGA facility at LLE. ICF experiments support the
    demonstration of thermonuclear ignition and gain on the National
    Ignition Facility (NIF) under construction at LLNL and provide
    important data in support of National SSP activities. Changes in the
    NIF schedule and capabilities make SSP much more reliant on existing
    facilities, such as OMEGA, located at the University of Rochester.
        LLE (since 1970) is the only ICF program that has been jointly
    supported by the Federal Government, State government, industry,
    utilities, and a university. LLE makes fundamental scientific
    contributions to the National program. The Laboratory transfers
    technology to the public and private sectors through the training of
    graduate students and interactions with industry and other Federal
    laboratories. The Laboratory serves as a National Laser Users' Facility
    benefiting scientists throughout the country. The OMEGA laser, the
    highest-power ultraviolet fusion laser in the world, is the principal
    laser facility for SSP activities for DOE in fiscal year 2001 and for
    many years to come.
        LLE's primary ICF mission is to validate the direct-drive option
    for ICF, including ignition and gain on the NIF. DOE proclaimed that
    OMEGA is also needed to meet mission-critical requirements for the
    indirect-drive ignition plan developed by DOE for the NIF, and to
    conduct experiments to support the SSP mission, including some that are
    classified, in collaboration with the National laboratories.
        OMEGA is the only operating facility that can demonstrate the
    scientific potential of direct drive to provide a modest- to high-gain
    energy option for the Nation. The Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory
    Committee emphasized the priority of cryogenic experiments on OMEGA.\1\
    The recent Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) National Ignition
    Facility Laser System Task Force Interim Report \2\ noted the
    importance of continuing scientific contact with ``. . . the laser-
    based research at the University of Rochester.'' Upon completion of the
    NIF, OMEGA will continue to be used when full NIF energy or capability
    is not required, particularly since the cost per shot on OMEGA is
    considerably less than that on the NIF. The repetition rate of OMEGA
    (one shot per hour) is also higher than that planned for NIF (several
    shots per day).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Report to
    Assistant Secretary Reis (February 21, 1996).
        \2\ ``Interim Report of the National Ignition Facility Laser System
    Task Force,'' Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, U.S. Department of
    Energy, Washington, D.C., January 10, 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To provide the support for program deliverables and the operation
    of OMEGA (for both ICF experiments and SSP experiments), and to
    maintain the training programs at Rochester, a total authorization and
    appropriation of $32,200,000 for the University of Rochester for fiscal
    year 2001 is required, as contained in the Administration's budget
    request for DOE.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Thermonuclear fusion is the process by which nuclei of low atomic
    weights, such as hydrogen, combine to form higher atomic weight nuclei
    such as helium. In this process some of the mass of the original nuclei
    is lost and transformed to energy in the form of high-energy particles.
    Energy from fusion reactions is the most basic form of energy in the
    universe. Our sun and other stars produce energy by thermonuclear
    fusion reactions occurring in their interior. Fusion is also the
    process that provides the vast destructive power of thermonuclear
    weapons.
        To initiate fusion reactions, the fuel must be heated to tens of
    millions of degrees. In ICF the heating and compression of fusion fuel
    occur by the action of intense laser or particle beams. There are two
    approaches to ICF, direct and indirect drive. Indirect drive involves
    the conversion of beam energy to x-rays to compress a fuel capsule in
    an enclosure called a hohlraum. Direct drive involves the direct
    irradiation of a spherical fuel capsule by energy from a laser and is
    generally more efficient energetically than indirect drive. In either
    approach, if very extreme density and temperature conditions are
    produced, it is possible to produce many times more energy in these
    fusion reactions than the energy provided by the drivers.

                   INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION PROGRAM FOCUS

        As noted in the recent U.S. Department of Energy Stockpile
    Stewardship Program 30-day Review,\3\ ``The mission of the National
    Inertial Confinement Fusion program is to execute high energy density
    physics experiments for the Stockpile Stewardship program, an important
    part of which is the demonstration of controlled thermonuclear fusion
    in the laboratory. Technical capabilities provided by the ICF program
    also contribute to other DOE missions including nuclear weapons effects
    testing and the development of inertial fusion power.'' The NIF project
    completion date and schedule to achieve its full capabilities have
    changed since the project's inception. While NIF is under construction,
    OMEGA is the principal ICF facility used for nuclear weapons
    stewardship experiments by LLNL, SNL, and LANL, and for direct- and
    indirect-drive ICF experiments. Additionally, LLE will conduct
    experiments for the SSP in fiscal year 2001 under three categories:
    equation of state of D2 and foam materials; properties of
    metals within high-pressure shocks; and the development of a testbed
    for hydrodynamic instability studies and advanced nonlinear
    diagnostics. OMEGA will also be used to support experiments in fiscal
    year 2001 that are part of a DOE bilateral agreement with the French
    Atomic Energy Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``U.S. Department of Energy 30-Day Review Stockpile Stewardship
    Program,'' U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 23,
    1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        LLE is the primary focus in the U.S. for the direct-drive approach
    to ICF. Direct drive may ultimately prove to be the best approach to
    ICF and provide the most efficient path to a laboratory-scale
    thermonuclear capability for both energy research and defense
    technology needs. OMEGA is the only facility that can demonstrate the
    scientific potential of direct drive to provide modest to high gain on
    the NIF. LLE is a major participant in NIF design and construction. At
    present, LLE is fabricating the large polarizers and transport mirrors
    for the NIF, and LLNL has also recently decided to have LLE coat,
    assemble, and test the NIF deformable mirrors. This decision will
    result in substantial cost saving on these items for the NIF. LLE is
    the lead laboratory working with DOE and the other participants to
    formulate the plan for the direct-drive ignition campaign on the NIF.
    In collaboration with the other ICF laboratories, LLE is also
    developing several advanced diagnostics required for NIF experiments.
        An extensive collaborative program between LLNL, LANL, and LLE has
    provided data on basic physics, beam smoothing, and unstable
    hydrodynamics using available lasers. This collaboration on OMEGA
    includes both nuclear weapons physics experiments and ICF experiments.
    In fiscal year 2000, we expect 1,300 target shots on the OMEGA laser
    system that will be used for LLE's direct-drive program, National
    Laboratory ignition physics and stockpile stewardship programs, and the
    National Laser Users Facility (NLUF) program. During fiscal year 2001,
    the same number of laser shots are expected and funded in the
    Administration's request. This year LLE developed advanced diagnostics
    including a high-dynamic-range x-ray streak camera with high spatial
    resolution, hard x-ray diagnostics, and a neutron imaging system in
    collaboration with our colleagues at LANL, LLNL, and the French
    Commmissariat a L'Energie Atomique (CEA).
        Both LANL and LLNL will continue to use OMEGA for ICF and SSP
    experiments for the foreseeable future. Because of the high interest
    and utility of the OMEGA facility to the weapons laboratories, DOE's
    budget request includes funds for extended operations on OMEGA for SSP
    experiments. With its lower per-shot cost compared to the NIF (several
    thousand dollars vs. more than $100,000), as well as the higher shot-
    repetition rate (one shot per hour vs. several shots per day), OMEGA
    will be a very important supporting facility for experiments and
    diagnostic development for the NIF after its completion.

                                THE LLE PROGRAM

        The goal of the LLE direct-drive target physics program is to
    evaluate the performance of fuel capsules near ignition conditions.
    OMEGA is the first facility to attempt the fielding of high-fill-
    pressure cryogenic DT capsules, which forms the basis for the capsule
    design to be used in the NIF indirect-drive and direct-drive ignition
    demonstrations. In addition to providing data for the NIF, OMEGA
    experiments are required to validate the direct-drive configuration on
    the NIF that could result in two to three times higher fusion gains
    (gain > 50) than those available with the baseline (indirect-drive) NIF
    design.
        An important element of the direct-drive program on OMEGA is to
    demonstrate on-target irradiation uniformity of 98 percent to 99
    percent. The realization of this goal this year will fulfill one of
    LLE's principal objectives for fiscal year 2000: We are implementing
    uniformity enhancements on all 60 OMEGA beams, including beam
    smoothing, and will achieve an on-target uniformity of greater than 99
    percent rms. Planar target imprinting experiments are showing the
    expected reductions in the imprint of laser nonuniformities as a result
    of beam smoothing and plasma decoupling. Experiments to quantify the
    effect of internal target imperfections on target implosion physics
    have been completed, and good agreement between simulations and
    experiments was obtained. In fiscal year 2000 the improved pulse-
    shaping system achieved a contrast ratio of 100:1 with high
    reproducibility; this is required for the fiscal year 2001 cryogenic
    experiments.
        As part of the theoretical and computational effort that is at the
    heart of understanding inertial fusion implosions, we have
    significantly extended our computational capability in the analysis of
    multidimensional effects. Initial three-dimensional simulations of
    hydrodynamic instabilities have been carried out and will be extended
    in fiscal year 2001. Multidimensional simulations will be conducted to
    determine the sensitivity of OMEGA and NIF target designs to
    irradiation nonuniformities and surface roughness during the coming
    year.
        Cryogenic fueling and target experiments are necessary to
    demonstrate the success of the direct-drive option on the NIF. The
    OMEGA cryogenic system serves as an engineering test-bed to support NIF
    cryogenic development. In fiscal year 2000, we will complete the
    cryogenic target handling system and perform cryogenic DD implosion
    experiments. We have also implemented infrared layering and completed
    the first full characterization of a spherical target for target shots.
    In fiscal year 2001 we will perform high-density cryogenic implosions
    addressing critical issues for ignition experiments. A cryogenic
    capability, diagnostics development, and beam smoothing are all
    required for the NIF. With respect to beam smoothing, in fiscal year
    2001 LLE will complete the conceptual design of the beam-smoothing
    system for the NIF. LLE is the principal National facility engaged in
    developing these technologies. LLE's design and testing of two-
    dimensional beam-smoothing techniques and LLE's fabrication
    capabilities for the large polarizers, transport optics, and deformable
    mirrors for the NIF are essential to NIF's completion and success.
        LLE provides education and training in the field of ICF and related
    areas for personnel with expertise in areas of critical National need,
    especially high-energy-density physics and laser research and
    development. One hundred thirty-three University of Rochester students
    have earned Ph.D. degrees in related laser physics programs at LLE
    since its founding. Sixty-three graduate students and 20 post-doctoral
    positions from other universities have been funded by NLUF grants. A
    total of 42 graduate students and 14 faculty members of the University
    of Rochester are involved in the unique research environment provided
    at LLE and represent many departments within the University. Beyond
    this, more than 50 undergraduate students receive research experience
    annually at LLE. Additionally, a high-school summer science program
    exposes 12 talented students each year to the research environment and
    encourages them to consider careers in science and engineering. Many
    LLE graduates have made important scientific contributions in National
    laboratories, universities, and industrial research centers.
                                request summary
        The Administration (DOE) has requested $32,100,000 for the
    University of Rochester for SSP and ICF experiments on the OMEGA laser
    for fiscal year 2001. These monies will support operation of the OMEGA
    laser for the National laboratories, the LLE program, and continuation
    of the education and training programs at the Laboratory for Laser
    Energetics.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute

        On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, I would like to commend
    you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this subcommittee for focusing
    your attention on the value of nuclear technology-related programs in
    the Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission budget
    proposals for fiscal year 2001.
        The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) coordinates public policy for
    the U.S. nuclear industry. We represent 270 members with a broad
    spectrum of interests, including every U.S. utility that operates a
    nuclear power plant. NEI's membership also includes nuclear fuel cycle
    companies, suppliers, engineering and consulting firms, national
    research laboratories, manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals,
    universities, labor unions and law firms.
        Today, America's 103 nuclear power plants are the safest, most
    efficient and most reliable in the world. Nuclear energy is the largest
    source of emission-free electricity generation in the United States,
    and the industry last year reached unsurpassed levels for outstanding
    safety and performance.
        Your continued support of nuclear research and development programs
    is essential to continue advances in nuclear medicine and other nuclear
    technologies beneficial to society, to guard against the impact of
    foreign supply disruptions to our energy security and to encourage
    growth of America's largest source of emission-free electricity. To
    capitalize on the many benefits of nuclear technologies, research and
    development of these technologies must be a priority in fiscal year
    2001 appropriations legislation.

                FEDERAL STORAGE & DISPOSAL OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL

        The Federal Government's responsibility for deep geologic disposal
    of used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of defense-related activities
    are long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act established federal policy for developing such a facility.
    In 1987, Congress restricted the repository study to a site at Yucca
    Mountain, Nevada. DOE is committed to providing a decision on formal
    Yucca Mountain site recommendation to the President in the summer of
    2001.
        DOE's 1998 viability assessment and 1999 draft environmental impact
    statement (EIS) point to Yucca Mountain as a viable site for a
    permanent repository. The draft EIS says that the environmental impacts
    associated with the repository would be small, certainly less than
    keeping fuel at nuclear power plant sites that were not designed for
    long-term storage. It also predicts that peak radiation exposures over
    10,000 years, due to the repository, would be less than 1 percent of
    naturally occurring background radiation at that location, or less
    radiation than a transcontinental airplane trip.
        DOE failed to meet its contractual and statutory obligations to
    accept and remove used nuclear fuel from national laboratories, nuclear
    power plants and defense facilities in 152 communities in 41 states
    beginning in 1998. This failure is a violation of the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act of 1982 and also a breach of contracts between the Energy
    Department and electric utility companies.
        Since 1982, American electricity consumers have committed $16.5
    billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund, specifically to finance the central
    federal management of used nuclear fuel. Federal taxpayers have paid an
    additional $1.2 billion for disposal of waste from defense-related
    nuclear programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of about $10
    billion, which must be available for repository construction and
    operation. The director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
    Management said recently that the budget for Yucca Mountain will
    increase during the repository construction phase to $1.3 billion in
    fiscal year 2005.
        The nuclear power industry strongly supports the Department of
    Energy's fiscal year 2001 request for $437.5 million for the Civilian
    Radioactive Waste Management program, which includes continued
    scientific study at Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year
    will pay approximately $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund. With
    full funding from Congress, DOE can be held accountable to forward a
    recommendation to the President on whether to proceed with building a
    repository at Yucca Mountain in 2001.
        Further delay in opening a repository will result in increased
    costs to consumers for additional used fuel storage at nuclear power
    plants and could threaten our nation's ability to meet clean air goals.
        NEI urges this committee to instruct DOE to provide Congress with
    detailed five-year projections--with subsequent six-month updates--of
    the estimated program costs for construction and operation of the
    federal used nuclear fuel program. DOE also should report monthly on
    progress toward meeting major repository milestones.
        This committee has routinely examined the use of federal grants by
    Nevada state universities and counties to provide scientific oversight
    of the Yucca Mountain project. The industry supports funds for
    legitimate oversight purposes. However, the Nevada Nuclear Waste
    Project Office has been found to misspend funds. Until the state takes
    steps to reform this misspending, we believe grants should be
    restricted to universities and affected counties.
        NRC's proposed Yucca Mountain regulations are consistent with sound
    science by relying on an all-pathways radiation standard. The
    overwhelming majority of scientists and public health experts believe
    that this is the appropriate manner to protect the public and the
    environment. The NRC should be allowed to regulate Yucca Mountain by
    using the most up to date methodologies available. To do otherwise
    would cost electric consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars without
    any meaningful return on public safety or environmental protection.
        Although the repository program is the foundation of our national
    policy for used nuclear fuel disposal, the nuclear industry recognizes
    there can be value associated with potential future waste management
    technologies. Farsighted research and development programs allow our
    nation to continue to be the world leader in nuclear technologies.
    However, it is important to note those even technologies like
    transmutation--the conversion of used nuclear fuel into less toxic
    materials--still requires a geologic repository for disposal of the
    waste generated from the process.

                         NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        The Commission is making progress to remedy the problem of user
    fees supporting NRC activities unrelated to licensee activities. The
    NRC's budget for fiscal year 2001 proposes that the NRC collect
    approximately 98 percent of its budget from user fees levied on
    licensees, excluding funding from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. The
    budget further proposes that each fiscal year from 2001 through 2005,
    the proportion of the NRC budget derived from user fees will decrease
    by two percent each year.
        The industry thanks the Committee for its continued oversight of
    the NRC and support for the NRC's new oversight process designed to
    make regulation of the industry more consistent and efficient. The
    recently completed pilot program for reactor regulation, which tested
    the new NRC safety-focused and results-oriented oversight process, was
    successful. The NRC is now preparing for full implementation this
    spring.
        The industry also applauds the Committee for its concern that the
    NRC's licensing process for extending nuclear power plant operating
    licenses be completed on schedule. The NRC has responded to the
    Committee's direction. The first two electric utility companies seeking
    20-year license extensions for nuclear plants are expecting to complete
    the NRC review process within about 24 months, shorter than the
    initially expected 36-month period. The industry expects future
    relicensing applications to be streamlined as the NRC applies lessons
    learned from the initial license renewal applications.
        As priorities change, sound public management and budgeting policy
    require that the NRC reassess its allocation of resources and make
    appropriate budget and staffing changes. In that regard, this Committee
    asked for a comprehensive five-year plan as part of the NRC's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request. NRC's budget request for fiscal year 2001 was
    to outline anticipated agency staff and organizational changes.
    Industry urges the Committee to request a detailed explanation of the
    NRC's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget in the context of the
    comprehensive plan.

                     NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Chairman, for the United States to remain the world leader in
    nuclear safety and technology, it is crucial that industry and
    government continue to invest in nuclear technology research and
    development.
        U.S. electricity demand is expected to increase from 50 percent to
    75 percent during the next decade, and we will need to maintain the 30
    percent of electricity production from emission-free electricity
    sources, such as nuclear energy, solar, hydro and wind power. Of these,
    nuclear energy is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source
    that protects our air quality and meets the energy demands of a
    growing, modern economy.
        The expansion of our domestic nuclear power program may ultimately
    prove to be one of our most strategic initiatives for mitigating the
    effects of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Without nuclear energy,
    it would be impossible for the United States to successfully reduce
    carbon dioxide and other emissions while expanding our economy. Today,
    improved efficiency and production at nuclear power plants is the
    single largest carbon reduction technology among industry participants
    in DOE's Voluntary Reporting Program. Nuclear energy accounts for
    almost half of the total carbon avoidance reported by all American
    industries combined.
        In comparison to other electricity generating sources, nuclear
    energy is unequivocally the most economical federal research and
    development investment. In 1997, the Federal Government spent five
    cents on nuclear energy R&D for every kilowatt-hour of electricity
    generated at nuclear power plants. By comparison, the cost of natural
    gas R&D per kilowatt-hour, was 41 cents; for solar photovoltaics,
    $17,006; and for wind energy $4,769.
        NEI urges the Committee to approve $45 million in fiscal year 2001
    for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI). The NERI program
    funds research and development at universities, national laboratories
    and industry to advance nuclear power technology, pave the way for the
    expanded use of nuclear energy and maintain U.S. leadership in nuclear
    plant technology and safety. In fiscal year 1999, NERI's review board
    awarded grants to 46 of 308 proposals submitted.
        Although DOE requests $28 million for NERI in fiscal year 2001,
    mostly to continue ongoing projects, industry requests congressional
    approval of $45 million to complete existing projects as well as fund
    new projects in this highly promising program.
        The nuclear industry strongly supports the new nuclear R&D
    initiative recommended by the White House: the Clean Energy Initiative
    or the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI/I). NEI
    supports DOE's request for an additional $7 million to launch this
    cooperative international R&D program. NERI International will promote
    bilateral and multilateral research focused on advanced technologies to
    improve safe and efficient nuclear power plant operation and waste
    management. This program, funded jointly by all participating nations,
    provides the United States an opportunity to further leverage its
    nuclear energy R&D dollars.
        The nuclear energy industry also encourages the Committee to
    authorize $10 million for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)
    program, which improves efficiency and reliability while maintaining
    outstanding safety at U.S. nuclear power plants. This public-private
    partnership is helping to facilitate America's economic growth and
    prosperity--and improving our nation's air quality
        DOE's University Support Program enhances research and educational
    programs in nuclear science at colleges and universities. There are a
    dwindling number of college programs in nuclear engineering and
    science. To maintain our nation's position as the international leader
    in the nuclear field, it is vital that this trend be reversed and that
    our nation's best and brightest technical minds be attracted to the
    nuclear technologies fields. DOE has requested $12 million for this
    program, but the industry believes that Congress should allocate $20
    million in fiscal year 2001 to fund student recruitment, teaching
    facilities, fuel, reactors and other equipment, and instructors to
    educate a new generation of American nuclear specialists.
        Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The industry strongly supports the
    Clinton Administration goal to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons
    arsenals around the world. NEI supports the disposal of excess weapons
    grade nuclear materials through the use of mixed-oxide fuel in reactors
    in the United States and Russia. An ongoing concern of industry is
    sufficient funding to ensure successful implementation of the program.
    NEI also urges the Committee to instruct DOE to provide Congress with
    detailed five-year projections of the expected program costs for
    construction and operation of plutonium disposition facilities.
        Low-Dose Radiation Research.--The nuclear industry strongly
    supports continued funding for the DOE's low-dose radiation research
    program. This program will produce an enhanced understanding of low-
    dose radiation effects to assure that public and private resources are
    applied in a manner that protects public health and safety without
    imposing unacceptable risks or unreasonable costs on society.
        Nuclear Research Facilities.--The nuclear industry is concerned
    with the declining number of nuclear research facilities. We urge the
    Committee to request that DOE provide it with a long-term plan for
    using existing nuclear research facilities, such as the Fast Flux Test
    Facility, as well as for development of new research facilities.
        Uranium Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.--The industry
    fully supports cleanup of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Ky.,
    Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn. Each year, commercial nuclear
    power plants contribute more than $150 million to the government-
    managed uranium enrichment plant Decontamination and Decommissioning
    Fund (D & D Fund). NEI urges the Committee to assure that these monies
    are spent on D&D activities at these facilities. Other important
    environmental, safety and/or health activities at these facilities
    should be paid for out of the general fund. An important factor adding
    unnecessary costs to site cleanup is the overlapping and conflicting
    authority between EPA and DOE that hinders development of consistent
    federal radiation protection standards. We urge the Committee to
    support the Energy Department in finalizing its proposed
    decommissioning standards, consistent with those of the NRC, for the
    agency's sites. This would ensure safe, and timely standards for the
    agency's extensive environmental restoration program.
        International Nuclear Safety Program & Nuclear Energy Agency.--NEI
    supports the funding requested for both DOE and NRC the international
    nuclear safety programs of both the DOE and NRC. They are programs
    aimed at the safe commercial use of nuclear energy.
        Medical Isotopes.--The nuclear industry supports the
    Administration's program for the production of medical and research
    isotopes. However, NEI is concerned about DOE's dismantling of the
    calutrons at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory without first
    identifying new cost effective technology to supply the vital stable
    isotopes produced at that facility. We support continued funding for
    the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative to fill the gap where other
    funding sources, such as the National Institute of Health, have been
    either unable or unwilling to provide support for radioisotope
    production.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of The Business Council for Sustainable Energy

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Business Council For Sustainable Energy is pleased to offer
    testimony to the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House
    Appropriations Committee on the role for Government in promoting energy
    research and development, as it relates to renewable energy programs at
    the Department of Energy (DOE).
        The Council was formed in 1992 and is comprised of businesses and
    industry trade associations that share a commitment to realize our
    nation's economic, environmental and national security goals through
    the rapid deployment of clean and efficient natural gas, energy
    efficiency, and renewable energy technologies. Our members range in
    size from Fortune 500 enterprises to small entrepreneurial companies,
    to national trade associations.
        As recent events have brought to us as a nation once again, few
    activities have greater impact on our nation's economy, environment,
    and security than the production and use of energy. Our economic well-
    being depends on energy expenditures, which account for 7 to 8 percent
    of the nation's gross domestic product and a similar fraction of U.S.
    and world trade. Energy production and use also account for many
    environmental problems, such as smog, acid rain and the accumulation of
    greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Our national security is
    increasingly linked to energy production and use, given our nation's
    increasing dependence on foreign oil sources, including those from the
    politically unstable Middle East. Expanded reliance on natural gas,
    energy efficiency and renewable energy are the three pillars of a more
    secure and sustainable energy strategy that will help strengthen the
    U.S. economy and clean up the environment.

             FEDERAL PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

        The Council recognizes that suppliers and users of energy--not the
    Federal Government--ultimately will decide which energy sources meet
    our future needs. However, the Federal Government does play an
    important role in helping the private sector share the risk of
    investing in deployment of clean technologies that, while at or near
    economical viability, face obstacles to their wide market availability.
    The Council would like to describe the following programs which can

    STRENGTHEN THE NATION'S PORTFOLIO OF ENERGY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES.
                                      WIND

        World markets for utility-scale wind energy are growing at an
    unprecedented rate. Global installed generating capacity is estimated
    to have increased by more than 25 percent annually since 1990, and at a
    rate of 40 percent annually over the last five years. In 1999, more
    than 3,600 MW of new wind energy generating capacity were installed
    worldwide, bringing total installed capacity to the 13,400 MW range.
    This is the largest-ever worldwide single-year addition to wind
    generating capacity.
        Domestically, from mid-1998 to mid-1999, some 925 megawatts (MW) of
    new generating capacity were installed in the U.S.--more than twice the
    amount added in 1985, the previous record year. In addition, nearly 200
    MW of existing capacity were ``repowered'' with new turbines replacing
    older, less efficient ones. These additions bring total U.S. wind
    capacity to about 2,500 MW.
        More Emphasis Is Needed on Small Wind Turbines: Homes consume more
    electricity than either businesses or industry: 35 percent of the 3.2
    trillion kWh consumed in 1998. Distributed generation with small
    customer-sited power plants has great potential for reducing customer
    energy costs, promoting competition in the marketplace, and
    strengthening the nation's electrical supply network. Renewable energy
    technology for homes and farms include solar photovoltaics,
    concentrated solar thermal, and small wind turbines (up to 50 kW). The
    Council, therefore, supports the $6 million fiscal year 2001 Small Wind
    Turbine Initiative proposed by the American Wind Energy Association,
    which would provide more customer choice.
        The Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) will reduce the costs of
    small wind systems for homes, farms, and small businesses by promoting
    deployment leading to higher production volumes, reducing market
    barriers, and improving the technology. SWTI aims to make small wind
    turbines cost effective for an estimated 6-10 million potential rural
    residential users in the 2010-2030 timeframe. Specific program goals
    for 2010 are:
      --Energy costs below $0.06/kWh for 5 kW systems and below $0.05/kWh
            for 50 kW systems in Class 2 wind regimes
      --100,000 systems installed (approx. 1,000 MW)
      --At least 200 systems (2 MW) in all fifty states
        Specific recommended program elements are as follows:
        Partnerships for Technology Introduction (fiscal year 2001 $2
    million).--This activity is a follow-on to the successful $1 million
    fiscal year 1999 Small Wind Field Verification Program and aims to
    engage a wider body of participants including federal agencies.
        Advanced Home Turbine (fiscal year 2001 $1.5 million).--This new
    activity will initiate the cost-shared industry development of 2-3
    advanced 1-8 kW wind turbines suitable for use on residences with as
    little as \1/4\ acre of land. These turbines must use space very
    efficiently and have extremely low environmental (noise and visual)
    impacts.
        State and Local Policy Support (fiscal year 2001 $1 million).--This
    new activity will provide small wind technical and policy support for
    state utility restructuring initiatives and it will create a program to
    help address zoning issues.
        International Clean Energy Initiative (fiscal year 2001 $1.5
    million).--This new activity would try to accelerate the RD&D of small
    wind technology to developing countries and increase small wind's
    global energy contribution.
        Funding for Cooperative Research and Testing will provide support
    for industry testing at the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in
    Rocky Flats, Colorado. This will allow for continued development of a
    U.S.-based certification capability for wind energy technologies.
    Ultimately, streamlined certification criteria will make it easier for
    U.S. businesses to market and sell American-made wind turbine
    technologies in international markets.
        The main focus of the applied research program is development of
    models to better understand aerodynamics (through wind tunnel tests),
    fatigue damage prediction and structural reliability capabilities.
    Modeling and code design work is underway at both the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory (located in Golden, Colorado) and the
    Sandia National Laboratory (New Mexico).
        The Council supports DOE's total request of $50.5 million for wind
    energy research and development in fiscal year 2001 to fund projects in
    turbine research ($14.5 million), cooperative research ($21 million)
    and applied research ($15 million). This level of funding is
    particularly important to continue developing next generation wind
    turbine technologies needed to keep the U.S. industry competitive in
    restructured domestic markets and in the fast growing, highly
    competitive international markets.

                                  SOLAR ENERGY

        The United States leads the world in the diverse portfolio of solar
    technologies: photovoltaics (PV) for manufacturing; thin films and
    energy services; solar thermal power in advanced concentrations (solar
    power towers, parabolic troughs, and dish-engines); and solar buildings
    in integrated systems and energy services delivery. However, our
    international competitors are positioning themselves to take our market
    share from vast, multibillion dollar world markets, as a result of
    strong support provided by their respective governments--especially in
    Japan and Germany--through a variety of aggressive programs.
    Maintaining our lead requires determined U.S. Government action, not
    only to support international activities but also to secure a position
    in growing domestic markets.
        Solar technologies available today include PV, solar water and pool
    heating, solar process heating, and solar thermal power technologies.
    Faster integration of solar energy systems in both supply- and demand-
    side applications in our domestic economy, combined with support for
    increased exports of U.S. solar technologies, will have the parallel
    benefits of creating thousands of new high-technology manufacturing
    jobs while improving our environment. The Council supports the trend
    toward market-driven, industry cost-shared programs designed to
    leverage federal dollars with private-sector participation to enhance
    private-sector understanding and use of these technologies.
        Improving conversion efficiency of solar panels and reducing
    manufacturing costs will play a key role in sustaining U.S. dominance
    in the area of PV. The Council supports DOE's photovoltaic system
    program. PV programs are among the best leveraged (the PV COMPACT
    program leverages $4 and $5 for every federal dollar expended) in DOE.
    Our two most formidable competitors, Japan and Germany, outspend DOE's
    investment in PV research and development and PV commercialization
    programs. While U.S. industry is exporting a significant amount of its
    products to these countries, most expect this demand to rapidly
    diminish as in-country manufacturing capabilities are increased. As an
    example, the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry has
    a domestic deployment goal of 400 megawatts of PV in 2000 and its
    manufacturers are responding to the challenge.
        Japanese manufacturers are expected to expand their annual
    production capacity four-fold over the next three years. Not only will
    this expansion allow the Japanese industry to meet much of its domestic
    demand for PV; it will enable Japan to overtake the U.S. in terms of
    global market share. The Council continues to support the
    Administration's Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Initiative.
        The Council supports DOE cost-shared initiatives in R&D (thin-films
    and other advanced materials, manufacturing and other solar initiatives
    which address these issues). Equally important is the concept of
    building integrated PV programs where manufacturers, systems
    integrators and utilities work together to reduce the cost of PV
    generated electricity. The Council also supports the Department's PV
    COMPACT program. It is a collaborative effort involving more than 80
    electric utilities (representing over half the electricity produced in
    the U.S.) and other interested organizations to garner the economic,
    commercial, and environmental benefits of PV technologies.
        PV and other solar technologies offer the U.S. environmentally
    benign, cost-effective energy supply options in a variety of market
    applications. The Council is highly supportive of PV programs, and
    requests $102 million for DOE programs. The market viability of these
    technologies is demonstrated in growing private sector interest in
    developing new manufacturing facilities related to solar industries. In
    the area of PV production alone, the last four years have witnessed six
    U.S. companies announce plans to construct new PV plants. This activity
    is a unique example of DOE funding encouraging significant private-
    sector investment that creates new jobs. The Council strongly urges
    Congress to continue supporting public/private partnerships that help
    ensure that U.S. companies can compete effectively in rapidly emerging
    world renewable energy markets.
        The Council also supports PV programs within DOE's Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy, specifically DOE's Solar Thermal
    Buildings program, a research and development program focusing on
    materials and components for solar water and space heating technologies
    for building applications. Based at the National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory and the Florida Solar Energy Center, the program also has a
    strong technology standard and certification component. Activities in
    fiscal year 2001 should include the completion of collaborative
    projects with utilities and builders to assess their impact on
    improving solar water heating technology and the completion of a
    cooperative research and development agreement with the Salt River
    Agricultural Improvement and Power District to develop a solar water
    heater that could provide hot water at a cost of 6 to 7 cents per
    kilowatt-hour.
        The Council supports the Solar Thermal Electric and Process Heat
    programs, an R&D program on materials and components with a heavily
    cost-shared technology validation component. Over the past six years,
    the primary program focus has been in collaboration with industry to
    develop advanced solar thermal electric technologies to the point of
    commercial readiness.
        The Council also supports concentrated solar power, and solar
    buildings programs, specifically seeking $20.5 million for federal
    concentrated solar power research programs, and $5.5 million for solar
    buildings.

                               DISTRIBUTED POWER

        Customers throughout the nation are seeking technologies that are
    scaled to a competitive market and that provide the quality and
    reliability assurances needed by an economy increasingly influenced by
    electronic commerce. Accordingly, power providers are developing state
    of the art technologies aimed at providing customers with the cleanest,
    most reliable, and cheapest power possible. This market cannot develop
    without the accumulation of real-world operating experience, but the
    uncertainties of the unfolding marketplace are inhibiting such
    deployment. Last year the Congress added funding for a $3 million pilot
    effort to demonstrate these technologies, and that program was greatly
    oversubscribed by industry. DOE has requested the continuation of this
    program, but BCSE strongly supports increasing it to $9 million.
    Further research is also needed in order to develop cost-effective
    interconnection technologies and standards which would enable smaller
    distributed generation products to connect and operate safely with the
    electric grid. DOE has requested $250,000, but BCSE strongly feels this
    should be increased to $2.5 million.

                     RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE

        As part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Sec. 1212), Congress
    passed the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) to encourage
    the development of renewable energy projects in tax-exempt municipal
    utilities. This program has been successful in helping municipal
    utilities such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District develops
    wind and solar generating facilities. We believe the Administration's
    request is insufficient to meet the requirements of this program, and
    request the Committee increase to $8 million the funding for the REPI.

                               GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

        The Council supports federal programs directed towards taking
    advantage of geothermal resources. U.S. geothermal resources already
    displace 22 million tons of CO2 annually. Internationally,
    nearly 20,000 megawatts of electrical and thermal energy are recovered,
    with the potential to quadruple that harvest over the next 20-30 years.
    The Council affirms a budget increase to $27 million in geothermal
    funding in fiscal year 2001.

                            INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

        Finally, the Council would like to offer its support of federal
    programs designed to help open important international markets for
    renewable energy technologies. Competition in rapidly growing
    developing country markets is intense; U.S. renewables manufacturers
    face the dual obstacles of competition from conventional energy sources
    and foreign renewables manufacturers buoyed by government assistance.
        Our participation in international markets is more critical than
    ever. Growth in developing nations will take their energy use levels
    above that of the industrialized nations within two decades, and after
    their expenditure of $4 to $5 trillion. Traditionally, environmentally
    friendly and efficient technologies are not the first choice of
    decision-makers in these markets. With encouragement and bureaucratic
    streamlining, however, U.S. clean energy exports could double in less
    that five years, resulting in up to $5 billion in export revenues and
    100,000 new American jobs. Global benefits include reducing greenhouse
    gas and sulfur particulate emissions by bypassing reliance on
    traditional energy sources, and providing for the energy needs of those
    now without electricity.
        The Council is extremely supportive of the fiscal year 2001 funding
    for international energy programs like the International Clean Energy
    Initiative, and urges that funding for this and or similar programs not
    come at the expense of existing research, development and deployment
    programs. Beyond the benefit to U.S. exports, these technologies can
    help ensure international economic and political stability by meeting
    the profound infrastructure needs of these countries.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Promoting research, development and validation of emerging
    renewable energy and distributed power technologies will result in the
    near-term creation of thousands of new American jobs, stronger
    economies here and abroad, enhanced export opportunities for domestic
    manufacturers, and a cleaner environment. DOE's budget request
    continues federal emphasis on developing low- and non-polluting energy
    technologies and services as a means of achieving these goals. It
    utilizes cost-shared collaboratives with industry to leverage limited
    federal funds in recognition that cooperation with industry is vital
    for addressing market imperfections impeding the widespread use of
    renewables.
        The Council strongly supports this approach, and urges Congress to
    continue its support of federal research, development and validation
    programs for renewable and distributed energy technologies and
    programs. By adopting a robust budget for development of these
    technologies, Congress can demonstrate its genuine commitment to the
    U.S. economy's over-reliance on limited energy options.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society

        The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
    Pete Domenici and Senator Harry Reid for the opportunity to submit
    testimony for the record on the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
        As you may know, ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational
    organization, chartered by Congress, representing 161,000 individual
    chemical scientists and engineers. The world's largest scientific
    society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public
    understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on state
    and national matters. ACS firmly believes that no investment the
    government makes generates a higher rate of return for the economy than
    research and development (R&D). In fact, economic experts maintain that
    today's unprecedented economic growth would not have been realized but
    for the substantial research investments by the public and private
    sectors over the past few decades. Looking ahead, the American Chemical
    Society (ACS) is concerned that constant dollar declines in federal
    support for basic research over the past decade, particularly in the
    physical sciences, have weakened the roots of innovation in all fields
    and put future economic growth at risk. In order to sustain our
    technological leadership and living standards, increased funding for
    basic research should be a top priority for use of the non-Social
    Security budget surpluses. As a framework for increases in R&D, ACS
    supports doubling federal spending on research within a decade, as well
    as balanced funding among different areas of science.

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

        ACS strongly supports the 12-percent increase requested for the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science (SC). DOE is the
    nation's largest supporter of research in the physical sciences and the
    largest supporter of major scientific user facilities. Most of this
    support is provided through the Office of Science. SC plays a central
    federal role in supporting long-term, peer-reviewed basic research
    across all scientific disciplines, both in universities and national
    laboratories, which strengthens our knowledge base and the training of
    the next generation of scientists. The research supported by SC
    addresses, on a fundamental scientific level, one of the world's most
    pressing problems: how to meet growing demands for energy while
    protecting the environment and ensuring economic growth. Whether the
    challenge is cleaner and more efficient fossil fuels, advancing energy
    efficiency and renewable energy, or cleaner and affordable power, SC
    provides the scientific framework necessary for progress on DOE's
    energy and environmental objectives.
        Nanoscale Science and Engineering.--The Society strongly supports
    SC's important role in the interagency nanotechnology initiative. The
    Office of Science has been a leader in the development of nanoscience
    since the early 1980s. The ability to manipulate and move matter at the
    atomic and molecular level and understand and control the building
    blocks of all physical things can bring revolutionary improvements in
    medicine, electronics, and advanced materials for manufacturing,
    defense, and environmental applications. SC's substantial investment in
    university-based research and in major scientific user facilities will
    play a unique and important role in advancing the chemistry, materials,
    biology, and engineering expertise needed to invigorate this cutting-
    edge research.

    Basic Energy Sciences
        Within SC, ACS supports the budget request of $1 billion for the
    Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program, which would increase funding by
    $236 million in fiscal year 2001. The most diverse research program
    within DOE, BES funds an array of long-term basic research that
    advances the technology needed to improve energy production and use and
    environmental progress. Although much of the requested increase is
    slated for the Spallation Neutron Source, increases in core, peer-
    reviewed research in chemistry, materials, and other areas are
    essential to further departmental missions and maintain progress in the
    physical sciences. BES research, for example, has fostered improvements
    in battery storage, superconducting materials, and the understanding of
    combustion at a fundamental level. Increased investments will also
    support much of DOE's role in the nanotechnology initiative and sustain
    the operation of many of the nation's most sophisticated research
    facilities, which offer researchers world-class capabilities to carry
    out complex experiments that could not be done in other laboratories.

    Biological and Environmental Research
        ACS supports a 7-percent increase for the Biological and
    Environmental Research (BER) program in fiscal year 2001. The Society
    is concerned that the $445 million request for BER, an increase of less
    than 3 percent, is inadequate to meet the critical demands of this
    quality program. BER advances fundamental understanding in fields such
    as waste processing, bioremediation, and atmospheric chemistry to
    better understand potential long-term health and environmental effects
    of energy production and use. Progress in these fields is also needed
    to develop and advance new, effective, and efficient processes for the
    remediation and restoration of weapons production sites. The program
    advances understanding of the basic chemical, physical, and biological
    processes of the Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans, and how these
    processes may be affected by energy production and use, primarily the
    emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. Such research
    includes critical efforts to capture, measure, and reduce carbon and
    other greenhouse gases and the consequences of global climate change.
    ACS also supports a strong role for BER in federal efforts to
    understand and address global climate change, including the Climate
    Change Technology Initiative and the U.S. Global Change Research
    Program.
        Strong funding for DOE's Office of Science is a priority for the
    Society. Investments in basic research within BES and BER should be
    increased in fiscal year 2001 because both programs fund quality, peer-
    reviewed research projects that are investments in the true sense of
    the word.
        ACS also supports DOE's ``Industries of the Future'' program within
    the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT). The program advances
    innovative technologies through cooperative R&D with the nation's most
    energy-intensive industries, including the chemical industry. OIT works
    with these industries to develop both a long-range vision of their
    future competitiveness and a technology roadmap to identify the R&D and
    other investments needed to achieve that vision.
        In the past 7 years, 10 scientists have won Nobel Prizes in
    Chemistry or Physics for their SC-supported research. ACS believes that
    SC research programs warrant increased investment to ensure they can
    continue to support cutting-edge fundamental research across
    disciplines, which provides the scientific foundation needed to support
    DOE's mission in energy, environment, and national defense.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association

        This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2001 (fiscal year 2001)
    appropriation for mission-oriented, biomass research, development, and
    deployment (RD&D) supported by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy (EERE). The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA)
    is a non-profit association headquartered in Washington, DC. BERA was
    founded in 1982 by researchers and private organizations that are
    conducting biofuels research. Our objectives are to promote education
    and research on renewable biomass energy and waste-to-energy systems
    that can be economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a
    source of information on policies and programs. BERA does not accept
    federal funding for its efforts.
        I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of BERA's
    members for the opportunity to present our position on the federal
    funding of mission-oriented biomass RD&D. Continued support is
    essential to provide the stimulus to develop environmentally clean,
    indigenous energy resources that can displace fossil fuels, stimulate
    regional and national economic development and employment, reduce our
    dependence on imported oil, improve our energy security, and help to
    eliminate adverse climate and environmental changes.
        I have examined the details of DOE's request for biomass funding in
    fiscal year 2001 for EERE, and would like to offer a few comments about
    our Board's concerns before presenting BERA's recommendations. DOE
    continues to emphasize scale-up projects, the budgets for which are
    large and which adversely impact the research budgets. DOE has
    therefore been required to terminate research in several microbial and
    thermochemical conversion areas. We feel that a balanced research
    program should be sustained and protected, so BERA continues to
    recommend both a diversified portfolio of research and an appropriate
    amount of funding for scale-up without diminishing either EERE's
    research or scale-up programs. Also, DOE's basic research on biomass
    energy outside of EERE by the Office of Science ($41.0 million
    requested for fiscal year 2001), which supports academic research,
    complements EERE's biomass RD&D. Other mission-oriented biomass RD&D
    programs are funded through EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies
    (OIT) under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. All of these
    projects and programs should be internally coordinated and jointly
    managed at DOE Headquarters. BERA's recommendations for OIT's mission-
    oriented biomass programs total $43.826 million and are presented in a
    separate BERA statement for the Interior and Related Agencies Bill.
        DOE's request for EERE's biomass funding under the Energy and Water
    Bill includes details that have usually not been presented in the past.
    We commend EERE for updating their biomass RD&D plan so that it is now
    reasonably clear which projects have been completed, terminated, or are
    new starts. Specifically, BERA recommends that $117 million be
    appropriated for biomass RD&D under the Energy and Water Bill in fiscal
    year 2001.
      --A total of $70.5 million for research and $46.5 million for
            industry cost-shared scale-up.
      --$34 million for research and $22.5 million for industry cost-shared
            scale-up projects for Power.
      --$30.5 million for research and $24 million for industry cost-shared
            scale-up projects for Transportation.
      --$6 million for biomass-based hydrogen research.
        BERA also strongly recommends that the provisions of both the
    Bioenergy Initiative enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2000 and the
    Executive Order ``Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and
    Bioenergy'' be incorporated into the overall federal biomass research
    program. This will enhance the value of the federal expenditures on
    biomass RD&D to the country in many ways.

                ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDED BY BERA

        BERA recommends that the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 be
    allocated as shown in the accompanying table. BERA's recommendations
    are generally listed in the same order as DOE's request for fiscal year
    2001, except we include several research areas that are either new or
    that BERA recommends be restored to sustain a balanced program of
    research and scale-up. Note that the recommended budget for each scale-
    up category does not include industry cost-sharing, which is required
    to be a minimum of 50 percent of the total budget.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Recommended budget
         Office of Energy Efficiency and     -------------------------------
         Renewable Energy--program area        For research    For scale-up
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Power Systems:
        Thermochemical Conversion:
            Cofiring/Ash Deposition.........      $3,000,000  ..............
            Advanced Combustion.............       4,000,000  ..............
            Advanced Gasification...........       2,000,000  ..............
            Advanced Pyrolysis..............       3,000,000  ..............
            Advanced Stationary Fuel Cells..       2,000,000  ..............
            Advanced Process Fuels..........       3,000,000  ..............
            Improved Emissions Control......       4,000,000  ..............
            Wastewater Treatment............       2,000,000  ..............
            Hot Gas Clean-Up................       2,000,000  ..............
        Microbial Conversion: Advanced             2,000,000  ..............
         Anaerobic Digestion................
        Systems Development:
            Biomass/Coal Cofiring...........  ..............      $3,500,000
            Integrated Field Scale-Up.......  ..............       7,000,000
            Vermont Gasifier................  ..............       4,000,000
            Small Modular Systems...........       2,500,000       3,000,000
            Feedstock Production............       2,000,000       4,000,000
            Regional Biomass Energy Program        2,500,000       1,000,000
             \1\............................
                                             -------------------------------
              Subtotal......................      34,000,000      22,500,000
                                             ===============================
    Transportation:
        Fermentation Ethanol:
            Advanced Organisms..............       2,000,000  ..............
            Advanced Cellulase..............       8,500,000  ..............
            Advanced Pretreatment...........       2,000,000  ..............
            NREL Pretreatment Pilot Reactor.  ..............       3,000,000
            NREL Fermentation Pilot Plant...  ..............       5,000,000
        Commercial Ethanol Plants by Company
         and Location:
            Arkenol, Rio Linda, CA \2\ \3\..  ..............  ..............
            BCI International, Jennings, LA   ..............  ..............
             \2\ \4\........................
            BCI International, Gridley, CA    ..............       4,000,000
             \5\............................
            Masada Resources, Orange County,  ..............  ..............
             NY \2\ \6\.....................
            Sealaska Corp., Southeast AK \7\  ..............       2,000,000
            Corn Stalk Feedstock \8\........  ..............       5,000,000
            1Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells.....       3,000,000  ..............
            Renewable Diesel................       1,000,000  ..............
            Feedstock Production............       2,000,000       4,000,000
        Thermochemical Conversion:
            Ethanol.........................       3,000,000  ..............
            Mixed Alcohols..................       3,000,000  ..............
            Other Oxygenates from Biomass...       3,000,000  ..............
            Regional Biomass Energy Program        3,000,000       1,000,000
             \1\............................
                                             -------------------------------
              Subtotal......................      30,500,000      24,000,000
                                             ===============================
    Hydrogen Research: \9\
        Thermal Processes (Reforming).......       3,000,000  ..............
        Photolytic Processes (Algae)........       3,000,000  ..............
                                             -------------------------------
              Subtotal......................       6,000,000  ..............
                                             ===============================
              Total.........................      70,500,000      46,500,000
                                             ===============================
          Grand Total.......................            117,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ BERA strongly recommends that for future funding requests, the
      Regional Biomass Energy Program be treated as a line item.
    \2\ DOE contribution to plant costs completed.
    \3\ Rice straw, concentrated acid.
    \4\ Bagasse, dilute acid.
    \5\ Rice straw, dilute acid.
    \6\ Refuse-derived fuel, concentrated acid.
    \7\ Waste softwoods.
    \9\ For plant located in Midwest.
    \9\ BERA's recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of
      Hydrogen Research.

               PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT

        For several years, BERA has urged that all of the biomass-related
    research funded by DOE should be internally coordinated and jointly
    managed at DOE headquarters. The program managers at DOE Headquarters
    should be heavily involved in this activity. Multi-agency agreements to
    expand the coordination of biomass energy research programs between two
    or more federal agencies do not seem to have been too effective in the
    past. Implementation of the Bioenergy Initiative enacted by Congress
    for fiscal year 2000 to identify each federal agency that provides
    funding related to producing biomass energy, each agency's programs,
    and the expenditures by each agency, coupled with President Clinton's
    Executive Order 13134 issued on August 12, 1999, ``Developing and
    Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy,'' should make it possible to
    extend the coordination of all of these programs through a National
    Coordination Office to all federal agencies involved in biomass energy
    development, as proposed in the Executive Order.
        BERA strongly recommends that these initiatives be continued and
    incorporated into the overall federal biomass RD&D program. In fiscal
    year 2001, it is especially important that the biomass research of DOE
    and the U.S. Department of Agriculture be closely coordinated. If the
    initiatives are fully implemented, the value of the federal
    expenditures on biomass research to the country will be enhanced in
    many different ways.

       BERA RECOMMENDS $70.5 MILLION FOR RESEARCH AND $46.5 MILLION FOR
          INDUSTRY COST-SHARED, SCALE-UP PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

        BERA's recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-
    oriented RD&D on feedstock production and conversion research and
    technology transfer to the private sector. Advanced power generation
    technologies, alternative liquid transportation fuels, and innovative
    hydrogen-from-biomass processes are emphasized.
        In addition, BERA strongly urges that at least 50 percent of the
    federal funds for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-up
    projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and technology
    base via subcontractors outside DOE's national laboratories. While it
    is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate this research,
    increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in industry,
    academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund biomass
    research will encourage commercialization of emerging technologies and
    serious consideration of new ideas. It will also help to expand the
    professional development and expertise of diverse researchers committed
    to the advancement of biomass technologies.
        BERA's specific recommendations for research, the industry cost-
    shared scale-up projects, and the dollar allocations are listed in the
    table (page 2). Additional commentary on each program area is presented
    below in the same order as listed in the table.

                                 POWER SYSTEMS

        Thermochemical Conversion.--Currently, there is over 8,000 MW of
    electric power capacity fueled by biomass in the United States.
    Municipal solid wastes, forest and wood processing residues and pulping
    liquors are the primary fuels. Continued research to develop advanced
    biomass combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis methods could have
    environmental and economic benefits that can lead to significant growth
    in biomass power generation. Much of this research has been phased out
    by DOE. Research (not scale-up) should be initiated or re-stored with
    the goal of developing the next generation of thermochemical biomass
    conversion processes for power generation. Stationary, integrated
    biomass gasifier-fuel cell systems should be developed as potential,
    high-efficiency power generation systems. New fuel cells that can
    tolerate the sulfur levels found in certain biomass-derived fuel gases
    without sacrificing system affordability and the testing of integrated
    advanced fuel cell systems should be included in this work. Research is
    also recommended to develop advanced processed fuels and systems for
    handling these fuels. These fuels are, for example, pelletized wood
    wastes and densified solid waste biomass-coal fines that are easily
    handled and fed to existing combustion devices. In addition to these
    research programs, priority should also be given to the development of
    innovative enabling technologies consisting of advanced emission
    control systems, improved ash disposal methods and new ash uses, low-
    cost, hot gas clean-up methods, and advanced materials that eliminate
    corrosion and erosion problems for thermochemical reactors and
    turbines. The status of these technologies is far from what is needed,
    yet they are essential for practical, low-cost thermochemical
    conversion of biomass.
        Microbial Conversion.--Microbiological gasification by anaerobic
    digestion is unique in that it produces methane directly, the major
    component in natural gas, as a primary product from a full range of
    virgin and waste biomass feedstocks. However, DOE has terminated most
    of the research needed to develop advanced systems that yield low-cost
    methane by reducing capital and operating costs. This research can lead
    to the alleviation of numerous environmental problems encountered
    during waste treatment and disposal, and should be restored.
        Systems Development.--The scale-up of biomass gasification for
    medium-Btu gas and power in Vermont continued in fiscal year 2000. This
    project should be funded in fiscal year 2001 to allow completion of the
    gasification test runs and the testing of an advanced turbine system
    for the generation of 8-12 MW from wood. The development of hot gas
    clean-up technology, which was terminated before completion at another
    gasification project site, should be restored. This work should be
    continued until the technology is perfected. The integrated biomass
    production-power generation projects chosen by DOE for scale-up in New
    York (willow-coal cofiring), and Iowa (switchgrass-coal cofiring)
    should be continued as well as DOE's initiative to expand biomass-coal
    cofiring at additional sites, such as the wood waste-coal project at
    NIPSCO. Plans should also be made to fund scale-up of the Whole Tree
    Energy system as part of this effort. Research on the development of
    advanced biomass-coal cofiring systems and small modular direct biomass
    combustion turbines should be sustained to develop advanced designs for
    small modular systems, and advanced combined cycle systems that can
    supply cogenerated power.
        Feedstock Production.--Land-based biomass grown as energy crops can
    supply large amounts of fossil fuel substitutes. Considerable progress
    has been made on the efficient production of short-rotation woody
    crops, and on the growth of herbaceous species. In addition, research
    on tissue culture techniques and the application of genetic engineering
    methods to low-cost energy crop production have shown promise. This
    research should be continued to develop advanced biomass production
    methods that can meet the anticipated feedstock demand. BERA also
    recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects chosen by DOE
    of at least 1,000 acres in size be continued to develop large-scale,
    commercial energy plantations in which dedicated energy crops are grown
    and harvested for use as biomass resources. These projects should be
    strategically located and should utilize the advanced biomass
    production methods already developed in the research programs.
    Successful completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its
    potential by providing the data and information needed to design,
    construct, and operate new biomass production systems that can supply
    low-cost feedstock for conversion to electric power and transportation
    fuels. It is recommended that the appropriation for this activity be
    shared between EERE's Power Systems and Transportation Fuels programs.

        Regional Biomass Energy Program.--See Transportation.

                                 TRANSPORTATION

        Fermentation Ethanol.--Research on the conversion of low-cost
    lignocellulosics to fermentation ethanol should be continued. The
    targets should include the development of genetically engineered
    organisms that can ferment all the C5/C6 sugars
    in biomass at the same time, low-cost cellulase production for
    simultaneous saccharification-fermentation, and advanced pretreatment
    of low-cost biomass feedstocks. This research should focus on the
    development of accurate bases from which advanced technologies can be
    scaled-up for commercial use with confidence, and on advanced
    technologies that significantly reduce processing costs. NREL's
    fermentation pilot plant and counter-current pretreatment pilot plant
    reactor installed in fiscal year 2000 should be operated on a cost-
    shared basis with DOE's industrial partners to support the commercial
    ethanol plant program
        Commercial Ethanol Plants.--DOE's contributions to the costs of
    three fermentation ethanol plants (Rio Linda, CA; Jennings, LA; Orange
    County, NY) have been completed, and further contributions to the costs
    of two other fermentation ethanol plants (Gridley, CA; Southeast AK)
    are planned in fiscal year 2001, as shown in the table on page 2.
    Another plant using corn stalk feedstocks is planned for the Midwest in
    fiscal year 2001. The processes used are conventional and advanced
    technologies. BERA recommends that the existing projects should be
    completed, the results analyzed, and the technologies confirmed before
    other scale-up projects are started.
        Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells.--Research should be initiated to design
    and perfect vehicular fuel cell systems equipped with on-board
    reforming units for biomass and biomass-based liquids. The goal should
    be the production of low-cost fuel gases suitable for direct use as
    motor fuels and as fuels for fuel cells.
        Renewable Diesel.--This research, formerly called Biodiesel, should
    be focused on methods of reducing production costs of renewable diesel
    fuels and biomass-based diesel fuel additives. DOE plans to evaluate
    waste grease streams as one approach to this objective. BERA recommends
    that most of this effort focus on increasing natural triglyceride
    yields, which are the main barrier to improved economics for biodiesel,
    and to the evaluation of other potential biomass feedstocks such as
    tall oils that can be directly transformed into high-quality, renewable
    diesel fuels having high cetane numbers by hydroconversion.
        Feedstock Production.--See Power Systems.
        Thermochemical Conversion.--Almost all of DOE's RD&D on liquid
    transportation fuels from biomass emphasizes fermentation ethanol.
    Thermochemical conversion research should be started that targets
    liquid motor fuel production at costs competitive with those of
    gasolines and diesel fuels in the near-to-mid term. Research on the
    thermochemical conversion of low-grade biomass for use as motor fuels
    shows great promise. Preliminary research on the non-microbial
    conversion of synthesis gas illustrates the potential of producing
    ethanol, mixed alcohols and oxygenates, ethers, and coproducts at costs
    that are less than the corresponding costs of liquids produced by
    microbial and fermentation processes. Some analysts project that fuel
    ethanol from low-grade biomass by thermochemical processes may be able
    to attain production costs in the same range as methanol from natural
    gas feedstocks. Each of these areas should be added to DOE's program.
        Regional Biomass Energy Program.--The Regional Biomass Energy
    Program (RBEP), established by Congress in 1983, is the information and
    outreach arm of DOE's biomass energy RD&D programs. The RBEP develops
    and disseminates information and provides technical and financial
    assistance to biomass energy developers and entrepreneurs. The RBEP
    also gathers information in the field to keep DOE informed of current
    situations and opportunities. Administratively housed in EERE's Office
    of Fuels Development, and partially funded by the EERE's Office of
    Biomass Power Systems, the RBEP consists of five regional
    administrations to account for the regional variations in biomass
    resource capabilities and energy needs. Within the national goals of
    DOE and regional constraints, the RBEP develops regional goals and
    strategies using stakeholder participants, and conducts cost-shared
    activities to develop state bioenergy programs and a strong biomass
    energy industry. These activities include assisting with technology
    demonstrations in the field, identifying and addressing institutional
    barriers, performing resource assessments, and removing or reducing
    market barriers. Historically, the RBEP has been effective in
    increasing national biomass energy consumption, reducing the country's
    dependence on fossil fuels, enhancing the environment, and creating
    jobs and other economic development, particularly in rural areas. Over
    its 17-year existence, the RBEP has developed working relationships
    with virtually all levels of government, academe, and the private
    sector. The RBEP's work is conducted in partnerships that provide from
    $2 to $4 in cost sharing for every $1 in RBEP funds. In fiscal year
    2001, the role of the RBEP will become even more important by providing
    information and outreach support to DOE's power, transportation fuels,
    and chemicals-from-biomass programs and the initiatives described in
    the previous section. BERA recommends that the appropriation for the
    RBEP be shared between EERE's Power Systems and Transportation Fuels
    programs. For future funding requests, BERA strongly recommends that
    the RBEP be treated as a line item.

                               HYDROGEN RESEARCH

        Research on the thermal reforming of biomass in a supercritical
    fluid reactor and in an advanced-design plasma reformer, and on water
    splitting with algae, which is the equivalent of photolysis, should be
    continued. Detailed study of each of these conversion techniques may
    lead to practical processes for the low-cost production of hydrogen.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association

        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
    service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
    and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
    States. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to
    one of every seven U.S. electric consumers (about 45 million people),
    serving some of the nation's largest cities. The majority of APPA's
    member systems are located in small and medium-sized communities in
    every state except Hawaii.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony outlining
    our fiscal year 2001 appropriations priorities within your
    Subcommittee's jurisdiction.

                           RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

        APPA believes it is important to continue development and
    commercialization of clean, renewable energy resources as we face the
    prospect of increased competition in the electricity marketplace. Two
    of the most significant barriers to greater renewable energy use are
    cost and lack of demonstrated experience. Because of the requirement to
    supply electricity to customers on demand, with high reliability at a
    reasonable cost, electric utilities often are conservative when
    evaluating new technologies. Evolving deregulation, coupled with
    unstable fuel prices, now adds a further challenge to greater adoption
    of relatively unproved renewable technologies.
        We applaud the Administration's emphasis on DOE energy efficiency
    and renewable programs and ask that this Subcommittee work to ensure
    that renewable energy remains part of the full range of resource
    options available to our nation's electric utilities. APPA supports a
    minimum of $409 million for Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies
    in fiscal year 2001. This funding level will go a long way in
    furthering the call for significant expansion of renewable energy R&D
    programs in order to meet the energy challenges and opportunities of
    the 21st century.
              RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (REPI)

        APPA urges this subcommittee's continued support for the Renewable
    Energy Production Incentive Program (REPI), the renewable energy
    incentive program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, at a
    level sufficient to make full incentive payments to all eligible
    facilities. In recognition of budget constraints, however, we support
    and urge the Committee to support the Administration request of $4
    million for fiscal year 2001.
        The REPI program increases in importance as new air quality
    regulations are imposed and renewable energy mandates considered.
    Public power systems will be at a disadvantage under the currently
    structured REPI if renewable portfolio standards are included in
    electricity restructuring proposals. Unlike the certainty of the tax
    credits and incentives available to private entities, REPI funding is
    erratic and insufficient to offset the higher costs of using
    alternative energy resources. REPI permits DOE to make direct payments
    to publicly owned electric utilities at the rate of up to 1.5 cents/kWh
    of electricity generated from solar, wind, certain geothermal and
    biomass electric projects. Because projects of this nature often
    require a long lead-time for planning and construction, it is
    imperative that stable and predictable funding be provided. APPA urges
    this subcommittee's support of REPI at $4 million.

                      STORAGE FOR HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

        We support the Administration's budget request of $437.5 million
    for storage of high-level nuclear waster an increase of $85 million
    over fiscal year 2000 funding. These funds will enable DOE to continue
    preparations to accept spent fuel as well as to continue scientific
    studies at Yucca Mountain assessing the viability of the site.

                      ADVANCED HYDROPOWER TURBINE PROGRAM

        The Advanced Hydropower Turbine Program is a joint industry/
    government cost-share effort to develop a new, improved hydroelectric
    turbine superior in its ability to protect fish and aquatic habitat and
    operate efficiently over a wide range of flow levels. We support
    funding this program at $5 million in fiscal year 2001
        During the next 15 years, 220 hydroelectric projects will seek new
    licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Publicly
    owned projects constitute 50 percent of the total capacity that will be
    up for renewal. Many of these projects were originally licensed over 50
    years ago. Newly imposed licensing conditions can cost hydro project
    owners 10 to 15 percent of power generation. A new, improved turbine
    could help assure any environmental conditions imposed at relicensing
    in the form of new conditioning, fish passages or reduced flows are not
    accomplished at the expense of energy production. This is particularly
    important due to the increasingly competitive electric market in which
    utilities operate today. Flow levels will affect the economics of each
    of these projects and many will be unable to compete if the current
    trend toward flow reductions continues.

                 FEDERAL POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (PMAS)

       APPA urges the Committee to support funding of $89 million for
    purchase power and wheeling (PPW). APPA has consistently supported
    increased efficiency in PMA operations. However, Congress must
    recognize that federal power sales revenues cover all PMA operating
    expenses plus all Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation
    operations, maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation expenses for
    hydropower and repayment of the federal investment in the construction
    of the projects plus interest. Power sales also support many nonpower-
    related expenses associated with these projects.
        The Administration's budget request includes language that resolves
    a needed scoring change on the use of appropriations for purchase power
    and wheeling and sends customer payments for PPW services directly to
    DOE rather than the Treasury.
        However, APPA is concerned that the Administration does not request
    adequate funding for fiscal year 2001 for PPW. The Administration
    request of $70 million is inadequate to meet PPW services. APPA
    believes the Administration's proposal which sunsets appropriations and
    puts spending caps on PPW activities of the Western Area Power
    Administration, Southwestern Power Administration and Southeastern
    Power Administration in the next four years is unnecessary since
    customers payments for PPW services match DOE outlays on a dollar for
    dollar basis.
        APPA urges the Committee to increase PPW funding levels for the
    three PMAs to $89 million and strike language that establishes spending
    caps and sunsets the use of appropriations after fiscal year 2004.

                  FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)

        APPA supports the Administration's budget request of $175 million
    in fiscal year 2001 for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    (FERC). Adequate funding for the agency is particularly necessary at
    this time in order to provide the resources needed to continue
    implementation of electric utility industry restructuring and to
    address major issues such as development of regional transmission
    groups.
        The FERC is charged with regulating certain interstate aspects of
    the natural gas, oil pipeline, hydropower, and electric industries.
    Such regulation includes issuing licenses and certificates for
    construction of facilities, approving rates, inspecting dams,
    implementing compliance and enforcement activities, and providing other
    services to regulated businesses. These businesses will pay fees and
    charges sufficient to recover the Government's full cost of operations.

