    [Senate Hearing 107-683]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-683

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2311/S. 1171

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, 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
    70-753                          WASHINGTON : 2002
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          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
    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
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
                                         MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
                       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
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)     DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

                               Professional Staff

                                   Clay Sell
                                  Tammy Perrin
                            Drew Willison (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                LaShawnda Smith
                           Nancy Olkewicz (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, February 27, 2001

                                                                       Page
    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
      Engineers--Civil...............................................     1

                            Tuesday, March 13, 2001

    Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration...    23
    Nondepartmental witness..........................................    53

                            Tuesday, April 24, 2001

    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................    81
    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
      Engineers--Civil...............................................    99

                            Thursday, April 26, 2001

    Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration...   141

                              Tuesday, May 1, 2001

    Department of Energy:
        Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
          Energy.....................................................   219
        Office of Science............................................   219
        Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.............   219

                             Tuesday, May 15, 2001

    Department of Energy:
        Office of Environmental Management...........................   299
        Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management..............   351

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

    Energy programs..................................................   377
    Water programs...................................................   446

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, at 11 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Domenici, Hollings, and Reid.

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

    STATEMENT OF LT. GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS, COMMANDER
                AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

                 opening statement of senator pete v. domenici

        Senator Domenici. The subcommittee will come to order. This
    is the first hearing this year of the Energy and Water
    Subcommittee. I would like to take a minute to welcome Senator
    Feinstein to our subcommittee, even though she is not here. She
    has changed subcommittees and will be a member of this
    subcommittee, and I look forward to working with the Senator
    from California. Senator Reid, we do a lot of things for the
    State of California, even without Senator Feinstein present,
    but just think what it probably will be now that she will be
    there advocating for that little State of California.
        Senator Reid. Dread the thought.
        Senator Domenici. Dread the thought. Second, I am very
    pleased to welcome Lt. General Robert B. Flowers, Chief of
    Engineers and the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    This is your first appearance before this subcommittee. It is
    nice to have you here today, and I hope that we gain a lot of
    information so we can move ahead forthrightly with the Corps'
    businesses. Today's hearing is to provide the Corps with an
    opportunity to share with the committee its response to the
    Army Inspector General's investigation which concluded in
    November. I am also hopeful that this hearing will provide us
    with an opportunity to examine the controversy surrounding the
    specific allegations regarding the Upper Mississippi River
    study which had made a rather significant amount of news.
        Eight years ago Congress appropriated, that's 8 years ago,
    appropriated $50 million for a navigation feasibility study of
    the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River to examine
    improvements that might be needed to quicken navigation and
    relieve congestion, which apparently was rather rampant on the
    waterways.
        This was the largest study, I understand, that the Corps
    had ever undertaken. For those of you who may not know, a
    project from development to completion can take from 15 to 20
    years, a rather lengthy process, to say the least. A year ago
    the office of special counsel began investigating a whistle-
    blower case which alleged that the Upper Mississippi
    Feasibility Study was weighted toward the construction and that
    the--toward construction and that the study was manipulated to
    achieve a construction recommendation. As a result of this
    case, the Army Inspector General was directed by the office of
    special counsel to initiate a formal investigation into the
    claims of the whistleblower.
        The IG issued its findings on November 13, 2000. The Corps
    was to officially respond on February 6, 2001. In the findings
    the Army IG concluded that there was improper command direction
    of the study, that preferential treatment was given to the
    barge industry, a major stakeholder in this process, and that
    the Corps had an institutional bias toward construction over
    other potential alternatives. I believe the IG raises serious
    questions regarding how the Corps carries out its mission and
    its responsibilities as well as the integrity of the overall
    process which clearly must be of the highest integrity.
        I have the utmost respect for you, General, and the Corps
    of Engineers, and believe that those who work for the Corps
    carry out their jobs in an overwhelming majority of the cases
    in a very professional manner. In fact, they are mostly true
    professionals. I must say that the IG conclusions raise some
    questions. In fact, they may be better put as serious
    questions, with regard to how the Corps runs as an
    organization.
        As a result of the whistle-blower suit the IG investigation
    and the news articles during the past year, I felt we needed to
    have the Corps here today to respond to these allegations.
    Let's hope you can respond in a manner that will move us
    forward. I yield to my Ranking Member, Senator Reid.

                        statement of senator harry reid

        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
    you this Congress, as we have the past several congresses on
    this subcommittee. I believe it's one of the most important
    subcommittees that we have. I feel so strongly about that that
    I didn't move to another subcommittee this year. I feel this
    subcommittee is important to the country and certainly to the
    State of Nevada.
        I think that this is a perfect time to hear Lt. General
    Flowers this morning. I think this is--I have a long list of
    questions, and I'll submit these for the record and would hope,
    General, that you would answer these as quickly as you can. I'm
    also the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
    Committee, and we have Governor Whitman testifying there as we
    speak, so I have other things to do. That does not take away
    from the fact that I fully understand the importance of this
    meeting. I'm a supporter of the Corps of Engineers, understand
    its long record of accomplishment for our country, so there is
    no question about where I stand on the Corps of Engineers. Most
    members of this subcommittee have heard me describe at great
    length the importance of infrastructure to our Nation's economy
    and our future. We have a tremendous backlog of infrastructure
    needs that the Corps is the best poised to meet. For over 200
    years this Corps has done outstanding work for our Nation and
    continues to do so today.
        I recognize, as Senator Domenici has indicated, that the
    Corps is not infallible. I am concerned when allegations of
    misconduct have arisen concerning the Upper Mississippi River
    team. The Corps has always, in my opinion, prided itself on
    first rate analytical work, and to read accounts of how your
    employees might have, in effect, cooked the books to move a
    multibillion dollar project forward has been disturbing to me.
    These allegations which could be described by some as fraud and
    misconduct resulted in a very critical report by the Inspector
    General last year. Couple all this with the remarkably negative
    series of stories in the Post, Washington Post, so I think
    there is every reason for us to conduct this hearing and
    probably some more.
        I have an open mind about this I find it hard to believe
    that an organization which has done such good, credible work
    for such a long time has become the evil empire that we have
    been reading about. I have a unique position, as I have already
    indicated. I'm both ranking member of this subcommittee and the
    ranking Democrat on the full Environment and Public Works
    Committee. This is the first in a series of oversight hearings
    on the Upper Mississippi and Corps issues to be held by this
    subcommittee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.
        I understand the National Academy of Sciences will be
    releasing a report this week that may shed some light on all of
    this. We're going to get started today with both the
    information and the witnesses we have. Today, however, is as
    close as you are going to come to getting your thoughts in the
    record. I think it is proper for the subcommittee to proceed in
    this manner. The chairman and I both heard about the Corps from
    a lot of people last year, one group that was almost strangely
    silent was the Corps itself. I think it is now time for that
    silence to evaporate.
        My staff has told me that stakeholders will be invited to
    other oversight hearings upstairs on the fourth floor where we
    conduct our meetings. I look forward to my staff reporting to
    me on this hearing, and I apologize, General Flowers, for not
    being able to spend more time here.
        First, we have read about these reports. Second, there have
    been allegations that the Corps allowed certain stakeholder
    groups to have inappropriate influence, and so as I said, I
    hope that you will cover in your testimony, perhaps in your
    opening statement, that you will describe the Corps' public
    involvement process for studies such as the Upper Mississippi.
    For example, where members of the public are included in this
    Upper Mississippi study.
        I also want to hear from you your perspective for these
    individuals as these three Corps officers have been cited for
    inappropriate action, I would like to know what your office has
    done about this and what your opinion is about this.
        Finally, General Flowers, during my service on this panel,
    I have heard a great deal of testimony about the water
    resources needs of this country, requirements to improve our
    ports, waterways, provide protection from damaging floods and
    coastal storms, concern for degrading environments, providing
    for the water supply and water quality in rural America.
        I want you today to cover in your oral testimony or in
    writing what the role of the Army is in addressing these water
    resource needs, does it make sense for the Army to be involved
    in civil work activities, does the Corps prepare to respond to
    water source requirements.
        So these are difficult questions, and I would hope that you
    would take whatever time is necessary today or in writing to
    answer these questions. Thank you, Senator Domenici, for
    allowing me this inordinate amount of time to have an opening
    statement.
        [The information follows:]
         Corps Officers Involved in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
                                Navigation Study
        These three officers were doing their duty. They were attempting to
    bring to conclusion a most complex and difficult study. While, in
    hindsight, some of the actions that they took were misinterpreted by
    Corps team members, they were striving to complete the mission as they
    had throughout their careers.
         federal role in addressing the nation's water resources needs
        The development of water resources to serve the needs of the Nation
    do not follow state boundaries, and throughout our history interstate
    disputes have arisen over water. The Federal role is then quite clearly
    to provide the comprehensive planning and leadership to provide for the
    most efficient, effective and environmentally aware development and
    conservation.
        The Army Corps of Engineers was assigned the mission of providing
    for the nation's water resources development early in the 19th century,
    initially providing for interstate navigation and later in the early
    20th century in the prevention of flood damages. Throughout the century
    hydropower, water supply, recreation, shore protection, and
    environmental protection and restoration. As society's needs and values
    have changed, the Civil Works program has reflected changing national
    priorities for good water management.
        Responsibilities for the development, management, and protection of
    the Nation's water resources, coupled with the reimbursable support
    that the Corps provides to other federal agencies, nonfederal
    governmental entities and foreign governments, constitute the current
    Army civil works mission. One of the great strengths of the Corps is
    the force multiplier effect between civil and military missions. For
    example, in addition to the direct contributions that the civil works
    missions make to our economic and environmental security and
    prosperity, the Corps also applies its civil works assets to support
    the Army in times of national need to enhance national security and to
    promote democracy abroad. The Civil Works Program also derives greater
    capability and effectiveness by being an integral part of the larger
    Army and Defense team.
        The Corps of Engineers is prepared to respond to water resource
    requirements.

        Senator Domenici. Senator, I am glad you stayed on the
    subcommittee. I think it is an exciting subcommittee. The fact
    that we are having the first hearings on this would indicate
    that there is a genuine concern, since we have to appropriate
    the money, and we have been trying very diligently, both of us,
    to get the water projects in the country up to the right level
    of funding, and we have worked very hard at that over the last
    3 years, and so we want to make sure we're doing right as we
    raise the amount of--continue to raise the amount of money
    that's given to the Corps for major projects, major and minor
    projects across this land. Whenever you are ready to leave, I
    understand the situation.
        Senator Reid. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. General, would you please proceed. We've
    got your written statement, but I do think it very important
    that you make your case. So if you want to use the full
    statement, you use it. If you think you can do a good job in
    abbreviating in making the case that you want to make----

               STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS

        General Flowers. Sir, I will abbreviate, and I will do my
    best to answer the Senator's questions in my statement.
        First, sir, it is great to be able to be here and to tell a
    story on behalf of the Corps, its soldiers and its civilians.
    We've been working for the Nation for 225 years now, and I
    think we have become indispensable to the country and to its
    future. We've been involved in water resources planning for a
    very long time, and we are very proud of our discipline,
    planning process, our professionals who execute that process,
    and as you are aware, sir, we face significant challenges as we
    execute those responsibilities. But I believe we have served
    the public well through controversy and intense scrutiny,
    difficulties of our process are I'm sure known to you, sir.
        Two years ago in 1999 we had the National Academy of
    Sciences review our study process. They found it to be sound,
    and we have been working at improving the process continuously
    since we have been executing it.
        I would like to talk about the Upper Miss Navigation Study
    if I could.
        Senator Domenici. What part of the National Academy of
    Sciences did the review?
        General Flowers. Sir, it was the NRC, the National Research
    Council. It is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
        Senator Domenici. Okay. Proceed on the Upper Mississippi.
        General Flowers. Sir, the Upper Miss, as you've described,
    is the largest study that the Corps had undertaken. A regional
    study. Our expertise in doing studies was gleaned from doing a
    number of project studies using our process. In the economic
    arena, we had developed an expertise in microeconomics so that
    enabled us to do very good, I think, economic analyses of our
    projects.
        On the Upper Miss Navigation Study, we worked into an area
    that I will describe as macroeconomics. For the very first time
    what we came into contact with dealing with national and
    international issues, such as worldwide markets for grain,
    agricultural policy, transportation policy, and I think in an
    attempt to deal in that arena, the officers who were conducting
    this study who were responsible for bringing this study in on
    time and on budget pressed to have just exactly that done.
        While we were working in an arena that was asking us to
    predict 50 to 100 years in advance what would occur, the tenor
    of their communication, I think, to our teams that were
    studying it drove them--drove the people on the teams to
    believe that they were being forced to a certain decision.
        I know all three officers who were cited in the IG study
    personally. Major General Russ Fuhrman, a Vietnam veteran,
    almost 34 years of service to his country, helped save part of
    Chicago when there was a flood there in the early 1990s, led
    the team that restored Florida after the hurricane that
    devastated Miami and the area around it.
        Major General Phil Anderson, 31 years of service, led all
    the soldiers, the engineer soldiers for the Army in Somalia in
    the early stages in helping to conduct Operation Restore Hope,
    was the deputy commander who left on 1-day notice to go to
    Haiti and served there as we did our best to make things right
    in Haiti.
        And Colonel Jim Mudd, the district engineer from Rock
    Island District, 26 years of service to his country, gulf war
    vet.
        Sir, it is not in the character of those officers to do
    anything for personal gain, and I think in partial answer to
    one of Senator Reid's questions, you know, why the Army, I
    think it is because of the Army Corps values that are imbued in
    soldiers and that I think transfer to our civilian employees.
    Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, integrity and
    personal courage are things that we embrace and we try to live
    every day, and I think those officers did as well.
        I accept the IG report. I look at it as something that we
    have to accept, learn lessons from, and go on, and we are going
    to do that. I owe the Secretary of the Army a response, a 60-
    day response that was due in February, sir, we have deferred
    until there is a Secretary of the Army and a new Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I think that is the
    right thing to do. And we will be prepared as that new team
    comes on board to work with them in implementing whatever
    changes are necessary to restore faith and to combat the
    perception that the Corps is not doing something right.
        I believe, and I would just remind everyone on the Upper
    Miss Navigation Study, that no draft report had been issued,
    and so trying to derive a conclusion that the Corps was going
    in--driving toward one conclusion is a bit premature, since we
    had not even issued a draft report, but I do accept the
    criticism of the IG report and will be working to improve the
    process.
        The--I have been working very hard to reestablish
    relation--reestablishing good relations with the administration
    and with the Congress. We have been evaluating our feasibility
    study process. I have cooperated with the National Academy of
    Sciences in their study, we are working now, sir, to
    restructure the management process of the Upper Miss and
    Illinois Navigation Study.
        As I mentioned, some of the things that we ran into I think
    will require us to make use of the expertise of other Federal
    agencies, and so we are going to pause the Upper Miss study. We
    will take the months of March, April, and May to work with the
    Federal agencies in taking a look at the study and
    incorporating the results of the National Academy of Sciences.
    We will restart the study in June and work toward concluding
    the study in July 2002.
        Senator Reid asked another question, I think, about why the
    Army and why is the Army involved in Civil Works. I talked
    about our values, and I think the country being comfortable
    with officers and what they stand for, but from a national
    security standpoint the roads that were built in the various
    theaters in World War II, the massive construction efforts that
    went on to support our Armed Forces, contingency operations in
    Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other places are enabled because
    we have officers who have gained experience in working large
    civil works projects and in their planning and execution, and I
    think that gives us an edge that no other country has, and
    whatever the Nation has needed, we've been there for--the space
    program, the harbors on both coasts, the inland waterway
    system, flood control.
        When given a mission, sir, we've gotten it done. Our books
    have balanced and our structures have stood. So you are looking
    at an organization that I think is absolutely indispensable to
    our country, its Army, and our future.
        Sir, I'm prepared to answer any questions.
        [The statement follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers

        Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers,
    Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Chief of Engineers. I
    am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the service of the
    Army Corps of Engineers to this Nation.
                                  introduction
        The state of the Army Corps of Engineers is sound. We are prepared
    for the challenge of public service. Since 1775 the Army Corps of
    Engineers has honorably served the Army and the Nation. During the 20th
    Century the Army Corps of Engineers experienced both resounding success
    and dramatic controversy. Today, at the dawn of the 21st Century, we
    are called to respond to the scrutiny of the public we serve. I welcome
    this challenge.
                            the civil works program
        The Army Corps of Engineers traces its origins to the construction
    of fortifications at Bunker Hill in 1775. For more than 225 years, the
    Corps has responded to the needs of the Army and the Nation.
        Throughout this period, the mission of the Corps has evolved from
    ``Builder'' to encompass ``Developer/Manager'' and ``Protector'' of
    water resources. What began as a military engineering mission for
    nation building in the 18th century expanded into a major peacetime
    mission in the 19th century. The Corps helped a young nation map the
    frontier and expand westward by surveying roads and canals. The Corps
    promoted economic development through a vast water resources
    infrastructure, initiated development of the first national parks, and
    tied an inland navigation system together to move commerce across
    states and keep ports and harbors open, a role critical for national
    defense. In the 20th century, Congress provided the Corps with
    additional water resources development and management authorities,
    including flood control, hydropower, water supply, and recreation. More
    recently shore protection, disaster relief, and environmental
    protection and restoration authorities were added. As society's needs
    and values have changed, the Civil Works program has reflected changing
    national priorities for good water management. The Corps abilities to
    facilitate, advise, develop, operate, manage, and evaluate on a broad
    range of water resource issues furnish a robust capability set for the
    Nation's benefit.
        Mr. Chairman, within your oversight, the Corps Civil Works Program
    is primarily responsible for the development, management, protection,
    restoration and enhancement of our nation's water and related land
    resources for commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and the
    environment. The program provides stewardship of America's water
    resources infrastructure and associated natural resources, and also
    provides emergency services for disaster relief. It is my job, in
    concert with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), to
    provide advice to the Executive Branch and Congress on these matters.
    The goal of our study process is to produce the best economic and
    scientific analysis available.
               water resources planning and the national interest
        We are proud of our disciplined water resources planning and our
    planning professionals who face the daunting challenges of solving real
    problems, balancing competing interests and forging consensus around
    solutions. They serve the public well and very often in the midst of
    controversy and intense scrutiny. Their difficulties make the
    discipline of the process of paramount importance. Today, we continue
    to apply the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for
    Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies supplemented by
    Corps guidance that strives for inclusion of all interests in the
    management and investment in our water resources. When applied
    diligently, the Principles and Guidelines force all--the Corps and its
    stakeholders--to recognize the tradeoffs and balance competing
    interests.
        Our vision of planning is to meet national needs within the
    framework of current law and policy. Our planners have operated
    responsibly over the last two decades as priorities and concerns have
    shifted. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 emphasized the
    National expectation that project partners be more involved in the
    formulation and financing of solutions to water resources problems.
    Nearly everyone believed that we could develop better projects more
    efficiently and effectively by recognizing that projects must both meet
    national needs and work viably at the local level. We responded with
    vigor and enthusiasm. The attached map illustrates where cost shared
    feasibility studies have been conducted with non-Federal partners since
    1986.
        Four years ago, the Army commissioned a National Academy of
    Sciences study to determine whether Corps planning should be further
    streamlined. That study concluded that the process was about right in
    terms of length and resources. During the last decade, interagency
    policy discussions increasingly have emphasized broader scale studies
    of entire watersheds with interagency collaboration and comprehensive,
    systemic solutions. An unintended effect of cost sharing has been the
    narrowing of focus of studies, as cost sharing partners are reluctant
    to finance studies that are broader than their immediate concern. As a
    result, our planners are often caught between the forces seeking
    comprehensive planning at one end of the spectrum and those who voice
    concerns for addressing needs on an expedited basis and early screening
    of alternatives that have little chance of being implemented. We are
    pledged to this service.
                upper mississippi and illinois navigation study
        Turning now to the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study.
    This is a feasibility study of lock capacity and reliability. The study
    area extends from St. Louis to Minneapolis-St. Paul on the Mississippi
    River and from the mouth to Chicago on the Illinois River, a total of
    1202 river miles encompassing 37 existing locks and dams. This reach,
    10 percent of the inland waterway system, provides the origin or
    destination of 48 percent of the ton-miles of the total system. This
    study was started in fiscal year 1993 to address limited lock capacity
    and reliability. Limited lock capacity leads to commercial tow delays,
    while reduced reliability of aging locks contributes to outages and
    higher maintenance costs. Both delays and outages can add millions of
    dollars to the costs of transporting grain and other commodities
    carried on the system. These costs in turn reduce the real incomes of
    farmers, other producers and consumers. While the Upper Mississippi
    River system is a vital transportation corridor it is also a nationally
    significant environmental resource. It contains a system of Federal and
    state wildlife refuges and parks that provide habitat for migrating
    waterfowl and support fish and wildlife resources. Navigation
    development has had an adverse impact on these resources which must be
    carefully addressed and balanced in any study of improvements. This is
    a truly comprehensive study of an entire navigation system. The
    estimated study cost is currently approximately $60 million. Our
    current schedule provides for release of a draft report for public
    review in September of this year. In July 2002, I expect to make my
    final report to the Secretary of the Army.
        The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Study is very complex, involving
    engineering, economic and environmental analyses of impacts and
    consequences of a wide variety of possible future conditions on these
    rivers. A sound investment plan for the navigation system must be based
    on reasonable projections of future volumes, types and destinations of
    commodities that will move on the waterway. Therefore, a key component
    of the study is a 50-year forecast of demand for water borne
    transportation on the Mississippi and Illinois system including the
    response of barge operators and shippers to congestion. The commodity
    movements on this system are largely agricultural. Volumes and
    destinations of these products are driven by world market conditions
    and therefore, fluctuate with world economic conditions. Another key
    component is forecasting the schedules for major rehabilitation
    activities. In view of these facts, projections are subject to
    significant uncertainty.
        As part of the Study a group of Corps team members made economic
    projections and built an economic model to provide a basis for study
    conclusions. This proved to be a very difficult task. As you might
    expect, there were disagreements between the many stakeholders, as well
    as team members, over the model and its projections.
                               what we are doing
        First and foremost I take the issues surrounding the Army Corps of
    Engineers and the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Study seriously. I
    must ensure the integrity of the Corps of Engineers and its study
    process. In this regard there are several actions underway:
      --While the National Academy of Sciences has completed a general
            review of the Corps studies process and found it to be a sound
            process, I am evaluating our review process for feasibility
            studies to determine whether improvements, including
            independent review, are needed.
      --I have fully cooperated with the National Academy of Sciences on
            its specific review of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
            Navigation Study. I am also fully supporting the National
            Academy of Science study directed by the Congress in the Water
            Resources Development Act of 2000 of the practicality and
            efficiency of independent peer review of feasibility studies
            and methods for project analysis.
      --I am restructuring the management of the Upper Mississippi and
            Illinois Navigation Study.
      --I am placing renewed emphasis on my Environmental Advisory Board to
            insure that I receive independent environmental advice.
      --The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and I, on
            November 28, 2000, submitted a joint memorandum to the
            Secretary of the Army on Civil Works Management and
            Communication Clarifications. In this memorandum, Dr. Westphal
            and I agreed upon the responsibilities of both parties and
            committed to sharing information, communicating effectively,
            and cooperating fully on all Civil Works matters. The Secretary
            of the Army provided copies of this memorandum to the Chairman
            and Ranking Member of this Committee in his final update
            regarding enhancement of the management procedures of the Civil
            Works program.
      --I am rewriting the vision statement of the U.S. Army Corps of
            Engineers to focus on service to the Army and the Nation.
      --I have conducted extensive outreach sessions with a broad variety
            of interests, including meeting with a substantial number of
            Members of the House and Senate.
                               other observations
        There are many interested parties and many points of view in the
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois study area. The Corps team members have
    worked diligently to give all an equal opportunity to be heard.
        At any one time we have many feasibility studies underway. The
    attached map illustrates where cost shared feasibility studies have
    been or are being conducted with non-Federal partners since 1986. In
    any study, our challenge is to balance competing values and interests,
    develop alternative solutions that solve recognized problems and
    establish a broad consensus for the best solution. I'm proud of our
    record on the many studies depicted on this map. We are especially
    proud that many of these studies are resulting in projects that go
    beyond simply avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts and make
    positive contributions to restoring the Nation's environmental
    resources. We strongly believe our leadership, engineering and water
    resources skills and disciplined planning are central to solving real
    problems and serving the American people. We've served the Nation well
    and will continue to do so.
                                   conclusion
        Throughout my career I have been privileged to work with the
    outstanding men and women who make up the Army Corps of Engineers. They
    fostered in me a desire to be a consensus builder, someone who does not
    necessarily compromise but who seeks alternatives which uniquely
    combine individuals' input into a solution which is genuinely better
    than the sum of the parts. I view our current situation as an
    opportunity. This is an opportunity for us to see ourselves anew and
    rededicate ourselves to our principles.
        I take the issues surrounding the Army Corps of Engineers
    seriously, and I am making the changes necessary to insure the
    continued integrity of the Civil Works planning process, so that the
    Corps of Engineers can continue to fulfill its role in addressing the
    many water resource needs of this great country. Mr. Chairman, this
    completes my statement. I am prepared to answer your questions as well
    as those of other members of the Committee.

        Senator Domenici. Well, General, I'm impressed with the
    statements by you as to the background of the three officers,
    and that is--the record needs to have that on it. But I am kind
    of amazed that you're not really telling us anything about what
    you're going to do. You accept the report. That is a fairly
    good starting point. Could I just ask you some questions? It
    seems to me that you are waiting for another day to tell us
    what you are going to do and how those reports will affect and
    improve what you are doing.
        So it is evident with the IG investigation, General, that
    some outsiders do not believe the Corps study process is open
    enough. The Corps, as a result of the investigation, asked the
    National Academy of Sciences to review the project development
    process. The process itself has evolved over the last 65 years,
    and I understand that, with many laws and many regulations,
    some say refining it, may be what you will find when you get
    around to changing things that maybe you need to refine it in
    some other directions. But how many opportunities are
    stakeholders and communities guaranteed input under the current
    practices of the Corps, and do you think you are going to
    change those rules to any significant degree?
        General Flowers. Sir, our study process incorporates the
    public's and stakeholders' views at several points in the study
    process. On the Upper Miss study alone, there were 34 public
    meetings held, 2,400 people attended those public meetings. We
    received 2,500 comments from the public.
        The governors' liaison council, made up of the Governors
    whose States touch the Upper Mississippi sent newsletters
    periodically out to individuals, and 9,200 individuals,
    agencies, and interest groups received that. We prided
    ourselves on incorporating stakeholders into our process. The
    barge industry, for example, on the Upper Miss, was one of
    those stakeholders. Should any construction be done as a result
    of the study, the barge industry would cost share about 50
    percent in the construction of anything that is done, and so I
    think anyone, for example, who has to help pay for something
    probably wants to be involved in the process as it goes
    forward.
        And I would characterize our process as a very open one.
    It's like working in a fish bowl in that as we proceed through
    the study process, at points we invite local governments, State
    governments, other agencies, the public and stakeholders to
    participate, to grade our paper, to give us comments as we
    proceed through the study process.
        Senator Domenici. General, is not the contention, one of
    the contentions that certain stakeholders were not included
    sufficiently and others were included more so than they
    required and had more of an influence than they should have?
        General Flowers. Sir, I think the----
        Senator Domenici. Was not that one of the things that was
    reported?
        General Flowers. One of the things that was reported was
    the fact that the barge industry seemed to have more of a say
    as a stakeholder than they should have, and I would kind of
    view that as a judgment call.
        The barge industry, as I said, would be a cost share
    partner in anything that gets constructed in the future, and so
    they had, definitely had an interest in what was happening. But
    I do not believe that we have done anything to in any way
    prejudice an outcome just to make sure that we give the
    opportunity for everyone to have more of a say. That is why we
    are pausing the study as it is right now. We're going to work
    with the other Federal agencies to make use of their expertise
    as we proceed with the study, and we're taking into account the
    results of the National Academy of Sciences report which we
    will receive tomorrow.
        Sir, my intent on any other reforms is to wait until I have
    an opportunity to submit my 60-day report, my 180-day report to
    the Secretary of the Army, and I intend to do that just as soon
    as we have a new Secretary of the Army and an Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, but just to give you an
    indication of some of the things we are looking at, we are
    looking at a form of peer review for the Corps study process,
    and I must caveat this by saying everything that what we are
    looking at is designed to not add any more time or expense to
    the study, so that is a difficult challenge, but we are looking
    at that.
        I am reenergizing the Environmental Advisory Board for the
    Chief of Engineers to get more environmental input, and we will
    incorporate the results of the National Academy of Sciences
    report as we look to the future, but, sir, my response to the
    Army will be sent as soon as we have a new Secretary of the
    Army and assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works.
        Senator Domenici. So when did you decide that this delay
    would occur until the new secretary had arrived? When was that
    decision made?
        General Flowers. Sir, we have been taking a look at the
    Upper Miss Navigation study since receiving the results of the
    IG report in November, and we made a tentative decision to
    suspend the Upper Miss nav study and invite the involvement of
    the other Federal agencies in December. Since then we have been
    doing some coordination, looking at it, and really waiting
    until we had a better feel for what the National Academy of
    Sciences report was going to tell us before any announcements
    were made. But this is as good a time as any.
        Senator Domenici. In your prepared remarks you said you're
    restructuring the management of the Upper Mississippi and
    Illinois navigation study. What does that mean?
        General Flowers. Sir, what we intend to do is to bring the
    study up under the direct cognizance of the division engineer
    and manage it more centrally so there would be a regional team
    from the Federal agencies working the issues as well as an
    involvement from the Federal agencies here in Washington and
    the Washington principals group.
        Senator Domenici. The IG's findings concluded that the
    Corps is naturally weighted toward construction as a study
    recommendation, given the fact that the majority of the Corps
    personnel and the costs are expected directly by construction
    efforts. It would therefore appear to an outsider that it is
    the best interests of the Corps to recommend construction.
        How do you address the issue of institution bias toward
    construction and can you explain how the Corps is not dependent
    on a study recommending construction when the majority of its
    personnel costs are funded through an ongoing construction
    award?
        General Flowers. Sir, I would stand on our record. We have
    a very rigorous study process that has to be accomplished
    before any recommendations are made. Of every 100
    reconnaissance studies that are begun, 16 or less actually
    result in any construction.
        What that means is five out of six studies that are
    accomplished do not result or have not resulted in
    construction. The process is a tough one to get through. It has
    a lot of public involvement and stakeholder involvement, as you
    proceed through the process. It has been determined to be sound
    by the National Academy of Sciences when they did their last
    review in 1999. Can it be improved? Yes, sir, I am sure it can
    be, and we will work to do that.
        Senator Domenici. So are you saying that you could lay
    before the committee a number of projects that went through the
    process and were deemed not or recommended not, to not go, no
    construction, do not proceed?
        General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Why do you not do that for the record and
    give us some list or some ratio or something that would give us
    evidence that that is actually--that that has happened.
        General Flowers. Sir, we will do that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Domenici. You indicated in your testimony that your
    restructuring--excuse me, that you are placing renewed emphasis
    on the Environmental Advisory Board with reference to
    independent environmental advice. Tell me--tell the Senate a
    little bit about that. What does that mean? Are you
    acknowledging that perhaps you did not have sufficient input
    from that group? Or how does this fit into the scheme of
    things?
        General Flowers. Sir, the Environmental Advisory Board was
    begun in 1970 by the Chief of Engineers after the enactment of
    NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. What the
    board is made up of is up to 10 recognized environmental
    specialists from either academia, State agencies, and they
    would typically sit down about twice a year with the Chief of
    Engineers and be briefed on things that the Corps had going and
    provide some input, some perspective to the Chief of Engineers
    because we recognize--I think that we wanted to listen and get
    that perspective.
        I think in the last couple of years it's fallen into some
    disuse, and my intent is to reenergize that, sir, to take
    advantage of that input.
        Senator Domenici. General, we have put your statement in
    the record, and you have testified orally, and Senator Reid has
    indicated he has a number of specific questions. We would like
    you to answer them. I have about five or six more, but I guess
    what I am going to ask you has to do with your position here
    today, so we will have it right. Actually you are not prepared
    to tell this subcommittee how you are going to actually change
    things to comply with the IG's findings that you have said you
    accept. Now, when you said you accept them, I assume you mean
    that you are going to have to do something different so that
    you have a response to those contentions which you have now
    accepted.
        When will all of that be completed? When will you be able
    to come before this subcommittee and say here is what we're
    going to do?
        General Flowers. Sir, the 180-day response to the Secretary
    of the Army is due at the end of June. I would hope that we
    have, well before then, a new Secretary of the Army and an
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and I really
    owe it to them an opportunity to sit down and go over this with
    them before I bring those recommendations to you, sir.
        We are prepared to do that, and I will do it just as soon
    as those positions are filled.
        Senator Domenici. Well, General, it seems to me that we
    called a meeting to hear what you're going to do, and you're
    telling us that you can't do anything because you have to work
    with the Secretary who is not yet there, and maybe a while
    longer before he gets there and has his deputy in charge of
    this kind of activity.
        What do we do in the meantime? What do we do with reference
    to the budget that's submitted? We say there's no changes?
    Everything's going to continue? What do we do about the
    Mississippi?
        General Flowers. Sir, I think we are going to proceed with
    the restructuring of the Upper Miss Navigation study. That
    decision has been made, and we are moving on that.
        Senator Domenici. Well, you have told us in your written
    remarks how that is going to happen. Would you tell us now
    orally, how is that remodeling of that structure changing it?
    How is that going to occur?
        General Flowers. Sir, we will have a pause in the study, we
    will take the next 2\1/2\ months roughly working with the other
    agencies and incorporating the results of the National Academy
    of Sciences report. We will rescope the study and the intent is
    to restart the study, making--taking advantage of what we have
    already done, so we have not lost anything there, with an eye
    toward completing the study process in July 2002 so that--and
    why July 2002? I think if it can be done, it should be done by
    then so that if there is anything to be incorporated in WRDA
    2002, it should be done, but I did not want to give you the
    impression, sir, that we are not doing anything until I an able
    to work any changes to the process. We are working changes to
    the process as we speak, but in terms of suggesting peer
    review, et cetera, I prefer to wait until I have had the
    opportunity to talk that over with my civilian leadership.
        Senator Domenici. Well, how do we make dollar decisions in
    the meantime?
        General Flowers. Sir, I think you can trust the results of
    the studies that we have completed. We will stand on all of
    them. Again, on the Upper Miss, there was no draft report even
    issued, but we do stand on the reports that we have issued, and
    if it has the Chief of Engineers' signature on it, sir, the
    integrity of this organization stands behind it.
        Senator Domenici. Have you been asked to go through the
    process of recommending to OMB what you need for this year or
    how is that part of the last 6 weeks been handled?
        General Flowers. Yes, sir, we have. We submitted through
    the Secretary to the Office of Management and Budget
        Senator Domenici. And you have told them what you need in
    the same way you have been telling us heretofore?
        General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. I don't want to ask you if you know the
    results.
        General Flowers. Sir, I think my Commander-in-Chief will be
    making some announcements tonight.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I am not sure what he will have to
    say about the Corps, but we will see. Commanders-in-Chief
    sometimes have to be talked to. Maybe not by generals, but----
        General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. My last observation is intended for the
    record and intended for you as head of the Corps of Engineers.
        I would ask the question Harry Reid, Senator Reid asked
    differently, and I already think I know what the Corps of--why
    the Corps of Engineers is involved in these projects, but I
    think what is happening is it is incumbent upon those who lead
    it not to let it, that is the Corps, get tarnished such that
    projects do not have the kind of credibility that we need to
    get support and to get them funded, and I think it is incumbent
    upon you and the new Secretary to quickly dispose of the
    serious contentions that were found in these studies of bias,
    of not understanding certain things or appearing to favor
    certain stakeholders because that could permeate everything.
        That would not just be the Upper Mississippi, if those kind
    of shortcomings exist, they could permeate many projects, so I
    for one look forward to your getting us the detailed report on
    what you are going to do soon. In fact, as soon as we have a
    Secretary, we will confer with that Secretary and tell him
    what--how important it is that we get these things answered
    quickly, if we have got a big budget, a lot of projects to
    proceed with. With that, I will submit about 10 questions for
    the record, and Senator Reid's questions are submitted. I note
    Senator Hollings is coming. Senator, did you have any
    questions? We were close to finishing.
        Senator Hollings. No, you go right ahead. I just wanted to
    meet the General.
        Senator Domenici. General, why do you not step up and meet
    the Senator. I have already met him.
        Senator Hollings. We have got a lot of things down in South
    Carolina I want to look at.
        General Flowers. Hello, sir, it is my honor. Good to see
    you.
        Senator Hollings. Good to see you, too.
        Senator Domenici. With that Senator Hollings, we had
    completed our questions and submitted some. Senator Reid had
    done likewise, and we were about to recess. You would note that
    the General has not been able to bring us the in-detail ways
    that he is going to reform the system to take care of the
    contentions that have been lodged by the Inspector General.
        Senator Hollings. Right.
        Senator Domenici. He does not have that ready today except
    as to the Upper Mississippi, he is telling us he is changing
    that process substantially to eliminate some of our concerns.
    That is about where we are. When will you have further details
    that you submit to us?
        General Flowers. Sir, I would say not later than June, but
    just as soon as we have a new sitting Secretary of the Army and
    a new Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, my intent is to
    carry this forward with them, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Hollings, did you have anything?
        Senator Hollings. Yes. General, on the proposed new port
    facility down at the mouth of the Savannah River, is the Corps
    of Engineers taking a position on that?
        General Flowers. Sir, I will have to take that question for
    the record, if I might.
        Senator Hollings. Yes, all right. That is the kind of
    question to ask, see? I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, thank you
    a lot.
        [The information follows:]
                 Proposed South Carolina Port on Savannah River
        Jasper County, South Carolina, has initiated condemnation
    proceedings to acquire land owned by Georgia and used by the Corps. in
    connection with Savannah Harbor's dredging needs. However, the
    condemnation action specifically states that the interests sought to be
    acquired by Jasper County are subject to the United States' outstanding
    dredged material disposal easements.
        The Corps has received no specific proposals, plans, or permit
    applications concerning this project from either Jasper County, South
    Carolina, or South Atlantic International Terminal LLC, the proposed
    developer of the terminal. Until additional information pertaining to
    the port facility is, furnished and evaluated, the Corps is unable to
    state whether or not the proposed project would be economically and
    environmentally supportable.

        Senator Domenici. Thank you, General.
        General Flowers. Thank you, sir.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. There will be some
    additional questions which will be submitted for your response
    in the record.
        [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
        Question. How many opportunities are stakeholders and communities
    guaranteed input under the current practices by the Corps, and do you
    anticipate any changes in these rules?
        Answer. It is part of the Corps of Engineers process to involve all
    stakeholders and the General public early and often. Public involvement
    is a central element in our study process. The public involvement on
    the Upper Mississippi Study commenced during the earlier study stage.
    Over the course of the study, until it was suspended earlier this year,
    there were 34 public meetings, with over 2,400 attendees and 2,500
    comments. The Governor's Leadership Commission, and coordinating
    committees held over 70 forums, all opened to the public, with multiple
    interest participation. Public presentations were attended by citizens,
    and environmental, waterborne commerce, agricultural government/agency,
    business and industry, and recreation interests. Nineteen issues of a
    newsletter on the study were sent to more than 9,000 individuals,
    businesses, interest groups, and agencies. It is incumbent on us to
    provide stakeholders and communities access to the study and to use
    their comments, as well as the comments we receive from other interest
    groups and individuals in developing the analysis and subsequent
    alternatives. Changes in these rules would only take place where they
    are deemed necessary.
        Question. Were certain stakeholders given more access and/or were
    included in the process more than others.
        Answer. No, they were not. The Corps study process involves all
    stakeholders as well as the General public early in the study phase of
    a project. We conduct our process in a ``fish bowl'' environment, in
    other words, in view to everyone.
        Question. How do you address the Inspector General's findings of an
    institutional bias toward construction?
        Answer. The findings by the Inspector General of an institutional
    bias toward construction are unfounded. The Corps' planning process
    results in the culling out of many studies and projects. Approximately
    84 of 100 studies, or 5 out of 6, do not result in constructed
    projects. The Corps is experiencing a construction backlog, $40
    billion, at the current rate of appropriations. While this may seem
    vast, it is important to point out the benefits of a constructed Corps
    project, to date, outweigh the cost over 8 to 1.
        Question. Can you explain how the Corps is not dependent on a study
    recommending construction when the majority of its personnel costs are
    funded through on-going construction work?
        Answer. Nearly all of the Corps's construction work is contracted
    out. Less than one in six of our Civil Works employees are paid out of
    Construction, General funds. They are paid from General Investigation
    and Operation and Maintenance, General funds.
        Question. Please tell us about the Corps' accuracy rate in
    forecasting usage rates or how the economic modeling of past projects
    stood the test of time?
        Answer. A study on the Corps' forecasting was recently completed by
    our Institute for Water Resources (IWR). They examined 15 sets of
    projections for the inland waterway system. The report found in 11
    cases, the actual traffic for those waterways was close to, or
    exceeded, the projections. Only in four cases was traffic significantly
    below projections. Given the myriad of factors that can affect economic
    forecasts, 11 of 15 is a significant success rate.
        Question. How does the Corps ensure sufficient oversight and review
    by qualified individuals when it determines how to employ economic
    methods for a specific project?
        Answer. The Corps hires well-qualified professional economists, and
    invests in furthering to develop their expertise. We utilize these
    experts under the supervision of senior, supervisory economists. Where
    we lack the appropriate in-house economic expertise, we secure it from
    well-qualified professional consultants. The economic analyses, whether
    produced in-house or by contractors, is subjected to an independent
    technical review by professional economists.
        Question. Does the Corps essentially follow the same procedure for
    all forecasts, and is this step in the process regulated in any
    fashion?
        Answer. Forecasting procedures vary with each study depending on
    the missions, scope, availability of data, and the sensitivity of the
    results to the forecasts. We suggest generally accepted procedures to
    our field offices for some missions such as inland navigation, but we
    do not dictate applications. Deviations from the suggested procedures
    must be approved at our headquarters. We require our analysts to fully
    support the methods they use, including full descriptions of the
    methods, tools, assumptions and sources.
        Question. How does the Corps ensure that it keeps up to date with
    the current economic forecasting methods?
        Answer. The Institute of Water Resources, a field operating
    activity, keeps abreast of state-of-the-art procedures for forecasting,
    and thus maintains all statistical data on Corps maintained waterways.
    We provide training to our staff, to keep them informed and learned of
    new technologies. This helps us to maintain centers of expertise for
    many applications, such as hydropower, which demands forecasting in its
    development and maintenance.
        Question. What efforts are you undertaking within the Corps to
    ensure that feasibility studies are more reliable and are not unduly
    influenced toward an intended outcome?
        Answer. Our studies are conducted in full open view; and is a very
    rigorous procedure. Our study process is routed in the Planning and
    Guidelines, a thoroughly vetted process to be used by all Federal water
    resources agencies. We rely on several steps in our processes to insure
    the integrity of our studies:
      --Independent technical review
      --Headquarters policy compliance review
      --Public and agency review of the draft report
      --State and agency review of the final report All of these steps are
            taken before I issue my project recommendation.
        Question. How do you address the issue that the Corps was providing
    an unfair access to the barge industry?
        Answer. Contrary to this allegation, the barge industry, and other
    navigation groups, had complained to the Corps about a lack of access.
    Our study process incorporated numerous stakeholders, to include the
    barge industry, which in the case of the Upper Mississippi Feasibility
    was our biggest stakeholder. We take into consideration all the
    comments of all the stakeholders, and take their comments seriously.
        Question. Was the involvement of the barge industry consistent with
    Corps practices?
        Answer. Yes, the involvement of the barge industry was consistent
    with Corps practices. Our study process incorporated stakeholder
    involvement, including the barge industry, throughout the study phase.
        Question. Does the Corps have any regulations or guidelines for the
    involvement of stakeholders in the study phase?
        Answer. Our study process requires the involvement of the numerous
    stakeholders. The National Academy of Science, who conducted a study on
    our process, found it to be sound. Proof of significant stakeholders,
    individuals, agencies and interest groups involvement can be found in
    the study process of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study.
        Question. What resource is available to these groups, should they
    feel left out of the process or if they believe that one group is
    provided an unfair advantage?
        Answer. Our study process is lengthy, and there are many occasions,
    throughout this process, where stakeholder involvement is incorporated
    in the study phase. We do our best to ensure access to our study
    process to all interested parties, and we expect people to notify us if
    they do not believe they are being listened to, and reply to concerns
    in a timely fashion, when they do.
        Question. Can you tell us what changes you plan to make in the
    Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study as a result of the Inspector
    General's investigation and the National Academy of Sciences work? Will
    this include any management changes?
        Answer. I have paused the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study for
    now until we can make a detailed assessment of the findings in the
    Inspector Generals and the National Academy of Sciences reports, and
    can refocus our study team. When the study is resumed, it will be with
    considerable oversight and due caring. I will put into place three
    management measures to assure myself, the Congress, the Administration,
    and the American people this study will be conducted with the utmost
    diligence and attention to detail. There will be a Washington Level
    principals group, composed of senior people from other federal
    agencies, such as EPA, Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and
    Transportation. They will provide national level balance and guidance
    in scoping the study on important economic and environmental issues.
    They will insure our process continues to be methodical, well thought
    out, and unbiased. The Corps will continue to lead the study, but I
    feel we will benefit greatly from the additional input from the other
    Federal agencies this new structure will allow us to gather.
        Question. Would these changes be specifically limited to the Upper
    Mississippi Feasibility Study, or instituted Corps-wide?
        Answer. These changes will be consistent with agency policy for all
    Corps studies. I feel the Washington level involvement is more
    appropriate for similar large, complex studies.
        Question. Are there any additional authorities you would need from
    Congress to make these changes?
        Answer. Not at this time.
        Question. How would any of the changes you are considering have led
    to a different outcome on the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study?
        Answer. Had other Federal agencies: Environmental Protection
    Agency, Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation, been
    involved in the oversight of the study, I believe they would have
    provided guidance on the proper scope of the study, revealed important
    issues, and addressed major concerns, early in the study process. They
    would have also assisted us with the larger issues of national economic
    policy.
        Question. There has been much publicity that portrays the Corps as
    a rogue agency, which is not responsive to or ignores the guidance of
    civilian leadership. Can you address this issue and explain how the
    organization, under your leadership, carries out its mission?
        Answer. As Chief of Engineers, I follow both a military and
    civilian chain of command in making decisions for the Corps. In the
    military chain of command, I respond to the Army Chief of Staff. In the
    civilian chain of command, I respond to the Secretary of the Army,
    through the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). There are
    many checks and balances to ensure proper civilian control. An example
    of this is the memorandum I signed with the Assistant Secretary of the
    Army (Civil Works), November 28th, 2000 describing my responsibilities
    to the military and civilian leadership.
        Question. Can you explain how others could see the Corps as a rogue
    agency?
        Answer. The leadership role in Water Resources Development has
    traditionally been a very controversial subject, because there are many
    competing interests. These competing interests do not necessarily agree
    with the recommendations the Corps makes in Water Resources
    Development, and thus we are looked upon as being a rogue agency. We
    develop recommendations based on sound engineering and science, and a
    sound process. That is, process drives outcomes, and the outcomes often
    do not fit the preconceived outcomes of some groups.
        Question. Can you describe how the Environmental Advisory Board
    will improve the project process?
        Answer. The Environmental Advisory Board will provide me with sound
    insights on environmental issues related to our studies and projects,
    as well as recommendations on how to effectively balance economic
    development and environmental quality. It will also provide a voice for
    the environmental community to the Corps.
        Question. What will the Environmental Advisory Board provide you
    that you do not already have?
        Answer. We have substantial environmental expertise in the Corps of
    Engineers. However, the Board will provide an external source of
    prominent environmental experts with diverse views and backgrounds. The
    Board will provide us with a fresh perspective.
        Question. Will the Environmental Advisory Board be responsible for
    rendering environmental opinions only, or will the Board also be
    responsible for involvement in all of the Corps' projects from
    beginning to end?
        Answer. The Environmental Advisory Board will provide broad
    environmental advice, but will not typically be involved directly in
    projects or project review. However, I have considered establishing an
    independent project review board for this purpose.
        Question. Does the Corps conduct an independent peer review
    process?
        Answer. Currently, the Corps reviews all projects for compliance
    with the Principles and Guidelines and Corps planning and policy
    regulations. Although this is not an external ``independent'' review,
    it results in a very accurate and objective analysis of project
    feasibility.
        In some cases, large studies have independent expert panels that
    provide peer review of study products. The Upper Miss study had several
    such expert review panels. I am also considering an independent peer
    review process. In addition, the Corps is currently working with the
    National Research Council in support of Section 226 of WRDA 2000. This
    will lead to a review by NRC of independent review of Corps projects.
        Question. You stated in your testimony on February 27th that the
    National Academy of Sciences is examining your study process. What do
    you hope to learn from their analysis.
        Answer. The National Academy of Sciences report, which found the
    Corps study process to be sound, will be of great value to us as we
    move forward on the large, complex Upper Mississippi River Feasibility
    Study. It recognized the technical complexities and uncertainties of
    projecting future grain exports and predicting the response of river
    transportation to additional traffic and congestion. It will assist us
    in evaluating our independent peer review.
        Question. What role is the National Research Council providing to
    the Corps?
        Answer. We are currently negotiating with the National Research
    Council to look specifically at independent peer review as called for
    in the WRDA 2000. Specifically, we'll ask them to look at the
    efficiency and practicability of independent review and, if
    appropriate, how such a review procedure should be structured.
        Question. How does the work the National Research Council is doing
    for you relate to the work being done by the National Academy of
    Sciences?
        Answer. The National Research Council was organized by the National
    Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science
    and technology with the NAS's broader purposes. The NRC is, in essence,
    the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It performs
    similar work.
        Question. Can you please tell the Committee where the Upper
    Mississippi Feasibility Study stands and how long of a delay do you now
    expect as a result of the Corps review.
        Answer. I have paused the study to set up the national and regional
    oversight groups, and to restructure the study team. Resumption of the
    study should take place in June of this year, and be completed in July
    of 2002. I will have a better idea of the overall impact on the study
    schedule once the oversight group sets the direction for the
    continuation of the study.
        Question. Does the Corps plan to make any significant changes to
    the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study as it currently stands, or does
    the Corps plan to make any changes and implement them from this point
    forward?
        Answer. During the next four months, we will convene a Washington-
    level principals group and a regional agency group that will continue
    through the remainder of the study. That Washington-level group will
    review the study scope, as a basis for determining how to continue
    through the remainder of the study. Therefore, we would make changes to
    the study and implement them from this point forward.
        Question. How did you determine that there was a need for the Corps
    to re-write its vision statement?
        Answer. Some perceived misinterpretations of LTG Ballard's vision
    statement with regard to new mission and program growth. Due to this
    misunderstanding, the Corps' senior leadership and I determined need to
    re-write, and clearly state, the vision statement. Internal and
    external stakeholders felt there was a need for re-work of the vision
    as well. We will re-focus the statements on ``program growth'' to serve
    the Army and the nation.
        Question. What kind of vetting process is the Corps going to
    undertake to ensure a thorough review?
        Answer. I have pulled together a comprehensive transition team of
    Corps stakeholders, from outside the Corps, to assist the senior
    leadership and me in developing a thorough review. My senior leadership
    is vetting it with their contacts and counterparts in other agencies
    and with stakeholder organizations such as groups representing
    industry. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
    Works) is vetting it with the Army Secretariat.
        Question. Once the Corps revises its vision statement, how do you
    expect to educate the internal and external stakeholders?
        Answer. When the vision statement is revised, we will publish a new
    vision statement for distribution and discussion with both internal and
    external stakeholders. We will also post the statement on the Corps web
    site, making it available to everyone.
        Question. What do you mean specifically when you state that you
    ``accept the Inspector General's report'' as you testified on February
    27th?
        Answer. The Inspector General has made his report and it has been
    accepted by the Secretary of Defense. I accept the findings and the
    criticisms contained therein. I will take the necessary steps to
    rectify the things the Inspector General found wrong and we will move
    forward.
        Question. If you cannot report any specific details of your
    response to the Inspector General's report until June, how does the
    Congress make budget decisions in the meantime?
        Answer. The President will transmit his detailed budget
    recommendations to the Congress on April 3rd. I do not anticipate that
    he will be requesting any funds that are specifically related to the
    Inspector General's findings. As I stated in my testimony we are
    pausing on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Navigation Study in order
    to produce the right recommendations. The process changes that I am
    considering implementing do not have immediate budgetary implications.
        Question. You have stated that you are currently ``pausing'' the
    efforts of the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study; will you continue
    to expend any project funds during this time?
        Answer. During the pause in the study, feasibility study funds are
    being used to review and analyze the National Research Council's
    report, to complete initial coordination with the Federal Senior
    Principals Task Force and Regional Groups and to revise the project
    study plan. No Preconstruction Engineering and Design funds are being
    used for this or any other efforts associated with the Upper
    Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Study.
        Question. Why is Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED)
    funding being obligated when the feasibility report findings are
    subject to re-evaluation with an overall ``pause'' in the study
    efforts?
        Answer. Sir, no new obligations are being made and no work efforts
    are currently underway regarding PED efforts for which Congress
    appropriated funds in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
    Approximately $6,400 in expenditures occurred early in fiscal year 2001
    associated with contract closeout and orderly conclusion of PED
    activities initiated in fiscal year 2000. These expenditures were
    against funds provided in fiscal year 2000. The funds appropriated by
    Congress in fiscal year 2001 for PED efforts have been made available
    for reprogramming from the Navigation Study to other Corps of Engineers
    efforts.
        In fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated an additional $6,300,000
    ($5,418,000 after Savings & Slippage) for preliminary engineering and
    design associated with 1,200-foot lock chambers. In March 2000, the
    Mississippi Valley Division instructed Rock Island and St. Louis
    Districts to delay the award of any new private sector contracts for
    PED work on the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System
    Navigation study pending the outcome of the ongoing HQUSACE policy
    review. MG Anderson, then Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division,
    notified HQUSACE on 2 June 2000 that he was bringing ongoing PED
    activities to an orderly and cost-effective conclusion. The Districts
    concluded ongoing PED activities in accordance with the plan approved
    by MG Anderson on 26 June 2000.
        Question. Please provide the Committee a listing of all the current
    (PED) funded work and the amount being spent on each piece of work
    related to the Upper Mississippi Feasibility Study.
        Answer. Sir, currently, there are no ongoing PED activities
    associated with the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW)
    System Navigation Study.
        Question. Does the Corps anticipate continuing to obligate
    additional funds for Preconstruction Engineering & Design (PED)? If so,
    please provide, for the record, a listing of all PED planned activities
    and the justification of why these activities are necessary to proceed.
        Answer. No, sir. No additional funds will be obligated for PED
    until the Feasibility Study is complete and a recommendation has been
    forwarded to HQUSACE for Washington-level processing.
        Question. How long do you anticipate it will take for you to
    officially respond to the Inspector General's report now that the new
    Assistant Secretary of the Army has assumed official duties?
        Answer. Once a new Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil works
    is confirmed, I would expect that the Inspector general's report would
    be a very early matter for his/her attention.
        Question. When did you ask for and receive a 180-day extension
    beyond Feb 6th to respond to the Inspector General's report?
        Answer. I did not request an extension. However, I was informed by
    the Acting Secretary of the Army that since a new team was not yet on
    board, I should not submit my report. I am still obligated to make a
    final report after 180 days.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Domenici. We will stand in recess until Tuesday,
    March 13, when we will hear from General John Gordon,
    Administrator, National Nuclear Safety Administration.
        [Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., Tuesday, February 27, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
    March 13.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senator Domenici.
        Also present. Senator Thompson.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    National Nuclear Security Administration

    STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN GORDON, ADMINISTRATOR

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. The committee will please come to order.
    This morning, the subcommittee will take testimony regarding
    the physical condition of facilities and infrastructure at our
    Nation's weapons complex.
        We have two very distinguished witnesses today. We will
    first hear from General John Gordon, the Administrator of the
    National Nuclear Security Administration, and the individual
    who has taken on the task of addressing the infrastructure
    problem, along with other problems within the nuclear
    department of the United States at the Department of Energy.
        Thereafter, we will hear from Jim Schlesinger. Dr.
    Schlesinger needs no introduction. He has had a very
    distinguished career, including appointments as Secretary of
    Defense and of Energy. He also serves on the independent panel
    to assess the reliability, the safety, and security of the U.S.
    nuclear stockpile which just released an annual report on
    February 1 of this year, and we are holding this hearing in
    advance of the traditional budget hearings that we are going to
    conduct later in the year.
        The purpose of today's hearing is not to review the
    administration's budget, since it is not before us in its
    totality. Today, we intend to focus on the magnitude of the
    infrastructure problem within the weapons complex, and assess
    what will be required over the next several years to rebuild a
    nuclear weapons complex appropriate to the future, and
    appropriate to what goes on in the complex.
        After the end of the cold war, and the last underground
    nuclear test in September of 1992, the United States began a
    significant new program to ensure the safety and reliability of
    our nuclear weapons without the benefit of new designs or
    nuclear testing. This formidable challenge is the purpose of
    the program called science-based stockpile stewardship. The
    success of this program is essential to maintain confidence in
    the safety and reliability of our stockpile future, regardless
    of whether we return to testing in the future, or remain as we
    are.
        Over the last few years, I have become more and more
    concerned about the general deterioration of the nuclear
    weapons complex. As is the practice in this town, when a
    concern is raised or a problem identified, a parade of internal
    studies, blue ribbon commissions, and congressionally mandated
    reviews are generated and, too often, little else is done.
        Each study over the last few years has drawn similar and
    striking conclusions on the need to refurbish the complex. In
    1998, defense programs conducted an internal review. In 1999,
    the DOE's 30-day review identified the problem. In April of
    2000, the Office of the Secretary of Defense conducted another
    review and made similar conclusions. The General Accounting
    Office and the DOE Inspector General have also studied the
    issue. Most recently, the NNSA administered a more detailed
    assessment, the so-called Scott program, Scott report, and the
    blue ribbon Foster panel made similar conclusions just last
    month.
        The consensus of all these reports is as follows. The DOE
    has allowed its nuclear weapons facilities to degrade in recent
    years, and it will take billions of dollars to fix the problem
    and modernize the future. The reports identify the following
    specific conclusions.
        First, the nuclear weapons complex has not been well-
    maintained over the last 8 years and conditions are now rapidly
    declining. Maintenance funding has been well below industry
    standards. An immediate maintenance backlog of approximately
    $800 million exists today. The average age of facilities where
    we do nuclear weapons work is over 30 years. We need to spend
    an additional $300 to $500 million a year over currently
    planned levels for the next 17 years, according to the best
    analysis, to refurbish the weapons complex to perform just its
    basic mission.
        These expenditures will be required even if the nuclear
    stockpile is, over time, made smaller. If we do not take action
    on these infrastructure problems immediately, we will not be
    able to meet the Department of Defense schedules for
    refurbishing three weapons systems representing over 50 percent
    of the stockpile. We will not have sufficient facilities
    required to certify weapons, and our technicians and scientists
    will continue to work in unsafe facilities, increasing health
    risks, and a number of safety-related shutdowns.
        The crisis is too great to put off, and I am going to do
    everything I can first to get other Senators to join in this
    cause, and then ultimately to attempt to start down the path
    that will remedy it.
        We do not need any more studies. I believe we need a--there
    should be a call to action. The NNSA, under the leadership of
    General Gordon, is now developing the information and systems
    necessary to start addressing the years of neglect, and we must
    take the opportunity, with your leadership, to finally act,
    General.
        Now I am pleased to have present the Senator from
    Tennessee, and I want to just share with the public right off
    what a staunch supporter you have been of DOE's work in your
    State, and I want to particularly call to everyone's attention
    that there is a major facility in the State of Tennessee that
    is part of the defense part of this budget, and that building,
    there is nothing going on in the building, Dr. Schlesinger,
    that would require hard hats, but people wear them because the
    roof falls in from time to time, pieces of it, and it creates a
    little bit of a hazard. Well, that is part of our nuclear
    weapons infrastructure, and Senator, I yield to you, and thank
    you again for coming.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRED THOMPSON

        Senator Thompson. Well, thank you for inviting me to come,
    and thank you for what you are doing in this area.
        This is one of the areas that have two distinguishing
    features about it. One, nobody pays much attention to it, and
    the other is, it is one of the things we do around here that is
    very important, and that is a tough combination, and my concern
    hopefully goes beyond the parochial, although we are concerned
    about the Wyatt well plan, but this shows us that we have got
    to do something and spend some money.
        The most conservative of us have to acknowledge that we
    have got to spend some money in the discretionary account.
    Spending is not spending is not spending. Some spending is
    better than others, and some is worse than others, and we have
    got to figure in to what we are doing here some things that are
    vital to our national security. To me, we cannot keep letting
    our entitlement programs continue on their same glide path
    while squeezing the discretionary side more and more and more,
    and spending our time fighting and fussing over dwindling
    discretionary budget, while we refuse to reform the entitlement
    programs, and we cannot save enough or put enough aside, or put
    enough in a lock box that we have all got keys to,
    incidentally, to save social security and medicare, and we have
    got to reform all that, so this really highlights a much
    broader concern.
        But Senator Domenici, your leadership in dealing with the
    future viability of our nuclear weapons complex I want to
    commend, and you know, you're right, Y-12, many of the
    buildings there are over 50 years old, and this is one of the
    core functions of our Federal Government. I am very concerned
    about it.
        I was looking at the latest report, the so-called Hart-
    Rudman report, the U.S. Commission on National Security of the
    21st Century. I just noticed that one of the things that they
    highlighted here is that the U.S. National Laboratory System is
    badly in need of redefinition and new investment, and the
    national laboratories, vestiges of the cold war, remain a
    national R&D treasure. Unfortunately, they are a treasure in
    danger of being squandered.
        So you are absolutely right, we do not need new assessments
    and new reports. We can get the same thing over and over and
    over again, just like we did before the recent troubles. We had
    security problems with the national labs, and then eventually
    we decided that all these reports we get, there is something to
    them, we ought to do something. Well, hopefully we will not
    have to wait so long that our national security is endangered
    because of it.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator. General Gordon, we
    welcome you. It is good to have you here.

                        STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN GORDON

        General Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator
    Thompson, thank you.
        Senator Domenici, let me really just start by thanking you
    again for your leadership, for establishing NNSA, and for the
    direct support for NNSA, and for the direct support that you
    give to the men and women who work so hard in all facilities to
    support the national security of this country, be they in
    Tennessee, or California, or New Mexico. There are a lot of
    people out there doing a lot of work, and we very much
    appreciate the direct support that you give them.
        We are working hard within NNSA to meet the expectations
    for this new organization. Progress has been slow, admittedly,
    but it has been steady, and I am hopeful that the new
    administration will quickly nominate the new Assistant
    Administrator so that we can again accelerate our work.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be
    here today to discuss one of the greatest problems faced by
    NNSA, and one that, if not solved fairly quickly, will affect
    our ability to perform our mission in the short term and
    literally destroy the long-term viability of the nuclear
    weapons complex.
        I am a little bit worried about how to proceed here,
    because you have kind of given my testimony, and I want to
    endorse everything you say in that area. We are in lock step on
    that point, but we are, of course speaking about this complex,
    and I have prepared a rather lengthy formal statement which I
    offer for the record.
        Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
        General Gordon. It gives considerable detail about the
    state of our complex, the numbers of studies over the last
    several years that you have catalogued, and the problems,
    recommendations upon recommendations, to begin to invest in our
    facilities, and my main message is the same as yours, Mr.
    Chairman, it is time to get on with the work. We do not need
    any more studies. We know what to do, and we are ready to go.
        Mr. Chairman, if I might also offer for the record
    statements by each of our plant managers, and each of our
    laboratory directors, who make very similar points. The
    statements are all pointed, and all of it is sobering. We
    submit those for the record.

                        INFRASTRUCTURE SIZE/COMPOSITION

        Senator Domenici. Those will be made part of the record.
        General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, this committee is well aware
    of the size of the complex. Others may not be, but just a few
    figures to start. We operate about 1,800 square miles of land,
    6,350 buildings, 34 million square feet in those buildings,
    2,500 miles of roads, 1,650 miles of utility distribution line,
    and the replacement value is something like $20 billion.
        As large as these numbers are, I know the committee knows
    that this is not your Cold War enterprise. Personnel numbers
    have been drastically reduced over the years. For example,
    Kansas City runs at half the size it used to run during the
    peak, and we have closed entire facilities in the post Cold War
    environment, at least as far as nuclear weapons are concerned,
    at Hanford and Mound and Pinellas, in Rocky Flats, and much of
    Savannah River.
        I offer this only to make the point that we are not
    operating Cold War facilities or a Cold War complex, and we are
    not trying to maintain a Cold War footprint or Cold War
    capacity. Far from it. We have a complex of a size that is just
    barely large enough to support the stockpile we envisage, and
    almost all duplication is already out of the system. We rely on
    a system where there is little more to harvest in cost savings,
    although there are a number of buildings in the individual
    facilities that need to go away, and we operate a complex that
    cannot become appreciably smaller, even if we were to decide to
    significantly downsize our deployed nuclear arsenals.

                               STATUS OF COMPLEX

        Mr. Chairman, my account to the committee is first-hand. I
    have traveled widely throughout the complex, and have seen most
    of the problems first-hand. The structures, many of them are 50
    years old, and when a key structure exceeds 50 years old, it is
    really old in almost every term, certainly in the terms of
    safety and security, reliability, mission-effectiveness.
        These facilities often do not meet modern health,
    environmental, or energy efficiency standards. They are costly
    to maintain, difficult to keep in regulatory compliance, and
    yet they are where we ask some of the most brilliant scientific
    and technical minds in this country to work on an enterprise
    that underpins our national security.
        During my visits I was struck by what appeared on the
    surface, a reasonably well-functioning set of operations
    performed by highly skilled men and women of NNSA. However, one
    quickly notices that something is not right and that both the
    scientific and engineering and production operations, one
    frequently finds that the work, that should be very closely
    connected in time and space, is dispersed, and operating all
    around the facility in different buildings.
        At Y-12 I think sometimes material moves 6 or 7 miles
    within that facility, yet the engineers and the scientists,
    when you talk to them about it, are actually very proud of what
    they are able to accomplish in that environment, because they
    are able to work their work-arounds, and they take great pride,
    both the Federal employees and the contractors, in being able
    to make it work. The ingenuity employed by these people has
    overcome the burdens of the facilities that we have given to
    them to work in. It is time to act to reduce these impediments.
        How did we get here? A very fair question. For too long,
    the facilities, the infrastructure, their maintenance and
    recapitalization have been underfunded and, in the recent past,
    the priority has been given to the science side of the
    Stockpile Stewardship program, and attention to infrastructure
    was, and I would suggest rightly, put on hold while the
    Science-based stewardship program was formulated, funded,
    implemented, and now is beginning to work.
        I would offer, Mr. Chairman, a few examples, and we passed
    out some charts, and the first one just simply talks about the
    age of the facilities. I hope we have these in front of you.
        Senator Domenici. We do.
        General Gordon. Good--about the age of the facilities, and
    the main point is that the age of the facility, the condition
    of the facilities is rapidly accelerating. In 1995, roughly 55,
    56 percent of the complex was in good or excellent condition. 5
    years later, an assessment by many of the same people found the
    facility conditions in the excellent-good range were down to
    only 25 percent.

                              LANL INFRASTRUCTURE

        What does the complex look like? You alluded to that, Mr.
    Chairman. The next chart, next photograph shows the Chemical
    and Metallurgical Research Facility at Los Alamos. Here, the
    activities where we do actinide physics, actinide chemistry, on
    almost all the weapons in the stockpile by the very brightest.
    I would tell you that when I go and visit that facility, it
    looks to me like an old, outdated Russian laboratory, cinder
    block walls inside, cubby holes, and when we bring in new
    potential employees to look at it, they will comment that they
    have seen better facilities in their laboratories in their
    universities.
        The system is inadequate. Inside, pipes that carry
    radioactive waste leak and, as we show here, are literally
    bagged to prevent spills and contamination.
        The next photograph shows, also in Los Alamos, a photo of
    the folks at X Division in the laboratory. These are some of
    the typical offices in which we ask really the core of our
    nuclear design individuals to work. These are our designers,
    the people who come to us and are trained for many, many years,
    and this is the environment in which we ask them to work.

                             SANDIA INFRASTRUCTURE

        At Sandia, a building that is only 15 years old, but it
    desperately needs structural repairs. The roof-to-wall
    connections are cracked, needing significant repair. The
    original crane and support structure needs to be replaced, even
    though it was operating at the structural limit.

                        NEVADA TEST SITE INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Nevada Test Site, the next chart we show what we call
    the air building at the underground test facility, which was
    originally designed as a temporary structure to support the
    Ledoux test in 1990. We have been operating in this temporary
    facility since 1990, and at this location the workers there
    literally go off and patch this inflated building, with this
    kind of a material, on a regular basis to try to keep it
    running.
        This, Mr. Chairman, is the key support facility for the
    underground subcritical test program there, and it really
    underpins our nuclear test readiness program. Everyone who
    works underground for us works in and out of this facility.

                              Y-12 INFRASTRUCTURE

        I tend to say that the poster child of bad facilities is
    the Y-12 plant, and again, this is the facility that you are
    talking about, Mr. Chairman, where we literally ask people who
    work on lithium hydride to wear hard hats when they go into
    work to protect themselves from the concrete that is falling
    off the ceiling of this mid-forties building.
        Now, again, we run a very aggressive program at NNSA called
    integrated safeguards, or integrated safety management, where
    we hold the contractor strictly accountable for the safety of
    how they operate their facilities. So what I do is tell the
    contractor that you basically make sure that guy wears his hard
    hat, or I am going to fine you, and by the way, do really
    quality work while you are in there, because this is about
    nuclear weapons.

                             PANTEX INFRASTRUCTURE

        The situation at Pantex in Amarillo has its own story. It
    is the only site in the complex where we actually assemble and
    disassemble nuclear weapons. This is the roof of the assembly
    buildings. We call them Gravel Gerties. They leak. The grass
    grows up in the areas. They have been in operation since about
    1953.

                        KANSAS CITY PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE

        The next chart tells you not only the infrastructure in
    poor repair, but some of the tools that we use are in the same
    condition. At Kansas City Plant, this lathe is about 20 years
    old, or a little older, and it was designed to operate machine
    parts down to 1,000th of a inch. We are barely able to maintain
    5,000th of an inch now, yet it is the key to support classified
    products on the W-87 life extension program. There are four
    other machines like this at Kansas City.

                           NEVADA OPERATIONS FACILITY

        Now, I painted a fairly dark picture, a bleak picture. I
    want to tell you this obviously because of the support of this
    committee and others the whole complex is not in that exact
    standpoint, and I will just show you a photo of the operations
    office in Nevada, a facility that I would suggest meets the
    kinds of standards we would like for the rest of the complex to
    work on.

                           LIVERMORE LAB BUILDING 132

        It is not gold-plated, but it is open, it is airy, it is
    professional. No one will not take a job there because of the
    facility, and I do not say that they will come there to work
    for you, but no one would say, I cannot work in that facility.
    It is a quality place, and the next one shows a building that
    has been built at Livermore, the same kind of a concept, and
    this is again where many of the people, in contrast to the X
    Division people at Los Alamos, do their design work.
        These are buildings that the people, I think, should be
    proud to work in, and it is a kind of a model that we would
    suggest for the future.

                          TRITIUM EXTRACTION FACILITY

        The last one that I would show you is a building that is
    under construction, and it is the tritium extraction facility
    at Savannah River, and it again will be of a quality that we
    expect to be able to offer to our workers, and our goal is to
    make much of the facilities look like these last three
    photographs that I have shown you.

                          RECAPITALIZATION INITIATIVE

        To start this, we have begun, and we have crafted a
    recapitalization initiative to allow NSA to rapidly respond to
    any budgetary support that may develop in the future. Sustained
    incremental and preventive and other maintenance and
    infrastructure investments above the current base are needed to
    extend lifetimes to reduce the risk of the systems and risks of
    failures, increase the operational efficiency and
    effectiveness, and allow for capitalization of these aging
    facilities.
        The recapitalization will fund an integrated, prioritized
    list of maintenance and infrastructure activities that will
    significantly increase operational effectiveness and efficiency
    at all our sites. Mr. Chairman, we have today, ready to go, an
    integrated complex-wide priority list on how to proceed down
    this road. We are ready to start that right now. The work has
    been done. We know where we are going to spend the first
    dollar. We know where we are going to spend the last dollar. We
    know how to manage it for the next 5 or so years as we run
    through that.
        What we need, and what we have created, is a long-term plan
    to allow us to create a weapons complex that is properly sized,
    using modern technologies to protect the safety of our workers
    in a national environment.
        Senator Domenici. How much could we spend under your plan
    next year?

                            RECAPITALIZATION FUNDING

        General Gordon. I think in the next year we could spend
    about $300 million. Mr. Chairman, the majority of that in the
    first year would go towards deferred maintenance, of which
    there is something, as you mentioned earlier, something on the
    order of $800 million deferred maintenance, and then begin to
    lay out, in concert with the defense reviews, the specific
    major construction programs that would follow.

                                   Y-12 PLANT

        Senator Domenici. What about Y-12, in fixing that?
        General Gordon. I would be putting the first effort in
    there would be to really attack the deferred maintenance in
    that area.
        Just to give you another story, Senator Thompson one I
    think you would particularly appreciate. We bought a sheet
    metal machine that the committee helped pay for a couple of
    years ago. The machine cost several million dollars and its to
    operate in a nuclear weapons area. It is under tarps, and the
    workers go by it every day and see this very efficient piece of
    new equipment sitting there. They have not had the money to
    install it because they have not got a clean facility to
    install it in yet.
        We have sort of put it there in front of people, so that
    they know that we have not come up with the extra money to put
    it in a facility to operate. We just kind of got out of cycle.

                                   MANAGEMENT

        So what we really need to do, Mr. Chairman, is get into the
    facility management in a better way than we have done. We are
    not only asking for money, what I am trying to tell you is that
    we know how to run this program, we know how to manage this
    program. I do not think that is necessarily so deep in our
    history.
        We are moving towards an organizational change that will
    allow me to focus on the facilities and on the facility
    management programs, and to focus on the long-term planning and
    establishment of processes that will do that.
        You mentioned the Scott report, and what I would offer to
    any members that really want to get into the next level of
    detail is, Captain Scott come up and discuss the next level of
    detail and the management systems that we are putting in place
    to manage this program effectively. He has done an outstanding
    job to build up his assessment for the next several years, and
    he has captured the very nature and extent of the problems, and
    the price that will allow us to manage it in the future.

                                WEAPONS COMPLEX

        Mr. Chairman, I will be direct and blunt. The facilities
    that underpin the American nuclear deterrent require immediate
    attention in the order of $800 million in deferred maintenance.
    For years, we have been using up our facilities as if they were
    consumable resource, not replacing outmoded buildings, not
    maintaining our facilities, instead spending our limited
    resources on missions.
        Every report, every study defines a program that can
    readily spend something approaching $500 million a year for at
    least the next 10 years. The deterioration is inefficient, it
    is wasteful of taxpayers' dollars, it is an extremely difficult
    environment in which to operate, it sends exactly the wrong
    signal to the professionals who want to recruit for our future.
        Why would they come to work in this laboratory at Los
    Alamos with 1950's equipment, and I ask rhetorically, Mr.
    Chairman, what do the state of our facilities tell our current
    employees about how we value them and how we see the future of
    the mission that we ask them to continue to commit to?

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, we want our weapons to be safe, we want our
    weapons to be reliable and secure. I believe we want the same
    of our facilities, that they are safe, they are secure, they
    are reliable, and mission confident. There is no quick fix. It
    will take a minimum of 10 years to get this back in shape. We
    are ready to start. We know how to do it, and we appreciate
    your support and the time to allow me to come up here and chat
    with you, sir.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of John A. Gordon

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to come before you to discuss the condition of the
    facilities and infrastructure of our vital nuclear weapons complex.
                                  introduction
        During my confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services
    Committee last May, I posed the question, ``Are we under invested in
    facilities?''--to which I replied, ``I am rather certain of that
    answer, by the way.'' Mr. Chairman, today I am positive of the answer:
    we are under invested, and by a lot.
        In July 2000, I had the opportunity to testify at the Hearing of
    the Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization,
    House Armed Services Committee. I made several points then which I
    would like to reiterate today. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
    I am the full-time advocate for the mission of the NNSA. As such, I
    understand that my responsibility is to be balanced and report the
    condition of my organization to the Congress. I appreciate that I have
    this opportunity today to provide you with my understanding of the
    conditions of the nuclear weapons complex.
        This is not a new story, nor is it a new issue. Brigadier General
    Gioconda has testified before this committee last year regarding our
    deteriorating facilities and infrastructure. As I will present in this
    testimony, the complex has been studied extensively, both inside the
    Department of Energy as well as outside. All have reached similar
    findings and the case is clear: the physical complex requires attention
    and we must act soon, because it is unprofessional, it's inefficient,
    it's wasteful of resources, it's potentially dangerous, and it sends
    exactly the wrong message to the professionals we want to attract and
    keep in this endeavor.
        Mr. Chairman, since assuming the challenging responsibilities as
    Administrator of the NNSA, I have traveled throughout the complex. My
    purpose was to reacquaint myself with the places where I had served
    earlier in my career, and, more importantly, to visit the entire
    complex--to learn first hand of the missions now executed by our
    intelligent, thoughtful and dedicated workforce.
        What I found, I must confess, was remarkable. Almost half of our
    structures are over 50 years old. Now, when I crossed the 50-year
    barrier, I knew that I was mature, but not old. But our 50-year-old
    structures are old--old in the sense of safety, security, reliability,
    and mission effectiveness. Many facilities do not meet modern health,
    environmental, or energy conservation standards. They are costly to
    maintain, and difficult to keep in regulatory compliance. It is in such
    facilities we ask some of the most brilliant scientific and technical
    minds and some of the most productive people in the country to work. I
    brought along some pictures to share with you which I believe
    graphically portray these issues. During my visits I was struck by what
    appeared on the surface to be a reasonably well functioning set of
    operations performed by the women and men of the Department of Energy's
    NNSA. However, it takes little to soon notice that something is amiss.
    In both scientific and production operations, one frequently finds
    activities that should be closely connected by time and space, but are
    separated by space and, in some cases, buildings. When questioned, the
    answers begin to describe ``work-arounds.'' There is great pride among
    the teams of Federal and contract workforce that execute the national
    security missions assigned. The ingenuity employed by these people to
    overcome antiquated facilities astounds. But frankly, we must help
    reduce these impediments. At some point, a failure directly
    attributable to the condition and age of these facilities will result
    in a costly, embarrassing, and possibly fatal incident that will harm
    our national security. While I cannot predict exactly when--it will
    almost certainly be sooner rather than later.
        I have documented age. Let me now discuss the condition of our
    facilities and infrastructure. It should be unremarkable that if one
    combines the lack of attention with the considerable age of the
    complex, the result is a deteriorating physical infrastructure. Studies
    show that the rate of deterioration of our nuclear weapons complex is
    accelerating. Recently, Defense Programs conducted an assessment of the
    condition of the complex. During the time period centered about 1995,
    roughly 56 percent of the complex was found to be in an either
    excellent or good condition. Five years later, a comparable assessment
    was conducted by many of the same people who had performed the first
    one. Their finding: facility conditions in the excellent to good range
    had declined to 26 percent, while those in the adequate to fail
    categories had soared to over 70 percent. Here then is another
    benchmark that describes the nuclear weapons complex, acceleration is
    added to the calculus of the deteriorating nuclear weapons complex.
        A fair question at this point is ``How did we get this way?'' The
    question is correct, simple, and beguiling. The answer, however, is
    complex. For too long a time, as a result of other priorities, we have
    underinvested in our facilities, infrastructure, and their maintenance
    and recapitalization. In the recent past, the priority has been
    properly given to ensuring the success of the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program. Attention to the infrastructure was put on hold while the
    science based stewardship program was formulated, funded, took hold,
    and is now working. It is now time to refocus on the physical complex
    which houses the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
        Our facilities require attention. Others have found, as we have,
    concerns regarding the condition of the complex. I will share some of
    these observations and also provide greater depth from our own study.
    Today, improving the facilities and infrastructure of the NNSA is a
    high priority, but we need your help. The Secretary and I are prepared
    to work with you to this end. On my end, I have a detailed plan of how
    to proceed, which unfolds throughout this testimony. Dollars alone,
    while vital, are only one part of the solution. As significant,
    possibly more, is my plan to bring focus, process, rigor and
    accountability to our work of recovering our facilities and
    infrastructure. Facility management is a standard business practice of
    most major organizations. It is being reengineered within the NNSA. We
    are establishing an office to manage the facilities and infrastructure
    of the nuclear weapons complex. We are refocusing on long term
    planning, establishing the processes--absent too long--that will
    institutionalize the procedures, standards and expectations for the
    complex.
        Mr. Chairman, I have included an appendix to this portion of my
    testimony. I ask that you carefully read through it. I believe that the
    information provided in the appendix is important because I make the
    case concerning the condition of our facilities and infrastructure. As
    you know, the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex has been
    analyzed and studied by a number of qualified, interested, and
    independent forums. I have summarized the key studies for you. As you
    will see, the terms may be somewhat different, but the conclusions they
    draw about the condition of our facilities and infrastructure are
    strikingly similar.
        I start by introducing two seminal studies from the recent past:
    our Defense Programs Facilities and Maintenance Study, Phases I & II,
    of May 1998, and the externally conducted Office of the Secretary of
    Defense (OSD), Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) Review of April
    2000. I then cover in some detail our own internal analysis, the
    Defense Programs Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment 2000--Phase
    I. I continue with an explanation of how we are building process--
    facility management--as Phase II of this Assessment 2000. In addition,
    I present evidence of the continuing interest in the status of the
    complex by some very impressive outside entities. Once you have gone
    through the appendix, I believe that you will have a comprehensive
    picture of the status of the nuclear weapons complex as seen by the
    NNSA and the interested stakeholders outside the NNSA. One thing is
    clear to me based on my understanding of the evidence at hand--the
    facilities and infrastructure need attention now. I believe that this
    committee can help. I have crafted a Recapitalization Initiative that
    begins the turnaround. And finally, I submit my conclusion.
           facilities and infrastructure recapitalization initiative
        In the aforementioned appendix, I have discussed the condition and
    resource needs of the nuclear weapons complex in some detail. To start
    the financial recovery, NNSA has crafted a Recapitalization Initiative.
    This will allow the NNSA to be able to rapidly respond to any budgetary
    support which may develop in the future. As you know, the base
    maintenance and infrastructure efforts at our sites are primarily
    funded within the budget for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
    and through site overhead allocations. These efforts focus on ensuring
    that facilities necessary for immediate programmatic workload
    activities are maintained sufficiently to support that workload.
        Sustained, incremental preventive and other maintenance, and
    infrastructure investments above this base are needed to extend
    facility lifetimes, reduce the risk of unplanned system and equipment
    failures, increase operational efficiency and effectiveness, and allow
    for recapitalization of aging facility systems. The Recapitalization
    Initiative will address such issues. The initiative as proposed will
    address an integrated, prioritized list of maintenance and
    infrastructure activities that will significantly increase the
    operational efficiency and effectiveness of our sites. This complex-
    wide integrated priority list of over target requirements, the
    Prioritized Project Listing, is a first ever for the NNSA and Defense
    Programs. It will ensure accountable execution of near term
    improvements across the complex, based on overall mission requirements.
    The Recapitalization Initiative projects are updated semi-annually. All
    sites generate a prioritized listing of Recapitalization projects as
    part of their Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plans. NNSA evaluates
    descriptions of scope, justification, and estimated costs for proposed
    recapitalization projects, and integrates them into a single
    prioritized list that becomes the basis for program planning, budget
    requests and program execution. Once funding is appropriated, the
    priority list will again be checked to assure that no higher or more
    urgent priorities have surfaced. During budget execution, funded
    Recapitalization projects will be authorized, managed and tracked
    through the work authorization process. The visibility afforded by this
    dynamic process will provide responsible budget estimates, assure that
    the most urgent Recapitalization needs are met in each year, and focus
    accountability for each project undertaken.
        The current plan for this initiative continues through a five year
    period, and is a modular approach. Specifically, whatever the funding
    level, the most urgent non-line item projects are worked off the
    Prioritized Project List. The program is designed to stabilize the
    infrastructure, and then shift the facilities and infrastructure
    funding and business practices back to the base programs at the end of
    the Recapitalization Initiative.
        The goals of the Recapitalization Initiative are:
      --To increase the operational readiness of facilities;
      --Reduce non-productive facility downtime and high costs associated
            with unplanned and/or corrective maintenance;
      --To arrest the continuing deterioration of facilities by reducing
            maintenance backlogs;
      --To extend the useful life of current facilities,
      --To reduce the excess facility and structure inventory by removal of
            non-radioactively contaminated structures.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I believe that this is a
    fair statement of where we are today. In my view, I am building the
    correct organization within the Department of Energy's NNSA to grapple
    with these tough problems. To underscore my testimony, I have brought
    along copies of our study and of the pictures mentioned herein. In sum,
    we have a complex that is old and that is deteriorating as we speak.
    The condition of the complex is known to many of you, discovered on
    your frequent trips to the sites. I believe that we are forging, for
    the first time, a facility management process that will husband
    economically the resources entrusted to us by the Congress. At the same
    time business as usual will eventually threaten this vital national
    defense program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to tell you our facilities and
    infrastructure story. I will now take any questions you may have.
                                    appendix
        The following contains information derived from previous studies,
    which have looked into the condition of the state of the facilities and
    infrastructure of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nuclear
    weapons complex. Recently, Defense Programs concluded their seminal
    baseline assessment and it is also included here. This study is the
    basis for the current actions within NNSA that are dedicated, for the
    first time, to creating a facilities management process designed to
    efficiently manage the resources entrusted to the NNSA for improving
    the condition of the complex. Finally, two studies that were underway
    at the same time by outside panels are provided. This demonstrates that
    the concern for the nuclear weapons complex continues to exist within
    influential segments of the national security community.
     dp facilities and maintenance study phases i & ii, may 1998 executive
                                    summary
        Ninety seven percent of the facility area needed to support the
    assigned mission is being maintained in the full-up Operational
    category. The remaining three percent of the facilities are in the
    Operational Standby, Reserve, and New Construction categories. This
    full-up readiness does not appear to be consistent with the current
    capacity requirements reported in the mission assignment studies and
    reflects a lack of DOE guidance to use a graded degree of operational
    readiness.
        The 1997 reported maintenance costs for the laboratories and the
    production sites total $267.5 M. The overall ratio of maintenance
    funding to Replacement Plant Value (RPV) averages 1.5 percent which is
    lower than the 2-4 percent range recommended in the commercial sector,
    the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the Building Research Board of
    the National Research Council. Programmatic equipment maintenance is,
    for the most part, not addressed.
        Maintenance budgets have declined 25 percent over the past four
    years. This combined with the increase in square footage from new
    construction and the lack of guidance to move facilities into a lesser
    degree of readiness category is severely affecting the abilities of the
    respective site maintenance organizations to provide an effective
    maintenance program.
        Facilities have been declared excess to the DP assigned mission
    with dates starting in 1997 and continuing for the next ten years.
    While excess dates have been reported and some tentative disposition
    dates advanced, the costs associated with the disposition actions are
    largely unknown. The whole issue of disposal dates and costs will
    remain open until guidance is provided for disposal, establishment of
    disposition dates and disposition end states, timing and availability
    of funding.
        Sixty-five percent of the excess facilities are currently in use.
    The date a facility has been declared excess and the date disposition
    actions are initiated is not necessarily the same and in fact may be
    separated by several years or even decades. There appears to be no
    relief in reduction of maintenance costs from the excess facility arena
    as the maintenance of excess space currently in use will continue for
    the foreseeable future.
        The total backlog costs reported are $725 M.
        The consensus of the M&Os operating the sites is that the RPV
    provided in the Facilities Information Management System (FIMS)
    database does not reflect a true replacement cost and only addresses
    facilities. The accuracy of the RPV should be of reasonably good
    quality if it is intended to be used as a measurement tool for
    replacement cost estimates.
        The facility management program is not coordinated at the
    Headquarters level nor at the field office level to provide a
    consolidated and integrated approach of the facilities issues with line
    management. There are isolated pockets of information for the various
    functional areas but no coordinated effort.
        The current condition assessment of the facilities in the
    operational footprint shows that 72 percent of the facilities range
    between excellent and adequate with the majority of the assets in the
    good category. The condition assessment of the infrastructure shows
    that the majority of the assets are in the adequate to fair category
    with a few exceptions in the good category. This difference in
    condition reflects a lack of priority in maintenance of the
    infrastructure supporting mission operations.
        The average age of the facilities at the laboratories and
    production sites determined from construction history is: 1940s--25
    percent, 1950s--17 percent, 1960s--24 percent, 1970s--9 percent,
    1980s--13 percent, 1990s--12 percent. At least 66 percent of the
    facilities are 25 years or older. The design life for most government
    facilities is 25 years. The effect of the aging and deterioration of
    these facilities is reflected in the $725 M backlog of maintenance and
    repair.
        Some ``plus-up'' funding has been provided but it has not provided
    a significant impact on the reduction of the backlog. The lack of
    funding for reduction of backlog was a primary concern expressed at all
    of the sites. The deferral of corrective maintenance and a lack of
    similar funding in the 1970s led to a $2.2 B facilities and equipment
    restoration program in the early 1980s.
             osd program analysis and evaluation review, april 2000
        A summary of observations on DP's manufacturing infrastructure
    indicate that:
      --Anticipated workload will require an expansion of current capacity;
      --Regardless of workload, indefinite maintenance of the nuclear
            stockpile will require an investment in the DP manufacturing
            infrastructure of some $7B over 18 years;
      --If DP stays within a $4.5B annual budget, the above investment
            would require a reduction in the science budget;
      --Tradeoff analyses between DP's science program and its
            manufacturing infrastructure, or within each of the two, are
            complicated by the lack of a DP multi-year plan.
     defense programs facilities and infrastructure assessment report 2000
                                   summarized
        At the direction of the Secretary of Energy in October 1999, the
    Department concluded a 30-day review of the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program in November 1999. The Department developed a 15 point action
    plan as a result of the findings. One of the key points, ``The
    Department will develop a plan for long-term recapitalization of the
    facilities in the nuclear weapons complex'' prompted BG Thomas
    Gioconda, then acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, to
    satisfy this requirement by directing that an assessment be conducted
    of the Defense Programs facilities and infrastructure. I am providing,
    in some depth, the findings of this study because it establishes the
    condition of the complex, determines the cost of DP's facilities and
    infrastructure business and speaks to the cost of recapitalization for
    the complex. What follows, I believe, is impressive.
                                    overview
        The nuclear weapons complex, except for the newest experimental
    facilities, consists of production, testing, and laboratory facilities,
    which are very old and in need of intensive and ever escalating
    maintenance. During the previous 7 years, the DOE devoted the bulk of a
    flat budget to establishing the scientific backbone for the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. The concentration of funding primarily on the
    science aspects of the Program has contributed to the neglect of aging
    facilities and infrastructure, the acceleration of their decline, and
    has resulted in an enormous maintenance backlog legacy.
        A 1999 review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, mandated by the
    Under Secretary of Energy, recommended that the DOE develop a plan for
    long-term recapitalization of the facilities in the nuclear weapons
    complex. As a first step in the planning process, Brigadier General
    Thomas Gioconda, Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
    National Nuclear Security Administration, directed that a detailed
    Assessment be conducted of the facilities and infrastructure (F&I)
    supporting Defense Programs nuclear weapons complex. To fulfill the
    Deputy Administrator's direction, a team comprised of Defense Programs
    (DP) F&I subject matter experts, located at headquarters and at field
    sites, was assembled.
        The approach adopted by the team was to divide this important
    effort into two phases. The objective of Phase I was to obtain an
    accurate snapshot of the current state of the complex infrastructure
    and the cost of doing business. This was accomplished by issuing a data
    call to the eight DP Sites: Kansas City Plant, Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National
    Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge/Y-12, Pantex, and the
    Savannah River Site. The objective of Phase II, currently underway, is
    to develop a common approach to facility and infrastructure management,
    as well as, develop a Facilities Management Process Plan that
    integrates F&I requirements, management expectations, Headquarters and
    Field functions, and will provide safe, secure, reliable, and
    sustainable facilities.
        Phase I of the Assessment provided several important results: an
    integrated baseline of the condition of the entire complex
    infrastructure; a clear picture of the cost of maintaining the F&I
    constellation; and a prioritized maintenance and modernization list,
    integrated across the complex, of the most pressing infrastructure
    needs.
                                    phase i
        The Phase I data call was developed to help determine the full cost
    of DP's F&I business. It was designed to accomplish two things: portray
    an integrated timeline of ongoing, planned, and required construction,
    modernization, and major maintenance projects; and profile current F&I
    funding requirements across the Complex. The funding requirements were
    to be reported as: actual expenditures for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
    year 1999, funded and unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2000
    through fiscal year 2002, and the expected requirements for fiscal year
    2003 through fiscal year 2008. The framework for this data was the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). Crucial to this effort was the
    requirement that the data tendered come from existing, accountable
    sources (e.g., DP 10-Year Site Plans, etc.). The information from Phase
    I provides a focused input to the fiscal year 2002 budget process when
    sizing the recapitalization of DP facilities and infrastructure. Since
    the methods of accounting differ between the laboratory and production
    programs, comparing the two is difficult. The production programs use
    direct funding methods, while the laboratory programs account for
    funding with both direct and indirect methods. (Direct funding is
    funding that is appropriated by Congress to conduct specific work.
    Indirect funding is funding that is derived by a tax or charge on
    direct funds and is normally allocated across multiple users.)
        The data call's guidance utilized standardized definitions from
    existing DOE directives to help the respondents properly categorize
    their figures while accounting for both direct and indirect costs. This
    information and the architecture of the data call have a linkage to the
    budget and to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The call requested
    facts about each of the site's facilities and infrastructure needs
    separated into categories for Maintenance, Capital Equipment, Line
    Items, General Plant Projects, Disposition of Excess Real Property, and
    Expense Funded Projects. Funding information from fiscal year 1998
    through fiscal year 2008 was also requested for each included project.
                               results of phase i
        Overall, the studies determined that the deteriorating condition of
    the Complex is not a new problem. It has been recognized, studied, and
    documented many times over the last decade. The facilities in the
    production complex are old and are deteriorating, largely due to
    historical under-investment in recapitalization and maintenance.
        Although maintenance funds are in short supply, DP is maintaining
    more production space than it requires and a large inventory of
    facilities that are no longer needed by the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program. Disposing of these excess facilities has proven to be
    problematic. Facility disposition includes the dismantlement and
    removal of deactivated facilities and infrastructure that are not
    radiologically contaminated and are excess to current and future
    mission requirements. These actions are taken at the end of the life of
    a facility to retire it from service, with adequate regard for the
    health and safety of workers and the public protection of the
    environment. These actions will improve our ability to manage the
    facilities portfolio and reduce long-term costs.
        Numerous studies, reviews, and Site plans for the past 9 years have
    pointed out the problem of the deteriorating complex. Many reasons why
    the DOE did not act on the findings and recommendations are extant.
    Prime among them was the scarcity of F&I funds due to higher priority
    programmatic objectives (science over bricks and mortar). The costs of
    constructing and operating new science-oriented facilities compete for
    the funding available for deferred maintenance in the rest of the
    complex. The figure representing the cost of reducing the deferred
    maintenance backlog coupled with the substantial costs of
    decontamination and disposal grew to such an imposing number that it
    was easier to defer than to take action. Funds slated for attacking the
    maintenance problem were often redirected to respond to more urgent
    unfunded mandates (security, safety, environment, etc.).
                                      age
        The majority of the facilities reported in the Complex are 40 years
    and older. These facilities do not meet modern standards, especially in
    the area of energy conservation. The overall efficiency of the
    facilities is low because the facility was not originally designed for
    the mission/use currently being executed. In a number of instances
    where upgrades have been made to accommodate new or modified missions
    the function is consolidated in a portion of the facility and sits in
    the midst of surrounding empty and unused space.
                            condition of the complex
        A DP study, focused on the time period centered about 1995,
    reported that the complex was reasonably healthy. At that time, the
    Sites reported that 56 percent of the Complex was in either
    ``excellent'' or ``good'' condition. The 2000 F&I data call portrays
    significant deterioration in the Complex. These data now capture a
    Complex that is only 26 percent ``excellent'' to ``good'' with over 70
    percent in an ``adequate'' to ``fail'' condition. The current
    Assessment indicates that the declining condition of the Complex is
    growing worse. Funding has not been sufficient to solve the backlog
    problem and stem the steady decline. A stagnant budget (in the past and
    anticipated for the future), a focus on science at the expense of
    infrastructure, an increasingly more stringent regulatory climate (with
    many unfunded mandates), and inflation have all contributed to a
    dramatic downturn in the condition of the Complex.
                       facility and infrastructure costs
        During the period fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002 the
    average annual funded level of spending on F&I will be $1.3 billion.
    However, requirements will average approximately $2.1 billion per year
    for the time period fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2008. To
    compound the problem, unfunded (priority) requirements are increasing
    at a rate of about $200 million per year.
                               excess facilities
        A drain on F&I resources exists in the excess facilities category.
    These are facilities that are no longer in use because of mission
    change or reduction in the size of the Complex and are generally in
    poor condition. These facts describe the situation:
      --A sizeable number of facilities are waiting to be disposed of.
      --Most are in poor condition.
      --The expense to maintain them in a holding pattern is relatively
            small but growing.
      --The costs for large-scale facility disposal will be great, but are
            currently not estimated.
      --Should a catastrophic environmental, safety, or health event occur,
            recovery will be expensive and the potential for unfavorable
            press will be unavoidable.
      --Responsibility for disposing of these facilities resides with
            Environmental Management.
      --Defense Program's current strategy of maintaining excess facilities
            with minimal maintenance and surveillance, at low cost, has run
            its course.
                       summary and conclusions of phase i
        This initial assessment is indisputable--the nuclear weapons
    complex is old, the infrastructure, a necessary part of the complex,
    has been neglected, and its maintenance is not funded adequately. In
    addition, facilities management is fragmented, is without uniform
    standards, and in difficult times has served as the bill payer for
    higher priority science and production programs across functional
    areas. For example:
      --Over half the facilities entered the inventory prior to 1960.
      --Fiscal year 2003--fiscal year 2008 requirements total $2.1 billion/
            year--under funded by some $800 million annually.
      --Unfunded priority requirements are increasing by about $200
            million/year; and over $500 million of urgently needed, yet
            unfunded, F&I projects are extant.
      --F&I conditions continue to deteriorate--CY 1995, 57 percent of
            facilities were in either excellent or good condition, while in
            CY 2000, the same facilities fell to 27 percent in these
            condition categories.
      --Annual maintenance is under funded--Comparable industrial facility
            managers fund from 2 percent to 4 percent, and in some cases 8
            percent of replacement plant value (RPV) to maintain
            facilities. Defense Programs averaged below 1.5 percent RPV for
            over the past decade to maintain the complex.
      --Preventive maintenance and recapitalization required to maintain
            DP's investment and support program requirements are
            significantly under funded.
        The DP Phase I Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment indicated
    that the declining condition of the Complex is growing worse. Funding
    has not been sufficient to solve the backlog problem and stem the
    steady decline. A stagnant budget (in the past and anticipated for the
    future), a focus on science at the expense of infrastructure, and
    increasingly more restrictive regulatory climate (often with unfunded
    mandates), and inflation have all contributed to a dramatic downturn in
    the condition of the Complex.
                                    phase ii
        Phase II of the Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment commenced
    August 2000, and set out to ``develop a plan for long-term
    recapitalization for the facilities in the nuclear weapons complex.''
    Using the database developed in Phase I, the approach for Phase II is
    to build on existing processes while identifying the central issues to
    be resolved, and develop appropriate metrics by which to measure
    progress.
        To date, a dozen major tasks have been identified for action by
    using Six Sigma methods of analyses. These tasks include establishing
    and validating policy; developing consistent planning processes--both
    tactical and strategic; reengineering facility stewardship;
    implementing procedural improvements; and developing budget guidance
    that highlights F&I concerns and establishes accountability. I have
    here a briefing of our Facilities and Infrastructure Assessment which
    explains in more detail these tasks which bring focus, process, rigor
    and accountability to our work of recovering our facilities and
    infrastructure. I would request that one of my senior staff members
    brief you or your staffs at your convenience to provide a more
    comprehensive explanation of our efforts than I have time to do now.
                           recent reviews summarized
        While Defense Programs was aggressively coming to grips with the
    actions necessary to improve the condition of the complex, others were
    independently studying the complex and not too surprisingly drawing
    similar conclusions. Dr. John S. Foster chaired a ``Panel to Assess the
    Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear
    Stockpile''. The findings of this panel echo those put forth by Defense
    Programs. In addition, General John M. Shalikashvili, serving in his
    role of Special Advisor to the Secretary of State, issued findings and
    recommendations related to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. His
    pointed recommendations also warn of the impact of existing conditions
    at the manufacturing plants and the consequences should nothing be
    done. Key findings of both panels are provided below.
                                the foster panel
        The 1999 Strom Thurmond Defense Authorization Act created the Panel
    to review and assess (1) the annual process for certifying stockpile
    reliability and safety, (2) the long-term adequacy of that process, and
    (3) the adequacy of criteria to be provided by the Department of Energy
    for evaluating its science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program.
    Recommendations:
                Production complex
        Restore missing production capabilities and refurbish the
    production complex. The decline of the nuclear weapons production
    complex must be reversed with a 10-year program to eliminate critical
    maintenance backlogs and gaps in stockpile repair and replacement
    capabilities, requiring investment on the scale of $300 to $500 million
    per year. In addition, ongoing work on small-scale pit production
    capabilities and the certification of newly manufactured pits must be
    pursued with urgency. Work also must begin on the conceptual design of
    adequate nuclear facilities for the long-term support of the stockpile.
                Plans, programs, and budgets
        Implement a realistic plan, schedule, and multi-year budget for the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program, agreed to by the Nuclear Weapons
    Council. The new NNSA Future Years Plan (FYP) should provide, with the
    Defense Department's agreement, a realistic multi-year program to
    sustain confidence. Congress should support realistic budgets and
    provide NNSA flexibility to manage to this program. The Defense and
    Energy Departments should partner in a revised Nuclear Posture Review
    addressing the makeup of the future nuclear stockpile, and assessing
    DOD's requirements on NNSA to support that stockpile, including
    infrastructure and hedge strategies.
        The Panel also visited some of the forty- and fifty-year old
    production facilities at the Pantex, Oak Ridge Y-12, and Kansas City
    plants where weapons work is being done with aged equipment, employing
    health and safety practices that have been grafted onto the work flows
    of these outmoded facilities. Only a very small amount of design and
    production work is actually being performed. For at least a decade,
    these facilities have been permitted to spend only the minimal amounts
    needed to sustain operations for the tasks at hand. Consequently,
    independent DOE and DOD studies that find the production complex is
    incapable of meeting future stockpile requirements. In the coming
    decade, some $3 to $5 billion will be needed to remedy this situation.
    The DOE reports a maintenance backlog of $700 to $800 million.
    Additionally, there is a need for $300 to $500 million per year for up
    to ten years for recapitalization to restore the capability to meet
    workloads.
        In summary, production managers across the complex describe their
    situation as an impending disaster. They warn that the current approach
    is pushing their facilities toward failure, and that the current
    program does not enable them to hire and train a new generation of
    workers. They hold the following:
                Restore the capability to support needed weapons work
        Managers within the complex are concerned that the deterioration of
    the physical facilities is accelerating. For some of these deteriorated
    40 to 50 year-old facilities it may be more cost-effective to build
    replacement capabilities. Yet, there is no agreed upon plan or program
    in place for addressing the complex-wide backlog of critical
    maintenance requirements. The NNSA must take the lead in defining a
    long-term program for reversing these trends. NNSA must:
      --Plan and execute a ten-year program to restore needed production
            capabilities. The DOE reports a maintenance backlog of some
            $700-$800M. Additionally, there is a need for $300-$500M/yr for
            some ten years for recapitalization to ensure that the
            production complex will be able to meet both current and future
            workloads.
                Restore nuclear facilities adequate to long-term needs
        The nation must be prepared to address problems that may arise in
    the nuclear components of stockpiled weapons. NNSA should begin a time-
    phased program to design and build the critical nuclear facilities
    needed to have a complete capability to produce and refurbish nuclear
    components. These include facilities for pit production, secondary
    production, and some upgrades at the nuclear laboratories.
                         the shalikashvili report--2001
    Recommendations:
        Working with the Department of Defense, other Executive Branch
    agencies, and the Congress, the Administrator of the NNSA should
    complete as soon as possible his comprehensive review of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. The review will clarify objectives and
    requirements, set priorities, assess progress, identify needs, and
    develop an overarching program plan with broad-based support.
        A dedicated infrastructure revitalization fund should be
    established after the NNSA has completed a revitalization plan for its
    production facilities and laboratories.

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, General.
        Senator Thompson, if you would like to proceed. You are
    doing us a favor by coming here, and I appreciate it.

                                 MORALE ISSUES

        Senator Thompson. Not at all. You are doing the whole
    Nation a favor by highlighting these problems. You just touched
    on something in the end there that I have wondered about, and
    that is the growing concern over our personnel, our stewards of
    the stewardship program and what is happening to that. We are
    not testing. We are having to become more and more dependent on
    other things, and it probably makes our personnel even more
    important. We are losing personnel, and what is your overall
    assessment of that, and to what extent do these working
    conditions impact on that problem?
        General Gordon. It is hard to get a metric on that,
    Senator, but it is very clear that the new employees that come
    around and look at this facility have to wonder why they would
    want to come work in this environment.
        We have done a lot in the last 6 or so months to change the
    tone within the facilities, both the plants and the
    laboratories. I use the rather graphic analogy that when I took
    over the NNSA, the morale issues, were kind of a sucking chest
    wound. It may not be quite that bad now. We have held out some
    promise. We have held out some hope for the folks that are
    there.
        The young folks that I meet with at the laboratories and
    other places seem to actually be really charged up about what
    they are doing. They are doing great science. They see some
    future for themselves. Older folks really worry and wonder
    about what they are doing, and I have got to tell you that the
    new folks coming in just have to look around and say, the
    commitment is not there to this mission, the commitment is not
    there to me, why should I come to this organization.
        I cannot put numbers on it, but Sandia, for example, they
    would tell you that the number of people that accept their
    first offer is declining significantly.
        Senator Thompson We deal a lot in the Governmental Affairs
    Committee with the GAL high risk list, and they recently stated
    in their report, the GAL high risk report stated, quote, human
    capital issues may be the single largest problem challenging
    the nuclear weapons program. The experienced designers and
    engineers who built the weapons and the stockpile and
    understand how they work are reaching or past retirement age.
        DOE is also faced with shortages of technicians skilled in
    the techniques associated with weapons production, and it kind
    of reminds me of what a lot of knowledgeable people say about
    our military, and our losses there. It is not just about pay,
    it is how you live your life every day, and what your
    surroundings are like, and what kind of commitment you feel
    that your Nation is making to what you are doing, so it is
    important in that respect, too.
        I noticed in Mr. Mitchell's testimony, as far as Y-12 was
    concerned, he had the maintenance backlog $10 million first
    year, $5 million next 5 years, $1 to $2 million thereafter,
    excess unused buildings, $25-$30 million a year, technology and
    security improvements, $100 million a year, new construction
    $300 million. Does that comport with your own----

                           Y-12 PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE

        General Gordon. As I suggested Senator, Y-12 is really the
    poster child for this effort. It has been neglected longer than
    anything else. It is where the most horror stories are. If we
    were to get the $300 million or so that we suggested this year,
    we have estimated $40 million of that would go to Y-12 as the
    up-front to start.
        You have been there, Senator. The last time I walked
    through there there was an old portal that I used 20 years ago
    when I visited the place, a security entrance way, and it is
    wooden, and it has grown up with weeds, and there are weeds
    coming up through the windows.
        I said, why don't we tear it down? They said, well, we
    cannot, because all the power comes in through that facility,
    and communications comes in through that facility, and they
    need to maintain it. It is not as simple as even taking old
    buildings down. We cannot just go bulldoze the things. There
    are other requirements that lead into those.

                                  RECRUITMENT

        But you are spot on in the importance of bringing new
    people in, giving them a quality life, as we would think about
    in the military, at least a quality in their work environment
    that lets them feel proud about what they are doing. It lets us
    send a signal to them that, this is a real mission that is
    going to be around for a while, and we are not doing that yet.
    I would propose that Y-12 again is the worst of the particular
    facilities, although every one of the places has individual
    facilities that needs significant work.
        Senator Thompson. Of course, every weapon in our current
    stockpile includes components manufactured at Y-12.
        General Gordon. Every weapon goes through there in both
    directions, coming into the stockpile, coming out of the
    stockpile, and refurbishing the stockpile and, as the chairman
    mentioned in his opening statement, we now are in the position
    ready to begin the refurbishment of some 60 percent of the
    Nation's stockpile we are going to be running through the kinds
    of facilities that we are talking about today.

                          Y-12 PLANT CHAIN OF COMMAND

        Senator Thompson. By the way, some are concerned that the
    NNSA reorganization plan will result in Y-12 not reporting
    directly to NNSA headquarters, and report elsewhere, and add
    another layer of bureaucracy. Can you tell me if that is in the
    works?
        General Gordon. That is a rumor without merit.
        Senator Thompson. I am glad to hear that.

                          HEADQUARTERS REORGANIZATION

        General Gordon. The work that we are doing now on
    suggesting a reorganization is limited to headquarters
    planning. We are under obligation, and will submit a report on
    field operations in the future, we will address that at the
    time, but that is not an active consideration on my book.
        Senator Thompson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.

                           INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE

        Senator Domenici. Senator and fellow chairman, I want to
    just suggest that I am going to do everything I can to get a
    program started and I will need your help. Obviously for a few
    years a substantial portion of money has got to go to Y-12,
    because obviously we just let it absolutely deteriorate right
    around us, but I can tell you at other laboratories there is a
    desperate need for new facilities that fit scientists, and
    scientific work of our day. We have got scientists at the other
    major laboratories that are working related to our nuclear
    weapons, but it is science--you know, it is nanoscience. It is
    microengines.
        You have got to have facilities for those people. I mean,
    these are the cutting edge people of the whole country in terms
    of the next technology of significance, and frankly, we could
    have put--the General could have put in this packet of
    pictures, he could have put the Sandia National Laboratory
    facility in which the whole nanoscience engineers and experts
    are working.
        They are in the process of developing the world's leading
    center on microengines, engines that are so tiny that they are
    microscopic, and essentially they are energized much in the
    same way that you put things on a microchip for computers, and
    then they buzz around doing their own thing, these little tiny
    engines, and pretty soon we are going to tack them all together
    and do something with them.
        There is one thought that they might be good for a heart
    condition somewhere, that you might literally put these little
    micro machines that function at such a weak level it does not
    hurt anything, put them in your system, and if you can direct
    them, they may be the way to fix various accumulations around
    the heart without having to do what we are doing today.
        Now, that may never happen, but that is pretty exciting,
    and all the other things that might happen. These scientists
    cannot be living in a barrack room that was put up there on a
    temporary basis that had doors on it like you are going to go
    into an old warehouse. You know, I used to work in a store when
    I was a little guy. Those are the same kind of doors we had
    back 50 years ago, so they are all over the place. Los Alamos,
    built up there, is a city on its own. It has its share of them,
    and so does Livermore.
        So we are going to have to work together up here, but I do
    think you have the most valid claim on the first money in. We
    have to look at the President's budget in terms of where he
    would distribute the money, and I think in this regard we are
    going to have to push them very hard, because this is military
    expenditures. This is DOD expenditures, and we need to make
    sure that more resources are put in, not less.
        This is not a place to save money over the next 4 years of
    this President's--I mean, actually, if he tries, it will be
    harmful in the end, because what we are going to get is a very
    inferior condition to what we have today.
        Senator Thompson. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I appreciate
    first of all everything you have said, but going back here to
    this distinguished group of people who formed a commission,
    National Security for the 21st Century, just right along the
    lines of what you said, they recommend, of course, that we
    double the U.S. Government's investment in science and
    technology research and development by 2010, but they have a
    very interesting paragraph here that I think kind of summarizes
    it.
        It says, if the United States does not invest significantly
    in more public research and development, it will be eclipsed by
    others. Recent failures in this regard may return to haunt us.
    The decision not to invest in the large nuclear accelerator,
    the superconducting supercollider, already means that most
    significant breakthroughs in theoretical physics, at least,
    over the next decade, will occur in Europe and not the United
    States.
        The reduction of the U.S. research and development in basic
    electronics engineering has ensured that the next generation of
    chip processors and manufacturing technology will come from an
    international consortium, rather than the United States alone.
        So we cannot say we are not being warned.
        Senator Domenici. Well, General, I have a number of
    questions. I am going to submit most of them. You will have, by
    the time you are finished here this morning, will have put in
    the record how the 10-year plan would be--how we would spend
    the money more or less, and where will it go in a 10-year plan.
    That is part of what you have told us in your testimony, is it
    not?
        General Gordon. We will do that and we can expand that for
    the record.

                         COSTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR

        Senator Domenici. I think that is pretty important, but
    could you give us the general numbers, the total extent that
    you are recommending expenditures in this area over the next 10
    years? How much is that, an average of $500 million a year?
        General Gordon. To me, we can readily, safely, and within
    our ability to manage it and oversee it, and stand up proud
    about the need and requirements, about $500 million a year for
    at least 10 years.
        Senator Domenici. Okay. Thank you very much.

                        TA-55 AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB

        General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, could I just give you one
    more example? I mean, I know we have talked about examples here
    with you and Senator Thompson, but one of the ones that is
    really vexing to me is what we call TA, or Tech Area 55 at Los
    Alamos, the nuclear, the plutonium facility. For folks that
    have not visited there, that is probably the most modern
    plutonium facility in the world. We have done no work on it in
    22 years.
        At Los Alamos we have scattered throughout the landscape
    there a number of individual facilities that work on nuclear
    materials of one form or another. The so-called CMR building
    that we began with, an area down in a canyon called TA-18,
    where we do some special work, and there are several others.
        The point is not to just fix old stuff. There are some
    really sensible things that need to be done to pull these
    operations together. I need to pull together in one location,
    for example, at Los Alamos, the nuclear operations, so that we
    can do the safety and the protection of those facilities in one
    place.
        Instead of having guards and guns at five or six or seven
    different locations at Los Alamos, and then moving material
    back and forth between these buildings, the plan will be to
    encompass it into a single nuclear campus. That will save us
    significant funds on the security, adds greatly to safety, and
    to the ease of operation, and consolidate those operations in
    one place.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I am going to change the subject a
    little bit just for a minute. The military has certain
    requirements they make of DOE's nuclear capacity, that
    semiautonomous agency now that you run. In some respects,
    aren't the commitments that have been made in the area of the
    B-61, the W-76, aren't some of those commitments dependent upon
    whether we get some improved facilities to be able to live up
    to our military commitments?