                            CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS

        APPA generally supports the fiscal year 2001 Budget Request of $1.1
    billion to fund the Climate Change Technology Initiative. The
    initiative consists of a package of tax incentives and investments in
    research and development to stimulate increased energy efficiency and
    to encourage greater use of renewable energy sources. APPA is an
    aggressive advocate of federal support for energy research and
    development. While these programs do not directly provide benefits or
    incentives to public power systems, APPA supports them nevertheless
    because they will result in substantial improvements to the
    environment.
        U.S. DOE programs under the Climate Change Initiative include a mix
    of tax credits and federal-spending programs designed to increase
    efficiency and greater use of renewable energy resources. Important
    elements of the initiative include support for the deployment of clean
    technologies for buildings, transportation industry and electricity.
                                     ______

                NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS

         Prepared Statement of the Green Brook Flood Control Commission

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Vernon A.
    Noble, and I am the Chairman of the Green Brook Flood Control
    Commission. I submit this testimony in support of the Raritan River
    Basin--Green Brook Sub-Basin project, which we request be budgeted in
    fiscal year 2001 for $4,000,000 in Construction General funds.
        Extremely heavy rains began on Thursday, September 16, 1999,
    extending over the Green Brook Sub Basin of the Raritan River Basin.
    These rains were heavily concentrated in the upper part of the Raritan
    River Basin.
        By night fall on that day, the river systems were greatly swollen,
    particularly the Raritan River. The flood levels in the Raritan River
    have a direct effect on the Bound Brook Borough and Middlesex Borough
    portion of the Green Brook Sub Basin.
        Bound Brook has streams on three sides: the Green Brook, which
    empties into the Raritan River on the east end of Bound Brook Borough;
    the Middle Brook, which borders Bound Brook Borough on the west, and
    likewise empties into the Raritan River; and the Raritan River itself,
    which forms the southern boundary of the Borough of Bound Brook.
        All three of these streams rose to flood levels during Thursday
    night, September 16th, and the early hours of Friday, September 17,
    1999.
        By early morning on Friday, September 17, 1999 water levels around
    Bound Brook had reached unprecedented levels.
        The water surface elevations around three sides of Bound Brook
    Borough slightly exceeded even the calculations made by the Corps of
    Engineers in their final General Reevaluation Report of May 1997.
        There were tremendous monetary damages, and although the final
    figures are not yet known, it now seems clear that the damages exceeded
    the figure predicted by the Corps of Engineers for a 150 year flood
    ($106,500,000) for Bound Brook Borough alone.
        Beyond the monetary damages, there was vast human suffering. The
    tragic plight of the people of Bound Brook touched the hearts of people
    throughout New Jersey, and volunteers and food and clothing and rolled-
    up-sleeves volunteers poured into Bound Brook from all over New Jersey.
        All of this raises a very fundamental question: If the Green Brook
    Flood Control Project, as authorized by Congress, had been completely
    constructed, would this tragedy have happened?
        That's a question which the Green Brook Flood Control Commission
    has intensely examined. We are greatly relieved to report to you that,
    although there would have been minor flooding in low spots in Bound
    Brook, as there always is in every heavy rain storm, the massive
    flooding and tragic aftermath would not have happened.
        A thorough study of the water levels throughout the area, done by
    the New York District of the Corps of Engineers since the terrible
    flood of September 1999, has shown that, although the water reached
    record levels, it would have been contained by the extra margin of
    safety, the ``free board'', which the Corps of Engineers has
    incorporated in the design of this Project.
        The flooding of September 1999 is not the first bad flood to have
    struck this area. Records show that major floods have occurred here as
    far back as 1903.
        Disastrous flooding took place in the Green Brook Basin in the late
    summer of 1971. That flood caused $304,000,000 in damages (April 1996
    price level) and disrupted the lives of thousands of persons.
        In the late summer of 1973, another very severe storm struck the
    area, and again, thousands of persons were displaced from their homes.
    $482,000,000 damage was done (April 1996 price level) and six persons
    lost their lives.
        The Green Brook Flood Control Commission was established in 1971,
    pursuant to an Act of the New Jersey Legislature shortly after the very
    bad flood of 1971.
        The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is made up of appointed
    representatives from Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties in New
    Jersey, and from the 13 municipalities within the Basin. This
    represents a combined population of almost one-quarter of a million
    (248,084) people.
        The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 29 years
    have served, without pay, to advance the cause of flood protection for
    the Basin. Throughout this time, the Corps of Engineers, New York
    District, has kept us informed of the progress of the project, and a
    representative from the Corps has been a regular part of our monthly
    meetings.
        During 1998, the Congress, with the agreement of the President,
    provided money to initiate construction of the Project. Final
    preparations are now underway, and it is expected that actual
    construction will begin in Bound Brook Borough and in western Middlesex
    Borough this year.
        We believe that it is clearly essential that the Green Brook Flood
    Control Project be carried forward, and pursued vigorously to achieve
    protection at the earliest possible date. This Project is needed to
    prevent loss of life and property, as well as the trauma caused every
    time there is a heavy rain.
        New Jersey has programmed budget money for it's share of the
    Project in 2001.
        We urgently request an appropriation for the Project in fiscal year
    2001 of $4,000,000 as proposed by the Administration.
        The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is dedicated to the
    proposition that Bound Brook Borough, and the other municipalities, and
    their thousands of residents, who will otherwise suffer in the next
    major flood, must be protected. We move forward with renewed
    determination to achieve the protection which the people of the flood
    area need and deserve.
        With your continued support, we are determined to see this Project
    through to completion.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for your
    vitally important past support for the Green Brook Flood Control
    Project; and we thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
    me the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
    jurisdiction which is very important to the people of Newark, New
    Jersey and the surrounding region. The Passaic River Streambank
    Restoration Project, known as the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River
    Waterfront Park and Historic Area, is an important part of the overall
    economic, land use and transportation development plan of the City of
    Newark.
        The Joseph G. Minish Park/Passaic Riverfront Historic Area project
    addresses the restoration and rehabilitation of approximately 9,000
    linear feet of Passaic River shoreline from Bridge Street to Brill
    Street in the City of Newark. The project is divided into three phases.
    Phase I consists of bulkhead replacement (Bridge Street to Jackson
    Street) and wetlands restoration (Jackson Street to Brill Street).
    Phase II consists of the construction of a 40, wide promenade along the
    river's edge, on top of the completed bulkhead work. Phase III includes
    the construction of parkland on the inland side of the promenade,
    between the river and Newark's downtown.
        An appropriation of $25 million for the continuation of
    construction on the Newark Riverfront Development project is requested,
    so that this integral element in Newark's revitalization can move
    forward as planned, and can be utilized by the Army Corps of Engineers,
    in fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation has been used
    for the initial section of bulkhead construction, which is now
    underway. The fiscal year 2001 allocation will allow continued
    construction of the bulkhead down to Penn Station, fund design of the
    walkway and park area, and allow walkway construction to begin. This
    restoration will allow neighborhood residents direct access to the
    riverfront as part of a much-needed recreation complex.
        The project was authorized at a level of $75 million in the 1996
    Water Resource Development Act, and has been fully planned by the Army
    Corps of Engineers. The streambank restoration and bulkhead
    replacement, which is the first phase of the overall project, began in
    the fall of 1999 utilizing the fiscal year 1999 and 2000
    appropriations. Prior appropriated funds have been utilized to fully
    design the bulkhead, a segment of naturalized streambank, and a system
    of walkways and public open spaces. Adjacent, currently dormant, sites
    have become desirable locations for development of commercial
    properties, due to the projected walkway, park and open space
    facilities. However, the current funding will only take us through the
    construction of bulkhead and some of the mud flats restoration, not to
    a usable facility.
        A supplemental appropriation of $25 million is requested so that
    this integral element in Newark's revitalization can move from partial
    construction to the beginning of full project build-out. This
    investment in Newark's future will help us to improve the economic
    status of our nation's third oldest major city. The development of the
    riverfront now is a critical element in the overall plan for Newark's
    downtown revitalization. This linear park will serve as a visual and
    physical linkage among several key and exciting development projects.
    It is adjacent to one of the oldest highways in the nation, Route 21,
    which is undergoing a multi-million dollar realignment and enhancement.
    A light rail system, the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, which will connect
    Newark's two train stations, and ultimately, Newark International
    Airport and the neighboring City of Elizabeth, will provide users with
    access to mass transportation. Conversely, the riverfront will become a
    destination served by that system, providing an important open space
    and waterfront opportunity for residents of one of the most densely
    populated cities in the nation.
        The environmental benefits of the project include flood control,
    riverbank and wetlands restoration, creation of urban green space, and
    enhancement of water quality in the Passaic River. These improvements
    will allow the Passaic River to be converted from one of the nation's
    most troubled waterways to a cultural and recreational asset. Ongoing
    and planned greenway projects will provide pedestrian and bicycle
    access to the waterfront from Newark's residential neighborhoods as
    well as the City's five major institutions of higher learning.
        The riverfront development will complement and provide a visual and
    physical connection with the new, $170 million New Jersey Performing
    Arts Center, which opened in the Fall of 1997 and has been incredibly
    successful. Further north along the riverfront, also accessible from
    the riverfront walkway when it is fully built, the City of Newark and
    Essex County have opened Riverfront Stadium, home to a minor league
    baseball team as well as community sporting events such as the Project
    Pride Bowl. Also in close pedestrian proximity is the site for the new
    Newark Sports and Entertainment Arena, which is expected to bring two
    million visitors a year into the area. In addition, NJ Transit is just
    completing construction of a new concourse, which is directly adjacent
    to the riverfront. Once the park and walkway are completed, rail and
    bus passengers will be able to exit the Penn Station north concourse
    directly onto the riverfront area. On the eastern portion of Minish
    Park, residents of a crowded community, Newark's Ironbound, will have
    direct access to the river and its streambank for active and passive
    recreation for the first time. The riverfront will be the nexus of
    these activities, creating a vibrant downtown center that will provide
    economic development opportunities for the citizens of Newark and our
    region. Visitors from throughout the nation are expected to come to
    visit our revitalized city, and participate in the exciting growth and
    development taking place. There is tremendous potential for Newark's
    riverfront to mirror the success of other riverfront developments
    throughout the country, and Newark stands ready to accept the
    challenges such developments present.
        The City of Newark has just completed conducting a master plan
    study for the entire riverfront area, which will guide us in tying
    together these incredibly exciting, and challenging, projects. We have
    a once in a lifetime opportunity to coordinate several major
    development activities into a virtually seamless development plan. The
    appropriation of $25 million which I am requesting will serve to
    incorporate the Army Corps of Engineers' construction into our overall
    economic development plan to reinvigorate Newark. I urge you to support
    this appropriation request.
        In closing, I would like to extend my thanks to the entire New
    Jersey delegation for its ongoing support, especially to subcommittee
    member Rodney Frelinghuysen for his advocacy of this critical project.
    The time and attention of this subcommittee are deeply appreciated.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of New York University

        On behalf of New York University (NYU), I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss a project of scientific research which we
    believe will advance national interests through enhanced understanding
    of the human genome, and which is an important priority for NYU.
        This project addresses the programmatic interests of the
    subcommittee in enlisting fundamental, university-based scientific
    research to serve the national welfare. We thank the Subcommittee and
    for taking the time to consider and give its support to important basic
    research in biomedical genomics, an area in which New York University
    is well positioned to make major contributions. We at NYU firmly
    believe that in the coming decades, a federal investment in fundamental
    scientific research will repay itself many times over.
        The genome is the recipe or blueprint for life. During the last
    decade, the unraveling of the genetic code has opened up a vast range
    of new opportunities for evolutionary and developmental biologists,
    neurobiologists and chemists to understand what genes are, what they
    do, and how they do it. The field of biomedical genomics is
    revolutionizing biology and is dramatically changing the way we
    characterize and address biological questions. As a field which
    straddles biology, chemistry, and mathematics, genomics is growing
    extraordinarily rapidly and transforming these disciplines, as well as
    the social and behavioral sciences.
        In its first stage, the revolution in genomics was characterized by
    a period of intensive development of techniques to analyze DNA, first
    in simple models, like yeast, bacteria, the worm, and the fruitfly,
    then in the mouse, and now in humans. The structure and function of
    genes are quite similar in these models, making comparisons useful. The
    second phase was characterized by the use of these tools to address
    whatever biological question was most easily approached, given the
    state of technique development. It may be described as structural
    genomics--which comprises the mapping and sequencing of genomes and is
    mainly driven by technology. The scientific community is now poised to
    enter the third phase of the genomics revolution, in which
    investigators already established in other fields (immunology,
    genetics, neurobiology, etc.) pursue investigations that are driven by
    hypothesis rather than technique. The third phase is generally termed
    functional genomics and uses the map and sequence information already
    collected or to be collected to infer the function of genes. Functional
    genomics actively integrates basic and clinical science, with the
    ultimate goal of exploiting genomics approaches to address the
    relationship between the genes identified in model organisms and those
    responsible for human disease states.
        While many universities are conducting genomics research, New York
    University is especially well positioned to make a distinctive
    contribution to the field of comparative functional genomics. This
    comparative approach looks for the occurrence of the same genes in
    different species that share certain structures or functions, and
    provides a powerful method for understanding the function of particular
    genes. Comparative functional genomics uses two primary modes of
    analysis: (1) identifying what has been conserved over long
    evolutionary distances, and (2) determining crucial differences that
    distinguish two closely related species. This focus has particular
    relevance to molecular medicine as it provides the key to understanding
    the genetic basis of disease states that are dependent on numerous
    genes, and unraveling the complex regulatory networks for crucial
    biological functions.
        Studies in comparative functional genomics necessarily synergize
    medically related research programs, such as those at the NYU School of
    Medicine and its affiliated Mount Sinai School of Medicine; with basic
    science research programs such as those at NYU's Faculty of Arts and
    Science; and with computational investigators, such as those at NYU's
    Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences who are actively engaged in
    bioinformatics research.
        In the basic sciences, NYU has substantial strengths in areas
    important to genomics, including evolutionary biology, developmental
    biology, and neurobiology, and extends this expertise through active
    collaboration with premier metropolitan area institutions, including
    the New York Botanical Garden and the American Museum of Natural
    History. NYU Medical School has outstanding programs in Developmental
    Genetics, Molecular Neurobiology, Pathogenesis and Structural Biology.
    And Mount Sinai Medical School has an internationally acclaimed program
    in Human Genetics and has begun to use genomics approaches to identify
    the origins of human genetic disorders.
        New York University is thus poised to make a distinctive
    contribution to the next phase of genomics research. There are
    established frameworks for interdisciplinary and interschool
    collaboration, strengths in biological, neurobiological, and
    computational sciences, and standing in the international scientific
    community. The nation's largest private university, with 13 schools and
    over 49,000 students, NYU is a leading center of scholarship, teaching
    and research. It is one of 29 private institutions constituting the
    distinguished Association of American Universities, and is consistently
    among the top U.S. universities in funds received from foundations and
    federal sources.
        NYU encompasses a pre-eminent faculty and generates substantial
    external funding from federal and state agencies as well as the private
    sector. These investigations have attracted millions of federal dollars
    from the NIH, NSF, ONR, and EPA. In addition, NYU has received major
    funding from the most prestigious private foundations supporting the
    sciences, including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the W. M. Keck
    Foundation, the Alfred M. Sloan Foundation, and the Beatrice and Samuel
    A. Seaver Foundation. Faculty have, as individuals, won prestigious
    awards, including HHMI Investigator, NSF Presidential Faculty Fellow,
    NIH Merit Awardee, McKnight Foundation Scholar in Neuroscience, and
    MacArthur ``Genius'' Fellow.

                  RESEARCH APPLICATIONS AND NATIONAL BENEFITS

        Concentrated studies in comparative functional genomics can be a
    major resource for the research and development activities of academic
    organizations and commercial firms; can provide a strong framework for
    direct and indirect economic development in vital, high-tech
    industries; and can offer benefits to our citizens from improved health
    care, and technology development.
    Economic Development
        Commercial applications that strengthen existing industries and
    attract new ones.--In a familiar dynamic of university-centered
    economic growth, industry draws on the faculty's entrepreneurial
    energies, their expertise in training the personnel needed to staff
    high-technology firms, and the fundamental scientific research that can
    translate into practical applications. High-tech firms spring up near a
    research university and, in turn, attract or spin off additional high-
    tech firms in the same or related fields. The interaction of scientists
    across firms makes the spread of information quicker and the
    development of projects more rapid. Initial firms and newer firms share
    a growing pool of highly trained personnel. The expansion of the
    skilled labor pool makes hiring easier; the existence of the pool
    attracts still more firms. Once a core of high-tech industries locates
    in an area, venture capitalists identify that area as promising. The
    flow of capital--a key ingredient for high-technology growth--
    increases. Once the process of agglomeration begins, it can be expected
    to grow on itself and become self-reinforcing.
        R & D investment in genomics is already energizing bio-technology,
    pharmaceutical, biomedicine, agbiotech, computer software, and
    engineering enterprises. We expect that as the research base expands,
    we will see a generation of new commercializable technologies, some of
    which may lead to genome and pharmacological genome companies.
        Job growth as a spin-off from research and development funding for
    genomics.--Academic R&D, although itself not directed towards specific
    commercial application, does provide the focus for attracting industry
    and serving as a base for commercial spin-offs, as has been so
    successfully demonstrated in the San Francisco Bay and Boston areas. A
    conservative approximation that uses state employment multipliers
    maintained by the U. S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic
    Analysis points to immediate employment impacts of academic R&D. The
    BEA calculates that each $1 million in R&D grants supports roughly 34.5
    full and part time jobs \1\ directly within the university and
    indirectly outside the university as the university's expenditures
    ripple through the local and state economy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The multiplier is for 1995 and is based on 1987 benchmark
    input-output accounts for the U.S. economy and 1994 regional data,
    adjusted for 1995 inflation. See the latest (March 1997) edition of the
    BEA publication Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional
    Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). These multipliers are
    frequently used in studies of the economic impacts of individual
    universities and colleges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biomedical Applications for National Health Needs
        An investment in genomics research will have a heavy payoff in the
    nation's well-being--economic and otherwise--by advancing the frontiers
    of knowledge, finding new cures and treatments for diseases, and
    helping to develop new diagnostic technologies. Clinical applications
    hold enormous promise to revolutionize medicine and our understanding
    of both normal development and disease. Genomics research may lead to
    lifesaving instruments or procedures for diagnosis, prevention, and
    cure of diseases and disorders such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer
    and infectious disease. In particular, genomics science has the
    potential to revolutionize the development of mass screening tests for
    genetic disorders, ultimately making it possible to identify the
    hereditary contribution to common diseases, predict individual
    responses to drug intervention, and design drugs that are customized
    for individual use.

    Applications for Environment Issues
        Improved understanding of the human genome is a basic link in the
    chain leading from scientific discovery to a better understanding of
    human health to effective regulatory and management actions in the
    realm of environmental protection. Research into genetic development
    and function can help to explain how environmental factors alter or
    influence these processes.

    Advances in Biomedical and Other Research Fields
        Genomics is a field which is particularly fertile in that the
    understanding of the detailed structure of the human genome is central
    to a variety of applications: cell biology, embryology, developmental
    biology, study of cancers and many other heritable diseases,
    immunology, endocrinology, neurology, and population genetics. Further,
    genomics techniques can address many research problems that overlap
    with computer vision, robotics, and combinatorial problems; genomics
    propels cross-disciplinary approaches for merging the biological
    sciences with new technologies in informatics. In addition, it is
    enabling researchers in developmental biology and molecular genetics to
    investigate genetic diversity, evolution, and development. Indeed,
    genomics brings together laboratory scientists with formerly unrelated
    disciplines, and can stimulate expansion in key directions in
    informatics, genetics, physical chemistry, evolutionary studies,
    diagnostic tools, and machine vision. Investment in facilities where
    computer scientists, physical chemists, and geneticists can readily
    interact with each other is essential for the development of this
    field.
        Investment in genomic science is a strategic and efficient vehicle
    for advancing fundamental studies in a wide variety of scientific
    fields; facilitating biomedical applications that can greatly enhance
    the public welfare; and energizing existing and new industry. The
    commitment of this committee to support genomics studies is greatly
    appreciated.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
                                     Jersey

        The following is the testimony of the University of Medicine and
    Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), the largest public health sciences
    university in the nation. Our statewide system is located on five
    academic campuses and consists of 3 medical schools and schools of
    dentistry, nursing, health related professions, public health and
    graduate biomedical sciences. UMDNJ also comprises a University-owned
    acute care hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an integrated
    behavioral health care delivery system, a statewide system for managed
    care and affiliations with more than 200 health care and educational
    institutions statewide. No other institution in the nation possesses
    the resources which match our scope in higher education, health care
    delivery, research and community service initiatives with federal,
    state and local entities.
        We appreciate the opportunity to bring to your attention our
    priority projects that are consistent with the biomedical research
    mission of the Department of Energy & Water. These projects are
    statewide in scope and include collaborations both within the
    University system and with our affiliates. Our research projects also
    underscore UMDNJ's commitment to eliminating racial disparities in
    health care delivery. New Jersey, with its small geographic size and
    its large diverse population, is an idea site in which to conduct
    research and develop activities that will address this important issue.
        Our first priority is the development of the Child Health Institute
    of New Jersey at the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS)
    in New Brunswick. As part of the state's public higher education
    system, the medical school's 2500 full-time and volunteer faculty train
    about 1,500 students in medicine, public health and graduate programs
    and ranks in the top one-third of the country with regard to the
    percentage of its students who practice in primary care specialties
    after completing their residency training. The medical school ranks in
    the top one-third in the nation in terms of grant support per faculty
    member. RWJMS is home to The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, the only
    NCI-designated clinical cancer center in New Jersey; The Center for
    Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine; the Environmental and Occupational
    Health Sciences Institute, the largest environmental institute in the
    world; and the Child Health Institute.
        The mission of the Child Health Institute is to build a
    comprehensive biomedical research center that is focused on molecular
    genetics and development of children, and to forge scientific and
    hospital-based programs into an international academic children's
    center that will prevent and treat childhood diseases by delivering new
    knowledge through integrated education, research and treatment. The CHI
    will partner with academic, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and
    informatics industries in New Jersey to further its mission.
        The Child Health Institute will enable the medical school to expand
    and strengthen basic research efforts with clinical departments at the
    Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital and with the new Children's
    Hospital in the areas of Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Neurology, Surgery and
    Psychiatry The Child Health Institute will fill a critical gap in
    services through the recruitment of an intellectual base upon which
    molecular programs in child development will build.
        At the Child Health Institute, research will serve as the basis for
    new treatments, therapies and cures for such devastating and
    debilitating childhood syndromes as asthma, autism, cancer, diabetes,
    heart and lung defects. One-third of our scientists will focus on human
    genome research (birth defects, cystic fibrosis, etc.); one-third will
    focus on developmental neuro-biology (autism, attention-deficit
    disorders, etc.) and one third will focus on developmental biology
    (diabetes, asthma, etc.). Our biomedical researchers will direct their
    efforts toward the environmental, genetic and cellular causes of these
    diseases in infants and children through basic scientific investigation
    in a quest to prevent, treat and cure these diseases.
        Normal child development is a water dependent process, reflecting
    water quality, quantity and its ``management'' by cells and tissues.
    Access to uncontaminated water is at the base of the tree of life.
    Pollution of aquatic ecosystems poses a serious threat to the entire
    ecosystem and studying how a toxin affects embryonic development is
    central to understanding the risks pollutants represent, whether
    derived from pesticides, industrial run-off, acid rain or landfills. In
    multiple ways, the embryo is a sentinel for environmental toxins.
    Research at the Child Health Institute will focus on molecular
    mechanisms of early embryonic development, a natural, but vulnerable
    water-based environment. Sixty percent of the weight of the average
    human is contributed by water. The average 150 lb man contains about 40
    to 45 quarts of waters, approximately 6 quarts of which is circulating
    in the blood, and 39 quarts are within and between the cells of each
    and every organ. The embryo is even more highly hydrated than the
    adult. During development the embryo undergoes rapid changes in size
    and shape requiring rapid changes in the structures and cells present
    in any one tissue. In order to accommodate these rapid and essential
    changes, the embryo is rich in molecules which have a very high water
    binding capacity. After birth, the water in tissues allows cells to
    continue to move about within the embryo with ease and also promote
    fluid movement in blood vessels, the gastrointestinal tract and the
    airways. For example, cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited disorder
    which afflicts millions of children world-wide. The genetic defect in
    CF has been identified and involves a pump which, in effect, moves salt
    and water into and out of cells. Children with CF insufficiently pump
    water into the secretions of their pancreas and lungs and the dryness
    of these secretions leads to obstruction of those organs and subsequent
    infection and/or obstruction.
        The CHI will act as a magnet for additional growth in research and
    health care program development in New Jersey. The Institute will
    encompass 83,000 gross square feet and will house more than 40 research
    laboratories and associated support facilities. Fourteen senior faculty
    will direct teams of M.D. and Ph.D. researchers, visiting scientists,
    postdoctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians for a full
    complement of some 130 employees. At maturity, the Institute is
    expected to attract $7 to $9 million dollars of new research funding
    annually. The Institute's total annual operating budget is projected to
    be $10 to $12 million: applying a standard economic multiplier of 5,
    the total impact on the New Brunswick area is estimated to be $50 to
    $60 million per year. Construction costs for the Institute are
    estimated at $27 million, with approximately half of that figure
    associated with local employment.
        We respectfully seek $5 million from the Department of Energy and
    Water to complement $3 million already received in federal
    participation to further advance the construction and development of
    the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
        Our second priority is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
    Center, established at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey (CINJ) with
    the goal of eradicating prostate cancer and improving the lives of men
    at risk for the disease through research, treatment, education and
    prevention. GPCC was founded in memory of Rep. Dean Gallo, a New Jersey
    Congressman who died of prostate cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage.
    The purpose of the GPCC is to establish a multi-disciplinary center to
    study all aspects of prostate cancer and its prevention. The Cancer
    Institute of New Jersey is a partnership of UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
    Medical School and hospital affiliates.
        GPCC unites a team of outstanding researchers and clinicians who
    are committed to high quality basic research, translation of innovative
    research to the clinic, exceptional patient care, and improving public
    education and awareness of prostate cancer. GPCC is a center of
    excellence of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, which is the only
    NCI-designated cancer center in the state. GPCC efforts will be focused
    in four major areas: (1) Basic, Clinical and Translational Research;
    (2) Comprehensive Patient Care; (3) Epidemiology and Cancer Control;
    and (4) Education and Outreach.
        Basic, Clinical and Translational Research.--GPCC scientists will
    investigate the molecular, genetic and environmental factors that are
    responsible for prostate cancer initiation and progression. Our
    researchers will develop appropriate model systems that will facilitate
    the design and implementation of novel strategies for prevention and
    treatment. GPCC will foster multi-disciplinary efforts that will lead
    to the effective translation of basic research to improved patient care
    and novel clinical trials.
        Comprehensive Patient Care.--It is the goal of the GPCC to provide
    exceptional patient care through a multi-disciplinary patient care team
    in the areas of urological oncology, radiation oncology and medical
    oncology for each patient during all stages of the disease. The patient
    care team will develop novel clinical approaches for treating all
    stages of prostate cancer.
        Epidemiology and Cancer Control.--Another goal of the GPCC is to
    understand the etiology of prostate cancer susceptibility and to find
    effective modalities for prevention of prostate cancer.
        Education and Outreach.--GPCC will continue its efforts to
    education the public throughout the State of New Jersey about the
    importance of early detection of prostate cancer, particularly in
    underserved communities where there is a population at high risk for
    the disease.
        The Cancer Institute of New Jersey has received $5 million in
    federal funding over the last two years (including $2 million from this
    committee) for the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center. This
    important funding has enabled us to establish a world-class program in
    prostate cancer research that includes publications in prestigious
    journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and Genes and
    Development. CINJ has used its findings to leverage additional research
    dollars for individual investigators from such agencies as CapCure, the
    Department of Defense and several private foundations. Top
    investigators have been recruited to initiate programs in prostate
    cancer research through our education and pilot grant programs. We have
    also established education and outreach programs that will enhance the
    visibility of our clinical programs, including a partnership with the
    100 Black Men organization.
        Additional funding is being sought this year to build on our basic
    research in prostate cancer and to support the development of
    technological approaches including: the use of microarray technology to
    survey gene expression patterns in prostate tumors; the use of mouse
    models for prostate cancer that can be used to test new methods of
    prevention and treatment; and the development of monoclonal antibodies
    that may be used for prognosis and diagnosis.
        We will also bring basic research directly to the clinic by
    fostering interactions among basic and clinical researchers through our
    education programs supported by this funding. Additional funding will
    allow us to enhance our treatment of patients with prostate cancer
    through several new clinical trials for patients at all stages of the
    disease. To increase the number of additional clinical trials, we will
    utilize funding to develop a support team that will assist our
    physicians to design and implement new clinical trials.
        We seek $2 million in federal funding to enhance the research,
    education and cancer care programs of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate
    Cancer Center at our New Brunswick facility, and to expand these
    programs statewide.
        We thank this committee for its strong support of biomedical
    research and for our programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the State of New York, Empire State Development
    Corporation; State of New Jersey, Department of Transporation; and the
                   Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

        On behalf of the Port of New York and New Jersey, we wish to thank
    you for the support this Subcommittee has shown for navigation programs
    in recent years. Only with the support of this Subcommittee and
    Congress can the nation's commercial and defense shipping needs be
    accommodated through the Army's civil works program. We are especially
    appreciative of the funding that projects in our port have received to
    enable it to continue to serve our country's economic and international
    commerce objectives on the Atlantic.
        We offer our comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal
    year 2001 budget request. We welcome the Administration's budget
    request to continue the construction of the Kill van Kull-Newark Bay
    Channels to 45 feet as well as the construction funding for the Arthur
    Kill Channel to 41 feet and the Port Jersey Channel to 41 feet. In
    order for the benefits of these and other projects to be realized and
    to avoid unnecessary project cost increases from project delays, we
    respectfully request that the Subcommittee appropriate funds at the
    levels outlined below in this statement. These funds will ensure that
    essential navigation infrastructure will be in place to accommodate
    post-Panamax ships currently deployed in international commerce. That
    is especially true of the New York & New Jersey Harbor Navigation
    project that represents a significant investment strategy, only a small
    portion of which would be in Federal funding, for waterside and
    landside improvements that will serve our customers and the national
    interest well into this new century. We are especially aware of the
    clear trends in steamship design and construction that will result in
    an increasing fleet of very large container ships whose efficiencies
    will be realized fully once the navigation channels at major U.S.
    gateways are of a corresponding depth. The Port of New York and New
    Jersey directly serves states of the Northeast and Midwest and with
    these improvements can continue to provide greater transportation
    efficiencies to those markets.
        In general, we support the Administration's budget request for
    projects in the Port of New York and New Jersey. Listed below are
    select projects, discussed later in this statement, and appropriation
    amounts that we seek for fiscal year 2001. Those projects displayed in
    bold are our requests beyond the fiscal year 2001 budget levels.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Budget       Port request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction:
        Kill van Kull--Newark Bay Channels,      $53,000,000     $53,000,000
         NY & NJ............................
        NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill, NY &        5,000,000      15,000,000
         NJ.................................
        NY & NJ Channels: Port Jersey, NJ...       5,469,000      15,000,000
        Ambrose Shoals......................  ..............       2,200,000
    Studies:
        NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study--PED       2,528,000       7,500,000
        NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Study...         800,000       5,000,000
        NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill                347,000         347,000
         Channel, NY & NJ...................
    Operation and Maintenance...............      28,284,000      28,284,000

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A brief description of each of these activities follows.

                                  CONSTRUCTION

        Kill van Kull--Newark Bay Channels, NY & NJ (Phase II).--The
    deepening of the Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Federal channels to 45
    feet was authorized for construction in the fiscal year 1985
    Supplemental Appropriations Act. These channels serve Port Newark and
    the Elizabeth Port Authority Marine Terminal, the busiest and largest
    container facilities on the East Coast. The Port of New York and New
    Jersey achieved a major milestone in this project by witnessing the
    beginning of the final phase of construction in 1999. Since that time,
    the project is fully underway with progress to report and three
    contracts awarded, two of them well under project estimates. The Port
    Authority of New York & New Jersey as local sponsor for this project
    has approved the local share of funding and is committed to completing
    construction with the Corps of Engineers by the end of 2004. It is a
    goal mandated by the users of the Port who have waited a long time for
    the 45-foot depth. We appreciate and support the President's budget of
    $53 million.
        NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.--The Arthur Kill
    Channel, NY & NJ, Howland Hook Marine Terminal (HHMT) project
    authorization can be found in the 1986, 1992, 1996 and 1999 WRDAs. The
    project's controlling depth is currently 35 feet. The planned channel
    improvements include: (1) deepening the existing 35-foot channel to 41
    feet below MLW from its confluence with the Kill van Kull Channel to
    the Howland Hook Marine Terminal; (2) deepening to 40 feet below MLW
    from the HHMT to the Petroport and Tosco facilities in New Jersey; and
    (3) selective widening and realignment of the channel to ensure safe
    navigation. The Port Authority has invested $35 million to date to
    modernize the HHMT and spent, along with the City of New York,
    approximately $18 million for the berth dredging required to return
    this terminal into active service. The Port Authority has approved an
    amount representing the full local share of the Federal project. The
    HHMT currently employs 600 people on peak days and is expected to
    increase to a range of 800 to 1000 employees in 2000. These figures, as
    compared to our statement of last year, reveal a significant increase
    in business at the terminal in the past year, which itself demonstrates
    the trade growth demands on the infrastructure on the Arthur Kill. The
    City of New York, the State of New Jersey and the Port Authority are
    working to improve operational efficiency and reduce truck traffic by
    re-establishing rail service to the terminal. It is worth noting that
    HHMT is the Defense Department's Northeast Strategic Port of
    Embarkation in the event of a national emergency, which gives it a
    special role to play in the national defense strategy. In addition to
    the benefits that will accrue to the HHMT and the petroleum facilities
    along the Arthur Kill, implementation of this deepening project is
    vital to the Port's future capacity to grow. We, therefore,
    respectfully request that the fiscal year 2001 appropriations include
    $15,000,000 to initiate channel improvements in the Arthur Kill Channel
    and maximize the work that can be accomplished during the first year of
    construction.
        New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels: Port Jersey, NJ.--The 1986
    WRDA authorized construction of the Port Jersey Channel to 41 feet. The
    Port Jersey Channel, located in Bayonne, NJ, presently serves
    approximately one-half dozen shipping lines calling at Global Marine
    Terminal. In addition, the channel provides access to the Port
    Authority Auto Marine Terminal and will serve a portion of the former
    Military Ocean Terminal at Bayonne that will be developed into another
    deepwater marine terminal facility. As the only privately owned
    terminal in the port, Global pays approximately $10,000,000 in Federal,
    state, and local taxes annually. More than 300 vessels, carrying
    approximately 280,000 twenty-foot equivalent units, call annually upon
    the terminal. Well over 600 terminal employees, with an annual payroll
    of $25 million, and 3,000 indirect jobs depend on this facility for
    their livelihood. Recognizing the demand of ocean carriers and
    responding to a critical need to provide deeper water on an emergency
    basis, the State of New Jersey in 1997 constructed a 38-foot channel
    leading to Global at a cost of $14,000,000. We appreciate the
    Administration's request of $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and
    respectfully request that the budget for this project be augmented to
    $15,000,000 to initiate construction plans and specifications necessary
    to improve the Port Jersey Channel.
        Ambrose Shoals.--This project is not anticipated in the fiscal year
    2001 budget prepared by the Administration but is an important one for
    the safe navigation of vessels entering the Port of New York and New
    Jersey. The shoal is located in the sea one mile before ships enter the
    Ambrose channel, the port's entrance channel. In contrast to the
    Ambrose Channel project depth of 45 feet, a recent survey identifies a
    current controlling depth of 41 feet. The removal of this hazard to
    navigation would entail moving 125,000 cubic yards of dredged material.
    This project is contemplated under the New York & New Jersey Harbor
    project described in the studies portion of this statement but the New
    York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots and concerned agencies in the
    region request that construction funding be provided in fiscal year
    2001 in order to get a start on a removal project before an accident
    might occur. We request that $2, 200,000 be appropriated, which is the
    current Corps of Engineers' estimated cost of construction.

                           OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

        Operation and maintenance projects are critical to the Port of New
    York and New Jersey's operations. If channels are not maintained to the
    depth recorded on nautical charts they become inaccurate and increase
    the risk of groundings to vessels. We, therefore appreciate the
    Administration's request $28.28 million in operation and maintenance
    funding and encourage the Subcommittee's consideration of that request.

                                    STUDIES

        NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study.--In the feasibility study,
    authorized by the 1996 WRDA, the Corps of Engineers has determined
    there is a clear Federal interest in deepening several major NY & NJ
    Harbor channels to 50 feet below MLW, or greater. The States of New
    York and New Jersey and the Port Authority are the local sponsors of
    the study, which is being put in final form now and on the basis of
    which we are prepared to ask Congress to enact new project depth
    authorizations. The Corps' recommendations, if implemented, would
    enable the Port to continue to serve the nation's marine transportation
    needs as U.S. international trade doubles in just the next ten years
    and quadruples by 2040. The ocean carrier industry has made it clear
    that their future container vessels will require navigation channels
    dredged to depths that exceed current depths. For these reasons, the
    States of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority are in
    agreement that work to deliver the deeper channels should be completed
    as soon as possible. We therefore respectfully request that the fiscal
    year 2001 budget be augmented to $7.5 million in order to meet
    timeframes which local sponsors and the Corps of Engineers will agree
    are prudent and possible.
        NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ.--As we noted
    earlier, the controlling depth for the Arthur Kill is 35 feet. Even as
    construction will commence in fiscal year 2001 for the 41-foot project,
    the Subcommittee willing, planning for an ultimate depth of 45 feet
    should continue. The 1996 WRDA authorized the project depth to as much
    as 45 feet. Although new congressional authorization is needed to
    increase the Section 902 funding cap, a pre-construction, engineering
    and design effort will be needed for construction of the 45-foot
    channel. The Corps has estimated the cost of this study to be $2
    million, with the local share provided by the State of New Jersey and
    Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We support the
    Administration's request for $347,000 for Pre-construction Engineering
    and Design work in fiscal year 2001.
        NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Project.--Proposed New York and New
    Jersey harbor improvements are likely to include activities beyond
    construction of traditional navigation infrastructure. The
    implementation of a restoration and remediation plan for the Hudson-
    Raritan Estuary is also a significant part of any future improvement
    strategy for the harbor. The Corps of Engineers' feasibility study on
    harbor restoration is an important first step to determining potential
    Federal and non-Federal projects. The Port Authority supports this
    initiative and is willing to be an active participant/sponsor of the
    study. To that end, we respectfully request that funds in the amount of
    $5,000,000 be appropriated for the Corps of Engineers to conduct the
    necessary feasibility study.

                                   CONCLUSION

        For the second year the Executive Branch sent Congress a budget
    that does a reasonable job of addressing the nation's navigational
    channel needs, at least in comparison to the prior year budgets that
    woefully underfunded the water resource program. It by no means
    addresses all needs, whether on the inland and coastal navigation
    system, along the American shores or in the flood plains of the nation.
    However, we believe that Congress has made tremendous progress in
    highlighting the importance of not neglecting our water-based
    infrastructure, notwithstanding criticism being leveled by certain
    organizations against Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers. Lastly,
    we would urge the Subcommittee to resist placing limitations on funding
    advances that might be made by non-Federal agencies in the interest of
    speeding project construction and the delivery of important benefits to
    the public. Thank you once more for your attention to the needs of our
    port and region.
                                     ______

                           NATIONWIDE WATER PROJECTS

      Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                                      Inc.

        The Association of State Floodplain Managers appreciates the
    opportunity to express support for fully funding several programs of
    the Army Corps of Engineers which can significantly expand the Corps'
    ability to reduce losses due to flooding. We have found that Planning
    Assistance to States (Section 22) and Flood Plain Management Services
    provide for important elements of effective floodplain management. The
    Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Initiative
    offers new opportunities for use of non-structural options to achieve
    flood loss reduction. The National Shoreline Study requested by
    Congress in WRDA 99 has some initial funding proposed in the budget.
    These are all elements of the Corps' activities that are especially
    helpful to communities and states around the country in reducing flood
    losses.
        The Association of State Floodplain Managers is an association of
    over 3,500 state and local officials and other professionals engaged in
    floodplain management, flood hazard mitigation, flood preparedness,
    warning and recovery and in working with numerous federal agencies,
    including the Corps of Engineers. Our members have expertise in the
    fields of engineering, planning, community development, hydrologic
    forecasting, emergency response, and water resources.
        Three of the programs we are discussing, PAS, FPMS and Ecosystem
    restoration & mitigation, are all programs which directly support major
    themes the Corps is pursuing to formulate and implement Civil Works
    policy. They are based on building strong partnerships with states and
    local communities as well as other federal agencies. Additionally, that
    Civil Works policy should help economic growth and prosperity by
    ``combining sound infrastructure management and development with
    environmental protection and ecosystem restoration''. We full support
    these strategies for the Corps.
        Under General Investigations, ``Coordination Studies With Other
    Agencies'' includes $6.5 million for Planning Assistance to States in
    the budget request for fiscal year 2001, the same as last years
    request. The Congress, in fiscal year 1999 provided 1 million over the
    budget request, to help reduce the work backlog and meet the growing
    need of localities and local and regional governmental entitles for
    technical assistance from the Corps. The Senate provided $7.5 million
    in recognition of the backlog and $6.3 was agreed to in Conference. The
    situation has, of course, been helped by the Congressional effort this
    fiscal year, but a significant backlog remains. Further, increasing
    federal efforts to encourage cooperation and capability building among
    federal agencies and state and local governments have produced more
    demand for the Corps' guidance and assistance. We hope that the
    Committee will approve funding at least at the budget request and,
    hopefully, once again at a measure above the budget request.
        Also under General Investigations, Flood Plain Management Services,
    $9 million is requested for fiscal year 2001. The funding level for
    fiscal year 2000 was $8.5 Million. The Floodplain Management Services
    Program funds specific technical assistance requests from states, local
    governments and tribes. Generally, these address needs for
    identification of flood hazards in communities under growth pressure,
    assessing and taking steps to assure the safety of dams and providing
    the technical information to identify appropriate flood mitigation
    options, floodproofing, flood warning and hurricane evacuation studies.
    Without the technical assistance the Corps provides, structures may be
    built at risk, exposing citizens and the nation's taxpayers to future
    costs. Clearly, projects funded under FPMS work tangibly to reduce
    flood losses and costs to the Federal Government and support the
    partnership and economic growth/infrastructure management strategies
    above.
        The Corps is requesting $20 million for its Ecosystem Restoration
    and Flood Mitigation initiative. This program would provide the Corps
    with a full-range toolbox to help communities and states. It offers
    essential flexibility such as the ability to accommodate smaller
    projects for communities where a traditional structural project might
    not be justified or the ability to mix structural and non-structural
    elements to better design an overall project. The continuing
    authorities nature of the proposed program is important because
    confidence in a sustained federal commitment is important to
    communities for development and implementation of these smaller
    projects. From our knowledge, hundreds of communities in the nation
    have the potential to benefit substantially from this innovative
    initiative. We hope that the Committee will provide the nation's
    communities with the valuable tools of this program.
        Congress Authorized the National Shoreline Study in WRDA 99 in
    order to help the nation describe the extent of economic and
    environmental effects of erosion and accretion of our shorelines. The
    study is also to help identify appropriate benefits and costs to
    various levels of federal and non-federal participants in shore
    protection projects. We support proceeding with such a study so the
    nation will be better prepared to address and manage our shorelines to
    benefit everyone. The proposed budget provides $300,000 for starting
    this study under ``General Investigations-Studies not under states''.
    We urge the Committee to provide at least the budget request. In order
    to complete the study in the time Congress requested, funding of $500-
    750,000 would be appropriate.
        It is a pleasure to share our views on the effectiveness and
    usefulness of these programs in the achievement of flood loss
    reduction. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. We are
    always ready to respond to your questions. Please contact ASFPM
    Executive Director, Larry Larson, at (608) 274-0123 if further
    information is needed.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Urban Agriculture Council

        Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr.
    Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Roger Waters, President of
    the National Urban Agriculture Council (NUAC). NUAC is a national
    nonprofit organization established as a center for the promotion and
    implementation of effective water management in the urban landscape.
        I would like to offer testimony on six Bureau of Reclamation
    programs: Drought Emergency Assistance; Efficiency Incentives, Water
    Management and Conservation, Technical Assistance to States, Soil and
    Moisture Conservation, and the Title XVI-Water Reclamation and Reuse.

                          DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE

        NUAC has been an active participant in the efforts of the National
    Drought Policy Commission's efforts to produce a report on
    recommendations for a national drought policy for the country. Part of
    the core mission of NUAC is to act as a center for the acceptance,
    promotion, and implementation of practical, science-based water
    resource management and conservation practices. An important element of
    that mission is making sure water users are prepared for the
    eventuality of drought. We have been supportive of the efforts of the
    Commission to produce such a vision as part of their recommendations in
    the final report.
        The Bureau of Reclamation requested $500,000 for fiscal year 2001.
    NUAC believes and would ask that Congress consider that given the
    drought problems in this country, that an additional $3 million be
    included in this program for fiscal year 2001. The Bureau of
    Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture appear to be the best
    agencies suited to working with state and local governments, tribes and
    local water users by undertaking activities that can result in down-
    the-road savings by the Federal Government not having to provide
    emergency bailouts to the degree they would if such preparedness does
    not take place.

                         EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

        NUAC is supportive of this program that provides a partnership
    among the Bureau of Reclamation, water users, and states to implement
    water use efficiency and conservation solutions that are tailored to
    local conditions. The Bureau of Reclamation requested $3,169,000 for
    the program for fiscal year 2001. We would like to see the program
    increased up to $5,000,000 so a greater amount of work can take place
    with water districts for planning assistance and training on the
    development of water conservation plans and water efficient landscapes.
    The need for this type of training was one of the reasons NUAC was
    founded. Water Resource managers and policy makers are increasingly
    challenged by management issues. Paramount to making good management
    decisions is the availability of sound scientifically information. This
    information is an aid in the development of practical and
    environmentally sound programs which are both cost effective and
    socially responsible.

                   WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM

        On the surface this program appear to be a duplication of other
    Bureau of Reclamation assistance programs. The Bureau of Reclamation
    requested $7.6 million for this program for fiscal year 2001. One of
    the questions that has arisen in this program is whether the Bureau of
    Reclamation has construction authority for funds provided to districts
    under the program. This is an issue we would like the Committee to
    clear up so projects could go forward. We believe the funding requested
    is adequate, but if construction is going to occur under this program
    we would suggest a cap on the size of the project receiving such
    funding so it does not become a program for the few and not the many.

                       TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES

        NUAC is concerned with how this program has been cut by Congress
    over the past several years. We believe the data collection and
    analyses for management of water and related land resources that occurs
    with this funding is important in the absence of this country having a
    national water policy. We would ask that the request of $1.8 million
    not be cut, and if possible, the funding be increased to $3 million to
    help make up the shortfall that has occurred from previous cuts.

                         SOIL MOISTURE AND CONSERVATION

        The modest amount of the Bureau of Reclamation's request of
    $263,000 makes this program appear unimportant. NUAC would like to see
    this increased by a modest amount to $500,000 but have that increase
    tied to assisting in the efforts from the recommendations of the final
    National Drought Policy Commission Report. We also believe this program
    should be examined to see if it couldn't assist in proper site
    management of Federally funded structures that are going to need water
    for their urban landscapes.

                     TITLE XVI--WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE

        NUAC is supportive of the funding that has been provided in the
    fiscal year 2001 request for the projects that are underway under the
    Title XVI program. The $22 million requested is substantially below the
    $33 million provided by Congress for fiscal year 2000 and we would
    request that you consider increasing the funding up to that level this
    year. The $1.4 million provide for research, new starts, and
    feasibility studies needs to be examined from the standpoint of how
    long it is going to take to fund the existing projects, instead of
    looking to increase the number of projects. We believe there is a need
    for a serious discussion among water policy leaders on how to fund the
    future of this program in a timely manner. With regard to research, we
    see this as an area for the private and public sector to move forward
    on their own without having Reclamation involved in the agenda. We
    believe Reclamation's money would be better spent in getting the
    existing projects built.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
    on these programs.
                                     ______

                MIDWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

      Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
                                Greater Chicago

        On behalf of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
    Chicago (District), I want to thank the Subcommittee for this
    opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2001 and, at the
    same time, express our appreciation for your support of the District's
    projects in the years past. The District is the local sponsor for three
    Corps of Engineers priority projects of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan:
    the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. We are requesting the
    Subcommittee's full support for McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, as the
    O'Hare Reservoir has been completed. Specifically, we request the
    Subcommittee to include a total of $19,000,000 in construction funding
    for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects in the bill. The
    following text outlines these projects and the need for the requested
    funding. Also, attached is a booklet indicating the benefits of the
    project, the municipalities in our area which benefit from these
    projects, and the need for the requested funding. The booklet reviews
    the history of the issues involved, including newspaper articles and
    pertinent data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
    Illinois State Water Survey.
                         the chicagoland underflow plan
        The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
    the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. The O'Hare Reservoir
    Project was fully authorized for construction in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) and completed by the Corps
    in fiscal year 1999. This reservoir is connected to the existing O'Hare
    segment of the District's Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). Adopted in
    1972, TARP was the result of a multi-agency effort, which included
    officials of the State of Illinois, County of Cook, City of Chicago,
    and the District.
        TARP was designed to address the overwhelming water pollution and
    flooding problems of the Chicagoland combined sewer areas. These
    problems stem from the fact that the capacity of the area's waterways
    has been overburdened over the years and has become woefully inadequate
    in both hydraulic and assimilative capacities. These waterways are no
    longer able to carry away the combined sewer overflow discharges nor
    are they able to assimilate the pollution associated with these
    discharges. Severe basement flooding and polluted waterways (including
    Lake Michigan, which is the source of drinking water for millions of
    people) is the inevitable result. We point with pride to the fact that
    TARP was found to be the most cost-effective and socially and
    environmentally acceptable way for reducing these flooding and water
    pollution problems. Experience to date has reinforced such findings
    with respect to economics and efficiency.
        The TARP plan calls for the construction of the new ``underground
    rivers'' beneath the area's waterways. The ``underground rivers'' would
    be tunnels up to 35 feet in diameter and 350 feet below the surface. To
    provide an outlet for these tunnels, reservoirs will be constructed at
    the end of the tunnel system. Approximately 93.4 miles of tunnels have
    been constructed or are under construction at a total cost of $2.1
    billion and are operational. The tunnels capture the majority of the
    pollution load by capturing all of the small storms and the first flush
    of the large storms. Another 15.8 miles of tunnels costing $399 million
    need to be completed. The tunnels connected to the O'Hare Reservoir now
    discharge when they fill up during large rainstorms into the Reservoir
    and this system is working well and providing benefits. Thornton and
    McCook Reservoirs have not been built yet, so significant areas remain
    unprotected. Without these outlets, the local drainage has nowhere to
    go when large storms hit the area. Therefore, the combined stormwater
    and sewage backs up into over 470,000 homes. This is a reduction from
    the 550,000 homes impacted before the tunnels were put on line.
        Since its inception, TARP has not only abated flooding and
    pollution in the Chicagoland area, but has helped to preserve the
    integrity of Lake Michigan. In the years prior to TARP, a major storm
    in the area would cause local sewers and interceptors to surcharge
    resulting in CSO spills into the Chicagoland waterways. Since these
    waterways have a limited capacity, major storms have caused them to
    reach dangerously high levels resulting in massive sewer backups into
    basements and causing multi-million dollar damage to property. To
    relieve the high levels in the waterways during major storms, the gates
    at Wilmette, O'Brien, and the Chicago River would be opened and the
    CSOs would be allowed to backflow into Lake Michigan. Since the
    implementation of TARP, some backflows to Lake Michigan have been
    eliminated.
        In particular, since implementation of TARP, 358 billion gallons of
    CSOs have been captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached
    waterways. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99 percent of
    the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of CSOs will
    result in less water needed for flushing of Chicago's waterway system,
    making it available as drinking water to communities in Cook, DuPage,
    Lake, and Will counties, which have been on a waiting list.
    Specifically, since 1977, these counties received an increase of 162
    mgd, partially as a result of the reduction in the District's
    discretionary diversion in 1980. Additional allotments of Lake Michigan
    water, beyond 1991, will be made to these communities, as more water
    becomes available from sources like direct diversion.
        With new allocations of lake water, communities that previously did
    not get to share lake water are in the process of building, or have
    already built, water mains to accommodate their new source of drinking
    water. The new source of drinking water will be a substitute for the
    poorer quality well water previously used by these communities. Partly
    due to TARP, it is estimated by IDOT that between 1981 and 2020, 283
    mgd (439 cfs) of Lake Michigan water would be added to domestic
    consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million people that
    previously did not receive lake water, would be able to enjoy it. This
    new source of water supply will not only benefit its immediate
    receivers but will also result in an economic stimulus to the entire
    Chicagoland area, by providing a reliable source of good quality water
    supply.

         THE MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS--CHICAGOLAND UNDERFLOW PLAN

        The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs of the Chicagoland Underflow
    Plan (CUP) were fully authorized for construction in the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676). The CUP, as
    previously discussed, is a flood protection plan that is designed to
    reduce basement and street flooding due to combined sewer back-ups and
    inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban waterways. These projects
    are the second and third components of CUP, they consist of reservoirs
    to be constructed in west suburban Chicago and Thornton in south
    suburban Chicago.
        These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15.3 billion
    gallons and will produce annual benefits of $104 million. The total
    potential annual benefits of these projects are approximately twice as
    much as their total annual cost. The District, as the local sponsor, is
    acquiring the land necessary for these projects, and is to meeting its
    cost sharing obligations under Public Law 99-662.
        These projects are a very sound investment with a high rate of
    return. They will enhance the quality of life, safety and the peace of
    mind of the residents of this region. The State of Illinois has
    endorsed these projects and has urged their implementation. In
    professional circles, these projects are hailed for their
    farsightedness, innovation, and benefits.
        Based on two successive Presidentially-declared flood disasters in
    our area in 1986 and again in 1987 and dramatic flooding in the last
    several years, we believe the probability of this type of flood
    emergency occurring before implementation of the critical flood
    prevention measure is quite high. As the public agency for the greater
    Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the
    regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect
    the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in
    helping us achieve this necessary and important goal of construction
    completion.
        We have been very pleased that over the years the Subcommittee has
    seen fit to include critical levels of funds for these important
    projects. We were delighted to see the $4,500,000 in construction funds
    included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
    fiscal year 2000. However, it is important that we receive a total of
    $19,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 2001 to maintain the
    commitment and accelerate these projects. This funding is critical to
    continue the construction of the McCook Reservoir on schedule, in
    particular, to complete construction of the slurry wall and to
    accelerate the design of the Thornton Reservoir. The community has
    waited long enough for protection and we need these funds now to move
    the project in construction. We respectfully request your consideration
    of our request.

                                    SUMMARY

        Our most significant recent flooding occurred on February 20, 1997,
    when almost four inches of rain fell on the greater Chicagoland area.
    Due to the frozen ground, almost all of the rainfall entered our
    combined sewers, causing sewerage back-ups throughout the area. When
    the existing TARP tunnels filled with approximately 1.2 billion gallons
    of sewage and runoff, the only remaining outlets for the sewers were
    our waterways. Between 9:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., the Chicago and Calumet
    Rivers rose six feet. For the first time since 1981 we had to open the
    locks at all three of the waterway control points; these include
    Wilmette, downtown Chicago, and Calumet. Approximately 4.2 billion
    gallons of combined sewage and stormwater had to be released directly
    into Lake Michigan.
        Given our large regional jurisdiction and the severity of flooding
    in our area, the Corps was compelled to develop a plan that would
    complete the uniqueness of TARP and be large enough to accommodate the
    area we serve. With a combined sewer area of 375 square miles,
    consisting of the city of Chicago and 51 contiguous suburbs, there are
    550,000 homes within our jurisdiction, which are subject to flooding at
    any time. The annual damages sustained exceed $150 million. If these
    projects were in place, these damages could be eliminated. We must
    consider the safety and peace of mind of the two million people who are
    affected as well as the disaster relief funds that will be saved when
    these projects are in place. As the public agency in the greater
    Chicagoland area responsible for water pollution control, and as the
    regional sponsor for flood control, we have an obligation to protect
    the health and safety of our citizens. We are asking your support in
    helping us achieve this necessary and important goal. It is absolutely
    critical that the Corps' work, which has been proceeding for a number
    of years, now proceed on schedule through construction.
        Therefore, we urgently request that a total of $19,000,000 in
    construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the
    McCook and Thornton Reservoir Project.
        Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of our project
    over the years and we thank you in advance for your consideration of
    our request this year.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of The Missouri-Arkansas River Basins Association

        Following is the list of projects with the money requested for the
    2001 budget. They are endorsed by the Board of the Missouri-Arkansas
    Association. We ask your serious consideration in budget approval for
    the Federal fiscal year 2001.

                                    Requested fiscal year 2001 appropriation
    Blue River Channel, Kansas City, Missouri. Continue
        Construction Stage 3. Complete Construction by 2003.
        This Project affects 10,000 workers in the Blue
        River Valley........................................     $20,000,000
    Turkey Creek, Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri. Complete
        Design for a Construction start in fiscal year 2002.
        Project authorized in 1998 WRDA Bill................         500,000
    Missouri River Levee System Restudy seven levees.
        Continue feasibility study..........................         350,000
    Dodson Industrial District--Blue River Basin. Need new
        construction start authorization in fiscal year
        2001. (KC, MO's cost is about $5 Million)...........         150,000
    Swope Park Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri. Start
        PED.................................................         200,000
    Unit L-385. Continue Construction. Local sponsor now
        acquiring ROW.......................................       5,000,000
    Unit L-142:
        Complete Design for Left Bank.......................         500,000
        Study start for right bank-Wears Creek..............         100,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      26,800,000

        The list has been prepared in order of priority, as supported by
    our Board. MO-ARK has a unique history of supporting only cost
    beneficial projects. Also, MO-ARK supports flood protection studies now
    under way for St. Joseph, MO; Topeka, KS; and the Upper Mississippi
    River Flow Frequency Study. We also support the Missouri River Fish and
    Wildlife Mitigation Project. Please place this testimony in the formal
    hearing record.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development, on behalf of more than 450 conservation
    and recreation organizations, community groups, religious affiliations,
    companies, and other groups across the country, American Rivers would
    like to thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        We urge you to increase funding for habitat restoration efforts by
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including Columbia River Fish
    Mitigation, the Environmental Management Program, the Section 1135 and
    Section 206 programs, the Challenge 21 Initiative, and the Missouri
    River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program.
        No federal agency possesses as much restoration expertise as the
    Army Corps of Engineers. Across the nation, communities are working
    with the Corps to restore degraded rivers and streams to provide new
    opportunities for recreation and tourism, improve water quality, create
    habitat for river wildlife, and improve quality of life. The Corps is
    playing the lead role in hundreds of communities, ranging from the
    restoration of the Missouri River to the Anacostia River.
        In particular, we urge you to support the following programs:
        Columbia River Fish Mitigation.--We urge you to appropriate $95
    million for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program and specify that
    the money must be used for projects designed to recreate or mimic the
    natural river conditions salmon need to survive and leave fish in the
    river to benefit from these changes. The program is essential to
    restoring runs of Snake River salmon and steelhead. Largely due to
    federal dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, every species of Snake
    River salmon and nearly every species of Columbia River salmon are
    listed under the Endangered Species Act. Restoring the salmon
    populations in the Snake River would be a significant boon to the local
    and regional economies. Congress should also eliminate funding for the
    Corps' failed collecting and barging activities and deny new Columbia
    River Fish Mitigation appropriations for additional screens, barges,
    and other related projects.
        Section 1135 and Section 206.--We urge you to appropriate $25
    million for the Section 1135 Program, which permits the Corps to modify
    projects to restore habitat. More than 30 projects have been completed
    since the program was authorized in 1986, including the restoration of
    wetlands, construction of islands, and reforestation of floodplains. We
    also urge you to appropriate $25 million for the Section 206 Program,
    which authorizes the Corps to restore degraded habitat regardless of
    past activities by the Corps.
        Challenge 21 Initiative.--We urge you appropriate $40 million for
    the Challenge 21 Initiative, which will permit the Corps to relocate
    frequently flooded homes and businesses. Since the Great Flood of 1993,
    nearly 20,000 flooded homes and businesses have been relocated from
    harm's way. Challenge 21 will permit the Corps to relocate vulnerable
    structures before disaster strikes, reducing long-term flood losses.
        Upper Mississippi River.--We urge you to appropriate $25 million
    for the Environmental Management Program, the primary habitat
    restoration program for the Upper Mississippi River. Unless habitat
    restoration efforts are accelerated, side channels and sloughs will
    continue to fill with sediment faster than they can be replaced,
    endangering the health of the nation's most biologically diverse river.
        Missouri River.--We urge you to appropriate $15 million for the
    Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project, the primary
    habitat restoration program for the Lower Missouri River. Restoring a
    string of natural places from Sioux City and Saint Louis will aid river
    wildlife, attract recreation and tourism, and reduce flood losses.
        Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We strongly
    believe that these funding levels will be excellent investments in the
    long-term health of the rivers, the communities they serve and the
    economies they sustain.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium

        The Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium (IPEC) is an
    environmental consortium of The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
    University, The University of Tulsa, and The University of Arkansas at
    Fayetteville. Funded as an EPA Research Center, the mission of IPEC is
    to increase the competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry
    through a reduction in the cost of compliance with U.S. environmental
    regulations. This mission is accomplished through a vigorous research
    and technology transfer program.
        IPEC is industry driven to ensure that the consortium is meeting
    the needs of the industry and fulfilling its mission. IPEC is advised
    by an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) composed of environmental
    professionals, state regulators, and independent operators who review
    all research proposals for relevancy to IPEC's mission. Representatives
    of regulatory bodies include the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the
    Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, the Arkansas Department of Pollution
    Control and Ecology, and the Pawhuska, OK office of the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. The independent oil companies
    (producers and refiners) are the majority group represented on the IAB.
    This Board is dominated by the upstream independent sector of the
    industry. The responsibilities of the IAB are two-fold. First, the IAB
    advises the IPEC Executive Committee on environmental research needs in
    the domestic petroleum industry. Secondly, the IAB reviews research
    proposals at a pre-proposal stage for relevancy to the mission of IPEC.
    Research proposals must meet this test of relevancy to be considered
    further for funding. IPEC is also advised by a Science Advisory
    Committee (SAC), composed of leading environmental experts from
    academia and government laboratories, that reviews all research
    proposals for scientific quality.
        IPEC's research program focuses on the development of cost-
    effective technologies to address environmental problems having the
    greatest economic impact on the domestic industry. Current research
    projects include the following: the use of plants to clean contaminated
    soils; the natural biodegradation of gasoline by microorganisms in the
    absence of oxygen; the beneficial use of petroleum wastes as road
    materials; the control of the formation of toxic hydrogen sulfide in
    oil wells; the development of simple sampling devices to replace
    expensive live organisms to assess toxicity in contaminated soils; the
    treatment and disposal of naturally occurring radioactive material
    (NORM) in oil production equipment; the remediation of brine-impacted
    soils; development of a sound scientific basis for ecological risk
    assemement of petroleum production sites; and enhancing the remediation
    of oil contaminated soils. These projects were first reviewed and
    approved by our IAB as relevant to our mission of increasing the
    competitiveness of the domestic petroleum industry and finally reviewed
    and approved by our SAC on the basis of scientific quality.
        Since September, 1998 IPEC has provided $1,080,264 in funding for
    these projects. However, another $977,765 in funding for these projects
    has been secured by the investigators as matching funds from industry
    and industry organizations such as the Gas Research Institute, the
    American Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum Environmental Research
    Forum. This is over and above matching funds (over $900,000) provided
    by the Oklahoma State Reagents for Higher Education. IPEC is a true
    public/private partnership.
        IPEC's technology transfer program is directed toward providing
    useful tools for environmental compliance and cost reduction to
    independent producers. The first year work plan, as developed jointly
    by the IPEC IAB and SAC, has two principal objectives. The first
    objective is to raise the level of technical training of the field
    inspectors of the oil and gas regulatory bodies of Oklahoma and
    Arkansas including the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, The Arkansas
    Oil and Gas Commission, and the Osage Agency of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs with regard to first response to spills, pollution prevention,
    and remediation of oil and brine spills. The second objective of this
    program is the development of checklists for independent producers to
    assist them in environmental audits (``staying out of trouble
    checklists''), remediation of oil and brine spills, and first response
    to spills. Oklahoma and Arkansas regulatory field agents will be used
    to deliver these tools to the independent producers.
        IPEC's technology transfer flagship is the International Petroleum
    Environmental Conference. In November, 1999 IPEC held the 6th
    International Petroleum Environmental Conference in Houston, TX. There
    were over 370 in attendance from all facets of the oil and gas industry
    including independent and major producers, service industry
    representatives, and state and federal regulators. The program for the
    6th conference featured several plenary lectures, over 150 technical
    presentations, exhibits, a poster session and a special symposium on
    the promise of new technology in the oilfield. Co-sponsors of the
    conference included the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, the
    Railroad Commission of Texas, the Texas Independent Producers and
    Royalty Owners Association, the Gas Research Institute, the Oklahoma
    Independent Petroleum Association, the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board,
    the EPA Office of Research & Development, and the National Petroleum
    Technology Office of the U.S. Dept. of Energy. IPEC sponsors the
    participation of ten state regulators from Oklahoma and Arkansas each
    year at the conference. The 7th International Petroleum Environmental
    Conference will be held November 7-10, 2000, in Albuquerque, NM.

                 THE CRISIS IN THE DOMESTIC PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

        Much attention has been paid recently to the high costs to
    consumers of gasoline and home-heating oil. The price of crude oil is
    the dominant influence on the costs of all petroleum products and the
    cost of crude oil has been increasing for the last 13 months. Energy
    experts agree that the price increases currently being experienced were
    brought on by short-term shocks that resulted from sudden changes in
    supply and demand. On the demand side there has been increasing demand
    for petroleum worldwide, especially in the Far East. On the supply
    side, OPEC and several non-OPEC countries have removed significant
    amounts of crude oil from production. Once again America has been held
    hostage to the marketing whims of foreign producers and we are in no
    position to respond. Since 1990 there has been a 27 percent decline in
    the number of jobs in the U.S. exploring and producing oil and gas. Ten
    years ago there were 657 working oil rigs in the U.S., now there are
    less than 175. Thirty-six refineries have closed since 1992 and no new
    refineries have been built since 1976.
        In order to regain energy security the U.S. must have a coherent
    domestic energy strategy. Some may be willing to entrust the health of
    the U.S. economy to windmills and solar-powered cars, but it will be a
    stable and profitable domestic oil and gas industry that is the
    nation's best defense against OPEC market manipulations. The current
    upswing in crude oil prices may eventually stimulate the industry.
    However, the record low prices that preceded the current increases have
    left many companies in financial positions that make it impossible to
    launch new exploration activities. Additionally, many in the industry
    are simply uneasy with the volatility that has come to characterize the
    industry. Much of U.S. domestic oil production is carried out by
    independent producers who are producing from mature fields left behind
    by the majors. Although there is a significant resource base in these
    fields, this is the most difficult and the most costly oil to produce.
    The independent producer has only one source of revenue--the sale of
    oil and gas. There is no vertical depth to his business.
        A major factor in the high cost of production in the domestic
    petroleum industry is the cost of environmental compliance. IPEC is
    working to strengthen the domestic petroleum industry and reduce the
    impact of market volatility by providing cost-effective environmental
    technologies to solve those problems that are having the greatest
    impact on production costs. A strong and stable domestic petroleum
    industry is our best hedge against foreign market manipulation.

                   IPEC'S RESPONSE TO CRITICAL INDUSTRY NEEDS

        IPEC is continually probing our Industrial Advisory Board for new
    ways to assist the domestic petroleum industry and continually seeking
    out cost-effective technical solutions to these problems through an
    aggressive proposal solicitation and review process. The IPEC IAB also
    advises the Consortium on technology transfer needs in the industry. An
    exciting idea that has been put forward by the IPEC IAB is the concept
    of the petroleum extension agent (PEA). The current appropriations
    request will fund a pilot PEA program in Oklahoma and Arkansas that can
    be expanded to include every oil and gas producing state or region.
        There are over 3500 independent oil producers in Oklahoma and
    Arkansas. Most of these are very small companies, the ``mom and pop''
    operations whose business is run from the pickup truck and the kitchen
    table. These small producers are especially vulnerable to industry
    volatility. The current crises in the domestic petroleum industry
    requires a multi-level response with a specific outreach effort to the
    smallest of the independents, those without in-house experts, to advise
    them on the latest production techniques to minimize costs; how to
    prevent spills and the accompanying clean-up costs; and how to comply
    with state and federal regulations to avoid fines and costly loss of
    production. This type of assistance is not currently provided by the
    private sector engineering and service companies because the small
    producers cannot afford private sector services of this kind.
        IPEC proposes to provide these services to small independent
    producers through a system of petroleum extension agents (PEAs). Up to
    ten (10) full-time equivalent petroleum professionals will be hired to
    call on small independent producers throughout Oklahoma and Arkansas to
    provide direct assistance in every aspect of operating a profitable and
    environmentally friendly business as an oil producer. These PEAs will
    be seasoned veterans of oil and gas production in the state in which
    they will operate. PEAs will possess demonstrated technical competence
    and have a minimum of 20 years of experience in the industry. PEAs will
    operate from the major oil producing areas of the states.
        PEA services will be made known to producers through advertisements
    and through field agents of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and the
    Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. PEAs will also seek out and call on
    small producers in the same way that county agricultural extension
    agents call on small farmers. PEAs will be required to serve at least
    24 clients per year, spending an average of two weeks working with each
    small producer. This amount of time is needed to earn a producer's
    confidence, get to know their business, and demonstrate cost-saving
    ideas. In difficult situations PEAs will be able to draw on the
    significant resources of the IPEC institutions and the IPEC Industrial
    Advisory Board. The IPEC institutions contain many business and
    environmental resources, two departments of petroleum engineering, and
    many chemical and mechanical engineers engaged in oil and gas research.
    The IAB members also represent decades of experience in the oil and gas
    industry in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Representatives of the Oklahoma
    Corporation Commission and Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission are members
    of the IAB; therefore, in cases of conflict between small producers and
    one of these regulatory bodies, IPEC can also potentially serve to help
    resolve problems.
        The results expected from this program are:
      --a reduction in the costs of production and increased profitability
            among small independent producers,
      --lesser numbers of small producers going out of business,
      --less abandoned resources,
      --greater state tax revenues and
      --increased compliance with environmental regulations and greater
            protection of natural resources.
        It is anticipated that 240 small producers will be directly
    assisted in the first year of this program. However, the knowledge
    gained by these producers will be passed on to other small producers
    and family members by word-of-mouth greatly expanding the reach of this
    direct mechanism of technology transfer to the industry.