                             STOCKPILE REQUIREMENTS

        General Gordon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. What we have done over
    the last several months, and spearheaded in our organization by
    Brigadier General Tom Gioconda, is revitalized the relationship
    with the Department of Defense, the military, and the Nuclear
    Weapons Council. We have agreed with them on a specific
    proposal and a specific plan to put nominally 60 percent of the
    weapons through a refurbishment program.
        We have agreed on what needs to be done, how it needs to be
    done, and I say that we cannot fully support that schedule and
    plan with the existing infrastructure.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I am pleased that you mentioned
    General Gioconda. I have found that prior to your coming into
    this leadership post he had done an excellent job working with
    the military, and I am going to end up this part, and then we
    will go to Dr. Schlesinger.
        First, I want to thank you again, General, for what you are
    trying to do. I understand it is a most difficult task to pull
    another organization together, as you have been asked. It is
    very hard to get personnel cleared, so you still do not have
    those people under you that you want to do very important work,
    because they are being cleared by the administration.
        Even some of those you need desperately that are not going
    to come through the Senate, it is difficult to get them cleared
    on time, and I understand the administration's log jam and
    difficulties, but we will be doing whatever you ask in order to
    be helpful to you with reference to your efforts, and I urge
    that the relationship with the Defense Department in terms of
    your problems that you need to solve to be able to be their
    good supplier, that they be open, and that they be put right on
    the table, and that the Defense Department clearly understand
    the situation we have got.
        I hope in your statement about the liaison that General
    Gioconda is doing, it fits that statement. Is that where we
    are?
        General Gordon. It is actually even better than that, sir.
    I think that at the end of the previous administration, after
    many years, we were able to put things back on a keel and
    really go forward and look at the very specifics of what needs
    to be done on specific weapons, and on what schedules.
        My impression over the last month or so in the dealings
    with the new Department of Defense, the new leadership over
    there, is they are extremely open to the kinds of discussion we
    are having, that the individuals, the advisors, the new
    Secretary can give this speech about as well as I can, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Now all we have got to do is make sure
    they put their budget where their discussion has ended, right?
        General Gordon. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Domenici. I know you would not say that, but my
    friends from Tennessee would support that, and we will work on
    that.
        Thank you, and good luck in your work.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        General Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator
    Thompson, thank you.
        [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

                             backlog of maintenance
        Question. What do you estimate to be the maintenance backlog today
    in the nuclear weapons complex? Isn't the maintenance backlog
    approaching $800 million today?
        Answer. The Defense Programs Facilities and Infrastructure
    Assessment Phase I, Report 2000, identified more than $500 million of
    facilities and infrastructure backlog projects.
           overall cost to rebuild the infrastructure of the complex
        Question. A number of studies have assessed and catalogued the
    problems of the nuclear weapons complex. I mentioned many of them in my
    opening remarks.
        Do you agree that the overall cost of rebuilding the infrastructure
    for the nuclear weapons complex is in the ballpark of $5-$10 billion
    over 10 years?
        Answer. I believe that at least $500 million per year for ten years
    will be required to recapitalize the infrastructure if the current
    assumptions for the weapons program remain valid. For too long our
    facilities and infrastructure have been put on hold while the science
    based stewardship program was put into place. That program is now
    working and it is time to focus on the physical complex which houses
    the program. We have established an office to manage our facilities and
    infrastructure and we are establishing processes to institutionalize
    procedures, standards and expectations for the facilities and
    infrastructure of our complex. In the past we have been unable to
    accurately track infrastructure funding year to year. To correct that
    deficiency I intend to put into place a management system which
    monitors the condition of NNSA's infrastructure and evaluates the
    progress of the infrastructure investments.
        Question. Could it be higher?
        Answer. Yes, the costs to recapitalize the complex could be
    greater, if assumptions about stockpile size change, or an accident or
    incident attributable to the deteriorating state of the complex occurs.
        Question. How confident are you in the cost?
        Answer. I am reasonably confident in the facility and
    infrastructure costs required to meet current mission needs. As you
    know, the Administration is conducting a thorough analysis of the
    national military strategy. The outcome of this analysis may have an
    impact on the mission of the nuclear weapons complex. The NNSA will
    review all costs associated with mission execution if there is an
    impact on our mission.
                          recapitalization initiative
        Question. General Gordon, in your testimony you state that NNSA has
    crafted a Recapitalization Initiative containing a prioritized list of
    maintenance and infrastructure requirements across the nuclear weapons
    complex.
        What is the total estimated cost for proposed recapitalization
    projects in the plan?
        Answer. Our review indicates that we need an additional $500-$600
    million annually to meet the requirements of our facilities and
    infrastructure. This tracks closely with recent outside reviews (e.g.
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense Program Analysis and Evaluation
    Review April 2000, the DOE Inspector General report, the Foster Panel
    2000 Report, and the Shalikashvili Report 2001). The Recapitalization
    Initiative which NNSA has prepared would fund up to $300 million
    initially, building to $500 million for several years, potentially ten
    years. Our Prioritized Project List, which is now in its second
    revision, contains 228 urgent near term projects without funding
    support. These projects represent unfunded requirements spread across
    the entire complex and currently total an estimated $562 million.
        Question. Is it your recommendation that this account be set up as
    a dedicated budget category in order to ensure the necessary
    reinvestment occurs?
        Answer. I am open to any workable approach to funding and
    accountability. Whatever method is employed, assuming adequate funding,
    I am accountable for the recapitalization of the complex and therefore
    will ensure that the reinvestment will occur, regardless of the method
    chosen. For too long our facilities and infrastructure have been put on
    hold while the science based stewardship program was put into place.
    That program is now working and it is time to focus on the physical
    complex which houses the program. We have established an office to
    manage our facilities and infrastructure and we are establishing
    processes to institutionalize procedures, standards and expectations
    for the facilities and infrastructure of our complex. In the past we
    have been unable to accurately track infrastructure funding year to
    year. To correct that deficiency I intend to put into place a
    management system which monitors the condition of NNSA's infrastructure
    and evaluates the progress of the infrastructure investments.
        Question. What is the maximum amount of work that could be done
    efficiently in the next year from a dollars standpoint?
        Answer. To begin the long needed recapitalization program for the
    complex, $300 million can be executed efficiently to start our efforts
    in the first year.
                          foster panel recommendations
        The Foster Panel has suggested a number of additional activities as
    a part of the stockpile stewardship program. Such as:
      --exercising end-to-end design, production and certification
            capabilities not currently being used
      --dual revalidation of all weapons designs
      --developing new designs of robust, alternative warheads
      --increasing enhanced surveillance
      --possibly reducing the nuclear test readiness response time to less
            than one year
        Question. What is your response and what would these items add to
    the Stockpile Stewardship Program baseline?
        Answer. DOE and the NNSA have been supportive of the Foster Panel
    since its inception and there is agreement on many of the issues
    identified in the report. In some instances, however, the Foster Panel
    and NNSA have different views on the solutions to best address the
    issues and the trade-offs between cost, scope, schedule, and risk. The
    Foster Panel recommendations all act to reduce risk, but some do so at
    a significant cost or represent a significant change to current
    national policy. We are continuing to study the recommendations.
        There is currently no military requirement to produce new weapons,
    and we have not received such a request from the DOD. We believe the
    life extension programs authorized by the Nuclear Weapons Council for
    the B61, W80, and W76 will sufficiently exercise the design, production
    and certification capabilities of the weapons complex. Successful
    completion of these programs represents a workload and workscope
    unmatched in the weapons complex in more than ten years. Success will
    tell us much about our own long-dormant abilities.
        NNSA has developed an alternative approach to Dual Revalidation
    which achieves the same high-priority objectives, but takes less time
    and is less costly. Baselining, a first necessary step of any Dual
    Revalidation effort, will be applied to all of the warhead types during
    the next five years, while some designers that originally worked on the
    system are still available. The first Dual Revalidation on the W76
    Trident was valuable, but was much more expensive than estimated, and
    took much longer than originally anticipated--five years instead of
    three. If we choose to perform Dual Revalidation studies in the future,
    their focus and scope can be based on the key points brought out by
    completed baselining studies.
        Enhanced surveillance is systematically fielding diagnostic tools
    and conducting studies of components and materials in the stockpile to
    identify impacts from aging before there is impact to the stockpile. We
    agree that additional resources in this area could expand or accelerate
    capabilities to detect and respond to aging issues.
        We reported in the Nuclear Test Readiness Posture Report to
    Congress, dated February 2001, that for anything other than an
    extremely simple demonstration of capability, a six-month nuclear test
    response time was not technically feasible, especially considering the
    safety, environmental, and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty reporting
    requirements associated with a nuclear test resumption. In addition, it
    is estimated that maintaining a six-month posture would cost and
    additional $65M/yr, precluding investment in other more urgent areas of
    stockpile stewardship.
                            five year budgeting plan
        Question. Are there other programs critical to a successful
    stockpile stewardship program, that are not included in the current
    baseline?
        Answer. The preliminary fiscal year 2002 five-year budget plan
    recently submitted to the Office of Management and Budget supports all
    programs critical to the success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
    to support current policy and DOD requirements. The results of the
    Administration's ongoing review of national security strategy will
    provide additional guidance on the future scope and direction of the
    NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program.
        Question. Are you aware that some credible experts that have looked
    at the Stockpile Stewardship Plan have suggested a fully funded program
    could grow from $6 billion to $7.5 billion a year over the next five
    years? How would you respond?
        Answer. I am aware of those estimates. The dollar figures in the
    preliminary five-year budget plan, which support current policy and DOD
    requirements, are essentially consistent with them. The NNSA will amend
    the fiscal year 2002 future-years budget plan to reflect guidance
    derived from Administration's ongoing review of national security
    strategy. We support the President's stated belief that the Nation's
    defense strategy should drive decisions on defense resources, not the
    other way around.
                       defense pa&e review of april 2000
        Question. The Office of the Secretary of Defense conducted a
    program analysis and evaluation review in April of last year. The
    review concluded that indefinite maintenance of the nuclear stockpile
    will require an investment in the Defense Programs manufacturing
    infrastructure of $7 billion over the next 18 years.
        Do you agree with the conclusion of the Defense review?
        Answer. I believe that the Defense review's estimated investment
    figures are on the correct order of magnitude. As I have testified,
    both the plants and the laboratories require attention immediately. If
    we don't arrest the deterioration soon, the cost to recapitalize will
    only increase.
        Question. How much of the $7 billion in infrastructure investments
    are included in the NNSA's Recapitalization Initiative?
        Answer. As the Office of the Secretary of Defense did not publish
    the details of its review, we cannot make this determination.
                     acceleration of decline in facilities
        Question. In your testimony you indicate that the deterioration of
    the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex is accelerating.
        When will new facilities be required, and when should we begin a
    major rebuilding effort?
        Answer. In order to arrest the deterioration of the physical
    infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex, it is important that
    rebuilding begin as soon as possible. New facilities are coming on line
    as detailed in annual budget documents submitted to the Congress. The
    Recapitalization Initiative, which will plan for new facilities as well
    as the modernization of existing facilities, is a three phased
    approach. First, a prioritized list of non-line item maintenance and
    infrastructure projects has been developed and will be updated semi-
    annually. Whatever the funding level, the most urgent projects on this
    list will be worked off first. Next, the revised ten-year comprehensive
    site plans will be used to develop restoration plans for each site,
    prioritize efforts, and plan conceptual design activities for future
    line item construction projects. Last, the initiative will support a
    facility disposition effort. This includes the dismantlement and
    removal of deactivated facilities and infrastructure that are not
    radiologically contaminated and are excess to current and future
    mission requirements.
                     ability to meet military requirements
        Question. The 30-Day Review said ``Failure to develop and mature
    these technologies [to make weapons safe, more reliable, and more
    secure] during the next 3-5 years could lead to the reuse of 20 to 30
    year old technology in refurbished weapons.''
        Address the seriousness of this problem and describe what
    facilities are specifically needed to avoid the reuse of 20-30 year old
    technology in refurbished weapons.
        Answer. The quote from the 30-Day Review refers specifically to the
    surety features in our stockpile weapons. However, in general, the
    technology used in designing, producing, and certifying the weapons in
    our current stockpile is several decades old. DOE and DOD have reached
    agreement on the refurbishment of the B61 and the first production unit
    is scheduled for fiscal year 2004. The Nuclear Weapons Council has
    recommended first production units for a refurbished W80 and W76 in
    fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 respectively.
        Aware that we would need to extend the life of or refurbish weapons
    now in our stockpile, DOE has under development several facilities
    incorporating state-of-the art technologies for developing and
    producing advanced replacement components. These include MESA, the
    Microelectronics Development Laboratory, and the LIGA Technology
    Facility at the Sandia National laboratories and the LIGA Assembly and
    Polysilicon Packaging Facilities at Kansas City Plant. [LIGA is a
    German acronym for a process that uses x-ray lithographic techniques to
    fabricate miniature parts.]
        We also have under development a number of other facilities to
    enhance our capabilities to certify refurbished weapons. Without
    underground nuclear tests, significantly different approaches to
    certification are required. Computational facilities must be available
    to simulate weapon performance with full-fidelity physics in three
    dimensions. This includes our Accelerated Strategic Computer Initiative
    systems and associated facilities such as the Terascale Simulation
    Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Strategic
    Computing Complex at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and, at the
    Sandia National Laboratories, the Joint Computational Engineering
    Laboratory, the Model Validation & Systems Certification Test Center,
    and the Distributed Information Systems Laboratory.
        Facilities are also required to conduct subcritical experiments to
    verify dynamic properties of nuclear weapons materials and to
    radiograph (x-ray and proton) assemblies. While some of these
    facilities exist today, such as the subcritical test facilities and
    JASPER at Nevada, others are still under construction, such as the
    Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility (DARHT) and the National
    Ignition Facility (NIF) and some are only in a planning stage such as
    an Advanced Hydrotest Facility. It is absolutely essential to continue
    the development and construction of these facilities.
       reinvestment rates compared to industry and department of defense
        Question. Do you agree that DOE has consistently underfunded
    reinvestment?
        Answer. Maintenance and recapitalization of the infrastructure has
    been underfunded to meet current mission requirements. For the period
    fiscal year 2002-fiscal year 2008, facilities and infrastructure
    requirements, excluding line items, appear fairly stable at $1.3
    billion/year, whereas annual funding has recently been only $700
    million--a significant under funding as our study of the issue points
    out.
        Question. Based on the numerous reviews that have been conducted,
    what do you recommend is an appropriate reinvestment rate for the
    nuclear weapons complex?
        Answer. As discussed during my testimony, the NNSA requirement for
    recapitalizing the nuclear weapons complex is about $500 million/year
    for at least a decade. The figure is arrived at by projecting current
    mission needs, recognizing that the aging complex is in need of
    immediate attention, and integrating the management standards and
    practices successfully employed by state-of-the-art facility managers
    in other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and private industry.
                     ability to meet military requirements
        Question. If we do not begin a substantial recapitalization
    initiative this year, will we still be able to meet the targets
    established by the Nuclear Weapons Council for refurbishment of the W76
    and B61?
        Answer. It would be prudent to immediately begin a recapitalization
    initiative in order to complete the refurbishments as recommended by
    DOD. However, I cannot say that such an initiative must be undertaken
    this year in order to meet the targets established by the Nuclear
    Weapons Council for refurbishment of the W76, B61, or the W80 warheads;
    but it must begin soon in order to provide confidence that the required
    end state and level of readiness can be achieved to support our
    important deterrent weapons.
                infrastructure as a morale and recruitment issue
        Question. Morale throughout the weapons complex has become a very
    serious issue over the last few years. Much of the problems relate to
    security issues. But I believe the deteriorating facilities our workers
    are in, contribute to low morale. The Chiles Commission identified the
    need to ``eliminate problems of maintenance of equipment and
    facilities, and modernization of equipment'' in the context of
    enhancing recruitment and retention of a quality workforce. The U.S.
    Commission on National Security wrote in January 2001 that ``the
    physical circumstances in which lab professional work have also
    deteriorated in many instances, to unacceptable levels.''
        Do you agree with these statements?
        Answer. I agree fully with the statements of those Commissions. We
    engaged in a very active dialogue with them during their deliberations.
    The weapons complex is old, and in many cases utilizes obsolete
    technology. As the complex ages, maintenance and operating costs
    continue to rise. In addition, the complex has deferred maintenance,
    construction, and technology improvements in order to meet mission
    requirements. The NNSA is now faced with the realities of old and
    marginally maintained facilities, some of which are at unacceptable
    levels. This was confirmed by the Chiles Commission, the 30-Day Review
    of the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the U.S. Commission on
    National Security.
        On May 12, 2000, a detailed assessment of the existing nuclear
    weapons complex's Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) was initiated.
    The goals of the assessment are to develop an integrated plan to
    improve the condition of the complex, to analyze our organizational F&I
    management structure, and to propose changes to existing F&I management
    policy. The Department intends to recapitalize the facilities and
    infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex and institutionalize
    facility management processes to ensure their continued availability,
    condition, operational worth, and attractiveness to our workforce and
    potential recruits. The detailed assessment indicated that an
    additional $500-$600 million per year for many years is necessary to
    address issues that are not addressed within current base efforts.
        Question. How significant is the condition of the facilities to the
    ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest?
        Answer. Very significant. There is no question that work
    environment contributes to worker morale and the ability to recruit and
    retain a quality workforce. In a highly competitive market for
    technical talent, we are competing with the private sector for the best
    and brightest from our colleges and universities. While we believe the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program offers prospective recruits unique career
    opportunities, the work environment could very well be the deciding
    factor in their decision-making. We are very aware of this and believe
    that our Recapitalization Initiative is the correct path forward.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings

                              butler-cutler report
        Question. On January 18th, 2001, a bipartisan task force selected
    by the Department of Energy released a report evaluating
    nonproliferation programs between the United States and Russia. Lloyd
    Cutler and Howard Baker chaired the group, and I have included an
    excerpt of their conclusions for the record:

        ``The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United
    States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-
    usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorist or
    hostile Nation States and used against American troops abroad or
    citizens at home.''

        Do you agree with their findings?
        Answer. Overall, I agree that the threat of loose nukes and
    weapons-useable material represents a threat to U.S. national security.
    I believe that these cooperative nonproliferation programs with Russia
    will require greater funding, but I cannot say at this point the exact
    funding level that should be spent over the next 8-10 years. I support
    the Bush Administration's current effort to develop a government-wide
    strategy on how to address this crucial issue that threatens the
    American people. Today, in order to clarify what our goals and
    milestones are. I look forward to working with my counterparts at the
    Departments of Defense and State, as well as the National Security
    Council and Congress, to help develop such a strategy.
        Question. The Committee's second major conclusion was that
    nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy and the
    Department of Defense, while successful, are underfunded and have a
    limited mandate. Do you agree with this assessment?
        Answer. The NNSA's nonproliferation mission is extremely important.
    Currently, these and other U.S. nonproliferation programs are being
    reviewed by this Administration to determine their future scope,
    direction, and funding. Additionally, the NNSA is taking the lead for
    the programs in which we have the resident expertise, and we are
    supporting other agencies with our technical work as appropriate.
        Question. Which specific nonproliferation programs at DOE are in
    need of additional resources or an expanded mandate?
        Answer. The Administration is presently conducting a review of
    Russian programs which will determine the future scope, direction, and
    funding of these activities to meet urgent national security
    challenges. Once this review is complete, I will be in a better
    position to describe to you the specific nonproliferation programs at
    the NNSA that are in need of additional resources or an expanded
    mandate.
                        environmental management funding
        Question. As part of the Bush budget blueprint it was stated that
    overall DOE spending would be reduced 3.5 percent from the fiscal year
    2001 level. When the President's new spending initiatives are taken
    into consideration, the reduction in funding for the remaining programs
    is more 5.5 percent or 6.0 percent. As you stated in your written
    testimony, infrastructure in the DOE laboratory complex is currently
    inadequate.
        Do you believe that reductions in the Operations and Maintenance
    accounts are wise given the grave environmental challenges we face at
    many of the formerly-used nuclear weapons sites?
        Answer. Protecting the health and safety of the workers and the
    public is the Department's highest priority. We will ensure that our
    facilities and sites are operated and maintained in a safe manner that
    protects human health and the environment and in compliance with
    environmental laws. We recognize the Department now faces significant
    environmental cleanup challenges throughout the nuclear weapons complex
    resulting from past practices. We will place a top priority on managing
    our facilities safely to ensure we do not create environmental problems
    for the future.
        Question. Do you believe that reduced funding in environmental
    management accounts represent a national security risk?
        Answer. Protecting the health and welfare of our workers and the
    public will continue to be our highest priority. Within the
    Environmental Management program, we will continue to work to mitigate
    high risks at our sites. This includes maintaining the safety and
    security of nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel at our sites that
    present potential national security risks and supporting critical non-
    proliferation efforts.
                    tritium modernization and consolidation
        Question. How is that project working and is the facility meeting
    its expected goals?
        Answer. The Tritium Modernization and Consolidation Project is
    currently on schedule to be complete and fully operational by September
    2004. Project design is 100 percent complete, procurement is 85 percent
    complete, and construction is 37 percent complete as of 3/15/01. Fixed-
    price construction contracts for the building to support material
    testing (234-7H) will be awarded this year. This project is meeting
    expected goals and will, when complete, meet projected program needs.
                         modern pit production facility
        Question. Does the NNSA believe that there is a need for a higher
    capacity pit-production facility?
        Answer. The need and timing for a new pit production facility is
    predicated on completing several important studies. First, the
    Administration is conducting a thorough analysis of nuclear weapons and
    their role in national security. NNSA is conducting pit aging campaign
    studies which should be completed prior to a decision about a new pit
    production facility. This approach is supported by the Nuclear Weapons
    Council. In the event that a new facility is needed, NNSA is addressing
    pre-conceptual design issues required for a critical decision that will
    enable the start of a conceptual design for a Modern Pit Facility
    (MPF). This MPF would have sufficient pit manufacturing capacity to
    meet the needs of the Department of Defense. A prudent risk management
    strategy to address the need and timing for a MPF will be established
    after the numbers and types of warheads for the future nuclear
    stockpile and pit lifetimes are determined.
        Question. Will SRS be chosen for this facility if there is a need
    for it?
        Answer. Site selection for a MPF will proceed consistent with the
    normal acquisition process. Site selection would be expected to occur
    some three years after approval of conceptual design initiation, and
    following an environmental assessment of various site alternatives
    conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act.
                            NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS

    STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES SCHLESINGER, ON BEHALF OF THE
                PANEL TO ASSESS THE RELIABILITY, SAFETY,
                AND SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
                STOCKPILE
            ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID GRAHAM, ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE FOR
                DEFENSE ANALYSIS

        Senator Domenici. Dr. Schlesinger, we would like to hear
    from you, if you are ready.
        Dr. Schlesinger. Mr. Chairman, could I have you invite
    David Graham to come up?
        Senator Domenici. David Graham, you are invited to join,
    please.
        Dr. Schlesinger. He is the fount of wisdom.
        Senator Domenici. He is welcome.
        Dr. Schlesinger. I trust that members of the committee will
    call upon him whenever they have some erudite question that
    they themselves are unable to answer.
        Senator Domenici. Well, we might start right off and ask
    you if you would testify and start off, then we will let Dr.
    Schlesinger do the balance--not at all.
        I wanted to say, Dr. Schlesinger, before you arrived as
    part of the preliminaries, we did announce that you would be
    the second witness, and the crowd has not changed much, and I
    told them of all of your greatness, so I am not going to repeat
    it again. Is that all right with you?
        Dr. Schlesinger. That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Having said that, we are going to ask you
    to start.
        This is a very serious subject, and I know there is no one
    around that is more concerned about it, and that spends more
    time at it, and I mean the general subject of nuclear weapons
    and the complexes, the Department of Energy's failures in the
    past. I am sure you are aware of our efforts to try to make
    that better in terms of the management. It is a very
    dysfunctional agency, because it is put together from so many
    sources, and all those sources brought their rules with them,
    and the rules and regulations do not run perpendicular in DOE,
    they run parallel, and so everybody gets spattered with the
    dysfunctional nature, but by pulling out the nuclear weapons in
    a semi-autonomous shield, we hope to do better. We hope that
    General Gordon will be the catalyst for that.
        But now we are focusing today in advance of appropriation
    dollars, and we are talking about the infrastructure, and we
    know you would like to share your wisdom with us, so now it is
    your opportunity to do that.
        Dr. Schlesinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I say
    about the DOE that we cannot blame the dysfunctional aspects of
    it on the predecessor agencies, that there is a lot of self-
    inflicted damage over the years, in which the accountability
    has been removed from various bodies and spread out in such a
    way that nobody is accountable. Some of those things were
    touched upon by the Rudman report of about a year ago.
        Mr. Chairman, I am here to represent the views of the
    panel, assess the reliability and safety and security of the
    United States nuclear weapons stockpile. This panel was
    established by the Congress in 1999, the authorization act, and
    it is to assess the reliability, safety, and security. Last
    year we presented a report. Our second report has been sent to
    the Congress this year.
        Senator Domenici. Dr. Schlesinger and Senator, would you
    mind, I have something urgent out there, can I just take a 4-
    minute leave? Would you rather proceed?
        Senator Thompson. Let's recess for just a little bit.
        Senator Domenici. The committee will proceed.
        Dr. Schlesinger.
        Dr. Schlesinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year, as I
    say, we produced our first report. This is our second report.
    We have concentrated on infrastructure this year because of the
    various reasons that have been mentioned before. Over the years
    the priority has been to preserve the strength of the
    laboratories, and in that period, as the budgets were squeezed,
    infrastructure has been neglected.
        Let me start by just making a few observations. The first
    observation is, repeatedly, the leaders of the executive branch
    and the Congress have stated that the preservation of our
    nuclear deterrent is critical to our national security. The
    problem is that those statements tend to be rhetoric, and have
    not been balanced by what we see in terms of the actual support
    for the program and for the weaponry.
        Second, we talk about the infrastructure here. We are not
    in a position to make any recommendations with regard to the
    size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, but that is to a
    substantial degree independent of such judgments, because we do
    not know the breadth of any future program, and therefore we
    must be prepared with an infrastructure that is capable of
    producing a number of nuclear weapons should some of those in
    our present stockpile fail.
        Third, even if nuclear weapons were continuing to be
    tested, we would have many of these problems, simply because of
    the aging of the infrastructure. It is not a question of the
    absence of nuclear testing. These facilities are old. They
    needed to be maintained better in the past, and they need to be
    replaced over time.
        Mr. Chairman, there is no need for me to go over the report
    itself. It is available to all the Members of Congress. We make
    some recommendations after we have looked over this problem.
    First, we repeat--we repeat our recommendation of last year
    that we get to work on establishing a facility to produce
    primaries.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have a small facility that
    was supposed to be operational at Los Alamos. It is slipping.
    It has slipped, just as other elements of this program have
    slipped. The absence of the capability to produce primaries for
    nuclear weapons is perhaps the most dramatic lack in our
    present nuclear program.
        We mentioned this last year. We reiterate it this year.
    Little has been done in the intervening period. It is now 12
    years since the last primary was produced. Rocky Flats has been
    shut down.
        Second, we have serious problems at Y-12. Some of them have
    been already touched on by General Gordon. At Y-12, we continue
    to be able to produce secondaries for our nuclear weapons, but
    the production capability there is fragile, and we believe that
    it might be upgraded. You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, something
    that is in our report, that members have to go in with hard
    hats because of the crumbling of the ceilings.
        We continue to operate these facilities, but these are
    under most unfavorable conditions, so the restoration of the
    production complex, and you have gone over some of those
    numbers. There is about $800 million estimated by the DOE
    itself in backlog on maintenance, and we probably need to spend
    $300 to $500 million on recapitalization of the facilities,
    additional beyond what we have been budgeting in the past.
        We need to define and execute the work needed to restore
    and exercise integrated design, fabricate and certification
    capabilities. These are areas that we have talked about in a
    general way, but we have not defined them as yet. Certification
    is something that was declared by President Clinton in 1995,
    but that needs to be strengthened. Right now, it is a process
    that is on auto pilot to some extent.
        Third, we recommend that we must ensure the continued
    vitality of the competition of ideas within the system of
    national laboratories. We believe that there should be dual
    validation by the two weapons laboratories of the existing
    stockpile weapons.
        In the past, the tendency has been for each laboratory to
    say, this was my development, my weapon, stay out of it, to the
    other design laboratories. In view of the fact that we are now
    in a position that the weapons in the stockpile will be there
    year after year, decade after decade, we need to get critical
    commentaries as we go through the certification processes, the
    life extension processes, and the qualification of components.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Let me conclude. This panel is troubled to report that
    portions of the weapons complex infrastructure are defective,
    and that the production capabilities are fragile. There is an
    increasingly urgent need for a coherent vision, comprehensive
    plan, and programmatic commitment to reverse these adverse
    trends. General Gordon has started down that road. He needs
    support.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will leave my statement for the
    record.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of James R. Schlesinger

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. In 1999, Congress
    established the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security
    of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, chaired by Dr. John Foster. In
    my testimony today, I will summarize the analysis and recommendations
    provided in the Panel's second annual report to Congress.
        To provide context for my statement, I shall begin with three
    observations:
        First, the benchmark this Panel uses in assessing the weapons
    program is the national deterrence strategy. The nation's leaders--be
    they civilians in the executive branch or the Congress, or be they in
    the military--have stated repeatedly that sustaining a safe and
    reliable stockpile in support of deterrence is a supreme national
    interest. It is the Panel's view that programs for sustaining the
    stockpile should be managed accordingly.
        Secondly, although the Panel was not tasked to develop
    recommendations on a desirable size for the stockpile, we would counsel
    that the debate on this topic must accurately incorporate the
    implications for the weapons complex. Cutting the stockpile will not
    save much on the size and cost of the weapons complex. So long as we
    keep more than a handful of weapons, there are threshold levels of
    capabilities in the plants and laboratories that will be needed to
    maintain the stockpile, regardless of its size.
        Thirdly, the problems I shall be discussing today would exist even
    if nuclear testing had continued. Our aging stockpile will need to be
    assessed and maintained--and new tools and methods will be needed--
    regardless of whether we test. Thus, our principal recommendations are
    not altered by future decisions concerning continuation or termination
    of the current unilateral moratorium on underground nuclear testing.
                                    findings
        The Panel focused over the last year on the national capability to
    perform the high-priority, day-to-day work of stockpile stewardship--
    surveillance, assessments, refurbishments, annual certification, and
    production. Our review included visits to the major production
    facilities and the national labs, plus presentations from all of the
    DOE, plant, and laboratory organizations that play a significant role
    in stockpile stewardship.
        We found the same major issues as have been reported by other
    reviewers, including DOD, the GAO, and DOE itself. In recent years, the
    weapons complex has been unable to complete even a very modest workload
    on schedule. In large part, this has been due to a lack of investment
    needed to prevent deterioration of the production facilities, some of
    which are forty-to-fifty years old.
        Some specific examples illustrate our concerns:
      --Almost a decade after the shutdown of the Rocky Flats plant, we
            still have no capability to fabricate the qualified plutonium
            pits needed in our nuclear weapon primaries.
      --Some critical production facilities for weapons secondaries at the
            Oak Ridge Y-12 plant have not been brought back on line since
            they were shut down in 1994 for health and safety reasons. DOE
            has stored accumulated wastes since that time.
      --We have a personnel situation in the nuclear weapon design
            laboratories that is quite alarming. Our technical staffs are
            frustrated as they see the milestones for stockpile stewardship
            continue to slip. Recent security incidents have had a major
            negative impact. The rate of departure is up significantly at
            all three laboratories this year; acceptance of job offers is
            down; and for the first time the labs are losing some of their
            most dedicated mid-career staff.
      --Finally, to underscore the significance of these problems, we find
            that the time of need for these weapon complex capabilities is
            upon us. There is already evidence of worrisome deterioration
            in nuclear components.
                                recommendations
        Congress took an important step last year by increasing weapon
    program funding and establishing the National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA). Our report recommends actions that NNSA, the
    Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Congress
    should take to build on these initial steps. In my remarks today, I
    will concentrate on the three recommendations that most directly
    address problems in the weapons complex.
        The first recommendation is to restore the production complex. A
    long-term program is needed to redress critical maintenance backlogs in
    weapons facilities. We have recommended a ten-year program. DOE
    estimates this backlog to be $700-$800 million. Additionally, DOE
    estimates indicate an further $300-$500 million per year will be needed
    over the next ten years to redress shortfalls in production
    capabilities, particularly at Oak Ridge.
        Moreover, to meet long-term needs for nuclear components, the Panel
    has emphasized the need to begin the conceptual design of facilities
    needed for pit production, secondary production, and development work
    at the nuclear laboratories.
        Secondly, the Panel finds it essential to define, fund, and execute
    the work needed to restore and exercise integrated design, fabricate,
    and certification capabilities. Maintaining a complete end-to-end
    capability is essential for sustaining confidence in the stockpile, and
    it is a national priority established in the first Nuclear Posture
    Review. The first step is to commit to and fund the weapons work that
    we know will be needed over the coming decade. This includes life
    extension work on the W76 Trident warhead, the W80 cruise missile
    warhead, and the B61 bomb.
        Another essential step is to initiate programs for the design of
    robust, alternative warheads. These would provide training for new
    generations of stockpile stewards, and provide a hedge. Ten or twenty
    years from now, our confidence in robust designs based on previously
    tested weapons might exceed that in modified versions of today's
    weapons, which have been so highly optimized for weight, yield, and
    material usage that they have very thin performance margins.
        Our third recommendation: Ensure the continued vitality of the
    competition of ideas within the system of National Laboratories.
    Continued confidence in the stockpile requires continued confidence in
    its stewards. We must sustain a strong system of laboratories and
    effective processes for engaging their talents in a constructive
    competition of ideas on stockpile matters. Each of the nuclear
    laboratories should provide a comprehensive review and assessment of
    each weapon type, irrespective of its laboratory origin. Rigorous
    inter-laboratory review must be employed for major design and
    certification issues. Inter-laboratory reviews also must be employed in
    preserving data bases and adapting them to new computer codes (through
    ``dual revalidation''); we do not support DOE's current proposal to
    give each lab exclusive rights to individually baseline the data for
    the weapons on which it takes lead responsibility.
        The labs' working environments also must be conducive to retaining
    world-class talent. We support the recommendations of Senator Baker and
    Representative Hamilton, which are intended to provide world-class
    security while minimizing unnecessary burdens. Some technical staffs
    are spending 30 percent of their time on administrative tasks--these
    burdens must be better managed by the NNSA.
        While I have limited my remarks to our specific findings and
    recommendations in these three areas, the Panel has identified a number
    of steps NNSA needs to take to improve its management processes,
    especially in the area of planning, programming, and budgeting. As
    noted in our report, we believe Congress has a vital role to play this
    year in ensuring that the vision, programs, and budget for the weapons
    program are adequate to sustain deterrence capabilities.
                               concluding remarks
        This Panel is troubled to report that portions of the weapons
    complex infrastructure are defective and that the production
    capabilities that remain are fragile. There is an increasingly urgent
    need for a coherent vision, comprehensive plan, and programmatic
    commitment to reverse these adverse trends.
        We strongly support the efforts of this Committee to identify and
    implement the actions needed to restore the weapons complex to the
    condition necessary to sustain a safe and reliable weapons stockpile.
    Our national declaratory policy is that the nuclear stockpile is a
    supreme national interest in support of nuclear deterrence strategy. If
    we are committed to this policy, then priority action is needed to
    reverse these adverse trends.

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Your statement will
    be made a part of the record. Mr. Cummings, you were the staff
    editor?
        Dr. Schlesinger. This is Mr. Graham.
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Graham.
        Mr. Graham. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Senator Domenici. How did you come upon such a job? Do you
    do this all the time here, different reports?
        Mr. Graham. I have been working on nuclear weapons
    management complex issues for about the last 5 years. I work in
    an organization called the Institute for Defense Analysis. Our
    president, General Leary Welsh, has had a lifetime interest in
    nuclear matters, and so he has drawn some of the staff into
    these issues.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I just wanted to compliment you. I
    notice every time we let the issues of significance boil up in
    the Department of Energy, that underneath them, causing the pot
    to boil, are reports, and I have come to the conclusion that
    for some reason we have to have too many very good reports
    before we do anything up here.
        What we did about the Department of Energy, trying to
    create some management in the future by creating the
    semiautonomous agency that General Gordon produces, that was
    preceded by at least five reports that said nuclear weaponry
    within the Department of Energy cannot work right because of
    the nature of the Department of Energy.
        Until we had a big security risk, plus a group following it
    that was chaired by former Senator Rudman, which is a powerful
    group under statute law of the Nation, they then reported
    that--I did not invent the word that it was dysfunctional. They
    invented the word within that report, but that was the fourth
    report, and we finally did one thing, and it is in the
    germinating stage. The General cannot put that together in 4 or
    5 months under the rules we have got.
        You think we act as if this is a serious problem. He has
    got rules that some of the personnel issues will take 6 months
    to resolve, but we have to get on with it.
        Now, in this regard, I have a question of both of you. With
    reference to starting a major maintenance and rebuilding plan,
    being brutally frank, the Department of Energy does not have
    success rate at building major projects. As they are indicated
    from the beginning, and as the specs are drawn and the
    commitments made, I do not think they really have a very good
    record of getting the job done that way. Overruns are rampant.
    We even had to stop some projects because we cannot get them
    done.
        Should we make some changes of some type in how these
    projects are going to be managed, as we put in a revolving fund
    of $500 to $800 million, and have projects ongoing? The
    General, clearly, if he can do it in NNSA, that is wonderful,
    but what about the ability to do projects right?
        Dr. Schlesinger. Well, I think that the record is much
    worse than is indicated in the Rudman report, Mr. Chairman.
    Years ago, back in the Reagan administration, the Department of
    Energy was cited in a report for being the model for the U.S
    Government, and reviews have gone up and down.
        Much of the problem, of course, over the years has been due
    to the fact that they are start and stop. Look at the problems
    that we have had with regard to the production of nuclear fuel.
    We started a program of centrifuge at Portsmouth, back in the
    1970's. We have a facility built there.
        In the early eighties it was decided by the administration
    to abandon that and to move off to California to support laser
    isotope separation, so that that money was clearly wasted at
    that time, but that was not the problem of the Department of
    Energy, and similarly, the decision with regard to the
    supercollider I think reflects, what shall I say, political
    controversy more than the Department's managerial ability.
        In any event, you have established, the Congress has
    established a mechanism to handle this. It has put it in the
    NNSA under General Gordon. We say in our report that there are
    a strong, substantial challenges to the NNSA, but there are
    opportunities as well, and since the Congress has established
    this semiautonomous body, I think that it is appropriate to let
    it run for a while and see how well it does.
        Let me say that in 1985, during the Reagan administration,
    when we delivered the blue ribbon task force which I was vice
    chairman of, we recommended the establishment of an autonomous
    body within the Department of Energy to handle nuclear weapons
    problems, so it takes a while, but we get there.
        Senator Domenici. Did you want to comment?
        Mr. Graham. Well, I would add two points, I think. One is,
    you had commented earlier on the organizational problems of DOE
    as a whole. One of the reasons for that is that when new
    problems arise, there has been a tendency to create new
    stovepipe organizations to address those problems. That
    happened with the environmental safety and health back in the
    late eighties, early nineties. To some degree, it happened
    again with the security problems in recent years.
        I think one principle that should be followed in this area
    for that reason is that the responsibility for managing these
    new programs I think ought to be within the line of
    responsibility of the NNSA, so I would not necessarily
    recommend creating some new activity to focus on these
    infrastructure problems.
        I think secondly, as compared with the Department of
    Defense, the Department of Energy historically has not really
    focused on program management, but now there are a number of
    people in this organization, General Gordon, General Giaconda,
    on down, who have that background and bring that background to
    management of these programs.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I think you have said it better
    than I, and to the extent that I correct my previous statement
    I will say I think program management is what I should have
    been saying instead of project by project, but program
    management is not one of the fortes of the Department of
    Energy.
        In fact, I think it is quite fair to say that they do it
    very poorly, but I do think, in conferring with General Gordon,
    that they clearly intend, within their jurisdiction and their
    autonomous jurisdiction, they intend to be program managers,
    and to be much more skilled and dedicated to it, and I commend
    them for it, because it has not been easy, when you get big
    projects, to find out that they end up being on board in terms
    of the early estimates, how long it will take to construct
    them, are there any real problems that were discovered while
    you are building it.
        Those are happening too much now, and you know, if we are
    going to do a major building program, they are all very precise
    buildings, and they are hard to get done, and they require a
    great deal of effort on clearing the environment, clearing the
    communities and all, so I know they will be tough, but they
    have got to do it.
        I do not think we want to change that. It is just that I
    think somebody has to program capacity to manage a $500 million
    a year ongoing program, which we may end up with six, eight
    facilities being constructed.
        Mr. Graham. Sir, another thing that will be really helpful
    for this is the new focus on developing future year budgets and
    programs. You know, having in the past operated on a year-to-
    year budget basis, that might have underplayed the emphasis on
    some of the long-term problems.
        Dr. Schlesinger. Well, it is part of the problem of the
    DOE-DOD relationship. The DOD has a future years fiscal program
    that goes over the next 6 years. The DOE has 1 year at a time,
    and these two programs are supposed to be aligned when there is
    no future years programs. It is one of the recommendations that
    the panel has made, that we move in that direction.
        Senator Domenici. I have one last question, Dr.
    Schlesinger. You have been in a position where you had to
    experience the relationship of nuclear weaponry, which is not
    in the Department of Defense, and the Defense Department and
    how they treat and relate to the nuclear weaponry activity
    generally, all of those things that General Gordon has.
        Is the apparatus, and is it currently effective? That is,
    an apparatus that makes sure that the Department of Energy,
    Defense knows the needs of the Department of Energy and
    supports their needs? Does that exist? Is there a way?
        I sometimes wonder, as I work this appropriation bill,
    where every year I almost have to go ask for additional money,
    because nobody put it in the budget, and it does not seem like
    we have got the chairman of the Chief of Staff even
    knowledgeable about this problem, or at least not commenting--
    excuse me. Would you give me your thoughts on that?
        Dr. Schlesinger. Well, that is a complicated matter, Mr.
    Chairman. As you know, all of this comes out of the 050
    account, which is generally--for the Department of Defense the
    largest non-DOD element is the DOE defense program. That
    includes, incidentally, the cleanup operations of the
    Department of Energy.
        That budget goes to the Office of Management and Budget for
    approval. It is separate from the DOD, and I think that it is
    no secret, and it has been the case this year that the OMB, in
    attempting to increase overall DOD expenditures, has been hard
    on certain other agencies, including the DOE, so that the
    program that had been put forward by the Clinton administration
    was cut back by the OMB.
        Now, there is nothing that the Department of Defense itself
    can do about it. What we see is something that is out of
    alignment, and I think that it is the responsibility of the OMB
    to see that those are in alignment.
        Senator Domenici. Dr. Schlesinger, I see it exactly the
    same way, and I see the very large growth now and in the future
    of the environmental cleanup account, which comes out of the
    Department of Energy's budget, big Department of Energy, and it
    goes over to the 150, the DOE function. I see that as something
    the Defense Department might very well be concerned about. They
    do not govern it, they do not guide it, they are not managing
    it, and yet whatever it is comes out of their budget, and it is
    a very big amount, and you have alluded to it as growing and
    growing.
        In any event, I think we have to find some way to get OMB,
    the Defense Department, more in line with the problems we are
    talking about that are going to beset this program, and are
    now, and this year's budget does it again, and pretty tough,
    from what I have seen. We cannot stay at that level. We have to
    do something about it.
        Dr. Schlesinger. Well, that is up to the administration and
    the Congress, but I repeat what I said at the outset. Every
    time we make a public statement we say that the preservation of
    the nuclear deterrent is fundamental to the national military
    posture and to the national interest, and those statements tend
    to hang out there. When there is a reduced threat, as there is
    today, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we do not seem to
    see the same energy put into the preservation of that
    capability.
        On that question of the cleanup, we discuss in here the
    problems at Y-12 in particular, and what has happened is that
    certain facilities were shut down at Y-12 in 1994. The result
    is that Y-12 has not been able to handle the nuclear byproducts
    of its production process, and they are just accumulating at Y-
    12.
        That is the way you run into trouble. That is why we have
    problems at Hanford. That is why you have problems at Savannah
    River. If you just accumulate waste, that will have to be dealt
    with at some future date, and it adds immensely to the long-
    term cost of the program, because you need to have security
    officials there to handle the byproducts of the production
    process.
        Senator Domenici. I will yield now to Senator Thompson. Do
    you have any questions?
        Senator Thompson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
    appreciate what Dr. Schlesinger just said, and I note that
    General Gordon in his statement talk about the panel visiting
    Pantex, Oak Ridge, Y-12, Kansas City, and concluded that only a
    very small amount of design and production work is actually
    being performed, and Dr. Schlesinger's statement says there is
    evidence of worrisome deterioration and nuclear components. The
    cleanup problem all of its own, and a big one.
        But what about elaborating a bit on what you describe as
    the fragile nature of the secondary situation down there, the
    actual work you are doing. I mean, you made a very convincing
    case, I think everyone has, that physical plant, what is going
    on there impacts the work that we are supposed to be doing. You
    described it as fragile. Could you elaborate on that a bit
    more?
        Dr. Schlesinger. Well, in a way this is reiteration of what
    previously was said, Senator. We send people in hard hats into
    facilities in which the roof is crumbling. They are managing to
    do their tasks, but under arduous conditions. We have shut
    down, for safety and health reasons, some of the facilities at
    Y-12. As a result, they have not been able to handle the
    byproducts of the process, and they are just accumulating out
    there. I would regard that as fragile.
        It is not as bad, of course, as the situation with regard
    to primaries, in which the United States, probably alone
    amongst nuclear powers, is unable to produce a nuclear weapon
    today. We have not been able to produce primaries for more than
    a decade, and of course the United States has taken on major
    international responsibilities, whether it wanted to or had
    them thrust upon it, for being the sheriff of the world, and so
    we must be certain that our nuclear weapons work, and we are
    not investing sufficiently to be able to maintain the stockpile
    over the course of the decades ahead.
        Senator Thompson. When we read the New York Times, where
    the Russians are apparently testing now, in ways that are
    giving off nuclear yields, arguably in violation of the
    principles of the test ban treaty, although the Russians would
    say not, but clearly they are doing something along those
    lines, I mean, what does that--to the average person, how
    should that impact their thinking in terms of what we are
    talking about here today?
        Dr. Schlesinger. The first point to be made is that the
    decision to go to zero yield was a unilateral decision by the
    United States. It is not in the treaty. Nothing in the treaty
    defines what a nuclear explosion is, and so we decided that we
    would not have any kind of nuclear yield, no matter how small.
        Our British and French allies during the negotiations kind
    of gulped at that, but they did not protest. The Russians and
    the Chinese, other nuclear powers, clearly are not prepared to
    accept a definition in which there is no zero nuclear yield,
    and if the Russians are experimenting, they may be operating
    within the gray area of the treaty.
        This was one of the issues, of course, as you well recall,
    Senator, with regard to the Senate's vote on the comprehensive
    test ban treaty, whether or not we go to zero yield. In 1993,
    1994, and 1995, the Department of Defense and the laboratories
    recommended that we continue to have low yield experimentations
    to see to it that nuclear initiation could take place.
    President Clinton decided otherwise, and so the U.S. position
    was different, but we are not bound by the treaty. At the
    moment, we are bound by the presidential statement.
        Senator Thompson. So it seems that our ability to maintain
    our stockpile, any assurance is being compromised, because of
    all these things we are talking about, at the same time others
    are going on and moving at least into those gray areas. I mean,
    the world is not standing still because we have decided to
    neglect our stockpile responsibilities.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        Senator Reid, we welcome you. You had business, and had to
    be a bit late, but it is very good of you to come to the
    hearing this morning.
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I ask
    unanimous consent that my opening statement be made part of the
    record as if read.
        Senator Domenici. It will be.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Gordon, it is always good to see you. Thank you for taking
    time out of your busy schedule to join us here today.
        Mr. Schlesinger, I would also like to welcome you this morning. I
    have read the Foster Report and believe you and the other members or
    the panel did a fine job in assessing and compiling the infrastructure
    problems in the nuclear weapons complex. We sent you off to look at
    these issues for the better part of a year and I think you have
    assembled a fair and balanced report. I am grateful for it.
        We have, for too long, allowed the physical infrastructure that
    supports our nuclear weapons stockpile to deteriorate. The end of the
    Cold War has allowed our nation to turn its attention to other areas
    and to address other needs. However, the maintenance of our nuclear
    stockpile in the absence of testing, must remain an important priority
    for our country.
        We now live in an age of science-based stockpile stewardship. The
    weapon's complex will rely on computers and lasers and subcritical
    experiments as well as a pit production process that will eventually
    (we hope) deliver a certifiable nuclear pit.
        None of this is easy and all of it will cost money. We did not stop
    underground nuclear testing in this country because it was cheaper to
    do so. We did it because it was the right thing to do.
        For stockpile stewardship to work, we need to make sure that our
    nuclear workers have the tools, equipment, buildings, and other
    resources that will allow them to succeed.
        As all of you know, I have been a steady critic of cost-overruns in
    the weapons complex.
        I was highly critical of the National Ignition Facility last year.
    This year that project seems to have righted itself, so I will instead
    focus my attention on the even more severe cost-overruns that are now
    plaguing the pit production process.
        However, those are criticisms of management, not the workers. I
    strongly believe that the thousands of employees that make up our
    nuclear workforce need to have the proper tools to do their jobs right.
        Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me for one moment, I would like
    to share an example of the sort of infrastructure shortcomings that I
    think we are both concerned about. It is a shining example of not
    giving our employees the proper tools, nor keeping them safe or even
    comfortable in their workplaces.
        I would like to draw your attention to the photos I have provided.
    These are from the Nevada Test Site and they are of the surface support
    facilities at the U1a Sub-Critical experimental complex.
        Mr. Chairman, this Committee has provided nearly half a BILLION
    dollars for subcritical nuclear tests in support of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program.
        This photo shows a building called the ``Air Building'' a
    ``temporary'' support structure that has been in service for nearly 15
    years. Close up photos would reveal it's fabric skin to be patched like
    an old innertube.
        In the distance you can see the ``trailer camp'' of diagnostic and
    measurement equipment. Millions of dollars worth of equipment that
    measure the instantaneous data bursts from a subcritical experiment.
        Mr. Chairman, the vital information we obtain, to say nothing about
    the tens of millions of dollars of investment we make in a single
    subcritical experiment are dependent on these ``temporary'' flimsy
    structures that have outlived their planned usefulness. Diagnostic
    Cables and energized electrical lines are laid across the ground to
    support these facilities.
        The sanitation facility that is adjacent to the Air Building is
    also temporary but is just a few years from being placed on the
    National Register of Historic Places. These kind of sanitation
    facilities are the only type available within miles of this complex.
        Mr. Chairman, though this may seem humorous, this whole issue is
    deadly serious.
        I must tell you that in mid-October of last year; because of the
    shorting-out of an aged ``temporary'' buried power cable, over a dozen
    miners, engineers and technicians were stranded for a number of hours
    underground at this complex with only battery lighting, no fresh air
    circulation and no power to the mine head elevator.
        There was no back-up power, no generator back-up and only after
    hours of being stranded underground the miners were able to leave
    through emergency egress.
        Though locally this emergency was handled expertly, and all in-
    place procedures worked as planned, an Agency that expends billions of
    dollars on physics machines in support of science and does not provide
    the operational funds to ensure the safety of underground miners is
    mismanaging its infrastructure priorities.
        The opposite problem exists at the Device Assembly Facility, also
    located at the Nevada Test Site. It is quite possibly one of the nicest
    buildings in the entire complex, yet it stands virtually unused despite
    its $100 million price tag.
        Given this strange situation, I think both of you can understand
    why I am going to emphasize the need for reams and reams of long-term
    planning throughout my remarks today.
        Our infrastructure is in bad shape. All of us can agree on that. I
    have heard too many stories about leaking roofs, laboratories with no
    air conditioning, and offices with no heat, to stand idly by any
    longer.
        It is time to find the resources and the will to upgrade our
    nuclear weapons complex.
        There is no short-term fix available, so we are going to have to
    plan for a multi-year effort.
        More importantly, we need to ensure that we do this the right way.
    It is too easy to throw a lot of money at a problem of this magnitude
    and come away with little of value. To be successful we must plan.
        I have no interest in re-building the weapons infrastructure of the
    past. I am only willing to invest in the complex of the future.
        Allow me to suggest a principle or two that I believe should govern
    our discussions of how to move forward:
        As we are developing our infrastructure improvement plans, we need
    to constantly ask ourselves what the weapons complex is going to look
    like ten or more years from now and what our operating principles are
    going to be.
        Just as important is how we maintain those critical parts of the
    complex that are needed today and tomorrow, as well as ten or more
    years from now.
        During a period of more than 50 years, we built and operated our
    national weapons laboratories as essential elements of our national
    nuclear security.
        These laboratories represent scientific and technological
    capabilities that are unmatched anywhere else in the world and their
    objective advice to the Federal Government has been a highly valued
    planning asset.
        Their objectivity, however, is threatened by their fierce
    competition with each other.
        These institutions are supposed to be on the same team, working to
    the same goals, with their differences reflecting alternative paths to
    the same goal.
        Their competition used to be in the realm of ideas and concepts.
    They provided reality checks for one another, and they provided a
    necessary level of technical peer review of one another's ideas and
    approaches.
        I think the laboratories are still providing technical peer review
    of project level activities, but I also think that the reality checks
    of the past have withered.
        Their competition has left the realm of ideas and concepts and has
    moved into the world of dollars and cents.
        It appears that if one lab must have something to do its job, the
    other labs must achieve equity through some other provision.
        I say this because we have all heard the stories that the labs get
    together and decide what the spending priorities should be. We have all
    heard that an Advanced Hydrodynamics Facility should go to Los Alamos
    because the National Ignition Facility went to Lawrence Livermore. And,
    for these reasons, the X1 pulsed power facility should be funded for
    Sandia.
        Instead of competing for the best idea, or for the next stockpile
    weapon assignment, as was the practice during the Cold War, the labs
    are competing for major construction line items in the budget; and the
    competition is much like ``one for you, one for me.''
        It seems to be much less driven by what might be the best idea, or
    what might be the best way to proceed.
        For example, because of noise pollution and contamination of the
    ground water with explosive residues at Lawrence Livermore's Site 300
    high explosives test facility, a $100 million contained firing facility
    was built, even though this facility will never be permitted to test
    plutonium targets, one of the most important ingredients of the systems
    the facility was developed to test.
        The contained firing facility was built to respond to civilian
    encroachment around an inherently hazardous activity, but the proximity
    of civilian activities, and the very nature of the site, would never
    permit the most important activities associated with the purpose of the
    facility.
        Very similar arguments can be posed for the DAHRT hydrodynamics
    test facility at Los Alamos, thought by many to be the precursor to a
    necessary Advanced Hydrodynamics Facility.
        DAHRT is beset with environmental concerns that will, sooner or
    later, prohibit plutonium experiments.
        Plutonium experiments are critical to stockpile management, and it
    is quite likely that these sophisticated facilities, acquired through
    great effort and with great cost, will have to be duplicated at the
    Nevada Test Site, where plutonium experiments are permitted.
        In another speculative example, if the National Ignition Facility
    should succeed beyond our expectations, the experiments that could be
    performed will be denied because the Livermore site is not permitted to
    conduct experiments that generate such high neutron yields.
        I only point this out because the ignorance that causes many to
    question the potential success of the National Ignition Facility can
    cut both ways. NIF might work far better than we think, and then much
    of the investment will have to be duplicated elsewhere to take
    advantage of that success.
        If X1 is ever built, I think it will be built at the Nevada Test
    Site, and I commend Sandia Lab for its foresight in this regard.
        We want our national labs to compete, but we want the competition
    to be in the arena of ideas and concepts.
        To allow the competition to continue along the dollars and cents
    path is to encourage the labs to continue their foray into the world of
    advertising and marketing.
        The current path discourages objectivity by these most capable
    institutions, and loss of objectivity is only a short step away from
    complete loss of credibility.
        The Federal Government must reassert its role as referee of this
    competition by removing the financial incentive for major facility
    development that today is driving the labs, to their own detriment.
        It is time for the Federal Government to assure that these major
    investments are designed and sited to assure minimum cost, maximum
    effectiveness, and assured utility for their primary purpose.
        For example, what health and safety principles are going to govern
    where activities are located geographically? As you know, many of the
    facilities in the complex were originally sited in remote areas for
    safety reasons.
        A lot of these places are not so remote any more.
        How likely is it that we are still going to be experimenting with
    uranium, plutonium, tritium, or other unsafe or hazardous materials in
    close proximity to human populations ten or twenty years from now.
        I think we all know that the answer is ``Not very likely.''
        If these activities will have to be moved to more remote areas,
    then we should plan for that now rather than having to build facilities
    twice.
        We have a very real opportunity right now to build the nuclear
    weapon's stockpile infrastructure of the future, but I am not willing
    to write the first check if I cannot be convinced that the
    infrastructure plan is tightly wrapped to the long-term overall needs
    and requirements of the complex.
        General Gordon, I have tremendous respect for you and I do not envy
    you the job we have asked you to undertake here. If you can show me
    that your infrastructure needs are directly related to your future
    missions, then I will do everything I can to help you.

        Senator Reid. I came here late, knowing I would be late,
    knowing we have a vote at 11:00, mainly to indicate how
    important I feel this hearing is, and to indicate to anyone
    within the sound of my voice the confidence I have in General
    Gordon. I think that he, since taking this job, has kept you
    and I abreast of what is going on. I have been totally
    impressed with his administrative skills, and I have no doubt
    that we as a country are better today as a result of his
    stewardship.
        Of course, I am sorry I missed the Secretary's testimony. I
    always look forward to hearing and learning from you the great
    wisdom that you have about our Government.
        Other than that, I will talk to my staffers. I look forward
    to our continued cooperation.
        Dr. Schlesinger. May I comment in response to that?
        Senator Domenici. Sure.
        Dr. Schlesinger. Senator, as you know, this is the second
    of the three reports that we are assigned. Next year, we are
    going to turn to the question of the readiness of the nuclear
    test site which lies in your State to go to testing, and there
    are issues that must be decided by the policymakers of the
    Government. We probably could get off a test in a year's time,
    but it would be a very simple test, and the Congress and the
    administration working together will have to decide what degree
    of readiness they will want.
        We will make a report on the conditions for the renewal of
    nuclear testing, but the issue of how ready we must be is
    something that must be decided at the policy level.
        Senator Domenici. If there is nothing further, I want to
    also thank you again for appearing, and for what you did in
    preparing the report. Thank you, Dr. Schlesinger.
        Dr. Schlesinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                        ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

        [Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee received several
    statements which we will include in the record at this point.]