                FUNDING OF THE PETROLEUM EXTENSION AGENT PROGRAM

        IPEC is seeking an appropriation of $1.5 million for fiscal year
    2001 through the Department of Energy to fund a pilot petroleum
    extension agent program in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The Consortium will
    be subject to peer review to ensure the effective utilization of public
    funds in meeting the stated goals of the PEA program.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District

        Chairman Domenici and members of the Subcommittee: Over the years,
    Garrison Diversion Unit appropriations have been used to provide a
    reliable, high quality water supply to rural communities in need
    throughout North Dakota and to maintain the 120 miles of canals and
    pumping plants already in place.
        The Garrison Diversion Project continues to be the backbone of all
    water projects in North Dakota. Completing Garrison Diversion will
    assure our citizens affordable access to an adequate quantity and
    quality water supply for municipal, rural and industrial systems.
    Garrison Diversion is the key for future economic development,
    recreation, tourism and wildlife enhancement in our state.
        The President's budget request includes $21,291,000 for the
    Garrison Diversion Unit. An additional $4,200,000 is needed to continue
    the important work of the MR&I program and for needed modifications and
    repairs to the existing facilities. Additional appropriations will
    continue development of rural water supply systems across the state,
    providing a dependable water supply to North Dakota residents. This
    funding impacts the lives of families and business owners statewide who
    are working toward finding solutions to meet their water needs.
        Meeting the Indian MR&I needs also concerns North Dakotans. The
    four Indian reservations in the state face some of the most severe
    water problems in North Dakota. Existing ceilings are exhausted and the
    unmet needs on the reservations are growing. Additional appropriations
    and an appropriate ceiling increase will allow tribal leaders to
    continue working on their most critical water needs. We understand that
    at least $3,000,000 in additional funding is desperately needed to
    continue this important program. We concur that this need is of the
    highest priority.
        A greater concern is the overall Bureau of Reclamation budget.
    Current trends show this budget number shrinking on an annual basis.
    Additional funding and a redirection of the funding allowed for ``water
    supply programs'' is definitely needed. Although water conservation,
    water reuse and restoring fish and wildlife resources are important,
    the Bureau's budget needs to be refocused and increased to place more
    emphasis on completing the authorized projects already on the books.
        We are hopeful that a mutual agreement concerning the Dakota Water
    Resources Act can be reached this year that is beneficial to all areas
    of interest. Since the bill reduces the cost of the currently
    authorized project, it will actually save the Federal Government money
    and, at the same time, meet the highest priority needs of the state.
        Mr. Chairman, we fully support and appreciate the committee's
    current and past efforts in regard to funding for the Garrison
    Diversion Unit. Because water is a valuable resource in North Dakota,
    we are committed to finding solutions to our state's water needs.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Mni Wiconi Project

                  FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REQUEST

        The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully
    request appropriations for construction in fiscal year 2001 for the
    project in the amount of $53,341,000 as follows:

    Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
        Core Facilities (Treatment Plant, Pipelines)........     $23,834,000
        Distribution System on Pine Ridge...................       4,820,000
    West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems..............       9,608,000
    Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System........................      13,182,000
    Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System....................       1,897,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total Mni Wiconi Project..........................      53,341,000

      NEED FOR OSRWSS TO REACH MURDO IN FISCAL YEAR 2001--MAJOR MILESTONE

        The Oglala, Lower Brule and Rosebud Sioux Tribes were consulted as
    required by the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638, as
    amended) when the Administration arrived at its fiscal year 2001
    construction budget of $23.57 million for the Mni Wiconi Project. This
    budget, however, does not address the needs of the project in fiscal
    year 2001, a major target year, nor does it include the $15 million
    ``Indian initiative'' proposed by the Administration for the fiscal
    year 2001 budget but not included in it.
        The principle element in the budget for fiscal year 2001 is $11.895
    million for the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core.
    The OSRWSS core system funds are needed to complete the project to
    Murdo by November 2001, where water can be delivered to the largest
    areas of demand in the West River/Lyman-Jones service area and all of
    the Rosebud service area. By completing the project to Murdo, all of
    the interconnection points for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe will also be
    provided. Only the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and parts of West
    River/Lyman-Jones will be without points of interconnection to the
    OSRWSS core. This landmark in progress on the project in fiscal year
    2001 is the most significant event in the project to date. The
    requested funding level is needed to achieve the objective.
        Important to note is the fact that the intake and treatment plant
    on the Missouri River will be fully operational by February 2001 and
    will deliver water to Vivian where the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is
    building a core facility that will permit interconnection by West
    River/Lyman-Jones.
        Completion of the OSRWSS core pipeline system to Murdo is needed to
    take greater advantage of the completed intake and treatment plant. The
    funding request for fiscal year 2001 will permit us to conclude the
    necessary construction to Murdo, thereby providing interconnection to a
    population of 26,000, 50 percent of the project population. Absent
    sufficient funds in fiscal year 2001, only 8,000 persons will be
    provided with interconnection to the OSRWSS core to receive water from
    the Missouri River. Emphasis is placed on the importance of serving an
    additional 14,000 residents of the project in fiscal year 2001.
        All proposed sponsor construction activity will build pipelines
    that will provide project water immediately to beneficiaries. In many
    cases, construction is ongoing, and fiscal year 2001 funds are required
    to complete those projects. In the absence of fiscal year 2001 funds
    requested for the distribution systems, it will be necessary to
    discontinue some on-going construction contracts and reinitiate them at
    a later time. This will raise project costs. It will also lower faith
    of contractors in the project, which will affect future bid prices.
        Funding for OSRWSS core and distribution facilities are necessary
    to bring the benefits of the Empowerment Zone designation to the Pine
    Ridge Indian Reservation, one of five rural designations across the
    Nation. There is great anticipation on the Pine Ridge Indian
    Reservation. The federal projection that as much as $.5 to $1.0 billion
    in economic activity can be generated, however, is largely dependent on
    the timely completion of a water system, which depends on
    appropriations for this project.
        Finally, all sponsors underscore the importance of the ``Indian
    Initiative'' proposed by the Administration for the fiscal year 2001
    budget. The Indian initiative was the product of correspondence by the
    Indian sponsors with the Administration requesting an increase in the
    level of funding for the Mni Wiconi Project of $25 to $50 million. The
    Commissioner of Reclamation responded and proposed a $10 to $15 million
    Indian initiative during the fall of last year. The Office of
    Management and Budget corresponded on behalf of the President in
    November 1999 stating that serious consideration would be given to the
    initiative. The Indian sponsors listed a total of $42 million in
    projects on the Indian Reservations where planning is well advanced and
    the Indian sponsors have the capability to use the additional funds.
    The correspondence referenced here and the map showing the locations of
    proposed construction activities in the Indian initiative are included
    for review by the Subcommittee. The Indian initiative was supported by
    the South Dakota delegation and West River/Lyman-Jones but was not
    included in the Administration's budget. The initiative is needed by
    the Indian sponsors to complete distribution systems that will take
    advantage on the progress on the OSRWSS core and secondary core systems
    within each of the Indian Reservations.

                          UNIQUE NEEDS OF THIS PROJECT

        Your consideration in this most important project, a project that
    brings hope, dignity and a spirit of cooperation between Indian and
    non-Indians, will be greatly appreciated. This subcommittee has
    provided us with considerable support for which we are grateful. This
    year the Administration has provided an inadequate budget. It is
    necesssary for the project to petition the subcommittee for the
    appropriate level of funding to build the OSRWSS core to Murdo by year
    2001, a major accomplishment that will provide interconnections from
    the core system to nearly 50 percent of the project population or about
    26,000 persons. It is also necessary to fund the Indian initiative.
        In June of the past year, President Clinton visited the Pine Ridge
    Indian Reservation to underscore the severity of economic conditions
    and to promote the Administration's ``New Market Initiative.'' Each
    year our testimony addresses the fact that the project beneficiaries,
    particularly the three Indian Reservations, have the lowest income
    levels in the Nation. The health risks to our people drinking unsafe
    water are compounded by reductions in health programs. We respectfully
    submit that our project is unique and that no other project in the
    Nation has greater human needs. Poverty in our service areas is
    consistently deeper than elsewhere in the Nation. Health effects of
    water borne diseases are consistently more prevalent than elsewhere in
    the Nation, due in part to (1) lack of adequate water in the home and
    (2) poor water quality where water is available. Higher incidences of
    impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies and hepatitis-A are
    well documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni Wiconi Project
    area. At the beginning of the third millennium one cannot find a region
    in which social and economic conditions are as deplorable. These
    circumstances are summarized in Table 1. Mni Wiconi builds the dignity
    of many, not only though improvement of drinking water, but through
    employment and increased earnings during planning, construction,
    operation and maintenance. We urge the subcommittee to address the
    Administration's concepts for creating jobs and improving the quality
    of life on the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations of the project
    area.

               TABLE 1.--1990 BUREAU OF CENSUS ECONOMIC STATISTICS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Per capital families below
                                 -------------------------------------------
      Indian reservation/state                     Poverty
                                     Income         level      Unemployment
                                    (dollars)     (percent)      (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pine Ridge (Shannon County).        $3,029          59.6            32.7
    Rosebud (Todd County).......         4,005          54.4            27.3
    Lower Brule (Lyman County)..         4,679          45.0            15.7
    State of South Dakota.......        10,661          11.6             4.2
    National....................        14,420          10.0             6.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Financial support for the Indian membership has already been
    subjected to drastic cuts in funding programs through the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and through Welfare Reform. This project, progressing
    through the budget fighting efforts at the National level, was a source
    of strong hope that would off-set the loss of employment and income in
    other programs and provide for a healthier environment. Tribal leaders
    anticipate that Welfare Reform legislation and other budget cuts
    nation-wide will create a crisis for tribal government when tribal
    members move back to the reservations in order to survive. This
    movement has already started. Recent Census Bureau data indicate that
    the population of Shannon County (Pine Ridge Indian Reservation)
    increased over 21 percent between 1990 and 1997. The population of Todd
    County (Rosebud Indian Reservation) has increased over 11 percent in
    the same time period. Those population increases are greater than
    anticipated and will create water needs that will more than utilize the
    benefits of the Mni Wiconi Project Act. Public policy has resulted in
    accelerated population growth on the reservations. The Act mandates
    that:

              ``. . . the United States has a trust responsibility to
            ensure that adequate and safe water supplies are available to
            meet the economic, environmental, water supply and public
            health needs of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian
            Reservations . . .''

        Indian support for this project has not come easily because of the
    historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the
    Federal Government. The argument was that there is no hope and the
    Sioux Tribes would be used to build the non-Indian segments of the
    project and the Indian segments would linger to completion. These
    arguments have been overcome by better planning, an amended
    authorization and hard fought agreements among the parties. The
    Subcommittee is respectfully requested to take the steps necessary the
    complete the critical elements of the project proposed for fiscal year
    2001.
        The following sections describe the construction activity in each
    of the rural water systems.

              OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION

        Pine Ridge and parts of West River will be the last project
    sponsors to interconnect with the OSRWSS core to receive Missouri River
    water. With projects now designed and proceeding under construction
    award there are 932 services and 450 miles of distribution and service
    pipelines, down from earlier projections due to the pace of funding. We
    continue to extend the start of new projects. No new projects were bid
    in 1999, and 2001 funds are necessary to advance construction. The
    Manderson Loop has been under construction since fiscal year 1996, and
    the fifth of five phases will be scheduled for completion with fiscal
    year 2001 funds. The Red Shirt Project in the northwest corner of the
    Reservation is underway and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year
    2001.
        Of particular importance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the start of
    the main transmission system from the northeast corner of the
    Reservation to Kyle in the central part of the Reservation. We had
    proposed the ``Indian initiative'' as a means of advancing this project
    segment. The transmission line is needed to interconnect the OSRWSS
    core system with the distribution system within the Reservation in
    order to deliver Missouri River water to the populous portions of the
    Reservation. If adequate funds are available, this segment of the
    project cannot be initiated in fiscal year 2001. This critical
    component of the Oglala system has been deferred for the last three
    years due to inadequate funding although the design and easements have
    been completed on large portions of the project.

            WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION

        Joint Mni Wiconi Sponsor focus on the core delivery systems has
    advanced the project to where WR/LJ is now able to provide significant
    development of quality water service to it's membership. All of the WR/
    LJ distribution system development to date has been dependent on
    temporary water supplies to meet critical water needs. Project water
    will be available when the intake and water treatment plant are fully
    operational in February 2001.
        All of the WR/LJ construction activity is focused on construction
    of distribution facilities that will be served when the OSRWSS reaches
    Murdo in fiscal year 2001. The City of Murdo will no longer be infamous
    for it's poor quality water. The requested funding will provide quality
    water of all of our membership in Lyman County and the Eastern half of
    Jones County. It will provide fulfillment of the dream of founders of
    the original ``Lyman-Jones'' system over 35 years ago.
        WR/LJ construction in Eastern Mellette County, in conjunction with
    RST core pipeline construction to meet the OSRWSS at Murdo, will make
    quality water service available to all rural residents, tribal and non-
    tribal, of Mellette County. This is another successful demonstration of
    the unique working relationship of the Mni Wiconi sponsors.
        Delivery of water service in the rural area around Ft. Pierre will
    provide long awaited economic stimulus to that segment of the Mni
    Wiconi project. Ranch and residential improvements and new construction
    have been long delayed due to lack of potable water systems. Those
    members living closest to the water source may now realize benefits
    from the project.

                           ROSEBUD RURAL WATER SYSTEM

        The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and their non-Indian neighbors in Mellette
    County have waited many years for a reliable source of high quality
    water. The planned arrival of the OSRWSS Core pipeline at Murdo means
    the wait is nearly over. The focus of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's fiscal
    year 2001 work plan is to connect to the OSRWSS and bring Missouri
    River water from Murdo to the town of White River. The new work planned
    for fiscal year 2001 become the backbone for the Rosebud design
    population of 17,000 and will provide water immediately to 300
    connections and 1,500 people on the Sicangu Mni Wiconi and 55
    additional connections and 150 people served by West River/Lyman Jones.
        If it were possible to identify one component of the Sicangu Mni
    Wiconi as being the most important, it would be the Murdo to White
    River Pipeline. This pipeline will provide close to 3,000 gallons per
    minute of high quality water to the Indian and non-Indian people of
    Mellette County. In addition to providing high quality water to the
    people of eastern and northwestern Mellette County, the construction of
    the Murdo to White River Pipeline will also eliminate the need to
    supply portions of western Mellette County from the interim groundwater
    supplies. The new supply means that the groundwater supplies will be
    available to reduce the chronic water shortages experienced in the
    Antelope and Mission areas.
        In addition to the Murdo to White River Pipeline, other projects
    prioritized for construction in fiscal year 2001 include completion of
    the St. Francis rural distribution system, and initiation of the Spring
    Creek and Black Pipe/Corn Creek Projects. The Spring Creek Project will
    provide storage for the community of Spring Creek and distribute water
    to nearby rural areas. The Black Pipe/Corn Creek Project will use
    project facilities completed in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to
    distribute Missouri River water to the northwestern portion of Mellette
    County. This area is one of the driest in the state and where and when
    water is available, water quality is so poor it frequently isn't
    suitable for human consumption.
        If the promise of bringing high quality water to all of Mellette
    County can be accomplished in 2001, people's dreams of the past thirty
    or more years will become reality. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe hopes
    Congress will turn this dream into reality and immeasurably improve the
    quality of life for Indians and non-Indians alike.

                  LOWER BRULE RURAL WATER SYSTEM--DISTRIBUTION

        The Lower Brule new microfiltration water treatment plant is now in
    operation and water is being delivered to the communities of Lower
    Brule and West Brule, some scattered to Reservation housing sites and
    some to West River/Lyman-Jones (WR/LJ) system serving the town of
    Reliance and rural users in the Reliance area. The treatment plant is
    producing and delivering a safe, high quality water with a nominal
    capacity of 700 gallons per minute. While the final cost of this
    facility approaches $1,800,000 only $250,000 came from Mni Wiconi
    program funds. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe contributed $300,000 in
    tribal funds and the balance came from various grant programs.
        The West Brule to Reliance core system is complete, including the
    Medicine Butte 456,000 gallon ground storage reservoir. The Fort George
    Butte--County Road pipeline has been installed and is awaiting testing.
    This pipeline will be placed into service as soon as water can be
    obtained from the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core
    pipeline and will initially serve only West River/Lyman-Jones users
    until the on-Reservation distribution system can be constructed. The
    Vivian to Presho core line is scheduled for completion in fiscal year
    2000 and can begin serving the City of Presho and rural water users of
    West River/Lyman-Jones as soon as water is available from the OSRWSS
    core pipeline at Vivian.
        Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) has programmed the fiscal
    year 2001 funding for completion of the Presho to Kennebec core
    pipeline. This would serve the town of Kennebec and West River/Lyman-
    Jones area rural users. In the event adequate funds are available in
    fiscal year 2001, the core pipeline from Kennebec north to the
    Reservation boundary will be constructed. This line will initially
    serve only WR/LJ users until funds can be obtained to construct the on-
    Reservation distribution system.
        In order to accomplish the above stated goals, LBRWS is requesting
    $1,846,000 in fiscal year 2001 funds. This amount would provide
    adequate funds to construct the Presho to Kennebec and the Kennebec
    north core lines. If funds are not adequate for both of these core
    lines, the Presho to Kennebec line will take priority, with a required
    funding level of $1,235,000.
        LBRWS is continuing to commit its available funds to construction
    of off-Reservation core pipelines. As noted above, this will allow
    service to WR/LJ cities and rural users. LBRWS will use funds made
    available in subsequent years to fund construction of its on-
    Reservation distribution system to serve our users if its authorized
    cost ceiling is raised.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project

                        FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING REQUEST

        First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
    in support of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota
    Rural Water Project and for the Subcommittee's support. The Mid-Dakota
    Project is requesting $24 million in federal appropriations for fiscal
    year 2001. As with our past submissions to this subcommittee, Mid-
    Dakota's fiscal year 2001 request is based on a detailed analysis of
    our ability to proceed with construction during the fiscal year. In all
    previous years, Mid-Dakota has fully obligated its appropriated funds,
    including federal, state, and local, and could have obligated
    significantly more were they available.
        This year (fiscal year 2001) the project is seeking additional
    funds above the President's budget recommendation in the amount of
    $17.96 million ($24.0 million-$6.04 million). Mid-Dakota understands
    and appreciates pressures on Congress to pass and maintain a balanced
    and seemingly an austere budget and in that respect we understand the
    difficulties before congressional appropriators to find additional
    funds to supplement the President's budget request. However, we request
    and strongly urge Congress to appropriate the full amount of Mid-
    Dakota's request.

                          HISTORY OF PROJECT FUNDING:

        The Project was authorized by Congress and signed into law by
    President George Bush in October 1992. The federal authorization for
    the project totaled $100 million (in 1989 dollars) in a combination of
    federal grant and loan funds (grant funds may not exceed 85 percent of
    federal contribution). The State authorization was for $8.4 million (in
    1989 dollars). The total authorized indexed cost of the project now
    stands at approximately $144 million. All federal funding considered,
    the Government has provided 53.4 percent of its commitment ($71.4
    million of $134 million) to provide construction funding for the
    Project. When considering the federal and state combined awards, the
    project is approximately 56.3 percent complete, in terms of financial
    commitments.
        Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the
    past seven years. Within the limited monetary parameters of current
    federal awards and funds appropriated by the State of South Dakota, we
    have been able to put those scarce resources to good work, making
    exceptional progress on project construction, albeit not nearly as fast
    as is needed or as we had initially envisioned.

                                            SUMMARIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Total
                                        Mid-     Pres.                        Conf.    Bureau   Additional    fed.
            Fed. fiscal year           Dakota    budget   House    Senate    enacted    award      funds      funds
                                       request                               levels    levels               provided
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1994............................     7.991  .......  .......     2.000     2.000     1.500  ..........     1.500
    1995............................    22.367  .......  .......     8.000     4.000     3.600  ..........     3.600
    1996............................    23.394    2.500   12.500    10.500    11.500    10.902      2.323     13.225
    1997............................    29.686    2.500   11.500    12.500    10.000     9.400      1.500     10.900
    1998............................    29.836   10.000   12.000    13.000    13.000    12.221      1.000     13.221
    1999............................    32.150   10.000   10.000    20.000    15.000    14.100      2.000     16.100
    1900............................    28.800    5.000   15.000     7.000    14.000    12.859  ..........    12.859
    2001............................    28.800    6.040  .......  ........  ........  ........  ..........
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals....................  ........   36.040   61.000    73.000    69.500    64.582      6.823      71.40
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Additionally, the State of South Dakota has contributed $9.67
    million in grants to the Mid-Dakota Project, in previous years. The
    State of South Dakota completed its initial authorized financial
    obligation to the Mid-Dakota Project in the 1998 Legislative Session.
        The $14 million funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal year
    2000 provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve very
    significant and exciting accomplishments for the fiscal year. These are
    later summarized in the section titled ``Construction in Progress.''
    Mid-Dakota will continue to deliver quality drinking water to nine
    community systems and approximately 800 rural customers (farms and
    Ranches). Mid-Dakota estimates that an additional 1,000 rural farm and
    ranch accounts along with five more community systems will be receiving
    project water at the close of contracts awarded in fiscal year 1999/
    2000. The subcommittee's generosity has already had a deep and
    favorable effect on over 10,000 South Dakotans.

                  PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST

        In February the President's Budget recommendations to Congress were
    released. Mid-Dakota Rural Water was included in the proposed budget at
    a level of $6.040 million for fiscal year 2001. This represents a 57
    percent decrease from what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
    The Mid-Dakota Project will not be able to make any significant
    progress in fiscal year 2001 at this level of funding. In fact, it
    would not be an overstatement to say that Mid-Dakota may have to
    suspend significant construction activities for fiscal year 2001, if
    the $6.040 million is not significantly increased.
        As in previous years, Mid-Dakota is in ``catch-up'' mode, due to
    lower than expected appropriations in prior years. The $24 million
    request for fiscal year 2001 will help the project maintain an
    acceptable construction schedule. The $6.040 million budget request by
    President Clinton would have profound and devastating effects, pushing
    the completion of the Project to the year 2013. Under the Clinton
    Administration's proposal, thousands of South Dakota citizens will be
    forced to wait an estimated 12 years until they can be connected to the
    Mid-Dakota Project. The President's budget, if ultimately implemented
    will provide an extended delay of Project benefits.
        By its actions the Administration raises the potential of
    increasing the total cost of the Mid-Dakota Project by approximately $8
    million. The Federal Government would not be alone in absorbing
    negative impacts of funding shortfalls. In addition to making the Mid-
    Dakota Project more expensive to the Federal Government, the resulting
    delays would also have a direct and proportional effect on the rate of
    debt service to be paid by the Project and ultimately the water users.
    The repayment agreement entered into by Mid-Dakota and the Federal
    Government (the Bureau of Reclamation acting on the Government's
    behalf), demands that Mid-Dakota's ``minimum bill'' increase
    proportionally with the indexing applied to the Project. This is done
    by establishing the ratio of the federal authorization at the time Mid-
    Dakota submitted its Final Engineering Report (FER) in 1994, compared
    to the authorized ceiling today with indexing applied. This same ratio
    is then applied to Mid-Dakota's ``minimum bill'' as was identified at
    the time of execution of the repayment agreement.
        By the Bureau of Reclamation's own design, slowing down the
    development of the Mid-Dakota Project will ultimately make the Project
    more expensive, in terms of; rates paid by water users construction
    costs, total debt of the Project and Reclamation's oversight costs.

                                IMPACTS OF AWARD

        The most obvious impact of any significant reduction from Mid-
    Dakota's request will be the delay of construction of one or more
    Project components. The $24 million dollar request will allow the
    Project to proceed with construction of multiple contracts summarized
    later in this testimony. An award of less than our request will result
    in the deletion or reconfiguration of one or more of these contracts
    from the fiscal year 2001 construction schedule. Further, reduced
    appropriations have the effect of adding more cost to the amount needed
    for completion of the Project.
        Mid-Dakota has consistently informed members of Congress and
    appropriate federal agencies, about the detrimental effects
    insufficient funding has on the Project and ultimately the people who
    are to receive the water. In previous years Mid-Dakota and the public,
    which we will serve, have been able to make the most of the resources
    provided the Project. However, failure to provide full funding has had
    profound consequences.

                            CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS

        Mid-Dakota began construction in September of 1994, with the
    construction of its Water Intake and Pump Station. Since that eventful
    day of first construction start, we have bid, awarded, and completed 14
    project components and are into construction on six other major Project
    components. The following table provides a synopsis of each major
    construction contract:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Percent
                                                                       Cont.     Cont.    Final     Over      over
                  Cont. no.                      Description        budget \1\    bid     cont.    (under)   (under)
                                                                                 award    price    budget    budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1-1..................................  Oahe Water Intake and        4.662     3.959    3.945   (0.717)      (15)
                                            Pump Station.
    2-1..................................  Oahe Water Treatment        13.361     9.920   10.278   (3.083)      (23)
                                            Plant.
    3-1A.................................  Raw Water Pipeline.....      1.352     1.738    1.719    0.367        27
    3-1B.................................  Main Pipeline to Blunt,      7.823     6.916    7.024   (0.799)      (10)
                                            SD.
    3-1C.................................  Main Pipeline to             5.439     4.791    4.798   (0.641)      (12)
                                            Highmore, SD.
    3-2A.................................  Main Pipeline to Ree         3.261     3.155    3.149   (0.112)       (3)
                                            Hights, SD.
    3-2B.................................  Main Pipeline to St.         3.691     3.349    3.352   (0.339)       (9)
                                            Lawrence, SD.
    4-1A/B (1-5).........................  Rural Service Area           9.345     9.983   10.731  \2\ 1.38       15
                                            Contract.                                                   6
    4-1A/B (6)...........................  Rural Service Area           8.333     8.329    8.573  \2\ 0.24        3
                                            Contract.                                                   0
    5-1..................................  Highmore Water Storage       1.545     1.434    1.433   (0.108)       (7)
                                            Tank.
    5-1A (1).............................  Onida Water Storage          0.471     0.395    0.400   (0.075)      (16)
                                            Tank.
    5-1A (2).............................  Okobojo Water Storage        0.381     0.338    0.338   (0.043)      (11)
                                            Tank.
    5-1A (3).............................  Agar Water Storage Tank      0.422     0.391    0.393   (0.029)       (7)
    5-1A (4).............................  Gettysburg Water             0.952     0.814    0.815   (0.137)      (14)
                                            Storage Tank.
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------
          Totals..................................................     61.038    55.512   56.948   (4.090)       (7)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota's estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.
    \2\ A significant portion of the cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users as construction proceeds.

        As is evident by the foregoing table, Mid-Dakota has been very
    successful in containing Project costs. Currently the construction of
    major Project components are approximately 7 percent under budget,
    providing an estimated saving of over $4 million. The savings are an
    example of sound engineering, good management and advantageous bid
    lettings. While we can't guarantee future contract bid lettings will
    continue to provide the level of savings currently experienced, we do
    think it speaks well of the Mid-Dakota Project and how we've managed
    Project funding to date.
        Mid-Dakota also provided the solution to a number of emergency
    situations in the past. The ``rescue'' effort to the City of
    Gettysburg, SD provided the town with a dependable, quality water
    supply (Mid-Dakota) just as they were about to lose their existing
    water intake, due to sluffing of the hillside at that location. The
    town of Virgil, SD will have a new distribution system for the town,
    replacing the old one that was in disrepair and draining the town
    coffers to keep it running and supply drinking water to Virgil
    residents. Mid-Dakota has agreed to take-over the operations of the
    Southern Spink and Northern Beadle Rural Water System (SSNB). SSNB is a
    small community water supply system that lacks the necessary capacity
    to properly operate a potable water supply system. Mid-Dakota replaced
    approximately eight miles of pipeline along U.S. Highway 212. An
    existing water pipeline located in the Highway right-of-way would have
    to be relocated increasing the cost of the Highway improvement. Mid-
    Dakota instead placed its pipeline (that would have been constructed in
    the future) out of the way of the Highway improvement. This lessened
    the cost of the Highway project and provided for an uninterrupted
    supply of water along the pipeline route.
        Additionally, Mid-Dakota is keeping in close contact with the City
    of Huron, SD (population 12,400) regarding potentially serious EPA
    water quality violations anticipated with the implementation of the
    Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) enhanced surface water rules due in
    2003. Engineers who have analyzed the current drinking water source for
    Huron (James River) have concluded that the City will not be able to
    treat the current James River source without very significant and
    costly upgrades to their existing treatment facilities. Further the
    engineers have concluded that without these upgrades or switching to a
    new source i.e., Mid-Dakota, the City will be out of compliance with
    the Disinfection and Disinfection by-products rule D/DBP to be
    implemented in 2003. Huron is located at the East end of the Mid-Dakota
    Project (Mid-Dakota is being built in a general West to East manner)
    and is currently Mid-Dakota's largest contracted user. It is
    anticipated that with sufficient funding beginning with fiscal year
    2001 and continuing thereon, Mid-Dakota can be in a position to connect
    to Huron in time to remedy potential EPA non-compliance faced by Huron.

              TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE \1\

        Mid-Dakota has developed an aggressive construction schedule for
    fiscal year 2001, with plans to install nearly 900 miles of pipeline to
    serve an estimated 3,000 more people than are currently receiving or
    scheduled to receive Project drinking water. Our construction schedule
    will also provide the necessary main pipeline infrastructure to move
    forward with many more rural and community connections in the future.
    Federal funding allocated in any given fiscal year is always the
    limiting factor that drives Mid-Dakota's construction schedule.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling
    based upon funding provided and readiness to proceed and other factors.
    Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide exactly
    with schedule presented here.

                                         CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE--FISCAL YEAR 2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         9 percent
                                                       Construction      4 percent     Construction    Total project
                                                         estimate      Inspection &      contract        estimate
                                                                       ROW estimate     management
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rezac Lake Service Area.........................      $3,033,000        $121,320        $272,970      $3,427,290
    Collin's Slough Service Area....................       2,195,000          87,800         197,550       2,480,350
    Ames Service Area...............................       3,515,000         140,600         316,350       3,971,950
    Cottonwood Lake Service Area....................       3,698,000         147,920         332,820       4,178,740
    Wessington Springs Service Area.................       2,667,000         106,680         240,030       3,013,710
    Redfield Service Area...........................         488,000          19,520          43,920         551,440
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal Service Areas....................      15,596,000         623,840       1,403,640      17,623,480
                                                     ===============================================================
    Ames Water Storage Tank.........................         474,000          18,960          56,880         549,840
    Cottonwood Lake Storage Tank....................         495,000          19,800          59,400         574,200
    Wessington Springs Storage Tank.................         499,000          19,960          59,880          78,840
    Redfield Storage Tank...........................         187,000           7,480          22,440         216,920
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal Storage Tanks....................       1,655,000          66,200         198,600       1,919,800
                                                     ===============================================================
    Engineering, Design & Consultants...............  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,000,000
    Administration & General (Approx 3.5 percent of   ..............  ..............  ..............         675,000
     Const.)........................................
    Contingencies and Other (Approx. 15 percent of    ..............  ..............  ..............       2,825,000
     Const.)........................................
                                                     -----------------
          Total fiscal year 2001....................  ..............  ..............  ..............      24,043,280
                                                     =================
          Total fiscal year 2001 request............  ..............  ..............  ..............      24,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: 1. Completion of a ``Service Area'' must include the accompanying Water Storage Tank in order to place the
      area in service.
    2. Construction Projects outlined above are not necessarily in an order of priority.
    3. Contingencies include 5 percent (bidding) 5 percent (Change Orders) & 5 percent (Add-on users).

                                    CLOSING

        Mid-Dakota is intensely aware of the difficult funding decisions
    that face the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we do
    not envy the difficult job that lies ahead. We strongly urge, the
    Subcommittee to look closely at the Mid-Dakota Project and recognize
    the dire need that exists. Consider the exceptionally high level of
    local and state support. And lastly our readiness, our credibility and
    our ability, to proceed.
        Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its strong support in the
    past.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association

        The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, its members and
    its officers thank you for the opportunity to present this statement,
    including a budget request, relating to the budget for fiscal year
    2001.
        This statement relates to the Missouri National Recreational River
    project which was authorized by the Congress in 1978 per Section 707 of
    Public Law 95-625. The Association's budget request for fiscal year
    2001 is $275,000.00, an amount to be used for these purposes.
      --The operation, maintenance and repair of structures constructed
            prior to 1978 under the authority of Section 32 of the
            Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration Act;
      --To provide for the repair or replacement of flood-damaged
            facilities which permitted access to the river in the lower
            reaches of the project, especially on the South Dakota shore;
      --For the acquisition of shoreline easements to protect extant
            wildlife habitat and to increase such habitat where it is
            lacking;
      --To provide streambank protection where needed, as needed, for the
            river's ``high banks'', ie., for the meander line's
            streambanks.
      --For such other needs as may be required to achieve the
            Congressional purposes with respect to this project.

        This project pertains to the some fifty-eight mile reach of the
    Missouri River extending downward from near Yankton, South Dakota,
    circa mile 811, to the Ponca, Nebraska, State Park, circa mile 752.
    This reach of the Missouri is the only relatively wild portion lying
    downstream of the ``main stem'' dams. Here, the Missouri is neither
    channelized nor stabilized. While limited and isolated stabilization
    structures do exist, for the most part the river retains its natural
    characteristics. These characteristics include eroding shorelines,
    islands, ephemeral sandbars, trees overhanging the water, frequent
    changes in the channel, marked differences in depth, forested bluffs,
    caving cornfields and somewhat limited access. Wildlife, too,
    characterizes this reach of river. Deer, coyotes, raccoons and beaver
    abound, as do a wide variety of birds. Spring and fall see a massive
    influx of ducks, geese and many other migratory birds.
        The business of the Missouri River is to move the Rocky Mountains
    to the Gulf of Mexico. Erosion is a major tool employed by the Missouri
    to perform its role as a 2,300 plus mile conveyor belt. Thus, its
    shorelines are under endless attack, including even those areas where
    some stabilization measures have been undertaken. The erosion problem
    was exacerbated by the record high flows in 1997; some of the damage
    done then has yet to be repaired. Further aggravating the problem is
    the river's increased capacity to carry sediment because the water
    released through the Gavins Point Dam is almost sediment free. Thus,
    the river can and does cut with a vengeance.
        While intensive erosion has long been one of the Missouri's salient
    characteristics, the problem here is that the construction of the
    ``main stem'' dams ended the annual overbank flooding. Such flooding
    naturally created new land along the river, balancing the erosion. The
    flood plain along the river was so created. Today, no flooding occurs
    along this reach of river, and landowners suffer doubly: erosion has
    increased because of the increased carrying capacity of the clean water
    and such erosion is not offset by floodcreated floodplains. Whereas
    riparian landowners once had a ``fifty-fifty'' chance of regaining lost
    land, today they have no chance of such restorations. Instead, they
    have a one hundred percent chance of losing their land.
        Congress authorized $21,000,000.00 for this project. To date only
    some $2 million has been spent. A new management plan for this reach of
    river was recently approved. The National Park Service and the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers, aided by a ``citizens advisory group''
    developed the new plan. The new plan is more detailed than the
    original; it contains an array of proposals designed to increase public
    enjoyment of this delightful reach of the ``old'' Missouri. This plan
    also seeks to preserve and protect those characteristics which make
    this reach of the Missouri worthy of the status the Congress bestowed
    upon it.
        During the very lengthy process of developing the new plan, it was
    time and again noted that bank stabilization was a truly essential
    component of the plan and one authorized by the enabling legislation.
    Indeed, if there be no stabilization to protect existing (and
    endangered) features of the river and its landscape, they will simply
    disappear. For example, extant tracts of superb cottonwood forests are
    being eroded away as this is written. Such losses are irretrievable.
    Disturbingly, the new plan is vague and all but silent as to
    stabilization; indeed the press release heralding adoption of the new
    plan did not even mention it. At the public meetings held to seek
    public input to help develop the new plan, the need for stabilization
    was overwhelmingly the principal need articulated.
        Underscoring this request for needed funding for this reach of the
    ``old Missouri'' is the accelerating interest in the nearing
    bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. As this reach of the
    Missouri is one of but a handful of surviving natural reaches, it is
    certain to be among the most attractive to the multitude of people who
    will follow the Lewis and Clark Trail. Public access needs to be
    improved; more and better signage is imperative; some increase in
    overlooks, or other viewing points, is certainly desirable. Such public
    access will be of little interest to a visitor unless the islands,
    forested shorelines, wildlife habitats and sandbars are preserved and
    protected.
        The Association is most appreciative of the continued interest and
    support the Congress has shown, and extends its thanks accordingly. So,
    too, do a host of hunters, environmentalists, fishermen, boatsmen and a
    variety of others who support our cause and enjoy the Grand Old Stream
    we seek to protect and preserve.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of The Little River Drainage District

        My name is Dr. Sam Hunter, DVM of Sikeston, Missouri. I am a
    veterinarian, landowner, farmer and resident of Southeast Missouri.
        I am the President of the Little River Drainage District, the
    largest such entity in the nation. Our District serves as an outlet
    drainage and flood control District to parts of seven counties in
    Southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
    area of Northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
    supported by more than 3500 private landowners in Southeast Missouri.
        Our District as well as other Drainage and Levee Districts in
    Missouri and Arkansas is located within the St. Francis River Basin.
    This is a project item of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
    Project.
        The St. Francis Basin Project was authorized by Congress in 1928
    for improvements by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial
    authorization was justified by a projected benefit cost ratio of 2.4:
    1. Today this ratio is 3.6: 1 and the project is still not completed.
    As you can see this has been a wise investment of our federal tax
    dollars. Few projects or ventures with funding levels provided by the
    Federal Government return more than they cost. This one does and we
    need to complete it in a timely fashion.
        Local interests have done their part in providing rights of way,
    roads, utilities and the like. Our government now needs to fulfill
    their part of the project and bring it to completion as quickly as
    possible.
        The St. Francis Basin project has had a base funding level of
    approximately $10,000,000 over the past several years. Our last five
    year average has been $9.9 million. That baseline funding level does
    not need to be diminished. The President's budget request of $6,775,000
    is not acceptable. The amount requested by OMB will not provide
    sufficient funding levels for the Corps to maintain what they have
    built and/or improved. We hereby respectively request funds for fiscal
    year 2001 for this project of $12,775,000. This amount is compatible
    with the Corps of Engineers capability.
        Since the initiation of the project for improvements we have seen
    many positive changes occur such as:
      --Many miles of all weather roads have been constructed and are
            usable almost daily each year.
      --Better flood control and drainage.
      --Development of one of the most fertile and diversified valleys in
            the world.
      --Growth of towns, schools, churches, industry, commerce, and etc.
      --Improvement of our environment: malaria, typhoid and other such
            diseases are no longer the norm but seldom occur.
      --A future for our young people to have a desire to remain in the
            area.
      --Production of a variety of food and fiber products.
        As you can see many changes have occurred and we who live there
    welcome them fully. We, local interests, in Southeast Missouri and
    Northeast Arkansas want this project brought to completion and
    adequately maintained. We have waited over seventy years and we believe
    it is now time to complete a wise investment for our nation.
        Our request to you today is to approve funding for the St. Francis
    Basin at $12,775,000 for fiscal year 2001 and succeeding years to
    assure completion of the project and to make certain the completed
    project is properly maintained.
        Further, we are here as a member of the Mississippi Valley Flood
    Control Association, which represents similar interests as our
    District, from the Gulf of Mexico upstream to the headwaters of the
    Mississippi River.
        The MR&T Project has only $309,000,000 in the President's budget.
    The Corps of Engineers has the capability of $370,000,000. We ask you
    to give consideration to provide funding levels at $370,000,000 for
    this project for fiscal year 2001. This will provide some new
    construction but it will also provide the necessary maintenance monies
    needed each year.
        Our great Mississippi River and Tributaries are most valuable
    assets to our great nation. The barge industry is the safest, most
    efficient and more environmentally acceptable than our other modes of
    moving our commodities to be exported. We need to upgrade our
    infrastructure now in order to compete with foreign markets. The
    $370,000,000 will provide funding for some new construction and
    maintenance funds for existing features. We have numerous locks and
    dams which need to be improved to accommodate our twenty first century
    needs. Some locks and dams are more than fifty years old.
        Thank you very much for your kind attention. We would be very
    appreciative of anything this Committee can do to help us meet our
    needs.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee

        Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name
    is Wallace Gieringer. I am retired as Executive Director of the Pine
    Bluff-Jefferson County (Arkansas) Port Authority. It is my honor to
    serve as Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee,
    members of which are appointed by the governors of the great States of
    Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
        As Chairman, I present this summary testimony as a compilation of
    the most important projects from each of the member states. Each of the
    states unanimously supports these projects without reservation. I
    request that the copies of each state's individual statement be made a
    part of the record, along with this testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, the members of the Interstate Committee continue to
    identify as our top priority a project vital to the five-state area and
    beyond--the urgently needed Montgomery Point Lock and Dam at the
    confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and
    the Mississippi River.
        Continuing problems caused by lowering of the Mississippi River
    plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel users. As recently as last month
    shippers on the McClellan-Kerr were threatened with the lowest water
    levels on the Mississippi River in recorded history.
        Construction of Montgomery Point needs to continue as rapidly as
    possible before limited dredge disposal areas become inadequate. During
    times of low water on the Mississippi River the entrance channel is
    drained of navigable water depth. As the Mississippi River bottom
    continues to lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total shutdown.
        Thus, the entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and
    its long term-viability is threatened without Montgomery Point. Some $5
    billion in federal and private investments, thousands of jobs, growing
    exports in world trade and future economic development are endangered.
        The good news is that you, your associates, the Congress and the
    Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
    Montgomery Point!
        The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million construction contract
    on July 19, 1977. Last year Congress appropriated $45 million to
    continue construction of the lock and dam. The cofferdam and diversion
    channel have been completed, and work is progressing well.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
    support is essential at this crucial time in the history of the
    project. An appropriation of $45 million for fiscal year 2001 will
    insure that Montgomery Point is in operation as soon as possible at the
    lowest possible cost.
        The Interstate Committee also respectfully recommends the following
    as important priorities:
        Providing $1.4 million for the Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR
    & OK. While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System, navigation needs and flood control
    are closely related. Sustained high flows result in difficult
    navigation conditions and continued flooding in the vicinity of Fort
    Smith, Arkansas.
        As the operation of the flood control features of the Navigation
    System in that area are based on the Van Buren, Arkansas gage, the
    flooding concerns and navigation problems are interrelated.
    Accordingly, this study would address the navigation System Operating
    Plan to improve navigation conditions on the river, as well as the
    performance of flood control measures, especially in the Fort Smith
    reach.
        We strongly urge the Committee to provide funding in the amount of
    $2.5 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on
    the 3 locks on the Arkansas River portion of the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System in Oklahoma.
        Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project--this is the continuation
    of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of
    Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas.
    This model technology has proven the feasibility of providing needed
    environmental protection and recharging a major groundwater aquifer
    supplying water to nearly 600,000 irrigation, municipal and industrial
    users. Governor Graves supports this much needed project in order to
    secure the quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent
    of the state's population.
        Demonstration project data confirms earlier engineering models that
    the full scale project is feasible and also capable of meeting the
    increasing water resource needs of the area to the mid 21st century.
    Through the recharge project, a greater reliance on the aquifer is
    planned for the future and essential environmental protection
    strategies must be implemented.
        The full scale design concept calls for a multi-year construction
    project. Phase One of the project is estimated to cost $14.6 million
    with construction beginning in mid-2001. The total project involving
    the capture and recharge of more than 100 million gallons of water per
    day is estimated to cost $142 million over 10 years. We are grateful
    for your consistent, previous cost share funding support since fiscal
    year 1995 as a compliment to funds provided by the City of Wichita. We
    request continued cost share funding for Phase One of the full-scale
    project in the amount of $5.84 million for fiscal year 2001.
        We also request funds for the Bureau of Reclamation in the amount
    of $6.861 million for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Programs.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request
    that you and members of your staff review and respond in a positive way
    to the attached individual statements from each of our states which set
    forth specific requests pertaining to those states.
        We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance. Thank
    you very much for the foresight, wisdom and resourcefulness you and
    your colleagues demonstrate each and every year in providing solutions
    to our nation's water resource problems.

                               SUMMARY STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are grateful that
    you, your associates, the Congress and the Administration have all
    recognized the urgency of Constructing Montgomery Point Lock and Dam on
    the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Continuing
    Congressional support is essential. We respectfully urge the Congress
    to appropriate $45 million for use in fiscal year 2001 to continue
    construction and insure that the urgently needed facility is in
    operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
        Other projects are also vital to the environment, social and
    economic well-being of our region and our nation. We request your
    support for the following:
      --Provide $1,300,000 for the Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR &
            OK. This study would address the Navigation System Operating
            Plan to improve navigation conditions during high flows on the
            river, as well as the performance of flood control measures,
            especially in the Fort Smith reach.
      --Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
            Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
            System.
      --Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
            River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization
            problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of
            Engineers have been resolved.
      --Provide funding and direct the Corps to complete installation of
            tow-haulage equipment for all the locks and dams on the
            McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
      --Provide funds and direct the Corps of Engineers to begin
            construction of the Arkansas River Levees Project as authorized
            by Section 110 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1990.
      --$1.3 million needs be specifically provided and the Corps directed
            to begin rehabilitation construction on the Plum Bayou Levee
            (including the Old River and Baucum Levees).
      --Funds for repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the
            Ozark-Jetta Taylor Lock and Dam Powerhouse which first went
            into operation in 1970.
      --Provide funding in the amount of $500,000 to continue pre-
            construction engineering and design on the North Little Rock,
            (Dark Hollow), AR, project.
      --Provide funding in the amount of $1,845,000 to complete Fourche
            Bayou Basin, Little Rock, AR, project.
        Please help prevent a crisis for the Arkansas River Navigation
    System and the multi-state region it serves by appropriating $45
    million for use in fiscal year 2001 for Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.
        We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
    Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.

                   ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present testimony to this most important committee. I am
    retired as Executive Director of the Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port
    Authority and serve as Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate Committee.
    Other committee members representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this
    statement is made, are Messrs. Wayne Bennett, soybean and rice farmer
    from Lonoke; Colonel Charles D. Maynard, U.S. Army, retired, from
    Little Rock; Barry McKuin, a Director of the Morrilton Port Authority
    at Morrilton; and N. M. ``Buck'' Shell, transportation specialist of
    Fort Smith and Van Buren, Arkansas.
        1999 was a memorable year in the history of the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System--and you helped make it so! Last year
    Congress continued to recognize the urgent need for Montgomery Point
    Lock and Dam by appropriating $45 million. This much needed facility is
    under construction near the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr System and
    the Mississippi River. To each of you, your staff and the Congress--our
    most heartfelt thanks!
        The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million contract for
    construction of the lock and dam proper on July 19, 1997. The cofferdam
    and the diversion channel have been completed, and work is progressing
    well. When completed, Montgomery Point will protect over $5 billion in
    public and private investments, thousands of jobs and world trade
    created as a result of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
    System. Without Montgomery Point Lock and Dam the future of our
    wonderful navigation system remains threatened. Time is of the essence.
        As recently as last month shippers on the McClellan-Kerr were
    threatened with the lowest water levels on the Mississippi River in
    recorded history. As the Mississippi experiences low water levels, and
    its bottom continues to lower, the McClellan-Kerr moves toward total
    shutdown. Existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Ongoing
    dredging and disposal of material can mean environmental damage.
    Construction must continue as rapidly as possible if the project is to
    be in place before disposal areas become inadequate.
        Use of the temporary by-pass channel increases navigation hazards
    making it imperative that work on the lock and dam be completed as
    quickly and as safely as possible. The absence of Montgomery Point Lock
    and Dam continues to deter economic growth along the entire McClellan-
    Kerr and the project is certainly time sensitive!
        We are very grateful that you, your associates, the Congress, and
    the Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
    Montgomery Point. Appropriations of $138.3 million have been made to
    date for engineering, site acquisition and construction for this
    project which should be completed in 2003 according to the Corps'
    optimum construction schedule.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, continuing Congressional
    support is essential at this crucial time in the history of the
    project. We respectfully request and urge the Congress to appropriate
    $45 million for use in fiscal year 2001 to continue construction.
    Adequate funding will insure that the urgently needed facility is in
    operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
        We wish to express thanks Mr. Chairman, for the Committee's support
    of funding for the Morgan Bendway Environmental Restoration Project.
    The State of Arkansas provided one-fourth of the cost for this $3.3
    million project which includes a 1000 acre lake and wetland restoration
    measures. This project adds to the many widespread public benefits
    associated with the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
        We are also grateful for your support by funding completion of the
    repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the Dardanelle Lock and
    Dam which first went into operation in 1965. After this work is
    completed, power output will be increased by 13 percent and thus
    increase income to the Federal Treasury.
        Other projects are vital to the environment, social and economic
    well-being of our region and our nation. We recognize the importance of
    continued construction of needed features to the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System and strongly recommend that you
    favorably consider the following in your deliberations:
      --Provide $1,300,000 for the Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR &
            OK. While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-
            Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, navigation needs and
            flood control are closely related. Sustained high flows result
            in difficult navigation conditions and continued flooding in
            the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas. As the operation of the
            flood control features of the Navigation System in that area
            are based on the Van Buren, Arkansas gage, the flooding
            concerns and navigation problems are interrelated. Accordingly,
            this study would address the navigation System Operating Plan
            to improve navigation conditions on the river, as well as the
            performance of flood control measures, especially in the Fort
            Smith reach.
      --Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
            Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
            System.
      --Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
            River Navigation Project until remaining channel stabilization
            problems identified by the Little Rock District Corps of
            Engineers have been resolved. It is vitally important that the
            Corps continue engineering studies to develop a permanent
            solution to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower
            reaches of the navigation system; and for the Corps to
            construct these measures under the existing construction
            authority.
      --Provide funding and direct the Corps to complete installation of
            tow haulage equipment for all the locks and dams on the
            McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. This
            efficiency feature will reduce lockage time by as much as 50
            percent while permitting tonnage to double in each tow with
            only a minor increase in operating cost.
      --Provide funds and direct the Corps of Engineers to begin
            construction of the Arkansas River Levees Project as authorized
            by Section 110 of the Water Resource Development Act of 1990.
            $400,000 is needed to continue planning, engineering and design
            for these levees which have been previously studied in the
            cost-shared Arkansas River, Arkansas and Oklahoma Feasibility
            Study.
      --$1.3 million needs be specifically provided and the Corps directed
            to begin rehabilitation construction on the Plum Bayou Levee
            (includes the Old River and Baucum Levees).
        Funds for repair and rehabilitation of the power units at the
    Ozark-Jetta Taylor Lock and Dam Powerhouse which first went into
    operation in 1970. This project is vitally needed to correct problems
    which have plagued the slant axis turbines since they were first put in
    operation and to continue the reliable production of power from this
    facility.
      --Provide funding in the amount of $500,000 to continue pre-
            construction engineering and design on the North LittleRock,
            (Dark Hollow), AR Project.
      --Provide funding in the amount of $1,845,000 to complete Fourche
            Bayou Basin, Little Rock, AR, project. This will allow the U.S.
            Army Corps of Engineers to cost-share with the City of Little
            Rock on purchase of 1,750 acres of bottomland hardwood for
            environmental preservation and establishment of nature
            appreciation facilities.
        We also urge the Congress to continue to encourage the Military
    Traffic Management Command to identify opportunities to accelerate use
    of the nation's navigable waterways to move military cargoes thereby
    helping contain the nation's defense costs.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please help prevent a crisis for the
    Arkansas River Navigation System and the multi-state region it serves
    by appropriating $45 million for use in fiscal year 2001 for Montgomery
    Point Lock and Dam.
        The entire Arkansas River Navigation System is at risk, and its
    long-term viability is threatened. The system remains at risk until
    Montgomery Point is constructed. Some $5 billion in federal and private
    investments and thousands of jobs and growing exports are endangered.
        We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the
    Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your most important
    subcommittee and urge you to favorably consider our request for needed
    infrastructure investments in the natural and transportation resources
    of our nation.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
                                    District

                               SUMMARY STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development, thank you for the opportunity to present
    this summary of the funding requests that are important to the State of
    Colorado and the membership of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
    Committee. This committee comes together each year to support the water
    resource projects that are important to each of the 5 member states
    individually and collectively.
        The State of Colorado joins the other members of the Committee in
    supporting as the number 1 priority project this year, Montgomery Point
    Lock and Dam at Montgomery Point, Arkansas. This vital navigation
    project is important to the many customers of Colorado that take
    advantage of the low cost water transportation of their goods. We urge
    you to fund this project at the requested $45 million. This will allow
    the project to remain on its current construction schedule for
    completion at the lowest possible cost.
        The following requests for funding are in support of projects that
    are vital to the State of Colorado and we respectfully urge you fund
    them in the requested amounts.
        Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program:
      --Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
            Program--$635,800.
      --Support Fish and Wildlife Service funds for operation of the Ouray
            National Fish Hatchery--$305,800.
        San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program:
      --Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
            Program--$126,500.
        Bureau of Reclamation funds for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
    Fish Recovery and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
    Programs--$6.861 million.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we thank you for your kind
    attention in the matters listed here and in the combined testimony's of
    the member states of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We
    certainly look forward to your favorable response to these requests.

                                   STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development, thank you for the opportunity to present
    these comments and requests on behalf of Colorado as a participant in
    the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee.
        First let me voice my support for the Interstate Committee's
    priority funding request for the fiscal year 2001 budget cycle. The
    Committee has once again identified the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
    project as the number one funding request. Since there are many
    identifiable customers of the navigation system located in Colorado, we
    urge you to appropriate the requested $45 million to keep this project
    on its current construction schedule. This will allow the system to
    return to a reliable, year-round transportation system at the lowest
    possible cost.
        Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program/San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program--fiscal year 2001
    Requests.--Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we respectfully
    request funding for the following:

    Fish and Wildlife Service Budget
                Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
      --Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
            Program.--$635,800 requested in ``Recovery funds.'' Projects to
            be funded are:
        Fish and Wildlife Service program management.--Funding to cover
    salaries and expenses of Program Director and staff.
        Interagency standardized monitoring program.--This activity
    supports Service participation in monitoring fish populations
    (including stocked fish) and their responses to recovery actions.
        Data management.--The Service maintains all fish data collected in
    the Recovery Program in computerized form to facilitate analyses. This
    includes maintaining the overall database, summarizing data, and
    providing an annual listing of all tagged fish.
      --Support Fish and Wildlife Service funds for operation of the Ouray
            National Fish Hatchery.--$305,800 is requested for ``Fish
            Hatchery Operation.''
        The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program requests
    Congressional support to operate the Service's National Fish Hatchery
    in Ouray, Utah. Funding will enable the hatchery to continue to raise
    and hold endangered fish for stocking, research, and refugia (adult
    fish for spawning and maintaining gene pool.)

    San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
      --Support Fish and Wildlife Service funding for the Recovery
            Program.--$126,500 requested in ``Recovery funds.'' Projects to
            be funded are:
        Fish and Wildlife Service program management.--Funding supports
    partial salary for the coordinator and, funding permitting, dollars for
    research and monitoring. Bureau of Reclamation Budget
        Support Bureau of Reclamation funds for the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery and San Juan River Basin Recovery
    Implementation Programs.
        Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basin Recovery Program
    participants request Congressional support for $6.861 million for
    fiscal year 2001 in ``Endangered Species Recovery Programs and
    Activities for the Upper Colorado Region.'' This amount is included in
    the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for Reclamation.
    It would provide the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program (Recovery Program) with $4.887 million, the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Program with $1.394 million and Activities to Avoid
    Jeopardy with $535,000. It also includes a request of $45.000 to fund
    research associated with the habitat needs of the Kanab Amber Snail.
    The $4.887 million would be used for water acquisition and capital
    construction projects including:

    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Activities
        Fish passage.--Reclamation funds will be used to construct a fish
    ladder on the Colorado River at the Grand Valley Project. This activity
    will benefit razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow by giving them
    access to more of their historic habitat.
        Water acquisition.--Reclamation initiatives include:
        Modification and automation of canals to more efficiently operate
    irrigation projects near Grand Junction, Colorado, and dedicating the
    ``saved'' water to endangered fish.
        Using water stored in several smaller Reclamation reservoirs to
    enhance late-summer flows in the Colorado River.
        Coordinating Federal and private reservoir operations in the
    Colorado River headwaters to enhance spring peak flows downstream.
        Floodplain restoration.--Funding is needed in fiscal year 2001 to
    continue land acquisition, levee removal, and other floodplain
    restoration activities at high priority sites. Restoring these
    floodplains is thought to be especially important for endangered
    razorback suckers and will benefit a variety of wetland-dependent
    wildlife.
        Endangered fish growout ponds.--Existing hatcheries and native fish
    production facilities fall short of meeting stocking needs. Funding is
    needed in fiscal year 2001 to excavate or locate at least 100 acres of
    growout ponds to raise razorback suckers and other endangered fish for
    further stocking in the Green, Colorado, and Gunnison Rivers.
        Diversion canal screening.--Funding is needed in fiscal year 2001
    to construct a screen at the Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion
    Canal to prevent endangered fish from being drawn out of the river and
    into the canals. (The habitat above the diversion is used by adult
    endangered fish.) Funding in the amount of $2,110,000 is also needed to
    construct a screen at the Tusher Wash Diversion Canal to prevent fish
    from being entrained into irrigation canals and the power plant.
    San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program Activities
        The Biology Committee is developing a long-term capital facilities
    plan. The most likely capital expenditures for fiscal year 2001 will be
    to provide fish passage at Hogback and Cudei diversion dams in New
    Mexico and planning and design of passage structures at other locations
    on the San Juan River. Current maintenance of the Hogback Diversion
    structure requires extensive annual use of heavy equipment in the
    stream channel to rebuild the structure after spring flood events.
    Funding will be used to reconstruct a fortified diversion structure
    that incorporates a fish passage channel into the design. The Cudei
    diversion is a rock and earthen structure that impedes the ability of
    fish to move upstream and will be removed and replaced with a siphon
    that does not block the stream channel.
        Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program-Authorizing
    Legislation.--The House and Senate will soon deliberate on legislation
    that will formalize the ``recovery program'' for the endangered fish in
    the upper Colorado River. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
    Recovery Program (the Program) has been operating for several years
    with the support of the State of Colorado and the other Upper Basin
    States, as well as water users in these states. The Program is directed
    at recovering four native fish species while allowing water development
    activities to continue. To date the Program has served as the
    reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) for several small water
    development projects throughout the Upper Basin States. In December of
    1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final Programmatic
    Biological Opinion (PBO) that clearly establishes the intent of the
    Program to provide the RPA for all existing water projects and a
    reasonable measure of future water projects, while affirming commitment
    for a set of recovery action items that are intended to recover the
    fish.
        It is important that the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
    Recovery Program be authorized so that the Program's objectives can be
    met. The House of Representatives has introduced H.R. 2348 and the
    Senate will soon follow with legislation that will provide
    authorization for the Program.
        As a Colorado member of the Interstate Committee, I respectfully
    request that the individual members on this Subcommittee support the
    authorizing legislation for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
    Recovery Program.
        Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate
                                   Committee

                               SUMMARY STATEMENT

        The critical water resource projects in the Kansas portion of the
    Arkansas River Basin are summarized below. The projects are safety,
    environmental and conservation oriented. In addition, we state our
    unanimous support for the fiscal year 2001 request of $45 million for
    continued construction of the authorized Montgomery Point Lock and Dam
    Project to maintain viable navigation for commerce on the McClellan-
    Kerr Navigation System.
        We request your continued support for these important Bureau of
    Reclamation projects:
      --Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project.--Continuation of a City of
            Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of
            Kansas project to construct recharge facilities for a major
            groundwater resource supplying water to more than 20 percent of
            Kansas municipal, industrial and irrigation users. The total
            project will capture and recharge in excess of 100 million
            gallons per day and will also reduce on-going degradation of
            the existing groundwater quality by minimizing migration of
            saline water. Continued federal funding is requested in the
            amount of $5.84 million for fiscal year 2001.
      --Cheney Reservoir.--On the North Fork of the Ninnescah River
            providing natural treatment of inflows in the upper reaches of
            Cheney Reservoir to control poor water quality due to non-point
            source pollution from agricultural runoff. Continued funding in
            the amount of $125,000 is requested for fiscal year 2001.
        We request your support of these equally important Corps of
    Engineers projects:
      --Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--To protect homes and
            businesses from catastrophic damages resulting from either
            Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. Previous funding is
            appreciated and continued federal funding is requested in the
            amount of $5.1 million for fiscal year 2001, the level needed
            by the Corps of Engineers.
      --John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--To ascertain the
            equitable distribution of sediment storage between conservation
            and flood control storage and evaluate the environmental impact
            of the reallocation. Funding is requested in the amount of
            $345,000.
      --Upper Arkansas River Watershed, Kansas, Reconnaissance Study.--
            $100,000 study to evaluate high flow carrying capacity, flood
            control and ecosystem restoration in western Kansas.
      --Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--Corps study completed in September
            1998, which evaluated the adequacy of federal flood control
            easements around Grand Lake. Feasibility study now requested in
            the amount of $3 million.
      --Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--To evaluate
            non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in southeastern
            Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma. Funding request is for
            $100,000.
      --Continuing Authorities Program.--Several smaller Kansas communities
            have previously requested funding from the Small Flood Control
            Projects Program and the Emergency Streambank Stabilization
            Program. We request funding to be authorized at the full
            programmatic limits.
        Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
    Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
    protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
    the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
    projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
    funding, will be appreciated.

                                   STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman,
    Senior Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita,
    Kansas and Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas
    Basin Development Association (ABDA). I also serve as Chairman of ABDA.
    This statement is submitted on behalf of the entire Kansas Delegation.
        We are honored to join with our colleagues from the States of
    Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, and Missouri to form the five state
    Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We are unified as a region
    and fully endorse the statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
    Committee.
        In addition to the important projects listed below, we state our
    unanimous support for the continued construction of the authorized
    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project to maintain viable navigation for
    commerce on the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System. This inland waterway
    is vital to the economic health of our area. Likewise, your support is
    vital to maintain its future viability. Construction is well underway
    and continued funding authorization is needed. We state our unanimous
    support for the $45 million needed by the Corps of Engineers for fiscal
    year 2001 to maintain the most economical and cost efficient
    construction schedule.
        The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the
    Arkansas River Basin have been reviewed by the Kansas delegation. The
    projects are safety, environmental and conservation oriented and all
    have regional and/or multi-state impact. We are grateful for your past
    commitment and respectfully request your continued commitment.
        We ask for your continued support for these important Bureau of
    Reclamation projects on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas
    area:
        Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project.--This is the continuation
    of a Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of
    Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas.
    This model technology has proven the feasibility of recharging a major
    groundwater aquifer supplying water to nearly 600,000 irrigation,
    municipal and industrial users. The demonstration project remains fully
    operational, capturing flood flows from the Little Arkansas River
    providing water for use during times of low rainfall or dry conditions
    and also reducing on-going degradation of the existing groundwater
    quality by minimizing migration of saline water.
        Demonstration project data confirms earlier engineering models that
    the full scale project is feasible and also capable of meeting the
    increasing water resource needs of the area to the mid 21st century.
    Presently, the Equus Beds provides approximately half of the Wichita
    regional municipal water supply and is vital to the surrounding
    agricultural economy. Through the recharge project, a greater reliance
    on the aquifer is planned for the future and essential environmental
    protection strategies must be implemented.
        Governor Graves supports this much needed project in order to
    secure the quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent
    of the state's population.
        The full scale design concept calls for a multi-year construction
    project. Phase One of the project is estimated to cost $14.6 million.
    Construction is planned to begin in mid-2001. The total project
    involving the capture and recharge of more than 100 million gallons of
    water per day is estimated to cost $142 million over 10 years. All
    interested parties fully support this project as the needed cornerstone
    for the area agricultural economy and for the economy of the Wichita
    metropolitan area.
        We are grateful for your consistent, previous cost share funding
    support since fiscal year 1995 as a compliment to funds provided by the
    City of Wichita. We request continued cost share funding for Phase One
    of the full-scale project in the amount of $5,840,000 for fiscal year
    2001.
        Cheney Reservoir.--The reservoir provides approximately 50 percent
    of Wichita's regional water supply. Two environmental problems threaten
    the water quality and longevity of the reservoir. One is sedimentation
    from soil erosion and the other is non-point source pollution,
    particularly the amount of phosphates entering the reservoir resulting
    in offensive taste and odor problems. A partnership between farmers,
    ranchers and the City of Wichita has proven beneficial in implementing
    soil conservation practices and to better manage and therefore reduce
    and/or eliminate non-point source pollution. To date, over 1,700
    environmental projects have been completed within the 543,000 acre
    watershed. This partnership must continue indefinitely to protect the
    reservoir and the Wichita regional water supply and therefore, on-going
    funding will also be necessary. The City of Wichita is providing
    funding for this critical, nationally acclaimed model project. We
    request continued federal funding in the amount of $125,000 for fiscal
    year 2001. As the funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water Act is
    phased out, we request another funding source in the amount of $125,000
    to continue this vital program.
        Many of our agricultural communities have historically experienced
    major flood disasters, some of which have resulted in multi-state
    hardships involving portions of the State of Oklahoma. The flood of
    1998 emphasized again the need to rapidly move needed projects to
    completion. Our small communities do not have the necessary funds or
    engineering expertise. Federal support is needed. Projects in addition
    to local protection are also important. This Committee has given its
    previous support to Kansas Corps of Engineers projects. We request your
    continued support for the projects listed below:
      --Arkansas City, Kansas Flood Protection.--Unfortunately, this
            project was not completed prior to the flood of 1998. The flood
            demonstrated again the critical need to protect the
            environment, homes and businesses from catastrophic damages
            from either Walnut River or Arkansas River flooding. When the
            project is complete, damage in a multi-county area will be
            eliminated and benefits to the State of Oklahoma just a few
            miles south will also result. The Secretary of the Army was
            authorized to construct the project in fiscal year 1997. We
            request your continued federal support in the amount of $5.1
            million for fiscal year 2001, the level needed by the Corps of
            Engineers.
      --John Redmond Reservoir Reallocation Study.--John Redmond Reservoir
            remains a primary source of water supply for many small
            communities in Kansas. It is suffering loss of capacity ahead
            of its design rate because of excessive deposits within the
            conservation pool. The flood pool remains above its design
            capacity. A study would ascertain the equitable distribution of
            sediment storage between conservation and flood control
            storages and also evaluate the environmental impact of the
            appropriate reallocation. Funding requirements for the Corps of
            Engineers study is $345,000. We request your support.
      --Upper Arkansas River Watershed, Kansas, Reconnaissance Study--A
            reconnaissance study of the water resources problems from the
            Colorado-Kansas border to the vicinity of Great Bend, Kansas.
            The Federal construction of John Martin Dam, CO, combined with
            years of over-pumping of groundwater and over-use of surface
            water by agricultural interests in the upper reaches of the
            basin have changed the upper Arkansas River Basin flow regime.
            The changes resulted in minimal and non-existent flows in the
            upper Arkansas River in Kansas, which allowed vegetative and
            other encroachments into the river channel to occur largely
            unnoticed. Due to an agreement between Kansas and Colorado,
            there are now periods of increased flows in the Arkansas River
            in Kansas. State of Kansas officials are now concerned that the
            Arkansas River channel capacity has been so modified as to
            cause flooding in areas which have not previously experienced
            flooding problems. The study will evaluate the watershed
            changes to determine if flood damage prevention, watershed and
            ecosystem restoration or other solutions to water resource
            problems in the basin is warranted. We request funding to
            initiate reconnaissance studies in the amount of $100,000 for
            fiscal year 2001.
      --Grand Lake Feasibility Study.A need exists to evaluate water
            resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in Kansas and
            Oklahoma to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding problems
            associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements
            necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
            A study authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of
            1996 was completed in September of 1998 and determined that if
            the project were constructed based on current criteria,
            additional easements would be required. A Feasibility study is
            necessary to determine the most cost-effective solution to the
            real estate inadequacies. Changes in the operations of the
            project or other upstream changes could have a significant
            impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation operations
            in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River
            basin system, as well. We request funding in the amount of $3
            million in fiscal year 2001 to fully fund Feasibility studies
            evaluating solutions to upstream flooding associated with
            existing easements necessary for flood control operations of
            Grand Lake.
        Grand (Neosho) Basin Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--A need exists
    for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho
    River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand Lake,
    Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the evaluation of
    institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners, and
    other interests in southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the
    development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages. We
    request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 to
    conduct the study.
        Continuing Authorities Program.--We support funding of needed
    programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section
    205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended) as well as the Emergency
    Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control
    Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas (Iola, Liberal,
    Medicine Lodge, Iola, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona and
    Coffeyville) have previously requested assistance from the Corps of
    Engineers under these programs. We urge you to support these programs
    to the $40 million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control
    Projects Program and $15 million for the Emergency Streambank
    Stabilization Program.
        Also, Ecosystem Restoration Programs are relatively new programs
    which offer the Corps of Engineers a unique opportunity to work to
    restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other important environmental
    features which previously could not be considered. We urge you to
    support section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and
    Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 at their $25
    million programmatic limits.
        Likewise, the Challenge 21 Program has the possibility of providing
    great assistance to communities which have experienced disastrous flood
    events like took place in Kansas with the flood of 1998. The Challenge
    21 program will focus on opportunities to move homes and businesses
    from harms way through structural and non-structural measures and
    through comprehensive watershed planning efforts. We support funding of
    this important initiative.
        Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and
    Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and
    protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have
    the integrity and continuity these agencies provide on major public
    projects. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including
    funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and
    where needed, enhanced for the future.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, we thank you for the
    dedicated manner in which you and your colleagues have dealt with the
    Water Resources Programs and for allowing us to present our needs and
    funding requests.
        Thank you very much.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Oklahoma Arkansas River Basin Interstate
                                   Committee

                               SUMMARY STATEMENT

        The water resource needs for the State of Oklahoma have been
    carefully reviewed and the following accurately represents the needs of
    the citizens of our region.
        We continue to hold as our number on priority the continued
    construction of Montgomery Point Lock and Dam in Arkansas. The
    completion of this project is critical to the continued use of the
    navigation system and the continued growth of the entire region. We
    request an appropriation of $45 million for fiscal year 2001.
        We strongly urge the Committee to provide funding in the amount of
    $2.5 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on
    the 3 locks and dams on the Arkansas River portion of the McClellan-
    Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System in Oklahoma.
        The Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas
    and Oklahoma. This study would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and
    Arkansas that provide flows into the river with a view toward improving
    the number of days per year that the navigation system will accommodate
    tows. We request funding in the amount of $1.4 million, to continue the
    study in fiscal year 2001.
        We request the Committee to provide funding for the following
    studies:
      --Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study, $100,000.
      --Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study, $100,000.
      --Grand Lake Feasibility Study, $3 million.
      --Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study, $500,000.
      --Wister Lake Reallocation Study, $450,000.
      --Oologah Lake Water Quality Study, $515,000.
        We also urge the Committee to provide adequate funding for the
    following Programs:
      --Section 205, Small Flood Control Projects Program, $40 million,
            program limit.
      --Section 14, Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program, $15
            million, program limit.
      --Sections 1135 and 206, Ecosystem Restoration Programs and Flood
            Plain Management Services Program, $25 million each, program
            limits.
        On a related matter, we have deep concerns about the attempt to re-
    authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant beneficial
    reforms. We strongly urge you to take a hard look at any bill
    concerning this re-authorization and insure that it contains reasonable
    and meaningful reforms.
                                     ______

                                   STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am James M. Hewgley,
    Jr., Oklahoma Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate
    Committee, from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
        It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the
    Oklahoma Members of our committee in support of adequate funding for
    water resource development projects in our area of the Arkansas River
    Basin. Other members of the Committee are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr.
    Edwin L. Gage, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew
    Meibergen, Enid.
        Together with representatives of the other Arkansas River Basin
    states, we fully endorse the statement presented to you by the Chairman
    of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. We appreciated the
    opportunity to present our views of the special needs of our States
    concerning several studies and projects.
        Montgomery Point Lock and Dam--Montgomery Point Arkansas.--As we
    have testified for the past several years, we are once again requesting
    adequate appropriations to continue construction of this most important
    and much needed project. The shippers and users of the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System were seriously threatened in February
    of this year with the lowest flows in recorded history, at Memphis, on
    the Mississippi River. This again demonstrates the absolute need for
    completion of this critical project as such an event will drain the
    navigation water from the 10 mile White River Entrance Channel to the
    McClellan-Kerr System.
        We respectfully request the Congress to appropriate $45 million in
    the fiscal year 2001 budget cycle to continue construction on the
    current project schedule. This will help insure the project is
    completed and in operation in a timely manner at the lowest possible
    cost.
        Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to point out to this distinguished
    Committee that this navigation system has brought low cost water
    transportation to Oklahoma, Arkansas and the surrounding states. There
    has been over $5 billion invested in the construction and development
    of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system by the Federal
    Government and the public and private sector, resulting in the creation
    of over 50,000 jobs in this partnered project.
        Tow Haulage Equipment--Oklahoma.--We also request funding of $2.5
    million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on the
    locks located along the Arkansas River Portion of the McClellan-Kerr
    Arkansas River Navigation System. Total cost for these three locks is
    $4.5 million. This project will involve installation of tow haulage
    equipment on W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam
    #15, and Webbers Falls Lock and Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the
    waterway. The tow haulage equipment is needed to make transportation of
    barges more efficient and economical by allowing less time for tows to
    pass through the various lock and dams.
        We are pleased that the President's budget includes funds to
    advance work for Flood Control and other water resource needs in
    Oklahoma. Of special interest to our committee is funding for the
    Skiatook and Tenkiller Ferry Lakes Dam Safety Assurance Projects in
    Oklahoma and that construction funding has been provided for those
    important projects. We are also pleased that funding is included to
    continue reconnaissance studies and initiate feasibility studies in the
    North Canadian River Basin for Warr Acres, Oklahoma, for the Cimarron
    River basin in Kansas and Oklahoma.
        Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and
    Oklahoma.--We are especially pleased that the budget includes funds to
    continue the Arkansas River Navigation Study, a feasibility study which
    is examining opportunities to optimize the Arkansas River system. The
    system of multipurpose lakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma on the Arkansas
    River and its tributaries supports the McClellan-Kerr Navigation
    System, which was opened for navigation to the Port of Catoosa near
    Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1970. The navigation system consists of 445 miles
    of waterway that winds through the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas.
    This study would optimize the reservoirs in Oklahoma and Arkansas that
    provide flows into the river with a view toward improving the number of
    days per year that the navigation system would accommodate tows. This
    study could have significant impact on the economic development
    opportunities in the States of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the surrounding
    states. Due to the critical need for this study, however, we request
    funding of $1.4 million, which is greater than shown in the budget, to
    continue feasibility studies in fiscal year 2001.
        Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--We request funding
    in the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the
    water resource problems of the Illinois River Basin. The Illinois River
    watershed is experiencing continued water resource development needs
    and is the focus of ongoing Corps and other agency investigations.
    However, additional flows are sought downstream of the Lake Tenkiller
    Dam and there are increasing watershed influences upstream of Lake
    Tenkiller which impact on the quality of water available for fish and
    wildlife, municipal and industrial water supply users, and recreation
    users of the Lake Tenkiller and Illinois River waters.
        Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--We request funding in
    the amount of $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance study of the water
    resource problems in the Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas.
    There is a need for a basin-wide water resource planning effort in the
    Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the issues associated with Grand
    Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance study would focus on the evaluation
    of institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners,
    and other interests in northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in
    the development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in
    the basin.
        Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--We also support the effort to
    evaluate water resource problems in the Grand-Neosho River basin in
    Kansas and Oklahoma and request funding to initiate a comprehensive
    Feasibility study to evaluate solutions to upstream flooding problems
    associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements
    necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A
    study, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was
    completed in September of 1998 and determined that if the project were
    constructed based on current criteria, additional easements would be
    acquired. A Feasibility study is now required to determine the most
    cost effective solution to the real estate inadequacies. Changes in the
    operations of the project or other upstream changes could have a
    significant impact on flood control, hydropower, and navigation
    operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River
    basin system, as well; we urge you to provide $3 million to fully fund
    Feasibility studies for this important project in fiscal year 2001 and
    to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the study at full Federal
    expense.
        Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study.--We request funding of $500,000
    to conduct a reallocation study of the water storage of Tenkiller Ferry
    Lake, Oklahoma. Tenkiller Ferry Lake is located on the Illinois River
    approximately 7 miles northeast of Gore, Oklahoma, and 22 miles
    southeast of Muskogee, Oklahoma. Construction of the existing project
    began in June 1947 and the dam was completed in May 1952. The proposed
    study would involve reallocation of the authorized project purposes
    among competing users of the project's flood control, hydropower and
    water supply resources.
        Wister Lake Reallocation Study.--We request funding of $450,000 to
    conduct a reallocation study of the water storage of Wister Lake,
    Oklahoma. Wister Lake is located on the Poteau River near Wister,
    Oklahoma. The lake was completed in 1949 for flood control, water
    supply, water conservation and sediment control. Wister Lake is the
    primary water resource development project in the Poteau River Basin.
    It provides substantial flood control, municipal and industrial water
    supply, and recreation benefits for residents of LeFlore County,
    Oklahoma, and the southeastern Oklahoma region. Originally constructed
    for flood control and water conservation, seasonal pool manipulation
    was initiated in 1974 to improve the project's water supply and
    recreation resources. The conservation pool level was permanently
    raised in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. A reallocation
    study, which would include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    coordination, is required. NEPA and other resource evaluation and
    coordination would include the assessment of cultural and fish and
    wildlife impacts, potential mitigation measures, and reallocation
    studies.
        Oologah Lake Water Quality Study.--We request funding of $515,000
    for ongoing water quality studies at Oologah Lake and in the upstream
    watershed. The lake is an important water supply source for the city of
    Tulsa and protection of the lake and maintaining and enhancing the
    quality of the water is important for the economic development of the
    city. The Corps of Engineers is working closely with the city and with
    the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to insure a unified approach to
    analysis and preservation of the lake water quality. We request the
    study be funded and that the Corps of Engineers be directed to conduct
    the studies at full Federal expense. We also support funding for the
    Continuing Authorities Program, including the Small Flood Control
    Projects Program, (Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as
    amended) and the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program, (Section
    14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as Amended). We want to express our
    appreciation for your continued support of those programs.
        Section 205.--Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program
    addresses flood problems which generally impact smaller communities and
    rural areas and would appear to benefit only those communities, the
    impact of those projects on economic development crosses county,
    regional, and sometimes state boundaries. The communities served by the
    program frequently do not have the funds or engineering expertise
    necessary to provide adequate flood damage reduction measures for their
    citizens. Continued flooding can have a devastating impact on community
    development and regional economic stability. The program is extremely
    beneficial and has been recognized nation-wide as a vital part of
    community development, so much so, in fact, that there is currently a
    backlog of requests from communities who have requested assistance
    under this program. There is limited funding available for these
    projects and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic
    limit of $40 million.
        Section 14.--Likewise, the Emergency Streambank Stabilization
    Program provides quick response engineering design and construction to
    protect important local utilities, roads, and other public facilities
    in smaller urban and rural settings from damage due to streambank
    erosion. The protection afforded by this program helps insure that
    important roads, bridges, utilities, and other public structures remain
    safe and useful. By providing small, affordable, and relatively quickly
    constructed projects, these two programs enhance the lives of many by
    providing safe and stable living environments. There is also a backlog
    of requests under this program. Funding is also limited for these
    projects and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic
    limit of $15 million.
        Sections 1135 and 206.--We also request your continued support of
    and funding for the Ecosystem Restoration Programs (Section 1135 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and Section 206 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996). The Ecosystem Restoration Programs
    are relatively new programs which offer the Corps of Engineers a unique
    opportunity to work to restore valuable habitat, wetlands, and other
    important environmental features which previously could not be
    considered. The Section 1135 Program is already providing significant
    benefits to the States of Kansas and Oklahoma. We urge that these
    programs be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $25 million each.
        We also request your continued support of the Flood Plain
    Management Services Program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act)
    which authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise
    to provide guidance in flood plain management matters to all private,
    local, state, and Federal entities. The objective of the program is to
    support comprehensive flood plain management planning. The program is
    one of the most beneficial programs available for reducing flood losses
    and provides assistance to officials from cities, counties, states, and
    Indian Tribes to ensure that new facilities are not built in areas
    prone to floods. Assistance includes flood warning, flood proofing, and
    other flood damage reduction measures, and critical flood plain
    information is provided on a cost reimbursable basis to home owners,
    mortgage companies, Realtors and others for use in flood plain
    awareness and flood insurance requirements.
        We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States
    Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which
    authorizes the Corps of Engineers to use its technical expertise in
    water and related land resource management to help States and Indian
    Tribes solve their water resource problems. The program is used by many
    states to support their State Water Plans. As natural resources
    diminish, the need to manage those resources becomes more urgent. We
    urge your continued support of this program as it supports States and
    Native American Tribes in developing resource management plans which
    will benefit citizens for years to come. The program is very valuable
    and effective, matching Federal and non-Federal funds to provide cost
    effective engineering expertise and support to assist communities,
    states and tribes in the development of plans for the management,
    optimization, and preservation of basin, watershed, and ecosystem
    resources. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increased the
    annual program limit from $6 million to $10 million and we urge this
    program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $10 million.
        We also request your support and funding for the Challenge 21
    Program. The Challenge 21 Program is in support of the Clean Water
    Action Plan and would provide opportunity for the Corps of Engineers to
    work closely with other Federal, State, and Local land and water
    resource agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to reduce flood
    damages and improve quality of life. The program would focus on
    watershed-based solutions that could also include the restoration of
    riparian and wetland ecosystems. Although the construction of dams and
    levees has prevented billions of dollars in flood damages, many
    communities still experience disastrous flood events. Some of that
    flooding can be attributed to over development in and around the flood
    plain. The Challenge 21 program will focus on opportunities to move
    homes and businesses from harms way through structural and non-
    structural measures and through comprehensive watershed planning
    efforts. We support funding of this important initiative.
        On a related matter, we would share with you our concern that the
    Administration has not requested sufficient funds to meet the
    increasing infrastructure needs of the inland waterways of our nation.
    The Administration's request will not keep projects moving at the
    optimum level to complete them on a cost effective basis. Moving the
    completion dates out is an unacceptable exercise since 50 percent of
    the funds come from the Waterways Trust Fund. This will not only waste
    federal funds but, those from the trust fund as well.
        We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of
    Engineers budget to $4.9 billion to help get delayed construction
    projects back on schedule and to reduce the deferred maintenance
    backlog which is out of control. This will help the Corps of Engineers
    meet the obligations of the Federal Government to people of this great
    country.
        Concerning another related matter, we have deep concerns about the
    attempt to re-authorize the Endangered Species Act without significant
    beneficial reforms. If a bill is passed through without reforms, it
    will be devastating to industry and the country as a whole. We strongly
    urge you to take a hard look at any bill concerning this re-
    authorization and insure that it contains reasonable and meaningful
    reforms.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
    these subjects.
                                     ______

               SOUTHWEST U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

        This testimony is in support of funding for the Colorado River
    Basin salinity control program. Congress has designated the Department
    of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be the lead
    agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This role and
    the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the Congress when
    Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is requested for
    fiscal year 2000 to implement the needed and authorized program.
    Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic
    damage in the United States and Mexico and threaten compliance with
    adopted basin-wide water quality standards in the future. The
    President's request of $10.85 million is a reduced funding level and
    the Forum feels this level of funding is inadequate. Studies have shown
    that implementation of the program has fallen behind the needed pace to
    prevent salinity concentrations from exceeding numeric criteria
    adopted. These water quality standards for the River Basin must be
    honored while the Basin states continue to develop their Compact
    apportioned waters of the Colorado River. Concentrations of salts in
    the water above the criteria would cause hundreds of millions of
    dollars in damage in the United States and result in poorer quality
    water being delivered by the United States to Mexico. For every 30 mg/l
    increase in salinity concentrations, there is $100 million in
    additional damages in the United States. The Forum, therefore, believes
    a rate of implementation of the program beyond that requested by the
    President is necessary.
        The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
    very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
    private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
    exceeded the available funding. Hence, Reclamation has a backlog of
    proposals and is able to select the best and most cost-effective
    proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin states'
    cost sharing for the level of federal funding requested by the Forum.
    Water quality improvements accomplished under Title II of the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of water
    delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met the
    commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission's
    (Commission) Minute 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality, the
    United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing
    Mexico's request for better water quality at the Southerly
    International Boundary. Consideration of all of this argues for a
    higher level of funding than requested by the President.

                                    OVERVIEW

        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
    Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
    made, through Minute 242, to Mexico concerning the quality of water
    being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act
    established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado
    River water users in the United States and to comply with the mandates
    of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary
    of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead
    federal role by the Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate
    funding for the Title II program.
        After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
    Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
    amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping
    the Secretary of the Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River
    Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity control
    responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, and to a sister
    agency of the Bureau of Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management.
    Congress has charged the Administration with implementing the most
    cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
    removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept as
    the Basin states consider cost sharing 30 percent of federal
    expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
    proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts in the
    Colorado River Basin.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
    coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress to
    support the implementation of the program necessary to control the
    salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the
    Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum prepares a formal report
    analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
    salinity, and the program necessary to keep the salinities at or below
    the levels measured in the river system in 1972.
        In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
    the salinity levels measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and Hoover
    Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The plan
    necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan of
    implementation.'' The 1999 Review of water quality standards includes
    an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation requested
    in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If adequate
    funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies involved are in
    agreement that the numeric criteria will be exceeded and damage from
    the high salt levels in the water will be widespread in the United
    States as well as Mexico and will be very significant.

                                 JUSTIFICATION

        The $17,500,000 requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
    Colorado River Basin states is the level of funding necessary to
    proceed with Reclamation's portion of the plan of implementation. This
    funding level is appropriate if salinity in the Colorado River is to be
    controlled so as not to exceed the established numeric criteria and
    threaten the associated water quality standards. In July of 1995,
    Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The
    amended Act gives Reclamation new latitude and flexibility in seeking
    the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities, and it provides
    for proposals and more involvement from the private as well as the
    public sector. Early results are indicating that salt loading is being
    prevented at costs often less than half the cost under the previous
    program. The Bureau of Reclamation's recent review of the program and
    the amendments Congress authorized have made the program more effective
    in removing salt from the Colorado River in a most cost-effective
    manner.
        The Senate this last year passed legislation that gives additional
    spending authority to Reclamation for this program. Similar legislation
    is being considered by the House. It has received a favorable hearing
    with support from the Forum and the Administration, and mark-up and
    passage is expected soon.
        The Basin states have agreed to cost sharing on an annual basis,
    which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar appropriated. The Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum, working with EPA, has agreed upon a
    plan of implementation for salinity control, and that plan justifies
    the level of funding herein supported by the Forum to maintain the
    water quality standards for salinity adopted by the Basin states. The
    federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
    Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met
    and formally supports the requested level of funding. The Basin states
    urge the Subcommittee to support the funding as set forth in this
    testimony.

                         ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF FUNDING

        In addition to the dollars identified above for the implementation
    of the newly authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum urges the
    Congress to appropriate necessary funds, as identified in the
    President's budget, to continue to maintain and operate salinity
    control facilities as they are completed and placed into long-term
    operation. Reclamation has completed the Paradox Valley unit which
    involves the collection of brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and
    the injection of those brines into a deep aquifer through an injection
    well. The continued operation of the project and other completed
    projects will be funded through Operation and Maintenance funds.
        In addition, the Forum supports necessary funding to allow for
    continued general investigation of the salinity control program. It is
    important that Reclamation have planning staff in place, properly
    funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
    coordination between various federal and state agencies can be
    accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
    can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
    salinity so that the Basin states can continue to develop the Compact
    apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

                                    SUMMARY

        This Statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
    Colorado River Basin salinity control program of the Department of the
    Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. Congress designated the Bureau of
    Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado
    River Basin by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.
    The Bureau of Reclamation's role was reconfirmed by Public Law 104-20.
    A total of $17.5 million is requested for fiscal year 2001 to implement
    the authorized salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation.
    The President's request of $10.85 million is inadequate to protect
    water quality standards for salinity and prevent unnecessary levels of
    economic damage from increased salinity levels in water delivered to
    the Lower Basin States and Mexico.

                                   STATEMENT

        The Water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must
    be protected while the Basin States continue to develop their compact
    apportioned waters of the river. Studies have shown that the
    implementation of the salinity control program has fallen below the
    threshold necessary to prevent future exceedence of the numeric
    criteria of the water quality standards for salinity in the Lower Basin
    of the Colorado River. The water quality standards for salinity of the
    Colorado River have been adopted by the seven Basin States and approved
    by EPA. While currently the standards have not been exceeded, salinity
    control projects must be brought on-line in a timely and cost-effective
    manner to prevent future effects that would cause the numeric criteria
    to be exceeded.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by
    Congress and signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin
    States, in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, had formed the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, a body comprised of
    gubernatorial representatives from the seven Basin States. The Forum
    was created to provide for interstate cooperation in response to the
    Clean Water Act, and to provide the states with information necessary
    to comply with Sections 303 (a) and (b) of the Act. The Forum has
    become the primary means for the seven Basin States to coordinate with
    federal agencies and Congress to support the implementation of the
    salinity control program for the Colorado River Basin.
        The Bureau of Reclamation is currently completing studies on the
    economic impacts of the salinity of the Colorado River in the United
    States. Reclamation's study indicates that damages in the United States
    may soon be approaching $1 billion per year. It is essential that
    appropriations for the funding of the salinity control program be
    timely in order to comply with the water quality standards for salinity
    to prevent unnecessary economic damages in the United States and Mexico
    from waters of the Colorado River. The President's request of $10.85
    million for fiscal year 2001 is inadequate to protect the water quality
    standards adopted by each of the seven Basin States and approved by
    EPA, and threatens the quality of water delivered to Mexico that is
    protected under Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water
    Commission, United States and Mexico.
        Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
    July, 1995. The salinity control program authorized by Congress by the
    amendment in 1995 has proven to be very cost-effective, and the Basin
    States are standing ready with up-front cost sharing. Proposals from
    public and private sector entities in response to the Bureau of
    Reclamation's advertisement have far exceeded available funding. Basin
    States cost-sharing funds are available for the $17.5 million
    appropriation request for fiscal year 2001. The Basin States cost-
    sharing adds 43 cents for each federal dollar appropriated.
        The Senate passed legislation last year which gives the Bureau of
    Reclamation additional spending authority for the salinity control
    program. Similar legislation is being considered by the House, and has
    been given favorable hearing with strong support from the Forum, the
    Basin States and the Administration. Mark-up and passage is expected in
    the near future. With the additional authority in place and significant
    cost sharing by the Basin States, it is essential that the salinity
    control program be funded at the level requested by the Forum and Basin
    States to protect the water quality of the Colorado River and prevent
    unnecessary economic damages from salinity in the United States and
    Mexico.
        I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of
    Reclamation for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
    Also, I fully support testimony supplied by the Forum's Executive
    Director, Jack Barnett, in request for this appropriation.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Western Coaliton of Arid States

        Chairman Domenici and members of the subcommittee: The Western
    Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is pleased to submit comments for
    the record, regarding programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation's (Reclamation) fiscal year 2001 budget, for the Hearing on
    Energy and Water Appropriations. WESTCAS is an organization of cities,
    towns, water and wastewater districts and associate agencies from the
    States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
    Oregon, Texas and Utah who are dedicated to environmentally
    conscientious planning of water resources and development of water
    quality standards for the unique ecosystems of the arid West. Of
    particular interest to WESTCAS and its member agencies are the federal
    programs that can further our goals through partnerships and
    scientifically sound regulation and guidance concerning our most
    precious resource--water. WESTCAS would like the Subcommittee to
    consider the following funding recommendations.

                 COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

        Since 1974, federal agencies and the seven basin states have been
    working together to maintain the Colorado River's salinity levels
    within a range which does not limit the economic, recreational, and
    environmental uses of the river. The Colorado River is a major source
    of water supply for the urban and agricultural regions of Utah, Nevada,
    Arizona, and Southern California. It is important that Congress
    continue to fund the federal portions of this successful program. With
    continued development of water sources in the Upper Colorado Basin and
    continued shortfalls in salinity control funding, the salinity levels
    will continue to increase in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The
    increased salinity in the Lower Colorado River Basin will have a long-
    term detrimental financial impact on agricultural and urban activities
    in the areas dependent on the Lower Colorado River water.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
    interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states'
    salinity control efforts, issued its 1999 Review, Water Quality
    Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1999 Review) in June
    1999. The 1999 Review found that additional salinity control was
    necessary beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria in the water
    quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
    approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with normal water
    supply conditions. For the last five years, federal appropriations for
    Reclamation have not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for the
    portion of the program the Federal Government has the responsibility to
    implement. It is essential that implementation of Reclamation's
    basinwide salinity control program be accelerated to permit the numeric
    criteria to be met again under average annual long-term water supply
    conditions, making up the shortfall. To assist in eliminating the
    shortfall, the Forum once again recommends that Reclamation utilize up
    front cost sharing from the Basin states to supplement federal
    appropriations. This concept has been embraced by Reclamation and is
    reflected in the President's proposed budget.
        The President's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding
    of $10.85 million for implementation of the basin-wide program. WESTCAS
    requests that Congress appropriate $17.5 million for implementation of
    the basin-wide program, an increase of $6.65 million from that proposed
    by the President. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
    salinity control activities schedule in order to maintain the state
    adopted and federally approved water quality standards.

                    WATER RECYCLING AND GROUNDWATER RECOVERY

        Projects funded under Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
    Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) will
    greatly improve water supply reliability and the environment. Title XVI
    projects authorized by the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation
    Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-266), but not included in the President's
    proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
    are considered to be equally important. Implementation of such projects
    is difficult without combined federal, state and regional assistance.
    These authorized projects will greatly improve water supply reliability
    and the environment through effective water recycling and recovery of
    contaminated groundwater in the arid west. WESTCAS strongly requests
    that Congress increase the appropriation level for Reclamation's Title
    XVI program from $22 million requested for fiscal year 2001 to $100
    million in order to properly fund all of these authorized projects.

                         SMALL RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM

        The Small Reclamation Loan Program provides funds for reclamation,
    in partnership with local districts to finance projects to conserve
    water by upgrading less efficient facilities, improve water quality,
    enhance fish and wildlife, and support Indian self-sufficiency through
    loans to Native American projects.

                          DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE

        WESTCAS has been actively involved in the National Drought Policy
    Commission efforts to recommend a national drought policy for the
    country. As part of the larger effort on drought, the Bureau of
    Reclamation has in place a Drought Emergency Assistance program. We are
    concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation has only requested $500,000
    for fiscal year 2001. WESTCAS would like to see the program funded at
    the $3 million level that Congress provided in fiscal year 2000

                         EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

        Reclamation is encouraging innovation in water resources management
    to help meet the water conservation objectives of the Reclamation
    Reform Act of 1982. The program provides partnership capability for
    Reclamation and its customers, in cooperation with States and other
    entities, in seeking solutions to water use efficiency and
    conservation. The program supports technical assistance to districts in
    planning, evaluating, and implementing efficiency measures. Activities
    are located within all Federal water projects in the 17 Western States.
    WESTCAS supports the $3.1 million request.

                   ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION

        Reclamation is designated as a cooperative participant in recovery
    measures to minimize the potential effects of Reclamation actions upon
    listed or candidate species and reduce the potential for more stringent
    requirements being imposed upon Reclamation projects as a result of
    formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
    Species Act. Activities are located throughout the region including the
    Upper and Lower Colorado River basins. WESTCAS supports the
    approximately $15 million provided in the fiscal year 2001 Budget for
    work in these two basins.

                     NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

        This program operates under a delegated grant of authority for fish
    and wildlife assistance programs from the Secretary to the Commissioner
    of the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation's funds are used for fish and
    wildlife restoration projects in partnership with local, state, tribal,
    and/or non-governmental organizations. Funding for the Foundation, and
    the Foundation's support for programs like the Lower Colorado River
    Multi-Species Conservation Program, are extremely important to the
    development of comprehensive solutions to the complex endangered
    species issues. WESTCAS supports the $4.3 million in fiscal year 2001
    Budget for the Foundation.

                   DESALINATION RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

        This program addressees problems and technology needs for water
    supply augmentation, water quality improvement and protection. Studies
    are directed at reducing costs and minimizing environmental impacts
    from salt removal, developing commercially attractive technologies,
    improving surface and groundwater quality, and facilitating cost-
    effective conversion of previously unusable water resources to usable
    water supplies. WESTCAS supports the $600,000 in the fiscal year 2001
    and would suggest that the Bureau of Reclamation work with
    organizations like WESTCAS on the research agenda.

                     WATER MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION PROGRAM

        This program provides for a water quality monitoring program in
    cooperation with state and local entities. Funding requests provide for
    the coordination of water management and conservation efforts with the
    water users and other non-Federal entities. It also provides for water
    conservation centers and training, improvements in water measurement
    and accounting. We support the $7.6 million request for this program.

                          WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

        The Wetlands Development Program allows for the development of
    design criteria, strategies, and implementation of wetland enhancement
    projects which provide for water quality, wildlife habitat, and
    aesthetic purposes. Projects are located throughout the 17 Western
    States and include demonstration projects using reclaimed wastewater
    from existing treatment facilities in Arizona and wetlands and wildlife
    habitat in Nevada. WESTCAS supports the overall $5 million request for
    this program for fiscal year 2001.
        Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
    comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for Reclamation
    water resources management and ecosystem restoration programs that are
    critical for water supply reliability in the arid West.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming

        This testimony is submitted in support of a fiscal year 2001
    appropriation of $17,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado
    River Salinity Control Program. Testimony was recently submitted to
    this Subcommittee by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
    (Forum), a seven-state organization created by the Governors of the
    Colorado River Basin States, by the Forum's Executive Director, Jack
    Barnett. The State of Wyoming, a member state of the Forum, concurs in
    the Forum's testimony. While the President's recommended budget line-
    item for the basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
    is $10,850,000, the State of Wyoming and the Forum urge the Congress to
    increase the appropriation for this Program to $17,500,000. While we
    appreciate the Administration's support of this Program, it is clear
    that implementation of the Program has fallen behind the needed pace to
    prevent salinity concentration levels from exceeding specified numeric
    criteria in the water quality standards for the Colorado River. In
    addition to considerations of complying with this basin-wide water
    quality standard, the United States has committed to the Republic of
    Mexico, pursuant to Minute 242 of the 1944 ``Treaty Between the United
    States and Mexico, Relating to Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana River
    and of the Rio Grande,'' to managing the salinity concentrations of
    water deliveries to Mexico.
        The State of Wyoming is one of the seven member states represented
    on the Forum and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
    Council (Council). The Council was created by Section 204 of the 1974
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320). Like the
    Forum, the Council is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the
    seven Colorado River Basin states. Both the Council and Forum serve
    important liaison roles among the seven states, the Secretaries of the
    Interior and Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA). The Council is directed by statute to advise
    these federal officials on the progress of the federal/state cost-
    shared, basin-wide salinity control programs, and annually recommends
    to the Federal agencies what level of funding it believes is required
    to meet the objective of assuring continuing compliance with the basin-
    wide water quality standards for salinity concentrations in the
    Colorado River.
        The Council met in October 1999 and developed funding
    recommendations for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 based on the progress
    the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
    Bureau of Land Management and the seven states are making in
    implementing their programs for managing and reducing the salt loading
    into the Colorado River System. The Council's funding recommendations
    further heeded analyses made by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
    Forum. Each three years the Forum updates the plan of implementation
    for maintaining the Colorado River water quality standards for salinity
    in accordance with Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. The 1999
    triennial review of the standards identified the need for the Bureau of
    Reclamation to expend $17,500,000 per year in order to carry out its
    portion of the plan of implementation. The plan is devised to assure
    that the salinity concentrations of Colorado River water do not exceed
    the numeric criteria set forth in the standards. Based on its own
    review of the facts, the Council recommended that a minimum of
    $17,500,000 needs to be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation during
    fiscal year 2000 to accomplish needed salinity control activities.
        This funding level is appropriate if the salinity of Colorado River
    waters is to be controlled so as not to exceed the numeric salinity
    concentration criteria contained within the water quality standards for
    the Colorado River. Without the necessary levels of funding, there is
    an increased probability that the numeric criteria will be exceeded
    resulting in violations of the basin-wide water quality standards.
    Further, there is an increased probability that the numeric criteria
    will be exceeded resulting in violations of the basin-wide water
    quality standards. Failure to maintain the standards' numeric criteria
    could result in the imposition of state-line water quality standards
    (as opposed to the successful basin-wide approach that has been in
    place since 1975) and impair Wyoming's ability to develop our Compact-
    apportioned water supplies. Failure to maintain the standards' numeric
    criteria could result in the imposition of state-line water quality
    standards (as opposed to the successful basin-wide approach that has
    been in place since 1975) and impair the Colorado River Basin States'
    ability to develop their Compact-apportioned water supplies. Delaying
    or deferring adequate funding will create the need for a much more
    expensive salinity control effort in the future to assure that the
    Colorado River Basin states are able to comply with the water quality
    standards. ``Catch-up'' funding in the future will require the
    expenditure of greater sums of money, increase the likelihood that the
    numeric criteria for Colorado River water quality are exceeded, and
    create undue burdens and difficulties for one of the most successful
    Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution control programs
    in the United States.
        In July, 1995, Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Act. The amended Act provided Reclamation with additional
    authorities that have improved upon the cost-effectiveness of
    Reclamation's salinity control program, in large part because it
    provided for proposals and greater involvement from the private sector.
    Submitted proposals have far exceeded the available funding, while at
    the same time overall progress in accomplishing the rate of salinity
    control determined to be needed and as set forth in the Plan of
    Implementation continues to fall behind the scheduled rate.
        We urge this Subcommittee to increase the funding level for the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program line-item in
    Reclamation's budget, beyond the funds requested by the President's
    budget, to $17,500,000. In addition to the funding needs identified for
    the basin-wide Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the State
    of Wyoming supports the appropriation of Operation and Maintenance
    funds for completed Reclamation salinity control projects, including
    the Paradox Valley Unit. The State of Wyoming understands that a
    portion of the General Investigation Funds included in the President's
    budget are intended for salinity control activities. Wyoming supports
    the appropriation of funds to accomplish these necessary planning and
    investigation activities.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I request,
    in addition to your consideration of its contents, that you make it a
    part of the formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2001
    appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the State of Arizona

        On behalf of the people of Arizona, I would like to thank you for
    the opportunity to enter testimony into the record concerning our
    support of continued appropriations for the Central Arizona Project
    (CAP). I also would like to thank the Committee, the Senate and the
    Congress for its continuing support for the CAP, which is an essential
    lifeline in the arid Southwest.
        As you know, the CAP was authorized by the 90th Congress of the
    United States under the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. The
    CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development project consisting of
    a series of concrete-lined canals, tunnels, dams and pumping plants
    which lift water nearly 3,000 feet over a distance of 336 miles from
    Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area.
        The project was designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's
    entitlement of Colorado River water into the central and southern
    portions of the state for municipal and industrial, agricultural and
    Indian uses, where about 80 percent of our state's population resides.
        Because of a growing population and some innovative storage and
    recharge programs, Arizona is close to taking its full CAP allocation
    of 1.5 million acre-feet (maf) of Colorado River water. This year, we
    project more than 1.4 maf will be delivered through the CAP.
        Repayment of the costs of the CAP to the Bureau of Reclamation
    (Reclamation) has been a contentious issue for most of the past decade.
    Happily, it appears the CAP governing board, the Central Arizona Water
    Conservation District (CAWCD) and Reclamation have reached an agreement
    on repayment.
        The CAWCD board voted in March to approve the negotiated agreement.
    This settlement is vastly preferable to the continuation of litigation
    in U.S. District Court. But we must add a note of caution. Conclusion
    of the agreement between CAWCD and Reclamation still is contingent upon
    a number of events.
        Chief among these is agreement on allocation of a large block of
    CAP water, a step that requires us to proceed carefully. Also, Arizona
    and the Federal Government must reach an understanding that water from
    the CAP will forever be available to both parties under prescribed
    terms and conditions.
        In addition, we need to agree that Arizona will determine how best
    to use its CAP water, free from unwarranted oversight from the
    Department of Interior. And it is vital that all parties agree that
    water from the CAP will remain within the boundaries of the state, to
    supply the needs of the people of Arizona.
        As Governor of Arizona, I am pleased to be able to support the
    Reclamation budget request for fiscal year 2001 of $33,667,000.

                          INDIAN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

        It is most appropriate that more than $25.8 million is earmarked
    for construction of distribution systems on Indian lands. Through the
    Arizona Department of Water Resources and the invaluable assistance of
    U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-AZ, we are substantially closer to reaching
    negotiated settlements on the major Indian water rights claims in
    Arizona than we have been at any other time.
        Indeed, we anticipate that our message to the Committee next year
    will reflect the reality that significant Indian water rights claims
    have been settled and that remaining claims will be settled in the near
    future. It has been a long and sometimes difficult journey, but we
    believe we now can see the end of the road.
        We are indeed encouraged that Reclamation saw fit to increase its
    budget request for Indian distribution systems by 131 percent over the
    fiscal year 2000 request, from $11.1 million to $25.8 million.

                                FISH & WILDLIFE

        In the Reclamation budget request, $1.06 million is targeted to
    implement activities in the Gila River Basin and on the Santa Cruz
    River stemming from a 1994 opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. I add my support to the position of CAWCD, which historically
    has objected to Reclamation expenditures on these activities.
    Litigation on this issue still is pending, and the sensible course
    would be to await its outcome before proceeding in this area.

                          TUCSON RELIABILITY DIVISION

        We are pleased to support continuation of funding for the Tucson
    Reliability Division. The Tucson area's CAP picture, clouded in the
    past, is much clearer in the wake of an election that ratified the
    course of action local leaders are pursuing with regard to Tucson's CAP
    allocation. The amount requested, $46,000, will assist in providing the
    Tucson area with more stability and certainty about its water supplies.

                 WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY

        As I did last year, I would like to take this opportunity to
    advocate an increased level of funding for water planning in the
    rapidly growing West Valley portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
    While Reclamation has requested $200,000, I agree with CAWCD that an
    increase in this appropriation to $400,000 is justified.

                                   RIO SALADO

        We also support increased appropriations for the Tempe/Phoenix Rio
    Salado Environmental Restoration Program from $1.5 million to $20
    million. This partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
    restore lost riparian wetlands along the Salt River through the center
    of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Rio Salado was authorized for $86
    million in WRDA 99. Fiscal year 2001 appropriations of $20 million will
    keep the project on schedule for completion in 2003.
        I look forward to favorable subcommittee action on the Reclamation
    budget request. We would be happy to offer any additional information
    that you require.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District

        Mr. Chairman: The Central Arizona Water Conservation District
    (CAWCD) is pleased to offer the following testimony regarding the
    fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
        The Central Arizona Project or ``CAP'' was authorized by the 90th
    Congress of the United States under the Colorado River Basin Project
    Act of 1968. We thank the Committee for its continuing support of the
    CAP. The CAP is a multi-purpose water resource development project
    consisting of a series of canals, tunnels, dams, and pumping plants
    which lift water nearly 3,000 feet over a distance of 336 miles from
    Lake Havasu on the Colorado River to the Tucson area. The project was
    designed to deliver the remainder of Arizona's entitlement of Colorado
    River water into the central and southern portions of the state for
    municipal and industrial, agricultural, and Indian uses. The Bureau of
    Reclamation (Reclamation) initiated project construction in 1973, and
    the first water was delivered into the Phoenix metropolitan area in
    1985. The CAP delivered about 1.3 million acre-feet of water to project
    water users in 1999 and anticipates delivering 1.4 million acre-feet in
    2000.
        CAWCD was created in 1971 for the specific purpose of contracting
    with the United States to repay the reimbursable construction costs of
    the CAP that are properly allocable to CAWCD, primarily water supply
    and power costs. In 1983, CAWCD was also given authority to operate and
    maintain completed project features. Its service area is comprised of
    Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. CAWCD is a tax-levying public
    improvement district, a political subdivision, and a municipal
    corporation, and represents roughly 80 percent of the water users and
    taxpayers of the State of Arizona. CAWCD is governed by a 15 member
    Board of Directors elected from the three counties it serves. CAWCD's
    Board members are public officers who serve without pay.
        Project repayment is provided for through a 1988 Master Repayment
    Contract between CAWCD and the United States. Reclamation declared the
    CAP water supply system (Stage 1) substantially complete in 1993, and
    declared the regulatory storage stage, or Plan 6 (Stage 2), complete in
    1996. No other stages are currently under construction. Project
    repayment began in 1994 for Stage 1 and in 1997 for Stage 2. To date,
    CAWCD has repaid $548 million of CAP construction costs to the United
    States.
        Recently, CAWCD and Reclamation successfully negotiated a
    settlement of the dispute regarding the amount of CAWCD's repayment
    obligation for CAP construction costs. This dispute has been the
    subject of ongoing litigation in United States District Court in
    Arizona since 1995. The CAWCD Board of Directors formally approved a
    settlement stipulation on March 2, 2000. Approval by the United States
    is currently pending while the settlement stipulation is being reviewed
    by several Federal agencies including the Department of the Interior,
    Department of Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget.
        In its fiscal year 2001 budget request, Reclamation seeks
    $33,667,000 for the CAP. Of this amount, $25,829,000 is requested for
    the construction of Indian distribution systems. The balance,
    $7,838,000, is sought for other CAP activities, most of which would be
    at least partially reimbursable. Under the settlement stipulation,
    these costs would not affect CAWCD's repayment obligation.
        Reclamation's Project Repayment Appendix to the fiscal year 2001
    budget justification documents indicates that a ``residual'' amount of
    $357,437,702 is currently not covered under the repayment contract as
    ruled by the court in Phase One of the CAP repayment litigation and may
    not be repaid to the Federal Treasury. It further indicates that the
    remaining repayment obligation could be resolved in litigation, through
    settlement of the litigation, or through voluntary contract ceiling
    negotiation. Historically, CAWCD has challenged the adequacy of
    Reclamation's cost allocation procedure from which this residual amount
    was derived. CAWCD has also questioned Reclamation's authority to spend
    CAP appropriations in the absence of an amendatory contract to cover
    repayment of the reimbursable portion. CAWCD's testimony regarding
    Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 budget request for CAP assumes that
    final approval of the settlement stipulation by the United States is
    forthcoming and that the United States District Court approves the
    settlement.
        Of the total $33,667,000 requested, $1,060,000 is earmarked to fund
    activities associated with implementation of a 1994 biological opinion
    of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pertaining to delivery of
    CAP water to the Gila River Basin, and $580,000 is for native fish
    activities on the Santa Cruz River. These funds are requested for
    construction of fish barriers ($1,080,000) and payments to FWS for non-
    native fish eradication and native fish conservation ($560,000). In
    addition, Reclamation is seeking $70,000 to cover its non-contract
    costs. Historically, CAWCD has objected to Reclamation's continued
    spending in these areas. Both environmentalists and CAWCD have
    challenged the 1984 biological opinion in court, and that litigation is
    still pending. Although the settlement stipulation addresses many of
    CAWCD's financial concerns about the biological opinion, CAWCD still
    believes that the FWS opinion is unfounded and improper.
        CAWCD continues to support appropriations necessary to ensure
    timely completion of all CAP Indian distribution systems. We are
    encouraged to note that Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 budget request
    of $25,829,000 for CAP Indian distribution systems is $14,676,000
    higher than the fiscal year 2000 budget request for this item.
        CAWCD also supports the continuation of funding for the Tucson
    Reliability Division. The requested $46,000 will allow planning work to
    continue and will assist Tucson in developing and implementing a plan
    to ensure adequate reliability for its CAP water allocation.
        Finally, CAWCD again supports increased funding for Reclamation's
    West Salt River Valley Water Management Study. Reclamation's South/
    Central Arizona Investigations Program includes a $200,000 line item to
    support a continuing planning effort to study the integration and
    management of water resources in the West Salt River Valley, including
    the use of CAP water. CAWCD supports increasing this line item to
    $400,000 for fiscal year 2001.
        CAWCD welcomes this opportunity to share its views with the
    Committee, and would be pleased to respond to any questions or
    observations occasioned by this written testimony.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Port of Houston Authority

        On behalf of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) and the nearly
    205,000 Americans whose jobs depend upon activity at the Port of
    Houston, we extend gratitude to Chairman Domenici, and members of the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of
    several important navigation projects included in the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers Civil Works budget for fiscal year 2001.
        For many years, the Port of Houston Authority has provided
    testimony to this subcommittee expressing appreciation for providing
    the funds necessary for the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) to remain fully
    functional by maintaining proper dredge depths and dewatering of dredge
    disposal sites. Most important, we are grateful for this subcommittee's
    support through the funding request for the required studies prior to
    the authorization of the improvement project to deepen and widen the
    Houston Ship Channel. We are deeply grateful for this support and are
    particularly excited about the partnership of this subcommittee, the
    Army Corps of Engineers and the Port Authority in marching forward with
    an insightful view of the future of one of our Nation's busiest port in
    foreign commerce.
        We express full support of the fiscal year 2001 Corps of Engineers'
    budget request in the following amounts:

    Houston Ship Channel (O&M)..............................     $11,066,000
    Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Construction)....      53,500,000

        Each of these funding requests is important to ensure the
    continuous flow of commerce through this very busy waterway.

             THE PORT OF HOUSTON--ONE OF THE NATION'S BUSIEST PORTS

        Port of Houston commerce generates more than $7.7 billion annually
    to the Nation's economy. An estimated 75,487 people work in jobs that
    directly relate to the Port of Houston activity and another 129,033
    jobs are indirectly related to the port's activity. Moreover, the port
    generates nearly $482 million in customs receipts and more than $525
    million annually in state and local taxes.
        It is no exaggeration to say that the Houston Ship Channel is one
    of the most important economic lifelines between our Nation and the
    world. Houston's favorable geographic location provides easy access to
    the entire world business community through key ocean, land, and air
    routes. More than 100 shipping lines connect Houston with more than 700
    world ports and 200 countries. Three major railroads provide cargo
    distribution throughout the United States with the intermodal link of
    more than 160 trucking lines. The Port of Houston forms the core of the
    Houston international community which includes more than 350 U.S.
    companies with global operations and Houston offices for more than 45
    of the world's largest non-U.S. companies. In addition, Houston is the
    home of one of the largest consular corps in the Nation, with more than
    72 foreign governments represented. These factors have made the Port of
    Houston a preferred gathering and distribution point for shippers
    transporting goods to and from the Midwestern and Western United
    States.

                   THE PORT OF HOUSTON--PROTECTING OUR NATION

        During the Desert Shield/Desert Storm operation, the U.S.
    Government deployed 106 vessels carrying 458,342 tons of government
    cargo and military supplies from Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut
    Terminal at the Port of Houston. In fact, between August of 1990 and
    October 1991 the Port of Houston was the second busiest port in the
    Nation in support of our troops. We are proud that the strategic
    location of the Port of Houston allows us to play such an important
    role in the defense of our National and the world.

            MODERNIZATION & THE ENVIRONMENT--SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP

        The Houston Ship Channel, which opened in 1914, is believed to be
    the result of the first-ever federal/local cost-sharing agreement. At
    that time, the channel was 18\1/2\ feet deep. It was subsequently
    deepened to its current depth of 40 feet with a width of 400 feet. This
    last improvement was completed in 1966. While Houston is one of our
    Nation's busiest ports, it is also one of the narrowest deep draft
    channels. As you can imagine, ships and shipping patterns have
    dramatically changed to meet the demands of world trade over the last
    30 years. Yet, this busy waterway has not been widened or deepened to
    accommodate these changes. As the local sponsor for the Houston Ship
    Channel, the Port Authority began its quest to improve the channel in
    1967. For reasons of safety, environment, and economics, the Houston
    Ship Channel is long overdue to be improved. The Port of Houston, and
    its partner in maintaining this federal waterway--the Corps of
    Engineers--are leading the way to a unique approach to addressing the
    environmental interests in the improvement of the Houston Ship Channel.
    In the late 1980s, the Port Authority and the Corps of Engineers joined
    with federal and state agencies to form and Interagency Coordination
    Team (ICT) in a cooperative effort to address environmental concerns
    with the project--a process advocated by environmental groups and
    various resource agencies. The ICT included: the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S.
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (USNRC), the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), the Texas General Land Office (GLO), Texas
    Parks and Wildlife (TPWD), the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
    Committee (TNRCC), the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), the
    Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP), National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Port of Galveston, and the Port of
    Houston Authority. Several committees were established by the ICT. One
    of the most important committees established was the Beneficial Uses
    Group (BUG). They charged the BUG, chaired by the Port, with developing
    a disposal plan to utilize dredged material in an environmentally sound
    and economically acceptable manner that also incorporated other public
    benefits into its design. Most important was the Port Authority's
    committed objective that the final plan would have a net positive
    environmental effect over the life of the project.
        We are pleased to report that the ICT unanimously approved the
    beneficial use plan for disposal of dredged material from the HSC
    project as one that will have a net positive environmental effect on
    Galveston Bay, while significantly increasing the net economic benefits
    to the region and our Nation. Three basic principles guided the BUG in
    their efforts: dredged material should be considered a potentially
    valuable resource; development of an environmentally acceptable
    disposal plan is intrinsic to the approval of the project; and, the
    adopted disposal plan must have long term environmental benefits for
    the Galveston Bay system. The approach utilized by the BUG for
    Galveston Bay made this effort unique and precedent setting. What they
    attempted had never been done before. The BUG developed a preferred
    disposal plan rather than reviewing a proposal in a regulatory setting.
    The BUG also addressed one of the largest navigation projects in recent
    years (approximately 62 Million Cubic Yards (MCY) of new work material
    and an estimated 200 MCY of maintenance material over the next 50
    years. Most important, the BUG actively solicited beneficial use
    suggestions from environmental interests and bay user groups whose
    collective ideas were given full consideration during the development
    of the recommendation plan. In fact, the community identified more
    beneficial uses than the material available from the project plus 50
    years of maintenance dredging. The result was the identification of
    beneficial uses for the material to be dredged from the improvement
    project. The final plan includes the creation of 4,250 acres of marsh--
    a bird island, boater destination, restorations of two islands lost
    over the years due to erosion and subsidence. In addition, an
    underwater berm will be constructed to provide storm--surge protection
    and habitat.

                   PORT OF HOUSTON--LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE

        The voters of Harris County in 1989 committed significant local
    funding to support these improvements. By a 2 to 1 vote, citizens
    approved a measure that will provide the local funding ($130,000,000)
    to deepen the channel to 45 feet and widen it to 530 feet. The Corps of
    Engineers and resource agencies involved in the ICT and BUG process
    have worked diligently to address all concerns and to develop a truly
    unique approach. The Port Authority heartily commends the cooperation
    and hard work of the Corps of Engineers and the state and federal
    agencies who have participated in the process that has this project
    being applauded across maritime and environmental communities. This
    project is the first in history to have netted no negative comments,
    during the public review phase of the Supplemental Impact Statement
    (SEIS).

             HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS (CONSTRUCTION)

        From fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1997, Congress has
    appropriated nearly $150,000,000 toward the project to deepen and widen
    the Houston Ship Channel. The Port Authority has contributed thus far
    over $54,835,776 to support this effort.
        The fiscal year 1998 Administration request of $15 million was
    compatible with a seven to ten year construction schedule. It did not,
    however, accommodate the most economical and realistic schedule. Based
    on our cooperative and productive discussions with the Corps of
    Engineers, we are convinced that the optimal time line for completing
    the navigation portion of this project is four years. A four year
    schedule will accelerate the benefits of the project and reduce its
    costs. Each year in reduction construction time adds more than $81
    million in benefits, reduces escalation costs by $4.562 million and
    drives down investment costs by more than $17 million. This
    subcommittee agreed that this fiscally sound reasoning was good public
    policy and accordingly provided $20 million to begin the construction
    on the optimum schedule.
        In fiscal year 1999, the Administration slashed the Corps of
    Engineer's construction budget from the $1.4 billion level in fiscal
    year 1998 to $784 million in fiscal year 1999, representing a $700
    million cut. This egregious cut in the funds available to the Corps
    resulted in a dramatic reduction in the Corps' original request to OMB
    of $60 million for construction in fiscal year 1999 on the Houston Ship
    Channel improvement project. The Administration's budget of $5.2
    million would have crippled the Corps' ability to maintain the optimal
    four-year construction schedule which Congress effectively set in
    fiscal year 1998. This subcommittee agreed that the project should be
    completed at the optimum schedule and accordingly appropriated the
    $49,000,000 the Corps needed to remain on the schedule. In fiscal year
    2000, the Administration and this subcommittee were in agreement on the
    $60,000,000 request from the Corps and the full $60,000,000 remained in
    conference.
        This project is critical to the future of our Nation's busiest port
    in foreign tonnage. In a recent study conducted by the Texas
    Transportation Institute, the Port of Houston was evaluated as a
    prototypical next generation megaport. The port identified channel and
    berth depths as a major impediment to accommodating ships of the
    future. Further, in this era of environmental sensitivity, the Houston
    Ship Channel improvement project is a beacon of light. The improvements
    to the environment that will be reaped from this project cannot be
    ignored. The Port of Houston Authority's Demonstration Marsh, utilizing
    dredged material for beneficial uses, has been included in the Audubon
    Society's Christmas Bird Count. Over 155 species of birds have been
    identified on this marsh built entirely with material dredged from the
    Houston Ship Channel.
        The Port Authority has a responsibility to the citizens of Harris
    County to operate the port in a cost-effective and efficient manner. We
    would not be fiscally responsible if we did not strive to realize the
    benefits of the project as soon as humanly feasible and at a most-
    efficient cost to the partners involved. We urge the members of this
    subcommittee to reject the recommended cuts in the Corps of Engineers'
    construction budget. In doing so and in reaffirming the subcommittee's
    commitment to our Nation's port system, we urge the subcommittee to
    include the $53,500,000 necessary to keep the Houston Ship Channel
    project on its current optimal, cost-effective schedule. We look
    forward to your leadership on this vitally important matter.

                 HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL--OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

        The Corps fiscal year 2001 request for operations and maintenance
    funding includes $11,066,000 for maintenance dredging of key stretches
    of the channel, mosquito spraying and protection of various disposal
    areas, and the maintenance of mooring buoys. These include dredging of
    the Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut Container Terminal, the busiest
    container terminal in the Gulf; dredging of the entrance channel and
    flare of Bayport; dredging of Cedar Bayou; and, dredging of stretches
    of the main channel. The Port of Houston Authority, the users, and
    Houston Pilots recognize the need for the continued maintenance of the
    channel, as a critical safety component.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We greatly appreciate your past support and urge you to include the
    funds requested to fully support these projects in this busy federal
    waterway. These maintenance projects, and particularly the funds
    necessary to construct the HSC improvement project at an optimal
    schedule are vital, not only to the Port of Houston's continued ability
    to move the Nation's commerce in a safe, efficient, and economical
    manner, but also, to ensure the competitiveness of the waterway in the
    world marketplace--an absolute necessity in this global economy.
                                     ______

                   PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS

       Prepared Statement of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Glenn
    Vanselow. I am Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways
    Association. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on
    appropriations issues to the Committee. The PNWA membership includes
    nearly 120 organizations and individuals in Washington, Oregon and
    Idaho. PNWA represents public port authorities on the Pacific Coast,
    Puget Sound, and Columbia/Snake River System; public utility districts,
    investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service
    industries; irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver and export
    elevator companies; major manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest;
    forest products industry manufacturers and shippers; and tug and barge
    operators, steamship operators, consulting engineers, and others
    involved in economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest.
        PNWA has a long history of working with the Committee and the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on projects of regional and national
    importance, sharing the challenge to maintain and develop our
    transportation infrastructure. Our members wish to thank the Committee
    for its support of Pacific Northwest transportation, hydropower and
    salmon enhancement programs and projects.

                             APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        Fiscal year 2001 Civil Works Budget. The maintenance of channels
    and harbors serving all currently authorized Pacific Northwest deep
    draft and coastal ports is a top priority for PNWA. We believe that a
    level of funding closer to $4.960 billion is needed to maintain the
    integrity of the civil works program. We urge Congress to provide
    sufficient funding to meet national needs for both operations and
    maintenance (O & M) and new construction. The Administration's fiscal
    year 2001 budget request for navigation O & M and construction in
    Idaho, Oregon and Washington appears to be adequate. However, we
    believe that $4 million is needed to begin construction of the Columbia
    River Channel Deepening Project. This would fund federal share of (1)
    ecosystem restoration at Shillapoo Lake, Washington and elsewhere on
    Columbia River, and (2) engineering work during the construction phase.
        Regional Navigation Operations and Maintenance.--We would like to
    thank the Committee for its previous support of navigation O & M
    (operations and maintenance) in the region's shallow, deep draft and
    inland navigation system.
        Navigation is the least cost, most fuel efficient and least
    polluting mode of transportation. Navigation is the critical link that
    keeps the Northwest and the nation competitive in domestic and
    international trade and supports the commercial and recreational
    fishing industry. It provides significant numbers of jobs and other
    economic benefits both within the region and nationally. We support
    maintaining a strong federal role in planning, construction, operation,
    maintenance and funding of navigation on the inland waterways, deep
    draft ports and shallow draft ports. We ask the Committee for full
    funding for ongoing operations and maintenance (O & M) of the federally
    authorized navigation channels in the Columbia/Snake river system, the
    Oregon and Washington coastal ports and Puget Sound. Maximizing O & M
    is a cost-efficient means of fully utilizing the Federal Government's
    investment in channel operations.
        Some 20 percent of the employment in the Northwest states is
    directly related to international trade. Navigation projects are among
    the few federal programs that are analyzed to ensure that economic
    benefits exceed the costs. Eliminating these programs would not be
    cost-effective.
        Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration.--PNWA encourages the
    Committee to appropriate $100,000 to beting a study that would focus on
    ecosystem restoration opportunities within the Lower Columbia River. A
    comprehensive ecosystem restoration study could serve as a catalyst to
    bring together and implement current efforts by a number of
    governmental and private organizations including the National Estuary
    Program, six state agencies from Oregon and Washington, four Federal
    agencies, recreation, ports, industry, agriculture, labor and
    commercial fishing, environmental interests and citizens.
        Minimum Dredge Fleet.--We encourage the Committee to maintain the
    currently active hopper dredges operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers and to reject any additional future set-aside for private
    dredges. We oppose placing the Corps hopper dredges in reserve, or
    placing artificial limits on the federal hopper dredges by directing
    increasing amounts of maintenance dredging to private dredges. Federal
    hopper dredge costs are artificially higher than necessary because of
    that set aside. We believe that Congress should reduce or eliminate the
    set aside to increase the efficiency of the Corps hopper dredges. We
    also encourage the Committee to find ways to make the Corps dredges
    less expensive to operate by examining recent increases in depreciation
    and plant increment payments.
        We believe that the presence of the federal dredges keeps bids for
    dredging work competitive and lower in cost. We are concerned that the
    low number of private industry bids for work in our region could force
    dredging costs higher were it not for the availability of the federal
    dredges.
        Salmon Recovery Decision Authority and Funding.--First, we support
    efforts to establish priorities for funding and implementation of fish
    and wildlife recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish and
    Wildlife Program. Second, we support selected salmon recovery actions
    such as improved and enhanced smolt transportation, surface collection
    and other smolt by-pass facilities, fish-friendly turbine programs and
    habitat restoration and protection. These programs have been
    successful. These programs and others are included in the
    Administration's budget request for Columbia River Fish Mitigation
    which we support. Third, we oppose funding to carry out Phase II of the
    John Day drawdown study, and we do not support funding to study
    drawdown of McNary. Recently the Corps of Engineers recommended against
    continuing to study a drawdow of John Day because of the lack of
    benefit to salmon, and the economic cost. We support this decision. We
    encourage the Committee to direct funding toward fish recovery programs
    for which there is broad regional support.
        We support Senator Slade Gorton's 1996 amendment to the Northwest
    Power Act, approved during consideration of the fiscal year 1997 Energy
    and Water Appropriations bill, which establishes a panel of scientists
    to establish priorities for funding and implementation of fish and
    wildlife recovery projects in the Columbia River Basin Fish and
    Wildlife Program. We hope that this, with the Independent Economic
    Analysis Board, will result in programs that will provide maximum
    biological benefits to listed salmon stocks and are more cost-
    effective.
        Regional Governance.--The discussion about regional cooperation in
    developing salmon recovery objectives and programs in the Columbia
    Basin has been expanded significantly through the establishment of the
    Columbia Basin Forum, formerly known as the Three Sovereigns Forum. A
    memorandum of agreement establishing this new body was recently signed
    by the federal agencies, tribes and states. This process was created
    without consulting affected stakeholders, and the participants do not
    intend to include stakeholders in the consensus process. PNWA believes
    that effective fish and wildlife programs can be implemented without a
    new governance body. If a new management structure is necessary for
    addressing the Endangered Species Act, the Northwest Power Planning
    Council offers an appropriate model. Federal, state and tribal agencies
    and regional stakeholders should work cooperatively to develop
    solutions that maintain Congressional authority over navigation and the
    other authorized purposes of the federal projects and state authority
    over water and land use. If PNWA urges the Committee to support
    collaboration in the Columbia Basin within the existing authorities of
    the federal agencies, states and tribes, and, in the strongest terms
    possible, we urge Congress to retain exclusive authority over the
    authorized purposes of the federal projects within the Columbia Basin.
        Hanford Cleanup.--We ask the Committee to continue to adequately
    fund the Department of Energy cleanup of 45 years of accumulated
    defense waste currently stored at the Hanford site. We recognize that
    defense waste cleanup is a long-term project that will be most cost
    effective and most rigorously pursued if Hanford is a viable, operating
    site. Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee to support a complete,
    ongoing Hanford scientifically and technologically based research and
    operations program in order to ensure long-term funding for waste
    cleanup. PNWA also supports a complete and ongoing scientifically and
    technologically based research and operations program, including the
    restart of the Fast Flux Test Facility for the joint missions of
    national defense and medical research and isotope production to meet
    the demands for more effective cancer treatments.
        Conclusion.--On behalf of nearly 120 members from throughout the
    Pacific Northwest, we thank the Committee for giving us this
    opportunity to review a number of issues important to the environmental
    and economic prosperity of our region.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Northwest Power Planning Council

        The Northwest Power Planning Council appreciates the opportunity to
    submit written testimony in support of the Clinton Administration's
    fiscal year 2001 budget request for programs under the jurisdiction of
    the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
        The Council was established by Congress in 1980, and created as an
    interstate compact by the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
    Washington. Its purpose is to develop a 20-year regional electric power
    plan to assure for the Pacific Northwest an adequate supply of power at
    the lowest possible cost, and to develop a major program to protect and
    rebuild fish and wildlife resources harmed by hydroelectric development
    in the Columbia River Basin. The Council carries out its
    responsibilities under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning
    and Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act), Public Law 96-501.
        Three federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee,
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the
    Bonneville Power Administration, administer programs critical to the
    Columbia River Basin. The Council works closely with all three agencies
    in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.

                          U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program
        The Council continues to support the Corps' Columbia River Fish
    Mitigation (CRFM) Program. The focus of the program is to reduce
    mortality of both juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead during their
    migration through the Corps' eight projects and reservoirs on the
    mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers. The Corps' fiscal year 2001 budget
    proposal for the program is $91 million, and includes funding for
    several critical studies and activities that are important to
    recovering, rebuilding and maintaining the anadromous fish runs in the
    Columbia River Basin. The Council supports the Corps' full $91 million
    budget request.
        We support the full budget request even without knowing the final
    outcome of the Corps' Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration
    Feasibility Study, Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact
    Statement, and Record of Decision that will be signed later this year.
    The Corps' draft feasibility study and EIS, which was released recently
    for public comment, examines three possibilities for the lower Snake
    River: (1) breaching all four of the Corps' lower Snake River dams, (2)
    leaving the dams in place and maximizing opportunities to transport
    juvenile salmon and steelhead around the dams, and (3) maintaining
    status quo operations at the projects.
        Although the Corps' final recommendation is not known at this time,
    it is clear that regardless of what decision is made--to breach dams or
    not to breach--significant amounts of federal appropriations will be
    required to improve fish survival in the lower Snake River. If the
    Corps recommends breaching, significant sums will be required for
    planning, engineering, design and construction activities, as well as
    ongoing fish passage-related activities at the Corps' four dams on the
    lower Columbia River. On the other hand, if the Corps recommends not
    breaching the dams, efforts to increase juvenile and adult survival
    around all of those projects will continue. In either case, the Corps'
    program must be maintained at a high level to accomplish the objective
    of rebuilding and mitigating for salmon and steelhead runs in the
    Columbia and Snake river basins.
        Last year the Council, with the assistance of the Independent
    Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), completed its Review of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers' Capital Construction Program, which the Energy and
    Water Development Subcommittees requested in their fiscal year 1998
    Conference Report. The Council's final report addressed several aspects
    of the CRFM Program, including surface bypass systems, adult passage
    improvements, gas abatement measures, and other issues. In examining
    the Corps' initial priorities for the CRFM Program in fiscal year 2001,
    it appears that the funding proposals are generally consistent with the
    recommendations in the Council's report.
        For example, the Corps currently expects to spend approximately $16
    million for surface bypass-related work during fiscal year 2001. These
    activities would occur at several of the projects including Lower
    Granite Dam ($9.5 million), The Dalles Dam ($3.6 million), and
    Bonneville Darm ($2.5 million). In last year's report, the Council
    emphasized the need to continue efforts to develop effective surface
    bypass facilities that achieve the 80-percent fish passage efficiency
    standard for all species and stocks. While more than 20 years of work
    to improve turbine intake screen technology has not resulted in that
    level of efficiency, the Council's review urged that other
    technologies, including surface bypass facilities, be pursued
    aggressively.
        Surface collection and bypass continue to show promise; however,
    uncertainties remain regarding the level and changes in survival of
    juvenile salmon that can be provided by surface bypass facilities.
    Given the uncertainty, all juvenile passage alternatives should be
    evaluated against the baseline of spill, since spill more closely
    mimics natural processes than any other bypass alternative. Spill
    should be considered the alternative when improvements anticipated from
    other bypass technologies do not meet passage goals.
        Another area emphasized by the Council and the ISAB in last year's
    review of the CRFM Program was adult salmon and steelhead passage. The
    report concluded that the subject of adult passage at Columbia and
    Snake river dams has not been dealt with adequately, that returning
    adults to spawning grounds may be more important than juvenile
    survival, and that the Corps' planned site-specific measures may be
    supportable but probably are not sufficient to ensure that adult
    spawning migrations are unimpeded. Accordingly, the Council is pleased
    to see that for fiscal year 200 1, the Corps is intending to spend over
    $23 million on adult passage improvements, approximately double the
    amount being spent currently. These improvements are primarily in the
    form of improvements for auxiliary water supply systems, adult ladder
    improvements, and adult channel dewatering projects at several
    projects, including Lower Monumental Dam ($5 million), Ice Harbor Dam
    ($4.4 million), The Dalles Dam ($5.5 million), Bonneville Dam ($1
    million), and other systemwide improvements ($3 million).
        The Council also supports aggressive efforts to reduce dissolved
    gas levels in the Columbia and Snake rivers. In last year's report, the
    Council recommended that the Corps' program is important for rectifying
    supersaturation in the river system, and that it should continue with
    high priority. Attainment of the Clean Water Act total dissolved gas
    standard of 110 percent throughout the hydropower system will be
    difficult under involuntary spill conditions with the majority of dams
    in place. Therefore, the Corps' current program of pursuing structural
    modifications to nearly all the dams to reduce gas supersaturation
    should have benefits to salmon and other components of the ecosystem.
    In fiscal year 2001, the Corps proposes to spend nearly $6 million on
    gas abatement efforts, about the same as the current year.
        Developing fish passage systems is not an exact science, but one
    that is continually evolving. As we increase our knowledge of the
    behavior patterns of anadromous, fish, and river processes, and improve
    our understanding of the need to protect biodiversity, we will develop
    more effective fish passage alternatives. These alternatives likely
    will be implemented to benefit the range of species and stocks in the
    river, and may result in providing multiple passage solutions at
    individual projects. They also will reflect that the best passage
    solutions are those that take into account and work with the behavior
    and ecology of the species using the river system.
        The Council realizes that the Columbia River Fish Mitigation
    Program has enjoyed significant support from the Subcommittee for
    several years. Continuation of the program at its full capability is
    necessary to ensure that critical improvements to the system are
    implemented, and important studies and tests completed so that fish
    survival can improve.

    Willamette River Temperature Control, Oregon
        The Willamette River Basin is located in northwestern Oregon.
    During the last 40 years, 13 Corps of Engineers reservoirs have been
    constructed in the basin to control floods, generate electricity and
    provide water for navigation, irrigation, improved water quality,
    recreation, and fish and wildlife. Studies over the last 16 years have
    demonstrated that the temperature at which water is released from these
    reservoirs is a key limiting factor for survival of anadromous and
    resident fish in the Willamette basin.
        Local, state and federal agencies, including the Council, have been
    seeking modification of water temperature in the McKenzie River
    downstream from Blue River and Cougar reservoirs to achieve more
    beneficial temperatures for wild spring chinook salmon, bull trout and
    rainbow trout. The Corps' feasibility study for the project was
    completed in 1995. An Environmental Impact Statement was completed, and
    the Division Commander signed a Finding of No Significant Impact on
    April 24, 1996. Over a year ago, Willamette spring chinook and winter
    steelhead were listed as threatened by the National Marine Fisheries
    Service under the Endangered Species Act; the last significant wild
    stock of spring chinook in the Willamette is in the McKenzie River. The
    current estimated cost to install multi-level intake towers at the two
    projects is more than $70 million.
        Due to cost limitations associated with the project's
    authorization, the Corps' current focus is on the Cougar Lake reservoir
    intake tower, which.has a total estimated cost of more than $50
    million. Last year, Congress appropriated the initial funds to begin
    construction of the project. In its fiscal year 2001 budget request,
    the Corps is seeking $8.2 million to continue construction activities.
    The Council supports this project and the requested funding level, and
    urges the Subcommittee to include it in its fiscal year 2001 funding
    recommendations.