       Prepared Statement of C. Paul Robinson, Director, Sandia National
                                  Laboratories

                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
    for the opportunity to submit this written statement for the record of
    the hearing held today. I am Paul Robinson, director of Sandia National
    Laboratories. Sandia is managed and operated for the U.S. Department of
    Energy (DOE) by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of the Lockheed Martin
    Corporation.
        Sandia National Laboratories is a multiprogram laboratory of DOE
    and is one of the three National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
    laboratories with research and development responsibility for nuclear
    weapons. Sandia's job is the design, development, and certification of
    nearly all of the non-nuclear subsystems of nuclear weapons. Our
    responsibilities include arming, fuzing, and firing systems; safety,
    security, and use-control systems; engineering support for production
    and dismantlement of nuclear weapons; and surveillance and support of
    weapons in stockpile. We perform substantial work in programs closely
    related to nuclear weapons, such as nuclear intelligence,
    nonproliferation, and treaty verification technologies. As a
    multiprogram national laboratory, Sandia also performs research and
    development for DOE's energy offices, as well as work for other
    national security agencies when our unique capabilities can make
    significant contributions.
        I am pleased to comment on infrastructure management and planning
    at Sandia National Laboratories and the nuclear weapons complex as a
    whole. The infrastructure requirements for NNSA facilities are an
    important issue that must be properly managed for the benefit of all
    the vital elements of the NNSA complex. The infrastructure investment
    decisions we make today will determine whether the laboratories and
    plants can continue to conduct their stockpile stewardship
    responsibilities effectively in the years ahead.
                            infrastructure planning
        Sandia National Laboratories actively manages its infrastructure
    planning through a formal process that coordinates infrastructure
    initiatives to support mission requirements. Sandia's Corporate Sites
    Planning Process forms the basis for the actions proposed for a ten-
    year planning period. The key objective of the process is to integrate
    mission requirements with physical infrastructure capabilities in order
    to develop plans for our sites that are aligned with future mission
    requirements. This planning process is managed by an Infrastructure
    Council of senior executives through its subcommittee, the Corporate
    Sites Planning Council.
        Annually, the Corporate Sites Planning Council solicits
    requirements for mission and support activities, integrates those
    requirements with existing physical infrastructure capabilities and
    capacities, and proposes a list of specific prioritized actions and
    construction projects, including associated funding strategies, to the
    Infrastructure Council for approval. The Infrastructure Council
    approves requested construction projects and associated funding
    strategies based on a ten-year strategic vision. Sandia's funding
    sponsors provide final funding approval. The approved list becomes the
    Investment Funding Profile, which is an essential part of Sandia's
    Sites Comprehensive Plan.
        Overall infrastructure investment levels at Sandia have averaged
    $88 million annually. This investment includes maintenance, line-item
    and general plant projects, expense funded projects, seismic upgrades,
    demolition and decontamination of substandard facilities, major
    renovations, and restorations. Over the last five-year period, we
    invested an average of $10.5 million annually in infrastructure support
    systems (utilities, communications, roads, etc.). We pursue a goal of
    keeping our utility systems at 90 percent ``good'' condition and 100
    percent of required capacity. Current and planned efforts will help us
    achieve those goals for most systems within our ten-year planning
    period, provided that the required funding is made available.
        Sandia's Sites Comprehensive Plan represents our extensive yearly
    effort to develop and update both strategic and tactical plans for
    development and redevelopment of the physical infrastructure. Sandia's
    goal is to develop a five- to ten-year vision for infrastructure as a
    means of ensuring that the physical assets are adequate and responsive
    to Sandia's evolving mission requirements. Sandia's vision for the
    physical infrastructure system sets a common direction for which
    detailed tactical action plans and project activities are developed in
    line with near-term budget realities. Our Sites Comprehensive Planning
    Process helps ensure that the most critical elements of the plan, and
    ultimately the corporate vision for the physical infrastructure, remain
    intact within a constrained budget environment. The plan shows Sandia's
    progress toward the planning targets and the positive trend in moving
    toward established, long-term goals.
        Sandia has enhanced and expanded its physical infrastructure
    program and master planning activities in recent years. Sandia
    currently produces program plans supporting integration of line-item,
    general plant project, decontamination and demolition, major
    renovation, and restoration activities. This ``city planning''
    perspective deconflicts the process of locating major facilities and
    enables optimization of all our limited resources--land, time, and
    funding. The integrated program plans also utilize information gained
    from master plans such as our recently completed Telecommunications
    Infrastructure Master Plan and our Physical Security Infrastructure
    Master Plan, currently in development.
        These master plans will be updated periodically and new ones
    identified as needs arise. Sandia's continuing efforts to expand and
    integrate program and master planning activities support the overall
    goal of developing and maintaining an agile, flexible, and responsive
    physical infrastructure system in support of mission needs.
                        major infrastructure initiatives
        Sandia continues to plan for and invest in its infrastructure to
    meet the evolving mission requirements of DOE/NNSA. Several key line-
    item initiatives supporting the programmatic needs of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program are at the forefront of our infrastructure planning
    and execution.
    Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Application (MESA) Complex
        The Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Application (MESA)
    complex is the cornerstone of Sandia's initiative to address the need
    for microelectronic and integrated microsystems to support a
    certifiable stockpile for the future. MESA will provide essential
    facilities and equipment to enable teams of weapon system designers and
    microsystems specialists to design, integrate, and qualify components
    and subsystems for nuclear weapon system assemblies.
        Microelectronic components have long been critical to almost every
    DOE Defense Programs mission, initiative, and program. Such components
    have largely determined the reliability of weapon systems, the
    precision of weapon delivery to the target, and the operability of
    weapons in the severe environments encountered during delivery.
    Satellites that monitor compliance with international arms control
    agreements also require the special durability offered by the
    radiation-hardened microelectronics for which Sandia has
    responsibility.
        Components in deployed nuclear weapons are aging, and we will need
    to begin replacing some key components within the decade. In many
    cases, components cannot be replaced with replicas of the original
    designs because they are technologically obsolete and the supplier
    base, materials, and design tools to support them no longer exist.
    Sandia has no choice but to meet component replacement needs using new
    microsystem technology. In addition, Sandia must preserve critical
    capabilities in radiation-hardened microelectronics for defense and
    space hardware. In 1998 Congress authorized the National Defense
    Electronics Partnership which mandates that Sandia retain the
    institutional memory for radiation-hardening technology and sustain the
    supporting infrastructure for developing radiation-hardened
    microelectronics. MESA will provide the required infrastructure to meet
    this mandate for future decades.
    Facilities Supporting DOE's Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative
        Sandia plays a major role in DOE's Accelerated Strategic Computing
    Initiative (ASCI), which is the enabling technology supporting NNSA
    Defense Programs' Defense Applications and Modeling campaign. ASCI is
    developing the advances in computational science and technology that
    will enable the shift from test-based methods to computational methods
    for stockpile certification.
        Sandia will support ASCI with construction of two key facilities at
    its major laboratory sites: The Distributed Information Systems
    Laboratory (DISL) at Sandia's site in California will develop a
    distributed information systems infrastructure required for NNSA
    Defense Programs' Virtual Enterprise for Stockpile Stewardship and
    Stockpile Management. The Joint Computational Engineering Laboratory
    (JCEL) at Sandia's site in New Mexico will be a state-of-the-art
    facility for research, development, and application of high-performance
    computational and communications technologies.
    Test Capabilities Revitalization
        This construction line item will modernize Sandia's environmental
    testing and experimental infrastructure and associated diagnostic
    capabilities to perform tasks for weapons qualification, development,
    investigation, surveillance, and model validation. The project will
    renovate existing facilities or provide new facilities, subject to
    cost-benefit studies. It will provide NNSA with the experimental and
    test capabilities required to yield confidence in Accelerated Strategic
    Computing Initiative codes and maintain the enduring stockpile as part
    of the Stockpile Life Extension Program.
    Weapons Evaluation Testing Laboratory
        The Weapons Evaluation Testing Laboratory will replace a forty-
    year-old facility at NNSA's Pantex Plant. This new construction will
    provide a state-of-the-art facility for testing weapon component
    devices and implementing advanced diagnostic techniques developed by
    the enhanced surveillance campaign. This project is important for
    maintaining confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of
    the stockpile without nuclear testing.
    Other Infrastructure Line Items
        In addition to these major programmatic initiatives, there are two
    other line-item projects that are necessary for Sandia's institutional
    infrastructure. The first is the Storm Drain, Sanitary Sewer, and
    Domestic Water System Modernization, which is intended to rebuild or
    revitalize elements of the fundamental infrastructure at the
    laboratory. This project is half complete, but funding was withheld in
    fiscal year 2001 and allocated to other initiatives. The other project
    is the Exterior Communication Infrastructure Modernization (ECIM),
    which will replace communication systems in the oldest part of the
    laboratory to support modern computing and communications requirements.
    Z Accelerator Refurbishment
        DOE's Z Accelerator at Sandia National Laboratories provides
    critical experimental data to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Z
    produces over fifty times the x-ray energy and a factor of five more x-
    ray power than any existing, non-explosively driven, laboratory
    facility. It is a major resource for ensuring the safety, security, and
    reliability of the nation's stockpile. Sandia has an unfunded need to
    refurbish Z to extend its lifetime and improve its performance,
    reliability, and shot rate. Planned as a refurbishment rather than a
    new construction line item, the project will replace and upgrade
    fifteen-year-old hardware and will be accomplished within the existing
    Z building and facilities.
        In May 2000 an independent review committee chaired by Dr. Richard
    Garwin (Fellow Emeritus of IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center and a
    recipient of DOE's Fermi Award) and composed of experts from the
    nuclear weapons laboratories, Department of Defense (DOD), academia,
    and industry overwhelmingly endorsed both the programs and the
    refurbishment of Z: ``The Committee was unanimous in its belief that an
    incremental, cost-effective upgrade of Z . . . is worth pursuing.''
        The hardware outside the center module of the accelerator is a
    remnant of an older machine and is not sufficiently robust or optimized
    electrically for today's configuration. The demand for experimental
    time on Z greatly exceeds what we can provide. When the refurbishment
    is completed, Z will support significantly more experiments per year.
    The refurbishment will also yield higher quality experimental data from
    increased precision and reproducibility at even higher energies than
    the world-record levels that have already been attained by Z alone.
        With full support beginning in fiscal year 2002, refurbishment of
    this national asset can be completed by fiscal year 2005 at the
    comparatively modest cost of $60 million for design, procurement, and
    fabrication of hardware and equipment. DOE, DOD, Sandia's partners at
    Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, and scientists elsewhere will
    benefit from this investment. In particular, the refurbished Z will
    provide the following benefits to the Stockpile Stewardship Program:
      --Accurate material property data at higher pressures for weapon-
            relevant materials for four of the Stockpile Stewardship
            Program campaigns: Dynamic Materials Properties, Advanced
            Simulation and Computing, Secondary Certification, and Inertial
            Confinement Fusion;
      --An enhanced environment to evaluate radiation flow for the
            Secondary Certification Campaign;
      --More energetic radiation sources to test non-nuclear components for
            the Nuclear Survivability Campaign;
      --Insight and confidence in scaling parameters to a next-generation
            facility for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Campaign.
        Sandia National Laboratories will shortly submit a request to NNSA
    to commence the Z refurbishment project in fiscal year 2002.
            facilities and infrastructure revitalization initiative
        Like other sites across the NNSA complex, Sandia suffers from the
    effects of aging infrastructures in need of refurbishment, repair, or
    replacement that fall below the level of line-item construction and are
    insufficiently supported by general plant projects (GPP) or other
    infrastructure funding programs. Infrastructure problems at this level
    are chronically understated and deferred, and they accumulate with the
    passage of years. Ultimately, this can lead to capability limitations
    that can affect the mission.
        NNSA recognized that this problem area must be addressed, rather
    than be allowed to worsen. NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure
    Revitalization Initiative is an effort to inventory and prioritize
    unaddressed infrastructure repair and improvement projects across the
    complex. The initiative was intended to support an appropriation
    request of $300 million in fiscal year 2002 to help bridge the gap for
    essential infrastructure repairs that are unfunded. The multi-year
    effort would require a continuous infusion of funds on the order of
    $400-$600 million annually for the following five years.
        We identified approximately $300 million in items at Sandia
    National Laboratories that can benefit from Facilities and
    Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative funding during the course of
    the next few years. We submitted a list of thirty candidate projects
    for a recent inventory conducted by NNSA that can be effectively
    addressed in fiscal year 2002. The aggregate estimated cost of those
    items is $114 million. These projects would normally be funded through
    standard infrastructure programs such as GPP, maintenance, capital
    equipment, decontamination and demolition, and infrastructure planning,
    but they are perennially deferred for lack of sufficient funding. Some
    of these items were aggregated with line-item projects, but
    construction line items are subject to long lead times and are often
    delayed.
        Top priority items on our inventory for NNSA's Facilities and
    Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative are sufficiently urgent that
    failure to fund them soon will impact weapon program deliverables. For
    example, we have an urgent need to refurbish Building 983 which houses
    Sandia's Z Accelerator. The building's air handling system must be
    upgraded to provide control of airborne debris and consistent
    temperature control to maintain acceptable test conditions. Energy
    dissipation from accelerator shots has resulted in long-term structural
    damage that jeopardizes the operation of an overhead crane. The
    building's communications infrastructure and uninterrupted power supply
    system, as well as other building systems, must also be replaced.
    Certification of weapon component programs for the W76, B61, and W88
    could be affected by failure to address the Building 983 issues in a
    timely manner.
        Another priority item for the Facilities and Infrastructure
    Revitalization Initiative is Sandia's Electromagnetic Test Facility.
    The existing facility is deteriorating; its twenty-year-old diagnostic
    equipment has limited or no capability to support data acquisition for
    the development and validation of simulation codes. This modernization
    project will improve our capability to perform electromagnetic tests to
    qualify the W76, W78, and W80 in accordance with the Stockpile Life
    Extension Program (SLEP).
        NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative will
    perform a very important service to the Defense Programs mission if it
    succeeds in restoring the appropriate balance in funding for
    infrastructure improvements that are critical to sustaining mission
    capabilities. A carefully constructed Facilities and Infrastructure
    Initiative will help Sandia, and the rest of the Defense Programs
    complex, deal with longstanding infrastructure challenges. We must have
    a more viable Decontamination and Demolition Program to dispose of
    obsolete facilities; we must make a stronger commitment to major
    renovations and deferred maintenance; we must actively use General
    Plant Projects to maintain and revitalize our sites; and development
    planning must be enhanced and improved. Typically, a great deal of this
    kind of work is deferred to the out-years, although there is no
    guarantee that adequate funding will be available then. It is essential
    that additional infrastructure revitalization funding be made available
    if we are to maintain the laboratories at the level of capability
    necessary to support the Stockpile Stewardship Program and attract top
    technical staff.
                      infrastructure challenges and issues
        Sandia faces several challenges and issues related to
    infrastructure and infrastructure investment planning: lack of
    continuity in investment planning at the Defense Programs level;
    limited flexibility in investment funding strategies (including funding
    sources, amounts, allocations, and scheduling; aging facilities and
    site infrastructure; shortage of space both in quantity and type; and
    external events that affect infrastructure. The following paragraphs
    will give some perspective into each of these challenges.
    Lack of Continuity in Investment Planning at the Defense Programs Level
        In fiscal year 1999, DOE Defense Programs, its three laboratories,
    and the Nevada Test Site negotiated a phased investment plan for line-
    item construction projects. This ``Tri-Lab Agreement'' was intended to
    permit a logical implementation of the laboratories' projects over
    several years to the overall benefit of the program. (Major systems
    with total estimated cost exceeding $100 million were not covered by
    the agreement). Unfortunately, the Tri-Lab Agreement has not resulted
    in a predictable and consistent implementation of line-item
    investments.
        In the initial agreement, allocations for Sandia's Joint
    Computational Engineering Laboratory (JCEL) in New Mexico and
    Distributed Information Systems Laboratory (DISL) in California were
    deferred for a year to enable Los Alamos National Laboratory to move
    forward with its Strategic Computing Center. Those deferrals created
    challenges in the execution of Sandia's projects, requiring significant
    shuffling of planned scope, sub-optimum contracting arrangements,
    increased costs, and undesirable delays. Then, in the planning cycle of
    the following year, DOE again deferred the construction starts for JCEL
    and DISL.
        We have a concern that the next budget may contain insufficient
    funds to permit new construction starts in fiscal year 2002. If that
    happens, Sandia's JCEL and DISL projects will be deferred yet again to
    subsequent years. Insufficient funding would also jeopardize the
    construction start for Sandia's major system project, the Microsystems
    and Engineering Sciences Application (MESA) complex, which is the
    cornerstone of our initiative to address the need for microelectronic
    and integrated microsystems to support a certifiable stockpile for the
    future. The Weapons Evaluation Testing Lab modernization at NNSA's
    Pantex Plant, which is of great importance to Defense Programs'
    Enhanced Surveillance Campaign, could also be affected, as well as
    NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure Revitalization Initiative. If
    construction starts are not adequately funded in fiscal year 2002, the
    magnitude of the line-item funding delays affecting Sandia would be
    such that we would lose another year in the construction schedule,
    incur unplanned costs to hold projects in idle status, and suffer
    reduced purchasing power due to cost escalation.
        Experience demonstrates that if fiscal year 2002 is underfunded,
    there would be no assurance that adequate funds would be supplied in
    fiscal year 2003 to permit deferred construction projects to start.
    When this uncertainty is considered in conjunction with needs of other
    projects, such as the funding requirements of large systems like the
    National Ignition Facility, a loss of funding for construction starts
    in fiscal year 2002 would very likely cause project delays well beyond
    one year.
        Sandia National Laboratories, having previously agreed to postpone
    line-item funding with the. expectation of a return to a normal
    allocation in fiscal year 2002, may again be in a position of deferring
    its construction program for the benefit of other major facility
    projects. The result is not only the delay of start-ups for needed
    mission capabilities at Sandia, but also a net reduction of NNSA's
    capital investment purchasing power attributable to the delays,
    ultimately resulting in reductions of scope for crucial investments in
    the stockpile management and production sectors of the complex.
        As I have indicated previously in other forums, I am not sure
    whether the problem is too little budget or too much program. I am
    concerned that the allocations within the Defense Programs
    infrastructure budget may not be balanced with respect to urgent needs
    in stockpile design, management, and production. The investment program
    for line-item construction must be prudently managed to provide for the
    needs of all sectors of the NNSA Defense Programs complex. We must find
    a way to fund our strategic infrastructure investments at a pace that
    will bring them into useful service without impacting our ability to
    perform needed stockpile work, such as weapons engineering, stockpile
    surveillance and support, maintenance, dismantlement, production
    support, and especially stockpile life extension programs.
    Limited and Inflexible Funding Strategies
        Limited investment funding strategies constrain our ability to meet
    our infrastructure challenges. The three nuclear weapon laboratories
    are about fifty years old, and there is not enough funding to meet all
    their infrastructure needs at once. Thoughtful planning will be
    necessary to revitalize the current infrastructure while maintaining
    capability.
        Limited flexibility in funding causes delays in revitalization and
    other unintended consequences, such as spending money on a renovation
    that would be better spent on building a new facility. We have been
    hampered by the lack of flexibility in the use of indirect funding for
    capital improvements. We have also been discouraged by the lack of
    funding and flexibility in maintaining a decontamination and demolition
    program robust enough to keep up with required demolition of obsolete
    facilities.
        As a multiprogram laboratory, Sandia has many investment issues
    looming on the horizon, and as we become a more programmatically
    diversified lab, we will need to explore how new sponsors can assume
    some ownership for investments required to support emerging programs.
    Initiatives to increase flexibility for financing investments with
    multiple funding sources and types of funding would help us more
    quickly address the infrastructure issue.
        Due to the volatility in construction budget planning, major
    infrastructure investments are not always made in the most cost-
    effective manner. Often, work must be sequenced inefficiently to
    conform to inflexible funding profiles. Funding for escalation is not
    generally provided when projects are delayed from a contracted baseline
    or when additional requirements are mandated as a result of independent
    reviews, security directives, and so forth. These factors reduce the
    buying power of funds, thereby exacerbating the problem of limited
    funding for infrastructure.
    Aging Facilities
        Like other sites across the nuclear weapons complex, Sandia suffers
    from the effects of aging infrastructure. This affects Sandia's ability
    to attract and retain personnel, increases operating costs, impacts our
    ability to meet security and ES&H requirements, and results in a lack
    of agility and flexibility to meet evolving mission needs.
    Approximately 45 percent of all our buildings are at least thirty years
    old, and many of the utilities serving them are beyond their useful
    life.
        Many of these buildings and systems carry legacies that today's
    environmental, safety, and health regulations do not permit in new
    facilities. Fire protection systems and water lines are deteriorating,
    with potential risks for health, safety, and asset protection. Out-of-
    date communications systems in older buildings are costly to operate
    and cannot satisfy the capacity demands of the modern workplace.
    Operations and maintenance costs are increasing for outdated energy,
    building, and security system repairs because parts are often no longer
    available. Much new program equipment requires cleaner, better
    temperature-controlled, more modern environments that are not possible
    in older facilities.
    Space Management Issues
        Space at Sandia is currently a scarce commodity. In addition to
    growth in programs, some of our space challenges are the result of
    changes over the last decade in how people work. Technological advances
    in computing and simulation have moved much of the work out of
    laboratories into offices. Consequently, offices require more space per
    person to accommodate computers, printers, and other devices. New
    concepts in work environments such as informal hallway meeting areas,
    teleconferencing and multi-purpose conferencing centers, and open areas
    for working with industry and universities are becoming more important
    to the productivity and success of programs. Increased security
    requirements have also challenged our ability to provide appropriate
    work space.
        Sandia is desperate for new space: 96 percent of our available work
    space is occupied (industry guidelines recommend a 92 percent occupancy
    rate to allow for needed flexibility). The vacant office space that is
    available for use is just 9,500 square feet scattered throughout the
    laboratory in 53 different temporary buildings. Some buildings are over
    100 percent occupied, meaning that more employees are housed in the
    building than was intended by the design. There is not enough space
    outside our secure technical areas to house newly hired employees
    awaiting clearances. Turnaround space to support our renovation program
    is also insufficient.
        Sandia's space dilemma makes it difficult to attract and retain
    personnel and to quickly respond to new or changing mission directions.
    Effects of External Events
        Many factors outside Sandia's control affect the cost and operation
    of infrastructure. Sandia's utility planning has been complicated by a
    number of events, including divestiture and privatization of portions
    of Kirtland Air Force Base and other local development issues. We share
    the capacity of a central steam plant with Kirtland at our New Mexico
    site, but the Air Force has indicated that it plans to construct a new
    heating system for its own use. When that occurs, Sandia will bear the
    total cost of the antiquated, fifty-year-old steam plant, which is
    inefficient and expensive to operate. A complete system replacement
    will be needed at some point in the next few years to replace the steam
    plant with a new heating system and replace deteriorated steam lines.
        Commercial and residential developments adjacent to the California
    and New Mexico sites are jeopardizing buffer zones and impinging on the
    possible uses of DOE land for programs. We may be forced to relocate or
    limit some of our activities depending on their proximity to
    residential areas. Deregulation of electric utilities has already
    affected energy costs and availability at the California site and may
    become an issue in the future at the New Mexico site.
                             summary and conclusion
        Sandia National Laboratories actively manages its infrastructure
    planning through a formal process that coordinates infrastructure
    initiatives to support mission requirements. We plan our requirements
    to meet the strategic mission needs of the National Nuclear Security
    Administration. Sandia's leading strategic mission requirement for the
    stockpile stewardship program is the Micro-systems and Engineering
    Sciences Application (MESA) complex, which will provide essential
    facilities and equipment to support the design, integration, and
    qualification of components and subsystems for nuclear weapon system
    assemblies.
        The infrastructure requirements for NNSA facilities must be
    properly managed for the benefit of all the vital elements of the NNSA
    complex. In this regard, NNSA's Facilities and Infrastructure
    Revitalization Initiative can perform a very important service to the
    Defense Programs mission if it succeeds in restoring balance in
    addressing infrastructure needs across the complex. We face several
    challenges and issues related to infrastructure and infrastructure
    investment planning, but chief among them is the lack of continuity and
    predictability in investment planning at the line-item level. NNSA's
    infrastructure investments must be prudently managed to provide a
    balanced program supporting the needs of all the sectors of the Defense
    Programs complex.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of C. Bruce Tarter, Director, Lawrence Livermore
                 National Laboratory, University of California

                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide a statement on this very important issue. I am
    C. Bruce Tarter, Director of the Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory, one of the three National Nuclear Security Administration
    (NNSA) national laboratories. We carry out an integral part of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the safety and reliability of
    the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing.
        Stockpile stewardship is a very demanding program to meet a vital
    national interest. It is requiring major investments in new facilities
    and capabilities that make it possible for scientists and engineers to
    much more thoroughly understand the performance of nuclear weapons. At
    Livermore, these investments have led to delivery of Accelerated
    Strategic Computing Initiative supercomputers (Blue Pacific and ASCI
    White, as well as plans for a third-generation machine), upgrade of our
    hydrodynamic test facility to become the Contained Firing Facility, and
    construction of the National Ignition Facility, which is under way. The
    Stockpile Stewardship Program will not succeed without the new-facility
    investments that are being made at the NNSA laboratories. Scheduled
    programmatic work at the laboratories and the plants has also placed an
    exceedingly high demands on provided funding. The cumulative effect of
    necessary continuing attention to the highest and most immediate
    priorities over the course of the Stockpile Stewardship Program has
    been shortage of funds to recapitalize NNSA's underlying
    infrastructure.
        A major increase in investments is needed to deal with aging NNSA
    facilities throughout the nuclear weapons complex--affecting workplace
    quality and, in cases, severely limiting productivity. Over the years,
    the Laboratory has depended on our having special facilities and
    equipment in an accommodating work environment to attract and retain an
    exceptional staff. Sustaining the quality of our workforce is a
    particularly challenging task in view of the high demand in the private
    sector for skilled people. The task is made more difficult by the
    continued aging of our facilities without major reinvestment. The
    situation at our Laboratory and other NNSA sites cannot be rectified
    without substantial new funding to revitalize the NNSA nuclear weapons
    complex--the laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production
    sites. My testimony focuses on three major points about
    recapitalization of the NNSA weapons complex:
      --Investments are needed complex wide.--NNSA has assessed that
            funding requirements for facilities are about $1.3 billion per
            year, while the current funding averages about $650 million per
            year--a significant shortfall that is a consequence of the many
            competing high-priority demands on the Stockpile Stewardship
            Program. The necessary repair or replacement of antiquated NNSA
            facilities will require a sustained program of new investments.
      --Livermore is prepared to wisely and efficiently implement
            additional investments in its infrastructure.--To effectively
            manage the Laboratory's aging infrastructure, we have in place
            a well-tested methodology for prioritizing recapitalization
            investments, and we have demonstrated cost-effective approaches
            for dealing with aging facilities. To make significant headway
            on reducing a backlog of deficiencies, we need more funding.
      --Complex-wide investment planning will be challenging.--We are
            providing input and support to NNSA's Facilities and
            Infrastructure Recapitalization Plan. The planning efforts must
            balance priorities and take into account the long-term facility
            needs of all sites--a major challenge in view of dynamic future
            requirements for refurbishment and production.
               the need for nnsa infrastructure recapitalization
        The NNSA Weapon Complex's Aging Infrastructure.--To meet the
    demanding goals of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the NNSA
    laboratories must thoroughly understand the physics and engineering
    performance of weapons based on non-nuclear experimentation and
    computer simulation. That, in turn, requires leading-edge research and
    development facilities at the laboratories and the Nevada Test Site. In
    parallel, NNSA's production facilities must support requirements to
    extend the lifetime of weapons currently in the stockpile and to meet
    any future needs for production of new weapons. Refurbishment and
    production activities need to be conducted safely, efficiently, and in
    an environmentally responsible manner.
        Many mission-supporting facilities at the laboratories' sites are
    nearly fifty years old or older. Some need replacement immediately. The
    others are particularly demanding for maintenance to keep them
    adequate, and over time, all need rehabilitation or replacement. At
    Livermore, only 60 percent of our employees currently reside in
    permanent space, and 70 percent of the temporary office space (trailers
    and other temporary structures) is nearing or beyond end of service
    life. Such working conditions are not conducive to retaining and
    attracting the exceptional workforce that we need to accomplish our
    mission.
        The situation is dire at the production sites. Many production
    facilities are outmoded with antiquated equipment. Activities have
    ceased in some areas because of safety and health concerns, and in
    other areas, such as the manufacture of weapon pits, there are no
    existing production-scale capabilities. The pace of work on the W87
    Life Extension Program is being limited by conditions in the plants.
    The challenge will be even greater with the planned growth over the
    next decade in the amount of life-extension work.
        Recognition of the Problem.--NNSA and Defense Programs within NNSA
    (NNSA/DP) clearly recognize the problem, and they are working to
    improve management of the NNSA infrastructure. A particularly
    noteworthy step was taken in 1999 with the development of a new
    management strategy that features ``Readiness in Technical Base and
    Facilities'' as one of the three major integrating elements in the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program (``Directed Stockpile Work'' and
    ``Campaigns'' are the other two). The revised program strategy,
    implemented in response to evolving demands, recasts the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program into a set of activities that more clearly
    establish program goals and budget priorities and helps to identify
    program risks if there are budget shortfalls. Readiness in Technical
    Base and Facilities requires investments to be made in people, special
    facilities, and supporting infrastructure to conduct the program today
    and to have in place the needed capabilities as more challenging issues
    arise in the future.
        In December 1999, ``The 30-Day Review'' of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program, conducted for the Secretary of Energy, stated in
    its findings that ``DP faces significant challenges in the next decade
    with regard to the facilities and infrastructure needed to preserve the
    U.S. nuclear deterrent.'' In particular, the study cited findings by
    the Department of Defense (DOD) Comptroller's Office of Program
    Analysis and Evaluation that DOE's rate of reinvestment in facilities
    (0.8 percent of replacement value) is less than the norm of industry
    and the DOD (2 to 4 percent of replacement value). The 30-Day Review
    also reported that 70 percent of the facilities at Y-12, 80 percent of
    the facilities at the Kansas City Plant, 50 percent of the facilities
    at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 40 percent of the facilities at
    Pantex, and 40 percent of the Savannah River tritium facilities are
    more than 40 years old. At Livermore, about 30 percent of our space is
    more than 40 years old.
        The aging of the NNSA weapons complex was also a focus of concern
    in the Foster Panel report of February 1, 2001 (Fiscal Year 2000 Report
    to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and
    Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile). One of the panel's
    major recommendations is to ``restore missing production capabilities
    and refurbish the production complex.'' The report states that ``NNSA
    must plan and execute a ten-year program to restore needed production
    capabilities'' and cites a DOE estimate that the maintenance backlog is
    $700-$800 million. A recent General Accounting Office report (Nuclear
    Weapons: Improved Management Needed to Implement Stockpile Stewardship
    Program Effectively, December 2000) also provides many examples of
    antiquated facilities within the weapons complex.
        The NNSA/DP Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative.--Motivated
    by the findings of The 30-Day Review, NNSA/DP launched a concerted
    effort to improve facilities and infrastructure management by
    instituting better processes for strategic planning, budgeting, and
    execution. The goal was to develop an NNSA/DP Facilities and
    Infrastructure Management Plan through a corporate approach to the
    problem and to institutionalize the processes that were implemented. We
    are fully supportive of the effort, and our Laboratory and other sites
    in the complex are contributing to it.
        During the first phase of the effort, planning activities focused
    on reviewing assessments of the condition of the complex and
    establishing an integrated baseline of costs for facilities and
    infrastructure upgrades. In short, NNSA/DP assessed that funding
    requirements are about $1.3 billion per year, while the current funding
    averages about $650 million per year--a significant shortfall. The
    shortfall means that current funding for the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program is not sufficient to restore the health of the weapons complex.
    New monies are needed to prevent further deterioration of the complex
    and over time, restoring it to better health. The NNSA/DP
    Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative is intended to provide much
    needed funds for facility maintenance and restoration, general plant
    projects, capital equipment, and decontamination and demolition of
    legacy facilities.
            the situation at lawrence livermore national laboratory
        The Needs for Recapitalization at Livermore.--We strive for a work
    environment at Livermore that attracts top-notch employees, enhances
    workforce productivity, and helps ensure programmatic success. This
    requires modern facilities at the Laboratory, designed and sized for
    current and future operations and well maintained at competitive costs.
    A core strength of Livermore is its unique, state-of-the-art research
    facilities, but we also have many aging facilities. A poignant example
    is provided by the delivery of Accelerated Strategic Computing
    Initiative (ASCI) Blue Pacific, at the time the world's most powerful
    supercomputer. We had to repair the leaky roof of the building in which
    the machine was to be housed.
        Overall, 14 percent of Livermore's office and laboratory space is
    in need of major rehabilitation and nearly 30 percent of the space is
    in need of minor rehabilitation. Older facilities typically are more
    expensive to maintain and usually have higher costs associated with
    safe and healthy operations. Our overall maintenance backlog is about
    $330 million if funded with programmatic dollars. In addition, our
    requirements for space are changing. Livermore's mission increasingly
    demands greater computational capabilities and high-technology office
    buildings rather than experimental laboratory space. Other than funding
    for line-item construction of major new facilities, since the mid-1990s
    our infrastructure reinvestments have been in the range of $25 to 50
    million per year in programmatic dollars for a site with a plant
    replacement value of $3.1 billion. We need additional funding to reduce
    the backlog and/or construct replacement facilities.
        Reduction of the maintenance backlog is not the only issue we face.
    Obsolescent equipment needs to be replaced. For example, the Laboratory
    struggles to keep pace with rapid advances in telecommunications
    capabilities, which are critically needed to efficiently and securely
    use our supercomputers and to upgrade our business operations. In
    addition, the Laboratory has legacy facilities from long-discontinued
    programs as well as outdated and unusable or unsafe laboratory space
    that must be decommissioned, decontaminated (where necessary), and
    demolished. Livermore's legacy facilities and other excess marginal
    space require considerable up-front investments to rectify. Finally, we
    also have to invest so that buildings at Livermore meet present-day
    codes and the latest, more demanding seismic safety criteria. Executive
    Order 12941 required a reassessment of Laboratory facilities. We found
    that 83 buildings (not exempt from the order) may be deficient with
    respect to the seismic safety evaluation criteria and require more
    detailed study. We have completed detailed evaluations of six (of eight
    identified) high-priority buildings, complete with conceptual design of
    upgrades and cost estimates to mitigate deficiencies.
        Effective Processes for Prioritizing Investments and Managing Aging
    Facilities.--One of the findings of The 30-Day Review is that the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program is under considerable stress, and one of
    the consequences has been lower-than-historic levels of funding for
    infrastructure line items and general plant projects, particularly
    since the mid-1990s. The Laboratory has had to attend to our
    infrastructure needs through internal investments. We have pursued a
    strategy that balances maintenance of mission-critical aging
    facilities, rehabilitation of older facilities, consolidation of
    activities as mission priorities change, and efficient management of
    legacy facilities.
        In the same time period, Livermore launched a Cost Cutting
    Initiative to lower indirect costs through identification and pursuit
    of opportunities to re-engineer many operations functions. Success in
    that initiative lowered our overhead and support expenses from about 33
    percent of operating costs in fiscal year 1995 to less than 25 percent
    in fiscal year 1999. We have reinvested some of the cost savings in the
    Laboratory's infrastructure. To ensure effective investment of limited
    funds, I appointed an Institutional Facility Manager (IFM) in 1997. The
    IFM serves as the focal point for developing and implementing a long-
    term strategy for managing facility and infrastructure investments at
    Livermore.
        The Laboratory has since become more effective in aligning
    infrastructure investments to mission priorities and in meeting
    essential institutional demands. In fact, a recent General Accounting
    Office study of facilities management in the Department of Defense
    (Military Infrastructure: Real Property Management Needs Improvement,
    September 1999) cited the approach used at Livermore for property
    management as a set of practices that should be used much more widely.
    Because of this external recognition, the Laboratory has hosted visits
    from several military organizations to assist their efforts in finding
    ways to improve their maintenance management. More recently, we have
    entered into a dialogue with Los Alamos to share mutually beneficial
    processes.
        To better manage the maintenance backlog, we developed and continue
    to refine a planning process for work prioritization based on two
    important criteria. One, the importance of the backlog item to
    accomplishment of the programmatic mission is determined by
    programmatic input, while the second criteria, probability of failure
    of the backlog item is assessed by Laboratory maintenance personnel.
    Projects that rank highest in both criteria are ``A list'' items that
    require immediate attention. The top three categories, which comprise
    all items that should be addressed within three years, constitute the
    Laboratory's Essential Backlog, representing approximately 20 percent
    of the total backlog. The process assures that the most essential items
    are addressed with planned expenditures of Laboratory Facility Charges,
    which are levied on building ``owners'' to support maintenance costs.
        We use our Facility Assessment and Ranking System (FAaRS) to select
    facility candidates for rehabilitation or removal. To meet the
    Laboratory's office space needs, we are rehabilitating older facilities
    identified through FAaRS as being fundamentally sound and possible to
    return to ``good'' condition cost effectively. In this connection, we
    are pursuing innovative methods for renovation. For example, a recent
    pilot project brought one of our World War II-era building complexes
    with over 100 offices up to good condition (an additional 15 years of
    life) at a very affordable cost.
        Similarly, we completed in fiscal year 1999 a pilot project
    demonstrating a new approach for safe and cost-effective demolition of
    contaminated (chemistry) facilities. There were no incidents, injuries,
    or lost/restricted workdays in this project, which included a thorough
    implementation of Integrated Safety Management as part of the work
    plan. Through the use of state-of-the-art sampling, near-real-time
    chemical and radiological analysis, and highly precise removal of
    contaminants, we were able to minimize radioactive and conventional
    hazardous wastes and significantly reduce the cost of this
    decontamination and demolition (D&D) project.
        Additional Funding Needed.--Through the use of the prioritization
    methods and innovative rehabilitation and D&D processes we have
    piloted, the Laboratory has in place effective means for managing its
    infrastructure--but we do not have enough funding to make headway at
    reducing accumulated problems. Accordingly, our input into NNSA/DP's
    Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative totals $65.8 million for
    fiscal year 2002, with $38.2 million for high priority items. Some of
    the 12 high-priority maintenance, general plant projects, capital
    equipment items include replacement of electrical power systems in
    aging facilities, a number of building renovation projects, and
    investments in High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters to more
    effectively ensure that our high environmental standards continue to be
    met. Two other high priority projects include a D&D project and a
    scoping and design study for rehabilitation of a major building complex
    at our site.
               meeting the long-term needs of the weapons complex
        The NNSA weapons complex will not be able to make headway on its
    deficiencies in facilities and infrastructure without adequate multi-
    year funding for the Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative. An
    infusion of new dollars is vitally important, and processes have been
    developed at our Laboratory--and complex-wide through NNSA/DP's
    Infrastructure and Facilities Management Plan--to ensure that the funds
    are applied to meet the highest priority, integrated needs of NNSA. The
    immediate needs of each of the sites have been identified in the
    integrated plans for fiscal year 2002, and problems will only grow if
    funding is not forthcoming.
        In developing the overall Infrastructure and Facilities Plan and
    the new initiative, NNSA/DP has accomplished three particularly
    important objectives. First, the effort substantiated assessments of
    the condition of the weapons complex and estimates of the size of the
    shortfall in funding for facilities and infrastructure. That work
    provides the basis for the proposed funding for the Infrastructure
    Recapitalization Initiative. Second, the plan provides a complex-wide
    integrated list of priority work that needs to begin immediately,
    together with projected costs. Finally, an effective planning process
    was developed and implemented that can be used and continually improved
    upon in future years. That is important because understanding the
    detailed needs for the production facilities and laboratories is a
    dynamic process.
        The development of detailed plans on how to modernize facilities to
    most effectively support the research and production needs of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program is a challenge. Plans for the
    laboratories and the Nevada Test Site are closely linked to the
    program's campaign strategy and are fairly well mapped out. The
    situation is far more dynamic for the production facilities, where
    requirements depend on the size of the stockpile, estimates of when
    weapon components have to be refurbished or replaced, and details about
    life-extension programs that have to be worked with the DOD. Hence, it
    is important that the laboratories be fully engaged in the planning
    process--contributing to the establishment of requirements, development
    of feasible work schedules, and consideration of new production
    processes. We are also contributing to the planning methodology by
    offering the lessons learned from our experiences.
                                summary remarks
        Stockpile stewardship is a very demanding program to meet a vital
    national interest. It is requiring major investments in new facilities
    and capabilities that make it possible for experts to much more
    thoroughly understand the performance of nuclear weapons. Scheduled
    programmatic work has also placed an exceedingly high demands on
    provided funding. The cumulative effect has been shortage of funds to
    recapitalize NNSA's underlying infrastructure. Substantial new
    investments are needed to upgrade facilities and infrastructure
    throughout the NNSA nuclear weapons complex. The new funding for a
    multi-year Infrastructure Recapitalization Initiative will enable NNSA
    to deal with a significant shortfall of monies so that antiquated
    existing facilities can be repaired or replaced. At Livermore, we have
    pressing needs for recapitalization of facilities through investments,
    which are prioritized by a well-tested methodology. In addition, we
    have demonstrated cost-effective methods for dealing with aging
    facilities--whether appropriate action be rehabilitation or
    decontamination and demolition. We need these improvements to aid in
    attracting and retaining exceptional staff.
        Through the development of a Facility and Infrastructure Management
    Plan, NNSA/DP has put into place a planning process to integrate and
    prioritize complex-wide needs. We support that planning process, and
    the Laboratory will help NNSA/DP to continually improve the process and
    to better understand the long-term needs of the complex, which will
    evolve as we better understand the needs of the stockpile.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of John C. Browne, Director, Los Alamos National
                                   Laboratory

                               laboratory mission
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement on the
    infrastructure needs at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Laboratory
    is one of three multi-program scientific institutions supported by the
    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in the Department of
    Energy. We are managed by the University of California and our mission
    is to
      --Ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons
            stockpile
      --Reduce threats to U.S. security with a focus on weapons of mass
            destruction
      --Provide technical solutions to national security problems in
            energy, environment, infrastructure, and health.
                            statement of the problem
        The entire nuclear weapons complex managed by the DOE/NNSA--the
    production plants and laboratories--is faced with serious aging
    problems that threaten our ability to carry out the stockpile
    stewardship mission. To continue to work effectively on these DOE/NNSA
    missions, our Laboratory needs outstanding scientists and engineers
    working in state-of-the art facilities. Unfortunately, our facilities
    have deteriorated badly. Buildings, roads, sewer systems, electrical
    power grid and other critical infrastructure are approaching fifty
    years old and are crumbling at an alarming rate. The ability to conduct
    our programmatic mission is clearly at stake. A dedicated
    revitalization effort is crucial for the long-term viability of this
    Laboratory.
                                   background
        Major segments of the Laboratory, and indeed the entire NNSA
    weapons complex, were constructed for Cold War missions in the 1950's
    and 1960's. Over half of Los Alamos National Laboratory's 2000-plus
    structures are greater than 40 years old and require significantly
    increased levels of funding for sustainability, including safety,
    maintenance and energy use. Many of the older facilities were built
    prior to the adoption of modern design and energy consumption codes and
    standards. Many of these aging facilities are becoming ineffective in
    serving ongoing mission needs. Approximately 40 percent of all
    Laboratory funding supports facilities, infrastructure, or
    construction. While the Laboratory is committed to safe and secure
    operation of all facilities, these costs are becoming disproportionate
    relative to program funding. These facilities have served the
    Laboratory well but now need significant rehabilitation or replacement
    to reverse this trend. The figure below shows a building condition
    analysis.

        The result of not addressing these aging and failing facilities
    will be decreased reliability and effectiveness, undesirable conditions
    for staff recruiting and retention, increased maintenance and utility
    costs, and ultimately failure of the facilities and failure or delay to
    execute our assigned tasks. While the Laboratory will continue to
    operate facilities only if they are safe and secure, we are running
    many facilities to failure. At the present state of affairs, we cannot
    assure sustainability of our facilities to fulfill our mission.
                             statement of solutions
        We believe that there are three distinct areas that must be
    addressed in order to ensure infrastructure sustainability to meet our
    mission. Those three areas include:
      --1. Implementing formal facilities consolidation efforts and cost
            reduction initiatives to reduce facility footprints, which in
            turn reduces operating costs and improves safety, security, and
            scientific interactions;
      --2. Addressing unfunded high-priority facility maintenance backlogs
            before these backlogs become expensive emergency repairs; and
      --3. Investing in new construction projects, where appropriate and
            economically feasible, to ensure that the Laboratory can meet
            programmatic mission needs over the next twenty to forty years.
        Each of the areas identified above requires commitments to achieve
    positive results. The return on investment can be realized through
    reduced operating costs (maintenance and energy) and increased
    technical productivity to achieve mission requirements. In addition,
    each area addresses safety and security needs and allows Laboratory
    facilities to be sustainable over the next 20 to 40 years. Our planning
    efforts in these three areas are in different phases of development.
    Some projects have validated costs while other projects are in
    conceptual development; their costs will be validated using the
    established NNSA procedures.
    1. Formal Facilities Consolidation and Cost Reduction Initiatives
        Our Cold War era facilities, while robust for the times, no longer
    effectively address today's mission. Present facilities are larger than
    now required, inefficient to operate, and in need of significant--often
    urgent--maintenance and repair. The best solution is a set of new
    facilities with a smaller footprint, and the rehabilitation and
    modernization of existing facilities where feasible, with attention to
    more energy efficient design and better operability for mission
    requirements. Consolidation plans at Los Alamos include:
      --A $60M investment to consolidate our weapons engineering division,
            yielding a reduction of 30 percent space or 300,000 sq. ft.
            within its organization. Implementation of the plan would
            result in facility operations savings of $12M/year, in addition
            to improved safety, security, and scientific interactions.
            Other technical divisions at Los Alamos are completing similar
            plans, with comparable investments and savings.
      --Weapons supporting science activities consolidation. This project
            purpose is to consolidate the majority of scientists and
            capabilities working on supporting research, in areas such as
            materials, computations, chemistry, and physics, into modern
            laboratory and high-tech office facilities. More efficient
            designs, smaller footprints, and consolidation of programmatic
            needs will result in better operability for mission
            requirements, decreased maintenance requirements, and improved
            space utilization, productivity, and energy-efficiency.
    2. Addressing Unfunded High-Priority Facility Maintenance Backlogs
        The current overall state of Los Alamos facilities is well below
    acceptable national standards. Close to half of current Los Alamos
    space is rated in the ``poor'' or ``fail'' condition. The costs
    associated with maintaining aging facilities is growing at a faster
    rate than budgets. A backlog of unfunded, urgent corrective maintenance
    continues to grow at Los Alamos. Maintenance efforts will be focused
    only on those facilities that will continue to operate after the
    consolidation is complete. However, even with the implementation of
    serious consolidation efforts identified above, the backlog of unfunded
    maintenance must be addressed. Within our existing budget guidance, we
    are not able to address this expanding list of unfunded maintenance on
    aging facilities. We have been able to complete only the most urgent
    and most serious emergency repairs. There are many top-priority
    maintenance projects that need to be completed, but we have not been
    successful in obtaining funding to address all of these needs.
        A formal identification, planning, and prioritization effort has
    been implemented at LANL to identify the most urgent needs. While many
    of these identified concerns await funding, they become more costly as
    vulnerable situations turn into emergency conditions. Los Alamos has
    identified needs of $100M annually of urgent maintenance funding that
    must be addressed over a 5-6 year period to address the bow-wave of
    backlog concerns. These requests have been included within the NNSA/DP
    Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) Initiative. The nation needs to
    address critical F&I needs in the entire Nuclear Weapons Complex with a
    new, dedicated, multi-year, complex-wide revitalization program.
    3. Investing in New Construction Projects
        Over the past several years, Los Alamos has developed a long-range
    site plan to address many of the problems we face. We continue to
    update these efforts annually as facility condition assessments are
    reviewed, and as infrastructure needs are identified, addressed, or
    completed. Where appropriate and economically feasible, to ensure that
    LANL can meet programmatic mission needs over the next twenty to forty
    years, the NNSA should invest in new construction. Even with
    consolidation efforts and maintenance backlog work-off, it is clear
    that it is not economically feasible to extend the life of all
    facilities. Those facilities should be replaced that are becoming
    ineffective in serving ongoing missions, or no longer meet current
    standards for operations, safety, and/or security.
        A formal, risk-based prioritization method developed by Los Alamos
    planners is used to determine the ranking of proposed projects. This
    prioritization looks at programmatic requirements, safety requirements,
    security requirements, overall institutional need, and links to
    existing plans, capabilities, and requirements within the DOE complex.
    This prioritization method was used to develop the scope of the
    rehabilitation effort needed in response to the Cerro Grande Fire in
    May 2000.
        New construction projects would be managed utilizing formal project
    management tools such as baselining and change control. Our recent
    positive experience with new construction at LANL has established
    working relationships with industry that would be followed in any
    future projects. The new construction projects required to meet the
    stockpile stewardship mission at LANL are:
      --Central Laboratory Site Revitalization--Total $138M (validated).--
            Our planning effort identified two new construction projects
            that address existing life safety issues, high operations
            costs, high maintenance costs, and security concerns at the
            most populated site at Los Alamos. The existing facilities that
            house nuclear weapon designers, supporting scientists,
            laboratory administration, environmental health and safety
            personnel, and the Laboratory health clinic are 50 years old
            and in poor condition. Due to the age of the facility
            infrastructure, there are electrical system risks, mechanical
            system failure, high energy costs, high maintenance costs, and
            limited system reliability. The estimate includes the
            construction of new facilities, in addition to the
            decommissioning and demolishing of vulnerable facilities within
            this core technical area at Los Alamos.
      --Integrated Nuclear Materials Complex--Total $550M (still in
            conceptual phase, cost not validated).--This plan consolidates
            LANL nuclear materials facilities to meet existing mission
            requirements within a single security boundary at Technical
            Area 55 (Plutonium Facility) at Los Alamos. Two projects have
            been proposed to replace 50+ year old aging nuclear facilities,
            including the Chemistry and Metallurgical Research (CMR)
            Facility Replacement and the relocation of TA-18, which is the
            Los Alamos Criticality Experiments Facility. In addition to the
            two new construction projects, funding is required to address
            facility life-extension of the now 20-year old plutonium
            facility being utilized in plutonium pit production.
            Infrastructure upgrades would be completed over the next 8 to
            10 years and extend the useful life of TA-55 through 2030.
      --Utilities Infrastructure Upgrades--Total $100M (cost reflects
            highest priority items).--A series of five utility projects are
            needed to address the aging electrical infrastructure at Los
            Alamos. Examples of projects include a new high-voltage
            powerline into the Laboratory site to provide reliability
            improvements for the Laboratory power grid, and a new gas
            turbine generator to provide risk reduction of brownouts during
            peak electrical power demands and local power generation
            against power grid outages that put Lab facilities at risk.
      --Security and Safeguards Infrastructure Projects--Total $250M
            (validated).--This set of projects for physical security
            upgrades to Los Alamos facilities includes security fences,
            perimeter access control, interior alarms, and control systems
            required to meet new DOE security standards.
                               concluding remarks
        Ten or more years ago, the long-term outlook for the nuclear
    weapons complex and budget was uncertain, but the requirement to ensure
    the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent remained.
    During this period, Los Alamos and much of the rest of the nuclear
    weapons complex sacrificed continual reinvestment for the future in
    favor of short-term operational needs. After formulation of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program, some new facility construction did
    occur. These items, such as the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic
    Testing facility and the Strategic Computing Complex at Los Alamos, are
    dedicated to new capabilities and provide for refurbishment of some
    existing facilities and infrastructure. These projects have also
    enabled the Laboratory to strengthen our construction management
    organization.
        With existing operating funds, we have been able to complete some
    urgent maintenance at our aging facilities, but this only scratches the
    surface. Only the utmost top-priority issues are addressed, while the
    backlog of unfunded maintenance continues to grow as facilities age.
    The demands placed on the safety and security infrastructure from
    increased regulation and oversight has also stressed our resources. We
    are still running many buildings to failure.
        The general run-down condition of facilities in the nuclear weapons
    complex has been noted recently in several reviews chartered by
    Congress and the Administration. For example, the Chiles Commission
    identified the need to ``eliminate problems of maintenance of equipment
    and facilities, and modernization of equipment,'' in the context of
    enhancing recruitment and retention of a quality workforce. The U.S.
    Commission on National Security wrote in January 2001 that ``the
    physical circumstances in which lab professionals work have also
    deteriorated, in many instances, to unacceptable levels.''
        Congress created the NNSA to deal with many of these problems, and
    now we must put in place the measures for success. One of these
    measures is a viable nuclear weapons complex for the future. The best
    way to ensure that the necessary reinvestment occurs in the facilities,
    infrastructure, and construction base is to provide the resources
    through a dedicated budget initiative. We strongly endorse the NNSA/DP
    Facilities and Infrastructure funding initiative. We believe the top
    priority construction projects must be completed in the next 10-15
    years to ensure that the nuclear weapons complex has a safe, secure and
    reliable infrastructure to ensure that programmatic missions can be
    accomplished.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Domenici. General Gordon, as you know, we all look
    forward to great accomplishments in your new Department, and
    thank you so much. We will be working with you. We will try to
    do a little better job of getting you some resources than is
    currently planned and what we think the budget is. We will work
    hard at that with you. Thank you so much.
        We are recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., Tuesday, March 13, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:50 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senator Domenici.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    STATEMENTS OF:
            J. WILLIAM McDONALD, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
                REGION
            RONALD JOHNSTON, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CUP COMPLETION ACT OFFICE
    ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT WOLF, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM BUDGET AND LIAISON

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. The hearing will please come to order. I
    apologize for being late and in advance I apologize for having
    to leave early, but somehow or another we'll get today's
    hearings in on both the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of
    Engineers.
        Today we are going to begin the Energy and Water
    Subcommittee's 2002 budget hearings with the Bureau of
    Reclamation. I hope that the Bureau of Reclamation people would
    come on up and take their seats. There will be two panels, and
    as a subcommittee tradition dictates, this year we will begin
    with Bureau of Reclamation in the first panel, and the second
    one would be the Corps of Engineers. As we have told you
    already, the Corps will be this afternoon at 3 o'clock in a
    different hearing room than this.
        The subcommittee that meets here today has jurisdiction
    over water resources as they pertain to the Federal
    Government's commitments and/or obligations. That is the Bureau
    of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, essentially. Both
    agencies are responsible for managing the natural resources in
    a cost effective manner while balancing the needs of diverse
    users. I believe that the mission of these two agencies will
    only become more increased over time and the Bureau of
    Reclamation will have bigger and tougher missions.
        That being said, I am concerned about the Administration's
    2002 request. I think the Bureau has been underfunded, and the
    Corps of Engineers, and both of them to such an extent that we
    will have to determine if those numbers are to hold up, whether
    the two agencies can effectively carry out their mandated
    missions for this coming year.
        Even though budgets are tight, I am concerned that no one
    is working to address the longer term problems, that the aging
    infrastructure is one of the problems that we all can put some
    time into, and over the long run, these may be very serious
    problems.
        The country has an aging water resource infrastructure.
    Approximately 50 percent of the Bureau of Reclamation's dams
    were built in 1900 and 150 before the current state of the art
    construction techniques were around.
        So I want to move on, talk about the impact of the 2002
    budget request on both the agencies. First, I would like to
    begin with the Bureau. The Bureau is responsible for 348
    reservoirs, 58 hydroelectric power plants and more than 300
    recreation sites.
        The Bureau's request totals $783.5 million for 2002, which
    is a $13.3 million decrease from last year's enacted level. The
    Administration is proposing the appropriation of about $648
    million for 2002, which is a $31 million cut from this year.
    This type of program, the types of program that falls under
    this account include construction, dam safety, site security,
    and I think we know the rest of them.
        The bulk of the work that the Bureau does falls under this
    account, which is effectively, as I indicated here, being
    reduced by $31 million. Most items in the budget are getting a
    4 percent increase, with certain priority items getting more
    than that. The question is whether this is the time to be
    reducing these two accounts, and we are going to now have Bill
    McDonald, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau. Glad to have
    you here, Mr. McDonald, and hopefully you will be able to go
    into some detail on these budgets for 2002 and to the extent
    that Mr. Johnston or--would you state your name?
        Mr. Wolf. Bob Wolf.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF J. WILLIAM MC DONALD

        Mr. McDonald. I very much appreciate the opportunity to
    appear before the committee. My name is Bill McDonald. I am the
    acting Commissioner of Reclamation, and I am the regional
    director of the Pacific Northwest Region. Good to see you
    again.
        Ron Johnston is representing the Central Utah Project
    Completion Act appropriation request, Office of Assistant
    Secretary for Water and Science. He has his own statement, and
    will speak for himself. Bob Wolf is Reclamation's Director of
    Program, Budget and Liaison and will assist me. We certainly
    appreciate the opportunity to present the President's budget
    request to you, Mr. Chairman. We have a written statement for
    the record, and I will ask that that be submitted for the
    record, and I will simply summarize.
        We certainly thank the committee for your continuing
    support for the Reclamation program. In a drought like this, we
    are reminded of the importance of the West's water
    infrastructure. Snow packs are generally only running 45 to 85
    percent of average as of the April 1 snow course measurements,
    and forecasts across the West are ranging only around 30 to 70
    percent of average. The shortage of water supplies would be far
    worse without the benefit of Reclamation projects, and stream
    flows would be substantially less in a year like this without
    releases from reservoirs.

                                CALIFORNIA POWER

        The power problems being confronted in California remind us
    that Reclamation contributes nearly 15,000 megawatts of
    installed capacity from our hydropower system to the West's
    energy system. In California alone, the Central Valley Project
    accounts for a little less than 5 percent of the capacity in
    California. The Lower Colorado dams, Hoover, Parker and Davis,
    contribute a substantial additional amount of electricity to
    customers in California and indeed throughout the West.

                              TOTAL BUDGET REQUEST

        Reclamation's hydropower system is critical to system
    reliability and a variety of other ancillary services and
    spinning reserves. The total President's request for fiscal
    year 2002 is $783.5 million in current authority, which is an
    increase of $6.7 million relative to fiscal year 2001. That
    consists, however, of two major components. $763.5 million is
    for Reclamation programs, if you will, and that is a decrease
    of $13.3 million from the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. And
    then secondly, there is in the President's budget a request of
    $20 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration account
    for which there was no appropriation in fiscal year 2001.
        Within the $763.5 million requested for Reclamation
    programs proper, there is $648 million in the Water and Related
    Resources account, which is a decrease, as you noted, of about
    $31 million from fiscal year 2001 levels.

                    CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

        Second, $55 million is requested for the Central Valley
    Project Restoration Fund, which equals our request for the full
    authorized amount of projected revenues to the fund; and that
    is a $16.7 million increase over fiscal year 2001. That
    request, however, is offset by discretionary receipts to the
    fund of $45 million, so that only $10 million scores against
    the subcommittee's allocation, and that is comparable to fiscal
    year 2001.

                   POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION AND LOAN PROGRAM

        Third, our request for Policy and Administration is $53
    million, and finally, the Loan Program request is $7.5 million,
    which would complete three loan projects in California in the
    next fiscal year.

                          WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

        The $31 million decrease in the Water and Related Resources
    account, I would like to speak to that briefly. That is
    relative to an enacted level in fiscal year 2001 of $679
    million and reflects the net effect of the following overall
    changes compared to fiscal year 2001.
        First, our resources management and development programs
    and activities decreased by $62 million from $439.1 million to
    $377.1 million. On the other hand, facilities operation,
    maintenance and rehabilitation increased by a little better
    than $17 million, from $287.6 million to $304.7 million.
    Included in that is the Dam Safety Program at $74.6 million,
    and it continues to reflect Reclamation's priority in
    maintaining our infrastructure and being able to operate our
    projects to deliver their intended benefits.
        Finally, there is the $13.9 million decrease in
    undistributed underfinancing, which is something we would hope
    the Committee would be able to adhere to as you move forward
    with the budget.

                            RECLAMATION'S COMMITMENT

        In summary, Mr. Chairman, as Reclamation approaches very
    proudly its 100th anniversary, we believe that our fiscal year
    2002 budget request demonstrates our continuing commitment to
    meet the West's needs for water and power in a fiscally
    responsible manner. In cooperation with our contractors, with
    State, tribal and local governments, other stakeholders, and
    the public at large, Reclamation offers, we believe, workable
    solutions to water and power issues that are consistent with
    the ever-growing demands for power and water and with the need
    to pursue cost-effective environmentally sound approaches to
    meeting those demands.
        Needless to say, Reclamation and the Reclamation program
    face many challenging opportunities. First, an aging
    infrastructure, as you noted, requires that we focus on the
    need for dam safety, facilities improvements, technological
    upgrades and preventive maintenance to ensure the reliability
    and improved safety of operation of our projects.
        Second, meeting environmental requirements so that we
    continue to develop projects and supplies is a complex
    challenge. Third, innovative approaches to water conservation,
    power conservation, and programs for wastewater reuse and
    recycling are being explored by us, but within the budget
    limitations that we face.
        And finally, our participation, ever expanding at the
    request of Congress, in Indian water rights settlements and the
    growth of rural water projects to serve Indian reservations and
    others, particularly where Congress has directed Reclamation to
    bear all or a portion of the operation and maintenance of those
    completed projects, is putting substantial pressure on our
    overall budget.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The projects and programs highlighted on page 4 and 5 of my
    written statement are illustrative of the challenges we face
    and with that, I invite the committee's attention to that as
    examples. Thank you for the continuing support of our program,
    Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of J. William McDonald

        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 2002 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation, which
    totals $783.5 million in current authority. The request includes $20.0
    million in new funds for the California Bay-Delta Restoration account,
    and $763.5 million for Reclamation's traditional programs, a decrease
    of $13.3 million from the fiscal year 2001 enacted level of $776.8
    million.
                                    mission
        As it approaches its 100th anniversary, the Bureau of Reclamation
    delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to over 31 million people in the
    17 western states for municipal, rural, and industrial uses.
    Reclamation facilities store over 245 million acre-feet of water,
    servicing one of every five western farmers to irrigate about 10
    million acres of land. These irrigated lands produce 60 percent of the
    nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruit and nuts. As the
    largest water resources management agency in the West, Reclamation
    administers or operates 348 reservoirs, 58 hydroelectric powerplants
    with an installed capacity of 14,744 megawatts. Reclamation manages
    approximately 8.6 million acres of Federal land, plus another 600,000
    acres of land under easements. In addition, our facilities provide
    substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
        The economic viability, and in some cases the very survivability,
    of the citizens, ranchers, and farmers in the 17 western states depends
    on the effectiveness of Reclamation's stewardship of these valuable
    public resources. The Bureau of Reclamation, and its employees, take
    this responsibility and the mission of managing, developing and
    protecting water and related resources in an environmentally and
    economically sound manner in the interest of the American public very
    seriously.
        The impact of Reclamation on the lives and livelihoods of our
    western citizens is highlighted by the following facts: Reclamation has
    emerged as the second largest producer of hydroelectric power and the
    11th largest power producer in the United States with an average
    generation of more than 42 billion kilowatt hours of energy each year.
    Reclamation produces enough electricity to serve 14 million people,
    generating nearly a billion dollars in annual power revenues. In
    California, Reclamation's Central Valley Project generated more than
    6.1 billion kilowatt hours of energy in 2000, enough power to serve
    approximately 1.9 million Californians.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request demonstrates Reclamation's
    commitment to meeting the West's needs for water and power in a
    fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues the Bureau's shift
    in emphasis from the construction of large water projects and toward
    the management of these valuable public resources. In cooperation with
    state, tribal, and local governments, along with other stakeholders and
    the public at large, Reclamation offers workable solutions regarding
    water and power resource issues that are consistent with the ever
    growing demands for power and water, and with the need to pursue cost
    effective, environmentally sound approaches to meeting those demands.
        Nevertheless, the transition from a facilities builder to a water
    and power service management agency has resulted in a new set of
    challenges for Reclamation. Growing demands from an aging
    infrastructure have compounded the need for technological upgrades, new
    science and technologies, and preventative maintenance to ensure
    reliability, increase output, and improve safety of operation. The
    growth of rural water projects serving Indian reservations where
    Reclamation funds operation and maintenance has put substantial
    pressure on our overall budget. The demand for skills in such areas as
    negotiating agreements with Tribal Governments, negotiating title
    transfer agreements, mediating disputes among stakeholders, and
    renewing existing contracts represent a formidable challenge in the
    human resource arena. Balancing the demand for service delivery with
    environmental concerns is an equal challenge. Complementing supply-
    oriented solutions with innovative approaches to power and water
    conservation and programs for wastewater recycling are being explored.
    Finally, as Reclamation attempts to keep pace with the technological
    revolution, our dependence on sophisticated computer systems presents
    new challenges in the areas of information system development,
    maintenance, and security. All of the above challenges place additional
    pressure on Reclamation's financial and human resources.
        One of Reclamation's strategies for meeting these new challenges is
    to target its planning program and science and technology program to
    search for contemporary solutions. Financial resource constraints
    facing the Nation require a commitment to the use of decision support
    tools, including risk analyses, to develop only the most efficient and
    cost-effective solutions to the complex challenges that we face.
        Every day we see immediate water resource needs important to our
    state, local and tribal partners. Many states are developing state-wide
    water plans or drought contingency plans, for instance, to address
    resource utilization and stewardship against the backdrop of large
    population increases and the growing notion of sustainable development.
    Reclamation, in partnership with other federal, state, local, tribal,
    and private entities, has consistently proven its ability to help
    assess the potential for optimum water use within a river basin or sub-
    basin. This technical capability is one of our most valuable resources.
        Some of Reclamation's budget priorities as we continue into the new
    millennium are:
      --ensure the safety and reliability of Reclamation dams;
      --fund projects currently under construction;
      --ensure environmental compliance;
      --develop partnerships with customers, states and tribes;
      --continue investments in science and technology to meet the growing
            water-related resources challenges facing the west in a more
            efficient and cost-effective manner; and
      --optimize results-oriented business practices to provide the most
            effective and efficient service to customers, partners and
            employees.
                          water and related resources
        The fiscal year 2002 request for the Water and Related Resources
    account is $648.0 million, a decrease of $31 million from the fiscal
    year 2001 enacted level. The request provides funding for five major
    program activities--Water and Energy Management and Development ($257.7
    million), Land Management and Development ($33.9 million), Fish and
    Wildlife Management and Development ($85.5 million), Facility
    Operations ($158.1 million), and Facility Maintenance and
    Rehabilitation ($146.6 million). The request is partially offset by an
    undistributed reduction of $33.8 million, in anticipation of delays in
    construction schedules and other planned activities.
        The request continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of
    Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable
    manner; sustaining the health and integrity of ecosystems while
    addressing the water needs of a growing population; and assisting
    states, tribes, and local entities in solving contemporary water
    resources issues.
        Highlights of the fiscal year 2002 request include:
        Safety of Dams ($74.6 million).--The safety and reliability of
    Reclamation dams is one of the Bureau's highest priorities. Dam safety
    corrective actions and site security improvements are among the
    activities funded by facility operation, maintenance, and
    rehabilitation. The fiscal year 2002 request of $74.6 million for the
    Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification Program, including
    Horsetooth Dam in Colorado and Wickiup Dam in Oregon, provides for risk
    management activities throughout Reclamation's inventory of 358 dams
    and dikes, plus preconstruction and construction activities for up to
    17 dams identified for funding through the Safety of Dams Program.
        Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between
    1900 and 1950, and 90 percent of the dams were built before current
    state-of-the-art foundation treatment and filter techniques were
    incorporated in embankment dams to control seepage. Continued safe
    performance becomes a greater concern with aging dams and requires a
    greater emphasis on the risk management activities provided by the
    program.
        Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($12.0 million).--In
    December 2000, legislation was enacted to resolve the Colorado Ute
    Tribes' water rights claims and allow construction of a smaller Animas-
    La Plata Project to proceed. The reformulated Project limits depletions
    to an average of 57,100 acre-feet per year and provides only municipal
    and industrial water for the Tribes and local non-Indian entities. Work
    planned for 2002 includes design of project facilities, gas pipeline
    relocation, and related mitigation and cultural resources activities.
        Central Arizona Project ($31.5 million).--The request continues
    construction of the Gila River Indian Community Distribution System and
    other Indian distribution systems; work on recreation development; and
    fulfillment of endangered species mitigation commitments for Roosevelt
    Dam and for the CAP Aqueduct on the Gila, Santa Cruz, and San Pedro
    River. Funding is also requested to continue working with Tucson area
    municipal entities on CAP reliability features.
        Central Valley Project (CVP), which includes 15 projects, protects
    the Central Valley from water shortages and floods and provides water
    and power to match the continued growth in the State of California. Two
    of the components of this project include:
      --CVP, Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance Program
            ($11.0 million).--This provides funding for work on 34
            replacement, addition, and extraordinary maintenance (RAX)
            items including refurbishing and painting of transformers at
            the Shasta Powerplant, renovation of the drum gates on Shasta
            Dam, and rehabilitation of cranes at the Nimbus Powerplant and
            Folsom Dam. Items scheduled to begin include rewind of
            generating units 1 and 2 and station service units at the
            Shasta Powerplant, replacing the turbine runners at the New
            Melones Powerplant, and rehabilitation of motor rotors at the
            Tracy Pumping Plant.
      --Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project in California
            ($13.1 million).--The Trinity River Division provides delivery
            of project water and power and for operation of the Trinity
            Fish Hatchery. Funds will also be used to continue to implement
            the December 2000 Record of Decision, which includes
            development and implementation of a comprehensive monitoring
            and adaptive management program for fishery restoration.
        Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana,
    Washington and Wyoming ($11.0 million).--This program addresses
    Reclamation's legal requirements contained in the biological opinions
    issued in December 2000 by the National Marine Fisheries Service and
    the Fish and Wildlife Service. These requirements include actions to
    modify the daily, weekly, and seasonal operation of Reclamation dams;
    acquisition of water for flow augmentation; off-site mitigation of
    hydro system impacts in selected subbasins; significantly increased
    research, monitoring, and evaluation as well as significantly increased
    regional coordination efforts. These actions are intended to protect
    and aid in recovery of 12 species of anadromous fish.
        Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota ($25.2 million).--Funds are
    requested for grants to the State of North Dakota for municipal, rural,
    and industrial water projects, for development of Indian irrigation
    facilities, for work at several wildlife refuges, and for operation and
    maintenance of completed project facilities.
        Klamath Project in California and Oregon ($12.7 million).--The
    request continues funding for studies and initiatives related to
    improving water supply and quality to meet agriculture, tribal,
    wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath River Basin;
    and for improvements in fish passage and habitat.
        Lower Colorado River Operations Program in California, Arizona and
    Nevada ($13.1 million).--This program funds work necessary to carry out
    the Secretary's responsibilities as water master of the lower Colorado
    River. It also funds measures required by the interim biological
    opinion on Reclamation's lower Colorado River operations, and
    development of a multi-species conservation program to provide a basis
    for Endangered Species Act compliance on the lower Colorado River over
    the long term.
        Mid-Dakota Project in South Dakota ($10.0 million).--This program
    provides for assistance for construction of water supply transmission
    lines and storage reservoirs.
        Mni Wiconi Project in South Dakota ($28.0 million).--Funds are
    requested for design and construction activities on the Oglala Sioux,
    Rosebud Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, and West River/Lyman-Jones Rural
    Water Systems; and for operation and maintenance of new and existing
    facilities on the three Indian reservations.
        Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects Title XVI ($19.5 million).--
    This request continues funding for nine studies and projects to recycle
    and reuse water in the arid west. These projects over time will provide
    over 500,000 acre-feet of water annually to help the western states
    cope with drought and to meet the water needs of their rapidly growing
    population.
        Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project ($10.6 million).--This
    request continues the implementation of water conservation, fish and
    wildlife improvements, and other measures authorized by the Yakima
    River Basin Water Enhancement Act.
                    central valley project restoration fund
        The fiscal year 2002 Reclamation budget includes a request for
    $55.0 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
    established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. The
    proposal is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts totaling
    $44.9 million, which is the amount that can be collected from project
    beneficiaries under Sec. 3407(d) of the Act. These funds will be used
    for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish
    and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley Project area
    of California.
                        california bay-delta restoration
        Consistent with the commitment to find long-term solutions to
    improving water quality, habitat and ecological functions, and water
    supply reliability, while reducing the risk of catastrophic breaching
    of Delta levees, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains funds for Bay-
    Delta activities that can be undertaken within existing statutory
    authorities. The $20.0 million requested in this account will be used
    for the Federal share of the Environmental Water Account and for costs
    associated with administrative support of the CALFED Program, which
    includes planning and management activities provided by Reclamation and
    through CALFED Program staff. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 budget
    includes $64.7 million in other BOR accounts for authorized activities
    that support Bay-Delta Program objectives and priorities.
                                 other accounts
        The request for Policy and Administration is $53.0 million, which
    will be used to develop and implement Reclamation-wide policy, rules,
    and regulations, including actions under the Government Performance and
    Results Act, and to perform functions which cannot be charged to
    specific project or program activities covered by separate funding
    authority. These funds support general administrative and management
    functions throughout the 17 western states in Reclamation's service
    area and in its Washington office.
        The fiscal year 2002 request for the Loan Program is $7.5 million
    to complete work on three small loan projects--Castroville Irrigation
    Water Supply, Salinas Valley Water Reclamation, and San Sevaine Creek
    located in California.
                  fiscal year 2000 accomplishments highlights
        While we have set our priorities for the future, we are very proud
    of the part Reclamation has played in the past, and I would like to
    mention some recent accomplishments.
        Safety of Dams.--In fiscal year 2000, Reclamation completed Safety
    of Dams modifications at Bradbury (California), Pueblo (Colorado), and
    Willow Creek (Montana) Dams to address identified risks. Studies were
    completed on Safety of Dam improvements to Horsetooth Dam in Colorado,
    which provides municipal and industrial water to some of the fastest
    growing communities in the West.
        Power.--Reclamation met 100 percent of its project power
    commitments in fiscal year 2000. Reclamation is among the lowest cost
    providers in the hydropower industry. The dependability and service
    reliability of California's power system experienced significant stress
    beginning in the summer of 2000. Scheduled and emergency operations of
    Reclamation hydroelectric facilities in the West assisted in
    alleviating some threats of brownouts and rotating outages throughout
    California. As a partner with Western Area Power Administration and
    Bonneville Power Administration in the operation of the Federal
    hydroelectric generation and power transmission systems, the
    coordination and scheduling of outages is becoming increasingly more
    important. Reclamation developed processes to ensure that coordination
    between agencies is more formal while retaining the flexibility to
    respond to changing conditions that may impact outage schedules.
        Drought.--Reclamation's Drought Emergency Assistance Program
    assists States and local entities throughout the West in coping with
    emergency water shortages. The Bureau provided emergency assistance
    through the acquisition of water to mitigate impacts to fish and
    wildlife resulting from prolonged drought conditions in New Mexico on
    the Rio Grande and to Bowdoin and Benton Lakes National Wildlife
    Refuges in Montana. Reclamation provided emergency assistance to the
    Hopi Tribe by procuring portable pumps and generators to pump water
    from existing wells when the water table dropped due to drought and
    provided emergency drought assistance to several tribes within New
    Mexico through actions such as well repair and drilling.
        Water Conservation and Recycling.--Reclamation's Water Conservation
    Field Services Program has provided assistance to hundreds of local
    water districts in four key areas: planning, education, demonstration,
    and implementation. In specific instances, Reclamation assisted 209
    water districts with water conservation planning. Reclamation formed a
    cooperative cost-sharing partnership with 11 southern California water
    and wastewater agencies under the Southern California Water Recycling
    Projects Initiative.
        Endangered Species.--Reclamation worked to improve habitat and
    flows for endangered fish at its facilities throughout the West. In
    California Reclamation installed a temperature control device on Folsom
    Dam to help conserve cold water and lessen the impact to threatened
    salmon in the American River. Reclamation helped re-establish up to 42
    miles of prime salmon and steelhead habitat on the mainstream Battle
    Creek and an additional 6 miles of its tributaries in California. We
    completed modifications of an automated fish-handling device at the
    Marble Bluff Dam in Nevada to enhance recovery of the endangered cui-ui
    fish species.
        We developed flow recommendations for the Green, Gunnison, and
    Colorado Rivers to help recover a variety of endangered fish in the
    Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins. Reclamation also began work
    on fish ladders and fish screens to be installed on all major diversion
    dams/canals on the Colorado, Gunnison, Green, and San Juan Rivers.
    Reclamation collaborated with Federal, State, and local stakeholders in
    New Mexico to sustain instream flows for the endangered Rio Grande
    silvery minnow when severe drought conditions threatened the minnow,
    and helped provide stream flows for the endangered Pecos bluntnose
    shiner into the Pecos River, New Mexico.
        Under the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project
    Reclamation has continued to acquire water to increase streamflows in
    the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers to benefit salmon and steelhead
    migration.
        Water Quality.--Reclamation has invested over $48 million since
    1995 to control the salinity of the Colorado River. The total
    Reclamation program, including those projects constructed before 1995,
    is estimated to prevent about 550,000 tons of salt per year from
    entering the Colorado River. Reclamation also worked cooperatively with
    the Interagency Ecological Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
    Estuary in California, which identifies, and helps to avoid, impacts
    caused by State and Federal water diversion operations in the estuary.
        Native Americans.--Reclamation helped the Navajo Department of
    Water Resources develop and complete a resource management plan
    addressing the Navajo Nation's projected water requirements and water
    resource infrastructure deficiencies. It provided 13 Native American
    Pueblos with technical or financial water management-related assistance
    through various programs including water needs assessments, new pumps
    and other infrastructure, water measurement structures, and automation
    of flow structures. Other Indian Rural Water projects, including Mni
    Wiconi in South Dakota, Rocky Boys in Montana, and Animas-La Plata in
    Colorado, will help meet the water needs of hundreds of thousands of
    Native Americans.
        Recreation.--Reclamation joined with seven other Federal agencies
    to form the Federal Lakes Recreation Leadership Council co-chaired by
    Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers to develop procedures to enhance
    public recreation at Federal lakes. Reclamation formed a Recreation
    Policy Advisory Team and established a Bureauwide concessions and
    recreation management policy. Under the authority of the Reclamation
    Recreation Management Act, Reclamation cost shared with non-Federal
    partners the development, rehabilitation, and expansion of recreation
    and fish and wildlife areas and facilities on Reclamation projects in
    12 states.
                                   conclusion
        This completes my statement. Please allow me to express my sincere
    appreciation for the continued support that this Committee has provided
    Reclamation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at
    this time.

        Senator Domenici. I am not sure with the shortage of time
    that I am going to be able to ask you questions, but if I
    can't, I will submit them and if you would answer them, please.
        Mr. McDonald. We would be pleased to.
        Senator Domenici. Why don't you not elaborate on it and
    just give it.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Johnston. As you are aware, I serve as the program
    director for implementation of the Central Utah Project
    Completion Act, and I would simply like to submit our statement
    for the record, and I'll conclude with that.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Ronald Johnston

        My name is Ronald Johnston. I serve as the Program Director for
    implementation of the Central Utah Project Completion Act under the
    direction of the Assistant Secretary--Water and Science in the
    Department of the Interior. I am pleased to provide the following
    information about the President's fiscal year 2002 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 Treasury for deposit of these funds and
    other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
    Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
    activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water 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 an office in Provo, Utah, with a
    Program Director to provide oversight, review, and liaison with the
    District, the Commission, and the Ute Indian Tribe, and to assist in
    administering the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Act.
        The fiscal year 2002 request for the Central Utah Project
    Completion Account provides $36.2 million for use by the District, the
    Commission, and the Department to implement Titles II-IV of the Act, a
    decrease of $3.6 million from the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The
    request includes $23.8 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
    ($10.7 million) will be used in implementing the fish, wildlife, and
    recreation mitigation and conservation projects authorized in Title III
    ($9.6 million); and in completing mitigation measures committed to in
    pre-1992 Bureau of Reclamation planning documents ($1.1 million). Title
    III activities funded in fiscal year 2002 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 mitigation and conservation
    projects outside the State of Utah ($0.3 million); participation in the
    operating and maintaining new and improved hatchery facilities ($0.1
    million); and for program administration ($1.3 million).
        In addition to the request described above, the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs' budget includes $24.7 million for the Ute Indian Rights
    Settlement.

        Senator Domenici. All right. Fine. Appreciate it. I have
    seen the statement. Let me recognize Mike Gabaldon in the front
    row. Thank you so much for what you have been doing. I
    understand that you moved to Deputy Director of Operations.

                              NEW MEXICO PROBLEMS

        And let me just say on the Bureau of Reclamation, it is
    most interesting that depending upon where you are, what state,
    what river, which basin, the Bureau of Reclamation is
    intimately involved, or in some places not involved at all, but
    I want to say for the record that New Mexico is one of those
    states that by a rare combination of history and other things,
    you are heavily involved in the Rio Grande River in terms of
    the continuing problem of how do we handle the endangered
    species. And I want to thank the Bureau, I am not sure where we
    go from here, but for the past actions that they took on behalf
    of trying to solve that problem at least on an interim basis.
    And we will be trying to put together an extended package of
    involvement by you all to see if we can't resolve it further.

                               ZERO GROWTH BUDGET

        Let me ask just two or three questions and then we will
    close the meeting. Mr. McDonald, your 2002 request appears on
    the surface to be receiving an increase of $7 million, as you
    indicated, which with an appropriation of $784 million, even
    with that, that is not keeping pace with inflation. That is not
    the 4 percent increase that is being suggested as being the
    cornerstone of the President's budget. Can you tell the
    committee, Mr. McDonald, what this essentially zero growth
    budget means for the Bureau?

                      DAM SAFETY AND FACILITIES OPERATION

        Mr. McDonald. As I think I indicated in my introductory
    remarks, Senator, we gave priority in the context of the
    President's budget to dam safety and facilities operation,
    maintenance and rehabilitation. Those for a number of years
    have been our central priorities. They continue to be so. As
    you can see, resource management and development within the
    Water and Related Resources account was cut by nearly $62
    million. That is where the trade-off comes, and this reflects
    itself in the Title 16 program, reductions in rural water
    supply and similar kinds of activities and constraints on what
    we desire to do relative to moving forward with Indian water
    rights efforts.

                              RURAL WATER PROGRAMS

        Senator Domenici. Let's just move to the rural water
    resources for a moment. I was going to move to it separately,
    but actually you raised it. Actually, that is a small account,
    but there aren't any programs of any significance for potable
    water for rural areas and domestic or otherwise, and this small
    amount of money, $33 million I think is what you used last
    year, is one source that is trying to solve that problem. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. McDonald. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. Why it would be reduced as much as it has
    been would probably be an indication that this Administration
    doesn't place a high priority on this activity. That is the
    only way I can read it. What do you read into a one-third
    reduction in that program?
        Mr. McDonald. I don't know that I read anything into it,
    other than to balance the priority within the budget available
    to us. We focused very much on the maintenance of the existing
    infrastructure, continuing construction on existing projects,
    and not initiating new activities that would have major out-
    year impacts.

                                 BUDGET PROCESS

        Senator Domenici. You continue to use the word we. What
    does that mean? Is there a chain of command on this, that they
    gave you a number and you all on the Bureau of Reclamation went
    and fit the budget to the numbers? Did OMB's people do that? I
    don't really understand.
        Mr. McDonald. Well, in the typical process, of course, we
    made an initial proposal, then the Office of Management and
    Budget provided guidance to all agencies as to the overall
    budget within which we needed to operate.
        Senator Domenici. That is what you meant by the ``we'',
    that process you just described?
        Mr. McDonald. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. I have about five more questions, and I
    am going to submit the ones on dam safety, which is important.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We ought to get your answers on the record. I do
    appreciate----
        Mr. McDonald. Be pleased to.
        [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

               safety of dams evaluation and modification program
        Question. The Bureau's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes
    $72.9 million for the Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification
    Program. Can you tell this committee what the $72.9 million will be
    used for?
        Answer. The requested funding is for continuing dam safety risk
    management and risk reduction activities throughout Reclamation's
    inventory of dams. It provides for ongoing safety of dams modification
    activities at Clear Lake Dam, California; Wickiup Dam, Oregon; and
    Horsetooth Dam, Colorado. Of the $72.9 million fiscal year 2002 request
    for the Safety of Dams Evaluation and Modification Program, $33,500,000
    is for contractor payments to the three ongoing modification
    activities, another $5,000,000 is needed for related contract
    supervision and administration, $10,500,000 is needed for modification
    work scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2002 at Keechelus Dam,
    Washington, and $4,000,000 is needed for Pineview Dam, Utah. That
    leaves about $2,000,000 for preconstruction activities associated with
    12 other dams listed in the fiscal year 2002 Budget Justifications as
    potentially needing risk reduction actions. Another $17,900,000 is for
    Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams activities on Reclamation's entire
    inventory of 358 dams and dikes which could result in loss of life if
    they were to fail.
        Question. Is there a prioritized list that the Bureau is
    systematically taking care of the worst dams so they can be moved off
    this critical list, and what progress have you made to date on reducing
    this list?
        Answer. Reclamation has a variety of management tools which it
    utilizes to set ongoing priorities as new information is developed
    through the dam safety program. Reclamation has an ongoing program of
    monitoring, inspection, and evaluation of issues which become
    identified during day-to-day operational activities. On an ongoing
    basis, the issues are prioritized and scheduled for further action
    based upon a risk analysis. If this risk analysis results in a finding
    of additional public risk, then Reclamation evaluates and implements
    interim actions while working toward actions to reduce the long-term
    risk. The fiscal year 2002 Budget Justifications narrative lists 12
    dams where Reclamation may be pursuing risk reduction action. To date
    under the Safety of Dams program, Reclamation has completed
    modifications to 55 dams to reduce public risk.
        Question. Is the $72.9 million (fiscal year 2002) budget sufficient
    to address the most critical needs in fiscal year 2002. And if not,
    what is a sufficient amount to address these needs?
        Answer. The $72.9 million budget request is sufficient to meet all
    critical needs. The proposed budget allows for initiation of
    construction on all projects where the necessary preconstruction
    activities have been completed. Major construction contracts will be
    initiated on Wickiup Dam in June 2001 and on Horsetooth Dam in August
    2001. These contracts will establish potential contractor earnings
    rates in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Additional capability
    at Horsetooth Dam has been made available by the anticipated receipt of
    funding from the power customers in fiscal year 2002. With the $72.9
    budget request, there is no delay in the initiation of any safety of
    dams modifications due to funding limitations.
        Question. What would this level of funding enable the Bureau to do,
    that under your current request you could not?
        Answer. An additional $16.5 million for fiscal year 2002 could be
    effectively utilized. Of that amount, $13.5 million could be spent on
    construction contracts for corrective actions at a rate associated with
    the construction contractor's capability. At this time, we anticipate
    that contractors will have the capability at Wickiup and Horsetooth
    Dams to accelerate construction if additional federal appropriations
    were available. The additional funding would also reduce the overall
    cost of the project by allowing project benefits to be recovered sooner
    and it would reduce the costs associated with construction management.
    The additional $3 million could be effectively spent on preconstruction
    activities for a number of dams that are in various stages of
    developing modification reports.
                               title xvi program
        Question. The Bureau's budget request for Title XVI projects, which
    is the water reclamation and reuse account, is for $19.5 million, down
    from last year's enacted level of over $33 million, or about a one-
    third cut.
        Please tell this Committee why this program, which in many
    instances is providing the only potable water to homes, is being cut.
        Answer. The Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program helps
    local water agencies plan for and construct water recycling projects
    that are designed to provide non-potable water to be used for such
    purposes as landscape and agricultural irrigation, industrial
    processes, environmental restoration, power generation, recreation, and
    groundwater recharge, among others. In no instance is the reclaimed
    water from a Title XVI project being used as a source of potable water
    for use in homes. The value in the recycling program is that it
    provides a locally controlled and reliable source of water for use in
    lieu of potable water, thereby stretching the existing potable supplies
    and reducing the need to develop traditional alternative water supply
    projects.
        The enacted level of funding for fiscal year 2001 is approximately
    $30.6 million. However, after accounting for the rescission and
    underfinancing, $28.2 million was available for Title XVI activities.
    The President's fiscal year 2001 request was just under $21.2 million.
    The $19.5 million requested by the President for fiscal year 2002 is
    $1.7 million less than the request for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal
    year 2002 request has been reduced principally to reflect Reclamation's
    completion of funding participation in the Los Angeles Area Water
    Reclamation and Reuse Project, which received more than $69 million in
    Federal assistance. For the remaining seven project funding requests,
    two have been reduced slightly, one has remained the same, and four
    have actually increased over fiscal year 2001 requested levels.
        Question. What is a more sufficient funding level for this account?
        Answer. Based on currently available data, more than $80 million
    would be required in fiscal year 2002 to keep pace with the non-Federal
    projects sponsors' construction schedule. This represents more than 12
    percent of Reclamation's entire budget for Water and Related Resources.
    However, the Department does not support the addition of funds for any
    project which would result in the reduction of funding for other
    projects included in the budget.
        Question. Please provide for the record a list of projects which
    the Bureau considered but were not funded in the President's request?
        Answer. All projects considered by Reclamation for funding in
    fiscal year 2002 were included in the President's budget request.
                      water and related resources--new fte
        Question. The budget request for the Water and Related Resources
    account is down $31 million from last year's level. Yet, the Bureau is
    requesting 13 additional Full Time Equivalents, or FTE. Please tell the
    committee why the Bureau is requesting the 13 additional FTE, when
    there is a budget reduction?
        Answer. While FTE for Water and Related Resources reflects an
    increase, the total FTE level requested remains at 5,634 for both
    fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The level requested for Water and Related
    Resources FTE is based on projected workload. While dollars impact the
    amounts available on a project basis, the workload involved in each
    project can differ (i.e, some are more labor intensive than others).
    The additional FTE in the Water and Related Resources reflects a shift
    of FTE from the Trust Fund account.
                                 budget impacts
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 request for the Bureau appears on
    the surface to be receiving an increase of only $7 million, which with
    an appropriation of $784 million, does not even keep pace with
    inflation.
        Please describe for the committee what this zero growth budget
    means for the Bureau.
        Answer. Although the fiscal year 2002 budget is not a significant
    increase over fiscal year 2001, it is a significant increase over
    fiscal year 2000. This is consistent with the Administration's stated
    goal of moderate growth while halting the trend of unconstrained
    spending at an unsustainable rate. The budget also provides for an
    increase of $17.1 million for facility operation, maintenance, and
    rehabilitation to pay for costs of new facilities and to more
    adequately deal with the Bureau of Reclamation's aging infrastructure.
    The budget also provides an increase of $10 million to begin
    construction of the Animas-La Plata project to address Native American
    water rights issues.
        Question. Please provide the committee with a list of the most
    critical items which were not included within your fiscal year 2002
    budget?
        Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2002 funds the most
    critical items to maintain and operate our facilities, address
    environmental and fish and wildlife impacts, complete ongoing projects,
    address safety of dams deficiencies, and provide water as part of
    Indian Water Rights settlements. There are no critical items that are
    not being funded.
        Question. Can you explain the rationale behind why the Water and
    Related Resources account took a $30 million reduction, when the
    majority of the Bureau's work is done through this account?
        Answer. It should be noted that the budget request submitted by
    Reclamation for Water and Related Resources for fiscal year 2002
    actually is $4.9 million higher than the budget request submitted for
    fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2002 request funds Reclamation's
    highest priorities, and is consistent with the Administration's goal of
    halting the recent trend of spending growing at an unsustainable rate.
                                animas-la plata
        Question. In last year's omnibus appropriation, authorization was
    included which reflected the cooperative agreement brokered by all the
    interested parties regarding the Animas-La Plata Project. The Bureau's
    budget contains $12 million for this project. What progress on the
    project will be made this year with the funding requested?
        Answer. The $12 million budget request will allow significant
    progress on the following critical elements of the project: Gas
    pipeline relocations; investigations, design, land acquisition, and
    contract award; Ridges Basin Dam design; cultural resources recovery
    contract award; fish and wildlife mitigation; wetland contract award;
    and Durango Pumping Plant design.
        Question. Does the Bureau have all intentions of moving forward on
    this project, given this new agreement?
        Answer. Reclamation is committed and supportive of completing the
    Animas-La Plata Project and fulfilling its obligations under the
    Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
        Question. Will the $12 million be actually utilized toward the
    project's construction, or will any of the funds be used to purchase
    water as part of the required cash payment?
        Answer. The $12 million will all be used toward the project's
    construction. Funding for the Tribal Resource Fund is being sought
    through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Question. The Bureau's budget includes $1.6 million for land
    management and cultural resources activities as it relates to the
    Animas-La Plata project. Please provide the committee a definition of
    what ``cultural resources activities'' are being funded this year.
        Answer. A significant number of cultural resource sites are known
    to exist in the Ridges Basin area, and more specifically, in areas that
    will be disturbed by construction of the dam. Fiscal year 2002 cultural
    resource activities will concentrate on awarding a contract and
    initiating data recovery and mitigation on those sites that are in the
    vicinity of the dam foundation.
        Question. Are there funds requested for ``Tribal Development'', and
    if so, can you tell the committee how much is being requested by the
    Bureau and for what purpose?
        Answer. Reclamation is not seeking funding for the Tribal
    Development Funds. Such funds are being sought through the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs. We understand that the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
    request is $8 million for fiscal year 2002.
        Question. Several New Mexico newspapers have published stories
    about the Animas-La Plata project. Several of them have indicated that
    non-Indian Colorado water users want to lease project water from the
    Ute tribes. What does the Bureau of Reclamation know about this and how
    does it view such a proposal?
        Answer. The Colorado Indian Rights Settlement Act Amendments of
    2000 provide an allocation of the project water storage to two Colorado
    non-Indian entities. No negotiations have begun with either entity
    regarding entering into an agreement with the United States to pay the
    reimbursable project costs allocated to the respective entity's water
    storage. These negotiations could begin in early summer. If agreements
    cannot be reached with the Colorado entities, the Amendments provide
    that those water storage allocations shall be reallocated equally to
    the Colorado Ute Tribes.
        Question. Would this proposal effect the overall project and other
    water users, such as those in New Mexico?
        Answer. The Amendments provide that project construction costs
    allocated to the water storage provided to the Colorado Ute Tribes is
    nonreimbursable to the United States. This includes any project costs
    allocated to water storage that is reallocated to the Tribes. The
    reallocation of project water storage to the Tribes will not affect the
    other water users.
                  middle rio grande project endangered species
        Question. The Bureau's budget request includes $11.7 million for
    the Middle Rio Grande project. Within the projects tasks for the
    upcoming fiscal year, there is included a mention of the purchase of
    non-Federal water for Endangered Species Act compliance as it relates
    to the silvery minnow. Can you update us on the silvery minnow?
        Answer. The Rio Grande silvery minnow was formerly one of the most
    widespread and abundant species in the Rio Grande basin of New Mexico,
    Texas, and Mexico. The silvery minnow is currently found only in the
    Rio Grande in central New Mexico between Cochiti Dam and the headwaters
    of Elephant Butte Reservoir (less than 10 percent of its historic
    range). Recent monitoring shows the majority of silvery minnow are
    concentrated below San Acacia Diversion Dam and populations in the
    Albuquerque and Isleta reaches are extremely reduced.
        Supplemental water operations during drought conditions in 2000
    were successful in providing water to the silvery minnow by exchange
    with natural flows, especially those fish below San Acacia Diversion
    Dam. The primary goal of these operations was to prevent the loss of
    the species in the wild during extremely dry conditions. This goal was
    achieved and population monitoring in early 2001 shows that silvery
    minnow still occur below San Acacia in reaches that would have
    substantially dried in 2000 without supplemental water management.
        Question. How much does the Bureau plan on spending this year to
    purchase this additional water?
        Answer. Reclamation committed this year to repay the Middle Rio
    Grande Conservancy District for 20,900 acre-feet of water that was used
    in 2000 for river management under the Agreed Order in Minnow v.
    McDonald. The cost of 20,900 acre-feet of water at up to $45 per acre-
    foot is approximately $940,500. In addition, to date, Reclamation has
    leased about 13,700 acre-feet for this year's use, at a cost of about
    $616,500.
        Settlement negotiations with the State of New Mexico and other
    parties to the Minnow v. McDonald lawsuit, have suggested that the use
    of up to an additional 30,000 acre-feet of water in 2001 may be
    possible, although the cost has not yet been determined. Similar needs
    for water could also be required for 2002 and 2003 as a result of
    successful settlement negotiations.
        Question. How much water does the Bureau anticipate purchasing in
    fiscal year 2002, and will that be enough to be in compliance with the
    Endangered Species Act?
        Answer. It is anticipated that the Bureau would have available for
    lease a similar volume of water through the Bureau's supplemental water
    program in 2002, which was about 13,700 acre-feet.
        The additional water, which might be provided in a settlement
    agreement in Minnow v. McDonald would be enough to fulfill compliance
    with the Endangered Species Act if the Fish and Wildlife Service issued
    a biological opinion to the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers approving or allowing the actions of those agencies
    and of non-federal parties covered in the consultation.
        Question. Does the Bureau have increased water costs should there
    be a drought year, and in that case, can the Bureau actually find
    enough water to purchase?
        Answer. The Bureau's 2001 and 2002 budgets do not include acquiring
    additional water that could be required in the case of a drought. The
    availability of leased water through the Bureau's supplemental water
    program is limited. However, additional water could be made available
    by the State of New Mexico through upstream storage water if settlement
    negotiations are successful. This is the only potentially identified
    source of additional water.
        Question. Some of the non-Federal participants in this effort
    believe an additional $10 million for Endangered Species Act compliance
    is needed. Can you tell me what the Bureau's capability is related to
    this additional $10 million?
        Answer. An additional $10 million for Endangered Species Act
    compliance is identified and described in the draft Middle Rio Grande
    Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program document. On January 3,
    2000, Reclamation signed an MOU with other federal and non-federal
    partners to develop a Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
    Collaborative Program which details short and long range planning in
    support of recovery of the silvery minnow and willow flycatcher while
    protecting existing and future water uses and ensuring compliance with
    all applicable laws. The program includes activities addressing fish
    passage and river reconnectivity, non-native species management,
    habitat restoration, population management, water management, including
    leasing of water for endangered species purposes, and research and
    monitoring.
        Additional capability does exist to utilize this funding for
    activities described in the July 1999 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow
    Recovery Plan and the Collaborative Program's draft Plan for fiscal
    year 2002, addressing the needs of both the silvery minnow and willow
    flycatcher. The additional capability shown was not included in the
    President's budget. The Department does not support the addition of
    funds for any project which would result in the reduction of funding
    for other projects included in the budget.
        Question. Is the Bureau aware of this request, either formally or
    informally?
        Answer. Yes, the Bureau is informally aware of this request from
    the non-federal participants of the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative
    Program. We provided technical input to the activities considered in
    the request through our involvement in the Collaborative Program ESA
    Work Group.
        The State of New Mexico has recently proposed a three-year interim
    agreement in the Minnow v. McDonald lawsuit, which could potentially
    result in a settlement or lawsuit. Generally, the settlement proposal
    would allow water up to 100,000 acre feet to be stored in upstream
    reservoirs rather than in Elephant Butte and then released in an amount
    not to exceed 30,000 acre feet for the Rio Grande silvery minnow. The
    original $10 million did not include funding for this potential
    settlement.
        Question. The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission has recently
    proposed a three year settlement to the Minnow v. Martinez lawsuit.
    Generally, the settlement proposal would allow credit water to be
    stored in upstream reservoirs and then released each year to keep the
    river wet for the survival of the Rio Grande silvery Minnow. Is this
    possibility progressing, now that Texas and the Rio Grande Compact
    Commission have signed off on the credit water portion?
        Answer. Yes, while court-ordered mediation has officially ended,
    negotiations remain active between the State of New Mexico and the
    federal agencies in the lawsuit, i.e., Reclamation, Corps of Engineers,
    and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Corps of Engineers began to
    store water in its upstream reservoirs, Abiquiu and Jemez Canyon, soon
    after the Rio Grande Compact Commission approved the action, and the
    parties are working on other aspects of the agreement, including
    changes to the Biological Assessment and the permits requested by New
    Mexico.
        Question. Does the Bureau think this idea may serve as a viable
    short term solution?
        Answer. Yes, the Bureau does believe the use of this additional
    upstream storage to enhance river flows during critical dry periods is
    an important component of a short-term solution concerning Rio Grande
    silvery minnow endangered species issues. Other components of a short-
    term solution that may be required to meet the needs of the silvery
    minnow are discussed in the draft Collaborative Program document and
    include reconnecting the river or providing fish passage at San Acacia
    Diversion Dam, pumping supplemental water from the Bureau's Low Flow
    Conveyance Channel, and support of Fish and Wildlife Service's and
    State of New Mexico's silvery minnow propagation and relocation
    efforts. Ultimately, however, Reclamation will defer to the Service's
    Biological Opinion regarding the need of the species.
        Question. How does this three-year plan tie into the Middle Rio
    Grande ESA WorkGroup draft ten-year program plan, and the funding
    requested in fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. The Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program/ESA Work
    Group draft ten-year program plan currently focuses on long-term
    actions to meet the needs of the endangered species. The ESA Work Group
    has had difficulty working through the often contentious issues
    involved with short-term solutions, especially as litigation, and
    associated mediation and settlement in theMinnow v. McDonald lawsuit
    progressed. Thus, the ESA Work Group generally left the short-term
    solution to the endangered species issues on the Middle Rio Grande to
    be resolved through the mediation and settlement processes. Actions
    taken under the three-year agreement could result in a settlement of
    the litigation and could become the initial component of the
    Collaborative Program and allow the development, design and
    construction of the long-term components of the Program.
        The goals of both the short-term agreement (3 years) and permanent
    (Collaborative Program) focus on ensuring that existing and future
    water uses in the Middle Rio Grande Valley are in compliance with the
    ESA.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Domenici. I appreciate that you are giving a high
    priority to that, even in a budget that is very tight. We stand
    recessed until 3 o'clock in which meeting room? 138 Dirksen.
    Thank you all.
        Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Senator.
        [Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., Tuesday, April 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 3:15 p.m., the same
    day.]
            (Afternoon Session, 3:15 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, 2001)

        The subcommittee reconvened at 3:15 p.m., in room SD-138,
    Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici
    (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Reid, Byrd, Murray,
    and Dorgan.

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

    STATEMENTS OF:
            CLAUDIA L. TORNBLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
                (MANAGEMENT ON BUDGET)
            LT. GEN. ROBERT S. FLOWERS, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MAJOR GEN. HANS A. VAN WINKLE, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL (CIVIL
                WORKS)
            ROBERT VINING, CHIEF, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION
            MAJ. GEN. PHILLIP R. ANDERSON, DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTH
                ATLANTIC DIVISION
            BRIG. GEN. ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, DIVISION ENGINEER, GREAT LAKES
                AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION
            BRIG. GEN. EDWIN J. ARNOLD, JR., DIVISION ENGINEER, MISSISSIPPI
                VALLEY DIVISION
            BRIG. GEN. CAROL A. STROCK, DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTHWESTERN
                DIVISION
            BRIG. GEN. M. STEPHEN RHOADES, DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTH
                ATLANTIC DIVISION
            BRIG. GEN. RANDAL R. CASTRO, DIVISION ENGINEER, PACIFIC OCEAN
                DIVISION
            BRIG. GEN. PETER T. MADSEN, DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTH PACIFIC
                DIVISION
            BRIG. GEN. DAVID F. MELCHER, DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTHWESTERN
                DIVISION

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. The committee will come to order. I am
    going to--since I am a little late, I am going to put my
    statement in the record and yield to your side.
        Senator Reid. Me, too.
        Senator Domenici. You want to put yours in?
        Senator Reid. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. Great. And I understand you include in
    yours some comments about this morning's portion, the Bureau of
    Reclamation part, in your statement.
        Senator Reid. Since I have not read my statement yet----
        Senator Domenici. You did. You did. Your staff told me so.
        And I understand you have a very early departure time.
    Would you like to do something now? I will yield to you.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a brief
    comment.
        Senator Domenici. Sure.
        Senator Dorgan. And then I am going to depart and then come
    back.
        Senator Domenici. All right.
        Senator Dorgan. As you know, all of us have so many
    committee hearings this week.
        Senator Domenici. Too much, yes.
        Senator Dorgan. I think mine are at 16 on this calendar
    this week alone.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. I want to just say a word about the Corps,
    especially, and indicate, as all of you know, my state has
    probably had more challenges that has required action by the
    Corps of Engineers than almost any state in the country. Devils
    Lake, an abiding flood that came and stayed, requires an
    enormous amount of attention. The Red River Valley flooding in
    Wahpeton and Breckenridge, Fargo, Moorhead, Grand Forks and
    East Grand Forks has required a substantial amount of
    attention.
        And I think the Corps has done an extraordinary job. And I
    am not adverse to being critical of the Corps when criticism is
    warranted. But I must say that our citizens are full of deep
    gratitude for what the Corps has done.
        We have a lot of challenges in this appropriations cycle.
    We have the permanent flood control project in Grand Forks. We
    need to adequately fund that. You know, we have this challenge
    of the outlet at Devils Lake and a series of other issues.
        I did want to say that I am very concerned that the Corps
    of Engineers needs to be adequately funded, if we are going to
    make these investments. I fear that in this area the
    recommendations of budget cuts are not appropriate. We are
    going to have to find ways to provide adequate funding for the
    Corps.
        General Flowers is here and General Van Winkle. Both of you
    know well what I speak of in North Dakota, because both of you
    have been there. And again, I just wanted to say at the start
    of the hearing how much we have appreciated that. I have, in
    the past, been critical of the Corps from time to time. But in
    recent years I have nothing but praise for the men and women
    that work in the Corps of Engineers and do the field work and
    are there every day and have done a terrific job for the
    citizens of North Dakota.
        I do hope, as we put together the resources in this
    committee, that we will be able to fund the needs that we have
    in a whole range of areas, not just North Dakota. When we do
    what we need to do for North Dakota, it means I have an
    obligation to say, when others are hurting and need help, I
    want to extend my hand to them and say let us help there, as
    well.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to say those
    words. I admire the work the Corps has done and am glad to be
    here today.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say one word,
    based on what Senator Dorgan said. Senator Daschle has
    scheduled a 4 o'clock meeting. He asked me to attend, so I will
    have to be there by then. But I did want to say, elaborate on
    what Senator Dorgan has said.
        The Corps of Engineers has received a lot of negative
    publicity, and I think much of it is unwarranted. And I know
    that there will be a few who disagree with me. But I can speak
    about Nevada, rural Nevada and urban Nevada. One of the ways we
    have been able to continue to grow the way we have in Las
    Vegas, is that we have been able to stop these devastating
    floods that have taken place.
        It does not rain very often in Las Vegas. But when it
    rains, it is what we refer to as a cloudburst and creates very
    fast running water that is dangerous to life and limb. And we
    have spent a lot of money making that area safe.
        In the late sixties we had a flood that washed away cars
    and peoples' lives were lost. In the approximately 30 years
    since then, we have been able to do a remarkable job, under the
    direction of the Corps, in taking care of those flood control
    projects. This area is the fastest growing place in the United
    States, we continually have need for additional flood control
    projects.
        The same, Mr. Chairman, is true in rural Nevada. We have
    done some good jobs. Now I have been just as critical as
    anybody about the Corps. I get upset at them, because, you
    know, it takes too long to get something going. But overall, it
    does good work for our country. And I know that you and I have
    worked hard over these years. We have labored together on this
    committee, and we will do what we can this year to make sure
    that the funding is adequate for these very important projects.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran, would you like----

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would be happy
    to follow your example and put my statement in the record. I
    know we are a little late getting started today, and there are
    other competing activities around the Hill. Thank you very much
    for convening this hearing at this stage in our legislative
    year. I look forward to working with you and our witnesses to
    identify the projects that we need to support. Thank you very
    much.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        I have another conflict at 4:00. So I want to proceed to
    the witnesses. It would be unfair, however, if we did not
    spread on the record a vote of thanks and congratulations to
    the Corps for the great work that they did at Los Alamos when
    we had the big fire, which caused, Senator Reid, a number of
    real public works fiascos, where culverts had to be replaced or
    the mud was going to be sliding down the mountains, which were
    now treeless, and would have accumulated on city streets and in
    subdivisions. And the Corps came along and put in some very
    tough emergency measures that took care of the problem. And I
    know that many of your people were there, and I want to thank
    you.
        With that, let us proceed with the witnesses. Ms. Claudia
    Tornblom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army, will go
    first; Lieutenant General Flowers, Commander and Chief of the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and then Major Hans A. Van
    Winkle, Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works. And then if
    we have time, we will have Robert Vining, Chief, Program
    Management Division, testify.
        Let us go in that order. And if you would please submit
    written statements and make your own remarks with reference to
    them, so we will get finished in time to have some questions.
        Senator Reid. I will submit my questions in writing and
    they may provide their responses to the committee?
        Senator Domenici. We will do that.
        Senator Reid. Over what period of time?
        Senator Domenici. Maybe ten days. Is that satisfactory for
    the answers? Okay.
        Let us proceed.

                        STATEMENT OF CLAUDIA L. TORNBLOM

        Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, Senators, it is a pleasure to
    be here today, and thank you for your kind words about the Army
    Corps of Engineers, in particular its Civil Works Program.
    Thank you, also, for the opportunity to testify today on the
    President's budget for the Civil Works Program for fiscal year
    2002.
        The 2002 budget reflects the President's overall goals to
    slow the growth of Federal spending, provide for a tax cut, and
    reduce the national debt, while still providing greater
    emphasis on education and protecting Social Security. Within
    those overall goals, the President's budget provides $3.9
    billion appropriations for the Civil Works Program. Of that
    amount, about $765 million would be derived from the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and
    other sources besides general revenues.
        In addition to the $3.9 billion in appropriations, about
    $514 million will be contributed by Bonneville Power
    Administration, non-Federal cost sharing sponsors, and
    additional sources. In combination, these resources will
    support a total Civil Works Program in 2002 of $4.4 billion.
        The budget emphasizes the principal Civil Works missions of
    commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and
    environmental restoration.
        The program currently has an active construction backlog of
    about $40 billion, which includes $26 billion to complete
    ongoing regular construction projects, $6 billion to complete
    ongoing Mississippi River and Tributaries projects, and $8
    billion for projects currently in Preconstruction Engineering
    and Design. In order to address this backlog, available funding
    in 2002 is directed toward construction of continuing projects.
    As a result, no project construction or study new starts are
    budgeted.
        The budget proposes two new national studies, however, that
    will provide information needed by the Army and the Chief of
    Engineers to assess potential changes in Civil Works policies
    and procedures. The first of these two studies was authorized
    by Section 223 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
    The budget includes $100,000 to initiate a 12-year project
    monitoring program to monitor the economic and environmental
    results of up to five projects constructed by the Corps.
        Second, the budget includes $300,000 to initiate a National
    Shoreline Study, which was authorized by Section 215 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This study will assess
    the extent, causes and impacts of shoreline erosion on the
    coastal shores of the United States.
        The 2002 budget presents new administration policy toward
    shore protection projects that involve placing sand on beaches
    and then restoring those beaches periodically, as natural
    coastal processes and storms erode the sand. For the initial
    sand placement of these projects, the Administration proposes
    no change in the current cost sharing, 65 percent Federal, 35
    percent non-Federal. However, for the subsequent periodic
    renourishment of such projects, the Administration will seek a
    65 percent non-Federal share, reducing the Federal share to 35
    percent. This policy will apply to all renourishment work
    funded in 2002 and beyond.
        Until this budget, beach nourishment projects started since
    1995 have not received budgetary support. Now, due to this
    policy change, funding for projects with 2002 requirements is
    included in the budget regardless of when the projects were
    started. Altogether the budget includes $82 million for beach
    nourishment projects.
        For the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, the
    budget targets funds to high-priority flood damage reduction
    projects, which are on the main stem of the Mississippi River
    and in the Atchafalaya River Basin of Louisiana.
        In the Operation and Maintenance Program, the budget gives
    priority among port and harbor and inland waterway activities
    to those that support higher commercial navigation use. Funds
    for O&M of shallow draft harbors are limited to $47 million.
    Among shallow draft harbors, subsistence harbors for isolated
    communities and harbors that involve relatively greater use for
    commercial cargo are given higher priority, while the harbors
    that are essentially recreational in nature are de-emphasized.
        Senator Domenici. I wonder if you could just quickly
    summarize?
        Ms. Tornblom. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. I would appreciate it. We would
    appreciate it.
        Ms. Tornblom. Working closely with the Chief of Engineers
    to identify opportunities to strengthen the Civil Works
    planning process, we have already agreed to restore the past
    practice of concurrent vertical involvement of all
    organizations, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary,
    at critical steps in the formulation of civil works projects.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers places great emphasis
    on technical and analytical approaches to its projects. The
    Civil Works Program is a wise investment in the Nation's
    future.
        Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Claudia L. Tornblom

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: Thank
    you for the opportunity to testify before this 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
    2002.
        Accompanying me this morning are Lieutenant General Robert B.
    Flowers, Chief of Engineers; Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Director
    of Civil Works; and Mr. Robert F. Vining, Chief of the Programs
    Management Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
        My statement provides an overview of the fiscal year 2002 Army
    Civil Works program and discusses highlights of the program.
                   fiscal year 2002 army civil works program
        The Army Corps of Engineers is the premier Federal agency for
    managing water resources project planning, construction, and operation;
    protecting the Nation's waters and wetlands; and responding to
    emergencies. As a decentralized, watershed-based organization with
    strong engineering, environmental, and research capabilities, the Corps
    is very well positioned to continue developing integrated solutions to
    complex, modern water resources problems. To carry out the Civil Works
    program, the Corps works in partnerships with other Federal agencies,
    states, and local communities, including the non-Federal cost-sharing
    sponsors for studies and projects.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Civil Works
    program includes $3.9 billion in appropriations. Of the $3.9 billion,
    about $765 million will be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and other sources offsetting
    general revenues. In addition to the $3.9 billion, about $514 million
    will be contributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, non-Federal
    cost sharing partners, and other sources supplementing appropriated
    funds. Details are presented in Table A.
        The budget reflects the President's overall goals to slow the
    growth of Federal spending, provide for a tax cut, and reduce the
    national debt, while providing greater emphasis on education and
    protecting social security. The President is committed to a collegial,
    bipartisan approach to working with Congress. We look forward to
    working with you throughout your deliberations on the President's
    fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Civil Works program.
          highlights of the fiscal year 2002 army civil works program
        The fiscal year 2002 Army Civil Works program includes a number of
    proposals and initiatives, such as targeting funds on continuing work
    with high priority outputs, increasing user fees for recreation
    services, and modifying the cost sharing for periodic renourishment at
    shore protection projects.
        The budget emphasizes the principal Civil Works missions of
    commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental
    restoration. The budget also provides funds for storm damage reduction
    studies and projects and for multiple purpose studies and projects that
    include other outputs such as hydroelectric power, water supply, and
    recreation. No funds are provided to continue additional missions that,
    in the view of the Administration, should remain the responsibility of
    non-Federal interests. In addition, the budget does not fund individual
    studies and projects that are inconsistent with established policies
    governing the applicable missions.
    Construction Backlog
        There is a construction backlog of about $40 billion, including
    about $26 billion to complete ongoing regular construction projects,
    about $6 billion to complete ongoing Mississippi River and Tributaries
    construction projects, and about $8 billion for projects in
    Preconstruction Engineering and Design. Available funding is directed
    toward construction of the continuing projects, and no new project
    construction starts or project-specific study starts are budgeted.
    Shore Protection Policy
        The fiscal year 2002 budget presents a new Administration policy
    toward shore protection projects that involve periodic sand
    renourishment. Until now, beach nourishment projects started since
    fiscal year 1995 have not received budgetary support. However, ongoing
    shore protection projects that involve periodic renourishment and that
    are otherwise consistent with established policies are supported in the
    fiscal year 2002 budget, no matter when these projects were started,
    provided that non-Federal interests agree to pay 65 percent of the
    costs of renourishment work funded in fiscal year 2002 or thereafter.
    This increased non-Federal cost share reflects the substantial economic
    benefits that these projects provide to state and local economies and
    ensures that the Federal Government's long-term nourishment obligations
    do not crowd out other important funding needs. The existing cost
    sharing for initial sand nourishment, which is 65 percent Federal and
    35 percent non-Federal in most cases, is not affected by the new
    policy.
        The new 65 percent non-Federal cost share would apply to all
    periodic renourishment costs for which the Federal share is financed
    with funds allocated to the project after fiscal year 2001. The Army
    Corps of Engineers will develop amendments to the project cooperation
    agreements to establish the new 65 percent non-Federal cost share for
    periodic renourishment.
        In addition, beach nourishment study phases started since fiscal
    year 1995 have not received budgetary support until now. With the
    policy change, this restriction has been lifted. Project reports will
    recommend the same new cost sharing formula for the resulting projects.
        Altogether, the budget provides $82 million for beach nourishment
    projects.
    Recreation User Fees
        Recreation user fees will be increased by $10 million, to an
    estimated $44 million per year. This is the first step of a four-year
    effort to increase recreation user fee receipts by a total of $25
    million per year. All of the increase in fees will be made available to
    the Corps of Engineers, without further appropriation, for operation,
    maintenance, and improvement of Corps recreation facilities. A portion
    of these increases will be accomplished by increasing day use fees,
    camping fees, annual pass fees, and special use permit fees under
    existing authority. For the other portion of the increases, we plan to
    transmit proposed legislation to Congress to authorize certain changes
    in current fee collection authorities.
    General Investigations
        The budget for the Civil Works study program is $130 million. This
    funding level is intended to slow the growth of the ongoing
    construction backlog and avoid unrealistic funding expectations among
    non-Federal project sponsors. Cost-sharing sponsors, who are being
    asked to invest in these studies, expect timely construction, once
    studies and design are completed and the projects are authorized.
        No project-specific new study starts are included in the budget.
    However, policy-consistent studies that are under way will continue to
    move seamlessly from the reconnaissance phase to the feasibility phase
    and from the feasibility phase to preconstruction engineering and
    design, as they receive the necessary levels of review and approval
    within the Corps and the Army.
        The budget proposes two new national studies that will provide
    information needed by the Army and the Chief of Engineers to assess
    potential changes in Civil Works policies and procedures. The first of
    these new studies was authorized in Section 223 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000 and involves a Project Monitoring Program to
    monitor the economic and environmental results of up to 5 projects
    constructed by the Corps. The budget includes $100,000 to initiate the
    monitoring program.
        The second new national study, a National Shoreline Study, was
    authorized by Section 215 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1999 and will assess the extent, causes, and impacts of shoreline
    erosion on the coastal shores of the United States. The budget includes
    $300,000 to initiate this study.
        A number of continuing studies focus on basin-wide solutions to
    interrelated water resources problems, where the Corps of Engineers can
    be especially effective as an integrator of multi-agency efforts. These
    studies include the comprehensive studies initiated in fiscal year 2001
    for the Rio Grande River Basin, the White River Basin, and the
    Yellowstone River Basin.
        Coordination, technical assistance, and research activities also
    will be continued. Ongoing coordination of Federal estuary management
    activities will include funds to enable Army participation in the
    National Estuaries Council.
    Construction, General
        The fiscal year 2002 budget for the Civil Works Construction,
    General program is $1.324 billion. Of the total, $61 million would be
    derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and $9 million would be
    derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
        Funds are included for continuing projects that are consistent with
    established policies, including Congressional adds that have completed
    Administration review and are policy consistent. No funds are included
    to initiate construction of new specifically authorized and funded
    projects, new projects funded in the Dredged Material Disposal Facility
    Program, or new projects under the Continuing Authorities Program.
        A number of projects added to the construction program in fiscal
    year 2001 have not completed Administration review and, thus, are not
    known to be policy-consistent. Where a project report is being prepared
    during fiscal year 2001 and additional funds are needed in fiscal year
    2002 to complete the project report, the fiscal year 2002 budget
    includes the needed funds.
        The budget emphasizes the continuing, multi-agency efforts to
    restore the South Florida and Everglades ecosystem and to mitigate the
    impacts of projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers on threatened and
    endangered salmon species.
        $139 million is budgeted for the South Florida and Everglades
    program, including $28 million for the Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration program authorized in Title VI of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000, $65 million for other elements of the Central
    and South Florida project, $26 million for the Kissimmee River
    restoration, and $20 million for critical restoration projects.
        $81 million is budgeted for the salmon impact mitigation program.
    These funds are needed to comply with Biological Opinions issued by the
    National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service under the Endangered Species Act, while continuing to operate
    the projects for authorized flood control, navigation, and
    hydroelectric power purposes. Potentially conflicting requirements of
    the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act also must be
    reconciled.
        The budget provides $88 million for planning, design, and
    construction of projects under the Continuing Authorities Program.
    These are small projects for flood damage reduction, navigation, beach
    erosion control, shore and streambank protection, navigation project
    impact mitigation, clearing and snagging, aquatic ecosystem
    restoration, beneficial uses of dredged material, and project
    modifications for improvement of the environment.
    Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
        The budget includes $280 million for the Mississippi River and
    Tributaries program. The budget targets funds to high priority flood
    damage reduction projects, which are on the mainstem of the Mississippi
    River and in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana.
    Operation and Maintenance, General
        The overall budget for the Operation and Maintenance, General,
    account is $1.745 billion. Of this amount, $666 million would be
    derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and $29 million would be
    derived from Special Recreation User Fees.
        In addition to these funds, operation and maintenance of hydropower
    facilities in the Pacific Northwest will be directly financed by a
    transfer of approximately $114 million from Bonneville Power
    Administration revenues, pursuant to an agreement signed four years
    ago.
        Among port and harbor and inland waterway projects, recreational
    shallow-draft harbors and low commercial-use inland waterway segments
    are de-emphasized so that scarce resources can be available for
    navigation facilities with higher commercial use, as well as for other
    project purposes.
        Operation and maintenance funds for shallow draft harbors are
    limited to $47 million. These are harbors that have authorized depths
    of 14 feet or less. Among shallow draft harbors, the subsistence
    harbors for isolated communities and the harbors that involve higher
    use for commercial cargo and commercial fishing are emphasized, while
    the harbors that are essentially recreational in nature are de-
    emphasized.
        The budget includes $42 million for operation of low commercial-use
    inland waterways, that is, inland waterways with less than 1 billion
    ton-miles of traffic per year. Funds for maintenance of low commercial-
    use inland waterways are limited to $25 million for maintenance
    dredging, and the dredging funds are targeted at the waterway segments
    with relatively higher commercial use. No funds are requested for
    structural maintenance on the low-commercial use inland waterways.
        As always, funds will be reprogrammed as necessary for emergencies,
    such as to protect human health and safety, to perform emergency
    repairs, or to perform emergency dredging of shoaled-in waterways.
    Regulatory Program
        The budget for the Regulatory Program is $128 million, an increase
    of $3 million over the fiscal year 2001 amount for labor cost
    increases. These funds are needed to help maintain program performance,
    protect important aquatic resources, and support partnerships with
    states and local communities through watershed planning efforts. These
    funds will be used for permit evaluation, enforcement, administrative
    appeals, and studies and environmental impact statements, in order to
    provide effective regulation of the Nation's waters and wetlands.
    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 to implement needed clean-up at contaminated sites.
    This year's budget includes $140 million in new appropriations for this
    program.
    Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
        Funding that remains available from prior year appropriations is
    sufficient to fund normal program activities during 2002. In order to
    finance responses to emergencies that may arise during the year, the
    Administration is proposing a government-wide emergency reserve fund.
    Civil Works is one of the programs that will be able to tap this
    proposed nation-wide emergency reserve fund, in the event that response
    costs for qualifying emergencies exceed available funds.
    General Expenses
        Funds budgeted for the General Expenses program are $153 million.
    These funds will be used for executive management and direction
    activities of the Corps of Engineers headquarters, the Corps Division
    headquarters, and related support organizations.
        Among these funds, $1.8 million will be used to continue the
    management study authorized by section 216 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000. This study, which is being initiated in fiscal
    year 2001, is examining Corps of Engineers planning and review
    procedures.
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes that $675 million
    be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, including $666
    million in the Operation and Maintenance, General program for harbor
    maintenance, and $9 million in the Construction, General program for
    the addition of dredged material disposal facilities at existing
    projects.
                     government performance and results act
        A performance plan is in preparation for the Army Civil Works
    program, based on the fiscal year 2002 budget. After completion of
    Administration review, the plan will be submitted to the Congress, as
    required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
        In fiscal year 2002, we plan to maintain high use commercial
    navigation facilities in a fully operational state at least 90 percent
    of the time, maintain flood damage reduction facilities in a fully
    operational state at least 95 percent of the time, and achieve ``no net
    loss'' of wetlands by creating, enhancing, and restoring wetlands
    functions and values that are comparable to those lost.
                          project planning and review
        The Army is working closely with the Chief of Engineers and others
    to identify opportunities to strengthen the Civil Works planning
    process. In addition, as indicated in the President's Budget Blueprint,
    the Army is considering options for strengthening the ability of the
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to ensure policy
    oversight of project planning. Already, General Flowers and I have
    restored the past practice of concurrent, vertical involvement at all
    organizational levels--including the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary--at critical steps in the formulation of studies.
                                   conclusion
        In summary, the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army
    Civil Works program is a solid one. It continues support to ongoing
    work, emphasizes primary missions and applies resources to areas likely
    to have the greatest national economic benefit. The Army Civil Works
    program is a wise investment in the Nation's future.
        Thank you.