                             BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

    Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project
        The Council supports the Administration's fiscal year 2001 request
    of $11.056 million for the Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project. The
    funds would be used for water acquisition ($4.3 million),
    implementation grants ($4.448 million) and for feasibility studies
    relating to grants ($1.0 million).
        The Project was authorized by Congress in 1994 and encourages
    activities to reduce water diversions by improving conveyance and
    distribution systems, and by changing water operations and management
    on farm irrigation facilities. Conserved water is used to increase
    instream flows and supplement drought-year irrigation needs. In
    addition, Yakama Nation water supply facilities will be improved and
    tribal economic development, fish and wildlife, and cultural programs
    will be enhanced.
        Just last month, seven irrigation districts identified water
    conservation measures totaling $200 million that could be funded under
    the project's authorization. If all the plans were implemented, water
    savings could add up to as much as 300,000 acre-feet. As a requirement
    of participation, two-thirds of the savings would be left in the river
    for fish and wildlife. The remaining one-third could be used for
    irrigation purposes, so long as the number of irrigated acres in the
    basin is not increased.
        Water managers estimate the successful implementation of the
    conservation program will reduce out-of-stream diversions by as much as
    165,000 acre-feet and increase target flows for instream purposes.
    Conservation measures also will improve the reliability of irrigation
    water supply, particularly for irrigation districts that receive less
    than their full water supply during poor water years.

    Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery Project
        The Administration has requested $4.622 million in fiscal year 2001
    for its Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery Project. This represents a
    reduction of $4.878 million from the current year funding level of $9.5
    million. The Council considers the Administration's request to be the
    minimum acceptable level for the program, and would support maintaining
    the current year's appropriation of $9.5 million. The proposed funds
    for fiscal year 2001 will be used for water acquisition ($3 million),
    Endangered Species Act compliance ($1.132 million) and fish passage
    facilities at the Burbank #2 and #3 pumping plants.
        The Council believes the Bureau should have sufficient funds to
    implement all measures required under the new Biological Opinion that
    the National Marine Fisheries Service will put in place next year. It
    is questionable that the requested level of $4.622 million will be
    adequate to ensure implementation, especially in the event that
    expensive measures, such as water acquisition, are included in the
    Biological Opinion. In addition, the requested funding level provides
    the Bureau with insufficient flexibility to react quickly to any
    unforeseen opportunities that may arise during the course of the year
    to purchase or lease water from willing sellers, in accordance with
    state water law. Such opportunities, if lost, may not present
    themselves again soon.

                        BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

        The Bonneville Power Administration is the primary implementer of
    the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. In the
    fall of 1995, the Administration and Congress agreed on a fixed budget
    for Bonneville's fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the Columbia
    River Basin. Under the terms of that agreement, which was further
    defined and formalized in September 1996 in a memorandum of agreement
    (MOA) signed by the secretaries of the Army, Interior, Commerce and
    Energy, Bonneville will incur costs, on average, of $435 million per
    year ($252 million in actual dollar expenditures and $183 million in
    lost hydropower revenues and power purchases) for six years for fish
    and wildlife activities. These funds fall under a number of categories,
    including direct expenditures on fish and wildlife projects, power
    purchases, reimbursements of appropriated funds to the Corps of
    Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, capital repayment and foregone
    revenues.
        For fiscal year 2001, Bonneville estimates its total fish and
    wildlife budget will be $421.8 million, with $105 million for its
    direct fish and wildlife project expenditures, $49.2 million to
    reimburse other federal agencies for appropriated expenses, $102.8
    million to repay the Federal Treasury for appropriated capital
    investments, and $164.8 million for foregone revenues and power
    purchases.
        For several reasons, including above-average precipitation and
    lower-than expected annual appropriations for the Corps of Engineers'
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program, Bonneville's annual fish and
    wildlife expenditures have averaged less than the originally
    anticipated $435 million. As a result of lower Corps appropriations
    alone, Bonneville has underspent its capital repayment category by
    nearly $200 million. The Council believes that funds not spent during
    the MOA period should remain reserved for fish and wildlife purposes in
    the next period. The Council intends to work with Bonneville, the
    tribes and others in the region to arrive at an acceptable science-
    based plan for effectively utilizing these funds.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you. We
    sincerely appreciate the thorough consideration that this Subcommittee
    has given to the needs of the Pacific Northwest and the Columbia River
    Basin over the years.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Deschutes Basin Working Group

                                    SUMMARY

        The Deschutes Basin Working Group, dba the Deschutes Basin
    Resources Conservancy (DRC), is a non-profit, private corporation
    established in Oregon in 1996. In September 1996, Congress enacted and
    the President signed Public Law 104-208, which included S. 1662, the
    Oregon Resources Conservation Act. Section 301(h) (Division B, Title
    III) of Public Law 104-208 authorizes $1.0 million per year through
    2001. The DRC is limited to spending 5 percent of any appropriation on
    administration.
        In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated
    $500,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation to support the DRC. The DRC is
    using these funds to implement projects to improve water quality and
    quantity in the Deschutes Basin. Water projects are crucial in the
    Deschutes Basin where steelhead and bull trout are listed as threatened
    and Fall Chinook are proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered
    Species Act. We are requesting that $1,000,000 be provided in the
    fiscal year 2001 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to
    carry out our program.
        From January 1999 to March 2000 the DRC supported 17 projects in
    the Basin that leveraged $843,757 of its funds to complete $3,344,535
    in on-the-ground restoration projects. These projects include: piping
    irrigation district delivery systems to prevent water losses; securing
    instream water rights to restore flows to Squaw Creek; providing
    riparian fences to protect riverbanks; working with private timberland
    owners to restore riparian and wetland areas; and seeking donated water
    rights to enhance instream flows in the Deschutes Basin.
        The DRC is governed by a diverse group of directors from private
    and public interests from the region. It is a community-based,
    cooperative endeavor that believes economic progress and natural
    resource conservation need to work together to achieve success.
        The DRC seeks voluntary actions based upon contracts and
    compensation for property and services. The DRC does not seek, nor is
    it authorized, to impose regulatory mandates through legal or political
    action.

                                 1999 PROJECTS

    No-Till Demonstration Project--$50,000
        A small-grain farmer from the Juniper Flats region of Wasco County
    has agreed to use his farm as a no-till demonstration site for at least
    five years. Initially, the farmer will convert 900 acres of traditional
    tillage cropland to no-till methods. Wasco County SWCD proposes to
    cost-share with the farmer for three years to help with startup
    expenses and risk management. In return, the farmer will allow the SWCD
    to conduct educational and outreach activities on his farm. The SWCD
    will conduct field days, tours and neighborhood presentations to
    increase awareness of no-till methods and share results with other
    farmers in the region. During a series of neighborhood meetings,
    volunteers will be sought for a watershed council to cover the White
    River and Juniper Flat regions. The DRC is also exploring the
    opportunities for developing tradable carbon credits from this project.

    Tumalo Irrigation District/Bend Feed Canal--$100,000
        This project eliminates the existing Flume No. 4 and unlined open
    channel section between Pipeline No. 2 and No. 3 of the Bend Feed
    Canal, saving an estimated 3 to 4 cfs in water loss. The flume and
    channel sections will be replaced with an estimated 78-inch diameter
    water tight pipe. The complete 4 year, 13, 750-foot project plan will
    save at least 20 cfs. A prorated share of 5 cfs minimum has been agreed
    to by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for return to the Tumalo Creek
    which currently has no instream water right. The total project will
    increase fish habitat, significantly reduce water loss and increase
    public safety.

    Pringle Falls--$20,000
        The project places 225 large trees in the main channel of the
    Deschutes River within a 3.3-mile reach below Pringle Falls, improving
    fish habitat and decreasing the potential for stream bank erosion.
    Traditionally, large woody debris protected the riverbanks from the
    swiftly moving water. In its absence, erosion was occurring at an
    accelerated rate. The placement of trees and riparian plantings should
    improve water quality by reducing sedimentation and turbidity of the
    river.

    Central Oregon Irrigation District Alfalfa Piping--$58,924
        The Alfalfa area of the Central Oregon Irrigation District consists
    of large irrigated parcels and transmission losses are high due to pea-
    sized gravel beneath the shallow topsoil. This project replaced
    approximately 15,860 feet of open ditch with pipe. The project saves
    3.09 cubic feet per second or 6.13 acre feet of water per day. The
    project has been completed and funds have been allocated.

    Annual Water Leasing Program--demonstration only
        The DRC is working with water users in targeted areas for water
    rights donations or sales to improve instream flows. The program began
    November 1998 by meeting with each irrigation district manager to
    introduce the leasing program and the process for transfers. In early
    1999 water rights holders were contacted requesting the user's water
    donation. This program enables water right holders to protect their
    water right by leasing and it improves Deschutes flows. About 54 acres
    of irrigation water were leased in 1999. The program will continue in
    2000.

    Camp Polk Meadow--$50,000
        The DRC and the Deschutes Basin Land Trust are teaming up to
    restore and conserve a rare wetland/wet meadow habitat. Portland
    General Electric purchased Camp Polk Meadow and donated it to the land
    trust. The property has about 385 acres, roughly 150 are bottom land.
    The project contains between 1.25 and 1.5 miles of Squaw Creek, at
    least six springs and one natural bog.

    Central Oregon Irrigation District F1 Lateral Piping--$30,000
        For the most part the irrigation canals in the Upper Deschutes
    Basin are unlined and have been dug in porous, volcanic soils, so water
    losses through percolation can be quite high over the long distances
    that irrigation water must travel from the point of diversion to the
    farms. The DRC and Central Oregon Irrigation District propose to
    install roughly 3,960 feet of pipe, an inlet structure, an outlet
    structure, four clean-outs and four diversion structures. COID figures
    to conserve .29 cfs or .57 an ac/ft. Projected over a 180 day period,
    this calculates to 102.6 ac/ft water conserved. One half of the
    conserved water from this project will be returned to instream flows in
    the Deschutes River. This project is an important demonstration of how
    water can be conserved to benefit both the irrigation district and its
    water users and the Deschutes ecosystem. This project is underway.

    Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Riparian Fencing--$76,500
        The DRC and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian
    Reservation of Oregon are partners on a project to protect riparian
    areas in the Deschutes Basin's Eagle Creek, Skookum Creek and the
    mainstem river. The project constructs fence for livestock exclosures,
    places cattle guards at road crossings and installs solar pumps to
    provide animals water away from the riverbank. One of the DRC's primary
    goals is to improve water quality. Healthy, functioning riparian areas
    are critical to improving water quality in the basin. Riparian
    vegetation provides fish and aquatic habitat, stream shading to reduce
    water temperatures, bank stability and a filter for nutrients and
    sediments entering the water. This project is especially important for
    the habitat of Bull Trout and steelhead that are listed as threatened
    and Fall Chinook that are pending listing under the Federal Endangered
    Species Act. This project involves voluntary cooperation by the tribal
    grazing group allottees. The Warm Springs Tribes are involved in
    various other projects to improve stream conditions both on and off the
    reservation. This project is a part of a larger effort to improve flows
    and water quality for fish and wildlife. Funds have been allocated and
    two of the four sections of fence have been constructed. The remaining
    fence will be constructed Spring of 2000. NEPA has been completed and
    the DRC is waiting for a monitoring plan.

    Swalley Irrigation District Tailend--$10,000
        This Swalley Tailend Project links the end of Swalley's lateral
    with COID's A-21 lateral of the Pilot Butte Canal. The project will
    direct water in excess of the Swalley system's demand to COID's
    lateral. The system will be designed to handle an average of 3 cubic
    feet per second (cfs) with the ability to accommodate flows up to 6
    cfs. This project directly addresses the DRC's goal to improve water
    quality and quantity. It will stop potentially polluted, warm water
    from directly entering the Deschutes and it will allow this water to be
    used by COID, which is credited for this water. NEPA has been completed
    and funds will be allocated upon billing.

    Thompson Ditch Conservation Project--$50,000
        The DRC is working with the Squaw Creek Irrigation District and
    landowners to relocate a diversion for permanent increased instream
    flow and riparian restoration. The project eliminates the existing
    Thompson Ditch. Subsequently returning 1 cfs of 1885 senior water right
    and 1 cfs junior 1900 water right to the stretch of Squaw Creek between
    SCID's diversion and the proposed diversion point on the Deggendorfer
    property. This change will also eliminate water losses in the existing
    ditch. The flood irrigation system now in use will be changed to a
    sprinkler system. One-half of the conserved water will be permanently
    returned to instream flows. Project construction is underway and
    scheduled for completion in the Spring of 2000.

    Mack's Canyon--$15,460
        This project focuses on the entire watershed from ridge top to
    ridge top, starting at the top and working down. Several treatment will
    be used including; Terraces, Water and Sediment Control, Basins
    (WASCOB), Sediment Basins, and Spring Developments. NRCS is completing
    NEPA. Initial phases may start this fall while the main portion of the
    project will be completed in the Spring.

                                  2000 PROJECT

    Summaries 2000 Projects Camp Polk Water Purchase--$50,000
        Oregon Water Trust (OWT) and the DRC will acquire .99 cfs of
    irrigation rights on Squaw Creek for a permanent transfer to instream
    flows. The water rights will complement the earlier purchase of 1.81
    cfs of Squaw Creek water in 1998 and 1999. Squaw Creek currently
    supports populations of redband trout, bull trout and spawning kokanee
    from Lake Billy Chinook. Prior to the construction of the dams, Squaw
    Creek was one of the major salmonid producing tributaries in the
    Deschutes basin. The various proposed relicensing options for the
    Pelton-Round Butte dams in 2001 include provisions for the passage of
    anadramous fish, which will reopen Squaw Creek to populations of wild
    Chinook and steelhead, making the restoration of stream flows
    critically important.

    Crooked River National Grasslands Water Quality Project--$20,000
        The Grasslands project is aimed at decreasing the turbidity and
    sedimentation of lower Squaw Creek. Funded activities include the
    hydrological closure of 1.75 miles of the lower end of Forest Service
    road 6370, the closure by gating of the upper 2.5 miles of road 6370
    and the closure and rehabilitation of five off-road hill climbs in the
    vicinity. Other components of the project involve relocating the Alder
    Springs Trail Head approximately 0.8 miles north of the intersection of
    Forest Service road 6360 and 6370 to the ridge just west of `Three
    Pines'. A new trail approximately 0.75 miles long will be constructed
    along the rim with views of Squaw Creek and the Cascades. The new trail
    segment will join the existing trail above Dry Falls. A new spur trail
    approximately 0.25 miles will be constructed from Three Pines to the
    Old Bridge site on Squaw Creek. The existing trail in the drainage
    bottom will be waterbarred. Each of these applications will help
    protect and enhance a sensitive reach of creek that supports numerous
    aquatic species including the ESA listed bull trout.

    Crooked River Riparian Fencing--$34,100
        With funding from the DRC, the Crooked River watershed council's
    riparian enhancement project will improve livestock management, protect
    riparian and stream channel areas and enhance native vegetation on over
    25 miles of stream within the sub-basin. Nine landowners have agreed to
    participate in the program, implementing riparian exclosures on 15
    miles of stream and conducting plantings in 18 miles of protected
    riparian areas. Exclusion of livestock from riparian areas is one of
    the most effective and practical means of protecting riparian areas.
    The enhancement of riparian vegetation communities in degraded areas
    provides a major step towards improving overall riparian and stream
    channel function.

    Squaw Creek Irrigation District (SCID) Cloverdale Piping Project--
            $260,000
        The project will replace approximately 15,840' of open ditch with
    pipe. The estimated water savings amounts to 4 to 5 cfs or 8 to 10
    acre-feet per day. Three cfs or one-half of the conserved water,
    whichever is greater, will be transferred back instream after project
    completion. This project represents one of several DRC partnerships
    aimed at increasing instream flows in Squaw Creek. The DRC and other
    local organizations place great importance on Squaw Creek due to its
    once abundant steelhead spawning habitat.

    Tenmile Riparian Fencing--$7,013
        With the help of the DRC and the Trout Creek watershed council, a
    private landowner will construct 4.5 miles of riparian fencing around a
    high mesa pasture that will exclude livestock from grazing in
    approximately 3 miles of Tenmile Creek, 2 miles of Trout Creek, and 3
    miles of the Deschutes River. The construction of new riparian fencing
    and the elimination of a previously used watering gap complements the
    Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's
    efforts to manage grazing along Tenmile Creek in a manner that is
    conducive to fish and wildlife values. Additionally, the Trout Creek
    watershed council will be seeking funds from the Oregon Watershed
    Enhancement Board to construct offsite watering for livestock at this
    site. This project serves to build understanding and educate the
    community by providing a valuable example of environmental protection
    of private lands by non-regulatory means.

    Mack's Canyon Year II--$15,460
        This project focuses on the entire watershed from ridge top to
    ridge top, starting at the top and working down. Several treatments
    will be used including; terraces, water and sediment control basins
    (WASCOB), sediment basins, and spring developments. NRCS is completing
    NEPA. Initial phases may start this fall while the main portion of the
    project will be completed in the spring.

                                   BACKGROUND

        In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Confederated
    Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation began a cooperative project to
    reconcile on-reservation ecological and economic conflicts. In late
    1992, the Tribes and EDF expanded the scope of the project to include
    the entire Deschutes Basin. It was agreed that the initial focus would
    be on river flows and water pollution. Flow-deficient stream reaches
    and excessive water pollutant loads could only be mitigated by
    identifying and reducing existing water diversions and pollution
    discharges. At the same time, a high value was placed on being ``good
    neighbors'' to other landowners and resources users within the Basin.
    Positive incentives for changes in resource uses were emphasized
    instead of costly and divisive political and legal conflicts. Solutions
    employing economic incentives, such as water rights and pollution
    allowance marketing, were introduced and experiences elsewhere in the
    West were reviewed.
        A key forum for this community dialogue, the ``Ad Hoc Deschutes
    Group'', was formed. The 14-member Ad Hoc Group had representatives of
    all economic sectors in the Basin. The irrigation community holds the
    most water rights and reservoir storage and therefore has the greatest
    impact among resource users on the pattern and amount of river flows.
    At the same time, water quality degradation stems from a diverse set of
    land uses driving non-point water pollution. An important part of the
    project was to assure that the federal interests in the Basin were
    addressed along with those of the tribes, resource users, and local and
    state governments.
        The Ad Hoc Group recognized the need for a private organization
    with ecosystem-determined goals and methods based on positive
    incentives, consensus, and local governance. Since approximately half
    of the Basin's land area is managed by federal agencies it was clear
    that such a private organization would need the capacity to partner on
    projects with the federal agencies to be truly ecosystem and basinwide
    in scope. In March, 1996, Senator Hatfield introduced S. 1662
    authorizing federal agencies to work with this private organization,
    known as the Deschutes Basin Working Group. Title III of the Oregon
    Resource Conservation Act of 1996, signed by the President in
    September, 1996, authorizes the following:
      --Federal agencies to work with the private Deschutes Basin Working
            Group, dba Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC)
      --Secretaries of Interior & Agriculture to appoint DRC board members
            for 3 year terms
      --Federal participation with DRC in ecological restoration projects
            on federal and non-federal land and water with 50-50 cost share
      --Five year startup authorization of $1.0 Million a year federal
            fund; 50/50 cost share with DRC
      --Emphasize voluntary market-based economic incentives
        The Deschutes Basin Working Group, later to adopt an operating name
    of the Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy (DRC), has the goal of
    implementing on-the-ground projects that enhance the quality of the
    region's natural resources and add value to its economy.
        Its board consists of nine members from the Basin's private sector;
    hydropower, livestock grazing, recreation/tourism, timber, land
    development, irrigation (2), environmental (2), and two members from
    the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. In addition to
    the private board members there are two board members appointed from
    the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, two board members
    representing the State of Oregon, and four members representing local
    governments within the Deschutes Basin.
        The DRC will receive funds through tax-exempt donations from
    individuals, businesses, and corporations, including philanthropic
    foundations, and from government agencies seeking project development
    assistance or collaboration. It will seek to develop income from direct
    sources such as fee-for-service.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress

        Dear Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: Mr.
    Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jan Lee, executive director
    of the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC). The OWRC represents
    irrigation, water control, drainage and water improvement districts,
    private ditch and irrigation corporations, cities and counties,
    individual farmers and ranchers statewide as well as having
    agribusiness associates as members.
        I am writing to urge your support for the attached list of projects
    in the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2001 Budget Request. The
    funding for these projects represents a valuable commitment to meeting
    the needs of our member organizations at a time when many are
    confronted with the problem of how to meet water delivery needs for
    their district populations while at the same time addressing
    environmental and Native American requirements. There are particular
    projects like the Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration project and the
    Klamath project in Southern Oregon that typify this balance.
        I would also like to request that you provide the write-in funding
    for the Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal, the two Umatilla
    Boundary Change Environmental Assessment projects and the Willow Lake
    Natural Treatment system project that appear on our list.
        OWRC continues to be concerned about the inadequate funding for the
    Oregon Water Management and Technical Assistance program, the
    Efficiency Incentives program and the Water Management Conservation
    Program. These are valuable programs for water users to address the
    combination of water/environmental/Native American/growth related
    issues in the State.
        OWRC has also been following the work of the National Drought
    Policy Commission. OWRC would like the Subcommittee to consider
    increasing the funding for the Bureau of Reclamation drought assistance
    program up to $5 million so our water users are in the position to
    benefit from the recommendations of the Commissions report.
        Thank you for considering our requests and we look forward to
    favorable action by the Subcommittee.

    Projects and Programs in fiscal year 2001 Bureau of
        Reclamation Budget that OWRC Supports;
        Crooked River Project...............................        $691,000
        Deschutes Ecosystem Restoraton Project..............         500,000
        Deschutes Project...................................         431,000
        Grand Ronde Water Optimization Study................          50,000
        Klamath Project.....................................      11,185,000
        Oregon Investigations Program.......................         601,000
        Rogue River Basin Project, Talent Division..........         883,000
        Tualatin Project....................................         320,000
        Eastern Oregon Projects.............................         451,000
        Tualatin Valley Water Supply Feasibility Study......         100,000
        Umatilla Basin Project (Phase III)..................         100,000
        Umatilla Project....................................       2,294,000
    Broader Programs:
        Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project....       4,622,000
        Endangered Species Recovery Implementation..........       1,354,000
    Requests for New Money:
        Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal.........       2,000,000
        Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment
          (Hermiston).......................................         100,000
        Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment
          (West Extension)..................................          50,000
        Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project........       1,000,000
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Hermiston Irrigation District

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Chuck Wilcox,
    Manager of the Hermiston Irrigation District, in Hermiston, Oregon. The
    District is writing to request that $100,000 be provided on a non-
    reimbursable basis in the fiscal year 2001 Budget for the Bureau of
    Reclamation so the Hermiston Irrigation District can complete the
    Environmental Assessment process for a proposed boundary change as a
    part of the Umatilla basin plan
        For the past several years, our district, as well as other
    irrigation districts in the Umatilla basin have asked the Bureau of
    Reclamation to approve new boundaries to include acres that receive
    Federal water. The Bureau has consistently failed us in moving forward
    towards resolving this need. Completion of this process would solve the
    problem of having to use interim water service contracts from the
    Bureau of Reclamation and allow farmers in the area to make more timely
    and cost effective decisions regarding crop decisions for the planting
    and irrigation season.
        If language could be included in the report for the Energy and
    Water Appropriations bill indicating that within the Water and Related
    Resources Program, the Bureau was to provide the $100,000 for this work
    on a non-reimbursable basis, the District would be very appreciative.
        Thank you for considering our request and we look forward to
    favorable action by the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Tumalo Irrigation District

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Elmer McDaniels,
    Manager of the Tumalo Irrigation District in Bend, Oregon. The Tumalo
    Irrigation District was founded in 1914 and currently serves about 28
    square miles with 8,100 irrigated acres between Bend and Sisters,
    Oregon, on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains.
        The District appreciates the $200,000 that was provided for design
    work in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water appropriations bill for
    our Bend Feed Canal Project. The total cost of this project is
    $4,000,000 with half of the money coming from the District and the
    other half from the Bureau of Reclamation. We are ready to move forward
    with construction work this year on the project and would like to
    request that your subcommittee provide $2,000,000 in the Bureau of
    Reclamation's budget for their share of construction funds for fiscal
    year 2001.
        Completion of this project will bring about an increased system
    reliability for the District, a substantial safety increase for the
    citizens in the area as a result of our putting an existing open canal
    into pipe and an increased water conservation benefit for the
    environment in the Deschutes Basin as a result of the piping of the
    canal.
        Thank you for considering our request and we look forward to
    favorable action by the Subcommittee.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes

                    FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
    funds to continue planning and begin construction of the Fort Peck
    Reservation RWS, Montana, in the amount of $435,000 as set out below:

    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request--Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
    MRI System Dry Prairie RWS

            Item                                                      Budget
    Planning Activities:
        Tribal Administration.....................................  $115,160
        Tribal Technology.........................................     7,100
        Dry Prairie Administration................................    61,020
        Environmental Assessment..................................   136,440
        Conceptual Value Engineering/FER..........................   115,590
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   435,310

        The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
    project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
    were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
    $810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes.

                              PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

        This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
    outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
    the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
    is anticipated in this session.
        The budget request provides $435,000 for planning activities. It
    provides for continued work to amend and complete the Final Engineering
    Report to address both federal and state requirements for the report.
    Value engineering will be performed on the Final Engineering Report in
    an effort to lower costs of the project without diminishing function.
    The budget request provides for completion of the NEPA requirements
    through the preparation of an environmental assessment. No significant
    environmental impacts are expected, and an environmental impact
    statement is not contemplated. This judgment is based upon prior work
    with state and federal agencies in advance of the preparation of the
    environmental assessment.

                           STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING

        The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
    include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
    of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
    continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
    complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
    facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
    System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
    investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
    Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
    foundation for the environmental assessment
        The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
    project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
    presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
    equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
    estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
    and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
    Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
    million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
    million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
    with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
    the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
    costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
    similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.

                             LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT

        The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
    $62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
    estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
    of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
    $182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
    and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
    Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
    addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
    from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
    share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
    Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
    statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
        The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
    they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
    the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
    of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
    compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
    confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
    initiatives.
        Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
    all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
    project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
    and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
    of $100 per household.
    enterprise community designation and need for water quality improvement
        The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
    poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
    the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
    questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
    rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
    bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
    Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
    Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
        The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
    counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
    Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
    Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
    supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
    rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
    contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
    North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
    the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
    consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
    water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
    subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
    part, by those activities.
        The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
    Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
    Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
    the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
    International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
    United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
    fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
    concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
    United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
    neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
    for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
    seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
    Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
    Mainstem Missouri River.
        The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
    similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
    boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
    River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
    regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
    including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
    Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
    looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
    will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
    Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
    main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
    nature in the Northern Great Plains.
        For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
    projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.

       TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
                               COMPARABLE PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total
                                                                  Dissolved
                  Project                       Community           Solids
                                                                    (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        2,730
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        2,600
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        2,332
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        2,056
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,761
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............        1,740
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................        1,398
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................        1,380
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................        1,180
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........        1,179
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........        1,125
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          869
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          748
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....          416
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
                                    PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Sulfate
                  Project                       Community           (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        1,500
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        1,139
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        1,120
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        1,080
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,042
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............          984
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................          644
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........          538
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................          498
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          410
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........          398
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          212
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................          103
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....           70
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Figure 1.--Project Map

                       FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
    funds to begin construction of the Fort Peck Reservation RWS, Montana,
    in the amount of $3,025,000 as set out below:

    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
    MRI System Dry Prairie RWS

    Design and Construction Activities:                               Budget
        Intake Design.............................................  $232,580
        Intake Investigation and Value Engin......................    42,960
        WTP Investigation and Value Engineer......................    83,820
        WTP Design................................................ 1,226,205
        Intake Construction (50 percent).......................... 1,440,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total................................................... 3,025,565

        The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
    project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
    were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
    $810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes. A request for
    planning funds has been made separately for fiscal year 2001.

                              PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

        This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
    outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
    the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
    is anticipated in this session. The request for construction funds is
    made in contemplation of full authorization of the project in this
    session.
        The budget request provides for final design of the intake and
    treatment plant for this regional drinking water project. Alternative
    analyses will be conducted to ensure that the most cost-effective
    options are adopted.
        The budget request provides for 50 percent of the construction
    costs of the intake on the Missouri River which will deliver raw water
    to the treatment plant. The budget request is consistent with the
    construction schedule furnished last year to the Congressional Budget
    Office as part of its investigation of the Senate bill authorizing the
    project (S. 624). (See Table 3 for the construction schedule).
        The budget includes $272,000 for Reclamation oversight in the
    planning, design and construction activities.

                           STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING

        The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
    include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
    of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
    continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
    complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
    facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
    System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
    investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
    Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
    foundation for the environmental assessment
        The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
    project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
    presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
    equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
    estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
    and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
    Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
    million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
    million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
    with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
    the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
    costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
    similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.

                             LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT

        The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
    $62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
    estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
    of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
    $182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
    and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
    Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
    addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
    from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
    share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
    Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
    statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
        The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
    they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
    the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
    of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
    compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
    confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
    initiatives.
        Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
    all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
    project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
    and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
    of $100 per household.
    enterprise community designation and need for water quality improvement
        The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
    poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
    the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
    questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
    rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
    bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
    Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
    Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
        The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
    counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
    Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
    Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
    supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
    rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
    contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
    North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
    the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
    consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
    water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
    subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
    part, by those activities.
        The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
    Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
    Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
    the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
    International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
    United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
    fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
    concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
    United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
    neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
    for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
    seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
    Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
    Mainstem Missouri River.
        The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
    similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
    boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
    River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
    regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
    including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
    Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
    looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
    will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
    Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
    main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
    nature in the Northern Great Plains.
        For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
    projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.

       TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
                               COMPARABLE PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total
                                                                  Dissolved
                  Project                       Community           Solids
                                                                    (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        2,730
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        2,600
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        2,332
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        2,056
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,761
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............        1,740
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................        1,398
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................        1,380
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................        1,180
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........        1,179
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........        1,125
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          869
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          748
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....          416
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
                                    PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Sulfate
                  Project                       Community           (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        1,500
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        1,139
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        1,120
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        1,080
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,042
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............          984
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................          644
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........          538
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................          498
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          410
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........          398
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          212
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................          103
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....           70
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
    funds to continue planning and begin construction of the Fort Peck
    Reservation RWS, Montana, in the amount of $3,461,000 as set out below:

    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
    MRI System Dry Prairie RWS

    Planning and Design Activities:                                   Budget
        Tribal Administration.....................................  $115,160
        Tribal Technology.........................................     7,100
        Dry Prairie Administration................................    61,020
        Environmental Assessment..................................   136,440
        Conceptual Value Engineering/FER..........................   115,590
        Intake Investigation and Value Engin......................    42,960
        WTP Investigation and Value Engineer......................    83,820
        Intake Design.............................................   232,580
        WTP Design................................................ 1,226,205
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................ 2,020,875
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Construction Activities: Intake Construction (50 percent)..... 1,440,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total................................................... 3,460,875

        The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
    project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
    were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
    $810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes.

                              PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

        This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
    outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
    the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
    is anticipated in this session.

    Planning and Design Activities--$2,020,875
        The budget request provides $562,090 for planning activities. It
    provides for continued work to amend and complete the Final Engineering
    Report to address both federal and state requirements for the report.
    Value engineering will be performed on the Final Engineering Report in
    an effort to lower costs of the project without diminishing function.
    The budget request provides for completion of the NEPA requirements
    through the preparation of an environmental assessment. No significant
    environmental impacts are expected, and an environmental impact
    statement is not contemplated. This judgment is based upon prior work
    with state and federal agencies in advance of the preparation of the
    environmental assessment.
        The budget request provides $1,458,785 for final design: for final
    design of the intake and treatment plant for this regional drinking
    water project. Alternative analyses will be conducted to ensure that
    the most cost-effective options are adopted.

    Construction Activities--$1,440,000
        Finally, the budget request provides $1,440,000 for 50 percent of
    the construction costs of the intake on the Missouri River which will
    deliver raw water to the treatment plant. The budget request is
    consistent with the construction schedule furnished last year to the
    Congressional Budget Office as part of its investigation of the Senate
    bill authorizing the project (S. 624). (See Table 3 for the
    construction schedule).
        The budget includes $272,000 for Reclamation oversight in the
    planning, design and construction activities.

                           STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING

        The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
    include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
    of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
    continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
    complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
    facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
    System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
    investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
    Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
    foundation for the environmental assessment
        The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
    project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
    presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
    equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
    estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
    and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
    Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
    million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
    million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
    with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
    the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
    costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
    similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.

                             LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT

        The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
    $62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
    estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
    of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
    $182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
    and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
    Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
    addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
    from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
    share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
    Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
    statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
        The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
    they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
    the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
    of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
    compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
    confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
    initiatives.
        Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
    all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
    project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
    and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
    of $100 per household.

    ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY DESIGNATION AND NEED FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

        The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
    poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
    the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
    questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
    rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
    bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
    Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
    Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
        The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
    counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
    Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
    Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
    supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
    rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
    contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
    North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
    the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
    consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
    water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
    subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
    part, by those activities.
        The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
    Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
    Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
    the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
    International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
    United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
    fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
    concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
    United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
    neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
    for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
    seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
    Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
    Mainstem Missouri River.
        The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
    similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
    boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
    River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
    regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
    including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
    Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
    looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
    will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
    Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
    main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
    nature in the Northern Great Plains.
        For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
    projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.

       TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
                               COMPARABLE PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total
                                                                  Dissolved
                  Project                       Community           Solids
                                                                    (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        2,730
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        2,600
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        2,332
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        2,056
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,761
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............        1,740
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................        1,398
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................        1,380
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................        1,180
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........        1,179
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........        1,125
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          869
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          748
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....          416
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
                                    PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Sulfate
                  Project                       Community           (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        1,500
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        1,139
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        1,120
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        1,080
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,042
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............          984
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................          644
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........          538
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................          498
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          410
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........          398
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          212
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................          103
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....           70
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes respectfully request
    funds to begin construction of the Fort Peck Reservation RWS, Montana,
    in the amount of $3,025,000 as set out below:

    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation Request Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux
    MRI System Dry Prairie RWS

    Design and Construction Activities:                               Budget
        Intake Design.............................................   232,580
        Intake Investigation and Value Engin......................    42,960
        WTP Investigation and Value Engineer......................    83,820
        WTP Design................................................ 1,226,205
        Intake Construction (50 percent).......................... 1,440,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total................................................... 3,025,565

        The Tribes are appreciative of the work by this Subcommittee on the
    project previously. In fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, $350,000
    were appropriated, and in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999,
    $810,000 were appropriated for planning purposes. A request for
    planning funds has been made separately for fiscal year 2001.

                              PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

        This project, which includes all of the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation in Montana and the Dry Prairie portion of the project
    outside the Reservation (see map), was authorized by the full Senate in
    the closing days of the last session. Authorization by the full House
    is anticipated in this session. The request for construction funds is
    made in contemplation of full authorization of the project in this
    session.
        The budget request provides for final design of the intake and
    treatment plant for this regional drinking water project. Alternative
    analyses will be conducted to ensure that the most cost-effective
    options are adopted.
        The budget request provides for 50 percent of the construction
    costs of the intake on the Missouri River which will deliver raw water
    to the treatment plant. The budget request is consistent with the
    construction schedule furnished last year to the Congressional Budget
    Office as part of its investigation of the Senate bill authorizing the
    project (S. 624). (See Table 3 for the construction schedule).
        The budget includes $272,000 for Reclamation oversight in the
    planning, design and construction activities.

                           STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING

        The work products completed to date by the Bureau of Reclamation
    include a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Report within the boundaries
    of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The Fort Peck Tribes are
    continuing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to modify and
    complete the Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of
    facilities to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Water
    System outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. Environmental baseline
    investigations have been concluded within the Reservation and the Dry
    Prairie areas of the project. The latter investigations are a
    foundation for the environmental assessment
        The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
    project total $192 million, October 1998. (Previous testimony has
    presented $179 million, October 1995, as the project cost, which is
    equivalent, after indexing, to the amount given here. The current cost
    estimate, however, is based on revisions of costs in fiscal year 1999
    and reconfiguration of the system.) Costs on the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation will be $124 million with 100 percent federal cost share.
    Construction costs off Reservation in the Dry Prairie area will be $68
    million. The federal cost share in the Dry Prairie area will be $51
    million (76 percent), the State share will be $8.5 million (12 percent
    with an approved mechanism for funding by the Montana legislature) and
    the local share will be $8.5 million (12 percent). The total Federal
    costs will be $175 million (October 1998), less or comparable to
    similar projects in the Northern Great Plains.

                             LOCAL PROJECT SUPPORT

        The State of Montana, by action of its legislature, appropriated
    $62,000 in fiscal year 1997 to provide for a Needs Assessment and cost
    estimate of facilities outside the Reservation in the Dry Prairie part
    of the project. The 1999 Montana Legislature approved an additional
    $182,000 in planning funds for use by Dry Prairie in fiscal year 1999
    and 2000. The needs and facility costs determined for the Dry Prairie
    Water System were incorporated into the Final Engineering Report. In
    addition, the 1999 Montana Legislature approved a funding mechanism
    from its Treasure State Endowment Program to finance the non-federal
    share of project planning and construction. Demonstrating support of
    Montana for the project, there were only three votes against the
    statutory funding mechanism in both the full House and Senate.
        The Fort Peck Tribes have supported the project since 1992 when
    they conceived it and sought means of improving the quality of life in
    the region. The planning was logical step after successful completion
    of an historic water rights compact with the State of Montana. This
    compact was the national ``ice breaker'' that increased the level of
    confidence by other Tribes in Indian water right settlement
    initiatives.
        Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
    all 24 communities within the service area to participate in the
    project. Rural support is strong, with about 85 percent of area farms
    and ranches intending to participate as evidenced by their intent fees
    of $100 per household.
    enterprise community designation and need for water quality improvement
        The Clinton Administration designated the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation as an Enterprise Community, underscoring the level of
    poverty and need for economic development in the region. The success of
    the Enterprise Community designation within the Reservation will be
    questionable without the availability of safe and adequate municipal,
    rural and industrial water supplies that this regional project will
    bring to the Reservation. Outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
    Dry Prairie area has income levels that are higher than within the
    Reservation but significantly lower than the State average.
        The geologic setting of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the
    counties outside the Reservation is comparable to the rest of eastern
    Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. With the exception of the
    Missouri River, which is a high quality water source, the groundwater
    supplies of the region are of poor quality with more than 80 percent of
    rural households, that rely on near surface aquifers, exceeding nitrate
    contaminant levels for drinking water. Some of the worst water on the
    North American Continent lies below the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in
    the Madison Formation. This water is not used for human or livestock
    consumption. It is a brine several times more concentrated than sea
    water. Above this unsuitable aquifer are lesser aquifers that have been
    subjected to oil and gas development and have been contaminated, in
    part, by those activities.
        The Poplar River, which flows through the central portions of the
    Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the region is the subject of an
    Apportionment Agreement between Canada and the United States. Half of
    the water supply is available for Canada as measured at the
    International Boundary, and the balance is available for use in the
    United States. Depletion of this resource by agricultural and coal-
    fired power generation on the Canadian side increases the
    concentrations of chemicals and contaminants in the supply for the
    United States. The Poplar River and its principle tributaries are
    neither dependable supplies of water nor are they of suitable quality
    for this project. Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie are
    seeking a regional water project, comparable to Garrison, WEB, Mni
    Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that rely on the high quality waters of the
    Mainstem Missouri River.
        The feature of this project that makes it more cost effective than
    similar projects is its proximity to the Missouri River. The southern
    boundary of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is formed by the Missouri
    River for a distance of more than 60 miles. Many of the towns in this
    regional project are located two to three miles from the river,
    including Nashua, Frazer, Oswego, Wolf Point, Poplar, Brockton,
    Culbertson, and Bainville. As shown on the enclosed project map, a
    looping transmission system outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
    will deliver water 30 to 40 miles north of the Missouri River.
    Therefore, the distances from the Missouri River to all points in the
    main transmission system are shorter than in other projects of this
    nature in the Northern Great Plains.
        For comparison of water quality of this project with other regional
    projects, please refer to Tables 1 and 2.

       TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID LEVELS WITH
                               COMPARABLE PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total
                                                                  Dissolved
                  Project                       Community           Solids
                                                                    (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        2,730
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        2,600
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        2,332
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        2,056
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,761
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............        1,740
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................        1,398
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................        1,380
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................        1,180
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........        1,179
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........        1,125
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          869
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          748
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....          416
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF FORT PECK SULFATE LEVELS WITH COMPARABLE
                                    PROJECTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Sulfate
                  Project                       Community           (mgl)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lewis and Clark....................  Upper Limit...........        1,500
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Reliance..............        1,139
    Fort Peck..........................  Fort Kipp.............        1,120
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Red Shirt.............        1,080
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Murdo.................        1,042
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Kennebec..............          984
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Presho................          644
    Lewis and Clark....................  Lower Limit...........          538
    Fort Peck..........................  Frazer................          498
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Horse Creek...........          410
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Wakpamni Lake.........          398
    Fort Peck..........................  Brockton..............          212
    Fort Peck..........................  Poplar................          103
    Mni Wiconi.........................  Pine Ridge Village....           70
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the City of Marshall, Minnesota

        Chairman Domenici and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
    City Council and the citizens of Marshall, Minnesota. We are requesting
    $1.312 million in Federal funds for the construction of the final Stage
    of the flood control project authorized in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986. This is the funding level that the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers has determined is necessary to complete the work on
    the Marshall, Minnesota Flood Control Project in fiscal year 2001. The
    Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) has ask Congress to
    provide the $1.312 million for the Marshall project in his Budget
    Request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2001.
        The Conference Committee designated $2.275 million for the Marshall
    project in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Bill. The City of
    Marshall has allocated cash funds of $1 million to the project,
    financed the dredging and reconstruction work required on the diversion
    channel at a cost of $350,000, and purchased property and easements at
    a cost of about $1 million. The Minnesota State Legislature has
    appropriated funds totaling $1.5 million toward the completion of the
    flood control project at Marshall.
        This funding enabled 80 percent of the project construction to be
    completed. The physical structures are in place, levees have been
    constructed, the river bank protection and erosion control work is
    done, and the channel work completed. All the necessary property and
    easements have been purchased by the City. The diversion channels were
    dredged at the City's costs to assure free flowing during overflow
    conditions. The diversion channels have been enlarged and the gates
    either repaired or replaced. The Ditch 62 project has been completed
    which provides for the storm water collection system for about 60
    percent of the City. Bids for the remainder of the project have been
    advertised and were awarded in April, 1999.

         WORK TO BE COMPLETED IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2001

        The remaining work to be completed with fiscal year 2001 funding is
    extremely important to the citizens of Marshall and to the agriculture
    enterprises in both the Cottonwood and the Redwood River Basin
    Watershed Districts. This construction work deals with the structures,
    including three large box culverts and a overflow wier, that simulates
    the natural current flows over Highway 23 during flood conditions.
        The current project is designed to maintain current intra-basin
    flood flow conditions to assure that there will be no adverse impacts
    downstream in either the Redwood or Cottonwood Basins as a result of
    the flood control project. A flow distribution study was conducted in
    1987 to analyze the intra-basin flows. This study was followed by UNET
    modeling in 1997, which supported the position that there would be no
    significant downstream impacts from the flood control project when the
    project is completed.
        Other work remaining to be completed includes landscaping, some
    interior drainage, and multi-use trails and recreational paths along
    the diversion channels.

                             FLOW AGREEMENT SIGNED

        A major issue was resolved in the Marshall Flood Control Project
    regarding the flow rate of the Redwood River during major flood
    conditions. A portion of the Redwood River basin waters are diverted
    into the Cottonwood River basin. The project requires that historic
    overflows are maintained between the two watershed districts. After
    numerous public meetings, a flow distribution agreement was executed on
    February 22, 1998, by the City of Marshall, Lyon County, the State of
    Minnesota, and the Corps of Engineers.

                        PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

        The project is located in Lyon County in the Southwest corner of
    the State of Minnesota, about 145 miles southwest of St. Paul. It is
    near the center of the Redwood River basin. Southwest State University,
    the business district, and most of the homes of the nearly 13,000
    citizens are located in the floodplain of the Redwood River. Marshall
    serves as the county seat of Lyon County, and is the commercial and
    agricultural center for the region.
        The Redwood River, a tributary of the Mississippi, enters the
    southwest corner of the City, winds its way through the City, exiting
    at the northeast boundary near the University campus. The Redwood River
    basin serves an elongated drainage area of approximately 743 miles.
        The river's elevation drops at the significant rate of 19 feet per
    mile until it reaches the City. There the river slope flattens out to
    an average of about 4 feet per mile. The lack of a confining valley,
    and the reduction in grade on the plain, contributes significantly to
    overland flooding in the Marshall area. The geological decline in the
    elevation in the 50 miles from the watershed area to the City of
    Marshall is greater than the Mississippi River elevation decline from
    Minneapolis to New Orleans (See Attachment.)
        A federally constructed flood control project was completed in
    1963. While it is successful in protecting much of the City during
    frequent, smaller floods, the upstream and downstream channels were not
    effective during major flood events. At those times, the Redwood River
    overflows a county highway, bypasses the diversion control structure,
    and floods the inter city area.
        The project is designed to protect the City of Marshall from major
    flood events. Briefly, the authorized plan calls for channel
    improvements, drainage facilities, the construction of 4.7 miles of
    additional levees, 3.8 miles of bank protection, 0.3 miles of new high-
    flow diversion channel, an inter basin overflow structure,
    modifications to the existing diversion channel and drop structures,
    and limited recreation trails, picnic and rest area facilities.

                     PROJECT AUTHORITY, FUNDING, AND STATUS

        The Marshall Flood Control Project was authorized in the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986, and reauthorized in the Water
    Resources Act of 1988. Funds were allocated in fiscal year 1984 to
    initiate preconstruction engineering and design work. The total project
    is estimated to cost $10.9 million of which Federal costs are estimated
    to be $8.01 million, and non-Federal costs of $2.89 million.
        The non-Federal costs have been provided through the State flood
    mitigation grant program, and by bonding by the City of Marshall. The
    Design Memorandum and Environmental Assessment were completed and
    approved in 1987.

    Summarized Federal Financial Data

    Estimated Federal Cost........................................$8,010,000
    Estimated non-Federal Cost.................................... 2,890,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total Project Cost......................................10,900,000
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Federal Allocations to Date................................... 6,698,000
    Balance of Federal funds to Complete Project.................. 1,312,000
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Benefit-cost Ratio (8 percent)................................      1.10

                               PROJECT BACKGROUND

        Water and land related problems in the Minnesota River basin were
    first investigated by the St. Paul District Engineer in 1934, but his
    study did not address the flooding and related problems in Marshall. In
    1960, after the severe floods of 1957, improvements were recommended by
    the Corps which included the construction of levees and a floodwater
    diversion channel.
        This flood control project was completed in 1963, by the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers to, ``provide protection for the people and property
    of Marshall from the frequent flood risks.'' The major feature of the
    project was a 2.4 mile diversion channel around the west and north
    sides of the City, a 1,840 foot levee at the upstream end of the
    project, and other features. The channel was designed to handle a 6,500
    CFS flow. The overflow, then, would move naturally into the Cottonwood
    River Watershed south of Marshall.
        In 1969, a flood of 8,090 CFS was experienced in Marshall. The
    river channel both upstream and downstream from Marshall was inadequate
    to convey the 1963 design flows either to or from the diversion
    channel. At flows greater than 3,500 CFS, floodwaters bypass the
    diversion channel and flood the inner City of Marshall.
        As a result of the failure of the 1963 flood control project to
    protect the City, other studies were conducted by a private engineering
    firm under the direction of the Corps in 1974. The Corps completed a
    flood control report in 1976, and a feasibility study in 1979. This
    report was updated by a reevaluation of the problems in 1984. The
    current project was then authorized in the 1986 Water Resources
    Development Act. It is important to note that the project as
    constructed in 1963, has worsened the potential of flooding for the
    City. The rate of flow is not adequate to move the flood waters through
    the diversion channel, and other problems.
        The three ``Holiday Floods of 1993'' (Mother's Day, Father's Day
    and Independence Day) occurred at both ends of the diversion channel,
    causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to homes,
    businesses, and the City's infrastructure. As the water levels remained
    at flood stage throughout the summer, it created an atmosphere of fear
    and unrest among the citizens of Marshall.
        In 1995, the Redwood River was again flowing at capacity, and the
    City of Marshall narrowly avoided a disaster worse than the floods of
    either 1969 or 1993. From 9 to 15 inches of rain fell near Montevideo,
    Minnesota, less than 40 miles from the Redwood Watershed District.
        If the storm had moved only a few miles to the southwest, the flood
    waters would have engulfed the City at a rate of 8,000 to 12,000 cubic
    feet of water per second. This is a much greater water overflow than
    that which occurred in the disastrous flooding of 1969, and as much as
    three times greater than the 1993 floods.
        The District Office of the Corps of Engineers provided estimates
    stating that the City would have incurred millions in property damage,
    and that flash flooding of this nature could well have resulted in the
    loss of lives. Corps officials stated that flash flooding of this
    magnitude would have made most emergency measures futile. As a result
    of the flat terrain in and around the City, and much of the Marshall
    community would have been under water.

                CORPS SCHEDULE FOR MARSHALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Beginning  Completion
                         Activity                         date       date
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Plans & Specs Initiated..........................    2/28/96   Complete.
    Plans and Specs Submitted........................    2/28/98   Complete.
    Plans & Specs Approved...........................    3/31/98   Complete.
    Real Estate Acquisition..........................   12/31/98   Complete.
    Certification of Real Estate.....................    1/15/99   Complete.
    Construction Contract Advertised.................    2/24/99   Complete.
    Construction Contract Awarded....................    3/24/99    3/24/99.
    Construction Contract Completion.................    3/24/99     4/6/99.
    Construction Stage 2 Completion..................    4/25/99   11/30/01.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      COUNTY DITCH NO. 62 DRAINAGE SYSTEM

        In addition to the Marshall Flood Control Project, the overall
    protection of the City required the reconstruction and modification of
    the storm sewer drainage system. The examination of the drainage
    problems was acknowledged in the General Design Memorandum developed by
    the Corps for Marshall, but is not included, nor is it a part of the
    funding of this project.
        County Ditch No. 62 serves as the storm sewer drainage system for
    about 60 percent of the City's corporate limits. The Ditch extends
    along the northeast part of the City, in close proximity to the levee
    construction required for the Corps flood control project, and feeds
    into the Redwood River. With the growth of the community, and the
    development of property and the University campus, since the
    construction of the Ditch in 1958-1959, the flooding problems in the
    City have been exacerbated by the lack of drainage and poor water
    movement in a system that is no longer adequate for the community.
    Construction was completed in 1998.
        The City of Marshall, in cooperation with Lyon County and the State
    of Minnesota, a comprehensive storm water system was planned, designed,
    and jointly funded by FEMA, the State of Minnesota, Lyon County and the
    City governments at a total cost of slightly more than $3 million.
    There are elements of the Storm Sewer/Ditch Project that are closely
    associated with the Flood Control Project.

                      FINAL CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING NEEDS

        The Corps of Engineers has awarded a bid for construction work that
    includes fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001.
    Funds appropriated by this Committee in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
    year 2000, and non-Federal funds have allowed the Corps to move ahead
    aggressively with plans to complete the project in December, 2000. An
    appropriation of the $1.312 requested by both the Army Corps of
    Engineers and City is necessary for this schedule to be maintained.
        It has been noted by City officials that as soon as construction
    work begins, some citizens are lulled into a sense of false security. A
    number of homeowners have called the City asking to drop their costly
    flood insurance, assuming their homes are protected by the unfinished
    flood control project. Delays in the completion of the project results
    in a lack of preparation and a state of readiness by some citizens.
    These are the precautions and preparations that have prevented major
    disasters during past flood events.
        For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to
    appropriate $1.312 million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2001
    Appropriations Act to complete the work on the Marshall Flood Control
    Project. The Committee's favorable response to this request will
    prevent any delays affecting the completion of the project, and avoid
    any cost overruns over that inevitably occur when construction is
    delayed as a project is nearing completion.
        Thank you for the opportunity to bring this important matter to
    your attention through this statement. I will be delighted to respond
    to any questions you may have about the project.
                                     ______

             SOUTHEASTERN U.S. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

    Prepared Statement of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association,
                                      Inc.

        Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members: This statement
    includes the following:
      --A plea to recognize and maintain our Nation's inland waterways
            system as a vital part of the national transportation
            infrastructure;
      --A request for support in the following areas:
        --O&M funding for federal projects in the Coosa-Alabama Basin and
                Mobile Harbor;
        --Funding for update of economic benefits for the Coosa River
                Navigation Project;
        --Funding to rehabilitate Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on Coosa River;
        --Funding to maintain recreational facilities and hydropower
                operations at Allatoona Lake;
        --Supporting the Alabama Sturgeon Candidate Conservation Agreement
                developed by a coalition of government and industry in
                Alabama.

                               EXPANDED STATEMENT

        Thank you for the opportunity to present my perspective on several
    topics relating to our Nation's waterways system in general, and to the
    Coosa-Alabama River Basin in particular. As President of the Coosa-
    Alabama River Improvement Association, I speak for a large and diverse
    group of private citizens and political and industrial organizations
    that sees the continued development of the Coosa-Alabama Waterway as an
    opportunity for economic growth in our region as well as the Nation.
        Our membership reflects a broad range of callings and professions,
    including shippers and tow operators, businessmen, bankers and private
    individuals who have a stake in future economic development for their
    firms and successors to enjoy. Then there is a larger group of elected
    officials and their constituents typical of the twenty-three
    municipalities and nineteen counties along the waterway who are members
    of this association. Spurred by a desire to promote economic growth
    through enhanced waterway transportation, these members work diligently
    to develop our waterways into a productive part of the river
    infrastructure of the State and Nation.
        We are concerned about the deteriorating waterway infrastructure
    throughout the nation. Our inland waterways are vital to this Nation's
    welfare. America's ports, navigable waterways, flood protection, water
    supply, environmental restoration, hydroelectric, and other water
    resource programs enhance economic development, national security, and
    general well being. These programs serve the national interest in
    countless ways, returning far more in public benefits than they cost. A
    top-notch navigation system, able to meet the demands of both domestic
    and international commerce, is a driving force behind the national
    economy, transporting annually almost 15 percent of the nation's
    commodities, one out of every eight tons. The waterways are vital to
    our export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers
    around the world. It is incumbent upon the Federal Government to
    maintain and improve this valuable national asset. Therefore, we ask
    Congress to appropriate enough funds for required maintenance and
    construction to keep the waterways the economic multiplier it is. The
    Civil Works budget in fiscal year 2001 must be approximately $5 billion
    to maintain the system and allow for modest growth. The Federal
    government must commit to improve the waterways infrastructure or risk
    serious economic consequences and jeopardizing large public benefits.
        Some think tanks advocate turning the Corps of Engineers' Civil
    Works Program over to state or private managers. We disagree with that
    idea. Having one agency responsible for maintaining water projects on
    the Alabama River, for example, provides benefits that can't be
    measured in dollars and cents. Security, responsiveness and historical
    knowledge are incalculable to users of the river. The Corps' experience
    is a public investment. The O&M funding appropriated annually is a
    public investment. Slashing that investment does not automatically
    translate into private prosperity.
        We are concerned that any budget strategy that reduces funding for
    the operations and maintenance of inland and intracoastal waterways
    will have a detrimental effect on the economic growth and development
    of the river system. We cannot allow that to happen. In the Alabama-
    Coosa River Basin, we must be able to maintain the existing river
    projects and facilities that support the commercial navigation,
    hydropower and recreational activities so critical to our region's
    economy. The first priority then must be the O&M funding appropriated
    to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects. Budget requests
    for the individual projects follow:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                President's    Association's
                     Project                      budget      budget request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama-Coosa River, AL \1\ (AL River         $5,355,000      $5,355,000
     incl Claiborne L&D)....................
    Miller's Ferry L&D......................       4,999,000       4,499,000
    Robert F. Henry L&D.....................       4,962,000       4,962,000
    Lake Allatoona, GA......................       4,520,000       6,000,000
    Carters Lake, GA........................       7,489,000       7,489,000
    Lower Alabama River Study (South of              200,000         200,000
     Claiborne) feasibility study...........
    Coosa River Navigation Project..........  ..............         150,000
    Mayo's Bar..............................  ..............         500,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Totals............................      27,525,000      29,155,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes dredging from the mouth of the Alabama River through
      Claiborne L&D to Miller's Ferry. Coosa River not included.

        We also support funding O&M for Mobile Harbor at $18,665,000. We
    cannot allow Mobile Harbor infrastructure to deteriorate because not
    enough funds were appropriated.
        To attract new business into the Alabama River Basin, we must
    improve the infrastructure of the river itself, specifically the
    navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam. Increased reliability is
    the only way prospective investors will entertain establishing an
    industry that uses river transportation. The Corps of Engineers
    currently maintains 65-70 percent reliability through training dikes,
    reservoir management, and dredging. Of these measures, dredging is the
    most effective, but we can do more.
        The most affordable and most environmentally friendly solution to
    increasing navigation reliability on the Lower Alabama River is to
    improve the training dikes. Mobile District is in the middle of a
    feasibility study to determine the interest of the Federal Government
    in such a project. Without an improvement in the navigation reliability
    on the Lower Alabama River, we cannot hope to attract new river-related
    industry into the Basin. We ask Congress to appropriate $200,000, as
    requested in the President's Budget, to continue the feasibility study
    already underway.
        A major objective of our association is to complete a navigable
    waterway from Mobile to Rome, Georgia, which reflects our emphasis on
    infrastructure investment and the creation of jobs and economic
    opportunity throughout our region. The Pre-design Engineering Surveys
    of the Coosa River Navigation Project are complete, so one of the most
    time-consuming requirements of the project is done. We are well aware
    of the restrictive funding for such an undertaking in the current
    environment, but ask the Committee to recognize that a Coosa-Alabama
    waterway would be one of the largest and most rapid generators of jobs
    currently available. We owe it to the people of the Coosa-Alabama River
    Basin, the states of Alabama and Georgia, and the entire region to
    maintain the vision of completing this waterway, particularly because
    of its recreational potential. We need, however, to update some of the
    economic database supporting the proposal. We ask that $150,000 be
    appropriated to allow the Mobile District of the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers to update the economic evaluation of the Coosa River
    Navigation Project.
        Recreation has become a major economic factor on our waterways.
    Boating, fishing, swimming, and camping have become an indispensable
    economic tool for many of our lake and river communities. Two projects,
    one private and one federal, in the Upper Coosa River Basin need
    federal funding to enhance the ability of communities in those areas to
    take advantage of the recreational benefit: Mayo's Bar near Rome and
    Lake Allatoona.
        Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, eight miles downstream of Rome, Georgia,
    on the Coosa River, is an old federal project constructed in 1913 as
    part of an overall plan to provide navigation from Wetumpka, Alabama,
    to Rome. The project was abandoned in 1931. The site of the facility is
    currently operated as a recreational facility. The lock, however, is
    unusable as no maintenance has been performed on it since the 1930's.
    Floyd County, Georgia officials plan to restore and operate the lock to
    facilitate recreational boat traffic from Rome to Cedar Bluff and
    Centre, Alabama through Lake Weiss, 57 miles downstream. A 1988 study
    by the Corps of Engineers found the cost of rehabilitating the lock to
    be feasible. Cost of the project today is estimated at $3 million.
    Section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized
    the Corps of Engineers to ``provide technical assistance (including
    planning, engineering, and design assistance)'' for reconstruction of
    Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam. Floyd County is prepared to share the costs of
    the rehabilitation on a 50/50 basis. Of the $1.5 million estimated
    total Federal cost of the project, $500,000 is needed in fiscal year
    2001 for engineering and design. We strongly urge the Committee provide
    funding to get this valuable economic asset underway to the benefit of
    the northwest Georgia and northeast Alabama.
        At Lake Allatoona, funding for the Corps of Engineers to maintain
    recreational facilities has been cut well below the level needed to
    keep the project fully functional. The President's Budget for 2001
    proposes $837,000 for Lake Allatoona recreation, a reduction of $2.276
    million from the fiscal year 2000 allocation. That money needs to be
    reinstated. Otherwise, Mobile District will have to close some camping
    facilities, shorten the time other facilities are open by two months,
    delay necessary maintenance tasks, and perhaps even reduce payroll,
    resulting in an economic loss of over $27 million in 2001. Lake
    Allatoona is the second most-visited lake in the United States. We
    would be remiss to allow that kind of economic downturn because not
    enough money has been appropriated to ensure facilities are maintained.
    We ask that Corps funding for Allatoona Lake recreation be increased
    from $837,000 in the President's Budget to $2.22 million, resulting in
    a total project allocation of $6,000,000.
        In addition to helping resolve the funding shortfall for
    recreation, reinstating Allatoona funding to its historic levels of $6
    million in fiscal year 2001 will enable the Mobile District to begin
    the process to replace an outdated, over-30-years old microwave system
    at the generating plant. The microwave system allows the Corps to
    control the Allatoona plant remotely from Carters Lake. The Corps can
    no longer procure spare parts for the system and is operating on a
    breakdown maintenance concept only, which means that the only time
    maintenance can be performed is when the generator is down. That
    translates into higher costs for consumers as Southeastern Power
    Administration must then purchase power at a higher cost from other
    sources.
        The last issue I wish to address is a plea based on our experiences
    over the past several years with attempts by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service to list the Alabama Sturgeon as endangered under the Endangered
    Species Act of 1973. In December of 1994, the Secretary of Interior,
    Mr. Bruce Babbitt, decided not to list the Alabama Sturgeon, citing a
    lack of scientific evidence that the fish was a separate and distinct
    species or even currently existed in the habitat scrutinized. Now, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service sees fit to again propose listing the fish,
    despite a clear alternative to saving the fish that has been underway
    for several years now, an alternative outside the confining
    restrictions of the Endangered Species Act.
        A coalition of government and industry has developed a Candidate
    Conservation Agreement (CCA), a legal agreement allowed under the
    Endangered Species Act, that has strong potential to propagate the
    Sturgeon population in the Mobile River Basin. The State of Alabama,
    charged with the execution of a previously developed voluntary Sturgeon
    Conservation Plan, currently has two sturgeons in a hatchery in Marion,
    Alabama. Congress has appropriated over one million dollars to this
    effort so far. The CCA is the only plan conceived that has even a
    remote chance of successfully propagating young sturgeon. Listing the
    fish as an endangered species under the ESA means the sturgeon would
    have to compete with other listed species for money to complete a
    recovery plan, jeopardizing funding already available as well as the
    work done on the Conservation Plan to this point. We strongly support
    the Candidate Conservation Agreement as an example of the compromise
    required in the environment-economic debate. We ask the Congress to
    fully fund and support the Candidate Conservation Agreement as the best
    way to save sturgeon in the Mobile River Basin.
        In summary, we request your support in the following areas:
      --Sufficient O&M funding of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
            Works budget to maintain and enhance the U.S. inland waterways
            system, including the Coosa-Alabama River Basins and Mobile
            Harbor;
      --Funding for investigating the feasibility of improving the
            reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on
            the Lower Alabama River;
      --Funding an updated economic analysis of the Coosa Navigation
            Project;
      --Funding federal share for planning and design of the rehabilitating
            Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on the Coosa River near Rome, Georgia;
      --Increasing the appropriation to support recreational upkeep and
            hydropower maintenance on Lake Allatoona;
      --Supporting the Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Alabama
            sturgeon as developed through the cooperative efforts of
            government and industry in Alabama.
        Thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony and for your
    strong support of the Nation's waterways.
                                     ______

                       Letter From Phillip A. Sanguineeti

                                             The Anniston Star,
                                           Anniston, AL, March 8, 2000.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
    U.S. Senate Washington, D.C.
        Dear Pete: I am writing to seek your support of the Coosa-Alabama
    River Improvement Association's request for an appropriation from the
    State General Fund in fiscal year 2001.
        As a member of the Board of Directors for the Association, I
    strongly endorse its mission of promoting the development of the Coosa
    and Alabama Rivers for the benefit of the state. CARIA is the only
    organization in our State that annually works for funding of federal
    projects on those rivers.
        In the water allocation negotiations between Alabama and Georgia,
    CARIA has been the primary advisor to Alabama's negotiators on
    navigation issues in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basin.
        I support the Association's request for $150,000 to continue
    authorization for planning, engineering and design for the Coosa River
    Navigation Project. I also support the Association's request for an
    add-on of $500,000 for Corps of Engineers planning and design at Mayo's
    Bar near Rome, Ga.
        I also support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a
    water allocation formula between the two states, but I do not support a
    formula that negatively affects the ability of Mobile District Corps of
    Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation on the Alabama River, or
    that seriously impedes the State of Alabama in developing its economic
    potential.
                Very truly yours,
                                       Phillips A. Sanguineeti,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Monroe County Commission

        The Monroe County Commission, Monroe County, Alabama, respectfully
    request your support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year
    2001 budget for funding to operate and maintain Water Projects in the
    Alabama-Coosa River Basin. The amount that we are asking you to approve
    is $28.175 million, in addition to the President's Budget for fiscal
    year 2001 in the amount of $18.665 million for Mobile Bay.
        Projects to be funded in this request include the improvement and
    extension of the Coosa-Alabama Waterway Systems. Navigational
    reliability below the Claiborne Lock & Dam is essential to accommodate
    Navigation to Mobile; this entails maintaining, improving and dredging
    of the River. Also included in this request is $150,000.00 to continue
    authorization for planning, engineering and design for the Coosa-
    Alabama Project, so, that eventually, commercial navigation will be
    possible from Rome, Georgia to the Port of Mobile. Also included in
    this request is $500,000.00 for the Corps of Engineers, planning and
    design at Mayo's Bar near Rome, Georgia.
        The Monroe County Commission further supports the efforts of the
    State of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water allocation formula
    between the two states that will not adversely affect industrial
    development along the Coosa-Alabama River Systems in Alabama nor
    negatively affect the operations of existing industry, commerce and
    development along this River System. We do not support a water
    allocation that will negatively affect the ability of Mobile District
    Corp of Engineers to maintain a nine foot navigational Channel on the
    Alabama River.
        Your favorable consideration of the fiscal year 2001 budget request
    is essential to the Economic Development of the Southeastern part of
    the United States.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the City of Metumpka, AL

        We support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's
    funding request for fiscal year 2001, especially the $150,000 to
    continue the authorization for planning, engineering, and design for
    the Coosa River Navigation Project (CRNP). An updated analysis can
    verify that the advantages established in 1945 remain viable some 55
    years later.
        Environmental friendly transportation and improved recreational
    facilities are important for today's society. The waters of the Coosa
    River, which flow through the middle of Wetumpka, provide an asset that
    can continue to enhance the entire area.
        There are many benefits for the CRNP project. Locks around Bouldin,
    Mitchell, Lay, Logan, and Neely Henry dams would provide a major
    economic boost for the surrounding territory and southward to Mobile. A
    navigable channel from Gadsden to Wetumpka and Montgomery and on to
    Mobile would open vast waterway potentials.
        We support and endorse all regional efforts to improve and extend
    the Coosa-Alabama Waterway and the priorities of the Coosa-Alabama
    River Improvement Association.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the City of Rainbow City, AL

        I am writing to you as a member of the Board of Directors of Coosa-
    Alabama River Improvement Association. I have been active with this
    Association for many years and believe it is vital to this area to keep
    these projects alive. I am asking for your support on the following
    items:
      --You support the Association's funding request for fiscal year 2001.
      --You support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-
            Alabama Waterway.
        --Need to improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam
        --Need to maintain and improve training works and dredging
          --LDevelopment of commercial river transportation between Mobile
                and Montgomery depends on these improvements
        --You support the Association's request for $150,000 to continue
                authorization for planning, engineering, and design for the
                Coosa River Navigation Project (see encl)
      --You support the Association's request for an add-on of $500,000 for
            Corps of Engineers planning and design at Mayo's Bar near Rome
            (see encl)
      --You support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water
            allocation formula between the two states, but could not
            support a formula that negatively affects the ability of Mobile
            District Corps of Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation
            channel on the Alabama River or that seriously impedes the
            State of Alabama in developing its economic potential.
        In addition, we support funding in the President's Budget of
    $18,665 million for Mobile Bay.
        I strongly urge your consideration in this matter.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the City of Selma, AL

        All of the various organizations in Selma and Dallas County
    involved in industry seeking, as well as the Mayor, City Council,
    County Probate Judge, and the County Commission wish to convey our
    support of the Coosa-Alabama River Association's funding request for
    fiscal year 2001. Our area is not served by an interstate highway; if
    fact we don't even have a four-lane highway to the south. We strongly
    recommend the need to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway in
    order to develop and maintain commercial river transportation between
    Mobile and Montgomery.
        We must maintain the navigational reliability below the Claiborne
    Dam and the dredging and training works are a vital part of this
    effort.
        We also have discussed and support the request for an add-on of
    $500,00 for the planning and design at Mayo's Bar near Rome, GA and
    strongly urge the Association's request for $150,000 to continue
    authorization for the Coosa River Navigation Project which would link
    Montgomery and Gadsden. These additional monies would allow the
    planning, design, and engineering only for this project, which, on
    completion, would be a great incentive to new industry and help
    maintain competitive rates from both rail and truck companies. We must
    have federal funding now to maintain the authorization of the project.
        With the improvements at the Port of Mobile, water transportation
    on this river system to the world wide export markets that have been
    and are being developed will have a tremendous affect on freight rates
    and eventually inflation.
        We need this legislation and funding to help our area survive in
    this changing world economy.
        Thank you for your help and consideration.
                                     ______

                          Letter From James T. Jordan

                                      J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc.,
                                             Centre, AL, March 8, 2000.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: This letter is to let you know that I
    wholeheartedly support the need to improve the navigational reliability
    below Claiborne Dam. I also support the need to maintain and improve
    training works and dredging. The development of commercial river
    transportation between Mobile and Montgomery depends on these
    improvements. I ask that you give serious consideration to putting
    funds for this in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
        I would also like to see Congress support additional funding for
    two river projects in the Alabama-Coosa River Basin. We ask that
    congress appropriate $150,000 for continuing the authorization for the
    Coosa River Navigation Project. Another request is that an add-on of
    $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers planning and design of Mayp-s Bar
    near Rome. Mayo's Bar would be a strong tourist attraction to our area
    because we can attract many to this area because of the fishing and
    boating we have to offer.
        One last point is that we need lowered freight rates. This provides
    a better export market and would help the trade business tremendously.
        Please give serious thought and consideration to funding these
    projects.
                Sincerely,
                                               James T. Jordan,
                                                              Director.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Alabama River Pulp Company, Inc.