        Senator Domenici. General, would you proceed? We want to
    thank you for your testimony earlier in the year, when you
    appeared before the Environment and Public Works Committee. We
    know what went on there, and we thank you for your statement.
    And would you proceed to summarize yours for today, please? We
    will make yours a part of the record, as if you read it.

               STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS

        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thanks for
    inviting me back to testify. I have a prepared statement, and I
    have furnished that and ask that it be made a part of the
    record.
        Senator Domenici. Yes, sir.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, as I speak, our Nation is
    witnessing yet another flood fight in the upper Midwest.
    Farmers, homeowners, small business owners, members of the
    National Guard, and others are filling sandbags, building and
    reinforcing levees, and taking other actions to protect life
    and property.
        You have seen the state and local officials, if you have
    watched TV, who are responsible for public safety, as they
    direct those efforts to protect homes and livelihoods. What you
    have not seen so much of is another group of men and women who
    are supporting these citizens and their local leaders. They
    tend to wear red emergency operations jackets of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers. And they have been working behind the
    scenes----
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question?
        Senator Domenici. Sure.
        Senator Reid. I heard on the news today--I was very
    impressed with the fact that President Bush had sent somebody
    along the Mississippi, rather than with a bundle of money,
    saying, ``Why do you let this happen all the time? This is the
    third flood. Should we not be doing something about that?''
        What is your reaction to that?
        Are you familiar with that, Senator Domenici?
        Senator Domenici. No, I am not.
        Senator Reid. I heard that on the radio this morning, that
    he sent his director of Federal Emergency Management Agency,
    where they have had--I think this is the fourth flood in the
    last 15 years. And he is saying, ``Why have you not done
    something about this?''
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. The----
        Senator Reid. He is in Iowa. Are you familiar with it?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, it was in Davenport, Iowa.
    I was there on----
        Senator Reid. That is right.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. I was there on Sunday. It is
    always a local decision as to whether or not to cost share and
    to build flood control. And there was a conscious decision made
    on the part of the city fathers, because of the nature of their
    waterfront, to not construct flood control protection for their
    city.
        Senator Reid. But do you not think the President may have
    had a good idea?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, I think--again, it is a
    very tough decision to make. When you decide not to have flood
    control, you end up in a flood fight the way the citizens there
    have. And it has been pretty courageous, where they have had to
    build temporary levees, working around the clock. And in fact,
    when I was there on Sunday, they lost their baseball stadium.
        Senator Reid. But my question is--and I am sorry to do
    this, Senator Domenici----
        Senator Domenici. That is fine.
        Senator Reid. But should the people of Nevada, the
    taxpayers in Nevada, be paying for this because the people in
    Iowa decided not to build a----
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, that is pretty much a
    policy call. But you are right.
        Senator Domenici. Oh, good.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Asking people to maybe pay for
    the same piece of property that has been flooded time and time
    again is not a wise use of the tax dollars.
        Senator Domenici. Well, let me comment. You see, the
    Administration comes up here, and, you know, I am very
    supportive of the President. But I like, when I feel like it,
    to say what I think. Now here you have a community that
    probably thought the 65-35 was a little bit too expensive for
    them. Whether they are right or wrong, I do not know. It would
    seem like a good case has been made that you ought not suffer
    through it three times. You ought to vote for some money and
    eliminate the flood hazard.
        But the Administration comes up here with these kinds of
    situations all over America, and they want to change the ratio
    and turn it around to 35-65. I just want to say that is a neat
    proposal. I am not sure how many times we have seen it here,
    but I look over and I see Senator Byrd, and I think this will
    be my third time in his presence where I have said that is not
    going to happen; why do you keep sending it up?
        But I say that now, and I say it in all deference and with
    goodwill. But, you know, you are not going to get that change.
    And if anybody in the Administration would have been looking,
    you would find that those who do OMB's work here send this up
    all the time, Senator Cochran. And it never happens. So I do
    not know why they would have expected that we would do it.
        And I want to comment on one other further item. The amount
    of money cut out of the Corps is $600 million. Now I have been
    looking from the previous year. I look at how did budgets come
    about in the past. And it is interesting. My mind locks in on a
    number.
        On average, every President for the last eight or nine
    years has reduced the Corps of Engineers $700 million. And on
    average, before we are finished, we put all the $700 million
    back and perhaps $50 million or $60 million more.
        Now I think it is good that you send up here and tell us
    how to save all this money. But I think when they ask me at the
    White House why is the budget unrealistic at four-percent
    growth, which I just went through, well, here is one I cite.
    What do you send us up, this $600 million decrease, and suggest
    that we are going to live with four-percent growth, which
    includes this decrease? And, you know, it is kind of
    unrealistic, also, to expect it.
        So if I feel from time to time that we need to be more
    realistic, my friends up here will appreciate that I have been
    through it so many times. I do not know when we will stop
    getting it sent up here only to see us say, you know, it does
    not make too much sense.
        So I am sorry. That is my principal comment on your
    testimony.
        And, General, we interrupted you. Would you try to finish
    your statement? And I understand the two other gentlemen do not
    have statements. So we will get through and have question time.
    Go ahead, General.
        I did not mean to make it so brief that there is no
    statement at all.
        Senator Reid. General, that is the best statement I have
    heard all day.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, the only thing I would
    like to say to summarize the statement is that the Nation's
    infrastructure--is the Army Corps of Engineers has produced a
    26 percent annual rate of return and has put $30 billion in tax
    revenues and savings into the Treasury. And I think that
    confirms my belief that the American people have invested
    wisely in our Nation's investment in water resources
    infrastructure.
        We are working hard to respond to the call. Our population
    has increased. Our infrastructure is aged. Our investment in
    water resources has decreased. Today we have a $40 billion
    backlog of authorized but unfunded new capital investment that,
    when implemented, will provide benefits to the American people.
        Our critical maintenance backlog amounts to over $800
    million. And as this infrastructure ages, costs go up. The
    story continues to worsen with future projections. In a report
    card recently released by the American Society of Civil
    Engineers, the Nation's navigable waterway infrastructure
    received a D+.
        Have we paid enough attention to the future? Our answer
    would be no. We have also heard that same answer from people
    across the country, concerned stakeholders from all walks of
    life that we went out and listened to and captured their
    concerns last year.
        Finally, seeing our men and women in action on Sunday on
    the Upper Miss, I am more firmly convinced than ever that your
    Army Corps of Engineers has a critical contribution to make in
    solving our country's problems today and in the future. Ours is
    an organization that has built flexibility into structure to
    meet the changing demands of changing times and requirements.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We strive to bring synergy between development and the
    environment and seek out the best economic, environmental and
    social solutions. We will tackle the tough jobs. I am proud
    that our Nation looks to us when it needs the best.
        And, sir, that concludes my statement.
        [The statement follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers

                                  introduction
        I am honored to be testifying to your subcommittee today, along
    with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Management and
    Budget), Ms. Claudia L. Tornblom, on the President's fiscal year 2002
    Budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works
    Program.
        I am proud of my association with this program, first as a field
    engineer and research project manager for the Portland District, then
    as commander of the Mississippi River Valley Division, and, since
    October, as Chief of Engineers. I am especially honored to have the
    opportunity to lead the Corps through its current challenges to serve
    this great nation in meeting its many water and related land resources
    management needs.
        Thanks to this subcommittee's support, the Civil Works Program
    remains strong, balanced, responsive, and highly productive. I look
    forward to working with you in furtherance of our partnership in
    prosecuting this fine program, so broadly beneficial to our nation.
        In this statement, I will focus on significant challenges for the
    nation in water and related land resources management. I will say just
    a few words about the budget, 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 two
    topics:
      --Summary of the Civil Works Program Budget, and
      --Assessing the Nation's Needs for Water and Related Land Resources
            Management.
                     summary of civil works program budget
                                  introduction
        This is a good budget. New funding for the Civil Works Program,
    including the Direct and Reimbursed programs, is expected to approach
    $5.11 billion.
        As shown in Table 1, Direct Program funding, including
    discretionary and mandatory amounts appropriated directly to the Corps,
    totals $4.41 billion. Discretionary amounts total $3.90 billion;
    additional amounts total $514 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 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 2001. It also
    provides for funding of two new starts under the General Investigations
    (GI) program.
                               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 2002 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.
       assessing the nation's needs for water and related land resources
                                   management
                                  introduction
        Water and related land resources play major roles in how Americans
    live and work. There are many competing and conflicting demands on use
    of these limited resources. When, where, how, to what extent, by whom,
    and by what means should the demands be addressed? Over the years, the
    Corps has employed various means to gather information for use in
    defining and understanding national water and related land resource
    management issues. Recently, it has employed ``Listening Sessions'' to
    improve the accuracy, currency, and relevancy of its information.
                      initial assessment of circumstances
        Last year, through assessment of trends and results of research,
    literature searches, and consultations with selected water and related
    land resource management experts, we concluded that the nation is
    facing important water and related land resources management challenges
    with serious implications. We made the following observations and
    interpretations:
      --As the world's climate changes, changing hydrology and water
            distribution and, in turn, environmental and socioeconomic
            conditions, we must anticipate need for changes in and
            additions to the nation's water and related land resources
            management facilities, systems, and practices, and effect such
            changes 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 will be
            compromised, and 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 in 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 for ecosystem restoration, wetlands management,
            and nonstructural floodplain management.
      --As the nation's water and related land management infrastructure
            ages, it must be rehabilitated, modified, replaced, or removed.
      --As the nation's population grows, there will be growing conflicts
            among multiple interests within watersheds wanting to use
            available water and related lands for diverse needs.
      --The American public has a strong and growing interest in downsizing
            the Federal Government and, in turn, its workforce. In light of
            this, ongoing outsourcing and privatizing for accomplishment of
            government work, including engineering, will increase. An
            implication of this is that the nonfederal sector, comprising
            States and private interests will have to share greater
            responsibility in water and related land resources management.
                     challenges based on listening sessions
        In light of these observations, particularly, the last one, the
    Corps invited Americans to ``Join the Dialogue'' about management of
    the nation's water and related land resources.
        The purpose of the dialogue was twofold, specifically, to provide
    opportunities for citizens to:
      --identify and discuss water and related land resources management
            needs, opportunities, and problems impacting their lives and
            future sustainability of their communities and environments;
            and,
      --express what they believe the federal role should be in addressing
            these issues.
        This dialogue was carried on from June through November 2000 in 16
    listening sessions--14 regional and two national--at locations across
    the country. A cross-section of stakeholders, totaling nearly 1,300,
    participated in the sessions. This included representatives from
    federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, environmental
    organizations, port authorities, private companies, legal
    professionals, farmers, navigators, journalists, and homeowners. The
    sessions were open to the public and comprised a combination of small
    group and plenary sessions. Corps participation generally was limited
    to note taking. Consensus on water resources issues was not sought.
        Detailed reports on each session are available at the web site of
    our Institute for Water Resources. We invite you to read them,
    particularly our summary report: America's Water Resource Challenges
    for the 21st Century: Summary Report on Identified Water Resource
    Challenges and Water Challenge Areas. Views expressed in this document,
    although not reflecting official policies or positions of the Corps,
    nevertheless, and importantly, accurately reflect views of the
    participants. This information will be used in dialogue on water and
    related land resources challenges in the future. Significantly, we have
    already used it in developing goals and strategies for our Civil Works
    Program Strategic Plan.
        Participants in the listening sessions identified more than 3,400
    water and related land resources management issues and grouped them
    into sets of challenges, forming 30 to 50 sets at each regional
    session, and 542 sets all told. We then distilled these sets into 18
    for the above-cited report, and, ultimately, into 10.
        Solutions to these challenge sets are complex and will require the
    concerted effort of many government organizations, at all levels,
    working for the collective good of the nation. Moreover, optimal
    solutions will require involvement and participation of all Americans.
    The more, the better.
                                   conclusion
        The President's Budget for the Corps of Engineers is a good one. 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.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. This concludes
    my statement.

        Senator Domenici. We will now start the questioning.
        Senator, we will go to your side first. And then we will go
    to you, Senator, on our side, and back to Senator Byrd.
        Senator Reid. We are, General Flowers, familiar with power
    shortages being experienced in the country, particularly in the
    West. Are there investments we could be making in the Corps'
    projects that could contribute to solving the Nation's growing
    energy crisis?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, yes, sir. We have
    locations around the country where additional units could be
    put into powerhouses that are already constructed.
        Senator Reid. Could you give us some examples?
        [The information follows:]

        We have conducted previous assessments that indicated a total
    potential increase in generating capacity of approximately 3,000 MW
    exists. This could be achieved through a combination of improvements to
    existing equipment and installation of power generating units at
    facilities that currently do not include hydropower. On our dams, some
    of our dams in the Columbia River system, we have consciously left bays
    empty that could contain turbines. Examples include the Dworshak
    Project in Idaho, the Libby Project in Montana, the John Day project in
    Oregon, and other projects located throughout the country such as Fort
    Gibson in Oklahoma. The assessments referred to above were completed in
    the 1980's and are in need of updating to reflect new environmental
    considerations work that is already underway or completed.

        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. On our dams, some of
    our dams in the Columbia River system, we have consciously left
    bays empty that could contain turbines. We also have some
    hydroelectric projects that are part of that critical
    maintenance backlog that I spoke of earlier, where hydro-power
    is not operating at its peak efficiency. And if those were
    fixed, we would be able to do that.
        The name of the project that comes to mind, I believe, is
    the Clayton project--Carter. Sorry.
        Senator Reid. It started with a C.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Well, if you would like to have somebody
    answer with other examples, we do not hold you to this.
        Senator Reid. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. And would it be all right, Senator, if
    they submit additional examples?
        Senator Reid. Yes. I would appreciate, General, if you
    would, in your 10 days that Senator Domenici has indicated,
    respond to these questions. Give us an indication of the places
    you could upgrade and approximately how much it would cost.
    Because we are really looking for new ways to produce
    electricity. And hydroelectric, as we all know, is really non-
    polluting. So we would appreciate you doing that.
        [The information follows:]

        The project referred to above is the Carters project in Georgia.
    This project has experienced major equipment failures that are in the
    process of being repaired using O&M funds. Repair of these units is a
    very high priority within the region.
        The Corps also has a very effective major rehabilitation program
    for it's hydropower facilities. This program is a direct result of
    studies done by the Corps in the late 1980's in recognition of our
    aging infrastructure and growing backlog of maintenance. Two projects,
    Hartwell in Georgia and South Carolina, and Dardannelle in Arkansas
    have already been rehabilitated under this program.
        Eight other projects, Bonneville and The Dalles in Oregon and
    Washington, J. Strom Thurmond in Georgia and South Carolina, Jim
    Woodruff in Florida, Walter F. George in Alabama and Georgia, Buford in
    Georgia, Garrison in North Dakota, and John H. Kerr in Virginia are in
    various stages of rehabilitation construction.
        Two more projects, Allatoona in Georgia and Ozark in Arkansas have
    been technically approved for rehabilitation and are awaiting new start
    funding. The cost of these projects are completely reimbursed by the
    rate payer through the various power marketing administrations.
        Major Rehabilitation reports on three hydropower projects, Webbers
    Falls in Oklahoma, Center Hill in Tennessee, and Whitney in Texas are
    currently being reviewed by our headquarters. Three additional projects
    are currently being evaluated for major rehabilitation. These projects
    are Wolf Creek in Tennessee, Fort Randall in South Dakota and Barkley
    in Kentucky.
        Within the last year, the Corps' Southwestern Division formed a
    Process Action Team to look at rehabilitation of all of the Corps
    hydropower plants that are marketed by the Southwestern Power
    Administration. This team has made recommendations for prioritizing the
    work and streamlining the rehabilitation reporting, approval and
    funding process.
        Finally, in the Pacific Northwest, all of the capital improvements
    are funded directly by the Bonneville Power Administration. BPA and the
    Corps have a joint operating committee that have prioritized these
    improvements over the next ten year period.
        In summary, the Corps has been aggressively working for over a
    decade at improving the reliability of these aging hydropower
    facilities, taking advantage of opportunities to improve efficiency and
    output and reduce operating and maintenance costs.

        Senator Reid. General, I know that the Corps is currently
    responding to the flooding situation in the Midwest, as you
    have indicated already. Without a supplemental appropriation,
    how will your emergency response actions be impacted?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we had enough money in the
    account at the beginning of the year to, we thought, last us
    through the year. We have spent about $6 million, I believe,
    out of the FCCE account so far on the flooding in the upper
    Midwest. And I think we still have enough left in the account,
    if we have another event someplace in the country. But more
    than that, we will need to come back with a request for
    additional funds.
        Senator Reid. And you do not know the end of the present
    emergency, is that right?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Unfortunately not, sir, no.
        Senator Reid. Now, General, the Corps held listening
    sessions throughout the country last year in order to determine
    the views of the public on a number of issues that this
    committee is concerned about. What were the results of these
    listening sessions? And how would you incorporate these views
    into your policies and procedures?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we heard a great deal from
    the listening sessions that we held around the country. They
    have been summarized in a document that is on our website. We
    have also provided a summary sheet, summary pamphlet, of the
    comments that we have received. And we did our best to
    incorporate everything we heard in a strategic plan that was
    developed by our civil works director, which is now being
    staffed through the department and to OMB.
        Senator Reid. Can you provide the committee with copies of
    the strategic plan?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we will work to do that.
        Senator Reid. It is completed.
        Ms. Tornblom. No, Senator, it is not completed. We are in
    discussions with the Office of Management and Budget at this
    time. And just a few days ago----
        Senator Reid. It is completed. They just have not given you
    permission to release it, is that right?
        Ms. Tornblom. It is a draft, sir. And I believe the new
    Army leadership, the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for
    Civil Works, would want the opportunity to review it and make
    sure they are comfortable with it before it is publicly
    released.
        Senator Reid. One last question, Chairman Domenici.
        What would be the impact to the cost and schedule of
    ongoing projects if the President's budget were enacted as
    proposed? It is over $600 million lower than what we have
    required. For these projects budgeted in the President's
    proposal, are they funded to the optimal level to begin with?
    Do you understand the question?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Reid. And I guess I would partially answer it
    myself. It is obvious if you do not fund them at present
    levels, the cost goes up in the out years. Is that true?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, what happens, what we have
    estimated, based on the 2002 budget, is that we will have about
    $5.8 billion in benefits that are foregone and about another
    $0.5 billion in additional costs, mostly interest. And the
    average delay on a project would be about 10 months.
        What you end up doing with ongoing work is funding at about
    57 percent. That is across the board. Some are higher, some are
    lower. But a conscious decision was made to continue the work
    that is already ongoing. It is funded at about 57 percent. So
    yes, sir, it does stretch it out. The average delay is about 10
    months, and it is a little over $600 million in cost.
        Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement and some
    questions I am going to submit for the record.
        I do have one question I want to ask you, though. Is the
    Mississippi River and Tributaries project still one of the
    largest projects that you have in terms of dollar cost
    requirements each year in your budget?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cochran. In that connection, I have not looked at
    the details of the budget submission, but I assume that there
    are cuts in that program, as well as some of the others that
    you have submitted in your budget. Is that right?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Does this heighten the level of potential
    damage to people who live and work along the Mississippi River
    and the homes and the farms that lie along the river?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, in the current budget,
    priority was placed on projects along the main stem of the
    Mississippi River. So there is probably some increased risk to
    those who are on the tributaries.
        Senator Cochran. And is it not also a fact that the levee
    system on the main stem of the Mississippi River is subject to
    erosion, deterioration, and aging that heightens the risk of
    loss of life and property in case of flooding like you are
    having on the Upper Mississippi right now?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cochran. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Byrd?
        Senator Byrd, I am going to go back and take a picture with
    some constituents, but I will return before you are finished.
        Senator Byrd. Very well. Thank you.
        General Flowers, I believe our last discussion was about
    Hannibal. And he said, ``If there isn't a way across the Alps,
    I'll make one. I'll make one.''
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. He must have been the original army engineer,
    would you not say?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, I would say so.
        Senator Byrd. In short, I want to convey my strong
    disappointment in the Administration's disproportionate and
    severe proposed budget cuts to the Corps.
        The water infrastructure investments and navigation and
    flood control by the Army Corps of Engineers produced an annual
    rate of return, as you have just pointed out, of approximately
    26 percent. And yet, the Administration has decided to cut the
    Corps from between 15, 16 percent from last year's level.
        The Administration has proposed a budget that is woefully
    inadequate to continue the progress made in fiscal year 2001.
    Projects important to the Congress were omitted from this
    budget proposal. And the projects that the Administration chose
    to fund are funded at much less than optimal levels. The
    Administration's budget proposal will cause serious increases
    to both the schedule and the cost of thousands of urgently
    needed projects due to inadequate funding.
        The fact that no new studies or projects are proposed is
    incredibly short-sighted. In a time of budget surpluses, if we
    cannot afford to invest in our water resources, when can we
    ever afford to do it? The Nation has tremendous water resource
    needs. And this budget is a far cry from meeting those needs.
        In West Virginia, there are numerous navigation and flood
    control needs. I want to ask you, General Flowers, about two in
    particular, the Marmet Locks Expansion project and the London
    Locks Rehabilitation project. And I have a series of questions
    that I will submit for the record.
        But I will begin with this. With respect to the Marmet
    Locks and Dam located on the Kanawha River, ten miles upstream
    from Charleston, the project entails constructing a new lock
    chamber landward of the existing locks, which are too small to
    handle the increased traffic, part of which is attributed to
    the Clean Air Act amendments and the increased demand for low
    sulphur coal and an increase in barge size.
        Which lock in the United States, General Flowers, is the
    most heavily used lock?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, I would guess the Marmet
    Lock.
        I know it to be the Marmet Lock, sir.
        Senator Byrd. You guess that? Alexander, upon his return
    from India, was urged by the Chaldeans to delay his entrance
    into Babylon. And Alexander, in light of all the prophesies and
    the predictions that were being made, said, ``The best prophet
    is he who can guess right.''
        You guessed right.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. I am sure he was an engineer,
    yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Does the Marmet Lock replacement have a
    strong benefit cost ratio?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, it does.
        Senator Byrd. What is it?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Four to one, sir.
        Senator Byrd. 4.1 to 1, right? The Marmet Locks and Dam are
    67 years old. What impact does this have on transportation and
    the safety of those working at the locks in the barge industry
    and on area residents?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, the impact by not
    replacing a structure that has outlived its life can be very
    severe. It is pretty tough to quantify. I would tell you that
    some tough calls have to be made when you are doing the
    budgeting process. And we are working hard to try and make the
    best possible use we can of the dollars that are available. Had
    we the dollars, we would have put more into the Marmet Lock.
    The amount that is being applied will stretch out the
    construction times.
        Senator Byrd. When locks are deteriorating, and I assume
    they are at Marmet, could this result in a variety of
    disasters?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, there is that
    potential.
        Senator Byrd. When are the lock chambers projected to meet
    maximum capacity?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. I believe that year is 2005,
    sir.
        Senator Byrd. Is there potential for the same type of
    delays which average 32 hours per transit and a number of
    accidents prevalent at the former Gallipolis Locks and Dam on
    the Ohio River prior to the replacement of the locks and the
    rehabilitation of the dam? Is there a potential for the same
    kinds of delays?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, there is.
        Senator Byrd. What improvements will be realized with the
    completed new lock at Marmet?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Well, you will have improved
    public safety, greater potential for throughput through the
    lock and dam. I think those are probably the two major
    benefits. And time savings, no delays.
        Senator Byrd. What would you estimate that the improvements
    at Marmet would bring about with respect to the average transit
    time of 4.7 hours to .8 hours?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Would you?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. .8 hours.
        Senator Byrd. From 4.7 to .8 hours. That would be the
    average transit time. And at current traffic levels, what does
    this mean in terms of hours of trip time savings?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. 10.5 thousand hours I am told,
    sir. That is a significant amount--16.5 thousand, sir.
        Senator Byrd. 16.5 thousand hours of trip time savings. And
    for more than 4,000 tows that use the project, is that correct?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Does the Corps have a capability to proceed
    with construction in fiscal year 2002?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, we do.
        Senator Byrd. Then how could the Administration be so
    short-sighted as to not include construction funds in the
    budget, given all that has just been reported on the need to
    expand this critical navigation project? What level of funding
    would be needed to proceed with the construction?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, the decision on the amount
    in the budget, I understand, was based, is based, on us trying
    to keep all the projects that are currently under construction
    going. Currently budgeted for $6.2 million is fiscal year 2002
    for Marmet Lock, and we have a capability of $28.1 million.
        [The information follows:]

        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 2002 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.''

        Senator Byrd. Will the under-funding of the project cause
    an increase in the project cost to complete? And if so, by how
    much?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir, it will. $260 million
    to $313 million.
        Senator Byrd. Now what do you mean when you say that?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. That will be the total amount
    of dollars that will have to be spent to complete the project
    with this current delay.
        Senator Byrd. Are you saying that each year of under-
    funding creates an increase in the project cost by the delays
    in the construction schedule?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. And since the project was authorized in the
    1996 WRDA, the fully funded cost of the project has increased
    from $260 million to the present estimate of $313 million? Is
    that what you are saying?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Does the budget provide sufficient funds to
    finish the real estate acquisition process?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. I am told--it does
    not. It does, but at a slower pace. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. It does, but at a slower pace.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Right.
        Senator Byrd. Well, what would be the new time frame, then,
    for completing real estate acquisition?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, March 2003 now.
        Senator Byrd. That would be the new time frame, March 2003.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Instead of?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. The original schedule was to be
    completed in fiscal year 2002.
        Senator Byrd. The owners of the 250 homes and businesses in
    Bell that will be acquired for the lock expansion project have
    had their social and economic lives severely impacted by the
    impending government acquisition of their property. Although
    the Corps has acquired about 150 of 250 properties needed for
    the project, the remaining residents will continue to feel the
    adverse effects of the project until completion of their
    acquisition.
        So this means that decisions on schools for the children,
    repairs, maintenance on their homes and businesses, medical
    services and other livelihood issues will continue to be
    extremely difficult until the acquisition program is completed.
        If the Corps' full capability of $28.1 million is secured,
    would the Corps be able to complete real estate acquisition and
    begin construction of the new lock then?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes sir.
        Senator Byrd. Now if I may turn briefly to the London Locks
    Rehabilitation, Mr. Chairman, this will complete my questions.
        What is the benefit cost ratio of the London Locks
    Rehabilitation project?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. It is about 25.5 to 1, sir.
        Senator Byrd. And coal is the primary commodity transiting
    the London Locks, I believe.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Are there additional Corps capabilities for
    this project for fiscal year 2002 above those identified in the
    President's budget?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir. The budget
    recommended $4.3 million, and we have a capability of $8.7
    million on that project.
        Senator Byrd. What is the urgency in the Corps' receiving
    full capability funding in fiscal year 2002, especially with
    respect to the lock closure and the condition of the lock wall?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Our greatest concern is with
    the lock wall failure there at London Lock and Dam. That is
    probably the biggest risk we face, if we extend the project.
        Senator Byrd. There could be an unforeseen accident, would
    you say?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. The longer the construction is delayed, would
    you say that the more severe the temporary lock closure will be
    to the shipment of commerce?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Once the lock is closed, it is essential that
    adequate funding be available, both in fiscal year 2002 and
    fiscal year 2003 to allow for the most efficient construction
    sequence to be undertaken. How long will the river lock chamber
    that is to be rehabilitated be closed?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Two hundred six days, sir.
        Senator Byrd. What impact will that lower capacity have on
    river traffic?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. It will significantly decrease
    the amount of traffic that can transit the rivers.
        Senator Byrd. How would you say, percentage-wise, that that
    would effectively cut on the lockage capacity at London while
    leaving only the land chamber open?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, we believe that will be
    about 21 percent.
        Senator Byrd. Twenty-one percent.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, sir.
        Senator Byrd. I thought it would be about half.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Sir, you are right. It is about
    42 percent.
        Senator Byrd. About 42 percent. Do not make that mistake
    often.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. No, sir.
        Senator Byrd. That means I have to do my homework better.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Got it, sir.
        Senator Byrd. By what percentage will lock capacity
    increase once the rehabilitation is completed?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Twenty-one percent, sir.
        Senator Byrd. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    General, very much for your testimony.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Byrd.
        Senator Murray, do you have a few moments that I might make
    a couple remarks and then let you close the meeting?
        Senator Murray. That will be fine.
        Senator Domenici. Is that all right with you, Senator?
        Senator Murray. Absolutely.
        Senator Byrd. Oh, absolutely, yes. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        First I want to put in the record, just for explanation
    purposes, the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, March 1 article
    called Distributing the Pain and the Gain. And what it shows is
    how all the departments have fared. And I must submit that I
    really did not think that the water projects of the country
    should get the most pain of all. But they get a 13.3 percent;
    that is, the Corps, which is the largest percent decrease of
    any agency or department of government.
        And I know this is a public document, but I would just like
    to put that in the hearing record at this point.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Domenici. And I wanted to make sure, with Senator
    Byrd talking about authorized projects that are not being
    funded, that we make sure the record reflects, not in his case
    with reference to his two locks, but we have hundreds and
    hundreds of authorized projects that we have never paid for
    and, I must say publicly, that we never intend to.
        In fact, we tried to clean that up once. I do not remember
    what my position around here was, but, Senator, I remember we
    found kind of a place where we said, well, now is about the
    time to start taking some projects out, because we found one
    old one that made Dallas a seaport. And we found, working with
    Senator Bentsen, that even he thought that was modern day
    rather preposterous. But we gave him two or three years to see
    if they could get it to be a seaport, and then we started some
    process of weeding out. And I do not know how many we took out.
        But I think it is important that we know we are not doing
    justice by all this when we just continue to authorize with no
    idea when we are going to be paying for whatever it is we tell
    the public in our press releases that we are going to do.
        And, General, I wanted to ask one last question. You know,
    years ago when I was a brand new senator, we did not have the
    luxury of passing a lot of legislation. Back 26 and 25 years
    ago, we sat around for the first term and maybe did a couple
    things. But I happened to be the lucky fellow that introduced
    and passed the Inland Waterway User Fees. You all recall that.
    Some of you were old enough. That was a real struggle, because
    the old guys out there who were working in those barges, they
    came to meetings and just challenged me, why do I not go out
    and do their job for a while.
        And, of course, some of them wondered what a senator from
    New Mexico would be doing interfering with their locks. But it
    turned out that eventually they found out that I was a ranking
    member on a subcommittee, and it was my job. And believe it or
    not, we passed by an overwhelming margin one afternoon about
    4:00 o'clock the ten cent diesel fuel. Everybody said it was
    too much, and it would pay for everything.
        It turns out--I was just scanning here the sources of
    funding for the harbors for all of the Corps, inland, special--
    what is this whole category, this category 3.9? The sources of
    appropriation, General Fund, Harbor Maintenance Fund. The
    Inland Waterway Fund is just $61 million out of $3.9 billion.
    So it is doing a little bit.
        Let me close by saying to the acting civilian chief, I
    certainly hope I have just been frank today and have not in any
    way offended you.
        Ms. Tornblom. Not at all, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. I do worry that we consistently get these
    low requests, and then we have to find the money for them. And
    it makes it difficult for all of us. So I am sure the same
    thing is going to happen more or less this year. I do not want
    to get your hopes up too much, but I think eventually we will
    try to square this one away a little bit between the budget
    process and the appropriations.
        With that, we have about ten questions. We will submit them
    to you. And I want to just close by asking you, Ms. Tornblom,
    none of these cuts were predicated upon an argument at any
    level that the Corps was not doing a good job, based upon last
    year's media exposure?
        Ms. Tornblom. Mr. Chairman, no, they were not. I got a very
    clear response to that when I inquired with the Office of
    Management and Budget. This was totally a dollar-driven
    decision and, in part, reflected the fact that the new
    Administration did not feel comfortable going forward with an
    alternative harbor maintenance fee proposal, which made the
    bottom line more difficult for them. This was totally a dollar-
    driven decision.
        Senator Domenici. Right.
        Senator Murray, would you--I yield to you. And would you do
    your questioning and then feel comfortable closing the meeting?
        Senator Murray. Absolutely.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Corps people.
        Senator Murray [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. And I am sorry I was not able to make this morning's
    portion of the hearing on the Bureau of Reclamation's budget,
    because my question really involves both agencies.
        General, as you know, the Pacific Northwest is under the
    Endangered Species Act obligation to recover several endangered
    species of salmon, trout, and sturgeon. In December of 2000,
    the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service issued biological opinions on the Columbia Snake River
    hydro-power operations. These biological opinions spell out the
    steps that we have to take to recover native fish populations.
        If these reasonable and prudent alternative actions are not
    taken, there is going to be further debate on the removal of
    the Lower Snake River dams. With the energy crisis and the
    drought that is now impacting Washington State, this is a very
    tough time for agriculture and for fish recovery.
        President Bush has voiced his support for fish recovery
    without removing the Snake River dams, and I appreciate that
    position. But his budget does not reflect a real commitment to
    recovering these native populations. Regional, Federal agencies
    and everyone involved with the biological opinions agree that
    it will take a spending increase to meet these actions.
    Estimates are between $50 million and $500 million. In fact,
    $50 million is the bare minimum, and that would require even
    larger increases in fiscal year 2003.
        But between the $50 million and $500 million needed,
    President Bush has come far short. Unfortunately, the Interior
    budget, as well, appears to only offer an $8 million increase
    in funding for 2002 to implement the biological opinions. The
    budgets for the Corps of Engineers and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service do not reflect a significant investment in
    these biological opinions.
        The main provision in the Corps budget for fish recovery is
    the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program. The Corps' budget
    reflects $81 million for the program. That is the same amount
    that we appropriated last year. And so it does not reflect any
    of the needed increase.
        It is my understanding that the Corps could use up to $116
    million in 2002 for implementation of the biological opinions.
    And many believe it could be even higher. Unless President Bush
    improves his fish recovery budget, or unless Congress improves
    it for him, the issue is going to end up in the courts sooner,
    rather than later. And I fear that we will fail to recover
    native species vital to the economy and the culture of the
    Pacific Northwest. We have got to do better, if we are going to
    recover these fish populations.
        But, General, I would like to know how the Corps plans to
    meet biological opinion obligations with this budget without
    putting off increased funding to fiscal year 2003.
        Lieutenant General Flowers. Yes, ma'am. I was able to visit
    the Northwest last week and visit several of the projects that
    are involved in recovering and will be vital as we work the
    implementation plan for the Bi Ops. And you are absolutely
    right. It is a very, very tough proposition that we are working
    there in the Northwest.
        The $81 million reflected in the budget is short of our
    capability. Our capability is about $110 million in fiscal year
    2002. And what it does is it puts some risk in our ability to
    implement the Bi Ops.
        Senator Murray. Well, I appreciate that honest answer. And
    I am very worried this is going to put us into court, if we do
    not meet this biological opinion. Has the Federal caucus, the
    working group of all Federal agencies that are involved in the
    biological opinion, have they developed a coordinated budget
    for implementation of this Bi Op?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. I met with the Federal caucus
    last week. And they have put together a coordinated budget,
    yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. When will we see that?
        Lieutenant General Flowers. I will check with the caucus
    and make sure that it is made available. As far as I know, it
    is available now.
        [The information follows:]

        The Federal agencies at the Washington level are, collectively,
    trying to tie that budget together. When it is available, it should be
    provided by the Office of Management and Budget.

        Senator Murray. Okay. We need to get it very soon, because
    we cannot wait any longer to implement ground recovery
    projects. The Tribes, agriculture, irrigation,
    environmentalist, transportation industry have all really
    voiced support for this biological opinion, as you know,
    General. And I think it is critical that we move forward on
    implementing this Bi-Op.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And I will work with the Corps, the Administration, here in
    Congress and the State and Tribes and everyone to make sure
    that we do everything we can to implement this biological
    opinion in fiscal year 2002.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        [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

                       beach re-nourishment policy change
        Included in this budget, is a proposal to change the cost-sharing
    percentages on the Corps' beach re-nourishment program. What the
    Administration is proposing is an increase of the non-Federal cost
    requirements from 35 percent to 65 percent.
        Question. Ms. Tornblom, can you provide the Committee the
    background on how the Administration arrived at this policy change?
        Ms. Tornblom. The fiscal year 2002 budget presents a new
    Administration policy toward projects that involve periodic beach re-
    nourishment. Until now, beach nourishment projects started since fiscal
    year 1995 have not received budgetary support. However, ongoing shore
    protection projects that involve periodic re-nourishment and that are
    otherwise consistent with established policies are supported in the
    fiscal year 2002 budget no matter when these projects were started,
    provided that non-Federal sponsors agree to pay 65 percent of the costs
    of re-nourishment work funded in fiscal year 2002 or thereafter. This
    increased non-Federal cost share reflects the substantial economic
    benefits that these projects provide to state and local economies and
    ensures that the Federal Government's long-term re-nourishment
    obligations do not crowd out other important funding needs. The
    existing cost sharing for initial sand nourishment, which is 65 percent
    Federal and 35 percent non-Federal in most cases, is not affected by
    the new policy.
        Question. What kind of hearings or consultations did the
    Administration do with the affected parties or Congress regarding this
    change?
        Ms. Tornblom. I am not aware whether the Administration might have
    had any hearings or consultations with affected parties or Congress the
    Administration might have had prior to announcing the change in cost
    sharing for periodic nourishment of shore protection projects. On April
    9, 2001, the day the budget was made public, I sent letters to each of
    the affected non-Federal sponsors, informing them of the new cost
    sharing policy and explaining the rationale for the change.
        Question. This change has been proposed as ``voluntary'' and if
    non-Federal sponsors of a project chose to change their cost-sharing
    they would likely be required to renegotiate their existing contract.
    Please provide the committee an estimate of the additional costs which
    will be incurred by the non-Federal parties?
        Ms. Tornblom. The difference in the non-Federal cost share
    attributable to the change in cost sharing to periodic nourishment
    projects of funding included in the budget is about $21 million in
    fiscal year 2002.
        Question. Are there any savings from this policy change assumed in
    your fiscal year 2002 budget? If so, how much and what is the
    Administration going to do to cover any shortfall created by this,
    should non-Federal sponsors choose not to increase their contribution?
        Ms. Tornblom. Yes, there are savings to the Federal Government
    attributable to the change in cost sharing for periodic nourishment.
    The savings amount is about $21 million in fiscal year 2002, the same
    amount as the increased non-Federal share. No shortfall is expected
    because the budget is constructed on the basis that the Corps would
    only proceed with re-nourishment work financed with fiscal year 2002
    funds after the non-Federal sponsor had voluntarily agreed to pay the
    additional share for the cost of such work.
       upper mississippi and illinois navigation study, illinois, iowa,
                       minnesota, missouri and wisconsin
        Question. General Flowers, can you please update this Committee on
    the status of the Upper Mississippi River Study?
        General Flowers. The Corps and the Principals Group--which consists
    of Washington-level executives from Federal agencies with a vested
    interest in the study are reviewing the National Research Council's
    report on the subject study. The Corps will consider the Principals
    Group's input as we revise the Project Study Plan that will set the
    course to complete this complex system feasibility study. This revised
    Project Study Plan is scheduled for completion in July 2001. The
    Project Study Plan will establish a revised study schedule and cost
    estimate, which are not available at this time.
        Question. What progress has the Corps made with regard to any
    outstanding issues or action items needed by the Corps with regard to
    recommendations for change?
        General Flowers. I have taken several courses of action specific to
    the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Study. In regards
    to the management of the Navigation Study, the study team has been
    placed under the direct supervision of BG Edwin Arnold, Commanding
    General of the Mississippi Valley Division. This action places the
    Navigation Study's Project Manager under the specific direction of BG
    Arnold, in light of the regional and controversial nature of the study.
    Secondly, we established a Principals Group consisting of Washington-
    level executives from Federal agencies with a vested interest in the
    study. Membership includes Department of Agriculture; Department of
    Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of Transportation,
    Maritime Administration; Environmental Protection Agency; and Corps of
    Engineers. A regional group has also been convened from staff of these
    agencies to provide multi-agency oversight and guidance to the study
    and provide input to the Principals Group process. The Corps and
    Principals Group are reviewing the National Research Council's report
    on the subject study.
        Question. General, you testified recently that, by July 2002, you
    expected to send Congress a report on the Upper Mississippi navigation
    needs. Can you tell us if the Corps is still on schedule to release the
    report?
        General Flowers. My goal is to provide a report to Congress by July
    2002. However, the ongoing rescoping effort and revision of the Project
    Study Plan will define the actions that will be needed to produce a
    decision document and the time required to deliver a report to
    Congress. If it proves inadvisable to produce a comprehensive report in
    July 2002, I will consider submitting a report that addresses measures
    that could be implemented in the interim.
                                 corps backlog
        Question. The Corps budget justification alludes to the fact that
    the reason there are no new starts requested in fiscal year 2002 is
    that the Corps wants to focus on its backlog.
        Ms. Tornblom, I would like to know, how you expect the Corps to
    address its backlog, which some estimate it at $50 billion, in an
    effective manner with a 14 percent cut in its budget?
        Ms. Tornblom. Funds are included in the fiscal year 2002 budget to
    achieve meaningful progress on continuing projects that are consistent
    with established policies. No funds are included for new construction
    starts since that would further slow the completion on ongoing work.
    The balance to complete budgeted construction projects is a large part
    of the construction backlog, so the budget focuses on completing these
    ongoing projects rather than starting new projects.
        Question. Does the Corps backlog increase in any manner with this
    level of funding?
        Ms. Tornblom. Assuming that fiscal year 2001 funds were
    appropriated and that no additional funds were available to continue
    design and construction, we projected when the President's fiscal year
    2001 budget was presented to Congress that the design and construction
    backlog would be approximately $45.7 billion at the end of fiscal year
    2001. Using the same assumptions, we now project that by the end of
    fiscal year 2002 the backlog will be $48.0 billion. This growth in the
    backlog is attributable to additional projects being authorized in the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000 or completing the feasibility
    phase of planning, changes in estimates, and selected price level
    adjustments. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes a total
    of approximately $1.5 billion for design and construction in three
    appropriation accounts. This is the appropriate funding level in light
    of alternative uses of Federal funds. Under the President's fiscal year
    2002 budget, the backlog projected for the end of fiscal year 2002 will
    be reduced to approximately $46.5 billion.
        Question. Ms. Tornblom, How will the Corps handle within this
    budget those projects which were authorized under WRDA 2000, which are
    ready to move forward? Aren't you effectively ignoring the backlog?
        Ms. Tornblom. We are moving forward on PED on many of these
    projects. We believe that the best way to address the backlog under a
    constrained budget is to complete projects that have started
    construction before taking on additional projects that will force all
    construction to proceed more slowly. There are no new construction
    starts proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget, whether authorized in
    the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 or earlier authorizing
    legislation. Both the unstarted projects and the balance to complete
    ongoing projects are part of the construction backlog. Available
    funding is directed toward construction of continuing projects that are
    consistent with established policies.
        Question. General, how will the construction backlog be impacted by
    the fiscal year 2002 budget request?
        General Flowers. Sir, as I indicated previously, the President's
    budget will reduce the backlog at the end of fiscal year 2002. Because
    funds are limited, the budget focuses on completing ongoing
    construction projects.
                    impact of the president's budget request
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 request by the Administration for
    the Corps is 14 percent less than last year, or down $600 million. Most
    Federal agencies are being held at a 4 percent growth rate, which is
    clearly not the case here. Ms. Tornblom, can you tell me what the
    rationale was behind this budget for the Corps?
        Ms. Tornblom. This budget reflects the Administration's priorities.
    Funds for the Civil Works program are applied primarily to the Corps'
    principal mission areas of commercial navigation, flood damage
    reduction, and environmental restoration.
        Question. Ms. Tornblom, given the recent controversies surrounding
    the Corps, do you believe the Corps was unfairly targeted for a budget
    reduction?
        Ms. Tornblom. No, Sir, I do not. The budget decisions were
    unrelated to those matters.
        Question. Can you please explain the 14 percent cut?
        Ms. Tornblom. The President's budget for fiscal year 2002
    approximates the appropriated amounts for the last few years, other
    than fiscal year 2001. The overall budget amount is in accordance with
    the President's government-wide budget priorities. Within the overall
    amount, emphasis is placed on the primary Civil Works missions of
    commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental
    restoration and on the completion of ongoing work rather than
    initiation of new work.
        Question. Do you believe the Corps' budget was used as a means to
    yield savings within the Administration's overall budget because they
    felt certain Congress would add the necessary funds back for a more
    reasonable budget?
        Ms. Tornblom. No, sir. The budget reflects the President's views of
    the amounts that should be allocated to discretionary spending in
    general and to the Army Civil Works program in particular.
        Question. Did anyone within the Army's hierarchy fight on behalf of
    the Corps during the budget deliberations and passback?
        Ms. Tornblom. Sir, once the Department of the Army received its
    initial allocation decision, or passback, for the Army Civil Works
    program, the Acting Secretary of the Army submitted a strong appeal to
    the passback.
        Question. Please provide the committee the outcome of these
    deliberations and the specifics of additional funding which was
    provided as a result of the passback.
        Ms. Tornblom. The advice and counsel leading up to the
    recommendations which form the basis of the President's Budget are part
    of the internal deliberative process. Similar to the pre-markup
    activities of any Congressional committee, the initial views and
    positions within the Executive Branch vary widely relative to the final
    outcome in the President's Budget. In order to assure the President the
    full benefit of advice from the agencies and departments, the
    Administration treats this as pre-decisional, internal information.
        Question. General Flowers, can you tell the committee the impact
    this budget has on the Corps?
        General Flowers. The emphasis that the budget places on ongoing
    construction activities and on our priority mission areas would have a
    positive impact on the Corps. On the other hand, to the extent that the
    budget provides less funding for justified projects than the maximum
    that the Corps would be able to spend efficiently, economic and
    environmental outputs would be deferred.
        Question. General, please quantify for the committee the benefits
    foregone as a result of this budget.
        General Flowers. Compared with project schedules that could be
    achieved with an unconstrained budget for the Army Civil Works program
    in the budget year, funding at the level in the President's budget
    would result in delayed schedules, and thus, delayed project benefits.
    Compared to benefits realized with unconstrained funding in the budget
    year, benefits totaling approximately $3.3 billion will be delayed
    under the President's budget. However, any delay in the benefits of
    Corps projects that results from funding constraints should be
    considered in the context of the benefits the Nation derives from
    alternative uses of these funds.
        Question. What additional unanticipated costs would the Corps incur
    with this level of funding, which are not currently planned in the
    budget?
        General Flowers. The inefficiencies associated with extended
    construction schedules, as compared with our schedules developed under
    the assumption of an unconstrained budget, are likely to result in some
    cost increases, although we have not quantified these costs.
        Question. General, can you tell the Committee how this level of
    funding impacts the long-term projects?
        General Flowers. The fiscal year 2002 budget funds ongoing projects
    at about 57 percent of their capability amounts, which are the amounts
    that would provide for completing projects on the most efficient
    construction schedules assuming an unconstrained budget for Corps
    construction projects. The constrained fiscal year 2002 budget level
    together with similar funding levels in future years would stretch out
    project completion dates. However, we are trying to manage our workload
    within tight budget constraints in order to maintain reasonable
    progress on all of our projects.
        [``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 2002
    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.'']
        Question. It is clear that the funds budgeted to address the
    growing water resources needs of this country falls way short of the
    known critical needs, what would you offer as suggestions of actions
    that can be taken in the future to close this gap?
        Ms. Tornblom. At the Federal level, the relative priority of each
    water resources mission, program, and project should continue to be
    discussed in order to help focus available funds on the most critical
    and best justified needs, while reducing expenditures that are not as
    well justified or are more appropriately handled at the state, local,
    or private level. To the extent that additional funds are available at
    the Federal, state, and local levels, allocating those funds to high
    priority water resources needs also would help.
                                 infrastructure
        Question. This country has an aging water resources infrastructure.
    I do not believe that this budget request takes this into account,
    since the Operations and Maintenance account has a $153 million
    reduction. In addition, there are no new starts recommended in this
    budget. General Flowers, I understand you have spent some time
    traveling across the country holding listening sessions, is this
    approach to the budget consistent with what you're hearing in the
    field?
        General Flowers. The budget is consistent with the President's
    overall investment priorities. In addition, the budget reflects
    reliance on local and state government and private sector initiatives
    in providing certain water resources services, while employing Civil
    Works leadership in providing other priority, authorized water
    resources services. In contrast, our regional and national listening
    sessions received a view from the American citizens about water
    resources infrastructure that did not take into account the current
    constrained Federal budget, or the mission of the Corps versus those of
    other Federal or non-Federal entities. The American citizens attending
    our listening sessions expressed concern about aging water resources
    infrastructure, growing backlogs in the maintenance requirements of
    that infrastructure, growing congestion and delays in our marine
    transportation system, declines in the capability of the existing
    infrastructure to meet future needs, and construction schedule delays
    resulting from funding constraints.
        The budget request for fiscal year 2002 will not answer many of the
    investment and funding concerns raised in those listening sessions. We
    will not be able in fiscal year 2002 to reduce our critical maintenance
    backlog on existing water resource projects maintained by the Corps of
    Engineers. The budget request does not provide for any new construction
    starts. Moreover, the proposed funding is 57 percent of the amount
    needed for efficient construction of projects which are under
    construction as compared to construction under an unconstrained Corps
    budget. We will need to stretch out construction schedules compared to
    the optimum schedules.
        Question. Do you believe that this budget's approach is reasonable,
    given our aging infrastructure?
        General Flowers. I support the President's budget request. Although
    funds are constrained, they are targeted at investments that yield a
    high return to the Nation. We are doing the best we can with the
    resources available.
        Question. Are there any emerging trends in terms of national water
    issues?
        General Flowers. We found some emerging trends and a myriad of
    concerns over the future of water resources development during our
    regional and national listening sessions. Some of the salient trends
    are as follows. Foreign trade now accounts for 29 percent of Gross
    Domestic Product. Ninety nine percent of U.S. overseas commerce by
    volume moves through Federally maintained waterways. The total volume
    of domestic and international marine trade is expected to double by
    2020 to more than 4 billion tons of cargo per year. Tonnage that moves
    on our inland navigation system is projected to grow by as much as 37
    percent. That commerce is moving through an infrastructure largely
    built in the 1930's. Equally troubling trends are evident in our
    Nation's flood plains and coastal areas. Urban development in flood
    plains continues to increase by 1.5 to 2.5 percent annually. The
    Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates that 94 million acres of
    the United States lies within the 100 year flood plain. Since 1980, the
    population migrating to the coast has outpaced the total United States
    population growth by 15 percent, growing to over 41 million. Along the
    East and Gulf coasts, about $3 trillion in infrastructure is in hazard-
    prone coastal areas. During this century, 23 hurricanes have caused
    damages in excess of $1 billion each when damage values are adjusted
    for inflation. The sessions also included discussion of trends in water
    resources in areas outside of the Corps of Engineers missions such as
    aging water supply and wastewater infrastructure.
        Participants in the listening sessions expressed the need to
    approach water resource infrastructure problems and development on an
    integrated and holistic basis. Solutions must not come at the expense
    of the environment, but should be developed with ecosystem restoration
    and environmental sustainability as requirements in the complete
    solution. There was wide ranging recognition and advocacy for restoring
    degraded water resources, ecosystems and watersheds on an integrated
    basis. In fact, one of the ten challenges that clearly emerged was
    ``Managing Watersheds Holistically.''
        I have only begun to touch on some of the notable trends and
    concerns. We will furnish the Committee with brochures that highlight
    the trends and concerns identified as part of listening sessions. The
    brochures are entitled ``A National Dialogue About America's Water
    Resource Challenges For the 21st Century.'' We will also furnish the
    Subcommittee with copies of our national report on the findings of the
    14 regional and 2 national listening sessions once it is published in
    May.
        Question. What do you believe would be the necessary level of
    funding needed to begin to effectively deal with the infrastructure
    problem?
        General Flowers. I can most accurately speak for the national water
    resource mission needs for which we have authority. The budget provides
    substantial resources for priority activities, although less than the
    optimum amount. Subject to the usual qualifications, I believe we have
    additional capability, assuming an unconstrained budget, capability to
    work on our critical maintenance backlog, which will grow to $835
    million by the end of fiscal year 2002. This action would improve the
    efficiency, reliability, and levels of service of our existing projects
    while reducing the costs associated with deferral of maintenance and
    repairs. Furthermore, subject to the usual qualification, and assuming
    an unconstrained budget, we have a capability of $2.9 billion in fiscal
    year 2002 to complete authorized projects on efficient schedules. This
    capability breaks down into $2.7 billion for our Construction General
    account and $226 million for our Mississippi River and Tributaries
    account. These efficient and unconstrained budget schedules would not
    only realize construction efficiencies but also realize increased net
    economic benefits from the acceleration of project completions.
                                 infrastructure
        Question. General Flowers, your predecessor and Dr. Westphal
    reported to this Committee that efforts were underway to streamline the
    Project Cooperation Agreement process, leading ultimately to the
    delegation of signing authority of a number of agreements to the
    District Commander. Could you please update this Committee on progress
    to date and future actions you are planning to take to streamline
    project implementation.
        General Flowers. Since that time the Assistant Secretary has
    delegated the execution of PCA's for the Sec 313, 531, and 552 programs
    when following the approved PCA models established for these programs.
    In addition, we have developed draft PCA models for design,
    construction, and design/construction (use only 1 model for a project
    instead of traditional method of using 2) for the Section 569, 571,
    593, 594, 595 programs of WRDA 99, and the Section 219 program of WRDA
    92. Later this fiscal year we will be forwarding these PCA models for
    approval to the Assistant Secretary and requesting delegation of
    approval and signature authority similar to that for the 313 program.
    We also have plans this calendar year to complete revisions to our
    navigation PCA models (for specifically authorized and Continuing
    Authority projects) and to submit them for approval and delegation of
    signature authority. In order to streamline the PCA development
    process, we are incorporating optional language to try to accommodate
    as many variations as possible within each PCA model. We are also
    looking ahead to updating the flood control PCA models, including
    additional options and project purposes addressed in each, and
    developing a Continuing Authority Section 103 PCA model for approval
    and delegation to expedite this program, as well.
                      redirecting congressional priorities
        Question. Contained in the budget preface for the Corps, Ms.
    Tornblom, there is a statement by you that, ``The budget also redirects
    funds from projects added by Congress in fiscal year 2001 that are not
    consistent with established policies.'' It is up to Congress to
    determine what the mission of the Corps is, and if Congress decides to
    make a change to that mission, it has the prerogative to do so.
        Ms. Tornblom, were all the projects added by the Congress and
    funded in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation authorized in recent WRDA
    legislation which was signed by the President?
        Ms. Tornblom. All except one of the projects added by Congress in
    fiscal year 2001 have been authorized in law. Most were authorized in a
    Water Resources Development Act or in a comparable Rivers and Harbors
    Act or Flood Control Act, but a few were authorized in some other law.
    The exception is the Hillsboro Inlet project, which is not authorized.
        Question. As such, these projects clearly fall within the mission
    of the Corps, as is defined by Congress. Therefore, how can the Corps
    state that these projects are not consistent with established policies?
        Ms. Tornblom. For clarity, the statement should have been that
    these projects are inconsistent with Administration policies. Such
    projects may not have standard cost sharing, may lack economic
    justification, or may primarily address missions other than the
    principal missions of commercial navigation, flood damage reduction,
    and environmental restoration. By not budgeting for these projects, the
    Administration is asking Congress to reconsider its priorities.
        Question. Can you share with the Committee how you determined which
    Congressional priorities were to be ``redirected?''
        Ms. Tornblom. Those projects that are not consistent with the
    Administration's policies or do not provide significant national
    benefits in the Corps' principal mission areas were targeted for
    redirection.
        Question. Was there any thought given as to the need of these
    projects?
        Ms. Tornblom. Yes, this information was considered during the
    formulation of the President's budget.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