        Alabama River Pulp Company respectfully requests your support of
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2001 budget for funding
    to operate and maintain Water Projects in the Alabama-Coosa River
    Basin. The amount that we are asking you to approve is $28.175 million,
    in addition to the president' Budget for fiscal year 2001 in the amount
    of $18.665 million for Mobile Bay.
        Projects to be funded in this request include the improvement and
    extension of the Coosa-Alabama Waterway Systems. Navigational
    reliability below the Claiborne Lock & Dam is essential to accommodate
    Navigation to Mobile; this entails maintaining, improving and dredging
    of the River. Also included in this request is $150,000.00 to continue
    authorization for planning, engineering and design for the Coosa-
    Alabama Projects, so, that eventually, commercial navigation will be
    possible from Rome, Georgia to the Port of Mobile. Also included in
    this request is $500,000.00 for the Corps of Engineers' planning and
    design at Mayo's Bar near Rome, Georgia.
        Alabama River Pulp Company further supports the efforts of the
    State of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water allocation formula
    between the two states that will not adversely affect industrial
    development along the Coosa-Alabama River Systems in Alabama nor
    negatively affect the operations of existing industry, commerce and
    development along this river system. We do not support a water
    allocation that will negatively affect the ability of Mobile District
    Corp of Engineers to maintain a nine foot navigational Channel on the
    Alabama River.
        Your favorable consideration of the fiscal year 2001 budget request
    is essential to the Economic Development of the Southeastern part of
    the United States.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the City of Rome, Georgia

        The City of Rome has been a strong supporter of the Coosa-Alabama
    River development projects. We strongly support navigational use of the
    river basin as well as recreation and environmental purposes.
        We strongly support the $500,000 request for the Corps of Engineer
    for planning and design at Mayo's Bar near Rome. For many years, we
    have worked to reactivate the lock and make the river system in Rome a
    part of Lake Weiss for recreational purposes. The historic and
    recreational value for this project is very much supported by our
    community. Significant local funds are being contributed to this
    project and the $500,000 is needed to make the project a reality.
        Your attention to the request for our river basin is appreciated.
    If we can provide any additional information, please contact us.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society

        On behalf of the 520 chapters and one million members and
    supporters of the National Audubon Society, I would like to take this
    opportunity to submit our views on the fiscal year 2001 budget of the
    U.S. Corps of Engineers. Our mission to protect birds, other wildlife,
    and their habitat, is the focal point of our statement on the Corps'
    fiscal year 2001 budget.

                      SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

        Thank you for your past support for the restoration of the Florida
    Everglades. The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request
    includes $158 million for its Everglades restoration program. This
    request, which is almost $50 million above last year's appropriation,
    represents recognition of the needs of previously authorized programs
    whose performance assumptions have been included in Comprehensive
    Everglades Restoration Plan prepared by the Corps.
        In particular, we urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the following
    programs:
      --Central and Southern Florida Restoration projects--$90 million;
      --Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (WRDA 1996
            ``critical projects'')--$20.5 million;
      --Kissimmee River Restoration--$20 million; and,
      --WRDA 1999 pilot projects--$4.5 million.

         UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EMP)

        The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 increased the
    authorization for the EMP to $33 million a year, but fiscal year 2001
    budget requested $18 million--the enacted level in fiscal year 2000. We
    believe that this request is inadequate and fully support increasing
    the EMP's budget. We understand that the Corps presently lacks the
    capability to warrant a $33 million appropriation for the EMP; however,
    we urge the Subcommittee to increase funding to a level that the Corps
    can effectively expend. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to provide
    $25 million for the EMP so that the Corps and its federal and state
    partners can continue to develop needed baseline data and implement
    habitat restoration projects to better manage the Upper Mississippi
    River.

                   ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY BUDGET

        While the Administration's request for this year's regulatory
    budget calls for an $8 million increase (from $117 million to $125
    million), we support a $12 million increase in funding for this
    chronically under-funded program area. This increase is necessary in
    order for the Corps to cover pay raises and fully implement the
    Congressionally-mandated jurisdictional appeals program while at the
    same time fulfilling their statutory duties under the Clean Water Act
    to protect waters of the United States.
        Major advances in the quality of our nation's waters cannot be
    achieved without a strong Corps regulatory program. Funding levels over
    the past several years have made it increasingly difficult for the
    Corps to process applications for dredge and fill activities in a
    timely manner, compile data regarding impacts, monitor adherence to
    permit conditions, enforce against violators, and ensure adequate
    environmental review of permit applications. To this end, Audubon
    strongly supports a re-direction of funding for environmentally and
    economically unjustified water resource projects to further supplement
    the regulatory budget. We also support modifications to the regulatory
    permit fee structure that would recapture a larger portion of the costs
    of processing permits.

                                  CHALLENGE 21

        We support full funding for the ``Challenge 21'' non-structural
    floodplain program. The Administration's request for fiscal year 2001
    would provide $20 million to initiate this important initiative. We
    consider this amount inadequate to meet the demand for this program and
    encourage Congress to expand the authorization for this program in the
    future.

             ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM PROJECT, MISSISSIPPI

        We strongly support the Administration's request for $10 million
    for the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Project (part of the
    Mississippi River and Tributaries budget). Through the Atchafalaya
    project, easements and fee title acquisition are being utilized to
    protect and restore ecologically valuable land for low-cost natural
    floodwater storage. Audubon fully supports this project and would like
    to see such floodplain restoration programs used as a model for flood
    control projects across the nation. In addition to providing for
    floodwater storage, the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Project will
    preserve, in perpetuity, some of the most valuable wetland habitat in
    the nation.

                      WHITE RIVER WATER PROJECTS, ARKANSAS

        National Audubon Society strongly supports an appropriation of
    $500,000, included in the President's budget, that would allow the Army
    Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service to begin a
    comprehensive, basin-wide study of the environmental impacts of several
    major irrigation and navigation projects planned on the White River. A
    proposed $270 million irrigation project would pump water at an
    alarming rate. A $186 million lock and dam project would dramatically
    alter the water flow in the White River, and a $40 million dredging
    project would double the width and depth of the current navigation
    channel along a full 150 miles of the river. Clearly, these projects
    are major changes that will have a large cumulative effect on the
    ecological health of the White River. It is responsible and prudent to
    consider these cumulative impacts before proceeding with the projects.
        However, it would be neither responsible not prudent to begin
    appropriating funds for these massive and potentially destructive
    projects before the study of environmental impacts has been completed.
    Unfortunately, the President's budget prematurely includes $21.9
    million for the massive Grand Prairie Irrigation Project that would
    dramatically reduce river flow, lead to major wetland loss, and pollute
    the White River National Wildlife Refuge, a Wetland of International
    Importance. In a joint study, the National Wildlife Federation and
    Taxpayers for Common Sense highlighted the Grand Prairie Project as the
    single most environmentally-destructive and fiscally-irresponsible
    water project that has been proposed in the country. We strongly
    recommend striking the line-item for ``East Arkansas Irrigation'' so
    that tax dollars will not be wasted and prudent review of environmental
    impacts may be completed.

                             DE-FUNDING PRIORITIES

        We believe some projects recommended for funding in fiscal year
    2001 would have harmful and lasting environmental impacts. Audubon
    supports de-funding of these environmentally-damaging and economically
    unsupportable projects such as the Savannah Harbor Dredging, Sunflower
    Dredging/Yazoo Pump, St. Johns/New Madrid Floodway Project, Devils Lake
    Outlet, and the White River Navigation and Irrigation project
    (mentioned above). Funds for these projects should be re-directed to
    environmentally-sound local development projects, environmentally
    beneficial floodway projects and the Corps regulatory budget.

              UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY (NAV STUDY)

        The Subcommittee should serious review the allegations recently
    made public in an affidavit filed by a whistleblower regarding faulty
    economic projections used to justify the expansion of the Upper
    Mississippi River Navigation Study. These allegations have severely
    undermined the public's confidence that the Corps' can make an honest
    set of recommendations on the Upper Mississippi River that benefits all
    taxpayers.
        Given the numerous investigations presently underway, Congress must
    very carefully consider funding for this line item. We recognize the
    need to provide some level of funding for the Upper Mississippi River
    Navigation Study in order to preserve staffing levels while the
    allegations are investigated. However, we strongly oppose funding to
    continue work on the specific proposals for 1,200 foot lock and dam
    extensions on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River until all
    of the independent reviews on such proposals are completed.

                       SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GEORGIA

        Authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, the $230
    million harbor expansion project on the Lower Savannah River along the
    border between Georgia and South Carolina poses a serious threat to the
    ecological health of the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. Dredging
    will destroy many of the freshwater tidal wetlands in the wildlife
    refuge to accommodate the Georgia Port Authority's belief that new
    shipping business must be brought to Savannah. A preliminary economic
    study has shown that the costs of the harbor expansion far outweigh the
    potential benefits, even before necessary environmental mitigation
    costs are included in the analysis. The Army Corps of Engineers has
    failed to conduct studies to address many of the environmental impacts,
    while numerous state and federal environmental agencies have stated
    repeatedly that the decision to deepen the harbor is premature.
        We oppose the $100,000 appropriation included in the President's
    budget for the Savannah Harbor Expansion, and urges re-direction of
    these funds into further study of the environmental consequences of
    this potentially destructive project.

           BIG SUNFLOWER DREDGING AND YAZOO PUMP PROJECT, MISSISSIPPI

        The Big Sunflower River ``Maintenance'' project and Yazoo Backwater
    Pumping Station are part of an environmentally-destructive Corps plan
    to re-plumb the Mississippi River Delta through a series of water
    diversions and channels. The Big Sunflower project involves dredging of
    the entire width of the Mississippi River for 104 miles--to reduce
    seasonal flooding by only a few inches. The Yazoo Backwater Pump
    Project would create the world's largest pump system to move water from
    south Delta wetlands into the Mississippi River, disrupting natural
    water cycles in some of the last intact bottomland hardwood forests and
    forested wetlands in the Mississippi Delta.
        We oppose the Administration's request for $500,000 to fund the
    Yazoo pump and $3.9 million for dredging. We support re-directing these
    funds to reforestation, as a non-structural alternative to flood
    control and other environmentally-sound projects to benefit the area.
    While the pump project alone is estimated to cost at least $150 million
    to complete, cost estimates performed by EPA for reforestation and
    easement purchases would only be around $75 million.

                    ST. JOHNS/NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MISSOURI

        Audubon strongly opposed this economically and environmentally-
    indefensible project which would destroy 36,000 acres of wetlands and
    75,000 acres of valuable backwater habitat to create new farmland. It
    is being advanced despite the fact that the Federal Government is
    currently producing large grain surpluses and most farmers are
    suffering from the resulting low prices. While being promoted as flood
    control, the project would have little effect on flooding of nearby
    communities and the farmland itself would be subject to frequent
    flooding. Audubon supports redirection of the Administration-requested
    $7.8 million to economically-beneficial, yet environmentally sound
    development projects in the area.

                   DEVILS LAKE EMERGENCY OUTLET, NORTH DAKOTA

        Audubon supports de-funding of this environmentally-damaging
    project to create an outlet from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River. The
    outlet would reduce surface elevations of Devils Lake by only inches,
    yet would contribute to increased flooding and reduced water quality
    downstream and potentially violate an international treaty with Canada.
    None of the Administration-requested $10 million should be appropriated
    for this project.
        This Subcommittee has done an excellent job of opposing this
    project in the past, and we commend you for your valiant efforts. We
    urge you to continue your opposition to the project, and we will
    continue to support you in your efforts.
        Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on the
    Corps budget request.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the University of Miami

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am privileged to
    have the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of Rosenstiel
    School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami in
    Coral Gables, Florida.
        Respectfully, the University, joined by the City of Miami Beach,
    Florida seeks your support for the establishment of a demonstration
    project in Miami Beach which could arrest the continuing problem of
    coastal erosion, particularly in the cities of Miami Beach, Surfside,
    and Bal Harbour, Florida. This demonstration project would focus on the
    12 miles of sandy beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government
    Cut.
        By the mid-seventies, this beach segment had severely eroded,
    leaving only a small area of dry beach during low water. To prevent
    loss of land and to prevent damage to existing structures from storm
    surge, many of the adjacent properties had to be protected by sea walls
    and revetments. Because of the lack of sufficient dry beach, tourism
    declined, which has adverse effects on the economy of the region.
        To remedy some of these problems, in 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (ACOE), in partnership with Miami-Dade County, initiated the
    Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Project. At
    that time, Miami-Dade County and the ACOE entered into a 50-year
    contract for the joint management of Miami-Dade's sandy beaches. During
    the period 1979-1982, the ACOE constructed a hurricane dune and
    nourished the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government Cut.
    A total of 60 million cubic yards of sand was placed on the beach
    thereby increasing its width to 300 feet. The implementation of the
    beach nourishment has had a tremendously positive effect on the economy
    of the region.
        In judging the performance of the project, it should be realized
    that beach nourishment is a repeat process and, based on experience
    with other beaches, should be carried on the average of every 5 years.
    The Miami Beach Nourishment, has a considerable better track record.
    Only after some 15 years were there areas that needed to be
    renourished. However at this time, 20 years after the start of the
    original nourishment, the beach as a whole has eroded to an extent that
    a large scale renourishment seems unavoidable unless a return to the
    situation in the mid 1970s is accepted. The major problem is where to
    find sand in sufficient quantities to re-supply the beaches, as the
    near-shore deposits of sand which have been the source for the
    nourishment project have been exhausted.
        The erosion along the beaches between Bakers Haulover Inlet and
    Government Cut is not uniform. Since the implementation of the
    nourishment during the period 1979-1982, the northern two-third has
    steadily eroded whereas the southern one-third has accreted.
    Furthermore, in the erosional part there are ``hot spots'' where the
    erosion is much more severe than in others. The reason for this
    situation is not directly obvious and has to do with the local off-
    shore bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics. In
    addition, Bakers Haulover Inlet plays an important role in the erosion
    along the beaches of Bal Harbor and Surfside. The present shoreline is
    irregular in plain view--rather than a smooth curve between the two
    inlets--and is characterized by indentations and protrusions.
        Although there is some transfer of sand across the inlets, to a
    first approximation the area between the two inlets can be considered a
    self-contained littoral cell. The seaward boundary of that cell is not
    known and the big question is how much sand is lost to the offshore.
    The remaining sand is redistributed in the cell by waves. From a recent
    study, it is known that sand eroded from the northern two thirds of
    beach can be traced to the southern one-third of the beach. Also,
    bathymetric surveys show that the beach does not conform to the
    straight design slope of 1:40. The actual beach slope is gentler and
    the underwater beach shows a bar. This leads to a loss of dry beach.
        As suggested earlier, the causes of the irregular appearance of the
    shoreline, the presence of erosional ``hot spots'' and the shape of the
    beach profile are related to offshore bathymetry, wave climate, and the
    characteristics of the beach sand. Therefore, to identify the cause(s)
    of erosion, to explain the presence of the erosional ``hot spots'' and
    to predict the anticipated beach profile, information is needed on
    bathymetry, wave climate, and sediment characteristics.
        None of this information is in sufficient detail and will require
    measurements, the results of which would be interpreted using computer
    models. Deep-water waves will be carried inshore to calculate the wave
    characteristics at breaking. From this information, long-shore
    currents, sediment transport and changes in bathymetry, including the
    position of the shoreline will be calculated. The measurements will
    allow construction of an improved sediment budget. For this effort, the
    beach would be divided into compartments, both in the long-shore and
    cross-shore direction. The principle of conservation of sand would be
    applied to each compartment, i.e., the rate of change of the sediment
    volume in each compartment would equal the volume of sediment in minus
    the volume of sediment leaving the compartment. Comparison with
    observed changes in bathymetry, including changes in beach profile,
    should identify the causes of erosion and erosional ``hot spots'' as
    well as the shape of the beach profile.
        The City of Miami Beach remains committed to identifying outside
    sources of sand and expediting the evaluation of the environmental,
    physical and economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure
    that sufficient quantities of beach-quality sand are available to
    fulfill future needs. However it is realized that continuing to pump
    sand to the beaches without addressing the underlying causes of
    erosion, will lead to an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly
    expensive sand.
        Another possible solution is to transfer sand from the southern
    accretional part to the northern erosional part of the beach. Recycling
    will reduce the dependence on outside sources of sand.
        Although presently beach nourishment is the accepted way to combat
    erosion, the lack of sand sources requires us to rethink the process.
    It could well be that for Miami Beach a combination of beach
    nourishment and hard structures (e.g., off-shore breakwaters) is a more
    desirable solution. The hard structures would reduce the sand losses
    and more importantly when located properly, would concentrate the sand
    that has eroded from the beaches in places where it can be retrieved by
    dredges.
        The measurements and subsequent analysis referred to in the
    previous section should help to optimize the use of outside sand
    sources and the recycling technique and provide the necessary knowledge
    to properly design combined measures of nourishment and hard
    structures.
        To arrive at a solution to the erosion problem, the City of Miami
    Beach in cooperation with the University of Miami is suggesting a two-
    prong approach consisting of the development of a long-term beach
    management plan and the implementation of two demonstration projects.
        Combating beach erosion takes a regional (the beach area between
    the two inlets) rather than a local (``hot spots'') approach. The first
    order of business in establishing a beach management plan is to
    identify the causes of the beach erosion and to determine whether there
    exists an equilibrium shoreline position and equilibrium beach profile.
    After that the questions of how, where and when to combat erosion can
    be addressed. This includes the question whether hard structures should
    be included. An important item in arriving at answers to these
    questions is the development of an improved sediment budget. In view of
    the necessary field measurements, the development of the beach
    management plan is expected to take 5 years.
        Mr. Chairman, the University of Miami is pleased to be an active
    partner of the City of Miami Beach, Florida in an effort to provide an
    efficient, cost-effective remedy for the continuing coastal erosion
    problems along the southeast Atlantic Coast. We are convinced that the
    results of this proposed demonstration project will make an important
    contribution to gaining a permanent solution to the problem.
        To accomplish this important program the University of Miami, in
    partnership with the City of Miami Beach, seeks $8 million from the
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee through the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Your support would be appreciated, Mr.
    Chairman. My colleagues and I at the University of Miami thank you for
    the opportunity to present these views for your consideration.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida

        The City of Miami Beach appreciates the opportunity to submit for
    the record (1) testimony on an innovative new beach erosion control
    initiative, and (2) testimony in support of the request by Miami-Dade
    County for beach renourishment funds.

         INNOVATIVE BEACH EROSION PREVENTION AND SAND RECYCLING SYSTEM
                             DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

        Dade County, Florida has approximately 15 miles of sandy beaches.
    The Miami Beach Segment makes up 10.5 miles or 70 percent of that beach
    front area. The Miami Beach Segment is bounded to the north by Baker's
    Haulover inlet and to the south by Government Cut Inlet. The
    construction of these inlets, just after the turn of the century, left
    the Miami Beach Segment isolated between two complete barriers to
    along-shore sand migration. As a result, the Miami Beach Segment
    continuously loses sand through natural processes but can only regain
    sand through artificial means.
        In the years that followed the construction of the inlets, the
    Miami Beach shoreline steadily receded. By the mid-1970's the shoreline
    had receded more than 500 feet and most of the sandy beaches had been
    lost. Property owners were forced to build seawalls, bulkheads and
    other hardened structures to prevent the coastal infrastructure from
    being undercut by the encroaching tides.
        In 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), in partnership
    with Dade County, initiated the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and
    Hurricane Surge Protection Project. At that time, Dade County and the
    ACOE entered into a 50 year contract for the joint management of Dade's
    sandy beaches. In 1979, the ACOE constructed a flood control dike (sand
    dune) and an ``engineered'' beach along the entire length of Miami
    Beach. The project added more than 300 feet to the width of the
    severely eroded beaches. The new beach was a tremendous success and has
    been credited for contributing significantly to the resurgence of our
    local economy.
        The sand used to nourish the beaches was hydraulically dredged from
    deposits of sand about a mile off our coast. More than 16 million cubic
    yards of sand were used during the initial beach construction and an
    additional 5 million cubic yards have been used in the periodic
    renourishment of segments of the project. However, the near shore
    deposits of sand which have been the source for the renourishment
    projects have been exhausted. There is not enough sand remaining to
    meet the immediate needs of the critically eroded shoreline areas nor
    are there any strategic reserves to be used in the event that our
    shorelines are ravaged by a hurricane or other natural disaster.
        Engineers have determined that Miami Beach loses sand to erosion at
    an average rate of 250,000 cubic yards per year, with that rate
    increasing ten-fold during years of heavy storm activity. Faced with a
    continuing need for a quarter million tons of sand per year for the
    maintenance of our beaches and an exhausted supply of local sand, the
    City of Miami Beach realized that immediate action was needed to avert
    a crisis. Our initial reaction was to try to locate alternate sources
    of beach-quality sand. The City advertised its interest in locating
    sand sources, traveled across Florida & the Caribbean to visit
    potential sources, compiled a database of source location & quality
    information, and secured an invitation for the Army Corps of Engineers
    to conduct testing of several potential sources of high-quality
    carbonate sands in the Turks & Caicos Islands.
        The City remains committed to identifying alternate sources of sand
    and expediting the evaluation of the environmental, physical and
    economic viability of the potential sources, to ensure that sufficient
    quantities of beach-quality sand are available to fulfill our future
    needs. However, we have realized that continuing to pump sand on to our
    beaches without addressing the underlying causes of the erosion, will
    leave us in an endless cycle of needing more, increasingly expensive
    sand.
        If the erosion cycle can be successfully slowed, it would reduce
    the demand for additional sand and save millions of dollars in
    renourishment costs; not to mention the elimination of the
    environmental, public and legal challenges to renourishment projects.
    To achieve this goal, the City embarked upon a program to develop
    innovative technologies which will help prevent beach erosion
    processes.
        Analysis of our coastal system revealed the presence of several
    ``hot spot'' areas along our shoreline which accounted for the majority
    of the sand losses. Analysis of the data also revealed the presence of
    an area of substantial sand accretion (accumulation) in a near shore
    area near the southern end of Miami Beach.
        The causative factors behind these hot spots have been linked to
    changes in the shape (compass orientation) of the coastline and benthic
    topographical anomalies in the nearshore area. The worst of these hot
    spots exist within two half-mile long areas along our shoreline. These
    two hot spots have been shown to be responsible for the loss of almost
    200,000 cubic yards of sand each year. The hot spots also accelerate
    the erosion of the adjacent beaches for as much as a mile to the north,
    as the sand from the adjacent beaches slough down to fill the voids
    within the hot spots. With beach renourishment costs of about $14/cubic
    yard of sand, these hot spots are responsible for the loss of more than
    2.5 million dollars annually.
        After detailed examination of the available data and careful
    consideration of the possible alternatives, our coastal engineers have
    designed a series of detached breakwater structures which will
    significantly reduce the rate of erosion within these hot spot areas
    and help to stabilize large sections of our beach. The size and
    configuration of these structures have been carefully ``tuned'' to the
    specific conditions at each of the hot spot areas. Our coastal
    engineers estimate that the elimination of each hot spot will widen and
    stabilize approximately one mile of beach. It is believed that these
    benefits can be gained without significant negative impacts to the down
    drift beach areas or offshore reefs. Sea turtle nesting in the area
    will also be enhanced by the widening and stabilization of more than
    two miles of beach.
        The City of Miami Beach and Dade County have jointly initiated an
    emergency effort to develop and construct breakwater reef structures in
    the location of the two worst hot spots. Preliminary estimates indicate
    the breakwater structures will cost approximately $700,000 each. The
    required funding for the first of set of these structures has already
    been appropriated and construction is scheduled to begin in mid-2000.
        The City's master plan is to develop a series of erosion control
    breakwaters, positioned in key areas along the shoreline, to widen the
    beaches and slow the erosion process. Concurrent with the efforts to
    slow the beach erosion process, we plan to initiate a feasibility
    study/demonstration project to pursue an innovative and promising
    potential solution to our sand shortage problem. Our coastal engineers
    have identified the presence of a highly accretional near-shore area at
    the southern end of Miami Beach. The area is accreting sand at a rate
    of more than 200,000 cubic yards per year. Sand is accreting in the
    area because of the navigational Jetty that juts 1500 yards out to sea,
    along the north side of the Government Cut Inlet, at the southern tip
    of Miami Beach. The jetty structure acts as a barrier, blocking the
    natural, southerly migration of the near shore sand lens, which causes
    the migrating sand to pile-up on the north side of the structure. As
    more and more sand piles-up, the sand lens builds and creeps offshore
    toward the end of the jetty. Because the seaward end of the jetty
    extends out to the first line of coral reefs which parallel our
    shoreline, the jetty and the reef line together form a `trap' which
    prevents most of the sand from being able to move further south. This
    near-shore sand lens is continuing to build and will eventually ``over-
    top'' the reef and smother living corals. If authorized, the City will
    seek to have the overfill accumulating at the southern end of the
    segment ``back passed'' or pumped back up to the eroded beaches at the
    northern end of our beach segment.
        The ultimate goal is to utilize the breakwater structures to slow
    the erosion process, stabilize the beaches and cut the demand for new
    sand. Then, periodically, the excess fill that accumulates will be
    recycled back to the beaches at the north end of the system and the
    cycle will start over. This Sand Recycling System, if successful, will
    allow for the continued, effective maintenance of our beaches, while
    offering substantial financial and environmental benefits.
        Local government has already made a substantial investment in the
    development of this process. If approved, this $2.3 million
    appropriation request will allow the City to complete a thorough
    engineering analysis of the entire system, obtain the necessary Federal
    and State permits, and contract for the renourishment of a mile long
    section of beach utilizing back-passed sand. This project will serve as
    a demonstration of the effectiveness of the Sand Recycling System and
    the importance of regional sediment management.

                  SUPPORT FOR MIAMI-DADE CONSTRUCTION REQUEST

        The City of Miami Beach would first like to thank the members of
    the subcommittee for all their efforts in the past to provide support
    for the State of Florida's beaches and in particular, those of Miami
    Beach.
        Beaches are Florida's number one tourist ``attraction.'' Last year,
    beach tourism generated more than $16 billion dollars for Florida's
    economy and more tourists visited Miami Beach than visited the three
    largest national parks combined.
        In addition to their vital economic importance, beaches are the
    front line defense for multi-billion dollar coastal infrastructure
    during hurricanes and storms. When beaches are allowed to erode away,
    the likelihood that the Federal government will be stuck with
    astronomical storm recovery costs is significantly increased. The Army
    Corps of Engineers estimated that more than 70 percent of the damage
    caused to upland properties in Panama City Beach by Hurricane Opal
    could have been prevented if their pending beach renourishment project
    had been completed before the storm.
        The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that
    at least 276 miles (35 percent) of Florida's 787 miles of sandy beaches
    are currently at a critical state of erosion. This includes the entire
    six miles of Miami Beach. As a result of the continuing erosion process
    and more dramatically, recent intense storms which have caused
    tremendous damage to almost all of the dry beach and sand dune
    throughout the middle segment of Miami Beach. Two years ago, most of
    the Middle Beach dune cross-overs were declared safety hazards and
    closed, as the footings of the boardwalk itself were in immediate
    jeopardy of being undercut by the encroaching tides. If emergency
    measures, costing approximately $400,000 had not been taken by the
    City, there would have been considerable risk of coastal flooding west
    of the dune line in residential sections of Miami Beach. As you can
    see, this example points to the commitment we as a beach community have
    to our beaches, but federal assistance remains crucial. While we are
    thankful of the substantial commitment made by the subcommittee in the
    fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Conference Report, there is still
    much work to be done. Our beaches must be maintained not only to ensure
    that our residents and coastal properties are afforded the best storm
    protection possible, but also to ensure that beach tourism, our number
    one industry, is protected and nurtured.
        In 1987, the Army Corps of Engineers and Metropolitan Dade County
    entered into a fifty year agreement to jointly manage restore and
    maintain Dade County's sandy beaches. Since then, Metropolitan Dade
    County has been responsible for coordinating and funding the local
    share of the cost for the periodic renourishment of our beaches.
        In order to ensure that adequate funding will continue to be
    available, the City of Miami Beach supports and endorses the
    legislative priorities and appropriation requests of Metropolitan Dade
    County, as they relate to the restoration and maintenance of Dade
    County's sandy beaches. Specifically, the City respectfully adds their
    strong support for the efforts of Miami-Dade County and wholeheartedly
    supports their fiscal year 2001 request for $8 million in beach
    renourishment funds.
        Your support would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman. The City of Miami
    Beach thanks you for the opportunity to present these views for your
    consideration.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the University of Michigan

        The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided support to the DOE
    University Research Program in Robotics to pursue long range research
    leading to the: ``development and deployment of advanced robotic
    systems capable of reducing human exposure to hazardous environments,
    and of performing a broad spectrum of tasks more efficiently and
    effectively than utilizing humans.''
        The DOE University Research Program in Robotics (URPR) has proven
    highly effective in technology innovation, education, and DOE mission
    support. The URPR incorporates mission-oriented university research
    into DOE EM's Office of Science and Technology (OST) and, through close
    collaboration with the DOE national laboratories, provides an avenue
    for applying innovative solutions to problems of vital importance to
    DOE.
        The URPR would like to thank the Committee members for their
    historically strong support of this highly innovative and successful
    program. Although the DOE EM-50 Budget Request for fiscal year 2001
    fails to include explicit funding numbers for any university program,
    the URPR expects to be funded at $4.0 million from the larger Focus
    Area budgets. The URPR is requesting the Committee: (1) explicitly
    direct research funding of the URPR, and (2) consider augmenting this
    amount to $4.35 million to compensate for DOE's expansion of the
    Consortium to include the University of New Mexico.
    Request for the Committee
        We request the Committee include explicit language directing $4.35
    million of EM-50 research funds to the University Research Program in
    Robotics (URPR) for development of safer, less expensive, and more
    effective robotic technology for environmental restoration and waste
    management solutions.

              DEVELOPING ADVANCED ROBOTICS FOR DOE AND THE NATION

    Develop robotic solutions for work in hazardous environments and
            facilitate cleanup operations
        The goal of this program is to advance and utilize state-of-the-art
    robotic technology in order to remove humans from potentially hazardous
    environments and expedite remediation efforts now considered essential.
    This is increasingly necessary because human radiation exposure limits
    have been further reduced during the last two years. Established by DOE
    in fiscal year 1987 to support advanced nuclear reactor concepts, the
    project was relocated to EM to support higher priority needs in
    environmental restoration. The project has produced an impressive array
    of technological innovations which have been incorporated into robotic
    solutions being employed across federal and commercial sectors. This
    successful program demonstrates efficient technology innovation while
    educating tomorrow's technologists, inventing our country's intelligent
    machine systems technology of the next century, and meeting today's
    technology needs for DOE.

    Robotics: A Strategic National Technology
        R&D funding is the most effective use of federal funds to promote
    the nation's well-being according to a 1997 published poll of respected
    academic economists. And, as documented in previous testimonies, key
    national studies (by the Council on Competitiveness, DOD, and former
    OTA technology assessment reports) consistently list robotics and
    advanced manufacturing among the five most vital strategic technologies
    for government support. During the past year, reports from NSF, the
    OSTP report on critical technologies, and the report from the
    President's Advisory Committee on Information Technology suggests that
    the areas of greatest concern to the nation are: the economy,
    education, health care, and the environment. The URPR is making
    technology contributions affecting each of these key areas.
    Furthermore, the reports note key technology areas include information
    technology and nanotechnology, and key enabling technologies include
    manufacturing and materials. The URPR actively participates in
    advancing these fields. The national need for an investment in the
    development of intelligent machines which can interact with their
    environment has been universally recognized for over a decade.

    Intelligent Machines: Grand Challenge for the New Millennium
        Significant advances in computing power, sensor development and
    platform architectures (e.g., unamanned airborne vehicles) have opened
    new opportunities in intelligent machine technology. The long-range
    implications of intelligent mobile and dextrous machines which can
    assist humans to perform daily life tasks are clearly significant and
    represent one of technology's Grand Challenges for the new millennium.
    We can expect to see intelligent prosthetic devices, smart transport
    vehicles, and mobile devices capable of assisting or replacing the
    human, not only in potentially hazardous situations, but in daily life.
    Just during the past year, small mobile vehicles have become available
    to the everyday consumer, including the RoboMow lawn mower, and the
    hovering DragonFly--both available for less than $1,000. Furthermore,
    the integration of intelligent mobile machines onto or into the human
    body is within reach.

              URPR: INNOVATION, EDUCATION, AND DOE MISSION SUPPORT

    URPR: Refining the Right Paradigm
        The URPR instantiates the new paradigm recommended for Federal
    investment in national S&T by the National Science Board (3/6/98) that
    emphasizes the integration of long-range research and education. The
    URPR's strategic mission is to make significant advances in our
    nation's intelligent machine and manufacturing technology base while
    emphasizing: education, technology innovation through basic R&D, and
    DOE mission support. Furthermore, the Consortium of Universities
    (Universities of Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and New Mexico)
    are united as a powerful technology team, governed by a national Board
    of Directors, advised by a Technical Advisory Committee, and managed by
    a group of DOE and national laboatory officials.
        The URPR has demonstrated in earlier years that the advantages of
    operating as a consortium are significant. The institutions of the URPR
    partitioned technology development into manageable sections which
    allowed each to concentrate within their area of expertise (efficiently
    maintaining world-class levels of excellence) while relying on their
    partners to supply supporting concentrations. With full cooperation of
    the host universities, this effort naturally generated the in-depth
    human and equipment capital required by the EM community. Practically,
    the long-term distributed interaction and planning among these
    universities in concert with the DOE labs and associated industry
    allows for effective technology development (with software and
    equipment compatibility and portability), for a vigorous and full
    response to application requirements (component technologies, system
    technologies, deployment issues, etc.), and for the supported
    application of the technology. Considering the remarkable achievements
    of URPR over its history and the enlightened commitment of EM-50 to
    this technology development, the URPR is now poised to enhance its
    prominent role in education, technology innovation, and DOE mission
    support.

    Educating the New Millenium's Technologists
        The URPR has already educated about 500 advanced degree students in
    the critical engineering fields, including many with earned doctoral
    degrees. These students have entered the work force, and are leading
    the industrial resurgence based on intelligent machines, advanced
    manufacturing technology, and high-technology related fields. Graduates
    from this project have built successful startup companies and made
    industrial technology transfers in computer and robotic technology (MI,
    TN, TX) and medical imaging (MI), video databases (CA), and intelligent
    manufacturing (MI, FL, TX). We have been unable to meet the strong
    demand for graduates educated through this project.

    DOE Mission Contribution--Environmental Cleanup
        Since its inception, EM has recognized robotics as an essential
    technology to accomplish its mission. The motives for undertaking a
    comprehensive R&D effort in the application of advanced robotics to EM
    tasks in hazardous environments reflect both economic considerations,
    efficiency, effectiveness, and health and safety concerns. The RBX is a
    national laboratory program which primarily applies commercially
    available technology to current problems. In contrast, the URPR
    supports needs-driven applied research to develop innovative and
    synergistic technologies in support of EM focus areas. A major
    accomplishment during fiscal year 2000 was the identification and
    establishment of a process by which URPR innovations could be
    transferred to field applications. Both the Secretary of Energy's
    Robotics and Intelligent Machines (RIM) Initiative and the RBX's fiscal
    year 2001 proposals recognize the URPR as providing the core research
    effort.
        URPR progress is evaluated annually by a thorough review of its
    technical accomplishments, and DOE validated technology needs
    (generated by the DOE EM Focus Area representatives and Site Technology
    Coordination Groups) are used to set the program's directions. The URPR
    has consistently received high rankings for providing both outstanding
    technical contributions and value. Future success of this program is
    expected to continue based upon the Consortium's productive history.
        Over the past few years, the URPR projects successfully supported
    the following EM projects:
      --deployment and testing of SWAMI, an autonomous inspection robot for
            Fernald stored waste drums,
      --design, construction and demonstration of a robot to precisely map
            large DOE facilities, such as K-25 and K-27 in Oak Ridge, in
            preparation for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D),
      --delivery of a robotic handling system for an automated chemical and
            radiological analysis system to Los Alamos,
      --remote radiation mapping of the MSRE facility at ORNL during D&D
            operations.
      --design and implementation of a real-time controller for use at
            Hanford in support of the tank waste retrieval project
      --design and fabrication of a prototype Soil Sample Preparation
            Module in support of the Contaminant Analysis Automation
            project at LANL.
        Recent URPR technology achievements have included:
      --Discover Magazine Award for Technological Innovation: Robotics,
            presented by the Secretary of Energy.
      --Invention of the room-temperature semiconductor radiation sensor
            that holds the world's record for energy resolution.
      --Development of a mutisensor visualization platform to aid operators
            during D&D operations.
      --Development of a system to reduce the time between a site-defined
            need and a site-delivered implementation of the robotic and/or
            automation hardware using simulation of components.
      --Codified algorithms for assembly of standardized modules to produce
            the complex manipulators needed for a wide range of hazardous
            tasks.
      --Development of a system to reduce the time between a site-defined
            need and a site-delivered implementation of the robotic and/or
            automation hardware using simulation of components.
        As shown above, URPR efforts are linked both directly and
    indirectly to cleanup operations in the DOE complex. During fiscal year
    2001, the URPR plans to continue its focussed efforts on DOE field
    cleanup applications, while maintaining our commitment to research and
    education.

    Innovation--the seed of future technology
        The URPR has produced prodigious levels of innovation in research
    and development. While recent demonstrations reveal next-generation
    technologies, even more advanced capabilities are emerging from the
    laboratories. These include new types of locomotion, navigation
    techniques, sensing modalities (radiation cameras and flash-fast
    imaging devices), environmentally hardened components, and dextrous
    open architecture manipulators. These devices will evolve and inspire
    the intelligent machines of the future, including smart automobiles,
    obstacle avoidance aids for the disabled, and agile manufacturing cells
    capable of being rapidly reconfigured.
        This level of innovation can also be seen in the following
    statistics:
      --Approximately 16 patents awarded or pending.
      --Over 750 technical papers published in technical journals and
            conferences.
      --The standard technical books for vision, radiation detection and
            imaging, and robotics are authored by researchers working with
            this project. Faculty and senior scientists dedicated to this
            project are the internationally renowned technologists of their
            fields.
      --A suite of world-class robots (including CARMEL, winner of the AAAI
            Mobile Robot Competition) serve as the research testbeds for
            this project.

                                PROGRAM REQUEST

        During fiscal year 2000, the URPR provided vital contributions to
    education and research while meeting DOE technology needs. The
    motivation for this project remains steadfast--removing humans from
    hazardous environments while enhancing safety, reducing costs, and
    increasing cleanup task productivity. EM-50 has recognized the URPR's
    role and mission and has purportedly included $4 million in the larger
    Focus Area requests for the URPR in fiscal year 2001.
                           request for the committee
        We request that the Committee (1) explicitly direct research
    funding of the URPR, and (2) consider augmenting this amount from $4
    million to $4.35 million to compensate for DOE's expansion of the
    Consortium. The following language is suggested for the fiscal year
    2001 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill:
        Funding of $4.35 million is provided for the University Research
    Program in Robotics (URPR) to develop and deploy innovative technology
    in support of EM site needs.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the County of Volusia, Florida

        On behalf of our citizens and fishermen, Volusia County, Florida,
    is requesting that the Subcommittee appropriate $1,000,000 in fiscal
    year 2001 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Construction
    account to fund an 1000 foot oceanward extension of the South Jetty of
    the Ponce DeLeon Inlet. This funding is essential to protect the Inlet,
    along with the existing North Jetty and its landward extension funded
    by this committee in fiscal year 1999. In addition, Volusia County
    requests that the committee appropriate $100,000 in fiscal year 2001
    from the COE's General Investigations account to fund the
    reconnaissance study authorized by a resolution adopted by the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on February 16, 2000. A
    more detailed case history and description of the situation and
    projects follow below.
        The Ponce DeLeon Inlet is located on the east coast of Florida,
    about 10 miles south of the City of Daytona Beach in Volusia County.
    The Inlet is a natural harbor connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the
    Halifax River and the Indian River North. The Ponce DeLeon Inlet
    provides the sole ocean access to all of Volusia County. Fishing
    parties and shrimp and commercial fisherman bound for New Smyrna Beach
    or Daytona Beach use the Inlet, as well as others entering for
    anchorage. Nearby fisheries enhanced by the County's artificial reef
    program attract both commercial and sport fisherman. Head boat
    operators also provide trips to view marine life and space shuttle
    launches from Cape Canaveral. In addition, there is a U.S. Coast Guard
    Lifeboat Station on the east shore of the Indian River less than a mile
    south of the Inlet.
        Unfortunately, the Inlet is highly unstable and, despite numerous
    navigation projects, continues to threaten safe passage for the charter
    boat operators and commercial fisherman who rely on the access it
    provides for their livelihood. Recreational boaters and Coast Guard
    operations are also at risk passing through this unstable inlet. The
    shoaling of the channels in the Inlet so restricts dependable
    navigation that the Coast Guard no longer marks the north channel in
    order to discourage its use. The Coast Guard continues to move the
    south and entrance channel markers and provides warnings that local
    knowledge and extreme caution must be used in navigating the inlet.
    More seriously, the Coast Guard search and rescue data for fiscal years
    1981-1995 show that 20 deaths have resulted from vessels capsizing in
    the Inlet, the direct result of the Inlet's instability. 147 vessels
    capsized and 496 vessels ran aground in the Inlet during the same
    period.
        The Federal interest in navigation through the Ponce DeLeon Inlet
    dates back to 1884 and continues to the present. The existing
    navigation project was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of
    1965. The construction authorized by that Act, including ocean jetties
    on the north and south sides of the Inlet, was completed in July 1972.
    It became evident soon after completion of the authorized project that
    the project did not bring stability to the Inlet. A strong northeaster
    in February 1973 created a breach between the western end of the North
    Jetty and the sand spit the Jetty was connected to inside the Inlet.
    The breach allowed schoaling to occur that was serious enough to close
    boat yards and require almost $2 million worth of repairs, including
    extending the western end of the North Jetty.
        Under the existing maintenance agreement entered into upon
    completion of the construction, the COE periodically performs
    maintenance on the Inlet. Maintenance projects have included several
    dredging efforts, adding stone sections to the south side of the north
    jetty, extending the westward end of the North Jetty for the second
    time, and closing the North Jetty weir. Prior to the North Jetty
    project discussed below, the COE's last maintenance was dredging,
    completed on the entrance channel in January 1990.
        In fiscal year 1998, the COE received a $3,500,000 appropriation
    for emergency maintenance on the North Jetty. Migration of the entrance
    channel undermined the North Jetty, seriously threatening its
    structural integrity. The fiscal year 1998 funds were used to construct
    a granite rock scour apron for the 500 to 600 feet of where the Jetty
    is undermined.
        In fiscal year 1999, the COE received $4,034,000 from the
    Operations and Maintenance account to extend the North Jetty of the
    Inlet landward by 800 feet. This maintenance project is underway and
    intended to be completed as soon as possible to prevent erosion that
    will cause outflanking of the North Jetty. Continued outflanking of the
    west end of the North Jetty could create a new inlet for the Halifax
    and Indian Rivers resulting in major changes to the Ponce DeLeon Inlet.
    The resultant shoaling of both the north and south channels, as well as
    changes to the entrance channel, would make passage through the inlet
    extremely dangerous and unpredictable.
        In the current fiscal year, the COE received $7,696,000 in their
    Operations and Maintenance account for use in the Ponce DeLeon Inlet.
    These funds will provide the balance of the funding to complete the
    North Jetty project, funding for surveys designed to determine the
    scope of a new maintenance contract for the Ponce De Leon Inlet, and
    funding for a dredging project to address a minor maintenance issue
    under the existing maintenance contract.
        For the next fiscal year, Volusia County requests that the COE
    receive $1 million of the $2.988 million federal share of the
    construction funds for the South Jetty oceanward extension. The COE
    anticipates that the construction of the jetty extensions will help
    stabilize the Inlet and reduce future maintenance costs.
        The Ponce DeLeon Inlet presents a serious engineering challenge;
    the success of which is measured in terms of human life and vessel
    damage. The existing project has failed to stabilize the Inlet.
    Extending the North Jetty was the first step toward correcting the
    failure and meeting the challenge. Funding the beginning phase of the
    1000 foot oceanward extension of the South Jetty in fiscal year 2001 is
    the next critical step toward providing safe passage for the commercial
    and recreational boaters in Volusia County. In addition, providing
    these funds at this time is likely to prevent the need to a much more
    substantial maintenance project in the near future.
        In addition to the jetty projects to protect the Ponce DeLeon
    Inlet, the County also requests funding for the COE to complete in
    fiscal year 2001, a reconnaissance study to address the critical
    erosion along the County's 49.5 miles of ocean shoreline. In August
    1991, the COE completed a favorable reconnaissance report for the shore
    protection study authorized by the House Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee in September 1988. The County declined to act
    as the non-federal sponsor for the feasibility study at that time. As a
    result of heavy damage to the County's shoreline sustained during the
    1999 hurricane season, the County recognizes the critical need to
    address the growing impact of the storm-induced erosion. The COE
    advises the County that the shore protection reconnaissance study can
    be completed in fiscal year 2001 for $100,000.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida

        The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
    regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
    (COE). The Tribe asks that Congress provide $20.525 million in the
    COE's construction budget for critical projects in the South Florida
    Ecosystem, as authorized in section 208 of the Water Resources
    Development Act (WRDA) of 1999. On January 7, 2000, the Tribe and the
    COE signed a Project Coordination Agreement for the Big Cypress
    Reservation's critical project. The Tribe's critical project includes a
    complex water conservation plan and a canal that transverses the
    Reservation. In signing this Agreement, the Tribe, as the local
    sponsor, committed to funding half of the cost of this approximately
    $50 million project.
        The Tribe's critical project is a part of the Tribe's Everglades
    Restoration Initiative, which includes the design and construction of a
    comprehensive water conservation system. This project is designed to
    improve the water quality and natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress
    Basin. This project will contribute to the overall success of both the
    Federal and the state Governments' multi-agency effort to preserve and
    restore the delicate ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. In
    recognition of this contribution, the Seminole Tribe's Restoration
    Initiative has been endorsed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
    Task Force and has been found to be consistent with the recommendations
    of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida.

                         THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

        The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
    Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
    Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
    members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
    religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
    endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
    the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
    members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
        During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
    protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
    filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
    would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
    the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
    sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
    cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
    sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
    chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
    to the earth to nourish the soil.
        In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
    Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
    for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
    looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
    that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
    At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
    people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
    elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
    the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
    themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
    also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
        Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
    with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
    and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
    future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
    allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
    while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
    large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
    positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
    National Park.
        The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
    degradation wrought by decades of federal flood control construction
    and polluted urban and agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet flow
    and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the spread
    of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid spread
    of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and sawgrass
    necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the
    wildlife of the Everglades.
        The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project to
    allow the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
    Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
    quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
    committed significant resources to the design of this project and to
    our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing
    to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural
    survival is at stake.

                 SEMINOLE TRIBE'S BIG CYPRESS CRITICAL PROJECT

        The Tribe has developed a conceptual water conservation plan that
    will enable us to meet new water quality standards essential to the
    cleanup of our part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the
    storage and conveyance of our water rights. The Tribe's Everglades
    Restoration Initiative is designed to mitigate the degradation the
    ecosystem has suffered through decades of flood control projects and
    urban and agricultural use and ultimately to restore the nation's
    largest wetlands to a healthy state.
        The Seminole Tribe's critical project provides for the design and
    construction of water control, management, and treatment facilities on
    the western half of the Big Cypress reservation. The project elements
    include conveyance systems, including major canal bypass structures,
    irrigation storage cells, and water resources areas. This project will
    enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target for low phosphorus
    concentrations that is being used for design purposes by state and
    federal authorities, as well as to convey and store irrigation water
    and improve flood control. It will also provide an important public
    benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the western basins to
    the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is vitally needed for
    rehydration and restoration of lands within the Preserve.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
    Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
    restoring the Everglades for future generations. By granting this
    appropriation request, the Federal Government will be taking a
    substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water
    that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate
    Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big
    Cypress Reservation, which is federal land held in trust for the Tribe,
    will send a clear message that the Federal Government is committed to
    Everglades restoration.
        The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work
    immediately. Doing so will require substantial commitments from the
    Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres of land for water
    management improvements. However, if the Tribe is to move forward with
    its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a
    substantially higher level of federal financial assistance will be
    needed as well.
        The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
    Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the Federal
    Government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
    just The Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
    supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
    Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
    Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
    information upon request.
                                     ______

                  OHIO RIVER VALLEY INLAND NAVIGATION PROJECTS

                  Statement of the National Mining Association

                                    SUMMARY

        The National Mining Association (NMA) represents companies whose
    products often must depend on the availability of adequate safe, and
    efficient inland waterways barge freight services. NMA's member
    companies are producers of coal and other metallic and nonmetallic
    minerals, manufacturers of mining machinery and equipment, and
    providers of mining-related services. With that in mind, NMA urges the
    Congress to approve fiscal year 2001 appropriations needed for
    justifiable improvements in waterway transportation and for effective
    operation and maintenance of the inland waterways system.
        Specifically, NMA urges the Congress to fund certain inland
    waterways lock and dam construction and rehabilitation at selected lock
    and dam (L&D) projects required to assure that the Ohio River System is
    capable of continuing its important function as a principal component
    of the intermodal rail/barge and truck/barge bulk freight distribution
    network in the United States, including the Ohio River main stem and
    connecting Monongahela, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pre-
                                               construction   Construction &
       Lock and Dam project recommendation     engineering/   rehabilitation
                                                  design
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ohio River Main Stem:
        Olmsted L&D-IL&KY...................  ..............               X
        McAlpine L&D-IN&KY..................  ..............               X
        J.T. Myers L&D-IN&KY................               X  ..............
        Newburgh L&D-IN&KY..................               X  ..............
        Cannelton L&D-IN&KY.................               X  ..............
        Greenup L&D-KY&OH...................               X  ..............
    Monongahela River: L&D 2,3,4-PA.........  ..............               X
    Kanawha River:
        Marmet L&D-WV.......................  ..............               X
        London L&D-WV.......................  ..............               X
    Tennessee River: Kentucky L&D-KY........  ..............               X
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After the termination of Conrail in mid-1999, the states in the
    Ohio River Basin from Pennsylvania to Illinois were left with only two
    long-haul railroads, a circumstance that magnifies the need to place a
    higher priority on Ohio River lock improvements to enable adequate,
    safe, and efficient barge services from Pittsburgh to the confluence of
    the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers at Cairo, Illinois. The Ohio River
    serves the Nation as a vital transportation asset making possible fuel
    efficient, low emission, cost-effective distribution of bulk
    commodities, including coal and other products like limestone and
    materials used in building construction and public and private
    infrastructure projects free of congestion that would be caused
    otherwise if those commodities were transported using other surface
    transportation modes.

          COAL, IN PARTICULAR, IS A PRINCIPAL COMMODITY MOVED BY BARGE

        During 1998, the Ohio River was utilized to move 132.7 million tons
    of coal, approximately 55 percent of the 241.9 million tons of total
    bulk freight commodities carried by barge. The Ohio River System
    including the main stem of the Ohio River, the Monongahela River in
    Pennsylvania, the Kanawha River in West Virginia, the Big Sandy River
    in Kentucky and West Virginia, the Green River in Kentucky, the
    Cumberland River in Kentucky, together with its connecting Tennessee
    and Mississippi River Systems, represents vast freight transportation
    network serving traffic originating both in the Ohio River Basin and in
    western states having railroad access to the inland waterways system.
    That interconnected waterways system must be considered an integral
    component of the Nation's freight transportation network providing wide
    opportunities for intermodal rail/barge and truck/barge shipments, with
    ton-miles of barge traffic characterized importantly by its fuel-
    efficiency, low emissions, and cost-effectiveness in interstate
    commerce and in furnishing direct access to the Gulf of Mexico for
    coastal movements and international trade. NMA places emphasis on
    adequate funding for waterways improvements, especially on the Ohio
    River and its Upper Ohio River Basin Tributaries and additional
    connecting rivers in light of five principal considerations:
      --The Ohio River is the leading waterway for barge coal traffic,
            serving distribution of coal produced in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
            West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee in
            eastern and midwestern coal fields, as well as coal produced in
            the western states and carried by railroad to the rivers.
      --Numerous coal-fueled power plants are located on the Ohio River and
            connecting segments of the waterways system.
      --With the termination of Conrail, only two railroads remain in the
            east for long-haul coal distribution services, CSX
            Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation, each of whom
            have acquired portions of Conrail, a circumstance that
            increases the importance of having ready access to barge coal
            distribution services.
      --The four mega-railroads in the United States today, i.e. CSXT, NS,
            Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), and Union Pacific (UP),
            each have river terminal connections with the inland waterways,
            making intermodal rail/barge coal traffic both viable in many
            situations and attractive in enabling greater intermodal rail/
            barge competition with all-rail coal distribution, a factor in
            stimulating higher cost-effectiveness in overall coal
            distribution.
      --Barge transportation is fuel efficient, a critical factor in regard
            to fuel conservation and reduction of emissions. In fact, coal
            traffic moved by barge eliminates much of the surface traffic
            congestion associated with freight transportation because river
            barges flow separated from other surface transport modes. The
            non-intrusiveness of barge movements through, and in the
            vicinity of, large and small communities located on river banks
            not only reduces emissions but also contributes substantially
            to reduction of noise associated with surface traffic, adding
            to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents while still
            having local economies strengthened by sound access to
            essential transportation services required for power generation
            and the delivery of commodities consumed in construction
            activities.
          recommended inland waterways projects both continue ongoing
    construction and focus on expediting directly related inland waterways

               IMPROVEMENTS EMANATING FROM YEARS OF STUDY EFFORTS

        NMA urges Congress to approve fiscal year 2001 appropriations
    requests presented in the February 2000 Civil Works Budget Request for
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regard to construction and
    rehabilitation ongoing at several locations for which NMA previously
    submitted recommendations on appropriations for prior years. This
    projects are:
        Olmsted L&D on the Ohio River.--New L&D incorporating twin 1,200-
    foot by 110-foot lock chambers, replacing L&D 52 and L&D 53.
        McAlpine L&D on the Ohio River.--New L&D incorporating a second
    1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber.
        L&D 2,3,4 on the Monongahela River.--Replacement of two obsolete
    L&D's and removal of one L&D.
        Marmet L&D on the Kanawha River.--New L&D incorporating an 800-foot
    by 110-foot lock chamber.
        London L&D on the Kanawha River.--Rehabilitation of existing L&D.
        Kentucky L&D on the Tennessee River.--Addition of a 1,200-foot by
    110-foot lock chamber.
        Further, NMA urges the Congress to approve Fiscal year 2001
    appropriations requests presented in the Civil Works Budget Request for
    pre-construction engineering and design that would add second 1,200-
    foot by 110-foot lock chamber at two projects on the Ohio River; and,
    in addition, NMA urges the Congress to approve two more pre-
    construction engineering and design activities required for adding
    second 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chambers at two other projects on
    the Ohio River. The first two projects are presented in the Budget
    Request and the second two projects also are recommended by NMA:
        J.T. Myers L&D on the Ohio River.--Pre-construction Engineering and
    Design.
        Greenup L&D on the Ohio River.--same.
        Newburgh L&D on the Ohio River.--same.
        Cannelton L&D on the Ohio River.--same.
        NMA is aware of, and has followed closely, an Ohio River Main Stem
    Study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over many years of
    dedicated efforts supported by previous appropriations. The provision
    of a second 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chamber at each of the four
    projects NMA recommends is desirable and warranted in order to
    accommodate current and projected river traffic adequately, safely, and
    efficiently. If built, those projects would complete construction of
    second 1,200-foot by 110-foot lock chambers at all L&D projects from
    Louisville to the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. That
    segment of the Lower Ohio River is at the heart of the interconnected
    Ohio/Tennessee/Mississippi Rivers navigation infrastructure offering
    interconnected, multi-directional intermodal rail/barge services.
        In closing, NMA cites the following statement in the report, An
    Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report To
    Congress, September 1999, submitted by the Secretary of Transportation.
    NMA participated in the report preparation.

              ``By 2000, more than 44 percent of the inland waterway locks
            and dams will be at least 50 years old. Many are undersized for
            modern commercial barge tows, which must then be broken up and
            reassembled at each lock. This lengthens travel times, produces
            queues at locks--increasing operating costs and decreasing
            efficiency--and causes safety and environmental concerns. These
            delays will become more severe as system traffic grows and as
            aging infrastructure requires increased maintenance and repair
            time. In 1998, 36 lock chambers on the system averaged delay
            times greater than 1 hour.'' (at page 34)

        NMA, in presenting this statement on recommendations for approval
    of fiscal year 2001 appropriations for construction and rehabilitation
    at selected lock and dam sites, both does so by virtue of a long-
    standing awareness of the benefits to the Nation attributable to having
    an exceptionally valuable system of commercially navigable inland
    waterways, and in recognition of the veracity of the language taken
    from the September 1999 report to Congress cited above.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM

        NMA's membership has participated in the Acid Drainage Technology
    Initiative (ADTI) since its inception in 1995 with the goal of
    developing cost-effective and practical technologies to predict and
    remediate acid mine drainage from active and inactive coal and metal
    mines. This initiative is not a regulatory or policy development
    program. The ADTI is comprised of representatives from the mining
    industry, Federal and State agencies, universities and consulting
    firms.
        In fiscal year 1999, House Report No. 105-581 acknowledged that
    acid mine drainage is a serious environmental problem and that the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers possessed the experience and capability to
    assist in the ADTI's efforts. Further, the subcommittee directed the
    Corps to participate in this initiative with available funds. Since
    that time, the Corps' participated in a workshop with members of the
    ADTI to exchange information on mining and related environmental issues
    and to explore the nature and extent of the Corps' involvement. In
    order for the Corps to continue its participation, we respectfully
    request that the Corps be provided funds to commit $100-200,000
    annually (with other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, BLM, DOE,
    EPA, and USGS) to further the Corps' goals of ecosystem restoration.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of The Association for the Development of Inland
                      Navigation in America's Ohio Valley

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Barry Palmer,
    Executive Director of DINAMO, The Association for the Development of
    Inland Navigation in America's Ohio Valley. DINAMO is a multi-state,
    membership based association of business and industry, labor, and state
    government leaders from throughout the Ohio Valley, whose singular
    purpose is to expedite the modernization of the lock and dam
    infrastructure on the Ohio River Navigation System. Largely through the
    leadership of this subcommittee and the professional efforts of the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to
    see the results of 19 years of continuous hard work in improving our
    river infrastructure.
        Lock and dam modernization at Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam, Grays
    Landing Locks and Dam, Point Marion Locks, and Winfield Locks are
    largely complete. These projects were authorized for construction in
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The immediate problems
    really are focused on completing in a timely manner lock and dam
    modernization projects authorized by the Congress in subsequent water
    resources development acts. Substantial problems remain for adequate
    funding of improvements at the Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/
    KY; Lower Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4, PA; McAlpine Locks
    and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY; Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV; and for the
    Kentucky Locks, Tennessee River, KY. The construction schedules for all
    of these projects have been severely constrained, and we are requesting
    increased funding for these construction projects at an ``efficient
    construction rate.'' Following is a listing of the projects and an
    efficient funding level determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    to advance these projects, in order to complete construction by 2008 or
    earlier:

                     RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001:

        1. For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project,
    formerly the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about
    $2,700,000 for continued construction.
        2. For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
    $300,000 for continued construction of the lock and relocations related
    to environmental mitigation.
        3. For the Olmsted Locks and Dam, replacing Locks and Dams 52 and
    53 on the Lower Ohio River, IL/KY, $72,000,000 for continued
    construction of the twin 110,  1,200, locks and design of the
    new gated dam.
        4. For improvements to Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2,3 & 4,
    PA, $75,00,000 for continued construction of Dam 2, for relocations
    related to the construction project, and initiation of construction at
    Lock 4.
        5. For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY,
    $20,000,000 to continue design of the new 110,  1,200, lock
    addition and for continued construction of the new 110,
    1,200, lock.
        6. For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
    $14,000,000 for real estate acquisition and for continuing Plans and
    Specifications on the main construction contracts.
        7. For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY,
    $40,000,000 to continue design on the new highway and bridge work and
    for relocation and construction of the TVA tower.
        8. For continuing major rehabilitation of London Locks and Dam,
    Kanawha River, $5,000,000.
        9. For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, including studies related to
    completing an Interim Feasibility Report for Emsworth, Dashields, and
    Montgomery Locks and Dams by spring 2002, approximately $10,000,000.
    This level of funding is needed to complete the work leading to a
    construction authorization document for additional capacity at these
    three lock and dam locations in WRDA 2002. See attached ORMSS fact
    sheet update 3 March 2000.
        10. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the John T.
    Myers Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY, $2,120,000.
        11. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the Greenup
    Locks and Dam, Ohio River, OH/KY, $$1,300,000.
        For the five projects identified in Points 3-7, the fiscal year
    2000 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allocates
    only $108,542,000, when the ``efficient'' construction level for fiscal
    year 2001 identified by the Corps is $221,000,000. This difference
    accounts for an additional $112.458 million of construction spending
    that is needed for these five projects in fiscal year 2001. Attached is
    a chart outlining fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year
    2000 appropriations, fiscal year 2001 budget requests by the
    Administration, and fiscal year 2001 efficient funding levels for Ohio
    Valley lock and dam modernization projects. The information related to
    efficient funding levels was provided to DINAMO by the Commander, Great
    Lakes and Ohio River Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
        Completion dates for the Lower Mon project have already been
    delayed 5 years from 2003 to 2008. Failure to win increased funds for
    this project in fiscal year 2001 will push the completion schedule
    further into the future. For McAlpine Lock the completion date has been
    delayed five years from 2002 to 2007. DINAMO has been told that the
    McAlpine project could be fully operational in 2005 if an efficient
    funding level for this project could be achieved in fiscal year 2001
    and then later years. The current completion date for the Marmet Lock
    project is 2009, but this project with adequate funding could be
    completed two years ahead of current schedule and fully operational in
    2006. The Kentucky Lock Addition could be constructed by 2008 with
    ``efficient,'' or ``optimum'' schedule funding.
        These construction projects, in addition to the Olmsted Locks and
    Dam, should be completed in a timely and orderly manner. It is
    important to note that taxes are being generated by a 20 cents per
    gallon diesel fuel tax by towboats operating on America's inland
    navigation system. These tax revenues are gathering in the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund, in order to finance 50 percent of the costs of
    these project costs. There is about $370 million in the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund. The real challenge is not the private sector
    contribution to completing these lock and dam construction projects in
    a timely manner, but rather the commitment of the Federal Government to
    matching its share.
        Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure
    investments is a terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient
    construction schedules cost people a lot of money. A recent study by
    the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.02 billion of
    cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for the aforementioned
    five lock and dam modernization projects on the Ohio River Navigation
    System and the Inner Harbor project in New Orleans harbor on the Lower
    Mississippi River have been lost forever. The benefits foregone
    represent the cumulative annual loss of transportation cost savings
    associated with postponing the completion of these projects from their
    ``optimum,'' or ``efficient'' schedule. In addition, this study
    concludes that $682 million of future benefits that will be foregone
    based on fiscal year 1999 schedules could be recovered if funding is
    provided to accelerate design and construction activities in accordance
    with ``efficient'' schedules.
        Expenditures for lock and dam modernization are an investment in
    the physical infrastructure of this nation. The Corps of Engineers
    construction budget of $1.38 billion for fiscal year 2001 falls
    hundreds of millions of dollars less than needed for fiscal year 2001.
    Mr. Chairman, we have great confidence in the Corps of Engineers and
    urge your support for a funding level more in line with the real water
    resources development needs of the nation. For lock and dam
    modernization on America's inland navigation system, targeted
    construction funding ought to be at a level of about $250-300 million
    annually. Last year Congress provided about $4.1 billion for the Corps
    of Engineers program and about $160 million for lock and dam
    modernization on America's inland navigation system. It is reasonable
    that funding for the Corps program should be increased to levels closer
    to $4.5 billion and about $250 million for lock and dam modernization
    on our nation's river system. With this kind of increased funding, as
    amply supported in both the House and Senate appropriations committee
    report language in previous years, it is clear that a national lock and
    dam modernization program could be sustained at a level commensurate
    with the needs for improving the nation's inland navigation system.
        We thank you for the opportunity to present this request and our
    thoughts on these matters.
                                     ______

               MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            President's          UMRBA
                                              request       recommendation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction General:
        Upper Mississippi River System            18.0                25.0
         Environmental Management
         Program........................
        Major Rehabilitation of Locks             19.22               19.22
         and Dams.......................
    Operation and Maintenance: O&M of            134.896             151.00
     the UMR Navigation System..........
    General Investigations:
        Upper Mississippi and Illinois             1.2                 1.2
         Navigation Study...............
        Upper Mississippi River System              .888                .888
         Flow Frequency Study...........
        Missouri & Middle Mississippi               .500                .500
         Rivers Enhancement Project.....
        Land Management System (Research            .250               2.750
         & Development).................     (of 26)             (of 26)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of the states of
    Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum
    for coordinating river-related state programs and policies and for
    collaborating with federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the
    UMRBA works closely with the Corps of Engineers on a variety of
    programs for which the Corps has responsibility. Recent disclosures
    regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' ``Program Growth
    Initiative'' and allegations specifically related to the Upper
    Mississippi River Navigation study are serious matters. However, these
    controversies do not obviate the fundamental need for a wide variety of
    on-going Corps programs and projects. Of particular interest to the
    basin states are the following:

                        ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        The 1999 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) reauthorized the
    Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program (EMP),
    which was originally authorized in 1986. What was at first a novel
    approach to interagency environmental management, has now become a
    widely recognized and respected regional program.
        The EMP consists of two primary components: the construction of
    individual projects to rehabilitate or enhance critical habitat areas
    and a long term monitoring program to track the environmental health of
    the system. The habitat projects, which vary in size and range in cost
    from about $200,000 to over $10 million, employ different types of
    techniques, including such measures as island creation, water level
    control features, side channel closures or openings, and selective
    dredging to remove sediment. The long term monitoring program uses six
    field stations throughout the river system that routinely collect
    standardized data on water, sediment, fish, and vegetation at over 150
    sites.
        The 1999 WRDA increased the annual authorized appropriations for
    the EMP from $19.455 million to $33.17 million. Despite this clear
    indication from Congress and the public that the EMP is an important
    program, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the EMP is
    only $18 million, well below even the old authorized funding level. It
    is very disappointing that the Administration continues to underfund
    the EMP. In three of the past four years, Congress has needed to
    increase EMP funding above that requested by the Administration. The
    states are hopeful that Congress will again affirm its support for this
    important program by providing $25 million for the EMP in fiscal year
    2001. While $25 million is not the full amount of the increased
    authorization, it represents a funding level that (a) the states are
    confident the Corps can effectively utilize in fiscal year 2001, (b)
    will lay the foundation for a fully funded program in the future, and
    (c) demonstrates the on-going federal commitment to balanced management
    of this river system as ``a nationally significant ecosystem and a
    nationally significant commercial navigation system.'' Funding beyond
    the $18 million requested by the Administration is critical:
      --A habitat needs assessment (HNA) is currently being developed, as
            mandated by the 1999 WRDA. The HNA will help to identify
            habitat restoration needs at the pool, reach, and system level.
            It is anticipated that these needs will far exceed the EMP
            habitat projects currently programmed for construction.
            Increased funding in fiscal year 2001 will allow a number of
            projects to proceed to construction and, perhaps even more
            importantly, initiate planning and design of future projects to
            meet the needs identified in the HNA.
      --The Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) component of the EMP has
            been significantly constrained as a result of funding
            shortfalls in the past few years. It is critical that the LTRM
            be expanded to monitor components such as mussels, birds, and
            forests; to expand spatial coverage beyond the six key pools
            that have been the focus in the past; and to identify cause and
            effect linkages between physical and ecological processes.
            These and other unmet data and analysis needs were the reason
            why the EMP monitoring program was reauthorized in 1999. Now,
            it is necessary to provide sufficient funding for this
            important work to proceed.