     flood control, mississippi river and tributaries construction--yazoo
                               basin, mississippi
        Question. Mr. Secretary, does the fiscal year 2002 budget request
    for the Yazoo Basin projects provide the Corps of Engineers with the
    funding needed to complete construction as rapidly as possible?
        Ms. Tornblom. No sir, the optimum fiscal year 2002 funding needed
    to meet current schedules and complete construction of the Yazoo Basin
    projects as rapidly as possible is $44,225,000 or $35,675,000 above the
    budget request.
                             project cost increases
        Question. It is my understanding that a project's total cost
    increases, rather than decreases, if the annual budget requests are
    less than the Corps' maximum capability. Are my assumptions correct?
        Ms. Tornblom. Yes sir, you are correct. Capability estimates are
    the optimum funding amount needed to meet schedules. When the optimum
    funding level on a project is not received, the construction period
    must be extended which, in turn, increases the interest during
    construction. Additionally, the project's total cost is further
    increased due to the effect of inflation on the extended construction
    period. These factors can ultimately increase the total project cost
    significantly.
                    yazoo basin, backwater pump, mississippi
        Question. Will you please update the Subcommittee on the current
    status of the Yazoo Backwater project?
        Ms. Tornblom. Sir, the final Project Report and Supplemental
    Environmental Impact Statement for the Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Yazoo
    Backwater Project are scheduled for completion in early fiscal year
    2002. Design of the project, including the pumping plant and other
    project features, will continue in fiscal year 2002. Completion of
    planning, engineering and design is scheduled for September 2004, with
    initiation of construction scheduled in fiscal year 2005.
        Question. Is the funding level in fiscal year 2002 budget request
    sufficient to complete planning and design work for the Yazoo Backwater
    project?
        Ms. Tornblom. No sir, the optimum fiscal year 2002 funding required
    to maintain a September fiscal year 2004 completion schedule for
    planning and design work for the Yazoo Backwater Pump is $6,000,000.
        Question. If so, will the initial construction funding for the
    project commence in fiscal year 2003?
        Ms. Tornblom. No sir, based on current schedules and assuming
    adequate funding, completion of planning, engineering and design is
    scheduled for September 2004 with construction of the project scheduled
    for initiation in fiscal year 2005.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

               impacts to operations and maintenance budget cuts
        Question. What are the impacts of the fiscal year 2002 O&M budget
    reductions on the Huntington, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore Corps
    Districts?
        General Flowers. The Huntington District's backlog at the beginning
    of fiscal year 2002 is projected to be $111 million. Historical data
    indicates that new maintenance and repair needs are an estimated $15
    million per year. The fiscal year 2002 O&M budget request of $57.4
    million allows the district to apply $12.9 million towards the
    maintenance backlog, and results in a net increase in backlogged
    maintenance of approximately $2 million by the end of fiscal year 2002.
        In the Pittsburgh District, The President's Budget will allow for
    continued operation of Locks and Dams 2 thru 9 on the Allegheny River
    at traditional levels. Some normal, daily routine maintenance,
    scheduled repair party maintenance, and prospective contract
    maintenance on the Allegheny River will not be performed. Emergency and
    unanticipated structural repairs will be accomplished, if needed,
    through reprogramming funds from other projects.
        In the Baltimore District, the work packages that are highest
    ranked but for which funds are not available in the budget are mostly
    for maintenance of navigation projects, including a number of shallow
    draft harbors.
                    robert c. byrd locks and dam, wv & ohio
        Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
    and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new locks
    commenced in January 1993. Please also include an estimate of the
    navigation savings during this same time.
        General Flowers. The capacity of the old Gallipolis locks was
    estimated to be 63.3 million tons. With the new 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 58 million tons in 2000. In the first eight years of
    operation, the new locks have realized transportation savings of an
    estimated $261 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 99 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 the end of this year.
                           winfield locks and dam, wv
        Question. Please provide an estimate of the increased capability
    and the reduction in navigation delays since operation of the new
    additional lock commenced in November 1997. Please also include an
    estimate of the navigation savings during this same time.
        General Flowers. The capacity of the old Winfield project was
    estimated at 24 million tons. With the new lock, average tow size has
    increased from 5 to 9 barges per tow, and the entire tow locks through
    in one lockage, whereas before the 5-barge tows had to be processed
    into 5 lockages. Processing times were reduced from about 170 minutes
    per tow to 62 minutes. The capacity of the new lock is estimated at
    69.5 million tons.
        Since the new lock opened, transit time (processing time plus delay
    time) through Winfield has been reduced by approximately 8.6 hours per
    tow (from 10.11 hours in 1990-1997 to 1.51 hours in 1998-2000) and the
    total commercial lockages have reduced from over 22,000 to about 3,000.
    In the three years of operation, the new lock has realized an estimated
    $27 million in transportation savings. The cumulative savings represent
    12 percent of the incremental cost of the new lock. The total cost of
    the project is estimated at $235.5 million. This total cost is also the
    incremental cost because there was no construction in the without
    project condition. At current traffic levels, it is expected that
    Winfield lock will pay for itself by 2015.
                          bluestone dam safety project
        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.
        What risks are currently posed by the Bluestone Dam to the
    communities and businesses, and environments below the dam?
        General Flowers. Under current design criteria, the probable
    maximum flood is estimated to overtop the existing dam. Dam failure,
    while very unlikely, 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 potential property damages in excess of $6.5 billion.
        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?
        General Flowers. 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 change 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. What is the current status of work completed on the dam
    safety project with available funds? What work will be completed with
    the fiscal year 2001 funds?
        General Flowers. The first phase of construction is underway. In
    fiscal year 2001, this consists of a temporary bridge across the
    stilling basin, penstocks extension, and mass concrete thrust blocks.
    Plans and specifications will be started for the second phase, which
    consists of an 8-foot pre-cast concrete wall, State Route 20 gate
    closure, and anchors.
        Question. Are there additional Corps capabilities for this project
    for fiscal year 2002 above those identified in the President's fiscal
    year 2002 budget?
        General Flowers. Subject to the usual qualifications regarding
    capabilities, the Corps has an additional capability of $4 million
    above the President's Budget of $8 million, for a total of $12 million.
    The capability-level funds would be used to advance completion of phase
    1 construction, and continue design for the selected plan.
        Question. Contingent on adequate funding being provided, this
    project is not scheduled for completion until September 2008. In the
    meantime, 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 Flowers. There are no temporary structural measures, such
    as sandbagging the top of the dam, that could be implemented to
    minimize the risk to the public. Similarly, there are minimal, if any,
    temporary operational changes that could be implemented to minimize
    risk. For example, temporarily eliminating the permanent pool by
    draining the lake would not provide any noticeable effects, because the
    volume of inflow for the probable maximum flood is so much greater than
    the volume of the permanent pool. Until the project is completed, the
    Huntington District's Water Control Section will maintain a close vigil
    on any significant storm event in the region that could potentially
    move into or through the Bluestone Lake drainage basin, and will
    provide forecasts as early as possible in order to determine if and
    when a hazardous pool level could occur. In the event that such a pool
    level might occur, emergency management organizations and law
    enforcement agencies in the affected area downstream of the dam will be
    notified of that potential. If the hazard appears to be more imminent,
    evacuation of those downstream areas will be implemented in order to
    minimize the risk to the public.
                     greenbrier basin flood control project
        Question. The 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 local sponsor, 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 Flowers. The Town of Marlinton was recently presented with
    information on both structural and nonstructural alternatives,
    including costs, environmental concerns, and operation and maintenance
    requirements. Based on this information, the Town of Marlinton agrees
    with the least costly plan, which includes the construction of over
    16,000 feet of levee/floodwall to be built on both sides of the
    Greenbrier River, protecting both downtown Marlinton and the Riverside
    areas.
        Question. What is the projected federal and non-federal cost,
    factoring in ability-to-pay?
        General Flowers. The total project cost is estimated to be $70
    million fully funded, or $63 million at October 2000 price levels. The
    local sponsor would qualify for a reduction in its cost share, based on
    ability-to-pay provisions. The non-Federal share would be approximately
    $8.4 million; the Federal share would be $61.6 million. The final cost
    will be contained in the Detailed Project Report, scheduled for
    completion in September 2001.
        Question. What activities are currently being conducted on the
    Marlinton local protection plan?
        General Flowers. The Corps is finalizing the Detailed Project
    Report and accompanying volumes, including the Environmental Impact
    Statement, the Real Estate Plan, Engineering Technical Appendix, and
    the Baseline Cost Estimate that will serve as the decision document.
    The draft report will be completed in July 2001, the final report in
    September 2001. Design of the first construction element is also
    underway.
        Question. What capabilities do the Corps anticipate for fiscal year
    2002 for the Marlinton local protection plan?
        General Flowers. Subject to the usual qualifications concerning
    capabilities, the fiscal year 2002 capability is $1.2 million. These
    funds would be used to continue detailed design, including plans and
    specifications for the first construction phase of the project, and to
    execute a Project Cooperation Agreement.
        Question. When can construction on the Marlinton project begin?
        General Flowers. Construction in a limited area could be initiated
    late in calendar year 2002, provided fiscal year 2002 capability funds
    of $1.2 million were provided and the Project Cooperation Agreement was
    executed.
        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 Flowers. Citizens in the lower portion of the basin, as
    well as a member of the state legislature, have indicated interest in
    getting discussions moving relating to flood protection for the lower
    basin, including Ronceverte and Alderson.
        Question. Is the current authorization sufficient to allow any of
    the above-mentioned local entities to initiate a flood control project?
        General Flowers. The amount authorized to be appropriated, as
    amended in Sec 360 of WRDA 99, is $47 million and is not sufficient to
    complete all of the potential projects. The Federal share of the
    Marlinton project alone, including expected price level adjustments for
    inflation, is estimated to be $61.6 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 Federal share for the
    Greenbrier River Basin is likely to be well over $100 million.
                west virginia tug fork flood protection projects
        Question. For fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $4.1 million 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.
        The President's request includes $16,738,000 for Levisa and Tug
    Fork projects for fiscal year 2002, however, none of these funds are
    slated for projects in West Virginia. Why are no monies budgeted for
    the West Virginia projects in lower Mingo, Upper Mingo, Wayne County,
    and McDowell County?
        General Flowers. These projects were not budgeted because they are
    not economically justified.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2001 in McDowell County and what is the cost of the remaining
    effort? Does the Corps have capabilities in McDowell County in fiscal
    year 2002?
        General Flowers. Remaining activities include acquisition,
    floodproofing, and construction of relocated schools, town halls, and
    fire stations. The remaining cost is $168 million. The capability for
    fiscal year 2002 is $3.2 million.
        Question. What is the present approved plan for the McDowell County
    schools?
        General Flowers. The approved plan consists of construction of
    ringwalls to protect three elementary schools, Panther, Iaeger, and
    Berwind, and relocation out of the floodplain with reconstruction
    elsewhere for two elementary schools, Bartley and War, and Iaeger High
    School.
        Question. How was the determination made for how each school was to
    be protected?
        General Flowers. Site reconnaissance was performed at each school.
    It was determined that three schools, Berwind, Iaeger, and Panther
    Elementary, have sufficient surrounding land on school board property
    that they could be protected in place by a ringwall. Even though a
    ringwall would be several feet high and hundreds of feet long with
    multiple gates, ringwall construction proved to be less costly than
    building replacement schools elsewhere. The other three schools, Iaeger
    High School, and Bartley and War Elementary Schools, are either in the
    floodway or are too close to the floodway and riverbank to build a
    ringwall, so the only flood protection option is to acquire those
    schools and build replacement schools.
        Question. What is the locally preferred plan for the McDowell
    County schools?
        General Flowers. The locally preferred plan is to consolidate the
    Berwind, Bartley, and War elementary schools, and Iaeger and Panther
    elementary schools, into two new schools. Both the approved and locally
    preferred plans call for construction of a new Iaeger High School out
    of the floodplain.
        Question. How can my constituents' preferred plan be implemented
    instead of the present approved plan?
        General Flowers. The district prepared a letter report which
    outlines the locally preferred plan and the extent of Federal
    participation, which is limited to the Federal share of the least cost
    plan. Once the report is approved, the Project Cooperation Agreement
    would be amended to reflect that type of flood protection remedy for
    the schools. After amendment of the agreement, relocations contracts
    will be negotiated with the McDowell County Board of Education, and
    design will be initiated for the two new consolidated elementary
    schools.
        Question. In fiscal year 1999, I added funds to allow the Corps to
    initiate the McDowell County project, including the schools. Two years
    have elapsed, yet no progress appears to be achieved for the schools.
    It is my understanding that a letter report outlining my constituents'
    preferred plan has been pending at headquarters level since December
    2000--over 4 months. A decision is way over due. When can I expect this
    letter report to be approved and the implementation of this long over
    due project to begin?
        General Flowers. The letter report has been reviewed by HQUSACE and
    was forwarded for approval to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
    Civil Works on April 23, 2001. Implementation will begin once the
    letter report is approved and the PCA amended.
        Work is underway for the relocation of Iaeger High School. The
    preferred site identified by the McDowell County Board of Education
    contained contaminants, and the district is presently looking at other
    sites for construction.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2001 in Wayne County and what is the cost of the remaining effort?
    Does the Corps have capabilities in Wayne County in fiscal year 2002?
        General Flowers. The acquisition or floodproofing of structures
    would continue beyond fiscal year 2001 if funds were provided. The
    remaining cost is $5.4 million. Subject to the usual qualifications
    concerning capabilities, the capability for fiscal year 2002 is
    $600,000.
        Question. What activities will remain to be done beyond fiscal year
    2001 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 2002?
        General Flowers. The floodproofing or acquisition of structures
    would continue beyond fiscal year 2001 if funds were provided. The
    remaining cost is $2.5 million. Subject to the usual qualifications
    concerning capabilities, the capability for fiscal year 2002 is $1.5
    million.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2001 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 2002?
        General Flowers. The floodproofing or acquisition of structures
    would continue beyond fiscal year 2001 if funds were provided. The
    remaining cost is $1.8 million. Subject to the usual qualifications
    concerning capabilities, the capability for fiscal year 2002 is
    $600,000.
                     wheeling creek channelization project
        Question. What work will be accomplished with the $500,000
    appropriated for this project in fiscal year 2001?
        General Flowers. The Pittsburgh District is completing surveying,
    mapping, sediment sampling, and real estate rights-of-way in
    preparation of development of plans and specifications to begin the
    dredging work. It is anticipated that the dredging contract will be
    awarded either 4th quarter fiscal year 2001 or 1st quarter fiscal year
    2002.
        Question. What is the Corps' capability for this project in fiscal
    year 2002?
        General Flowers. Federal participation is limited to the $500,000
    appropriated in law. However, if additional authorization or direction
    in law were provided, up to an additional $2,000,000 could be used,
    subject to the usual qualifications concerning capabilities. This
    amount would be used for the dredging contract and contract
    administration.
        Question. Does the channelization project fit into the goals of the
    Wheeling National Heritage Area?
        General Flowers. Wheeling city officials, working with the Wheeling
    National Heritage Area Corporation, are currently redeveloping a
    portion of the city around the Ohio River Waterfront and Wheeling
    Creek. This area is known as the Wheeling Heritage Port. This dredging
    project was conceptualized in the Wheeling Waterfront Development
    Special Project Report, completed by the Pittsburgh District in August
    2000. The dredging work involves extending the navigable channel on the
    Ohio River upstream along Wheeling Creek 1.48 miles to provide boat
    access to Tunnel Green Park. Both the Wheeling National Heritage Area
    Corporation and the City of Wheeling support the dredging work as
    consistent with their plans for the Wheeling Heritage Port.
                                lower mud river
        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 re-evaluation report being conducted by
    the Corps and the options that are being examined.
        General Flowers. The report was scheduled for completion in July
    2000. Preliminary engineering data warranted the re-formulation of
    flood control alternatives for this project, resulting in an extension
    of report completion to May 2002.
        Two alternatives are being examined. One is the channel alternative
    proposed by the NRCS, which consists of 2.5 miles of channel
    modifications along the Mud River, providing an average flood reduction
    of 2-4 feet. The other is a levee alternative, consisting of 6,000 feet
    of levee at an average height of 14.5 feet, 730 feet of I-wall, and 1-2
    pump stations.
        Question. What are the construction costs associated with each
    option and the anticipated maintenance costs that will be the
    responsibility of the local sponsor?
        General Flowers. The channel alternative is estimated to cost $35
    million, with a $385,000 annual O&M cost. The levee alternative is
    estimated to cost $27 million, with an $80,000 annual O&M cost.
        Question. Has the local sponsor indicated an ability to cover the
    maintenance costs of the options being considered?
        General Flowers. The City of Milton has indicated that the channel
    O&M costs are not affordable and that the levee O&M costs would be
    affordable.
        Question. What activities will remain to be completed beyond fiscal
    year 2001 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 2002?
        General Flowers. Remaining efforts include completion of the re-
    evaluation report, completion of plans and specifications, execution of
    the construction Project Cooperation Agreement, and construction of the
    project. The Federal cost of the remaining effort, assuming the levee
    is the selected plan, would be $18.8 million. Subject to the usual
    qualifications concerning capabilities, the fiscal year 2002 capability
    is $750,000 to continue PED activities, including completion of the re-
    evaluation report and initiation of plans and specifications.
                     feasibility and reconnaissance studies
        Question. Does the Corps have capabilities with respect to
    potential flood control projects in Cabin Creek, Fourpole Creek, and
    Mercer County, West Virginia, and port development at Longacre Point
    and in Wood County? Why does the budget not include funding for any of
    these initiatives? Is it not shortsighted to preclude any future
    projects from having the opportunity to develop?
        General Flowers. Subject to the usual qualifications concerning
    capabilities, fiscal year 2002 capabilities are as follows: $100,000
    for Cabin Creek, West Virginia to initiate a feasibility study;
    $100,000 for Fourpole Creek, West Virginia to initiate a reconnaissance
    study; $100,000 for Mercer County, West Virginia to initiate
    preconstruction engineering and design for the Brush Creek Basin area;
    $200,000 for Longacre Port, West Virginia to initiate a feasibility
    study; and $800,000 for Wood County (Erickson/Wood County Port), West
    Virginia to continue preconstruction engineering and design.
        The President's Budget for fiscal year 2002 includes funding of
    $100,000 to initiate PED for the Mercer County Brush Creek Basin. The
    budget does not include funding for Cabin Creek or Fourpole Creek
    because of a general reduction is study funding. Given the large
    backlog of ongoing projects and other construction and preconstruction
    engineering and design work (about $40 billion), the pace of new
    studies needs to slow to a level that reflects what we can afford to
    move through construction. The budget does not include funding for
    Longacre Port and Wood County Port because the development of land-side
    terminal facilities is considered a local responsibility.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                           devils lake, north dakota
        Question. I want to briefly update you on the Devils Lake emergency
    flooding situation that exists in Northeast North Dakota. As you are
    aware, Devils Lake is one of only two closed basin lakes in the
    country. Devils Lake also is unique in that it continues to rise--month
    after month, and year after year. On the contrary, other lakes that
    experience flooding or rising levels do so for only a short time, then
    the water levels recede. In the case of Devils Lake, the water level
    has risen about 25 feet in 7 years. In the past 60 years, it has risen
    nearly 50 feet. And, the situation is getting worse. As of yesterday,
    the reported elevation for the Lake is 1446.92 feet. In early March,
    the Lake elevation was 1446.14 feet, and as of April 19 (last
    Thursday), the Lake was at 1446.75 feet. So, the Lake has risen nearly
    0.8 feet in the last month, and almost \1/4\ of a foot in less than one
    week.
        The rising and expanding Lake threatens to cut off one region of
    our state from emergency services and the normal commerce of daily
    life. It inundates roads, railways and utilities. The Corps has
    implemented normal flood protection, mitigation, and remediation
    measures, such as building levees. However, more must be done. This is
    an emergency situation, because it threatens peoples' homes, businesses
    and commerce in North Dakota. An outlet must be built to begin to help
    address this grave situation. A typical Army Corps analysis may not
    suffice to justify construction of an outlet. Thus, such an analysis
    must be crafted so that it factors in the unique characteristics of the
    Lake, and the unique situation that the Devils Lake region and its
    residents are facing, as a result. Please let me know what the Army
    Corps plans to do to address this critical situation and ensure that
    the relevant and analyses, and construction of the outlet, proceed as
    quickly as possible.
        General Flowers. Recognizing the critical situation at Devils Lake,
    the Corps is working toward completion of the Environmental Impact
    Statement and the preconstruction engineering and design of a
    recommended plan by the fall of 2002. To accomplish this, the design of
    a preliminary plan will proceed concurrently with preparation of the
    Environmental Impact Statement. For selection of the plan that will be
    advanced into the design phase, we will evaluate the cost effectiveness
    of alternatives and their economic justification under a range of
    scenarios for future lake stages. Much of this evaluation will be based
    on already available data and modeling. The design phase is scheduled
    to begin in August 2001. Efforts are under way to complete an updated
    evaluation of alternatives, collect essential seasonal data for
    evaluation of project impacts, and appropriately coordinate the
    Environmental Impact Statement.
             grand forks, north dakota-east grand forks, minnesota
        Question. I see that the Grand Forks permanent dike construction
    for the City of Grand Forks, ND is proposed to be funded at $24.954
    million for fiscal year 2002. It is my understanding that an additional
    $10 million beyond the President's budget request is needed for the
    next fiscal year to ensure completion of this project in four years.
    This will save money from increases in inflation, as well as from
    alleviating the need for annual emergency measures--both in terms of
    construction and removal of temporary levees. Further, I understand
    that FEMA is in the process of rewriting the flood maps in the Grand
    Forks area. Unless the dike is completed in a timely way, these maps
    will not reflect the protection of this dike and homeowners will
    unnecessarily pay flood insurance.
        Is the Army Corps of Engineers aware of this situation with FEMA
    and does it agree that it makes sense for the federal government to
    keep the project on an aggressive schedule?
        General Flowers. We understand that the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency is developing flood plain maps to reflect current
    conditions because the existing floodplain maps do not accurately
    reflect the flooding risk to which the citizens, businesses and
    infrastructure in the Grand Forks/East Grand Forks area are exposed. We
    provide current schedules for completion of the flood damage reduction
    project to FEMA so that FEMA may make reasonable decisions on
    scheduling its remapping efforts for the area. Subject to the usual
    qualifications concerning capabilities, the fiscal year 2002 capability
    for the project is $35 million.
               wahpeton, north dakota and breckenridge, minnesota
        Question. Along these lines, the Corps also has Function 205, or
    continuing authority, funding to proceed with levee construction in
    Wahpeton, N.D. However, the Corps has informed me that construction
    cannot proceed without Breckenridge, MN constructing a flood reduction
    project, that would include a parallel dike, or levee, on the other
    side of the Missouri River. The cost for the Breckenridge project is
    $21 million. Simultaneous construction on both sides of the River is
    essential to preventing damage to Breckenridge, as well as other
    surrounding areas. These areas could experience severe erosion and/or
    flooding, due to an imbalance in pressure on the River, if a levee were
    to be erected on one side of the River, but not the other. However,
    funding for the Breckenridge construction is considered a ``new start''
    project. There is insufficient funding in the President's budget
    request for a ``new start'' in Breckenridge. I have a letter from the
    Breckenridge Mayor echoing the need for this project.
        Given the need for Breckenridge to construct a levee in order for
    Wahpeton's construction to proceed, and the fact that Wahpeton already
    has continuing authority for this critical project to protect the City,
    wouldn't you agree that it is essential to fund the Breckenridge
    construction project?
        General Flowers. The floods of 1997 and, more recently, 2001 have
    demonstrated the importance of providing permanent flood protection for
    both Wahpeton and Breckenridge. The two projects are interdependent
    because there would be project-induced flooding if either were
    implemented without the other. In addition, the 125-year level of
    permanent flood protection that would be provided by the Wahpeton levee
    project depends on concurrent construction of a diversion channel
    feature that is part of the Breckenridge project. For these reasons, we
    propose that the two projects be constructed in tandem. The
    Breckenridge project was specifically authorized by Section 320 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and preconstruction
    engineering and design for both projects will be completed by the end
    of fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Ms. Tornblom, last year, the President proposed a
    Recreation Modernization Program to meet some of the needs of Corps
    recreation areas. This program seemed to make a lot of sense, given
    that the Corps has 4,340 recreation sites associated with 463 Corps
    projects. Ten percent of the American population visits these sites for
    a total of 376 million visits every year. According to Corps data, $15
    billion is spent at these sites by visitors to these sites. Seems to me
    like recreation is a big business. In fact, I have asked the General
    Accounting Office to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis, but my
    understanding is that the recreational interests yield approximately
    $80 million annually, while the downstream navigational interests yield
    approximately $7 million.
        In this light, I think a Recreation Modernization program for the
    Corps would make some sense. It is my understanding that this proposal
    would upgrade recreation facilities throughout the COE inventory from
    the 1950-1960s standards to current standards and codes. This makes
    sense because there are so many needs in the Corps' limited O&M budget,
    that recreation often gets overlooked. Could you please inform us why
    funding for the Corps' Recreation Modernization program was not
    included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request?
        Ms. Tornblom. The Recreation Modernization Program, which was
    proposed in fiscal year 2001 but did not receive appropriations, would
    have been classified as a new construction start in the fiscal year
    2002 budget. However, no funds are included in the budget to initiate
    new construction starts. Rather, funds are included in the fiscal year
    2002 budget to achieve meaningful progress on continuing projects that
    are consistent with established policies.
                           operation and maintenance
        Question. You may already be aware that Lake Sakakawea is predicted
    to have exceptionally low water levels in the coming season. Depending
    on how the Corps proceeds with its operating plan for the Master
    Manual, their actions could actually exacerbate this problem. With this
    information in mind, it seems difficult to understand how the Corps
    could not give greater consideration to these recreational interests.
    Given the fact that the Corps' actions are already difficult situation
    even more difficult, will the Corps commit to providing these limited
    funds to mitigate the problem?
        General Flowers. The current operation of the Missouri River Main
    Stem Reservoir System conforms to the Guidelines set out in the
    existing Missouri River Master Manual. Under the current manual,
    storage levels trigger release from the reservoirs to serve the
    multiple purposes for which Congress established the reservoir system.
    Those purposes include flood control, irrigation, hydropower,
    navigation, recreation, municipal and industrial water supply and water
    quality. The Corps is currently in the process of revising the manual.
    The many alternatives under consideration include conservation
    measures, which would keep lake levels slightly higher during drought
    periods such as the 1980's. Our intent is to complete and implement the
    revised manual in March of 2003. While the Corps entered the year
    without funds designated to assist recreation interests with problems
    resulting from low lake levels, we are now making funds available
    through reprogramming actions to repair boat ramps constructed by the
    Corps and to address the noxious weed problem.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

             american river watershed (common features), california
        Question. $13 million is included in the Budget for the American
    River Project. This project was authorized in WRDA 1996 and modified in
    WRDA 1999. It includes slurry walls to strengthen the Lower American
    River Levees, raising portions of the American River Levees, levee and
    berm raising along the Sacramento River and levee raising along the
    Natomas Cross Canal. What is your capability for the project in fiscal
    year 2002 and how would any additional funds be used?
        Answer. Subject to the usual qualifications, our capability for
    fiscal year 2002 is $17 million. With the additional funds we could
    advance completion of the Lower American River slurry wall
    construction, authorized in WRDA 1996, by 3 months.
        american river watershed, (folsom dam modifications), california
        Question. The Folsom Dam Modification project was included as a new
    construction start in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Act. When do
    you expect actual construction to begin on this project that is
    critical to improving the level of flood protection for the Sacramento
    Area?
        Answer. We are scheduled to initiate construction for the emergency
    generator in January 2002, and enlargement of the outlets will begin in
    August 2002.
        Question. Only $4,500,000 was included in the fiscal year 2002
    Budget for the project. What is your full capability for fiscal year
    2002?
        Answer. Subject to the usual qualifications, our full capability
    for fiscal year 2002 is $8,000,000.
        Question. Assuming sufficient funding in fiscal year 2002 and
    beyond, what is the project's scheduled completion date?
        Answer. Our optimal schedule reflects project completion in
    September 2006.
                  south sacramento county streams, california
        Question. We understand that a Section 215 project has been
    proposed for a segment of the South Sacramento Streams Project. Would
    you describe that work and the urgency of moving ahead with it at this
    time?
        Answer. The proposed Section 215 work involves the non-Federal
    sponsor reconstructing approximately 3 miles of existing levee and
    constructing 0.5 miles of new levee at the downstream end of the
    project. The project would remedy the problem of sand lens underlining
    and increase the level of flood protection. The Section 215 work is an
    integral part of that effort.
        Question. Do you have a capability to initiate construction of the
    project in the fiscal year 2002 and if so, how much is your capability?
        Answer. Subject to the usual qualifications, our capability is
    $10,000,000, which would enable us to initiate Federal construction in
    the spring of 2002.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Byrd. I believe the chairman said you should close
    it.
        Senator Murray. Okay. In that case, I will. This meeting is
    recessed. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:09 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Domenici, Cochran, Reid, and Hollings.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    National Nuclear Security Administration

    STATEMENTS OF:
            GENERAL JOHN GORDON, UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR NUCLEAR
                SECURITY AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
                ADMINISTRATION
            ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN, DIRECTOR, NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION
                PROGRAM
            GENERAL THOMAS F. GIOCONDA, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR
                DEFENSE PROGRAMS
            KENNETH E. BAKER, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
                NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. The hearing will come to order. Thanks to
    Senator Hollings for coming, and I imagine Senator Reid's going
    to be here before we finish.
        This afternoon the subcommittee will consider the fiscal
    year 2002 budget request for National Nuclear Security
    Administration, having nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and
    reactor programs.
        Combining these programs accounts for about $6.8 billion of
    the $18 billion requested from this subcommittee for the
    Department of Energy. For nuclear weapons Stockpile
    Stewardship, the new administration has proposed $5.3 billion
    for fiscal year 2002, an increase of $295 million over current
    year. However, even with this increase the request in my
    opinion--and we hope to establish here today is inadequate. I
    will state a few of those reasons and we'll try to go through
    them as we take the testimony.
        We know from this committee's hearings on infrastructure
    earlier this year that our nuclear weapons facilities have
    degraded to the point that it will take--over a number of
    years--billions of dollars to modernize for the future.
    Although the work must begin immediately, the budget request
    includes no funds to begin such an initiative.
        In case anybody doubts that we need to start on this
    infrastructure and building program, I think the evidence that
    we have with reference to a facility needed in Tennessee where
    the roof is kind of falling down and the workers are having to
    wear hard hats in a building that doesn't have anything to do
    with wearing hard hats because the ceiling's falling in on them
    it's time to get that one going because we need it for a lot of
    new activities.
        Under the budget we've got, the NNSA will not be able to
    meet the Nuclear Weapons Council refurbishment schedule for
    three major nuclear weapons systems representing about half of
    the stockpile, and we must soon have the capability to produce
    plutonium pits for weapons. We've been putting that date off
    annually into the future.
        I think we've arrived at a schedule which everyone says we
    ought to do, and we ought to be able to, and I believe that the
    capability which was lost when Rocky Flats was closed--many
    think it's high time we get on with that. My analysis at least
    is there's not enough money in this budget to do that.
        As a result, I believe the budget we received is about $800
    million short in what we should have to do the job of Stockpile
    Stewardship in the year 2002 correctly and adequately, and for
    the Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation program the new
    administration has proposed $773 million for 2002, a decrease
    of $100 million, or 12 percent over current year.
        Now, maybe the new administration thinks there are ways to
    do this non-proliferation differently and better. We certainly
    are anxiously awaiting what that is, but in the meantime we
    would note, at least for the subcommittee's purposes, that
    Senator Baker and Senator Cutler--excuse me--Attorney Cutler
    put together a very detailed report on this issue and they
    concluded that the most urgent unmet national security threat
    to our country is the danger that weapons of mass destruction
    or weapons usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold
    to terrorists or hostile nation states could use them against
    the United States after having acquired them either militarily
    or through civilian action.
        And the report concluded current non-proliferation programs
    of the Department of Energy have achieved results which are
    impressive as far as they have gone, but their limited mandate
    and funding fall far short of what is required to adequately
    address this threat.
        However, despite our knowledge of the threat and the
    success of the programs, the 12 percent reduction stands in the
    budget as it currently is before us. It puts at risk the
    Russian-U.S. Plutonium Disposition Agreement and forces some
    very major cuts in other areas, including the well regarded
    program that's named the MPC&A program. That's the one where we
    help the Russians with photography equipment and other kinds of
    things to maintain the nuclear--maintain their plutonium and
    other things in a safe manner where they can't be easily taken
    and transferred around without records.
        The threats are too great in this non-proliferation area
    to--for us to say we can get by with the cuts. I don't believe
    we can.
        And my last comment has to do with the Naval Reactor
    Program. The administration proposes $688 million, the same
    amount provided in current fiscal year. This program and the
    men and women who run it have enjoyed nearly 50 years of
    unparalleled success in providing safe and reliable nuclear
    propulsion plants for military use.
        I look forward to hearing today your comments on the budget
    request. We're going to begin, after Senators have commented,
    with you, General Gordon, and your testimony, then you, General
    Gioconda, whom I understand you're still acting and you're
    going to be leaving us pretty soon. I wish you could stay
    around longer. You're doing a great job.
        And we have the Acting Deputy Administrator for Programs,
    Ken Baker. Thank you for all your work. And then we will have
    the Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Non-
    proliferation, and we will proceed now asking first Senator
    Hollings if he has any opening remarks.
        Senator Hollings. I'm very interested in waste disposal,
    but I'll wait until I can ask my questions.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'll wait until we hear from
    the witnesses. I have a few questions.
        Senator Domenici. I appreciate that.
        General Gordon, welcome, not only here but to your new job.
    We know it's difficult. We created your position and that which
    is under you by a brand new statute last year after much debate
    and discussion, and we look forward, as that statute indicates,
    to a better managed part of the department as it pertains to
    nuclear weapons activities and non-proliferation, and we thank
    you for the time you're devoting to that end.
        Please proceed.

                        STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN GORDON

        General Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    the opportunity to come up and discuss the budget request for
    this year. As you've already noted, I'm joined by Admiral
    Bowman, General Gioconda, and Ken Baker. They'll also have
    statements to make and they can answer the hard questions I
    think as we get into this.
        But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a special point of
    thanking the members of the committee and yourself for the
    continuing support of NNSA, its mission, and for the people who
    make it all happen, both in Washington and in the field, the
    Federal employees, the contractors. There's some 37,000 people
    who depend on what we do here today, and they need your
    support.
        I have submitted a rather long formal statement and I offer
    that for the record, sir, and I'll be a little briefer as we go
    through this.

                                 STATUS OF NNSA

        I would like to speak for a few minutes about NNSA itself,
    and I would report to you, Mr. Chairman, that we're making
    steady but somewhat slow progress on the goals we share of an
    efficient and effective organization to lead and manage the
    portion of the nuclear security enterprise that's been
    entrusted to us, and I'm not particularly satisfied with where
    we have been able to establish NNSA as an all up organization
    with its unique identity and clear lines of authority, but we
    are moving forward and actually I think have made remarkable
    progress when measured against some of the barriers and the
    bureaucracy that we've faced.
        And even though it's been difficult to move dramatically on
    organizational issues we've gotten beyond such issues as dual
    hatting. We've begun to set up a new framework for the
    organization itself. We've brought on board critical staff for
    vital issues such as counterintelligence and security and
    contracting. We've made real progress in each of those areas.
        We have two senior advisors who work for me, one in policy,
    one in science of immense capacity, a director of congressional
    affairs with a proven track record, an ES&H advisor with
    tremendous professional experience who's joined us from Naval
    Reactors, a senior military assistant, a strong chief of staff
    who knows where the system is and where it's been in great
    detail, and I'm particularly excited--and you and I have spoken
    about this, Mr. Chairman--about the establishment of policy
    planning staff so we can be much more active in the debates
    that occur within the administration itself.
        Now, I did elect, Mr. Chairman, to spend a large portion of
    my time in the early months of my administration on the very
    critical mission-related problems that were squarely on my desk
    when we took over and a little bit less on the organization
    itself, and from my perspective there's been real progress to
    report on NNSA, and I'd like to just touch on that for a moment
    with you and the other members.

                              NNSA ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        First, the morale at the labs and production facilities
    really has now turned around. I don't want to say it's fixed. I
    won't tell you that it's not fragile, but every place you go in
    the structure now you can find at least a difference and a
    positive sign on what's happening on morale, in part because
    we've been able to put to them real work and real energy on
    real projects.
        We've made some marked improvements on security, which, if
    nothing else, you notice we're off the front pages. We have
    John Hamre running an important committee for us, looking at
    the balance between security and science and making sure we
    don't have to trade one off for the other; that we can in fact
    do both.
        We've established a moratorium on new policies until we can
    make sure the ones we've got are the right ones and that we're
    implementing them right, and we've begun work on integrated
    safeguards and security management, a way to really bring
    security down to the individual people who are trying to do the
    work.
        In counterintelligence we have a better balance on how we
    handle foreign visitors. We have a major polygraph study going
    on with the National Academy of Sciences, and I hope to be able
    to propose to Congress some perfecting language to the
    polygraph program itself while maintaining the very highest
    standards of security.
        We substantially changed our relationship with the
    Department of Defense and the military. The Nuclear Weapons
    Council is up and running and making decisions. We are working
    carefully together on requirements and we've agreed as you
    mentioned on a specific stockpile life extension program where
    we know what needs to be done. We've reached agreement with the
    Nuclear Weapons Council and developed a schedule for this
    program.
        I have developed a 5-year budget. It's an important
    management tool. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a good
    first start, and we're going to continue that every year as we
    move ahead. We rebaselined the National Ignition Facility,
    which is a clear way ahead, and when one goes out and visits it
    now you no longer hear just about the science, or isn't this
    going to be wonderful when it gets done, but it's really being
    run on a project basis. Here's what we did last week. Here's
    what I'm going to do next week. Here's the budget. Here's the
    earned value. Here are the problems. They're really dealing
    with it in a management way that's very different.
        We've begun to put new--renewed energy in our operations in
    Nevada with an aggressive subcritical program. It gives much
    needed unique information to our work for SSP as a whole with
    specific work on plutonium.
        We've had the first couple of shots now from a very
    important test facility known as Jasper, or gas gun. It's going
    to also contribute to our knowledge of plutonium at a much
    cheaper way than the subcrits, and we're well on our way toward
    understanding how we will move the ATLAS system there and get
    it up and running, dependent upon the outcomes of the strategic
    reviews and the allocation of funds.
        We've put into place new contracts at most of our
    facilities: at Los Alamos and Livermore Labs, under the
    University of California, a new contractor at Y-12 in
    Tennessee, a new contractor at Pantex, a new contract at Kansas
    City, and DOE has extended the contract at Savannah River. And
    I can report that in every one of those locations there are
    positive changes that are coming about, either new contracts or
    through the new contractor aggressively attacking the problems
    we have.
        With non-proliferation, Mr. Chairman, we've been equally
    successful in Detection R&D with the MTI satellite--from the
    MTI satellite to the smallest of hand held detectors being made
    available to first responders in nuclear, chemical, and
    biological.
        MPC&A is having success strengthening the security of
    several thousand Russian naval warheads and 220 metric tons of
    uranium and plutonium, and the Second Line of Defense in Russia
    where we've been helping deploy detectors at sensitive Russian
    border crossings, and the Nuclear Cities Initiative and the
    Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention providing
    opportunities for Russian nuclear scientists to turn to
    commercial activities and to reduce the footprint of the
    Russian nuclear complex.
        In the HEU purchase, the highly enriched uranium purchase,
    we've now monitored the conversion of 110 metric tons of
    Russian highly enriched uranium into a lower grade reactor
    fuel. We strengthened the safety of Russian-designed reactors.
    We're trying to convert unneeded material here and in Russia,
    and we've completed the canning and safeguarding of some 8,000
    plutonium bearing fuel rods from Yongbyong in North Korea.

                        NAVAL REACTOR'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Mr. Chairman, I won't say a lot about naval reactors today
    other than to report that my friend Admiral Skip Bowman is
    actually doing a superb job by every measure. His organization
    operates 102 naval reactor plants, one less than the total
    number of commercial reactors operating in the United States
    today. Naval Reactors provide safe, efficient, effective
    propulsion to 40 percent of the naval combatants.
        They're developing the next generation reactor for the
    Virginia Class submarines and the reactor for the Navy's new
    class of aircraft carriers CVNX. These are included in the
    requested budget. But importantly, Naval Reactors continues to
    make real progress in improving its business practices and
    operating at the highest environmental standards. Mr. Chairman,
    what I do, what I ask my staff to do is go to school on them,
    because they're showing us how to do a lot of this.

             ONGOING REVIEWS AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE BUDGET REQUEST

        Mr. Chairman, you've mentioned the budget, $6.8 billion
    total, $5.3 billion for defense programs, $774 million for
    Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation, $688 million for Naval
    Reactors.
        Mr. Chairman, it's very likely that numbers for the Defense
    Nuclear Non-proliferation and Defense Programs are not final.
    President Bush has asked the Secretary of Defense, in
    conjunction with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct several
    reviews to create a new vision for the role of the Nation's
    military in this century. One of those reviews will examine the
    role of nuclear deterrence in the post-cold war national
    security environment, including determinations of the size and
    the structure of the weapons stockpile and the possibility of
    substantially different requirements.
        NNSA is an active participant in that review and its
    outcome will have a major impact on the work load of the
    national security laboratories and the plants for many years to
    come.
        Another review is examining the U.S. non-proliferation
    programs with Russia. At the end of this review I hope we'll
    have a new strategy for threat reduction activities, and the
    NNSA is also a major participant in those reviews. The
    administration will finalize its out-year funding request for
    defense and national security-related activities when these
    reviews are complete.
        Following these reviews, we will work with you and the
    staff to provide timely information on the results and any
    changes to the budget request for 2002 and the out years, and
    knowing that our schedules and your schedules for this budget
    are already quite compressed, I wish I could give you a firm
    schedule on this, but at this time it would really only be
    speculation on my part.
        But notwithstanding some uncertainty about the details of
    the reviews, I'd like to look ahead, Mr. Chairman, to the
    challenges and the opportunities that really are in front of us
    and the steps we need to take to effectively accomplish and
    focus our programs.

                               BUDGET PRIORITIES

        My formal submission defines the details. I'd like to speak
    pretty broadly about where this goes, particularly in the light
    of the possibility of some changes in the numbers.
        The requested budget for defense program goes a long way
    towards stockpile stewardship and includes, as you mentioned,
    an increase of about 4.6 percent this year. Now, $5.3 billion
    is a significant amount of money and, as I understand it, the
    only real increase in the DOE budget, and it will support most
    of our major campaigns, the technology building blocks for the
    future. Two national assets--the secure transportation asset
    and nuclear incident response--will remain a high priority, and
    weapons safeguards and security, a separate budget category,
    will meet all known requirements.
        At the requested level it will support the ongoing
    refurbishments of the W87 warhead and begin the work on the
    B61, which is much needed. It will not, under current
    allocations, support plans for the W76 or for the W80, although
    we should be able to begin some engineering development work.
        We will proceed with our pit manufacturing plan and
    schedule, but we will not be able to give a date certain for
    the certification of a W88 pit, at least without significantly
    unbalancing the program as a whole. And, at the requested
    level, we would not be able to aggressively attack the
    infrastructure problem issue, which we discussed at the last--
    at my last appearance before the subcommittee.
        Mr. Chairman, the underlying approach to our budget was to
    keep all our campaigns in balance while focusing on three
    areas: correcting some of the major problems of the past such
    as the NIF, pit manufacturing and pit certification; beginning
    to fund the needed refurbishment programs for the stockpile
    which were not included in the original design of Stockpile
    Stewardship because we didn't know what work was going to need
    to be done; and to begin to correct this crisis we have in our
    facilities. So we await the outcome of the reviews to finalize
    our numbers.

              NUCLEAR TEST READINESS AND LONG-TERM PIT PRODUCTION

        As a bit of an aside, Mr. Chairman, there are two topics I
    want to focus on more this year, that at least in the first
    year won't have major budgetary impacts, but I think it is now
    time for us to get on a different step on nuclear test
    readiness and on long-term pit production as well. I plan to
    conduct a review very closely tied with the administration's
    defense reviews on whether and how we should improve our
    readiness to conduct a nuclear test, should it ever be
    conducted with the possibility of moving those time lines up.
        And I also believe we've now made enough progress in the
    pit manufacturing program at Los Alamos to begin seriously
    looking at what it would take to construct a new and larger pit
    production facility such as the Foster Panel and others
    recommended. We need to get up on that work.

              STATUS OF DEFENSE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAM

        Mr. Chairman, the administration request for Defense
    Nuclear Non-proliferation programs is $101 million less than
    last year's appropriation. At that level it should be obvious
    that we will have to curtail efforts in several areas and lose
    momentum in others. Again, however, the administration is
    conducting a review of each of those programs and we await the
    conclusion of those reviews.
        From my perspective we manage a series of programs, and
    I've already highlighted most of them, that taken together
    contribute measurably to the vital goal of reducing the threat
    of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. NNSA has had
    some real success in this area because we've been able to
    integrate the technology, the research, and the expertise of
    the NNSA laboratories with that of the other laboratories of
    DOE and other U.S. Government agencies.
        We quite literally provide the technical base for much of
    what the government does in proliferation detection and the
    expertise base to work effectively in Russia and elsewhere to
    secure materials and weapons, support international agreements,
    and reduce the threat we face.
        And, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that the
    administration review our programs and come to its own
    conclusions about their merits. For me, I would hope that the
    real result of these reviews would lead to a more comprehensive
    approach, a more integrated approach to non-proliferation and
    threat reduction so the individual programs can be seen and
    measured in light of an overall approach and clear goals and
    the individual programs can be judged and work synergistically.
        NNSA is responsible for a large range of national security
    programs, programs that seek to deter and prevent and detect
    worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
    materials that produce them. The three-fold threat of unsecured
    materials, available technology, underemployed expertise argues
    for a strong, effective program.
        Even so, we're mindful of how difficult it is to operate in
    this environment and the ongoing reviews and policy development
    activities that specifically deal with issues of Russian
    attitudes, the relationship with proliferants, issues of
    access, issues of sustainability.
        Mr. Chairman, some days I think I have the best job in
    American public service. Some days I'm not quite so convinced.
    But we are making progress on our mission and on the
    organization itself, and with the strong demonstrated support
    already by Secretary Abraham, I expect that progress to
    continue.
        I remain excited about the mission and its great
    importance. We can't be daunted by the magnitude of the
    problems we face. We need to attack them every day with energy
    and with commitment. We need to correct the shortfalls of the
    past but we've got to really look to the future, and this in
    turn requires that we attract and retain the very best people,
    give them clear leadership, an important mission, adequate
    resources to do their jobs, and a safe, efficient work
    environment.
        I remain so impressed by the folks that I deal with every
    day in NNSA. They're committed, they work hard, often in very
    difficult conditions, and I gain a lot of energy from those who
    do the mission every day. You can and you should be proud of
    them, as I am.
        Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the support of this
    subcommittee for NNSA. The 37,000 people of NNSA need your
    support. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of John A. Gordon