                     MAJOR REHABILITATION OF LOCKS AND DAMS

        Given that most of the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi
    River System are over 60 years old, they are in serious need of repair
    and rehabilitation. For the past 14 years, the Corps has been
    undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout
    the system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is
    critical to ensuring the system's reliability and safety.
        The UMRBA supports the Corps' fiscal year 2001 budget request of
    approximately $19.22 million for major rehabilitation work at 4 locks
    and dams on the Upper Mississippi River. Half of this amount is to be
    provided by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The fiscal year 2001 major
    rehabilitation funds will support continuing work at Locks and Dams 3,
    12, and 24, and initiate rehabilitation of Lock and Dam 11. Work at
    these facilities will include lock rehabilitation, auxiliary lock
    closure rehabilitation, miter gate installation, electrical and
    mechanical rehabilitation, scour protection, rehabilitation of
    embankment systems that are subject to overtopping during flood events,
    and work on outdraft bendway weirs and wall openings.

        OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
                               NAVIGATION SYSTEM

        The Corps of Engineers is responsible for operating and maintaining
    the Upper Mississippi River System for navigation. This includes
    channel maintenance dredging, placement and repair of channel training
    structures, water level regulation, and the daily operation of 29 locks
    and dams on the Mississippi River and 7 locks and dams on the Illinois
    River. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes nearly $135 million for O&M
    of this river system, including $97.1 million for the Mississippi River
    between Minneapolis and the Missouri River, $13.4 million for the
    Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Ohio River, and $24.4
    million for the Illinois Waterway.
        These funds are critical to the Corps' ability to maintain a safe
    and reliable commercial navigation system. The efficiency of this
    system is vital to the agricultural economy of the five states. In
    addition, these funds support a variety of activities that ensure the
    navigation system is maintained while protecting and enhancing the
    river's environmental values. For example, O&M funds support innovative
    environmental engineering techniques in the open river reaches such as
    bendway weirs, chevrons, and notched dikes that maintain the navigation
    channel in an environmentally sensitive manner. In addition, water
    level management options for a number of pools in the impounded portion
    of the river are being evaluated under the O&M program. Pool level
    management is a promising new approach for enhancing aquatic plant
    growth and overwintering conditions for fish without adversely
    affecting navigation.
        While the funds that the Corps has requested for fiscal year 2001
    are expected to be adequate to meet basic O&M requirements, the UMRBA
    supports additional funding of $16 million, which could be effectively
    utilized in fiscal year 2001 for critical needs such as electrical
    repairs, bulkhead repairs, repairs to cracks and spalls on lockwalls,
    concrete repairs, repairs to liftgates, revetment and dike repairs, and
    replacement of roller gate chains at various lock locations on the
    upper river. Additional funds are also needed to support work related
    to fish passage at locks.

                                NAVIGATION STUDY

        The UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request
    of $1.2 million for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
    Navigation Study. Recent allegations regarding the study's economic
    analysis are indeed serious and need to be addressed. However, the
    feasibility study, which was initiated in 1993, is nearing completion
    and the funding request for fiscal year 2001 is intended to be used to
    complete all aspects of the study. In particular, the draft report and
    draft Environmental Impact Statement have yet to be completed and the
    public review process, including public meetings, will need to be
    conducted. It is essential that the Corps has sufficient funds to
    complete these important tasks and produce a sound economic and
    environmental assessment of navigation capacity expansion needs.

              UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM FLOW FREQUENCY STUDY

        Flow frequencies for the Upper Mississippi River System badly need
    revision. The flood profiles currently in use were developed in 1979 by
    an interagency task force and replaced profiles previously adopted in
    1966. However, the accuracy of the 1979 profiles has come into question
    now that there are over 20 years of new data, including flow records
    from several high water events like the Great Flood of 1993.
        Flood elevation profiles have a variety of important uses including
    flood insurance; floodplain management; and the study, design, and
    construction of flood control projects. Thus, the five states of the
    Upper Mississippi River Basin have been strong supporters of the Corps'
    efforts to reassess the methodology, update the data, and develop more
    sophisticated and accurate models.
        The UMRBA supports the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $888,000
    for the Upper Mississippi River Flow Frequency Study. These funds will
    be used to complete the hydraulic model which was begun in fiscal year
    2000 and to develop the new flood profiles.

           MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MANAGEMENT RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

        Section 514 of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
    authorized a new Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
    Project to address the unique habitat needs of specific portions of
    these two great rivers. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes
    $500,000 to develop the plan that, as described in 1999 WRDA, would
    include activities such as modifying channel training structures and
    side channels, island creation, creation of riverine habitat, and
    biological and physical monitoring. The basin states support this
    funding request and further request that the planning phase of the
    project be completed at full federal expense given the interstate
    character of the plan.

                             LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

        The Corps of Engineers' Research and Development (R&D) budget for
    fiscal year 2001 includes $26 million, $250,000 of which is to be
    allocated to development of a Land Management System (LMS)
    demonstration project on the Upper Mississippi River System. Past LMS
    funding shortfalls have resulted in numerous scheduling set-backs. The
    UMRBA supports funding for the LMS project, including an additional
    $2.5 million, that could effectively be utilized in fiscal year 2001.
        The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi is
    leading the effort, which focuses on three specific locations in the
    basin: Peoria Lakes on the Illinois River, the Minnesota River (Redwood
    Basin), and Pool 8 on the Mississippi River. Problems such as wetland
    loss, poor water quality, and habitat loss are common to all these
    locations and are related to sediment transport and deposition.
    Evaluation of the ecological consequences of hydrologic and sediment
    dynamics at these sites within the Upper Mississippi River System will
    enhance LMS applications to other large river systems. This current
    research investment should pay long term dividends, allowing the Corps
    to design and manage more effective and efficient projects nationwide.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the St. Francis Levee District Board of Directors

        My name is Bill Felty. I live in West Memphis, Arkansas which is
    located on the West side of the Mississippi River in the St. Francis
    River Basin. I am Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District of
    Arkansas. Our District is the local cooperation organization for the
    St. Francis Basin Project in Northeast Arkansas.
        The St. Francis Basin is comprised of an area of approximately
    3,500 square miles in Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas. The
    basin extends from the foot of Commerce Hills near Cape Girardeau,
    Missouri to the mouth of the St. Francis River seven miles above
    Helena, Arkansas a distance of 235 miles. It extends to the West to the
    uplands of Bloomfield and Crowley's Ridge, having a maximum width of 45
    miles.
        The St. Francis Basin Project provides essential flood protection
    to over 2,500 square miles in Northeast Arkansas alone. Within the
    Arkansas portion of the St. Francis River Basin there is roughly
    1,500,000 acres of some of the most fertile farmland in the world. This
    land has provided food and fiber for the United States and the World
    for well over 200 years. In the past agriculture has been the primary
    basis of economy along the Mississippi River. However, resources and
    infrastructure have allowed Northeast Arkansas to evolve into a
    prosperous commercial and industrial region as well. This growth and
    prosperity could not exist without the drainage and flood control
    efforts made possible by the appropriations from your committee.
        As your Subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget for fiscal year
    2001 Appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
    please consider the significance of this project to the Lower
    Mississippi Valley and to the Nation's security, economy, and
    infrastructure. The amount of $309,000,000 included in the President's
    Budget for the overall Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is
    significantly less than the amount needed to keep this project on
    schedule. Timely completion of this project is of paramount importance
    to the citizens of the Lower Mississippi Valley. As each day passes
    with this project incomplete, the Lower Mississippi Valley is at
    enormous risk of major flood devastation. Therefore, we support the
    amount of $370,000,000 requested by the Mississippi Valley Flood
    Control Association for use in the overall Mississippi River and
    Tributary Projects. This is the minimum amount that the Executive
    Committee of the Association feels is necessary to maintain a
    reasonable time line for completion of the overall Mississippi River
    and Tributaries Project.
        Also, the amounts included in the President's Budget for the St.
    Francis Basin Project, construction and maintenance are not sufficient
    to fund proposed projects. The declined amounts that have been
    appropriated for this project in the past have resulted in a
    significant backlog of work within the St. Francis Basin. Therefore,
    our District is requesting $3,795,000 for St. Francis Basin Project
    construction funds and $12,000,000 for St. Francis Basin Project
    maintenance funds. This includes an additional capability of $600,000
    for construction funds and an additional capability of $6,000,000 for
    maintenance funds. The amounts requested for the St. Francis Basin
    Project are a part of the total amount requested for the Mississippi
    River and Tributary Appropriations of the Civil Works Budget.
        I feel the Subcommittee will give fair consideration to the needs
    of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations. I appreciate
    the time given and the work you do to advance the development of the
    water resources projects.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development
                                   Authority

        Dear Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to once again
    submit to you for your Committee's consideration our requests for
    appropriations for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and other waterway
    related projects for fiscal year 2001. This is the 40th consecutive
    year the Authority has had this opportunity.
        We also want to thank you for the leadership and support you have
    given to water resources development while serving as Chairman of the
    Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Subcommittee.
        The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway continues to have a profound
    impact on trade and economic development. Some 9 million tons of
    commerce are shipped each year at great savings in costs to shippers
    and producers. The waterway's low transportation costs have helped
    stimulate nearly $4 billion of new and expanded industrial development.
    These private investments have created more than 50,000 new jobs. Its
    recreational attractions draw more than 3.5 million visitors each year
    that generate about $200 million of additional economic spending
    annually.
        Tenn-Tom's ability to continue generating such impressive economic
    benefits to the nation will depend upon the Federal Government
    adequately maintaining the waterway and its facilities. Regrettably,
    this has not been the case for the past 4 years and the waterway's
    structural integrity has deteriorated because of lack of funds.

                      TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY FUNDING

        Current Level.--$21.5 million.
        Proposed 2001 Level.--$23.5 million.
        Requested 2001 Level.--$25.7 million.
        We are very concerned about the growing backlog of needed but
    unfunded maintenance and repairs for the waterway. Although the Tenn-
    Tom is a relatively new project compared to others, deferred
    maintenance has now reached $9 million most all of which have
    accumulated since 1997.
        While the President's budget includes an increase in funding for
    the waterway for the first time in memory, these funds are earmarked
    for costs associated with closure of three locks for inspection and
    major repairs in 2001. This is the first major closure of the Tenn-Tom
    for repairs since the waterway opened some 15 years ago.
        We respectfully request the committee approve $25.7 million for O&M
    of the Tenn-Tom for next fiscal year. The additional funds of $2.2
    million will be used to curtail the deferred maintenance now
    accumulating on the waterway. These additional funds are needed as
    follows:
      --$1 million for additional dredging to ensure authorized channel
            depths for commercial traffic.
      --$250 thousand for increasing capacity of upland disposal areas for
            dredged material.
      --$300 thousand for emergency repairs at Whitten Lock.
      --$650 thousand to fully fund the needs of the conservation agencies
            in Alabama and Mississippi to adequately manage over 135,000
            acres of federal lands as part of the Tenn-Tom Wildlife
            Mitigation Project. The States assumed the management of these
            lands on the assumption that adequate funds would be provided.
            This has not been the case.
        The availability of these funds will stop the physical
    deterioration of the waterway caused by underfunding since 1997 and
    allow the project to generate its expected benefits. It would be penny
    wise and pound foolish not to do so.

                                 KENTUCKY LOCK

        Current Level.--$24.2 million.
        Proposed 2001 Level.--$15.0 million.
        Recommended 2001 Level.--$40.0 million.
        One of the worst bottlenecks on the nation's entire waterway system
    is the antiquated and out-moded lock at Kentucky Dam on the Tennessee
    River. Congress appropriated funds last year to start construction of a
    new 1200-foot lock. The President's recommendations for this project in
    2001 are woefully inadequate and, if approved, will delay completion of
    the project by at least one year.
        If the new lock is not completed by 2008, shippers and the nation
    will incur as much as $250 million in losses when the old lock is
    closed for a total of 8 months for extensive repairs beginning in 2009.
    The request of $40 million is needed to keep construction on its
    current schedule of completion by 2008 and preclude these losses.

                                CHICKAMAUGA LOCK

        We support the President's request of $1.9 million to the Corps of
    Engineers to continue repairs to this 60 year-old lock. These repairs
    will help stem the structural deterioration of this project and permit
    the lock to remain in operation until the Congress has the opportunity
    to make a decision on its replacement. The study to determine the
    economic feasibility of building a new lock at Chickamauga Dam is
    expected to be completed in the fall of 2000.

                           WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY

        The Authority supports the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association
    and its request for $20.275 million that will adequately fund the
    operation and maintenance of this waterway in 2001. The reliability of
    the Tenn-Tom as a viable shipping artery is dependent on the
    navigability of the connecting Warrior-Tombigbee system, especially its
    southern 215-mile reach.
        Thank you again for your careful consideration of our request for
    the continued funding of these most important projects.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company

        I am J. Craig Stepan, General Manager of Warrior & Gulf Navigation
    Company. Our company is an active member of the Warrior-Tombigbee
    Waterway Association. I wish to take this opportunity to highlight the
    impact that the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile
    have on the success and development of our Company and to solicit your
    support on behalf of several critical waterway issues.
        Warrior & Gulf is a barge line and terminal operator headquartered
    in Chickasaw, Alabama, and owns 20 towboats and 240 barges, moving
    approximately 8 million tons of bulk materials on the Black Warrior-
    Tombigbee River System. This makes WGN the dominant water carrier
    operating in the region. Additionally, we own and operate two bulk and
    general cargo terminals at Port Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama,
    providing storage, transloading and intermodal services for truck, rail
    and water transportation. Our total employment is 235 people.
        Warrior & Gulf has provided barge transportation on the Black
    Warrior-Tombigbee River Systems since 1940 for export and domestic
    coal, iron ore, coke, import and export steel products, export and
    domestic wood chips, and several other types of bulk commodities. An
    efficient and properly maintained waterway system integrated with the
    Port of Mobile is vital to Warrior & Gulf and its customers. This
    waterway system has made the entire region world competitors through
    the reliable, efficient movement of raw materials and finished products
    both for domestic and overseas consumption. In order to encourage
    continued economic development along this great waterway we must
    continue in our efforts to ensure this viable low cost transportation
    alternative remains in place. The continued efficiency of this waterway
    is extremely critical to the viability of the industries it serves and
    helps to develop. This waterway system and harbor hold great
    opportunity for developing trade initiatives with Mexico, South America
    and the world.
        We have worked closely with the Corps of Engineers and
    wholeheartedly endorse the President's budget request of $19,204,000 in
    O&M funds for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee system for fiscal year 2001
    to ensure continued transportation operations. In addition, we support
    an add-on request of $1.0 million to fund an engineered solution to the
    critical Bankhead Lock lower gate problem.
        Lastly, it goes without saying that the maintenance of the Mobile
    harbor is vital to our waterway and the entire southern region. We,
    therefore, support the appropriation of $21,165,000 to adequately fund
    Mobile harbor's O&M needs.
        Our company and its employees respectfully request your continued
    support of funding for these very important issues concerning the Black
    Warrior-Tomibigbee System, the Port of Mobile and those they serve.
                                     ______

                         Letter From Anthony J. Topazi

                                              Southern Company,
                                        Birmingham, AL, March 14, 2000.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenci,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: On behalf of Southern Company and it
    subsidiaries, Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and
    Mississippi Power Company, I am writing to express our support for the
    Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in their efforts before your
    committee. Because of the importance of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
    to local, national, and international trade, the Southern Company joins
    with the Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in an effort to
    improve the efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee
    Waterway.
        Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power
    Company have used the Warrior-Tombigbee and the facilities in the Port
    of Mobile to transport coal to their respective electrical generating
    plants at Demopolis, Alabama; West Jefferson, Alabama; Mobile, Alabama;
    Pensacola, Florida; Sneads, Florida and Biloxi, Mississippi. In 2000,
    we project to move over 8.5 million tons, through the use of contracted
    barge carriers, by way of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway. The Warrior-
    Tombigbee Waterway allows the barges to move up and down the Warrior-
    Tombigbee River from in-state and out-of-state coal suppliers to our
    generating plants. The significant importance of this capability to our
    system is obvious from a transportation flexibility standpoint.
    Additionally, the Port of Mobile is the hub of the Central Gulf Coast
    and has become a major focus of our coal movement plans. The continued
    development of its facilities and support services is critical to the
    economy of the tri-state area served by the Southern Company.
        Alabama Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Mississippi Power
    Company utilize water transportation because of the economic advantage
    to two million customers. Any expenditures for maintenance or upgrading
    which improve the efficiency and reliability of the waterway will have
    a positive impact on our customers. At the same time, higher cost
    resulting from inefficiency or the unreliability of the Warrior-
    Tombigbee Waterway will have a direct and adverse effect upon our
    customers.
        Adequate funding of programs required to maintain the efficiency
    and reliability of our nation's waterways and associated infrastructure
    is critical to its superior economic health and welfare. I strongly
    urge and solicit your support.
                Sincerely,
                                                Anthony Topazi,
                                                        Vice President.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc.

                             BACKGROUND INFORMATION

        Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AEC) is a wholesale power
    supplier for 21 member-owners located in central and south Alabama and
    northwest Florida. The member-owners serve over 330,000 customer-
    members. AEC operates the Charles R. Lowman Power Plant, located at
    Milepost 89.5 on the Tombigbee River, a coal-fired power plant which
    burned 1,512,658 tons of coal in 1999. Also, AEC has a site on the
    Black Warrior-Tombigbee River which is a possible location for a future
    base-load fossil fired generating plant.

                       STATEMENT OF INTEREST AND SUPPORT

        AEC joins the collective effort to improve the efficiency and
    reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway because of the lower fuel
    transportation costs which the waterway provides to AEC's Lowman
    electric generating plant. The Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT),
    the Tenn-Tom Waterway, and the Port of Mobile are vital to our delivery
    of coal economically and efficiently to this plant, which is located on
    the Tombigbee River near Jackson, Alabama. During calendar year 1999,
    we received 363,199 tons of coal via the BWT which accounts for over 23
    percent of total coal received.
        Because delivered coal cost is such an important factor in our
    ability to maintain competitive rates to our member systems, AEC
    supports the Black Warrior-Tombigbee project and level funding for the
    Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2001 budget. In addition, AEC supports
    the additional request of $1,000,000 urgently needed for work on the
    Bankhead Lock.
        In addition to the dependency which AEC has upon the BWT, there are
    benefits to our region and our end-consumers as a direct result of a
    viable BWT waterway and the Port of Mobile. These systems provide an
    invaluable link between our region and the world markets. As such, they
    stimulate the region's economy, provide jobs, and help reduce the trade
    deficit.

      SPECIFIC BENEFITS OF THE WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY AND THE PORT OF
                                 MOBILE TO AEC

        The amount of coal moved to AEC's Plant Lowman by barge on the BWT
    for the past five years is as follows:

            Year                                                        Tons
    1995..........................................................   874,044
    1996.......................................................... 1,103,919
    1997.......................................................... 1,052,575
    1998..........................................................   938,483
    1999..........................................................   363,199
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

        Total..................................................... 4,332,220

        The savings in transportation costs represented by the above
    tonnage exceeds $25 million compared to AEC's next viable option of
    delivery via rail.
        AEC plans to continue to move its barge coal via the BWT in 2000
    and beyond. AEC has recently entered into a six-year contract for
    supply of imported coal into the Port of Mobile. This coal will supply
    Lowman Plant with up to 50 percent of its total coal by barge.

                 STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO APPROPRIATION AMOUNTS

        AEC supports the President's request for funding ($19,204,00) for
    Operation and Maintenance in the Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2001
    Budget. We view this as a minimum requirement in that this level of O&M
    funding is necessary to cover the minimum expected needs within the
    Mobile District for fiscal year 2001.
        AEC also supports the appropriation of adequate O&M funds of
    $21,165,000 for Mobile Harbor.
        Lastly, AEC supports an amount of $1,000,000 for engineering and
    designs for the lower gates on the Bankhead Lock. The status of this
    project has been identified as urgent, and is nearing the emergency
    state.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of
    our member owners in central and south Alabama and northwest Florida
    pertaining to the benefits of the BWT waterway and the Port of Mobile.
    AEC and its member-owners fully support the Corps of Engineers' 2001
    budget request for $19.2 million in operations and maintenance funds
    for the BWT waterway, as well as $1 million for urgent work on the
    Bankhead Lock, and $21.2 million for Mobile Harbor O&M. While we are
    well aware of budget constraints, we believe these projects should be
    funded at these levels to assure a viable transportation system. With
    the money that has already been spent in construction of the BWT
    transportation system, proper funding for operations and maintenance
    is, in our view, prudent management of what is undoubtedly a national
    asset.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Stevedoring Services of America

        Our company, Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), is a 55 year-
    old stevedoring and marine terminal operating company that utilizes the
    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of Mobile, Alabama, in our
    daily operations. We handle approximate annual tonnage, via the
    Tombigbee Waterway and Port of Mobile as follows: 1.7 million tons of
    forest products, 1.5 million tons of bulk cargo (coal) through Mobile
    and 270,000 tons of bulk and breakbulk products through the Port of
    Columbus, MS. This business results in direct employment of fifty
    people and an additional 300,000 man hours per year for four local
    International Longshoremen Association unions generating an annual
    total of over $12.5 million in wages and benefits.
        SSA supports the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request of
    $19,204,000 for the operation and maintenance of the Black Warrior-
    Tombigbee Waterway by the Corps of Engineers. We also request you
    provide an add-on request for the urgent need of $1,000,000 for
    engineering and designs of the lower gates on the Bankhead Lock.
    Additionally, maintaining the Mobile Harbor is critical to SSA's
    business, and the Alabama State Docks. Therefore, we urge your support
    for appropriation of $21,165,000 for maintaining and improving the
    Mobile Harbor.
        SSA fully supports the collective effort to improve the efficiency
    and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway (BWT). The waterway
    is a vital national transportation artery providing access to low cost,
    energy efficient, environmentally safe barge transportation. Moreover
    it is critical to SSA's business, to maintaining international commerce
    at the Port of Mobile and growing our local, state and national
    economy. Maintaining and improving the efficiency and reliability of
    the waterway is essential to protect and grow SSA's business.
        We strongly urge you to support the aforementioned budget request.
    The BWT is an important segment of our national transportation
    infrastructure. After all, our nation's transportation infrastructure
    is what keeps America moving and competitive in the global economy.
        We very respectfully appreciate your consideration of this matter.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Velasco Drainage District

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: As Chairman of the Board
    of Supervisors of the Velasco Drainage District (VDD) in Southern
    Brazoria County, Texas, I would like to testify in support of the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request the Corps of Engineers (COE), Galveston
    District has made for a New Start Reconnaissance Study of the Freeport
    Hurricane Levee System. This request was made as subsequent to a
    request from VDD for a review of the Freeport Hurricane Levee Project
    under Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act.

                                   BACKGROUND

        The Brazosport area is protected by a Hurricane Levee System that
    protects approximately 236 square miles from hurricane damage of
    industrial and residential property and loss of life.
        When the COE completed the latest upgrade of the project in mid-
    1970's, the VDD assumed the operational and maintenance responsibility
    of the System. It includes 53 miles of levees, 66 miles of major
    outfall ditches, 13 pump stations with a pumping capacity of 3.4
    million gpm, and assets of invested taxpayers funds of approximately
    $60 million. The levee system was studied in 1957 and 1966, which
    resulted in a major upgrading of the levee system in the early 1970's
    including several miles of extension and elevation increases along the
    entire levee system.
        In 1998, as a part of an internal risk management review, a large
    local chemical company commissioned an independent study of the
    existing levee system to evaluate the probability and potential
    property and business loss of various size hurricanes hitting the Texas
    Gulf Coast at or in the near vicinity of Freeport, TX. The study
    results indicated that a large Category 3 or Category 4 storm would
    likely over top the existing levee system, causing significant flooding
    and property damage to both residential and industrial property.

                               WHAT IS REQUESTED

        The people and businesses living within the hurricane protection
    levee crucially need to know whether the levee is adequate. Therefore,
    VDD urges the committee to include $100,000 for a New Start
    Reconnaissance Study as requested by the COE in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations.

                                WHAT IS AT RISK

        Lives.--Close to 50,000 residents rely on the levee to protect
    their lives, homes and property.
        Property.--In addition, the area inside the levee is heavily
    developed, with over $4.8 billion of buildings and other improvements,
    according to our tax rolls. This does not include the value of or
    operation interruption of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve facility at
    Bryan Mound.
        Income.--The area within the levee is highly industrialized. If a
    storm surge overtopped the levee, the business interruption losses
    would be catastrophic, and the effects could be felt nationwide.
        Environment.--Still further, the levee protects numerous large
    chemical plants. Therefore, an inadequacy of the levee height could
    well result in an environmental disaster, in addition to loss of lives,
    property and revenues.

                          WHY A NEW STUDY IS NECESSARY

        The existing levee was designed almost a half a century ago, in
    1957, and the design has not been reviewed since 1966, roughly 34 years
    ago. Obviously, conditions have changed dramatically in that time, as
    follows:
      --The quantity of lives, chemical plants, and other property
            developments now depending on the levee is several orders of
            magnitude greater than when the levee was designed in the
            1950's.
      --Modern computer modeling technology for hurricanes makes the 1957
            technology seem primitive. Yet the people, property, and
            environment of southern Brazoria County are still depending on
            a levee with 1958 knowledge and technology. There now is 40
            more years of actual hurricane data compiled that could be used
            with vastly improved modeling technology.
      --The economic value of existing properties within the levee has also
            risen significantly over the decades.
      --The damage that a storm surge overtopping the levees might inflict
            on the coastal environment has expanded apace with the
            profusion of chemical plants within the levee.
      --The number of lives and property now at risk justify a greater
            public investment than quantities in 1957.
      --Development has reduced the floodwater storage (ponding) areas in
            this vicinity since the 1957 study.
      --The VDD has added significant pumping capacity relative to the
            recommended capacity in the 1958 study.
      --Subsidence in the coastal plain may well have increased since 1957,
            especially considering the increase in groundwater use over the
            years as industrial and residential development have
            multiplied.
      --The Bryan Mound Strategic Oil Storage facility is now protected by
            the levee system.

                             HISTORY OF THE REQUEST

        In October 1998, based on the risk analysis study conducted by
    local industry and after several meetings and discussions with local
    industry, community leaders and the COE, the VDD requested a review of
    the Freeport Hurricane Levee Project under Section 216 of the 1970
    Flood Control Act
        Based on that request the COE began an Initial Appraisal (IA) of
    the Freeport Levee project in January 1999. The completed IA assessed
    the current conditions of the levee system to determine if there was a
    need for further studies. These studies evaluated the need and
    justification for additional construction to avoid future hurricane
    damages to life and property. The IA indicated that the project might
    potentially not function as intended. Therefore, the COE proposed to
    initiate a full study and prepared to budget for a New Start
    Reconnaissance Study in fiscal year 2001. This would require funding of
    $100,000 for the New Start Reconnaissance Study. The COE did submit
    their request in their fiscal year 2001 budget submittal. That request
    for a New Start has been deleted from the Administration/OMB budget
    submitted to Congress on February 7.
        The VDD, local industry and community leaders were of the opinion
    that the need was more urgent and made an unsuccessful effort to have
    the New Start study added as a line item in the COE fiscal year 2000
    budget. The VDD has offered to fund the New Start Study; however, there
    is no mechanism in place to allow an outside entity to fund a COE New
    Start Study. Reprogramming was considered as an alternate to expedite
    the study; however, reprogramming is not allowed on a New Start Study.
        Due to the potentially large liability of hurricane damage and loss
    of life, the VDD urges the committee not allow the small size
    ($100,000) of the funding request to negatively impact the real need
    for the study.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Therefore, with a great deal of concern and urgency on the part of
    the VDD, local industry and community leaders we ask that the committee
    include the funding for the New Start Reconnaissance Study per the
    COE's request in their fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
                                     ______

                            Letter From J. Mark Cook

                                              R&W Marine, Inc.,
                                        Paducah, KY, February 24, 2000.
    Hon. Ron Packard,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
            Development,
    U.S. House of Representative, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
            Development,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Congressman Packard and Senator Domenici: I am writing to
    express my support for the continued maintenance and improvement of the
    Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system.
        R&W Marine, Inc. is one of the largest tramp towing companies in
    the inland river system. This means that R&W Marine, Inc., is engaged
    in the business of towing barges for many companies, as it does not own
    any barges itself. A significant number of our customers require
    service to and from both the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system
    and the Port of Mobile. The tonnages flowing through these waters are
    significant to the economies of the states in that region, from the
    points of view of both producers and consumers. Barging is a very low
    cost method of transportation, responsible for moving more than 15
    percent of all of the United States total freight for less than 2
    percent of the nation's total transportation costs, which translates
    into savings for the consumer, such as lower rates for electricity.
        Another important aspect of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
    system is that it provides the only alternative to the Mississippi
    River to move product to the Gulf Coast. This was extremely important
    during the drought year of 1988 when the lower portion of the Ohio
    River was closed for an extended period and the lower Mississippi River
    was severely restricted for approximately five months. The availability
    of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system allowed us to continue
    to serve utility and industrial customers and kept those customers from
    having to shut down operations because they could not receive raw
    material.
        R&W Marine, Inc., fully supports and recommends appropriation of
    $21.1 million for Mobile Harbor in fiscal year 2001. In addition, we
    support the appropriation of $19.2 million for operation and
    maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system for fiscal
    year 2001. Finally, we recommend additional funding to permit the Corps
    of Engineers to proceed with engineering and design of the lower gates
    on Bankhead Lock, which totals $1,000,000. All of these funds are
    necessary to assure that the Port of Mobile and the Black Warrior-
    Tombigbee Waterway remain important parts of the inland waterways
    system. The Port of Mobile is an integral part of the waterway system,
    especially as an alternative origin to the Port of New Orleans.
    Improvement of the Mobile Harbor will increase utilization of the Black
    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway overall and generate significant additional
    monies for the states in this region. We request your support in
    reviewing and approving these project-funding limits for fiscal year
    2001.
                Sincerely,
                                                  J. Mark Cook,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                        Letter From Robert L. Doetting,

                                      Red Circle Transport Co.,
                                     Cincinnati, OH, February 24, 2000.
    Hon. Ron Packard,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
            Development,
    U.S. House of Representative, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
            Development,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Congressman Packard and Senator Domenici: I am writing to
    express my support for the continued maintenance and improvement of the
    Port of Mobile.
        Red Circle Transport Co., is a subsidiary of one of the nation's
    largest barge transportation companies and provides service to Puerto
    Rico. The Port of Mobile is a port of call for ConAgra, one of Red
    Circle's major customers. Products from Mobile are transported to San
    Juan, Puerto Rico, enhancing the economic viability of both locations.
    In addition, products from Mobile help sustain the viability of Puerto
    Rico, an island nation dependent upon cost effective, reliable water
    transportation service. Barging is a very low cost method of
    transportation, responsible for moving more than 15 percent of all of
    the United States total freight for less than 2 percent of the nation's
    total transportation costs, which translates into savings for the
    consumer, such as lower rates for food products and electricity.
        Red Circle Transport Co., fully supports and recommends
    appropriation of $21.1 million for Mobile Harbor in fiscal year 2001.
    In addition, we support the appropriation of $19.2 million for
    operation and maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
    system for fiscal year 2001. Finally, we recommend additional funding
    to permit the Corps of Engineers to proceed with engineering and design
    of the lower gates on Bankhead Lock, which totals $1,000,000. All of
    these funds are necessary to assure that the Port of Mobile and the
    Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway system remain important parts of the
    inland waterways system.
        We request your support in reviewing and approving these project-
    funding limits for fiscal year 2001. Continued support for improvement
    of Mobile Bay and the water systems that support commerce at Mobile
    will result in a significant economic benefit to the United States and
    the Caribbean Region.
                Sincerely,
                                            Robert L. Doetting,
                                 Senior Vice President, Transportation.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Jerry L. Stewart

                                              Southern Company,
                                     Birmingham, AL, February 22, 2000.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Congressman Domenici: On behalf of Alabama Power Company, I am
    writing to express our support for the Warrior-Tombigbee Development
    Association and its president in their efforts before your Committee.
    Because of the importance of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway to local,
    national and international trade, Alabama Power Company joins with the
    Warrior-Tombigbee Development Association in an effort to improve the
    efficiency and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway.
        Alabama Power Company has used the Warrior-Tombigbee to transport
    coal to its electrical generating plants at Demopolis, Alabama; West
    Jefferson, Alabama; and Mobile, Alabama. Also, a barge unloader was
    constructed in 1999 at Plant Gorgas located near Parrish. During 2000,
    a majority of the coal for Plant Gorgas will be delivered by barge. In
    1999, through the use of contracted barge carriers, Alabama Power
    Company moved over 5.8 million tons of coal by way of the Warrior-
    Tombigbee Waterway. Barge movements to Alabama Power Company plants are
    projected to increase to 9.5 million tons in 2000. The Warrior-
    Tombigbee Waterway allows the barges to move down the Warrior-Tombigbee
    River to Mobile and other destinations. The significant importance of
    this capability to our system is obvious from a transportation
    flexibility standpoint. Additionally, the Port of Mobile is the hub of
    the Central Gulf Coast and the continued development of its facilities
    and support services is critical to the economy of the tri-state area
    served by the Southern electric system. During 2000, Alabama Power
    Company is projected to import over 3.5 million tons through the Port
    of Mobile.
        Alabama Power Company utilizes water transportation because of the
    economic advantage to our 1.3 million customers. Any expenditures for
    maintenance or upgrading which improves the efficiency and reliability
    of the waterway will have a positive impact on our customers. At the
    same time, higher cost resulting from inefficiency or the unreliability
    of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway will have a direct and adverse effect
    upon our customers.
        It is imperative that there be a continuous program for maintenance
    and upgrading of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway channels and locks.
    Alabama Power Company supports the proposed budget request for $19.2
    million in Operations and Maintenance funds for the Black Warrior-
    Tombigbee River for the fiscal year 2001. Additionally, we support an
    urgent add-on request of $1.0 million for engineering and design of the
    lower gates on the Bankhead Lock, as well as the appropriation of funds
    for Mobile Harbor in the amount of $21.2 million.
        Adequate funding of programs required to maintain the efficiency
    and reliability of our nation's waterways is critical to its superior
    economic health and welfare. I strongly urge and solicit your support.
                Sincerely,
                                              Jerry L. Stewart,
                                                 Senior Vice President.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of the Hunt Company

        The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway System and the Port of Mobile are
    critical to the operation of our Refinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. We
    barge over 40 percent of our crude oil and over 25 percent of our
    refined products using both the Port of Mobile and the WTWA system. We
    use the Port of Mobile as a starting point to pipeline or barge foreign
    and domestic crude north at the rate of approximately 12 million
    barrels per year.
        Hunt Refining Company presently employs over 250 residents of West
    Alabama and has been an important participant in the local economy
    since 1946. An inability to run our Refinery efficiently and at maximum
    capacity will have a long-term impact on employment at Hunt Refining
    Company and ultimately, the surrounding counties.
        Hunt Refining Company supports the Warrior-Tombigbee project and
    joins the collective effort to improve the efficiency and reliability
    of the WTWA system. We are currently limited by draft restrictions most
    of the year, high river the other part of the year, and to a special
    combination of two-barge tows all year. Through improvements, we hope
    to save a minimum of $0.15 per barrel additional transportation costs
    we incur during periods when the river is above flood stage or at very
    low levels. Naturally, the more barrels we are able to haul on each
    two-barge tow, the lower our cost per barrel. At the present time we
    are limited as to how many barrels we can haul north at one time. Our
    concern long term is to have more flexibility as to the types of tows
    we can hire and the number of barrels we can load per tow. Increased
    navigability of the waterway, increases our transporter choice,
    ultimately keeping costs competitive.
        Two rivers merge at Demopolis Lock (MM213.4). Our dock at Womack
    Hill (MM126.1), which is south of Demopolis Lock and north of
    Coffeeville Lock (MM116.6), is inaccessible for numerous days during
    high river season. We have the same problem at our dock in Tuscaloosa
    (MM337.0) due to the pressure put on the Black Warrior River by
    Bankhead Lock (MM365.5) and the backing up of water from Demopolis
    Lock.
        The Corps of Engineer's Budget request for the BWT Operations and
    Maintenance is $19.2 million. We believe the BWT needs at least this
    level of funding to cover the expected needs of the system. The Corps
    also has two projects identified to improve the efficiency of the
    system. These are the engineering and design of modifications to the
    Bankhead Lock and replacement of the CSX Railroad Bridge. Both of these
    projects would improve the efficiency of the waterway at a cost of $2
    million for both. We are asking for your support for a total of $21.2
    million for the waterway system.
        We further support the funds needed for the Mobile Harbor in the
    amount of $21.2 million.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of David Volkert & Associates, Inc.

        Volkert & Associates, Inc. (Volkert) is an engineering/
    architectural/design firm which employs 500 people and maintains
    Alabama offices in Mobile, Birmingham, and Gulf Shores. Volkert
    strongly supports funding for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the
    Port of Mobile for fiscal year 2001.
        We believe the President's budget request of $19,204,000 for
    Operations and Maintenance of the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, as
    submitted by the Corps of Engineers, is justified since this amount is
    necessary to cover the known and reasonably expected needs for fiscal
    year 2001, support the day-to-day O&M program, and continue on-going
    channel improvement projects. We also support appropriating $1,000,000
    for engineering and designs, etc. of the lower gates on the Bankhead
    Lock. We understand this need has reached an emergency status. This
    funding is needed to bring the waterway efficiency to the expected
    level.
        Since the City of Mobile's largest industry is her Port and the
    City's present economy and future progress depend upon her Port,
    Volkert also supports $21,165,000 for funding of necessary improvements
    for the Mobile Harbor. This will insure the Harbor's continued
    viability.
        Confidence in the Waterway and its efficiency and modernization of
    its facilities are important in bringing much needed new industry to
    Mobile and to the State of Alabama. Lower operating costs to users of
    the Waterway and Port of Mobile are essential in obtaining a reasonable
    balance of the international export market allowing the U.S. to
    continue to reduce our trade deficit. Increases in shipping and
    commerce result in opportunities for many companies, similar to
    Volkert, to obtain business and offer meaningful employment to citizens
    of the State of Alabama and other parts of the U.S.
        Volkert appreciates this opportunity to express our support of
    Chairman Charles A. Haun and President Sheldon L. Morgan, of the
    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association, and the testimony to be given
    by them before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and House. We
    are proud to join in the collective effort to improve the efficiency
    and reliability of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway and the Port of
    Mobile.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Navios Ship Agencies Inc.

        We request that you support the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers'
    Operations and Maintenance Budget request for the Black Warrior-
    Tombigbee Waterway of $19,204,000. We further support an add-on request
    for $1,000,000 for engineering and designs of the Bankhead Lock. The
    Bankhead Lock is an extremely urgent request and has a potential
    critical status. Thus, we request your support on this additional add-
    on of $1,000,000. We also support the Mobile Harbor request of
    $21,165,000.
        Our vessels and our principal's vessels carry 3.8 million tons of
    iron ore and 1.9 million tons of furnace coke per year with the
    majority bound for industries in the State of Alabama. The Port's
    ability to maintain its present draft has enabled us to remain
    competitive on the world market. The continued dredging of the Warrior-
    Tombigbee allows this cargo to go through the waterway system of the
    Tombigbee. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has done an outstanding job
    maintaining this system.
        A large portion of this cargo is for steel operating in the
    Birmingham, Alabama area. These import raw materials enable the steel
    mills to supply steel for various supplies to this nation. Some of
    these cargo products from the steel mills are re-exported through the
    Port of Mobile, which helps to reduce our trade imbalance. The
    efficiency and reliability of waterways commerce is essential for us to
    provide the raw materials necessary for our principals to meet the
    demands of the various markets within the State of Alabama and the
    United States.
        We have been in operation since 1957 utilizing the Port of Mobile,
    the Warrior-Tombigbee and the Black River systems. We realize the
    importance of tight budget control, yet the benefits on industry,
    commerce and trade, as well as job return, must be recognized.
    Therefore, we solicit your support. We join in the collective efforts
    of all those affiliated companies who realize the importance of
    maintaining this waterway system so that we may continue to bring in
    the necessary raw materials for our manufacturing industries within the
    State of Alabama. For these reasons, we request you to support the
    programs for fiscal year 2001.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association

        The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association represents a broad
    cross-section of shippers, carriers, and the general business community
    in the Warrior-Tombigbee basin in Alabama, and users in nine southern
    states. The Association began in 1950 to work with Alabama's
    Congressional Delegation and the Army Corps of Engineers to plan for
    modernization of the waterway. The Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway now has
    modern and standard sized locks throughout its length. These six new
    locks replaced the seventeen old, turn-of-the-century locks, and today,
    this system represents a most noteworthy example of the positive impact
    of the Federal water resource development program. The most persuasive
    evidence of the validity of this project and the wisdom of those who
    made it possible comes from the record compiled during and following
    the investment in its redevelopment. During the economic studies which
    justified these investments, it was projected that by 1980, the
    Waterway would carry some eight million tons annually, producing a
    positive benefit to cost ratio. These levels were reached in 1966 and,
    by 1980, twice the projected tonnage was being moved. Traffic has since
    reached 25 million tons annually, a level three times that which had
    been projected. Clearly this has been a valid investment in
    infrastructure.
        This Waterway must continue to be efficient and reliable if its
    users are to remain competitive in world markets. Shipments of ore,
    steel, and related products have increased because of the new and
    modern facilities in Birmingham, and a new steel mill at Tuscaloosa and
    Mobile.
        Coal comes out of Kentucky and Colombia to electric generating
    plants on the Warrior-Tombigbee. The Colombian Coal is transhipped at
    the Port of Mobile. Also, there are new facilities at the Port of
    Mobile, which handle more forest products than the total handled by all
    other Gulf Coast ports. The efficiency and reliability of the waterway
    are key factors in the development and competitiveness of these
    facilities, upon which thousands of jobs depend.
        These are some examples of how this waterway is so central to the
    economy of this entire region, impacting both domestic and
    international markets. You will be receiving letters from our users
    further highlighting this importance. These represent a broad cross-
    section of the economic heartbeat of an entire region. In these
    statements you will find repeated references to the importance of
    confidence in the waterway to the willingness of business and industry
    to continue to invest in the region. Shippers depend on the reliability
    for the movement of their products. There are wide ranges of interests
    represented by our Association members: financial institutions; public
    utilities; port facilities; coal mining; manufacturers; suppliers;
    marine interests; petroleum and chemical processors and general
    business.
        We support the President's recommendation for O&M funds of
    $19,204,000 and ask for add-ons of $1,000,000 for additional capability
    be provided for the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway for engineering and
    design for new lock gates at Bankhead Lock and Dam. With the
    Committees' help, we have been able to complete several deferred
    projects following several years of postponements. These projects
    address long-standing problems and have required extensive research and
    coordination and reflect excellent teamwork by the Corps and the
    industry. But for the support of this committee, they would not have
    been reality. We wish to emphasize that this level of funding is the
    minimum essential level.
        Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and are extremely
    pleased that our own Congressman Callahan is a member of your
    Committee. As he knows, industry and the Corps of Engineers in the
    Mobile District have developed a true partnership and enjoy the finest
    of professional and mutually supportive relationships. From this have
    come both short and long range programs which have provided a basis for
    orderly progress toward keeping the Waterway efficient and reliable.
    The funding requirements to which I have referred stem from work we
    need to continue now under these programs. I respectfully repeat that
    the performance of this waterway in successfully handling a level of
    tonnage some three times the projections made during its design, attest
    to foresight of this Committee.
        To summarize, the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association request
    for Operations & Maintenance funding in fiscal year 2001 for the Black
    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway in the amount of $19,204,000 and $521,000
    for General Investigation. This is level funding for the normal O&M
    work, and is the minimum to keep navigation capability at a nominal
    level. However, additional capability of the Corps is important to the
    continuing improvements for safety and efficiency. They include
    replacement of gates at Bankhead Lock and Dam totaling $1,000,000 for
    engineering and design. Our total request is for a total of $20,725,000
    for fiscal year 2001.
                                    summary
        The following is a summary of the funding items for the U. S. Army
    Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2001 to meet the needs of the
    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, and which we ask the Committee to approve:

    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway:
        Operations & Maintenance Funds for Corps' Budget
          fiscal year 2001 (President's request)............     $19,204,000
        Funds for Additional Capability not included in
          Corps' O&M Budget Request \1\.....................       1,000,000
        For General Investigations (Long Range Study).......         521,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total funds required..............................      20,725,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Other needs allied to the Warrior-Tombigbee are:
        Mobile Harbor:
            Operations & Maintenance Funds, for Corps'
              Budget fiscal year 2001 \1\...................      21,165,000
            Construction....................................         499,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
              Total funds required..........................      21,664,000

    \1\ Funds for Additional Capability items are not included in the Corps'
    Budget request, so it is not likely that the committee has been informed
    of the need of funding for this particular Additional Capability. We are
    requesting the additional funds for replacement of gates at Bankhead
    Lock (near an emergency status), upland disposal sites recycling (these
    substantially reduce annual dredging costs) and rock removal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Alabama State Docks

        Enclosed is a statement of requirements for operation and
    maintenance funding for the Mobile Harbor and Ship Channel Federal
    Project for fiscal year 2001 in the amount of $21,165,000. In addition,
    the Alabama State Docks also supports fully funding the operations and
    maintenance budgets designated for the six inland waterways internal to
    or transiting the State of Alabama. We respectfully request that these
    requirements be made a part of the record of your committee and be
    appropriated for funding of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' budget
    for fiscal year 2001.

         STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS--MOBILE (AL) HARBOR FEDERAL PROJECT

        The purpose of this statement is to identify the requirements for
    the Port of Mobile (POM) in conjunction with the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Civil Works
    Budget.
        The Alabama State Docks (ASD) is the local cost-sharing partner for
    the Mobile Harbor Federal Project. Recent (fiscal year 1998) waterborne
    commerce statistical data ranked the POM as the sixteenth largest port
    in the United States. Cargo transiting the POM is equally divided
    between foreign and domestic. As such the Alabama State Docks (ASD)
    supports fully funding the COE Civil Works requirements, not only for
    the Mobile Harbor but also for the six waterway systems serving the
    State of Alabama and five other States in this region (MS, TN, KY, GA &
    FL).
        In authorizing the deepening of the Mobile Harbor Federal Project
    in 1986, environmental considerations resulted in a substantial
    increase in dredging costs. The Mobile District COE and ASD have worked
    closely and diligently to identify alternative methods of dredging and
    environmentally beneficial methods of disposal with the objective of
    reducing the cost of maintaining the project. One technique that has
    been successful is to create sumps within the channel, especially in
    areas with a history of high shoaling sedimentation rates. Such sumps
    allow for consolidation of the sediment, thereby extending the time
    between dredging events and (potentially) a reduced cost of removal. A
    second approach was to allow the shoaling of the channel toes thereby
    reducing the channel width while reducing the volume of material to be
    dredged. Thirdly, one-way vessel traffic was implemented to insure safe
    operations within the reduced channel width.
        During the period of 1996-1998, all of these measures were used to
    control the cost of maintaining the Project. Actual maintenance costs
    average approximately $20,300,000 per year over this three year period.
    Unfortunately, the use of such measures is not without risk. In 1997
    and 1998, the mid-Gulf Coast and Mobile Bay were directly impacted by
    the effects of hurricanes Danny and Georges. As a result the Corps of
    Engineers expended approximately $32,300,000 and nine months of
    dredging effort in 1999 to restore the authorized operational
    dimensions of the channel.
        This experience, and its negative impact upon the POM's operational
    capabilities, significantly hampered the region's ability to compete in
    the world bulk commodities market in 1999. The Port's vulnerability to
    again suffer severe impact is directly proportional to the maintained
    channel conditions. Given the Port's most recent five-year history, a
    normal scenario would project an annual maintenance cost of
    approximately $22,160,000 per year. Fortunately, the Project is
    currently in the best shape it has been in the last several years. It
    is, therefore, requested that the operation and maintenance budget for
    the Mobile Harbor Project for fiscal year 2001 be set at $21,165,000.
        We thank you very much for this opportunity to present out
    supporting statement.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Council of Alabama Waterway Associations

        The following is a summary of the funding items for the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2001 to meet the needs of the
    several projects and which we ask the Committees to approve:

                                        COUNCIL OF ALABAMA WATERWAY ASSOCIATIONS
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Appropriation       President's
                                                              --------------------------    budget      Our request
                             Waterway                          Fiscal year  Fiscal year  fiscal year    for fiscal
                                                                   1999         2000         2001        year 2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association: Coosa-            $27,025      $31,756      $27,525     \1\ $29,155
     Alabama.................................................
    Tennessee River Valley Association: Tennessee-Cumberland       112,519      122,555       84,935     \2\ 121,435
     Navigation..............................................
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Council:               20,200       21,500       23,547      \3\ 25,700
     Tennessee-Tombigbee.....................................
    Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association:                     5,200        6,500        5,055       \4\ 7,255
     Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint.......................
    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association: Warrior-Tombigbee       20,000       19,200       19,805      \5\ 20,725
    Alabama State Docks Department: Mobile Harbor............       21,000       19,562       18,665      \6\ 21,665
    Tennessee-Tombigbee and Tennessee River Association:            26,000       24,200       15,000      \7\ 40,000
     Kentucky Lock (Nashville Dist. COE).....................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $5,865,000 for navigation O&M and $1,630,000 add-on for Mayo's Bar, Alltoona Lake and Coosa
      navigation project.
    \2\ Includes $40,000,000 for KY Lock Construction, $11,400,000 for 202 Program, $1,900,000 Chicamauga lock O&M.
    \3\ Includes $1,100,000 add-on for deferred maintenance.
    \4\ Includes $2,200,000 add-on for alternative dredging and disposal projects and environmental work.
    \5\ Includes $521,000 for General Investigations, $1,000,000 add-on for lock gates at Bankhead L&D.
    \6\ Includes $2,500,000 add-on to properly consider historical dredging needs and $499,000 for construction.
    \7\ See (2), Tennessee Cumberland request.

        Request for Interior Appropriations; $400,000 for USF&WS Sturgeon
    Conservation Plan 2-9-2000.
        Request for DOT Appropriations to USCG: $1,000,000 for 14 Mile
    Bridge, Mobile River.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Steamship Association of Louisiana

                                    summary
        Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    (Construction General).--We recommended the Corps be funded to full
    capability in fiscal year 2001 to perform required work on the
    saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and complete design studies for
    phase III of the 55-foot channel.
        Maintenance dredging of the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to
    the Gulf of Mexico.--We urge approval of the $63,359,000 in the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget under O&M General.
        Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet maintenance dredging and bank
    stabilization.--In addition to the $11,286,000 in the President's
    fiscal year 2001 Budget under O&M General, we urge that the Corps be
    funded an increased capability in fiscal year 2001 to maintain this
    channel, which includes bank stabilization on both banks and jetty
    maintenance.
        Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock.--Recognizing that only
    $14,349,000 is included in the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget for
    construction funds, we urge that the Corps be funded to full capability
    in fiscal year 2001 to continue lock construction and fully fund the
    community impact mitigation plan.
        Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--We urge approval of the
    $12,117,000 in the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget under O&M
    General.
        J. Bennet Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
    Louisiana.--Recognizing that $18,040,000 is in the President's fiscal
    year 2001 Budget for Construction General and $8,907,000 for O&M, we
    urge the Corps be funded to full compatibility for fiscal year 2001 to
    complete work already underway on this vital project.
        The President's proposed Harbor service fee.--As in past years, we
    do not support the President's proposed fees to replace the Harbor
    Maintenance Tax. The strength of our nation's transportation system is
    its foreign and domestic waterborne commerce. It benefits the entire
    nation through revenue and jobs it provides the country. Therefore, the
    maintenance of our nation's ports should be handled through the general
    fund and not by placing another tax on this vital industry.

                                   STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman: I am President of the Steamship Association of
    Louisiana (SALA). Our Association represents ship owners, operators,
    agents, and stevedores who handle the majority of the approximately
    8,000 deep-draft vessels in waterborne commerce that call Louisiana's
    deep-water ports each year. SALA is dedicated to the safe, efficient
    movement of maritime commerce through the state's deep-water ports. We
    endorse the testimony of Mr. Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the
    Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry.
        Channel stabilization and maintenance dredging in Southwest Pass
    (SWP) are critical to keep project draft. Project draft ensures the
    Mississippi River's deep-water ports will continue to handle the
    country's foreign and domestic waterborne commerce in the most cost-
    effective way possible.
        For years we have urged this Committee to provide funds to maintain
    project draft at SWP. You have responded, and your wisdom has
    benefitted the entire American heartland served by the Mississippi
    River system. SWP was greatly restricted throughout the 1970s. From
    1970 to 1975, the channel was at less than project draft 46 percent of
    the time. In 1973 and 1974, the channel was below the 40-foot project
    draft 70 percent of the time. During some periods, drafts were limited
    to 31 feet. Fortunately, those conditions have not recurred because of
    a combination of factors: Your help, and the constant vigilance of the
    Pilots, the Corps, and the maritime community. The years 1990 through
    1999 show a tremendous improvement in channel stability. We have only
    been below project draft 3 percent of the time for vessels under
    100,000 deadweight tons and 8 percent of the time for vessels 100,000
    deadweight tons or greater. The funding you provided was money well
    spent. The repairs to the jetties and dikes and the Corps' ability to
    rapidly respond to shoaling have been instrumental in maintaining
    project dimensions. However, the lack of available hopper dredges has,
    at times, jeopardized the stability of the channel.
        The Pilots have taken advantage of tidal flows and other factors to
    recommend the maximum draft possible consistent with safe navigation.
    This stability represents additional sales and increased
    competitiveness for U.S. products on the world market. Industry's
    partnership with you has kept Mississippi River ports competitive and
    attractive to vessels. Twelve inches to a large vessel with a loading
    capacity of 250 tons per inch is an additional 3,000 tons of cargo. As
    of this writing, freight rates for grain moving from the Mississippi
    River to the Far East are $21.75 per ton. Using this figure, each foot
    of draft represents an additional $65,250 in vessel revenue, or
    $326,250 for the five additional feet over the old 40-foot project
    draft.
        The funds we request for maintenance dredging and other works are
    essential for the Corps to maintain a reliable channel and respond
    rapidly to potential problems. This builds the confidence of the bulk
    trade in a reliable Mississippi River draft, which is critically
    important. Much of Louisiana's bulk trade is export agricultural
    products and coal and imports of petroleum products. These export
    commodities are neither captive to Louisiana nor the United States if
    they can be shipped from competing countries at a consistently lower
    cost.
        The deeper the channel, the more important channel stabilization
    is. Adequate channel stabilization work minimizes the maintenance cost
    of the deeper channel--a cost-effective investment. The faster the
    project is stabilized, the faster and greater the benefits of reduced
    O&M costs will be realized. Also, we recommend that the Corps conduct
    research on prototype dredging techniques.
        Funds are also needed for dustpan dredges to work the crossings
    above New Orleans. These crossings control the draft to eight of our
    ten major grain elevators, plus many mid-stream and other bulk cargo
    facilities. This area caters to the bulk trade and must have a stable
    channel depth consistent with the depth at SWP. Only two dredges in the
    world are available to maintain the deep-draft crossings between New
    Orleans and Baton Rouge. There are times when a high river is followed
    by a rapid drop in the river's stage. In such cases, the dustpan
    dredges may not be available, or both dredges may not be capable of
    restoring the 12 crossings within a reasonable time. When this happens,
    hopper dredges are used to assist in the work.
        For all of the above reasons, we request full funding for the
    mitigation features of the O&M General, 45-foot Mississippi River
    project.
        We also support Phase III of the Mississippi River channel
    deepening project and urge that the Corps be funded to proceed with
    design studies for the 55-foot channel, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of
    Mexico.
        The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) is also a viable channel
    for the State of Louisiana. The funds you provided in past fiscal years
    have allowed the Corps to improve the channel considerably. However,
    the channel width has remained limited primarily because of erosion.
    For safety reasons in this narrow channel, one-way traffic restrictions
    apply to vessels with a draft of 30 feet or more, causing delays to the
    tightly-scheduled container traffic using the MR-GO. These specialty
    vessels serving the Port's facilities are becoming larger. The highest
    wages under the International Longshoreman's Association's contract
    ($24 per straight-time hour) is paid for work at the MR-GO container
    facilities. Anything that threatens the MR-GO jeopardizes these high-
    paying jobs, which are held mostly by minority workers.
        To improve safety on the MR-GO and protect Louisiana's container
    trade (and the well-paying, minority employment it produces), we
    request that the Corps be funded to an increased capability for the MR-
    GO in fiscal year 2001. This will allow annual maintenance dredging,
    north and south bank stabilization, and jetty maintenance, which is
    essential to provide the stability needed for vessel and port
    operations.
        With facilities located on both the MR-GO and the Mississippi
    River, an adequate route between the two is essential for efficient
    transit between these facilities. The shortest route is the inadequate,
    antiquated Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock built in the 1920s
    with a width of 75 feet and limited depth of 30 feet. Its maximum
    capacity has long been exceeded. The average waiting time for passage
    through the Lock has increased from 8\1/2\ hours in 1985 to about 12
    hours at present; however, we understand that waiting time can be more
    than a day in some instances. A much larger ship lock is necessary to
    accommodate today's traffic.
        The replacement project for the IHNC Lock is important to the ports
    on the lower Mississippi River and to the nation's commerce since it is
    on the corridor for east/west barge traffic. The President's fiscal
    year 2001 budget of $14,349,000 is not sufficient. Without full
    funding, the project will be delayed and increase the overall cost of
    the project. We urge Congress to provide the Corps' full fiscal year
    2001 capability for this important project to insure its completion.
    Delays are unthinkable since the new lock is long overdue.
        The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
    River, which is often below project depth and width. This is another of
    Louisiana's major deep-water ports that benefits the economy of the
    state and the nation. According to the Port's figures, the import and
    export tonnage at their facilities was 5 million tons in 1999. Also in
    1999, there was a total of 1,132 vessels, both deep draft and barges,
    that utilized the Port's Facilities. These figures do not take into
    account the other private facilities that utilize this valuable
    waterway. The public and private facilities along this waterway provide
    thousands of jobs for the Lake Charles area. This channel, because of
    its project deficiencies, requires one-way traffic for many ships,
    causing delays that disrupt cargo operations. This is costly and
    inefficient for industry. The Port area's growth and continued success
    depends on a reliable and safe channel that should be at full project.
    We request funding to the full capability of the Corps to maintain this
    channel at its project dimensions.
        The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
    Louisiana, Project is directly related to our deep-water ports. The
    continuation and completion of this work will stimulate the economy all
    along the Red River Basin with jobs and additional international trade.
    This stimulated trade will service the Port of Shreveport and the ports
    on the lower Mississippi River, providing needed growth and benefitting
    the States of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which are
    served through the Shreveport distribution center. Therefore, we
    strongly recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability for
    fiscal year 2001.
        The proposed Harbor Service Fee (HSF) in the President's budget,
    which would replace the Harbor Maintenance Tax, is ill-advised. What it
    fails to recognize is that there is no equitable way in which the cost
    can be spread fairly among the shipping community. Whether the HSF is
    to the cargo or to the ship, the fee will change trade patterns and
    even jeopardize our trading position in the world market. The proposal
    will disrupt jobs and the economies of port areas. It will circumvent
    the normal, healthy competition among U.S. ports. Ships carrying low-
    valued cargo, primarily bulk cargoes, operate on a very low profit
    margin; therefore, cargoes like grain and coal can least afford the
    tax. The end result could well be that the U.S. could lose its ability
    to compete in the world market for the export of these cargoes. This
    impact on bulk trade will be particularly detrimental to Louisiana
    because of the high volume of such cargoes that move through our state.
    We encourage Congress to fund the maintenance of our nation's ports
    through the General Fund. After all, it is the people of our entire
    nation who benefit from a strong U.S. position in world trade, not only
    the shipping industry. If our nation is to remain competitive in the
    world market, we must maintain and improve our waterways and deliver
    U.S. goods at the lowest possible price to foreign markets.
        Thank you for allowing the Association to submit testimony on the
    Corps' funding needs.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association

        This testimony for the record, March 10, 2000, before House and
    Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees is
    submitted by Douglass W. Svendson, Jr., Executive Director of the Gulf
    Intracoastal Canal Association. Ours is the oldest of the regional
    waterway associations, having been established in Victoria, Texas in
    1905. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway transports 115 million tons of
    freight annually, the third highest volume among our inland and coastal
    waterways after the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
        GICA's membership includes both shallow draft and deep draft ports,
    port commissions and navigation districts, barge and towing companies,
    petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, shipyards, marine
    fabricators, fuel terminal facilities, and individuals whose businesses
    are waterway related and dependent. We have 180 members in the five
    States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida served by
    the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. In addition, the GIWW is the link that
    binds the North-South rivers to the Intracoastal canal, the coastal
    ports, and ultimately the heartland of America. The Mississippi River
    intersects the GIWW at New Orleans, one of our busiest ports, and the
    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway intersects the GIWW at Mobile.
     the overall civil works budget of $4.064 billion for fiscal year 2001
        While this civil works budget request for fiscal year 2001 is
    larger than those submitted by the Administration in recent previous
    years, it causes our membership concern about adequacy of specific
    levels allocated to construction, operations and maintenance, and flood
    control. The reason for our concern is the large amount in the 2001
    budget proposed to be appropriated for port construction and
    maintenance ($950 million) and the size of the environmental portion of
    the proposed 2001 budget (22 percent of overall Corps request and
    slightly over $895 million). O and M and flood control remain about the
    same level in comparison to appropriated amounts for fiscal year 2000,
    but construction funding for 2001 is less than the 2000 figure.

                     THE PORT FEE AND HARBOR SERVICES FUND

        The combination user fee and Harbor Services Trust Fund for port
    maintenance proposed by the administration in its budget raises several
    very serious issues for waterborne transportation, our domestic
    economy, and international trade.
        Whatever the constitutional infirmities of the previous harbor
    maintenance tax, it was spread over a large base of commerce. This fact
    alone helped mitigate a potentially harsh economic impact which might
    otherwise have been injurious to many of our ports, our trade, and our
    economic jobs base.
        The proposed fee will be based on volume or tonnage, not value.
    Those most injured will be our ports that ship large volumes of
    commodities. This negative impact will ultimately fall on farmers, mine
    operators, chemical and petroleum sectors, and all commodities
    producers. Farmers and other producers have historically benefited
    economically by retaining more of the ultimate sales price in their own
    pockets, as a result of water transportation efficiencies.
        A user fee, as proposed, is much more likely, we believe, to be
    port and/or vessel specific, thus location dependent, and harm many but
    the very largest ports. Even large ports stand to lose as a result of
    the fees that could be levied on many bulk commodities which are
    routinely traded on world markets. For commodities, successful trades
    often are determined by pennies per unit of measure, or less. Margins
    are exceedingly thin and relatively large fees will easily disrupt
    normal buyer-seller patterns. Our commodities producers such as coal,
    chemicals, and agricultural products stand to lose sales and market
    share.
        A related problem involves the nature of our ports in the overall
    economy. Ports generate jobs themselves and also provide the impetus
    for related industries to establish themselves adjacent or nearby.
    Benefits of port spending are therefore quite broad in terms of
    regional and national economies. Port related growth is not
    characterized by only a few, specific identifiable beneficiaries we
    usually associate with the obligation to pay user fees. Port
    beneficiaries, including jobs creation and revenue enhancement, are the
    thousands of citizens in the affected locale or region. The numbers
    involved are broad and diverse--just such a class of people we usually
    call the general population. General revenues are employed to fund
    programs for this large a segment of the population
        Thus, the national benefits and economic significance associated
    with the sum total of port activities places these entities in a
    category which is easily able to justify the use of general revenues in
    support of broad, general economic benefits. Our association recommends
    that the Congress look seriously at funding port activities from
    general revenues, as was done prior to WRDA 1986.

                 SPECIFIC BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

        The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association supports the
    Administration's budget request of $53.5 million for deepening and
    widening the Houston--Galveston Ship Channel. This project has enormous
    favorable economic implications for the regional and national economy.
    It also offers an opportunity to increase deep draft/shallow draft
    navigation safety.
        Approximately 100,000 barge tows and 20,000 ships transit the
    Houston Ship Channel each year. In response to the last major barge and
    ship collision causing a serious oil spill in 1992, the Houston
    Galveston Area Navigation Safety Committee (HOGANSAC) began studying
    how to prevent ship/barge collisions on the Channel. With the work of a
    broad coalition of deep and shallow draft mariners, shippers, the
    Houston Pilots, environmental groups, the Corps and the Coast Guard, a
    solution was developed. The plan was to move the beacons to a straight
    line 500 feet either side of the centerline of the channel between
    Bolivar and Morgans Point and dredge the area between the beacons and
    the deep draft channel to a depth of 12 feet to allow barge tows to
    operate outside the deep draft channel.
        We also support funding for the GIWW Section 216 Studies in the
    President's budget, identified as RCP, Review of Completed Projects.
    They are Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Texas, High Island to Brazos
    River, Texas, and Port O'Connor to Corpus Christi, Texas. Within the
    Brazos River to Port O'Connor study, we support the PED request of
    $100,000 referred to as GIWW Matagorda Bay, Texas. In particular, we
    strongly encourage funding for the re-route of the GIWW through
    Matagorda Bay as well as funding for the Colorado and Brazos River lock
    and floodgate studies, in excess of levels contained in the President's
    budget.
        Our association also endorses the President's budget request of
    $6.1 million for construction of the channel to Victoria, Texas. We
    urge the committee to provide funds for completion as soon as possible,
    consistent with the Corps' full capability.
        We support surveys funding in the President's budget for Calcasieu
    Lock, Louisiana ($399,000) and Intracoastal Waterway Locks Study,
    Louisiana ($686,000).
        We support funding for the replacement of the Inner Harbor
    Navigation Canal Lock to the extent of the Corps' full capability. We
    encourage the committee to make certain this project is expedited,
    rather than stretched out. The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock is
    now in construction and has a solid favorable benefit to cost ratio.
    While some political environmental organizations would like to put the
    IHNC lock replacement project in the same controversial category in
    which several Upper Mississippi and Illinois lock replacement projects
    now find themselves, this is a stretch of monumental proportions. The
    economic justification for the IHNC has not been questioned, either by
    honest, objective efforts, or otherwise, in the same way the recent
    Upper Mississippi Study has.
        The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association also supports the
    operations and maintenance funding request for Tri Rivers Waterway
    Development Association. We support sound economic development efforts
    to improve the ACF waterway as a vital link for southeast Alabama,
    southwest Georgia, and northwest Florida to export goods to other
    national and international markets via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
        We support inland waterway navigation as an environmentally sound
    and cost effective transportation mode in the Gulf South region,
    helping to reduce freight rates and promoting trade and development.
        GICA supports additional funding for section 423 of WRDA 1999. This
    section directs the Secretary of the Army to do a study of GIWW bank
    erosion in the State of Louisiana and thereafter to cost share with the
    Louisiana Department of Natural Resources bank stabilization work. The
    study was not funded in the President's Year 2001 budget, but is vital
    as a necessary component of the state and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
    ongoing effort to deal effectively with land loss in coastal areas and
    old river deltas of South Louisiana.
        In addition, we support the President's budget request for
    Pascagoula, Mississippi harbor project ($6,663,000) and Mobile, Alabama
    harbor project ($499,000).
        Because of the high visibility of the recent Washington Post and
    political environmental organizations' charges against the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers, it is important to share with this committee our
    general views on this subject.
        Neither our association nor I personally have been involved in the
    Upper Mississippi Study. However I, as well as GICA, work with the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers on studies and navigation, flood control, and
    environmental projects in the Gulf South Region, which includes the New
    Orleans District and the Mississippi Valley Division. In addition, I
    have worked with Corps personnel from Headquarters, and from Division
    and District offices for many years on issues involving standards for
    evaluating navigation, flood control, and environmental projects. Never
    in my years of experience have I observed any actions even closely
    resembling those charged by the Post and its political environmental
    organization allies.
        I would like to point out to the Committee that the standards for
    measuring and evaluating criteria applicable to Corps' projects of all
    kinds are not without some controversy on a case by case basis.
    Economics, including formulas and models developed by those who pursue
    this field, is usually characterized by subjective judgments. When and
    under what circumstances shippers decide to alter freight patterns from
    one mode to another is not usually announced in advance. Estimates of
    relevant factors in models, devised to predict future economic
    behavior, can be as subjective as objective.
        As these allegations are reviewed I believe it is important to keep
    in mind that project economic justification as it relates to
    environmental impacts and consequences, is not always reducible to
    clean ``yes'' and ``no'' answers.
        This concludes our prepared testimony. We appreciate the
    opportunity to provide this statement for the record.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
                                    Industry

        Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.
    (construction General).--Recommend the Corps be funded to full
    capability in fiscal year 2001 to perform required work on the
    saltwater intrusion mitigation plan and complete design studies for
    potential phase III 55-foot channel.
        Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, maintenance dredging.--
    Recommend approval of President's fiscal year 2001 Budget of
    $63,359,000 under O&M General.
        Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA., maintenance dredging.--
    President's fiscal year 2001 Budget is $11,286,000 under O&M General.
    Recommend that Corps be funded increased capability for bank
    stabilization.
        Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA..--President's fiscal
    year 2001 Budget includes $14,349,000 in construction funds for the IH-
    NC New Ship Lock. Recommend that Corps be funded to full capability to
    continue lock construction and fully fund the community impact
    mitigation plan.
        Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--Recommend approval of
    President's fiscal year 2001 Budget is $2,773,000 under O&M General.
        Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend approval of the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget of $686,000 to complete the
    feasibility study and to develop plans for replacement of Bayou Sorrel
    Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Water Way (GIWW), Morgan City-to-Port
    Allen alternate route.
        Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA. and TX.--President's fiscal year
    2001 Budget is $19,478,000 under O&M General. Recommend that Corps be
    funded increased capability to construct a set of two miter gates for
    Leland Bowman Lock and 20 additional mooring buoys at various locations
    along the GIWW.
        Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Recommend approval of President's fiscal year
    2001 budget of $339,000 in GI funds to continue the feasibility phase
    of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
        Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--Recommend approval of the
    President's fiscal year 2001 Budget of $12,117,000 under O&M General to
    continue dredging and operation and maintenance of the Saltwater
    Barrier.
        J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
    LA.--President's fiscal year 2001 is $18,040,000 in Construction
    General and $8,907,000 for Operations and Maintenance. Recommend that
    Corps be funded to full capability to complete work already underway.
        As Chairman of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
    Industry, I hereby submit testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development on behalf of the ports on the lower
    Mississippi River, the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway and the Calcasieu
    River waterway and the maritime interests related thereto of the State
    of Louisiana relative to Congressional appropriations for fiscal year
    2001.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 1998 a total of
    418.1 million tons of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce moved
    through the consolidated deepwater ports of Louisiana situated on the
    lower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and the Gulf of Mexico.
    Deepening of this 232-mile stretch of the River to 45 feet has been a
    major factor in tonnage growth at these ports. Due in large part to the
    efforts of Congress and the New Orleans District of the Corps,
    Louisiana's ports and the domestic markets they serve can compete more
    productively and effectively in the global marketplace. Ninety-one
    percent of America's foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by
    value) moves in ships, and 20.3 percent of the nation's foreign
    waterborne commerce passes through Louisiana's ports. Given the role
    foreign trade plays in sustaining our nation's growth, maintaining the
    levels of productivity and competitiveness of Louisiana's ports is
    essential to our economic well-being.
        In terms of transportation services and global access, Louisiana
    ports enjoy a distinct competitive advantage. Hundreds of barge lines
    accommodate America's waterborne commerce on the lower Mississippi
    River. The high level of barge traffic on the river is indicated by the
    passage of more than 229,000 barges through the Port of New Orleans
    annually. In 1998, 2,536 ocean-going vessels operated by more than 80
    steamship lines serving U.S. trade with more than 150 countries called
    at the Port of New Orleans. The Port's trading partners include: Asia
    (33.7 percent); Latin America (32.1 percent); Europe (25 percent);
    Africa (7.6 percent) and North America (1.5 percent). During the same
    year, more than 6,377 vessels called at Louisiana's lower Mississippi
    River deepwater ports.
        The foreign markets of Louisiana's lower Mississippi River ports
    are worldwide; however, their primary domestic market is mid-America.
    This heartland region currently produces 60 percent of the nation's
    agricultural products, one half of all of its manufactured goods and 90
    percent of its machinery and transportation equipment.
        The considerable transportation assets of Louisiana's lower
    Mississippi River ports enable mid-America's farms and industries to
    play a vital role in the international commerce of this nation. In
    1998, the region's ports and port facilities handled 216 million tons
    of foreign waterborne commerce. Valued at $34.4 billion, this cargo
    accounted for 17.7 percent of the nation's international waterborne
    trade and 24.4 percent of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily
    consisting of tremendous grain and animal feed exports and petroleum
    imports, made up approximately 89 percent of this volume. Forty-five
    million tons of grain from 17 states, representing 54.75 percent of all
    U.S. grain exports, accessed the world market via the 10 grain
    elevators and midstream transfer capabilities on the lower Mississippi
    River. This same port complex received 79.4 million short tons of
    petroleum and petroleum products, 14.6 percent of U.S. waterborne
    imports of petroleum products.
        In 1998, public and private facilities located within the
    jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans,
    the fourth largest port in the United States, handled a total of 88.8
    million tons of international and domestic cargo worth. International
    general cargo totaled 14.1 million tons. Although statistically dwarfed
    by bulk cargo volumes, the movement of general cargo is of special
    significance to the local economy because it produces greater benefits.
    On a per ton basis, general cargo generates spending within the
    community more than three times higher than bulk cargo. Major general
    cargo commodities handled at the Port include: iron and steel products;
    coffee; forest products; copper; aluminum products; and natural rubber.
        Fostering the continued growth of lower Mississippi River ports is
    necessary to maintain the competitiveness of our nation's exports in
    the global marketplace and, consequently, the health of the nation's
    economy. Assuring deep water access to ports has been a priority of our
    trading partners around the world. Moreover, an evolving maritime
    industry seeking greater economies of scale continues to support
    construction of larger vessels with increased draft requirements.
    Because it facilitated the provision of deepwater port access, passage
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, played a most
    significant role in assuring the competitiveness of ports on the lower
    Mississippi river and throughout the U.S.
        By December, 1994, the Corps completed dredging of the 45-foot
    channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Baton Rouge, LA (Mile 233 AHP).
    Unfortunately, mitigation features associated with the first phase of
    the channel deepening project in the vicinity of Southwest Pass of the
    river, accomplished in 1988, have yet to be completed. We urge the
    inclusion of additional funding above the President's budget in fiscal
    year 2001 to complete an ongoing contract for improvements to the Belle
    Chasse water treatment plant. This will complete the approximate $15
    million in payments to the State of Louisiana for construction of a
    pipeline and pumping stations to deliver potable fresh water to
    communities affected by saltwater intrusion. We further urge that the
    Corps be provided funding to proceed with design studies for Phase III
    which will allow deepening of the river to the 55-foot authorized
    depth.
        Along with the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana,
    the nation's largest port with 196.6 million tons of foreign and
    domestic cargo in 1998, and the Port of Baton Rouge, the nation's sixth
    largest port with 66.8 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo in
    1998, and other lower Mississippi River ports are dependent upon timely
    and adequate dredging of Southwest Pass to provide deep draft access to
    the Gulf of Mexico. Based on past experience--spring thaws bringing
    higher river stages and higher siltation rates--we strongly urge full
    funding of the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget amount of
    $63,359,000 under O&M General for maintenance of the 45-foot project
    channel. Funding includes monies for both dredging and repairs to
    foreshore dikes; lateral dikes; and jetties. Revetment construction has
    reduced the number and size of deep draft anchorages. To mitigate this
    loss, we recommend that the Corps be authorized under the O&M General
    appropriation to construct new anchorages and maintain new and existing
    anchorages to accommodate increased ship traffic.
        Maintenance of adequate depths and channel widths in the
    Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Channel (MRGO) is also of great concern.
    This channel provides deep draft access to the Port of New Orleans'
    principal container terminals and generates an annual economic impact
    of nearly $800 million. In 1998, 455 general cargo vessels calling on
    the MRGO Tidewater facilities accounted for 22.4 percent of the general
    cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New Orleans
    and 80.21 percent of Louisiana's containerized cargo.
        Because of the MRGO's demonstrated vulnerability to coastal storm
    activity, annual channel maintenance dredging and bank stabilization
    are essential to assure unimpeded vessel operations. In 1998, heavy
    shoaling related to Hurricane Georges resulted in the imposition of a
    draft restriction from the project depth of 36 feet to 25 feet. The
    President's fiscal year 2001 Budget amount is $11,286,000 under O&M
    General. We, however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded
    increased capability for bank stabilization projects.
        The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in
    the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and provides a connection
    between the Port of New Orleans' Mississippi River and IHNC terminals.
    In 1998, the Corps approved a plan for replacement of this obsolete
    facility. The Corps estimates that the lock replacement project will
    have a cost-benefit ratio of 1.7 to one and will provide $110 million
    annually in transportation cost savings. In addition to minimizing
    adverse impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, the project includes a $33
    million Community Impact Mitigation Program. The President's fiscal
    year 2001 Budget of $14,239,000 for the IHNC New Ship Lock will pay for
    continued engineering and design work, construction, and partial
    funding of the mitigation program. Therefore, funding the Corps to full
    capability to continue lock construction and fully implement the
    mitigation program is recommended.
        Operation and maintenance of the Mississippi River Outlets at
    Venice, La. are essential to providing safe offshore support access to
    energy-related industries. In 1998, these channels accommodated cargo
    movements exceeding 3.4 million tons. In addition to routine traffic,
    Baptiste Collette Bayou is used by shallow draft vessels as an
    alternate route between the MRGO, GIWW and the Mississippi River. The
    President's fiscal year 2001 Budget amount is $2,773,000 under O&M
    General.
        More than 78.6 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
    Orleans District annually. The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget for
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana and Texas is $19,478,000 under
    O&M General. We recommend that the Corps be funded increased O&M
    capability to construct a set of two miter gates for Leland Bowman lock
    and 20 additional mooring buoys at various locations along the GIWW.
        To assure the efficient flow of commerce on the GIWW, approval is
    urged for the President's fiscal year 2001 budget of $686,000 in GI
    funds to complete the feasibility study and to develop plans for
    replacement of the Bayou Sorrel Lock, Morgan City-to-Port Allen
    alternate route. We further recommend approval of the President's
    budget fiscal year 2001 of $339,000 in GI funds to continue the
    feasibility phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
        The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is served by the Calcasieu
    River, which often does not meet project depth and width requirements.
    This Port is one of Louisiana's major deep-water ports, benefitting the
    economy of the state and the nation. In 1998, the Port handled 34.3
    million tons of import cargo and 15.8 million tons of export cargo. The
    Port and private facilities along this waterway provide thousands of
    jobs for the Lake Charles area. In 1997, 1,037 ships and 7,219 barges
    used the Calcasieu River waterway. The Port area's growth and continued
    success depends on the provision of a reliable and safe channel at full
    project dimensions. We recommend approval of the President's fiscal
    year 2001 budget of $12,117,000 under O&M General to continue dredging
    and operation of the saltwater barrier.
        One additional project warrants consideration. The J. Bennett
    Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, La. Project
    provides 236 miles of navigation improvements, 225 miles of channel
    stabilization works and various recreational facilities. Project
    completion will stimulate economic growth along the Red River Basin and
    increase cargo flows through the deep draft ports on the lower
    Mississippi River. The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget includes
    $18,040,000 in Construction General and $48,907,000 for Operations and
    Maintenance. We recommend that the Corps be funded to full capability
    for this project to complete work already underway.
        The need and impetus to reduce the Federal budget is certainly
    acknowledged; however, reduced funding on any of the above projects
    will result in decreased maintenance levels which will escalate
    deterioration and, ultimately, prevent them from functioning at their
    full authorized purpose. Reduction in the serviceability of these
    projects will cause severe economic impacts not only to this region,
    but to the nation as a whole that will far outweigh savings from
    reduced maintenance expenditures. Therefore, we reiterate our strong
    recommendation that the above projects be funded to their full
    capability.
        Supporting statements from Mr. J. Ron Brinson, President and CEO of
    the Port of New Orleans; Mr. Gary P. LaGrange, Executive Director of
    the Port of South Louisiana, Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director of
    the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, Mr. Glenwood Wiseman,
    Executive Director of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District,
    Mr. Benny Rousselle, President of Plaquemines Parish, Mr. Channing
    Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana; Capt. John
    Levine, President of the Associated Branch Pilots and Capt. Mark
    Delesdernier, President of the Crescent River Port Pilots Association
    are attached. Please make these statements along with my statement part
    of the record. Supplemental graphics relating to my statement have been
    furnished separately for staff background use. Thank you for the
    opportunity to comment to the subcommittee on these vital projects.
        [Clerk's note: The referenced material above can be found in the
    Energy and Water Development Subcommittee's files for an extended
    time.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
    bonded together to advance the economic development and future well-
    being of the citizens of the four state Red River Basin area in
    Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
        For the past 75 years, the Association has done notable work in the
    support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
    resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
    this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
    assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of Commerce,
    Economic Development Districts and other local governmental entities in
    developing the area along the Red River.
        The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
    during its 75th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
    24, 2000, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
    Red River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
    specifically:
      --Economic and Community Development
      --Environmental Restoration
      --Flood Control
      --Bank Stabilization
      --A Clean Water Supply for Residential, Commercial, Industrial and
            Agriculture Uses.
      --Hydroelectric Power Generation
      --Recreation
      --Navigation
        The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
    federal budget, and has kept those restraints in mind as these
    Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
    regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
    covered in the Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
    the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to
    funding the projects at the levels requested.

                                   STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Wayne Dowd,
    Arkansas State Senator, and I am pleased to represent the Red River
    Valley Association as its President. Our organization was founded in
    1925 with the express purpose of uniting the Citizens of Arkansas,
    Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to develop the land and water resources
    of the Red River Basin.
        We appreciate the President's fiscal year 2001 Civil Works budget
    submission of approximately $4.1 billion from his fiscal year 2000
    submission of $3.9 billion; however, it does not come close to the real
    needs of our nation. $5 billion is a realistic funding level to meet
    the requirements for continuing programs. The traditional programs,
    inland waterways and flood protection remain at the low, unacceptable
    level as in past years. These traditional civil work projects are the
    backbone to our nation's infrastructure for waterways, flood control
    and water supply. We remind you that these projects are a true `jobs
    program' in that 100 percent of the construction is contracted to the
    private sector as is much of the architect and engineer work. Not only
    do these funds provide jobs, but provide economic development
    opportunities for our communities to grow and prosper.
        The civil works program is a catalyst that is responsible for the
    great economy we now experience. It would be irresponsible to allow our
    nations infrastructure to deteriorate, or worse, stop its growth in a
    time when America must be the leader in the world market. Our inland
    waterways is the key to our dominance in world trade. This is a pivotal
    budget year where critical decisions must be made which will determine
    our future economic strength.
        In recent months there has been negative publicity, generated by
    the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), toward Red River projects and the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works programs, as a whole. The
    economic information and analysis made by the EDF is simply unfounded.
    The accusations are not correct and in fact the Red River Navigation
    project has been a success economically and environmentally. A group of
    organizations, to include the RRVA, will be presenting a `white paper'
    to demonstrate the true benefits associated with the Red River
    Waterway. This document will be presented to the subcommittee members
    once it is completed.
        I would now like to comment on our specific requests for the future
    economic well-being of the citizens residing in the four state Red
    River Basin area.
        Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
    expectations of the benefits projected. The tonnage moved in 1998 was
    3.7 million tons with the projected tonnage, to justify the project, at
    3.6 million tons. Estimates for 1999 are close to 4.0 million tons. We
    are extremely proud of our public ports, municipalities and state
    agencies who have created this success. New facilities opened in 1999
    included a fertilizer terminal at the Port of Shreveport-Bossier and
    stone distribution at the Port of Natchitoches. Liquid petroleum
    shipments increased in 1999 as did commercial stone operations.
    Currently under construction, at the public ports , are a wood chip
    barge loading system, liquid petroleum tank farm, and general cargo
    warehouse facility. You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete,
    ten percent remains, $200 million. We appreciate the President's budget
    level of $18 million; however, we respectfully request the expressed
    Corps capability of $23 million. In order to keep the waterway safe and
    reliable we must continue at a funding level higher than the
    President's Budget. The RRVA formed a Navigation Committee for
    industry, the Corps and Coast Guard to partner in making our Waterway a
    success. This effort has reaped many benefits. We can not sacrifice
    what has been accomplished by inadequate funding levels.
        In fiscal year 2000 you reprogrammed funds to initiate the
    feasibility study to extend navigation from Shreveport-Bossier City,
    Louisiana into the State of Arkansas. It is imperative that you
    continue funding this important study and support the $200,000 included
    in the President's Budget. Many areas continue to suffer major
    unemployment, and the navigation project, although not the total
    solution, will help revitalize the economy in this region. The U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service `Planning Aid Report' indicated minimal
    impact and most probably an enhancement to environmental value. Last
    summer colonies of least terns (an endangered species) were found on
    stabilized sandbars in the Waterway in Louisiana as well as an increase
    in numbers and species of migratory birds due to the newly formed
    pools. This will be a multipurpose project addressing navigation,
    hydropower, bank stabilization and environmental restoration. I want to
    stress that the local sponsor, the Arkansas Red River Commission, has
    available their 50 percent cost share for the complete feasibility
    study. Few local sponsors have `funds in the bank' and are also willing
    to fund additional studies to insure a complete and accurate analysis
    is made.
        Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important continuing programs
    on the Red River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North Louisiana.
    We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down river and
    interferes with the navigation channel. In addition to the loss of
    farmland is the threat to public utilities such as roads, electric
    power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in the
    navigable waterway. These revetment projects are compatible with
    subsequent navigation and we urge that they be continued in those
    locations designated by the Corps of Engineers to be the areas of the
    worst erosion. We appreciated Congressional funding in fiscal year 2000
    and request you again fund this project at a level of $10 million.
        It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along
    the Red River below Denison Dam, Texas to Index, Arkansas along the
    Texas/Oklahoma border. The Federal Government constantly encourages its
    farmers to protect their lands against all forms of erosion, so it only
    makes sense to be consistent. An authorized project exists; `Red River
    Waterway, Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX, Bank Stabilization', so the
    issue lies with the benefit/cost ratio. We believe that the authorized,
    on going `Sediment Transport Study' will identify benefits due to
    reduced dredging cost in the navigable Waterway in Louisiana.
        There is a new technique for bank stabilization which could be
    tested as a demonstration project under this authorization. This new
    technique, underwater bendway weirs, has proven to be less expensive
    than conventional methods and more efficient in controlling the energy
    of the river as well as providing environmental benefits. Over 1,000
    acres of prime farmland in Oklahoma and Texas is lost each year to
    river erosion and we must investigate all avenues to correct this
    problem. You funded the initiation of this project in fiscal year 1999
    and we request you continue that initiative, in this appropriation, at
    a level of $5.5 million, the expressed Corps capability.
        Flood Control.--You will recall that in 1990 major areas of
    northeast Texas, Southwest Arkansas and the entire length of the Red
    River in Louisiana were ravaged by the worst flooding to hit the region
    since 1945 and 1957. More than 700,000 acres were flooded with total
    damages estimated at $20.4 million. However, it could have been much
    worse. The Corps of Engineers estimates that without the flood control
    measure authorized by Congress over the past several decades an
    additional 1.3 million acres would have been flooded with an estimated
    $330 million in additional flood damage to agriculture and urban
    developments.
        We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
    you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
    Arkansas and Texas. Four of eleven items have been completed on levees
    rehabilitated to meet federal standards. $4 million will construct two
    more items; completing Miller County, AR and starting levees in
    Lafayette County, AR.
        In addition, Bowie County levee, in Texas, is crucial to the
    integrity of the Arkansas levee system. Should the Bowie levee fail
    flood waters will inundate behind the just competed Miller County
    levees in Arkansas. It is important to have this project funded at
    $900,000, for the `locally preferred' option, according to cost sharing
    under the Flood Control Act of 1946, not withstanding economic
    justification.
        The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated in the Federal
    system; however, do not meet current construction standards due to
    their age. These levees do not have a gravel surface, on top,
    threatening their integrity during times of flooding. It is essential
    for personnel to traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for
    problem areas. Without the gravel surface the vehicles used cause
    rutting and themselves can create conditions for the levees to fail.
    Gravel surfaces will insure inspection personnel can check the levees
    during the saturated conditions of a flood. We propose a three phase,
    three year project to correct this Valley wide problem in Louisiana.
    The first year requires a funding level of $2,654,000 with the whole
    project costing $8,361,000.
        Clean Water.--Nearly 3,500 tons of natural salts, primarily sodium
    chloride, enter the upper reaches of the Red River each day, rendering
    downstream waters unusable for most purposes. The Truscott Brine Lake
    project, which is located on the South Fork of the Wichita River in
    King and Knox Counties, Texas became operational in 1987. An
    independent panel of experts found that the project not only continues
    to perform beyond design expectations in providing cleaner water, but
    has an exceptionally favorable cost benefit ratio. $16 million dollars
    was appropriated in fiscal year 1995, by the Administration, to
    accelerate engineering design, real estate acquisition and initiate
    construction of the Crowell Brine Dam, Area VII and Area IX. Due to a
    conflict over environmental issues, raised by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, completion of the SFEIS was delayed pending further
    study to determine the extent of possible impacts to fish and wildlife,
    their habitats and biological communities along the Red River and Lake
    Texoma. In an effort to resolve these issues and insure that no harmful
    impact to the environment or ecosystems would result, a comprehensive
    environmental and ecological monitoring program was implemented. It
    evaluates the actual impacts of reducing chloride concentrations within
    the Red River watershed. This base line data is crucial to
    understanding the ecosystem of the Red River basin west of Lake Texoma
    and funding for this must continue.
        Dr. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in
    October 1998 agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River
    Basin portion of the project. Completion of this tributary will reclaim
    Lake Kemp as a usable water source for the region. As was done in
    fiscal year 2000 we support the reprogramming of $1,351,000 to continue
    this important project. The drought experienced in the Red River
    Valley, these past two years, has highlighted the critical need for
    this usable water source.
        Operation & Maintenance.--We appreciate the support of your
    subcommittee to support navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City which is
    now providing an increase to our industrial base, creating jobs and
    providing economic growth. We request that O&M funding levels remain at
    the expressed Corps capability to maintain a safe, reliable and
    efficient transportation system. As experienced two years age failure
    to maintain a revetment for $500,000, when the problem was first
    identified, resulted in a catastrophic failure of the revetment and
    adjacent levee. This led to an emergency repair of $5 million which
    could have been prevented. The President's budget level of $8.9 million
    does not address the backlog of maintenance at the five lock and dams
    or deteriorating dikes and revetments. The Corps capability of
    $15,237,000 million is required to maintain a safe waterway.
        Full O&M funding levels is not only important for the Waterway
    project but for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes.
        We are sincerely grateful to you for the past support you have
    given our various projects. We hope that we can count on you again to
    fund our needs and complete the projects started that will help us
    diversify our economy and create the jobs so badly needed by our
    citizens. We have included a summary of our requests for easy
    reference.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
    details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
    industries, organizations and citizens we represent throughout the four
    state Red River Valley region. We believe that any federal monies spent
    on civil work projects are truly investments in our future and will
    return several times the original investment in benefits that will
    accrue back to the Federal Government.
        I am always available to provide you and your staff additional
    information or clarification on any issue presented.

                                GRANT DISCLOSURE

        The Red River Valley Association has not received any federal
    grant, subgrant or contract during the current fiscal year or either of
    the two previous fiscal years.

                      SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 REQUESTS

        Note.--Projects are NOT in any order of priority.
    Studies
        Red River Navigation, SW Arkansas.--This is a feasibility study
    initiated on March 24, 1999 to investigate the potential to extend
    navigation from Shreveport/Bossier, LA to Index, AR. To date $1,783,000
    has been ``reprogrammed'' for this study from another Red River study.
    The President's budget included $200,000 for fiscal year 2001. An
    additional $417,000 is required to complete the study in fiscal year
    2002. The study is cost shared 50 percent with the Arkansas Red River
    Commission, the local sponsor.
                President's Budget--$200,000
                Total Request--$200,000
        Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR (Section 1135).--An environmental
    restoration project to 15,000 acres of wetlands located downstream from
    Millwood Dam. The Dam interrupted the flow and this project would be a
    water delivery system to include restoring flow to a 400 acre pristine
    wetland area. It is private land; however, there is a national interest
    for migratory birds. A potential sponsor is the Arkansas Soil & Water
    Conservation Commission.
                Total Request--$300,000
        Southwest Arkansas Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance report in the
    four county area of the Red River/Little River basins. Included would
    be the four Corps lakes; DeQueen, Dierks, Gillham and Millwood. The
    watershed study would evaluate; flooding, irrigation, fish and wildlife
    habitat, water quality, recreation and water releases for navigation.
    The State of Arkansas has expressed an interest in cost sharing
    feasibility study.
                Total Request--$300,000
        Bois d'Arc Creek, Bonham, TX.--This is a reconnaissance study to
    address the flooding on 16,100 acres on the lower two-thirds of the
    basin. The towns of Whitewright and Bonham are within the basin. A dam
    was determined feasible in the 1960's; however, there was no local
    sponsor. Currently there are local sponsors interested in this project.
                President's Budget--$200,000
                Total request--$300,000
        Southeast Oklahoma Water Resource Study.--Conduct a reconnaissance
    study to evaluate the water resources in the study area. The study area
    includes the Kiamichi River basin and other tributaries of the Red
    River. A comprehensive plan will be developed to determine how best to
    conserve and utilize this water.
                President's Budget--$200,000
                Total Request--$200,000
        Big Cypress Valley Watershed (Section 1135).--The main focus of
    this study is within the City of Jefferson, Texas. Informal
    coordination with Jefferson has showed their continued support and
    intent to participate. Their total share is estimated to be $601,600
    with annual O&M costs of approximately $21,000.
                Total Request--$100,000

                                  CONSTRUCTION

    Red River Waterway Project
        J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.--Ten projects have been awarded in
    fiscal year 2000 and need to be completed as well as the initiation of
    six new projects. Upon implementation of the Project Cooperation
    Agreement funds will be used for recreation features, as well as
    continued efforts with mitigation.
                President's Budget--$18,040,000
                Construction Adds--$5,000,000
                Total Request--$23,040,000
        Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX; Bendway Weir Demo Project.--This
    stretch of Red River experiences tremendous bank caving. A
    demonstration project using this bendway weir technique is needed to
    determine if this method will work in the Red River. The U.S. Highway
    271 bridge was selected due to the threat to this infrastructure and
    accessibility for evaluation. The project will include bendways 6 miles
    upstream and 5.5 miles downstream of the bridge. There are
    environmental enhancement potential with this project.
                Total Request--$5,500,000
        Red River Basin Chloride Control Project.--A reevaluation for the
    Wichita River Basin features has been ongoing using reprogrammed funds.
    The office of the ASA(CW) has approved this and is expected to
    reprogram funds in fiscal year 2001. In addition to the reevaluation
    and NEPA process, environmental monitoring activities will continue.
                Total Reprogram Request--$1,351,000
    Red River Below Denison Dam Levees & Bank Stabilization
        Levee Rehabilitation, AR.--Funds are required to complete
    construction of Levee Item #5 initiated in fiscal year 2000; initiate
    construction of the next Levee Item and initiate design for the follow
    on Levee Item. Design and initiate construction of Dillard Revetment
    downstream extension. An Incorporation Report must be accomplished for
    Twelve Mile Bayou Levee, Caddo Parish, LA as directed by WRDA 99.
                Total Request--$4,000,000
        Bowie County Levee, TX.--The local sponsor wants the `locally
    preferred option' authorized for construction.
                Total Request--$900,000
        Upgrade Levees, LA.--Approximately 220 miles of levees do not have
    gravel surfaces on top of the levee as is the present standard. These
    levees are in the federal system and must be upgraded. This surface is
    required for safe inspections of the levees during flood fights and to
    maintain the integrity of the levee. The total project can be completed
    in three phases over three years.
                Total Request--$2,654,000
    Red River Emergency Bank Protection
        Arkansas.--Funds are required to complete construction of Hunter's
    Island Revetment initiated in fiscal year 2000; award contracts for
    Pleasant Valley and Dickson Revetments; complete the design for Bois
    D'Arc and initiate design for the next priority item.
                Total Request--$10,000,000
        Louisiana.--A sediment transport study, Phase II will determine if
    sediments being transported downstream, into the navigation channel,
    are increasing the dredging costs. Phase I determined that 1.6 million
    tons of sand sediment enter the navigation pools each year. Phase II
    will examine total sediments. There are enough funds on hand to
    complete this study.
                Total Request--$0
        Aloha-Rigolette Flood Control, LA.--The local sponsor is expected
    to contribute more funds than originally anticipated due to the
    performance and termination of the original contractor. These
    additional overruns were through no fault of the local sponsor, Town of
    Colfax, and they can not bear the burden of the additional cost. In
    addition to federal funding language is required to relieve the Town of
    Colfax from this extra cost.
                Total Request--$286,000
        Little River County (Ogden Levee), AR.--A Reconnaissance report in
    1991 determined that flood control levees were justified along Little
    River. The project sponsor, Arkansas Water Conservation Commission
    requested that the project proceed directly to PED, without a cost
    shared feasibility study. We request language and funding to accomplish
    this.
                Total Request--$300,000
        McKinney Bayou.--The Reconnaissance Report showed a favorable
    project to clear and reshape this drainage canal. Presently, the local
    sponsor is unable to cost share continuation of this project.
                Total Request $0

                            OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

        Red River Waterway.--The President's budget is sufficient to only
    operate and perform preventive maintenance items. There are major,
    unfunded backlog maintenance items that must be done. These items
    include inspection and certification of lock & dam stoplogs, repairs to
    tainter gate diagonal bracing and revetment repairs.
                President's Budget--$8,907,000
                Revetment Repair--$2,500,000
                Backlog Maintenance--$3,830,000
                Total Request--$15,237,000
        We support that O&M at projects be funded at the full Corps
    capability.

                     MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES (MR&T)

        Lower Red River, South Bank Levees, LA.--The Bayou Rapides Flood
    Control Structure is located in Alexandria, LA and serves to contain
    flows and reduce interior flooding from high stages of the red River.
    Without this structure the Federally authorized project could not
    function properly. We support this MR&T funded project.
                President's Budget--$5,739,000
                Total Request--$8,239,000.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
                                  Development

        The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
    of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated
    to represent the State of Louisiana in the planning and orderly
    development of its water resources. This statement is presented on
    behalf of the State of Louisiana and contains recommendations for
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations for work in Louisiana under the
    Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
        Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has
    the third largest drainage basin in the world, exceeded only by the
    watersheds of the Amazon and Congo Rivers. The Mississippi River drains
    41 percent, or 1\1/4\ million square miles, of the contiguous United
    States and parts of two Canadian provinces. All of the runoff from
    major river basins, such as the Missouri and Upper Mississippi, the
    Ohio including the Tennessee and others, and the Arkansas and White,
    flow into the Lower Mississippi, which empties into the Gulf of Mexico
    through Louisiana.
        The jurisdiction of levee boards in Louisiana includes one-third of
    the State's total area. However, the importance of this one-third of
    the State can be seen by the fact that it contains nearly 75 percent of
    the State's population and about 90 percent of the State's disposable
    personal income. Traditionally, the levee district areas are water rich
    and have fallen heir to industrial development that ranks high in the
    nation. It has been estimated that about 60 percent of the State's
    agricultural products come from levee district areas. So you can see
    why Louisiana and its twenty levee districts are so interested in
    seeing the completion of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
        In making the following recommendations regarding construction,
    studies, and some selected operation and maintenance items, the State
    of Louisiana would hope that Congress and the Administration will honor
    their prior commitments to infrastructure development and fund our
    requests.
        The following Louisiana projects are only those for which we are
    requesting an increase to the President's budget. For those Louisiana
    projects not listed we agree with the President's budget. See the
    attached ``Summary of Recommended Appropriations'' for a complete
    listing.

    Operation and Maintenance

                                                                     Request
    Atchafalaya Basin.......................................     $13,582,000
    Old River Request.......................................      11,320,000
    Lower Red River, South Bank Levees (Bayou Rapides
        Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant)...............       8,239,000
    Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)...................      10,000,000
    Channel Improvement (total MR&T)........................      60,000,000

        The operation and maintenance of completed works are essential to
    achieving the full benefits of the projects. In times of budget
    constraints it is essential that operation and maintenance not be
    delayed which would hamper the effectiveness of the projects and cause
    more expensive maintenance at a later date.
        The Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant Project,
    located in Alexandria, Louisiana, is authorized under the Lower Red
    River, South Bank Levees of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
    Project. The replacement of an existing pumping plant is needed to
    contain flows and reduce interior flooding from high stages of the Red
    River. Additional funds of $2.5 million are needed to continue
    construction.
        All the above listed projects have reached a point where delayed
    maintenance is now essential and we urge you to fund these projects in
    the amounts requested.

    Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)--Request: $50,000,000
        The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project above Louisiana is
    about 90 percent complete, but to a much lesser extent in Louisiana.
    Because of the improvements upstream, increased flows are a major
    problem in Louisiana where the project is lagging behind the
    construction in the upper valley. Of the total request for levee
    construction, $20,072,000 is needed for Louisiana projects. This
    includes an additional $4,200,000 for the Vicksburg District where
    there is a deficiency of 4 to 7 feet on mainline Mississippi River
    levees in the Fifth Louisiana Levee District. It is also requested that
    Federal funds be provided to purchase rights-of-way for this critical
    work as the Levee District is in an economically depressed area and
    does not have a tax base capable of producing the funds necessary for
    both maintenance and rights-of-way purchase.

    Channel Improvement (total MR&T)--Request: $45,000,000
        Channel improvement and bank stabilization provide protection to
    the levees and the development behind them, as well as, preventing
    unsatisfactory alignment where the river's bank is unstable. The
    additional funds we are requesting will provide for the dredging and
    revetment work necessary to accommodate increased flows caused by
    upstream improvements.

    Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area (Sicily Island Area Levee
            Project)--Request: $8,533,000
        The budgeted funds for fiscal year 2001 are to be used to continue
    construction of levee Items 1C and 1D. An additional $6,203,000 is
    requested to complete Item 1C and 1D, advance the award of Billys and
    Falcon Bayou and acquisition of lands.

    Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico--Request: $5,000,000
        Funds are requested to advance preconstruction engineering and
    design and start construction. This study is scheduled for completion
    and is expected to be authorized in the next Water Resources
    Development Act.

    Local Contributions for Flood Control Improvements
        Historically, Louisiana has always done its part in cooperation
    with the Federal agencies concerned with flood control. The Louisiana
    State Board of Engineers, the forerunner of the Department of
    Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal
    Transportation, was created in 1879, the same year as the Mississippi
    River Commission, to coordinate the planning and construction of the
    required flood control facilities to protect the State. Since that
    time, local expenditures for flood control have exceeded $730,000,000.
    This amount adjusted to 1979 dollars represents expenditures in excess
    of $5.3 billion. Nearly one-half of the potential flooded area of the
    Lower Mississippi River Valley lies in Louisiana. Local expenditures
    for flood control have increased with the growth of the valley. This
    record not only meets, but exceeds any National Water Policy local
    participation requirement ever put into practice.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has been underway
    since 1928 and isn't scheduled for completion until the year 2031--a
    date that continually keeps moving further into the future. We
    understand the need for budget constraints, but the President's budget
    request of $309,000,000 for the total MR&T Project is not adequate. We
    endorse the recommendation of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
    Association in their request for a minimum of $370,000,000 MR&T budget
    for funding to the full capability of the Corps throughout the whole
    valley.
        The State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and
    Development, Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, in
    particular, wishes to commend the Appropriations Subcommittees on
    Energy and Water Development, and express our appreciation for the
    foresight and understanding exhibited for water resources projects
    which are vital to the national interest. We solicit your further
    consideration of the recommendations presented herein.

     MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
                     FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 STATE OF LOUISIANA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Lousiiana
               Louisiana projects             Budget request      request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operation and Maintenance:
        Mississippi River Levees (total           $6,160,000     $10,000,000
         MR&T)..............................
        Atchafalaya Basin...................       9,482,000      13,582,000
        Channel Improvement (total MR&T)....      58,954,000      60,000,000
        Old River Control Structure.........       4,720,000      11,320,000
        Bonnet Carre Spillway...............       1,340,000       1,340,000
        Lower Red River, SBL--Bayou Rapides        5,739,000       8,239,000
         Drainage Structure & Pumping Plant.
        Tensas Basin:
            Boeuf & Tensas Rivers...........       2,384,000       2,384,000
            Red River Backwater Area........       3,048,000       3,048,000
        Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System,        1,499,000       1,499,000
         LA.................................
        Baton Rouge Harbor--Devil Swamp, LA.         210,000         210,000
        Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries......          56,000          56,000
        Mississippi Delta Region,                    916,000         916,000
         Caernarvon, LA.....................
    Construction:
        Mississippi River Levees (total           40,621,000      50,000,000
         MR&T)..............................
        Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee..       5,500,000       5,500,000
        Atchafalaya Basin...................      26,000,000      26,000,000
        Channel Improvements (total MR&T)...      35,690,000      45,000,000
        Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater          2,330,000       8,533,000
         Area...............................
        Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico......  ..............       1,000,000
        Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System..      10,000,000      10,000,000
        Mississippi Delta Region, Davis Pond       5,000,000       5,000,000
        Mississippi & Louisiana Estuarine            100,000         100,000
         Area (Bonnet Carre)................
    Preconstruction Engineering & Design:          2,000,000       4,000,000
     Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico \1\.....
    General Investigations:
        Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico       1,100,000       1,100,000
        Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico....         750,000         750,000
        Spring Bayou........................         100,000         100,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Need WRDA authorization.
    Note.--The projects listed above are only those in Louisiana (except
      where noted) and directly affect the State. We realize that there are
      other projects in the Valley. We endorse the recommendations of the
      Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Caddo/Bossier Port Commission

        On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier
    Parishes Port Commission strongly urges the Congress of the United
    States to allocate in fiscal year 2001 the necessary monies to ensure
    safe and reliable Red River navigation.
        The water resources needs of this nation must be met in order to
    assure our commerce, international trade and national defense needs are
    not shortchanged. Our water highways, including the Red River, are
    national assets. Their ports' activities link every community in our
    nation to the world. The Port of Shreveport-Bossier, owned and operated
    by the Caddo-Bossier Port Commission, is part of this waterways
    network, linking the Ark-La-Tex with the vast midcontinent and coastal
    and Great Lakes ports.
        The Port of Shreveport-Bossier, which lies at the head of Red River
    navigation, is one of the newest ports in this network, having been in
    regular operation now only three years. We are proud of its evolution,
    the impact it is having on the communities it serves and the speed with
    which the Commission's goals of providing water transportation and
    economic development are progressing. For example, each year there has
    been an increase in tonnage over port docks. This spring the One
    Millionth Ton of Cargo milestone will be reached, a timetable far ahead
    of many very successful inland ports. And just as importantly, the port
    is prompting jobs and dollar investment. Oakley Louisiana began
    operation at the Port in April, 1999 and Omni Specialty Packaging and
    Omni Terminal Systems will begin operation this spring. These companies
    joined Red River Terminals, Shreveport Fabricators, Arch Chemicals and
    U.S. Liquids at the 2,000 acre Port complex.
        Contrary to recent national publicity sparked by a particular
    political agenda, the facts speak for themselves--the Port of
    Shreveport-Bossier is a success. Federal investment in civil works
    programs for the Red River must be adequate to ensure an efficient
    transportation system, thereby assuring local citizens and private
    business that their investments in the Port are not only worthwhile
    today but will be a sound and ongoing investment in the future economic
    growth of the Ark-La-Tex.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Red River Waterway Commission

        On behalf of the citizens of the Red River Waterway District of
    Louisiana, the Red River Waterway Commission urges the Congress of the
    United States to allocate the funds necessary for fiscal year 2001 for
    Red River Waterway Project. Adequate funding will allow continued
    construction progress toward actual project completion, stimulate
    continued growth in tonnage movement, encourage the continuation of
    private and public development as well as facilitate total reliability
    in project function for industrial and recreational development. While
    this project is still in its infancy stage, the infrastructure
    investment has been justified by commercial and recreational
    development along the Red River and intermodal transportation cost
    savings because of water induced rates resulting from the project.
        Tonnage volumes continue to steadily increase and cargo
    classifications diversify providing numerous business opportunities for
    this region. Further development will continue to take place with the
    knowledge that users can rely on an efficient, functional and user
    friendly river system.
        Construction on Red River is over 90 percent complete, however, it
    is vitally important that we understand the importance of steady
    progress toward project completion with full knowledge of the financial
    constraints this country, the President and the Congress are wrestling
    with during the budget process.

                AREAS OF NEED FOR THE RED RIVER WATERWAY PROJECT

        Navigation Structures (Revetments and Dikes).--The completion of
    these structures is necessary to maintain the channel alignment so as
    to provide reliable navigation to the commercial users. In addition,
    the structures help insure that barges can be loaded to the maximum
    depths allowable for profitable operation and continued industrial
    growth.
        Recreation Development.--Design and Construction in Pools 3, 4 and
    5 should begin immediately. Important projects such as Shreveport
    Riverfront, Teague Parkway Trails, Colfax and Hampton Lake establish an
    excellent recreation foundation.
        Operations & Maintenance Program.--Channel Maintenance (Dredging)
    is critical to the viability of the waterway system. The Corps of
    Engineers needs sufficient resources to adequately maintain the
    navigation channel to provide dependable and reliable depths so that
    barges moving on the system can be loaded to the maximum nine foot
    draft. Maintenance of existing navigation structures at strategic
    locations is vital for continued development. The backlog of
    maintenance items at the lock & dam structures could be devastating to
    the nation's investment in the navigation system.
        Construction/Maintenance Program.--The Corps of Engineers needs
    resources available to react quickly to landowner bank caving
    complaints that are a result of the project and are fully justified.
        Aids to Navigation.--As commercial use continues to increase, the
    Coast Guard presence and resources must reflect a similar growth to
    adequately maintain the buoy system on the Red River and stimulate
    confidence in the river system.
        Mitigation and Bendway Dredging.--Continue with land acquisition
    and developmental cost analysis associated with the mitigation portion
    of the project to enhance the bottomland hardwood acreage within the
    Red River Valley area of Louisiana. Continue the bendway dredging
    operations to maintain the backwater connection to the channel of Red
    River for ingress and egress of nutrient rich river water and numerous
    species of freshwater fish.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., prepared statement...........   640
    Alabama River Pulp Company, Inc., prepared statement.............   616
    Alabama State Docks, prepared statement..........................   649
    American Chemical Society, prepared statement....................   521
    American Museum of Natural History, prepared statement...........   507
    American Public Power Association, prepared statement............   527
    American Rivers, prepared statement..............................   545
    Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement....   560
    Association for the Development of Inland Navigation in America's
      Ohio Valley, prepared statement................................   633
    Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., prepared
      statement......................................................   540

    Ballard, Lt. General Joe N., Chief of Engineers, Corps of
      Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
      Defense--Civil.................................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
        Recognition of...............................................     2
        Statement of.................................................    11
    Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement..........   522
    Bowman, Adm. Frank L., Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion
      Program, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
      of Energy......................................................    95
        Prepared statement...........................................   133
        Statement of.................................................   131
    Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Statement....................................................    24
    Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement......   517
    Butte County, California, prepared statement.....................   497
    Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
      submitted by..................................................62, 397

    Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, prepared statement................   666
    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
      Coalition, prepared statement..................................   427
    California Resources Agency Reclamation Board, prepared statement   475
    California Water Commission, prepared statement..................   439
    Caver, Thomas F., Jr., Chief, Programs Management Division,
      Directorate of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers--Civil,
      Department of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil...........     1
    Cawelo Water District, prepared statement........................   491
    Central Arizona Water Conservation District, prepared statement..   580
    City of Marshall, Minnesota, prepared statement..................   607
    City of Metumpka, AL, prepared statement.........................   614
    City of Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement.................   621
    City of Morro Bay, California, prepared statement................   426
    City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement...................   531
    City of Oceanside, California, prepared statements.............410, 486
    City of Phoenix, prepared statement..............................   408
    City of Rainbow City, AL, prepared statement.....................   615
    City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, prepared statement......   435
    City of Rome, Georgia, prepared statement........................   616
    City of Sacramento, prepared statement...........................   413
    City of San Leandro, California, prepared statement..............   409
    City of San Rafael, CA, prepared statement.......................   436
    City of Selma, AL, prepared statement............................   615
    City of Stockton, prepared statement.............................   498
    Clark County Regional Flood Control District, prepared statement.   437
    Coachella Valley Water District, prepared statement..............   478
    Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions
      submitted by..................................................56, 393
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement..   573
    Colorado River Board of California, prepared statement...........   420
    Colusa Basin Drainage District, prepared statement...............   415
    Contra Costa County, California, prepared statement..............   432
    Cook, J. Mark, letter from.......................................   644
    Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc., prepared
      statement......................................................   610
    Cottingham, David, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Water
      and Science, Department of the Interior........................    73
    Council of Alabama Waterway Associations, prepared statement.....   650
    County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors, prepared statement   492
    County of San Joaquin and the San Joaquin County Flood Control
      and Water Conservation District, prepared statement............   502
    County of Santa Cruz, prepared statement.........................   477
    County of Tulare, prepared statement.............................   491
    County of Volusia, Florida, prepared statement...................   627
    Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho, ques182, 296, 311, 320, 397

    David Volkert & Associates, Inc., prepared statement.............   647
    Decker, Dr. James, Acting Director, Office of Science, Department
      of Energy......................................................   187
        Prepared statement...........................................   192
        Statement of.................................................   190
    Deschutes Basin Working Group, prepared statement................   590
    Doetting, Robert L., letter from.................................   645
    Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
        Opening statements........................................... 1, 95
        Questions submitted by.........43, 87, 154, 283, 284, 301, 312, 378
        Statement of.................................................   189
    Dorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
        Questions submitted by......................................71, 299
        Statement of.................................................   187

    Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, prepared statement.......   595

    Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, prepared statement......   549
    Gioconda, Gen. Thomas F., Acting Deputy Administrator, Defense
      Programs, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military
      Applications, National Nuclear Security Administration,
      Department of Energy...........................................    95
        Prepared statement...........................................   105
        Statement of.................................................   100
    Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
        Questions submitted by............................56, 293, 304, 396
        Statement of.................................................   187
    Gottemoeller, Rose, Acting Deputy Administrator, Atomic Energy
      Defense and Nonproliferation Programs, National Nuclear
      Security Administration, Department of Energy..................    95
        Prepared statement...........................................   123
        Statement of.................................................   120
    Green Brook Flood Control Commission, prepared statement.........   529
    Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association, prepared statement..........   653

    Habiger, Gen. Eugene E., Director, Security and Emergency
      Operations, National Nuclear Security Administration,
      Department of Energy...........................................    95
        Prepared statement...........................................   141
        Statement of.................................................   140
    Hermiston Irrigation District, prepared statement................   595
    Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, prepared statement..................   417
    Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District,
      prepared statement.............................................   411
    Hunt Company, prepared statement.................................   646
    Huntoon, Carolyn, Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental
      Management, Department of Energy...............................   323
        Prepared statement...........................................   338
        Statement of.................................................   335

    Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium, prepared statement   546
    Itkin, Ivan, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
      Management, Department of Energy...............................   323
        Prepared statement...........................................   325
        Statement of.................................................   323

    Johnston, J. Ronald, Program Director, Central Utah Project
      Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior..............    73
        Prepared statement...........................................    77
        Statement of.................................................    77
    Jordan, James T., letter from....................................   616

    Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared
      statement......................................................   566
    Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, prepared statement.....   416
    Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, questions submitted
      by.............................................................    69

    Little River Drainage District, prepared statement...............   559
    Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement......   433
    Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, prepared statement   500
    Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, prepared
      statement......................................................   664
    Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry, prepared
      statement......................................................   655

    Magwood, Bill, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
      Technology, Department of Energy...............................   187
        Prepared statement...........................................   249
        Statement of.................................................   246
    Martinez, Eluid L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
      Department of the Interior.....................................    73
        Prepared statement...........................................    74
    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
      submitted by...................................................   305
    Merced Irrigation District, prepared statement...................   495
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
      statement......................................................   429
    Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,
      prepared statement.............................................   542
    Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, prepared statement...............   553
    Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared statement   557
    Missouri-Arkansas River Basins Association, prepared statement...   545
    Mni Wiconi Project, prepared statement...........................   549
    Monroe County Commission, prepared statement.....................   614
    Monterey County Water Resources Agency, prepared statement.......   422
    Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, prepared
      statement......................................................   421
    Moss Landing Harbor District, prepared statement.................   424
    Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, questions
      submitted by.................................................298, 320

    National Audubon Society, prepared statement.....................   617
    National Mining Association, prepared statement..................   630
    National Urban Agriculture Council, prepared statement...........   541
    Natomas Mutual Water Company, prepared statement.................   416
    Navios Ship Agencies Inc., prepared statement....................   647
    New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement......   575
    New York University, prepared statement..........................   532
    Northwest Power Planning Council, prepared statement.............   587
    Nuclear Energy Institute, prepared statement.....................   514

    Ohio State University, prepared statement........................   505
    Oklahoma Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared
      statement......................................................   569
    Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement..............   594

    Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, prepared statement......   585
    Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, prepared statement....   537
    Port of Houston Authority, prepared statement....................   582
    Port of Long Beach, prepared statement...........................   400
    Port of Stockton, prepared statement.............................   399

    Red River Valley Association, prepared statement.................   658
    Red River Waterway Commission, prepared statement................   667
    Reicher, Dan, Assistant Secretary of Energy, office of Energy and
      Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.........................   187
        Prepared statement...........................................   224
        Statement of.................................................   220
    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
        Questions submitted by.......................................    59
        Prepared statement...........................................   261
        Statement of.................................................    97
    Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
      prepared statement.............................................   488

    Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement.........   404
    San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement........   501
    Santa Clara Valley Water District, prepared statement............   479
    Santa Cruz Harbor, prepared statement............................   436
    Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement....................   628
    Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared
      statement......................................................   563
    St. Francis Levee District Board of Directors, prepared statement   637
    State of Arizona, prepared statement.............................   579
    State of New Jersey, Department of Transporation, prepared
      statement......................................................   537
    State of New York, Empire State Development Corporation, prepared
      statement......................................................   537
    State of Wyoming, prepared statement.............................   578
    Steamship Association of Louisiana, prepared statement...........   650
    Stevedoring Services of America, prepared statement..............   642
    Stewart, Jerry L., letter from...................................   645

    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, prepared
      state-
      ment...........................................................   638
    Topazi, Anthony J., letter from..................................   640
    Tule River Association, prepared statement.......................   496
    Tumalo Irrigation District, prepared statement...................   595

    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
      statement......................................................   509
    University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared
      statement......................................................   535
    University of Miami, prepared statement..........................   619
    University of Michigan, prepared statement.......................   624
    University of Rochester, prepared statement......................   511
    Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement....   634

    Van Winkle, General Hans A., Deputy Commanding General for Civil
      Works Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................     1
    Velasco Drainage District, prepared statement....................   642
    Ventura Port District, prepared statement........................   435

    Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company, prepared statement............   639
    Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Association, prepared statement.......   648
    Western Coaliton of Arid States, prepared statement..............   576
    Westphal, Dr. Joseph, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
      Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
        Statement of.................................................     3
    Whitewater River Basin, prepared statement.......................   478

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

                                                                       Page
    Acequias irrigation system.......................................    54
    Additional committee questions...................................    43
    Administrative appeals process...................................    51
    Alamogordo flood control system..................................    55
    Alaska National Defense System missile sites.....................    34
    Army civil works new initiatives.................................     6
    Backlog, construction and maintenance............................    36
    Bluestone Lake (dam safety assurance), West Virginia.............    62
    Capability disclosure statement..................................    32
    Caspian Terns....................................................    57
    Challenge 21 initiative..........................................     5
    Civil program mission, current...................................    18
    Civil Works Program:
        Fiscal year 2001.............................................     6
        Summary of budget............................................    16
    Columbia River navigation channel deepening..................32, 33, 58
    Columbia/Snake River preferred alternative.......................    30
    Comprehensive river basin studies................................    52
    Construction backlog.............................................    61
    Corps:
        Civil works program, ``growing'' the.........................    45
        Historic role in service to the Nation.......................    17
        Maintenance backlog, reducing................................    16
        Media coverage of the........................................ 2, 12
        Review.......................................................    40
        Study process, integrity of..................................    44
    Corps of Engineers Finance Center................................    56
    Credits and reimbursements.......................................    47
    Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................    28
    Direct program...................................................    16
    Disaster response assistance.....................................    22
    Ecosystem restoration and flood hazard mitigation program........    49
    Engineering capability, maintaining..............................     2
    Environmental management.........................................    21
    Espanola Valley, Rio Grande and tributaries study................    54
    Everglades restoration...........................................    60
    Fallon, Nevada...................................................    38
    Fiscal year 2001:
        Budget.......................................................    24
            Priorities...............................................    38
        Continuing program, highlights of the........................     7
    Flood protection.................................................    20
    Formerly utilized sites remedial action program (FUSRAP).........    50
    Fox River, Wisconsin.............................................    69
    Funding priorities and schedule..................................    49
    Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia............................    63
    Harbor services:
        Fund and fee.................................................    61
        Fund proposal................................................     7
    Infrastructure renovation........................................    22
    John Day:
        Drawdown study...............................................    58
        Lock and dam.................................................    31
    La Farge Dam deauthorization.....................................    69
    Las Cruces.......................................................    55
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland
      River, West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky--West Virginia Tug
      Fork flood protection projects.................................    65
    London locks and dam, West Virginia..............................    67
    Lower Mud River, West Virginia...................................    66
    Maintenance backlog.............................................. 4, 61
    Maple River, near Enderlin, North Dakota.........................    71
    Marmet locks and dam, West Virginia..............................    64
    Nation's water and land resource needs, meeting the..............    12
    National trends..................................................    18
    Navigation.......................................................    20
    New investment program...........................................     7
    Ocean climate changes & EIS......................................    58
    Paducah gaseous diffusion plant..................................    26
    Picatinny arsenal heavy metal cleanups...........................    41
    Preferred alternative, timeframe for.............................    56
    Program overview.................................................    43
    Project delays...................................................    43
    Proposed work, examples of.......................................    48
    Recreation modernization funding profile.........................    49
    Recreation modernization program.................................    48
    Red River Valley, Grand Forks, North Dakota......................    28
    Regulatory program...............................................    61
        Studies......................................................    51
    Reimbursed program...............................................    16
    Remedial action program, formerly utilized sites.................    42
    Rio Grande floodway, San Acacia to Bosque del Apache unit........    55
    Rio Grande River Basin:
        Comprehensive Study..........................................    53
        Study........................................................    41
    Robert C. Byrd locks and dam, West Virginia and Ohio.............    62
    Rural Nevada water supply infrastructure.........................    36
    Salmon through dams, delayed mortality of........................    57
    Shore protection.................................................    60
    Snake River predicted chinook runs vs. Columbia River............    57
    Snake/Columbia corridor..........................................    30
    Standards, rigid regulatory......................................    38
    U.S. Army cold regions research and engineering laboratories.....    35
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois navigation study, Illinois, Iowa,
      Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin..............................    70
    Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study.........................13, 46
    Upper Snake River dams, comparison to............................    57
    Watershed studies................................................     4
    West Fork River, West Virginia...................................    67
    West Virginia statewide flood protection plan, West Virginia.....    68
    Wetland proposals................................................    37
    Wheeling riverfront, West Virginia...............................    66
    Williston, North Dakota..........................................    71
    Winfield locks and dam, West Virginia............................    62
    Wrongdoing, allegations for......................................    15

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    National Nuclear Security Administration

    Accelerated strategic computing initiative (ASCI)..............103, 168
    Accelerator Production of Tritium (APT) and Accelerator
      Transmutation of Waste (ATW), combining........................   162
    Accomplishments..................................................   106
    ADAPT............................................................   111
    Advanced manufacturing technology..............................101, 119
    Arms control and nonproliferation................................   126
    BN-350 shut-down.................................................   182
    Budget structure, revised........................................   101
    Critical infrastructure protection...............................   144
    Critical skills..................................................   167
    Cyber security............................................144, 157, 182
    Declassification.................................................   143
    Defense programs, megastrategy for...............................    98
    Device assembly facility.........................................   147
    DOE/NIH partnership for technology development...................   173
    Emergency operations.............................................   145
    Experimental programs............................................   112
    Fiscal year 2000 supplemental budget request.....................   101
    Fiscal year 2001 budget:
        Amendment....................................................   142
        Request................................102, 120, 123, 133, 141, 142
            Adequacy of..............................................   154
    Fiscal year 2001 DOE budget request..............................   135
    Fissile materials disposition..................................128, 185
    General Accounting Office report.................................   122
    Industrial partnerships..........................................   173
    Infrastructure at the labs and plants............................   163
    Infrastructure requirements......................................    96
    Integrated strategy..............................................   148
    International Centers for Environmental Safety...................   184
    Laboratory directed research and development (LDRD)............169, 182
    Labs, travel limitations at the..................................   170
    Manufacturing capabilities.......................................   110
    Materials protection control and accounting...................(125, 177
    Megastrategy.....................................................    98
    Military requirements, ability to meet...........................   157
    National Ignition Facility............................97, 102, 146, 158
    Naval reactor:
        Operational safety...........................................   138
        Programs.....................................................   131
    Naval reactors...................................................   185
        Department of Energy budget detail...........................   136
        Operations...................................................   131
        Organization.................................................   132
    Nevada test site, utilization of the.............................    98
    New budget and reporting structure...............................   156
    New initiative for $100 million..................................   178
    NIF-technological breakthroughs still needed.....................   159
    NIF--SEAB conclusion.............................................   159
    NN R&D contracts, competing......................................   180
    NNSA
        Implementation...............................................   138
        Need for functional..........................................   148
    Nonproliferation
        Program for Russia, long-term................................   184
        Task force on................................................   176
    Nuclear:
        Cities initiative..........................................122, 179
        Safety and cooperation, international........................   129
        Safety centers...............................................   183
        Weapons production...........................................   151
    Nuclear weapons:
        Stockpile, condition of the..................................   154
        United States helping the Russians control their.............   139
    Overall budget--priorities for additional funding................   176
    People...........................................................   108
    Pit production.................................................103, 167
        New designs or remanufactured................................   168
    Plutonium disposition............................................   175
    Polygraph tests..................................................   150
    Polygraphs.......................................................   181
    Production plants, recapitalization of...........................   163
    Production readiness.............................................   171
    Program direction..............................................130, 145
    Program planning and budgeting, major changes in.................   105
    Radiographic diagnostic facilities...............................   174
    Research and development.........................................   130
    Russia, long term nonproliferation program with..................   124
    Russia, relationship with........................................   153
    Russian:
        Initiative, long-term........................................   120
        Nuclear infrastructure.......................................   121
        Reactors, core conversion of.................................   179
    Safety...........................................................   166
    Security affairs.................................................   142
    Separate security budget, proposal to establish..................   180
    Separated civil plutonium, moratorium on.........................   121
    Simulation and computation.......................................   114
    Stockpile:
        Life extension and surveillance..............................   109
        Stewardship:
            Accomplishments..........................................   103
            Budget, long-term........................................   152
            Program, adequacy of.....................................   149
            Program--30-day review...................................    96
            30-day study.............................................   100
            Works, how...............................................   109
    Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)..........................   164
    Technology partnerships programs.................................   115
    10 year $45 billion budget framework, adequacy of................   155
    Test readiness...................................................   172
    Transportation safeguards division...............................   170
    Tritium..........................................................   111
        APT funding..................................................   160
        Status of reactor decision...................................   161
    Tritium production.............................................104, 151
    Uranium transparency and implementation, highly enriched.........   129
    Urban encroachment on laboratories...............................    99
    Weapons systems, dual revalidation of............................   165
    Women service on submarines......................................   139
    WVU national educational and technology center...................   283

                Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

    Carlsbad issues..................................................   392
    Deactivation and Decommissioning Program funding.................   397
    Defense nuclear waste:
        Appropriation requirements...................................   390
        Future growth requirements...................................   390
    EM privatization.................................................   387
    Fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2000 highlights.....................   331
    Fiscal year 2001:
        Activities.................................................324, 327
        Appropriations request, summary of...........................   326
        Budget request, summary of...................................   324
    Hanford tank waste remediation project (TWRS)....................   384
    Hanford tanks....................................................   396
    Litigation.......................................................   331
        Status of....................................................   397
    NNSA:
        Impacts at Savannah River site...............................   391
        Labs, working with...........................................   378
    Nuclear waste:
        Disposal.....................................................   387
        Fund current balance and future estimate.....................   391
    Out-year funding requirements....................................   389
    Performance measures...........................................324, 327
    Program management and integration.............................330, 334
    Radiation protection standards...................................   397
    Rocky Flats......................................................   382
        Closure......................................................   383
    Savannah River Site (SRS)--Nuclear Materials Stabilization.......   380
    Science and technology...........................................   386
    Spent Nuclear Fuel Cleanup Program at Hanford....................   379
    Vitrification technology.........................................   393
    Waste acceptance, storage, and transporation...................330, 334
    WIPP.............................................................   392
        Waste storage transparency test bed..........................   393
    Yucca mountain.................................................324, 327

                     Office of Energy and Renewable Energy

    Agriculture and carbon sequestration...........................294, 298
    Alternative energy source from oil...............................   220
    Bioenergy:
        And biobased products initiative.............................   230
        Initiative...................................................   263
    Biomass..........................................................   222
    Budget request...................................................   223
        Solar and renewable..........................................   189
    Carbon cost saving initiative....................................   288
    Climate change technology initiative.............................   292
    Departmental Energy Management Program...........................   245
    Distributed energy resources (DER).............................223, 232
    Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), biomass research
      at the.........................................................   300
    Energy efficiency investments....................................   264
    Energy systems, life cycle evaluation of.........................   287
    Fiscal year 2001 budget request................................229, 233
    Fish friendly turbines...........................................   269
    Funding shortfall................................................   293
    Geopowering the west.............................................   280
    Geothermal.....................................................221, 268
        Energy.......................................................   265
            Research, DOE laboratory involvement in..................   282
        Program......................................................   282
        Projects.....................................................   293
    Hydroelectric....................................................   222
    Hydropower.....................................................269, 296
    Improved management..............................................   224
    International clean energy initiative............................   232
        And international nuclear energy research initiative.........   285
    International solar industry.....................................   222
    Memorandum for Understanding.....................................   295
    Million solar roofs initiative...................................   232
    National renewable energy laboratory.............................   291
    NNSA labs, working with..........................................   293
    No year funds....................................................   300
    No-year money....................................................   224
    Oil imports through increased biomass, reducing..................   264
    Photovoltaic energy systems....................................288, 290
    Photovoltaics/Solar Programs.....................................   299
    Pilot-scale fish friendly turbine................................   270
    Program direction................................................   245
    R&D:
        Challenges, continuing.......................................   228
        Success, recent..............................................   227
    Renewable energy:
        Benefits to family farmers...................................   296
        Progress in..................................................   220
        Pros and cons of.............................................   272
        Sources......................................................   273
    Solar............................................................   221
    Solar and renewables at the New Mexico labs, funding for.........   284
    Solar energy:
        In remote locations..........................................   266
        Programs.....................................................   233
        Progress of..................................................   266
    Strategic management.............................................   226
    Tribal...........................................................   299
    Wind.............................................................   220
    Wind energy......................................................   297
        On private land..............................................   268
        Production on public lands...................................   267
    Wind powering America............................................   285

                       Office of Environmental Management

    Compliance agreements, adequacy of funding to meet...............   375
    Fiscal year 2001 request.........................................   341
    Paducah gaseous diffusion plan...................................   369
    Pit 9 at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab........   376
    Privatization activities.........................................   337
    Research and development funding, laboratory directed............   374
    Uranium:
        Cylinder conversion, depleted................................   371
        Enrichment D&D fund, adequacy of the.........................   371
    Waste:
        Alternative technologies for treating high-level.............   375
        Isolation pilot project......................................   336
        Tank waste, privatization of high-level......................   373
        Tanks at Hanford, cleanup of the high-level..................   371
        To Hanford, shipments of low-level and mixed low-level.......   373
        Treatment project, advanced mixed............................   377

                Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

    Accelerator transmutation of waste...............................   301
    Advanced computing initiative....................................   317
    Advanced reactor development.....................................   302
    Budget request:
        Environmental management.....................................   190
        Nuclear energy...............................................   311
    Civilian research programs.......................................   320
    Computing research...............................................   320
    Cylinder conversion..............................................   275
    Cylinder maintenance...........................................278, 279
        Program......................................................   278
    DOE material storage areas (DMSAs)...............................   306
    Doe's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee.................   252
    EBR-II sodium processing.........................................   280
    EMSL, computational upgrade for the..............................   322
    Fast Flux Test Facility..........................................   304
    Fiscal year 2001 program focus...................................   253
    Fusion energy sciences...........................................   313
    Gaseous diffusion plants worker layoffs..........................   277
    Generation IV nuclear power systems..............................   247
    Low dose radiation effects research..............................   318
    Medical iosotopes................................................   247
    Microbial cell project...........................................   315
    Nanoscale science, engineering and technology....................   314
    National Nuclear Security Administration Labs....................   303
        Working with.................................................   319
    Nuclear energy...................................................   272
        Research and development, a strategic shift in...............   251
        Research initiative..........................................   247
        Supply, trends and challenges in.............................   250
    Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO).........................   303
    Nuclear Energy Program...........................................   301
    Nuclear reactor technology.......................................   271
    Oak Ridge, Tennessee, new ``Mouse House''........................   316
    Program direction................................................   261
    Radioisotopes Power Systems Program, advanced....................   248
    Reprogramming....................................................   312
    Sodium bonded spent nuclear fuel.................................   270
    Spallation neutron source......................................313, 318
    Supercomputing...................................................   312
    Transuranic contamination........................................   277
    University reactor fuel assistance and support...................   311
    Uranium hexafluoride cylinder management, depleted...............   307
    Uranium hexafluoride, depleted.................................305, 310
    Uranium, sale of low enriched....................................   276

                               Office of Science

    Accomplishments..................................................   190
        And recent successes, our....................................   193
    Basic energy sciences............................................   205
    Bioengineering...................................................   191
    Biological and environmental research............................   207
    Energy research analyses.........................................   217
    Energy supply--technical information management..................   218
    Fusion energy sciences...........................................   210
    High energy physics..............................................   212
    Looking to the future--fiscal year 2001..........................   197
    Microbial cell...................................................   191
    Multiprogram energy laboratories--facilities support.............   215
    Nanotechnology.................................................191, 274
    North Dakota wind energy potential...............................   188
    Nuclear physics..................................................   214
    Office of Science budget request.................................   189
    Performance measures.............................................   202
    Science program direction........................................   217
    Science programs--advanced scientific computing research.........   202
    Scientific computing research, advanced..........................   191
    Spallation neutron source......................................191, 275

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    Accounts, other..................................................    77
    Additional committee questions...................................    87
    California Bay-Delta restoration.................................    76
    Carlsbad.........................................................    91
    Central Valley Project restoration fund..........................    76
    Desalination.....................................................    87
        Coordination.................................................    83
        Costs........................................................    83
        Expertise....................................................    84
        Next steps...................................................    84
        Research.....................................................    82
    Drought..........................................................    90
        Authority language...........................................    80
        Emergency authorities........................................    81
        Policy commission report.....................................    81
        Situation in the west........................................    79
    Endangered species recovery......................................    85
        Implementation program.......................................    92
    Endangered species/water acquisition.............................    86
    ESA workgroup....................................................    85
    Federal Government's role........................................    86
    Fort Hall........................................................    79
    Fort Hall Indian Reservation groundwater contamination...........    79
    Idaho investigations.............................................78, 79
    Middle Rio Grande................................................    92
    Mission..........................................................    74
    Rio grande.......................................................    93
        Initiative...................................................    85
        Restoration..................................................    87
    Taos water supply study..........................................    94
    Water and related resources......................................    75