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy (DOE) National
    Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) fiscal year 2002 budget
    request. The overall request--including Defense Programs, Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Administrator's
    Office--totals $6.8 billion.
        The Defense Programs (DP) fiscal year 2002 budget request is $5.3
    billion, an increase of 4.6 percent over the comparable appropriated
    fiscal year 2001 level. This budget will support (1) all scheduled
    maintenance, evaluation, and certification activities for the current
    stockpile, while deferring some decisions on future refurbishment
    workload; (2) manufacture of a certifiable W88 with a newly
    manufactured pit in fiscal year 2003, with no commitment to a
    certification schedule or to production quantities; (3) maintenance of
    all current facilities and sites at approximately the current level of
    funding; (4) maintenance of current management and operating (M&O)
    contractor employment levels for ongoing programs; (5) maintenance of
    secure transportation and nuclear weapon incident response assets at
    approximately their current levels; (6) current requirements for
    weapons safeguards and security, while undertaking a limited cyber
    security initiative; and (7) maintenance of federal staffing levels at
    the current, on-board level, including re-consolidation of NNSA federal
    landlord, safeguards, and security staffs. Specific line items include
    Directed Stockpile Work ($1,043,791,000), Campaigns ($1,996,413,000),
    Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ($1,446,988,000), Secure
    Transportation Asset ($121,800,000), Safeguards and Security
    ($448,881,000), and Program Direction ($271,137,000).
        The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN) fiscal year 2002 request
    is $773.7 million. This is a decrease from the 2001 budget, but this
    does not represent a lessening of our commitment to meeting the ever-
    growing challenges faced in the international nonproliferation or
    threat reduction arena. The request does cover the funding needed to
    support a broad range of nonproliferation goals. These include: (1)
    international nuclear safety, (2) detecting the proliferation of
    weapons of mass destruction, (3) preventing the spread of nuclear
    materials, technology, and expertise, and (4) eliminating inventories
    of surplus fissile material usable for nuclear weapons. Specific line
    items include Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
    Development ($206,102,000), International Nuclear Safety ($13,800,000),
    Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Transparency Implementation
    ($13,950,000), Arms Control and Nonproliferation ($101,500,000),
    International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
    ($138,800,000), Fissile Materials Disposition ($248,089,000), and
    Program Direction ($51,459,000).
        The Naval Reactors (NR) fiscal year 2002 budget request is
    $688,045,000, virtually unchanged from the fiscal year 2001
    appropriated amount. This budget will support planned activities for
    Naval Reactors Development, including Plant Technology, Reactor
    Technology and Analysis, Materials Development and Verification,
    Evaluation and Servicing, Facility Operation, and Construction. In real
    terms, the NR budget is decreasing about $18,000,000 due to inflation.
    This decrease reflects progress toward completing major inactivation
    work on the S3G and D1G prototype reactor plants at the Kesselring
    site, along with the final phase of the Windsor site inactivation and
    cleanup work. Specific line items include Naval Reactors Development
    ($665,445,000) and Program Direction ($22,600,000).
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of the
    Administrator of the NNSA is $15 million. The Department of Energy is
    required by various laws to enhance U.S. national security through the
    military application of nuclear technology, and to reduce global danger
    from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The NNSA, a
    semi-autonomous Administration within the Department, carries out these
    responsibilities. Established in March 2000, pursuant to Title 32 of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law
    106-65), the NNSA is structured to provide clear and direct lines of
    accountability and responsibility for the management and operation of
    the nation's nuclear weapons, naval reactors, and nuclear
    nonproliferation activities.
        In January 2001, President Bush asked the Secretary of Defense, in
    coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct a Strategic
    Defense Review to create a new vision for the role of the nation's
    military in the 21st century. Completion of this review will certainly
    impact the fiscal year 2002 and out-year budgets for defense and
    national-security-related activities. The Administration plans to
    determine the final fiscal year 2002 and out-year funding requests when
    the Strategic Defense Review is complete. As Secretary Abraham
    indicated in his statement on April 9, 2001, concerning the DOE fiscal
    year 2002 Budget Request to Congress, ``While awaiting the policy
    shaped by the Strategic Defense Review, we will refocus funding to meet
    vital national security needs, including investments to maintain our
    nuclear weapons arsenal, shore up an aging weapons infrastructure, and
    improve safeguards and security at all DOE facilities.'' I am here
    today to describe those efforts and the progress we have made since the
    NNSA was created.
    Standing up the NNSA
        As you know, the NNSA has formed for just over one year. As the
    NNSA Administrator, this is my first opportunity to appear before the
    Subcommittee to discuss the NNSA budget request. Before providing a
    detailed presentation of our budget, based on our key goals and
    strategies for attaining those goals, let me share with you my
    observations about the nation's nuclear security enterprise and some of
    the accomplishments the NNSA has achieved during its short existence.
        I begin by emphasizing that our focus is on our mission, as
    Congress defined it in the NNSA enabling legislation--Title 32 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Title 32
    contains six mission objectives:
      --To enhance United States national security through the military
            applications of nuclear energy.
      --To maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of
            the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the
            ability to design, produce, and test, in order to meet national
            security requirements.
      --To provide the United States Navy with safe, militarily effective
            nuclear propulsion plants and to ensure the safe and reliable
            operations of those plants.
      --To promote international nuclear safety and non-proliferation.
      --To reduce the nuclear danger from weapons of mass destruction.
      --To support United States leadership in science and technology.
         The NNSA's mission is to strengthen national security and reduce
    the global threat from weapons of mass destruction, through the
    application of science and technology. While standing up the NNSA has
    proceeded more slowly than I would have liked, we are fulfilling our
    mission every day in our laboratories, production facilities, test
    site, and, yes, even in remote parts of the world, where we pursue our
    nonproliferation goals. And, my friend Admiral Bowman oversees 102
    naval nuclear reactors, helping underwrite American military presence
    and deterrence around the globe.
                                  observations
        Over the six months, I have traveled to all of the national defense
    laboratories, the production plants, and the federal field offices. I
    have met many of the men and women who make up the NNSA. Based on my
    observations and interactions, I am very impressed with the dedication
    our team brings to their work and our mission; the intelligence and
    creativity they apply to the highly complex scientific and engineering
    problems that confront them; and the technical skills they use to
    maintain the safety, security and reliability of this nation's aging
    nuclear weapons stockpile, while addressing the risks of proliferation
    and use of weapons of mass destruction, and developing the most
    efficient, safest nuclear reactors ever conceived.
        As long as nuclear deterrence remains the cornerstone of our
    national security strategy and we continue to face the risk of weapons
    of mass destruction, we must ask nothing less than the continued
    excellence these people have delivered for more than fifty years. In
    fact, we must continue to demand more--more security, improved health
    and safety of our workers, more environmentally benign processes, and
    higher efficiency. They, in turn, deserve our support and our advocacy.
        As we discuss budgets, programs, and projects, it is imperative
    that we not lose sight of the fact that the success of the NNSA depends
    on these talented and patriotic Americans--the technicians,
    administrative staff, scientists, guards, engineers, maintenance crews,
    managers, and all the others--who contribute to the nation's nuclear
    defense. One of my jobs is to make certain that none of us lose sight
    of this simple fact--we must not jeopardize the success of these
    programs by making decisions that unnecessarily hinder our people from
    performing their best work or stifle their creativity or limit their
    initiative.
        I assumed this job at a moment in which the enterprise, as a whole,
    was struggling with security concerns and questions about its future,
    and the morale of our people was at an all-time low. While hard to
    quantify, I sense, and I believe my colleagues and the leadership at
    the laboratories and production plants would agree, that morale has
    begun to improve. People are starting to feel better about themselves,
    their work, their institutions, and the direction in which they see the
    NNSA moving, especially at the laboratories.
                            mission accomplishments
        Last year, our overall budget saw its first real growth in many
    years, and, for that, I thank the Congress. This tangible commitment to
    our mission by Congress has sent a strong signal that the mission is
    important and enduring, and has allowed all of us in the enterprise to
    begin to really look to the future. With these additional funds, we
    have begun to make marginal improvements. These additional funds will
    make it easier to attract and retain the next generation of scientists
    and engineers, to continue to build the needed experimental and
    computational facilities, and to begin to correct for our aging
    infrastructure at the production sites and laboratories. Congress
    authorized an increase in Laboratory Directed Research and Development
    (LDRD). In fiscal year 2001, we have established a new research and
    development program, dedicated to improving the efficiency and
    effectiveness of our production plants.
        That said, the NNSA enterprise is still very fragile, and there is
    much more to do. We are making aggressive, pro-active management
    decisions to improve our stewardship of the resources provided by the
    Congress.
        The NNSA completed the fifth annual certification of the nuclear
    weapons stockpile, with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy signed
    their certification letter on January 11, 2001, for transmission to the
    President.
        Activities are on track to restore the capability of producing
    tritium, which is required for proper operation of all nuclear-weapon
    types in the stockpile. On January 1, 2000, a thirty-year interagency
    agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), making three of
    its reactors available to begin irradiation of tritium production
    absorber rods, as early as October 2003. On July 27, 2000, ground was
    broken for the Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site.
    Delivery of new tritium gas is expected to commence in February 2006.
        In concert with the Department of Defense, and through the Nuclear
    Weapons Council, we now have an agreed upon program to refurbish the
    B61 bomb and the W76 and W80 warheads, which constitute a significant
    portion of the stockpile. This work, in addition to the ongoing
    refurbishment of the W87 intercontinental ballistic missile warhead, is
    a clear demonstration that stockpile stewardship is working, and a
    clear measure of a renewed, much improved relationship with the
    Department of Defense. At the same time, this planned workload demands
    resources that are not included in the original Stockpile Stewardship
    Program and demand long-delayed improvements in plant infrastructure,
    as well.
        There are new contracts in place that give NNSA better oversight at
    our plants and laboratories at Y-12, Pantex, Kansas City, and Los
    Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.
        The approach to solving infrastructure issues is also moving in the
    right direction. We have begun a Recapitalization Initiative to develop
    an integrated, prioritized list of maintenance and infrastructure
    activities that, when completed, will significantly increase the
    operational efficiency and effectiveness at all of our sites. It is a
    long-term plan that will allow us to create a weapons complex that is
    properly sized, using modern technologies to protect the health and
    safety of our workers and communities, without creating a legacy of
    hazardous waste and distrust that we do not want, nor can we afford.
    This plan will increase the operational readiness of facilities, reduce
    non-productive facility downtime and high costs associated with
    unplanned corrective maintenance, arrest the continuing deterioration
    of facilities, extend the useful lifetimes of current facilities.
        NNSA has rebaselined the work at the National Ignition Facility.
    There has been a major turnaround in the management of this once-
    troubled program, and I have recently certified to Congress that the
    program is on schedule and within budget. We are making progress in
    plutonium pit manufacturing and certification, although there are
    serious issues ahead of us. Directed Stockpile Work has made enormous
    leaps, and is providing the thousands of parts needed to keep the
    nuclear stockpile safe, secure, and reliable. The Advanced Simulation
    and Computing program (formerly the Accelerated Strategic Computing
    Iniative [ASCI]) is continuing, on track, to provide the world-class
    computing and simulation tools required to maintain the stockpile, now
    and into the future. The Nevada Test Site continues to conduct
    experiments, subcritical and others, that are providing valuable data
    on the health of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and are exercising
    skills necessary to maintain test readiness.
        We have begun implementing ``Integrated Safeguards and Security
    Management'' in the NNSA. ISSM, as it is known, will build safeguards
    and security considerations into management and work practices, at all
    levels, so missions are accomplished securely. It is designed to
    involve the individuals performing work in the process of establishing
    appropriate safeguards and security practices. Subject matter experts
    are available to provide guidance and information, but we must place
    the responsibility for working securely squarely on the shoulders of
    every individual in our complex--the scientists, technicians,
    production workers, and professionals performing and managing our
    missions.
        NNSA has been hard at work to secure and dispose of nuclear warhead
    materials, at home and abroad. We are establishing methods to help
    prevent the unthinkable from happening--the use of weapons of mass
    destruction in an attack on this country or our citizens. NNSA's world-
    class expertise at its national laboratories is vital to the success of
    this effort.
        Since 1993, the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
    (MPC&A) program has formed a first line of defense by working with
    Russia to improve the security of weapons-usable material at ninety-
    five sites. By the end of the current fiscal year, the program will
    have completed rapid security upgrades for nearly 4,000 Russian Navy
    nuclear warheads and an additional 220 metric tons of HEU and plutonium
    located in Russia and the Newly Independent States--enough material to
    make roughly 20,000 nuclear devices. In addition, our Second Line of
    Defense (SLD) Program is improving Russia's ability to detect and
    interdict nuclear smuggling, by installing radiation detection
    equipment at key Russian border crossings, including three seaports and
    two airports.
        NNSA is helping to prevent the proliferation of weapons-usable
    material, while significantly reducing long-term storage costs for
    these materials in the United States Under the materials disposition
    program, the United States and Russia are implementing an agreement,
    signed in September 2000, to permanently dispose of sixty-eight metric
    tons of weapons-grade plutonium--thirty-four metric tons on each side.
        We continue to transfer quantities of surplus U.S. highly enriched
    uranium--more than thirty-four metric tons to date--to the U.S.
    Enrichment Corporation, for downblending to low-enriched uranium
    nuclear-reactor fuel. We recently signed an agreement with the TVA to
    dispose of another thirty-three metric tons of highly enriched uranium.
    This agreement with the TVA will save U.S. taxpayers nearly $600
    million over the cost of disposing of it as waste.
        Under the HEU Purchase Agreement with Russia, we have overseen the
    conversion of 110 metric tons of Russian weapons-grade HEU to low
    enriched uranium, for commercial sale to the U.S. for our nuclear power
    plants. This amount is equivalent to roughly 4,400 nuclear weapons.
        NNSA employees are also training civilian nuclear reactor workers
    in Russia and the Newly Independent States to increase safety standards
    and prevent another accident, such as the one that occurred at
    Chornobyl. On December 15, 2000, the government of Ukraine permanently
    shut-down the last remaining operational reactor at the Chornobyl
    Nuclear Power Plant, on schedule. NNSA experts were instrumental in
    making certain this historic achievement was possible.
        The Multi-spectral Thermal Imager satellite was launched on March
    12th, 2000. This small research satellite was designed and built by a
    team of NNSA laboratories and industry partners, to develop and test
    remote sensing concepts that will add to our country's ability to
    monitor nuclear proliferation. Additionally, this unique satellite is
    being used by a wide number of civil, environmental, and defense
    scientists to conduct a broad array of government research.
        The Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) aims to prevent and reverse the
    threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons expertise, by redirecting
    weapons scientists in Russia's nuclear cities to sustainable, non-
    weapons activities. The NCI also enhances U.S. national security by
    assisting Russia in reducing the overall size of its nuclear weapons
    production complex. Last year, this program achieved an historic
    accomplishment when the Russians moved a concrete fence at the Avangard
    weapons facility, creating an open ``Technopark'' for commercial
    businesses. This is the first time that a Russian weapons facility has
    reduced its footprint, as part of the nuclear weapons complex
    downsizing they have committed to undertake.
        All of this said, we face a period of uncertainty in our
    cooperative programs with Russia to reduce the threats of weapons of
    mass destruction. Recently, Russian President Putin dismissed the head
    of the Ministry of Atomic Energy, Minister Adamov, and replaced him
    with Alexandr Rumyantsev, from the Kurchatov Institute. We are
    uncertain what this change will mean for our programs. We remain
    concerned about access required to ensure that our cooperative threat
    reduction programs are implemented properly and that our financial
    contributions are well spent. We are also mindful of Russia's
    cooperation with Iran.
        Naval Reactors has compiled an unparalleled record of success,
    including
      --Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed more than 122 million
            miles, equivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.
      --Naval reactor plants have accumulated 5,200 reactor-years of
            operation, compared to approximately 2,540 for the U.S.
            commercial industry. In addition, our operating experience is
            approximately half that of the entire commercial power
            industry, worldwide (our 5,200 reactor-years, compared to
            approximately 9,660 worldwide, including the United States).
      --Naval Reactors' outstanding, and fully public, environmental record
            enables our ships to visit more than 150 ports around the
            world, which is critical to our nation's forward-presence
            strategy and ability to project power.
    Policy Reviews
        As mentioned above, the new Administration has chartered several
    reviews to create a new vision for the role of the nation's military in
    the 21st century. These reviews will examine the appropriate national
    security strategy for this country. One of the reviews will encompass
    the role of nuclear deterrence and a position on the size of the future
    nuclear stockpile. A second review will evaluate all U.S.
    nonproliferation programs with Russia. At the end of this review, we
    may have a new strategy for our threat reduction activities with
    Russia. The Department and the NNSA are active participants in these
    reviews. The Administration will finalize fiscal year 2002 and out-year
    funding requests for defense when these reviews are complete.
                         improvements are still needed
        No matter the outcome of these strategic reviews, we recognize the
    need for change in the business practices of the Nation's nuclear
    security enterprise.
        While we are making steady progress, the NNSA still has work to do
    to get security right. Our people must see that there is value added in
    new or additional security requirements. We want to make sure that what
    we do actually improves security, and that security measures do not
    unnecessarily impede accomplishing our mission. We have stressed the
    concept of science AND security, rather than science OR security. We
    must make sure that the scientific culture and the security culture
    mesh. Our scientists must understand the need for classification and
    security, as they advance science. Similarly, our security officers
    must be sensitive to the environment in which we operate, and help
    further our mission. Our scientists, engineers, technicians, and our
    security and counterintelligence personnel must see themselves on the
    same team.
        We must focus on revitalizing our infrastructure, which has long
    been neglected. This is key for the organization to improve morale,
    increase recruitment, and retain people. No one wants to work in a
    facility where weeds grow through the cracks in the buildings, or where
    you have to wear a hard hat, not for normal safety requirements, but
    because the concrete in the roof may fall down at any time.
    Revitalizing our infrastructure will take additional funding, but it
    will be incumbent upon us to set priorities so this job is done in the
    most cost-effective way, in future years.
        NNSA, as an organization, must continue to sharpen its project
    management skills. Just two weeks ago I was at Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility. The people there are
    making great strides in focusing on the project, completing
    conventional-facility construction, and maintaining a schedule that
    will see this project to fruition.
        At Los Alamos National Laboratory, Defense Programs must ensure
    that the capability to manufacture plutonium pits is reestablished, and
    we must come to grips with the long-term requirements for pit
    manufacture. We have recently established a full-time office in DP that
    focuses solely on pit production and certification. This pit project
    office sets schedules and milestones to ensure that we can produce
    pits, and that they can be certified by the laboratory for use in the
    stockpile.
        A key to many of the management challenges facing the NNSA is
    implementing a planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation
    process. This new management system will (1) improve discipline in
    program and project management, (2) ensure that each program and
    project receives appropriate consideration, as tradeoffs are made in
    establishing the integrated budget, and (3) create meaningful
    performance measurement and feedback systems. We will measure the value
    of this system through improvement in our mission performance.
        As a first step in the implementation of this process, we have
    begun a strategic planning process to identify key goals of the NNSA,
    strategies for attaining those goals, and measures for tracking
    progress on our goals. In addition to ensuring that NNSA is in
    compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), this
    effort has helped foster a recognition of the benefits of managing
    nuclear security programs on an enterprise-wide basis. We have
    organized our budget testimony this year to track the key goals and
    strategies identified by our senior managers. Our six primary goals
    are:
      --Maintain and enhance the safety, security, and reliability of the
            Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, meeting military
            requirements designed to counter threats of the 21st Century.
      --Assure the safe and secure management of nuclear facilities,
            materials, and expertise worldwide.
      --Detect, deter, and impede the proliferation and the use of weapons
            of mass destruction.
      --Provide the Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion
            plants, and ensure their continued safe and reliable operation.
      --Ensure the vitality and readiness of the NNSA's scientific and
            technical enterprise, for the next decade and beyond.
      --Create a well-managed, responsive and accountable organization by
            employing effective business practices.
                         goal 1: stockpile stewardship
        We turn first to a discussion of the stockpile stewardship program
    that is designed to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and
    reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, meeting military
    requirements designed to counter threats of the 21st Century. To ensure
    that the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons remains safe, secure, and
    reliable, the NNSA will continue to advance the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program. This program was established by the fiscal year 1994 National
    Defense Authorization Act, which directed the Secretary of Energy ``to
    establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of the core
    intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear
    weapons.'' The Stockpile Stewardship Program must: (1) predict, detect,
    and evaluate potential problems, due to the aging of the stockpile, (2)
    refurbish and re-manufacture warheads and components, as required, (3)
    support focused, multi-faceted efforts to increase the understanding of
    the stockpile, and (4) maintain the science and engineering
    institutions needed to support the nations's nuclear deterrent, now and
    in the future.
        Surveillance and assessment activities, including many aboveground
    experiments, the manufacture of limited-life components and replacement
    parts, the reestablishment of a capability to fabricate plutonium pits,
    weapon refurbishments to extend the lifetimes of weapons in our aging
    stockpile, securing a source of tritium, and providing secure
    transportation of nuclear materials are all necessary, whether we're
    conducting nuclear tests, or not. In addition, we must maintain our
    nuclear weapons complex, which has been downsized significantly during
    the last decade and is in dire need of repair; ensure that we have a
    workforce with the necessary skills; and see to the safety and security
    of both our facilities and workforce, the communities in which we work,
    and the environment in which we live.
        We are annually conducting hundreds of experiments at our national
    laboratories and the Nevada Test Site to increase our understanding of
    what happens when a nuclear weapon detonates. The software being
    validated by these experiments is already making significant
    contributions to the maintenance of the nuclear stockpile. Early
    versions of the three-dimensional weapon performance codes are
    resolving previously unexplained phenomena from past underground test
    data and are contributing to the resolution of issues that have been
    raised by our surveillance program. Simulations have also enabled us to
    qualify, for the first time without nuclear tests, a radiation-hardened
    component and a replacement neutron generator for the W76.
        Experiments in facilities now under development, such as the
    National Ignition Facility (NIF), and those that are on-line, such as
    the Z accelerator and the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
    Facility (DARHT), will greatly expand our knowledge of what happens in
    a nuclear detonation. The closer our scientists and engineers get to
    duplicating in the laboratory the phenomena that occur in nuclear
    detonation, the greater our chances are of being able to continue to
    certify that our stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable, without the
    need to return to nuclear testing. But, even if there were no
    moratorium on nuclear testing, most activities encompassed by the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program would still be necessary to assess,
    certify, and maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the
    stockpile.
    Stockpile Certification
        A cornerstone of the Stockpile Stewardship Program is the
    certification to the President, by the Secretaries of Defense and
    Energy, whether any safety or reliability concerns exist that would
    require a return to nuclear testing. At his confirmation hearing,
    Secretary Abraham stated that, in his judgment, ``one of the most
    sobering and important responsibilities vested in the Secretary of
    Energy is the duty to certify to the President each year that the U.S.
    nuclear stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable . . ..'' In a like
    manner, I believe my most important responsibility, as the
    Administrator of the NNSA, is to facilitate that process.
        Certification is based on a yearly, rigorous technical review of
    the condition of the stockpile by the Directors of the three nuclear
    weapons laboratories, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic
    Command, and the Nuclear Weapons Council. The most recent assessment
    concludes that the stockpile is safe and reliable, and that no nuclear
    testing is needed at this time.
        This certification is made possible by activities within the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program, through an extensive set of activities
    and tests assessing and qualifying the myriad of components and
    subsystems of each of our weapon system types. Data and test results
    must be analyzed, assessed, and evaluated before conclusions can be
    drawn regarding the safety and reliability of stockpiled warheads. A
    significant imperative of assessment and certification is to develop
    the necessary tools to accurately baseline warheads in the existing
    stockpile, while designers with nuclear-test and warhead-design
    experience remain to mentor the next generation of stockpile stewards.
        The key to accurate assessments is the expert judgment of our
    weapons scientists and engineers. Confidence in the accuracy of their
    judgment and confidence in the safety, security, and reliability of the
    warheads in our stockpile are more closely linked than ever before. In
    the past, a weapon steward's judgment was developed and validated
    through new warhead design and nuclear testing. Today, our Stockpile
    Stewardship Program is honing and demonstrating expert judgment of the
    next generation of stockpile stewards through integrated use of
    surveillance, computational simulations, applied scientific
    experimentation, material and aging studies, and nonnuclear
    experiments.
        In the absence of nuclear testing, a variety of experiments and
    tools provide data relevant to nuclear warhead performance. Some of the
    older tools, designed to complement nuclear testing, are not, in and of
    themselves, sufficient to provide the needed information. A suite of
    enhanced capabilities and facilities, to fill in the knowledge gaps and
    provide enhanced data relevant to various stockpile concerns, has been
    identified and is being developed through our Campaigns, described
    later in my testimony.
        We are implementing stockpile stewardship through two strategies: a
    program of Directed Stockpile Work, and development of a suite of
    science, engineering, and readiness Campaigns.
    Directed Stockpile Work
        The first strategy for maintaining the safety, security, and
    reliability of the Nation's nuclear stockpile is our program of
    Directed Stockpile Work, developed in concert with the DOD. This
    program applies the improved tools and technologies developed by all
    elements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and consists of three
    important elements: maintenance and evaluation, refurbishments, and
    dismantlements.
    Stockpile Maintenance and Evaluation
        The budget submission for fiscal year 2002 will support all
    scheduled maintenance and evaluation activities for the current
    stockpile. Each year, eleven weapons of each type in the stockpile are
    returned from the active force and are disassembled, examined, tested,
    and analyzed for defects. One is destructively tested. If defects are
    found, their effect on reliability and safety is assessed. We conduct
    flight and laboratory tests on systems and components, including the
    destructive testing of pits. In fiscal year 2002, we expect to conduct
    thirty flight tests, seventy-two laboratory tests, thousands of
    component tests, and we will destructively analyze nine pits. The
    current budget request will allow us to continue to reduce the backlog
    of laboratory tests resulting from other priorities during past years.
    The additional $23 million over our request in fiscal year 2001 that
    Congress provided for reducing the testing backlog was instrumental in
    reducing the backlog this year. The additional $17 million that
    Congress provided for the Enhanced Surveillance Campaign in fiscal year
    2001 enabled us to initiate and accelerate the deployment of advanced
    diagnostic tools, for early identification of warhead aging problems
    that otherwise may not be detectable until too late.
        Scheduled maintenance also includes the replacement of limited-life
    components, such as neutron generators and tritium reservoirs. In
    fiscal year 2002, we expect to produce and fill 1,695 tritium
    reservoirs, produce 1,445 new tritium reservoirs, re-certify 854
    neutron generators, and produce 296 new neutron generators. In fiscal
    year 2001, the complex accomplished the exchange of nearly 4,500
    limited-life components. We also expect to achieve first production of
    replacement tritium reservoirs for the W62 and W87, and continue
    production of the replacement neutron generator for the W76.
        As our nuclear weapons continue to age, we expect more parts to
    require replacement. Manufacturing replacement parts sounds
    straightforward, but in the time that has elapsed since the current
    weapons in the stockpile were originally manufactured, some of our
    production plants have closed, manufacturing processes, techniques, and
    standards have changed, and there are more stringent health, safety,
    and environmental standards. Under these conditions, manufacturing
    exact replacement parts is difficult, if not impossible and, because
    nuclear testing can no longer be used to qualify the replacements,
    extensive testing and analyses must be conducted to ensure that the
    replicated components are acceptable.
        At present, we have nine weapons alterations underway to meet
    higher safety standards or to replace faulty components in various
    systems. We are currently on schedule with all nine alterations, and
    the fiscal year 2002 budget supports those schedules. In addition, we
    have reached agreement, with the Department of Defense, on a
    comprehensive plan for refurbishing the nuclear stockpile over the
    coming decade. Implementation of that plan awaits the decisions from
    the Strategic Defense Review, and the current fiscal year 2002 budget
    submission supports only limited execution of that plan.
    Refurbishments
        Following cessation of production at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989,
    the United States has not produced a new nuclear warhead since 1991,
    nor have we had any requirement to build a new warhead. Prior to 1991,
    major refurbishment of a warhead to extend its life was not an issue,
    because new weapon types were continually being introduced into the
    stockpile. Currently, the average age of warheads in the stockpile is
    eighteen years, and signs of aging have been identified through
    stockpile evaluation and enhanced surveillance. As the stockpile ages,
    we are working closely with the DOD to finalize detailed plans to
    extend the lifetime of each warhead type. These life extensions, or
    refurbishments, include the detection and correction of problems, and
    provide and maintain safety improvements and use control.
        The budget submission continues the major refurbishment of the W87
    warhead, deployed on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
    This is the first major retrofit of any warhead in nearly a decade.
    Delivery of the first production unit to the Air Force, in May 1999, as
    scheduled, six years after conception of the project, was a major
    success. The safety concerns and production-line problems that occurred
    at our Pantex Plant are lessons learned that will be applied in future
    refurbishments.
        Last year, the Nuclear Weapons Council reached final agreement on
    the technical scope of the refurbishments needed for the B61 bomb and
    for the W76 and W80 warheads. Together, these systems comprise a
    substantial portion of the current U.S. stockpile, and the additional
    funding received for research and development in fiscal year 2001 was
    used for W76 refurbishment design and W88 dynamic experimentation. The
    fiscal year 2002 request will support laboratory activities to complete
    the ongoing studies to refurbish the B61 (some components of which are
    more than thirty years old), to initiate development engineering to
    support a first production unit in fiscal year 2004, and to begin the
    development of a plan for certification of the B61, with a refurbished
    canned subassembly. We plan to work with the Department of Defense to
    determine a schedule and, possibly, revised scopes for the W76 and W80
    refurbishments, pending completion of the Strategic Defense Review. The
    current budget request does not support the original schedule eveloped
    with DOD.
    Warhead Dismantlement
        Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has reduced its
    nuclear weapons inventory by approximately sixty percent. NNSA is
    currently disassembling two types of warheads, and is committed to the
    safe disassembly of any warheads retired, as a result of the ongoing
    national security strategy review or future decisions. Disassembly of
    the W79 Artillery-Fired Atomic Projectile will be complete in fiscal
    year 2003, and disassembly of the W56 Minuteman II intercontinental
    ballistic missile warhead will be complete in fiscal year 2005.
    Campaigns
        The second stockpile stewardship strategy is to maintain and
    develop the scientific, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities
    needed for the continued certification of the stockpile, including the
    ability to design new weapons and conduct underground nuclear tests.
    This strategy is being implemented through a series of Campaigns, which
    are focused, scientific and technical efforts to develop and maintain
    critical capabilities needed to enable continued certification of the
    stockpile for the long-term. They are technically challenging,
    multifunctional in nature, and have definitive milestones, specific
    work plans, and specific deliverables. The Campaign approach was
    initiated in fiscal year 2001 as part of a new program planning and
    budgeting framework, to facilitate integration within the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. There are currently seventeen campaigns:
      --Primary Certification,
      --Dynamic Materials Properties,
      --Advanced Radiography,
      --Secondary Certification and Nuclear Systems Margins,
      --Enhanced Surety,
      --Weapons System Engineering Certification,
      --Nuclear Survivability (formerly Hostile Environments
            Certification),
      --Enhanced Surveillance, Advanced Design and Production Technologies,
      --Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield (includes NIF),
      --Advanced Simulation and Computing (formerly the Accelerated
            Strategic Computing Initiative),
      --Pit Manufacturing and Certification (formerly Pit Manufacturing
            Readiness),
      --Secondary Readiness,
      --High Explosives Manufacturing and Weapons Assembly/Disassembly,
            Nonnuclear Readiness,
      --Materials Readiness, and Tritium Readiness.
        Today, I would like to discuss, in detail, a few of these
    Campaigns.
    Pit Manufacturing and Certification
        We have not manufactured plutonium pits for use in the stockpile
    since 1989, when the Rocky Flats Plant stopped production of W88 pits,
    due to facility safety and environmental concerns. As a result, there
    are not enough W88 pits to meet future surveillance destructive-testing
    requirements. The budget request for fiscal year 2002 continues to
    reestablish a capability to fabricate a limited number of plutonium
    pits at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The plan is to complete the
    fabrication of a certifiable W88 pit in fiscal year 2003, within this
    budget request, with no commitment to a certification schedule or to
    production quantities. As we proceed, we will continue to work closely
    with the Navy to ensure that military needs for the W88 are met.
        The additional $25 million, provided by Congress in fiscal year
    2001, was instrumental in developing momentum in pit manufacturing. The
    NNSA completed a report for Congress earlier this month, as requested
    by the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The recently submitted report
    contains project schedules and cost estimates for production and
    certification of W88 pits.
        The magnitude of the challenge to reestablish a pit production
    capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory can, perhaps, best be
    illustrated by the fact that approximately 18,000 activities and 350
    individual work packages have been identified, to complete production
    and certification of the W88 with a newly manufactured pit. To date, we
    have produced eight W88 development pits, and are on schedule to
    reestablish the technology and manufacture a certifiable W88 pit in
    fiscal year 2003. A detailed and rigorous set of engineering and
    physics certification tests has been defined, to achieve certification
    without nuclear testing.
        A pit project office was established this past year within Defense
    Programs, to provide oversight of all pit production and certification
    related activities. In addition to near-term activities, such as the
    W88, this new office is responsible for long-term pit production
    readiness planning. For future readiness, we are using the $2 million
    provided by Congress this fiscal year to conduct pre-conceptual design
    studies, sufficient to enable a decision for conceptual design planning
    of a modern pit facility in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2004, new
    information from pit-aging studies is expected to provide further
    insight into pit lifetimes. This information, coupled with the
    requirements for the numbers and types of weapons in the stockpile
    resulting from the President's Strategic Defense Review, will drive
    sizing decisions for a modern pit facility. The Nuclear Weapons Council
    will continue to monitor our work in this area.
    Tritium Readiness
        Every U.S. nuclear warhead requires tritium to function as
    designed. Because tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, decays at
    the rate of 5.5 percent per year, it must be periodically replenished
    within each nuclear warhead. We have not produced tritium since 1988,
    and our inventory, depending on the results of the Strategic Defense
    Review, is sufficient only until approximately 2005, after which time
    the five-year tritium reserve we maintain may begin to be drawn down.
    In May 1999, the Department announced that TVA commercial light water
    reactors would be used to produce tritium, and that accelerator
    production of tritium (APT) technology would be developed as backup, by
    completing preliminary design and engineering development and
    demonstration activities.
        A 30-year interagency agreement with TVA went into effect on
    January 1, 2000, making three of its reactors, Watts Bar and Sequoyah 1
    and 2, available to begin irradiation of tritium production absorber
    rods, as early as October 2003. This month, TVA submitted a request to
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend its operating license
    for the Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors, to permit irradiation of
    tritium producing absorber rods. The NRC committed to expediting the
    approval of these requests.
        On July 27, 2000, ground was broken for the new Tritium Extraction
    Facility (TEF) at the Savannah River Site and, during fiscal year 2001,
    site preparation and detailed design for the facility is expected to be
    completed. Originally, construction of TEF was to have begun in early
    fiscal year 1999, but language in the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 1999 prohibited any tritium construction activities
    during fiscal year 1999. Because of this delay in schedule, we project
    that the TEF will not begin delivering tritium gas from irradiated
    absorber rods until February 2006. Depending on the results of the
    Strategic Defense Review, about one year of the five-year tritium
    reserve may be consumed. The capacity of TEF to extract tritium from
    the absorber rods will be sufficient to restore the reserve, within two
    to three years.
        Congress appropriated additional funding for APT in fiscal year
    2001, and the preliminary design of APT is expected to be completed
    this year. However, the current fiscal year 2002 budget request does
    not include sufficient resources to complete the engineering
    development and demonstration activities in fiscal year 2002, as
    previously planned. In addition, an Advanced Accelerator Applications
    Program that is being planned by Defense Programs and the Office of
    Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, may be put on hold. This multi-
    mission accelerator program is to include waste transmutation, isotope
    production, and tritium production. An Accelerator Demonstration Test
    Facility is being planned that would have the capability to be upgraded
    to produce tritium, if required.
    Advanced Simulation and Computing
        Senator Bingaman indicated, in the preface to a question following
    Secretary Abraham's confirmation hearing, that he was disturbed that,
    following the hearing held last Fall on the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program, as part of the hearings on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
    many of his ``colleagues seemed to get the impression . . . that the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program is a sort of computer simulation exercise
    . . . '' I want to dispel that impression.
        Computer modeling and simulation are important elements of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program, but the ultimate goal of our Advanced
    Simulation and Computing Campaign (ASC), formerly referred to as the
    Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), is to have the
    ability to perform three-dimensional, high-fidelity simulations of the
    performance of all aspects of the operation of a nuclear warhead. By
    integrating the findings of our experimental and engineering R&D
    programs, as well as data from past nuclear tests, such simulations are
    providing our scientists with sufficient confidence to make it
    unnecessary to use underground nuclear testing at this time.
        To fully achieve our goal, it is estimated that we must have a
    computer system operating at a minimum of 100 trillion operations per
    second (teraOPS), and computer software, validated by experimental data
    that provides a much greater understanding of the physics of nuclear
    explosions than we possess today. We are making remarkable progress
    toward achieving our goals in this area.
        In December 1999, a three-dimensional simulation of the primary
    explosion of a nuclear warhead was successfully completed, for the
    first time, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This proof-of-
    principle simulation was performed on an ASC Campaign system operating
    at 3.89 teraOPS and took twenty days. On a Cray-class supercomputer, if
    sufficient memory were available, this simulation would have taken
    eighty years.
        Soon thereafter, Sandia successfully completed the first-ever,
    three-dimensional computer simulations of a weapon warhead exposed to
    hostile radiation and blast environments. As part of this milestone,
    Sandia also completed a series of three-dimensional simulations of the
    performance of a neutron generator in a radiation field. These weapon
    simulations collectively required about 500,000 megabytes of memory and
    used 2,000 computing processors for 45 days.
        In April 2000, eight months ahead of schedule, a proof-of-
    principle, three-dimensional simulation of the secondary explosion of a
    nuclear warhead was completed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. This
    simulation was performed on two ASC Campaign systems, operating at
    approximately 3 teraOPS each, at Los Alamos and Sandia, and took 42
    days. None of these simulations were possible, prior to the development
    of ASCI-scale computational platforms and software. We expect to meet
    the next milepost, a proof-of-principle three-dimensional simulation of
    a full weapon, including both primary and secondary operation, by the
    December 2001 scheduled date.
        The ASC Campaign contributes to all elements of the nuclear weapons
    life cycle. It is providing the tools that are needed by weapons
    designers to maintain a nuclear weapon design capability. ASC Campaign
    computers are being used to help address issues associated with the
    manufacture of replacement parts for nuclear warheads, transportation
    and storage of weapons and components, certification of weapons,
    dismantlements, and the safety of weapons in various accident
    scenarios. The ASC Campaign is an integral and vital element of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program. It provides the integrating simulation
    and modeling capabilities and technologies needed to combine new and
    old experimental data, past nuclear test data, and past design and
    engineering experience into a powerful tool for future design,
    assessment and certification of nuclear weapons and their components.
        The success of the computer modeling and simulation program has
    been, in no small measure, due to the budgetary support it has
    received, since its inception. The computing speed, power, and level of
    physics detail existing today was simply undreamed of a few years ago.
    The current budget request, however, will slow the scheduled progress
    of the Campaign, and delay our previously announced commitment to reach
    a computing capability of 100 teraOPS from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal
    year 2005. This will delay, by at least a year, our major deliverable
    to Directed Stockpile Work--the ability to perform a high-fidelity
    simulation, in three-dimensions, of the performance of a full nuclear
    warhead.
        Completion of three ASC Campaign construction projects will also be
    delayed for at least one year with this budget. These projects are the
    Distributed Information Systems Laboratory at Sandia National
    Laboratories in Livermore, the Joint Computational Engineering
    Laboratory at Sandia in Albuquerque, and the Terascale Simulation
    Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Two other ASC
    Campaign program elements will also be scaled back in fiscal year 2002.
    These are the Path Forward program, which funds computer hardware and
    software companies to develop products needed to meet the aggressive
    ASC Campaign schedule, and the DisCom2 program, which provides remote
    access to the large computing platforms, enabling sharing of these
    resources among our production plants and laboratories.
        These deferrals in meeting ASC Campaign milestones are consistent
    with the possible refurbishment schedules that achievable with the
    fiscal year 2002 Budget request.
        Our commitments to selected groups in the university community
    through our Academic Strategic Alliances Program will not be affected,
    nor will the operation of the 12-teraOPS machine at Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory, which was recently made available for software
    development and warhead simulations. It is already fully utilized.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion and the National Ignition Facility
        The National Ignition Facility, under construction at the Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory, is a vital element of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. It will allow us to study issues that affect aging
    and refurbishment of the stockpile, validate advanced simulation
    software being developed by the ASC Campaign, and help in attracting
    and retaining the exceptional scientific and engineering talent needed
    by the Stockpile Stewardship Program, over the long term.
        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
    required the submission of a revised project baseline for NIF, in
    response to substantial cost increases and schedule slippage, caused by
    problems in assembling and installing the laser and target system
    infrastructure. The revised baseline, submitted in final form to
    Congress last September, retains the full NIF design capability of 192
    beams, with completion of the project scheduled in fiscal year 2008,
    and experiments with the first eight laser beams beginning in fiscal
    year 2004. It is important to understand that we will be conducting
    many experiments at NIF, well before all 192 beams are available in
    fiscal year 2008. Between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2008,
    approximately 1,500 experiments will be conducted at NIF. The project
    goals are to achieve early light in 2003, with four laser beams, and to
    meet our ``First Light'' milestone, with eight laser beams, in 2004.
        I believe the progress at NIF reflects several management decisions
    that have been made during the past year and half. These include (1)
    the hiring of an industrial contractor with a proven record of
    constructing similarly complex facilities, to manage and install the
    laser and target system, (2) the creation of a NIF Project Office that
    reports directly to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, (3)
    the appointment by the laboratory director of an associate director
    with line responsibility for the NIF Project, and (4) the selection of
    a new project manager, with extensive project management experience, to
    oversee daily NIF Project activities.
        As required by the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, I recently certified to Congress that the NIF
    Project milestones, for the revised schedule, are being met within the
    revised budget. The project is making significant progress. We expect
    to complete construction of conventional facilities this fiscal year.
    Laser bays are now under clean room protocols, and installation of
    laser systems has begun. Our glass manufacturers have delivered more
    than 1,700 of the required 3,500 laser glass slabs that meet our
    specifications.
        The Conference Report accompanying the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 also directed the NNSA to
    assess the role of NIF, to consider the requirement for the full 192-
    beam configuration, and determine if alternatives to the full NIF could
    meet the safety and reliability needs of the nuclear weapon stockpile.
    To meet this requirement, the NNSA initiated a broader study to examine
    its entire High-Energy-Density Physics Program. NNSA brought together
    laboratory leadership and technical staff, DP management, and a number
    of nuclear-weapon-knowledgeable advisors from a variety of federal
    organizations. Alternatives that were considered included pauses in NIF
    construction at 48, 96, and 120 beams, a refurbishment of the Z
    accelerator at Sandia, and the addition of an engineering demonstration
    milestone to the NIF Project at first light. The principal
    recommendation of this study, which was submitted to Congress on April
    6, was that the NNSA should continue with the current High-Energy-
    Density Physics Program, including Omega, the Z accelerator, and the
    192-beam NIF, with the goal of achieving ignition.
        Experiments on the Atlas pulsed-power machine at Los Alamos
    National Laboratory will begin later this year and will continue in
    fiscal year 2002. Relocation of the facility to the Nevada Test Site
    will be deferred, due to higher priorities of the stockpile and
    limitations imposed by the current fiscal year 2002 budget. In fiscal
    year 2001, we also expect the completion of the Z-backlighter project
    at Sandia, in which the Beamlet, a technology demonstration for NIF, is
    being adapted as a diagnostic tool for use on the Z accelerator. A
    variety of experiments with this technology, planned to begin in fiscal
    year 2002 to study hydrodynamics, materials properties, and inertial
    confinement physics, may also be deferred.
    Other Campaign-Specific Experimental Activities
        Other experimental activities are underway, across the complex, in
    support of the nation's nuclear deterrent. At Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, physics experiments using the first-axis of the Dual Axis
    Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT) have been conducted,
    providing valuable weapons data. DARHT provides us the capability to
    take freeze-frame photos of materials imploding at speeds greater than
    10,000 miles an hour, allowing scientists to study solids and metals as
    they flow like liquids, when driven by the detonation of high
    explosives. We expect the second arm of DARHT to be completed in fiscal
    year 2002, allowing simultaneous views from two directions, as well as
    several separate views over the time of the implosion.
        Subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site continue to be
    successful. To date, thirteen have been conducted. These experiments
    are helping us to assess the stockpile by providing understanding of
    aspects of weapons physics and the aging properties of plutonium. They
    also help us to certify pits manufactured at Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, for use in the nuclear weapons stockpile. In addition,
    subcritical activities are a major contributor to underground nuclear
    test readiness at the Nevada Test Site. To support related materials
    research, we have also begun acceptance tests on the JASPER (Joint
    Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research) gas gun at the Nevada
    Test Site. We expect to begin obtaining data on plutonium late this
    year.
        During this next year, we will look hard again at improving test
    readiness, and will review whether an apporpriate level of resources is
    being applied to this vital element of stockpile stewardship.
       goal 2: securing nuclear facilities, materials, information, and
                              expertise worldwide
        Our second goal is to ensure the safe and secure management of
    nuclear facilities, materials, and expertise, worldwide. While
    maintaining and enhancing the safety, security, and reliability of the
    Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, the NNSA has a custodial
    responsibility to ensure that all U.S. nuclear-deterrent assets--
    information, facilities, and people-are safeguarded and secured to
    prohibit unwanted damage or unauthorized release of these key U.S.
    national security assets. The NNSA also works in parallel to address
    international threats to U.S. national security interests from the
    potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These new
    international threats derive largely from the Soviet Union's production
    of enormous quantities of nuclear materials and weapons, and from
    potential actions by rogue nations or terrorist organizations with
    interests contrary to those of our nation. The NNSA is pursuing a
    balanced and comprehensive approach to nonproliferation that seeks to
    reduce or eliminate these threats to U.S. national security interests,
    particularly threats in Russia and countries of the former Soviet
    Union.
    Integrated Security Action Plan
        A key strategy for preventing proliferation is effectively managing
    and protecting the NNSA nuclear weapons, materials, and information.
    The NNSA is pursuing an Integrated Security Action Plan to protect U.S.
    nuclear assets. While we are making steady progress, NNSA still has
    work to do to get security right. We have commissioned a group of
    eminent Americans, known as the Hamre Commission, to review the entire
    issue of science and security to help us make sure we get the right
    picture and perspective. I have warned them to be careful with their
    recommendations, because many of them are likely to be implemented.
        I have called for a six-month moratorium on implementing any new
    safeguards and security policies. We are using this time to review past
    policies, identify policy improvements, and determine how policy can
    most effectively be implemented within NNSA. We are emphasizing the
    importance of personal commitment and individual responsibility in the
    protection of our nation's vital assets, and we are seeking to involve
    employees at all levels of our enterprise in improving safeguards and
    security.
        The NNSA is ensuring that people working on our nuclear deterrent
    are aware and accountable for their national security responsibilities.
    In that regard, on March 26, 2001, I announced plans for implementing
    ``Integrated Safeguards and Security Management'' in the NNSA. ISSM, as
    it is known, will build safeguards and security considerations into
    management and work practices, at all levels, so that missions are
    accomplished securely. Individuals performing the work will be involved
    in the process of establishing appropriate safeguards and security
    practices. Subject matter experts are available to provide guidance and
    information, but we must place the responsibility for working securely
    squarely on the shoulders of every individual in our complex--the
    scientists, technicians, production workers, and professionals
    performing and managing our missions.
        As you know, the counterintelligence polygraph program has raised
    concerns among scientists and others within the NNSA community. We are
    sponsoring a scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    on the validity and reliability of polygraphy. The NAS study will
    include what is known about the effects of medications, sleep
    deprivation, and illness on the physiological responses measured
    through polygraph examinations. The fifteen-month study began on
    January 1, 2001. The study's final report is to be released next year
    and should help us improve upon the Department of Energy's polygraph
    program.
    Safeguards and Security
        The NNSA is protecting U.S. nuclear facilities. The NNSA conducts a
    rigorous Safeguards and Security program to protect the physical assets
    of the NNSA enterprise. These efforts are an integral part of the
    Administration's mission of being a responsible steward of the nation's
    nuclear weapons. In fiscal year 2001, safeguards and security
    activities were appropriated as direct costs, rather than as allocated
    costs within indirect and overhead funding, as in the past. We are
    managing the safeguards and security as a line responsibility in the
    NNSA. My Chief of Defense Nuclear Security is responsible for
    establishing safeguards and security policy throughout the NNSA. We
    will administer the weapons safeguards and security budget for
    facilities where NNSA is the landlord, through our new Facilities and
    Operations organization, which I will discuss later in this testimony.
        In 1999, a multitude of corrective actions and enhancements to
    upgrade the safeguards and security posture at all Defense Programs
    sites resulted from a program named ``Safeguards and Security Goal
    Posts.'' By the beginning of fiscal year 2001, all final corrective
    actions and enhancements resulting from this program had been completed
    for all sites, except the Y-12 Plant, which was the only site not rated
    ``satisfactory.'' The ability of the Y-12 Plant to attain an overall
    satisfactory rating hinges on the availability of funds to correct
    deficiencies in material control and accountability for the highly
    enriched uranium operations. The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will
    maintain physical security functions at our production plants, the
    Nevada Test Site, and the national security laboratories, at their
    current security ratings.
        The NNSA is protecting vital nuclear deterrent information. The
    Integrated Safeguards and Security Management program is designed to
    systematically integrate safeguards and security into management and
    work practices, at all levels, so that missions are accomplished
    securely. Implementation of the ``Higher Fences'' initiative, to
    enhance protection of certain restricted weapons data within DOE and
    DOD, by establishing an additional sigma category, requires few
    resources and is moving forward.
        The nuclear weapons complex has always used secure computing
    systems and networks. However, the need for significant improvement in
    the protection of nuclear weapon data across the entire complex has
    been well documented in the past two years. An increased number of
    countries and organizations are attempting to obtain nuclear weapon
    data and are using ever increasing sophisticated techniques.
        In response, Congress provided supplemental funding in fiscal year
    2000, to begin developing the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative
    (ICSI) Plan. Implementing this plan will sustain the operations and
    maintenance of cyber security activities throughout the complex,
    providing solutions for the most critical vulnerabilities revealed
    through risk assessments of the current network. Also, as called for in
    the ICSI plan, we will implement and demonstrate a testing network for
    evaluating and testing products and proposed solutions, complete the
    design of a new complex-wide network, and identify and catalog all
    electronic information that is exchanged in the complex.
        The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will move us forward on the
    Integrated Safeguards and Security Management program and the ``Higher
    Fences'' initiative, and will allow us to sustain the maintenance and
    operation of cyber security activities across the complex, and to
    provide upgrades where the highest vulnerabilities are assessed, but
    will not allow us to address the long-term solutions set forth in the
    Integrated Cyber Security Initiative (ICSI) Plan that was submitted to
    Congress in March of this year.
    Transportation Safeguards System
        The NNSA is protecting the U.S. movement of nuclear materials,
    components and nuclear weapons. The NNSA operates a Transportation
    Safeguards System to move nuclear weapons, components, and special
    nuclear materials, throughout the country, in a safe and secure manner,
    precluding theft or diversion. This unique transportation system has
    operated with an impeccable record of safety and security for more than
    twenty-five years. Although its primary mission has been in support of
    the nuclear weapons program, the system provides transportation
    services for all DOE programs that require nuclear materials to be
    protected while in transit. This summer, the Office of Environmental
    Management will begin to remove nuclear materials from Rocky Flats.
    Other programs have also projected increases in their requirements for
    secure shipment of nuclear materials. The Transportation Safeguards
    System resources will have to be increased during the next five years
    to meet the projected demand for secure shipment of nuclear materials.
    Headquarters and the Albuquerque Operations Office, in collaboration
    with other program offices, have initiated a coordinated planning and
    scheduling process to improve the optimum usage of our assets, to
    establish NNSA authority to certify Type B shipping packages, and to
    expand our capabilities by hiring and training special federal agents
    and enlarging the fleet of trailers, tractors, and escort vehicles.
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Activities
        With respect to NNSA's international nuclear security
    responsibilities, the NNSA develops and implements critical U.S.
    nonproliferation programs. Its role is due, in large measure, to the
    unique expertise in nuclear weapons and nuclear material handling that
    it draws from the national laboratories. The NNSA's goal is to ensure
    the close integration of technical talent and policy expertise with the
    efforts of other U.S. agencies working in the nonproliferation arena.
    Our goal is to address this complex, multifaceted issue in a
    comprehensive way, with specific, realistic goals for each part of the
    program. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation's programs
    address different types of problems, and they are designed to do
    different things, while working to achieve the overall goal of reducing
    the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. All of
    these programs, together, offer a synergy of effect that is greater
    than the sum of the parts.
        The NNSA is pursuing strategies to protect or eliminate vulnerable
    weapons-usable nuclear material or infrastructure, and redirect excess
    weapons expertise to civilian enterprises in Russia and other nations
    that possess vulnerable materials. The Office of Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation is responsible for these nuclear security programs,
    along with other programs that seek to prevent, detect, and deter
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the materials needed
    to produce them. Key programs within NN that deal with vulnerable
    weapons materials and the nuclear complex infrastructure in Russia
    include (1) Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting; (2) Fissile
    Materials Disposition; (3) HEU Transparency Implementation; (4) the
    Nuclear Cities Initiative; and (5) Initiatives for Proliferation
    Prevention. NN's other nonproliferation and arms control programs will
    be discussed in the next section. The three-fold threat of unsecured
    materials, widely available technology, and underemployed expertise
    following the breakup of the Soviet Union makes these issues of
    paramount importance and urgency.
    Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting
        The NNSA conducts effective programs in Russia to protect
    vulnerable weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials. The NNSA's
    Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting program (MPC&A) is
    working rapidly to complete its mission, and estimates in its Strategic
    Plan that comprehensive security upgrades will be complete at all of
    the warhead storage locations that the Russian Navy has requested, as
    early as 2007, and for 603 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear
    material by 2011. Since 1993, the program has completed rapid upgrades
    for nearly 4,000 warheads and 220 metric tons of fissile material. The
    unprecedented degree of cooperation and access shown by the Russian
    Navy to NNSA employees has facilitated the advancement of our work at a
    number of very sensitive Russian sites, allowing us to focus our
    personnel and funds on promptly securing the items in Russia that are
    most attractive to diversion. One programmatic goal for fiscal year
    2002 is to complete security upgrades at thirteen nuclear sites,
    bringing the total number of completed sites to fifty.
        Another goal is to promote sustainable security improvements.
    ``Sustainability'' is critical to the long-term mission of the program,
    because we must ensure that installed MPC&A systems are maintained and
    operated over the long term. Sustainability also entails fostering the
    ability of our Russian counterparts to operate and maintain the MPC&A
    systems unilaterally. To ensure sustainability, we are establishing
    training centers, identifying credible Russian suppliers of MPC&A
    equipment, helping draft national regulations and security force
    procedures, and establishing a federal information accounting system to
    track amounts and locations for all of Russia's nuclear material.
    Specifically, in fiscal year 2002, we will conduct fifty training
    courses in MPC&A design, operation, and maintenance for more than 2,400
    students, bringing the total number of Russian personnel trained in
    MPC&A concepts to greater than 6,000. Furthermore, we have developed
    and implemented a program to consolidate material into fewer buildings
    and fewer sites, and to convert excess highly attractive material to a
    form that is less attractive to potential proliferant nations. In
    fiscal year 2002, this program will convert an additional 1.8 metric
    tons of highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium (LEU), raising
    the total converted to four metric tons. This program reduces costs to
    the U.S. by limiting the number of buildings requiring security
    upgrades. It also reduces the Russia-borne costs of maintaining
    installed security upgrades once NNSA's funds are no longer provided.
        The NNSA conducts two separate, yet complementary, programs to
    eliminate vulnerable weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials in
    Russia, so that it will never again be used for weapons purposes. We
    estimate that there are roughly 150 metric tons of plutonium and more
    than 1,000 metric tons of highly enriched uranium in Russia. These
    programs are the first step in what is sure to be a lengthy process.
    Fissile Materials Disposition
        The Fissile Materials Disposition program is responsible for
    disposing of inventories of surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium and
    highly enriched uranium, for reducing the significant costs associated
    with long-term storage of these materials in the United States, as well
    as for providing the technical support for, and ultimate implementation
    of, efforts to obtain reciprocal disposition of surplus Russian weapon-
    grade plutonium. This disposition program is among the nonproliferation
    programs that is currently undergoing a National Security Council
    review of U.S. Government nonproliferation assistance programs to
    Russia.
        The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will fund the completion of the
    mixed oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility design and proceed with
    related MOX fuel qualification activities. We will continue the design
    of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility at a reduced rate, and
    we will suspend the design of the Plutonium Immobilization Plant. These
    changes are necessary, to reduce the anticipated future-year peak
    funding requirements associated with plans for simultaneously building
    three plutonium disposition facilities at the Savannah River Site.
    Despite these schedule changes, the NNSA continues to pursue the
    irradiation of MOX fuel in existing reactors and immobilization for the
    disposition of surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium. This will enable us
    to meet the commitments called for in the recently signed U.S.-Russia
    Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and to support the
    continued consolidation, cleanup, and shut down of DOE sites where
    surplus plutonium is stored.
        Other activities planned for fiscal year 2002 involve providing
    limited support for the development of facilities in Russia for
    disposition of surplus plutonium, and continuing surplus U.S. HEU
    disposition, including capital improvements at the Savannah River Site
    to support the off-specification blend-down project with the TVA. This
    project will eliminate tons of surplus weapons material, by converting
    it to reactor fuel for use in TVA's reactors, which provide electric
    power throughout the Southeast. Equally important, this work will also
    save the taxpayers $600 million by avoiding the cost to dispose of this
    surplus material as waste.
    HEU Transparency Implementation
        The NNSA is working to convert Russian surplus HEU from the Russian
    military stockpile into a non-weapon-usable form. The 1993 U.S.-Russia
    HEU Purchase Agreement remains one of the more impressive
    nonproliferation achievements of the last decade. The NNSA's HEU
    Transparency Implementation program is designed to provide assurance
    that surplus HEU, from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons, is
    downblended in Russia to LEU and fabricated into fuel for sale and use
    in U.S. commercial power reactors.
        The program monitors the conversion and processing of this material
    at Russian facilities, subject to the terms of the Agreement. Over the
    course of the program thus far, seventy-three teams--the equivalent of
    more than 4,000 monitoring hours--have visited these facilities to
    monitor conversion operations. During the past year, the NNSA installed
    a Blend-Down Monitoring System (BDMS) at one Russian facility, to
    provide continuous monitoring data in support of our transparency
    objectives. The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will allow the NNSA to
    continue its blend-down monitoring activities, but at a slightly
    reduced level. Through the end of 2000, more than 111 metric tons of
    weapons grade uranium--enough for roughly 4,400 weapons--had been
    removed from the Russian military program, under this Agreement, and
    converted to LEU for commercial sale. Our goal for 2001 is to convert
    another thirty metric tons. This program is a major source of income
    for the Russian government. Approximately $2.2 billion has been paid to
    the Russian Federation under this Agreement, and some of this money is
    to be used for the conversion of defense enterprises and for enhancing
    the safety of Russian nuclear facilities.
    Redirecting Excess Weapons Expertise and Eliminating Weapons
            Infrastructure
        The NNSA conducts two programs focused on redirecting excess
    weapons expertise in Russia to civilian enterprises and eliminating
    their weapons infrastructure. The Nuclear Cities Initiative and the
    Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program are programs that work
    together with the International Science and Technology Centers and the
    Civilian Research and Development Foundation to address all aspects of
    this issue.
    Nuclear Cities Initiative
        NNSA's unique ``brain drain'' program, the Nuclear Cities
    Initiative (NCI), was created in 1998, to assist the Russian Federation
    in (1) diversification of the economy within the closed nuclear cities
    to attract commercial investors, (2) enhancement of U.S. national
    security by assisting Russia in reducing the overall size of its
    nuclear weapons production complex, and (3) prevention and reversal of
    the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons expertise, by
    redirecting weapons scientists in Russia's nuclear cities to
    sustainable non-weapons activities. We are striving to accomplish this
    task, working closely with the Russians, to (1) facilitate transition
    from weapons research to civilian business and commercial projects, (2)
    develop joint plans for accelerated downsizing of the Russian nuclear
    complex, (3) develop local infrastructure to support economic
    diversification and job creation, (4) conduct targeted training and
    other activities to improve marketing and management capabilities, and
    (5) leverage funding and encourage non-U.S. Government investment.
        The fiscal year 2002 Budget request will allow the NNSA to focus
    its commitments in only Sarov, Russia. In an effort to make the closed
    nuclear cities in Russia more amenable to international businesses, the
    NNSA has facilitated the creation of two International Business
    Development Centers, two Open Computing Centers, and two
    Nonproliferation Centers for research and training new nonproliferation
    experts. Additionally, we have expanded and upgraded telecommunications
    capabilities, to enable remote work to be done from those
    geographically isolated cities. Thus far, with a limited budget, NNSA
    has facilitated initiation of more than twenty-five commercial and
    infrastructure projects in the cities, with more than $8 million spent
    in Russia. With our help, loan officers of the European Bank for
    Reconstruction and Development loan officers are now established in
    each city, making more than $1 million in small-business loans to local
    non-weapons businesses in the closed cities. We are pleased that there
    are now twenty-four business training courses in those three cities,
    with hundreds of participants. Looking to the future, we are hopeful
    that negotiations involving more than ten potential commercial
    investors will soon bear fruit.
    Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
        The Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program was
    established in 1993, to prevent the proliferation of weapons
    technologies and expertise, by engaging former Soviet weapon scientists
    in cooperative research projects with DOE national laboratories and
    U.S. industry partners, especially in areas that have a strong
    potential for non-military commercialization. This program enhances
    U.S. national security by engaging former Soviet weapons scientists in
    civilian work, to prevent the spread of technologies related to weapons
    of mass destruction and also to increase access to, and transparency
    at, former Soviet weapons facilities. We have developed a rigorous
    process of screening all projects for potential dual-use activities or
    efforts, relying on other parts of the U.S. Government to bring their
    expertise to bear on this issue. At the same time, NNSA's activities in
    this arena also provide U.S. industry with technology and research
    talent from the former Soviet military establishment. Since its
    inception, the IPP program has engaged more than 8,000 scientists,
    engineers, and technicians in the Newly Independent States, and is
    supporting sixty-four cooperative research projects at sixty-five
    institutes. These efforts realized seven commercial projects and
    generated $9.4 million of commercialized products.
    International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation
        Another strategy for enhancing nuclear security is to improve
    operational safety and safety systems at nuclear facilities of concern.
    The NNSA is working to reduce safety risks at the sixty-six operating,
    Soviet-designed nuclear-power reactors in nine countries, through the
    International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation program. We plan to
    complete safety upgrades for these reactors by 2006. There are three
    reactors in Russia that are to be shut down, as part of DOD's program
    to eliminate the production of weapons-grade plutonium. These three
    high-risk reactors, at secured sites, are the oldest operating reactors
    in Russia, and have not received any safety upgrades under foreign
    cooperation. Safety upgrades at these production reactors, prior to
    their planned shutdown in 2006, are among our highest priorities.
    However, the scope of activities for improved safe operation will be
    limited.
        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. The Ukrainian government shutdown Chornobyl's sole
    operational reactor--Unit 3--in December 2000, as planned. Our efforts
    to support the construction of a replacement heat plant at Chornobyl,
    for decontamination and decommissioning purposes, are also proceeding
    well. We were pleased when Kazakhstan also made the tough decision to
    shut down its BN-350 reactor. Our attention is now focused on plans for
    decommissioning and decontaminating the reactor's sodium coolant, which
    will ensure that this reactor can never be restarted. The fiscal year
    2002 Budget request will allow us to complete one full-scope, nuclear
    plant training simulator, each, in Russia, Ukraine, and Slovakia. We
    will also strive for the completion of operational safety improvements
    at all plants in Russia and Ukraine. Safety procedure and reactor in-
    depth safety assessments will proceed, albeit at a delayed pace.
            goal 3: detecting, deterring, and impeding proliferation
        Our third goal is to detect, deter, and impede proliferation and
    the use of weapons of mass destruction. As mentioned in the previous
    section dealing with nuclear material security, the NNSA develops and
    implements critical U.S. nonproliferation programs. In addition to the
    programs already described, NN has extensive efforts in research and
    development (R&D) and arms control arenas. Our active role in the U.S.
    nonproliferation interagency community derives, in large measure, from
    the nuclear expertise found in the national laboratories. NN supports
    U.S. national, bilateral, and multilateral efforts to reduce the threat
    posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
    Research and Development Programs
        A key nonproliferation strategy is to enhance the capability to
    detect weapons of mass destruction. The NNSA goal of integrating
    technical talent and policy expertise is evident in the
    Nonproliferation and Verification R&D Program, which enhances U.S.
    national security through needs-driven R&D, with an emphasis on
    developing technologies to detect nuclear, chemical, and biological
    proliferation, and to monitor nuclear explosions.
        The following accomplishment is just one indication of the type of
    activities NNSA is involved with in the R&D area. NNSA was proud that,
    last year, we achieved a significant milestone in one of our R&D
    programs: The Multispectral Thermal Imager satellite was launched in
    March 2000. This small research satellite, designed and built by a team
    of NNSA laboratories and industry partners, will develop and test
    remote-sensing concepts that will add to our country's ability to
    monitor nuclear proliferation. Originally designed for a 14-month
    research mission (with an expectation of three years of useful
    operation), the satellite has already achieved most of its design
    objectives. The MTI program has developed the sensor technology and
    data processing methodology to make extremely precise multispectral
    remote sensing measurements from space, and to use these measurements
    to extract important proliferation monitoring information about
    observed sites. The engineering required to achieve these precise
    measurements and complex algorithms, to extract the useful information,
    is being validated through experiments with the satellite.
    Additionally, the satellite has been used to support numerous civil,
    environmental, defense, and space science researchers throughout the
    government. The satellite has collected more than a thousand images and
    approximately one third of these were at the request of non-DOE
    experimenters.
        The Proliferation Detection program will develop the requisite
    technologies to detect nuclear proliferation. Our unchallenged lead
    responsibility for nuclear nonproliferation technology derives from the
    expertise and knowledge base resident in our nuclear weapons complex,
    and it provides a technology template for the detection of activities
    related to all weapons of mass destruction. The objectives of the
    detection program are
      --to produce technologies that lead to prototype demonstrations and
            resultant remote proliferation detection systems,
      --to strengthen our detection capabilities to respond to current and
            projected threats to national security and world peace posed by
            the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,
      --and to develop technologies that are subsequently made available to
            a wide range of government users, including DOD and the
            intelligence community.
        The separate, yet closely related, Proliferation Deterrence program
    seeks to develop technical options to prevent and deter proliferation
    of nuclear weapon technology and fissile materials. Research is focused
    on developing integrated sensor systems that will improve the accuracy
    and timeliness of information. Our NNSA experts are working hard to
    build robust technical deterrence capabilities that include the
    development of unattended and handheld technologies designed to shape
    U.S. diplomatic efforts that rely upon verification or confidence
    building measures, in addition to the development of technical means to
    defend the homeland against lost or stolen, foreign weapons or fissile
    materials. We are also improving our forensic capability to identify
    the origin of fissile material that might be associated with a nuclear
    threat.
        With the fiscal year 2002 Budget, we will continue to develop and
    demonstrate innovative remote sensing, sampling, and analysis
    technologies needed to improve early detection of a proliferant
    nation's nuclear weapons program or non-compliance with international
    treaties and agreements, as well as tracking foreign special nuclear
    materials.
        The Nuclear Explosion Monitoring Program is designed to provide the
    United States with the technical capability to detect nuclear
    explosions. Specifically, NNSA technical experts are working to develop
    and deploy sensors and algorithms that enable the United States. to
    meet its national requirements for detecting, locating, identifying,
    and characterizing nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in space,
    underground, or underwater. Additionally, we are transitioning
    technologies to, and providing operational support for, U.S. national
    nuclear explosion monitoring agencies, including the Air Force
    Technical Applications Center, in partnership with other Air Force
    elements, the United States Geological Survey, and other government
    agencies. The program seeks to enable detection of very low-yield
    events, especially those that might arise from proliferant nation
    efforts, deliver ground-based systems comprising state-of-the-art
    hardware and software products for seismic, hydro-acoustic, infrasound,
    and radionuclide technologies, and develop, engineer, and deliver
    satellite-based systems to the Air Force. During the next five years,
    we will develop, demonstrate, and begin deliveries of a new generation
    of optical, electromagnetic pulse, and direct-radiation sensors for
    Global Positioning System Block II-F satellites.
        In fiscal year 2002, the Nuclear Explosion Monitoring program will
    continue to develop enabling technology, operational hardware and
    software, and expertise to detect, locate, identify, characterize, and
    attribute nuclear detonations through both ground-based and satellite-
    based systems.
        To meet threats posed by chemical and biological agents, the NNSA
    draws upon the diverse and extensive expertise of its national
    laboratories. The goal of the Chemical and Biological National Security
    Program is to develop, demonstrate, and deliver technologies and
    systems that will lead to major improvements in U.S. capability to
    prepare for, and respond to, chemical or biological attacks against
    civilian populations. This program will continue to focus emerging
    science and technology on the threat of chemical and biological attack
    against U.S. civilian populations. The NNSA is the primary agency
    developing non-medical technical solutions for this challenge. Our
    experts are involved in a broad interagency program to develop sensors
    that could detect the terrorist use of a biological agent at a large
    outdoor event, such as the Super Bowl or the Olympics. While we do not
    have the lead on this activity, NNSA brings to the table superb
    technical experience in this field. The NNSA is providing the
    underpinning biological information necessary for biological detection
    that would support analyses for attribution and event reconstruction
    purposes, and would aid other agencies in the development of medical
    and public health countermeasures. The goals of this program are to
    develop and demonstrate
      --chemical and biological detection, identification, and warning
            systems for domestic, high-risk areas or conditions,
      --hand-portable chemical and biological detectors, to provide real-
            time detection to increase situational awareness during crises,
            and
      --modeling and simulation capabilities, to enable accurate prediction
            of the effects from chemical and biological attacks in urban
            areas, to guide preparation and response efforts, chemical and
            biological decontamination, and restoration techniques for use
            in civilian settings.
        The construction of the Nonproliferation and International Security
    Center at Los Alamos will continue with funding of $36 million in
    fiscal year 2002, allowing for its completion in this same fiscal year.
    Arms Control and Nonproliferation
        Another key strategy is promoting arms control and nonproliferation
    treaties, promoting agreements, and regimes, and developing the
    associated technologies to support them. The mission of the Office of
    Arms Control and Nonproliferation is to detect, prevent, and reverse
    the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) materials,
    technology, and expertise. It is the focal point within the NNSA for
    activities that support the President's nonproliferation and
    international security policies, goals, and objectives, as well as
    those activities mandated by statute. The program provides policy and
    technical expertise and leadership for NNSA and the Department in
    interagency, bilateral, and multilateral fora involved in
    nonproliferation and international security matters. Several projects
    that had been initiated last year are not proceeding currently. The
    NNSA will not be proceeding with the Separated Civil Plutonium
    activities, due to Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran. Funding for
    Spent Fuel Storage and Geological Repository in Russia are on hold, to
    allow time for the new Administration's interagency policy review. At
    the current budget level for fiscal year 2002, further assistance to
    Kazakhstan, in implementing the secure long-term storage of the BN-350
    plutonium-rich fuel, will be curtailed.
    Russia-Focused Programs
        The Second Line of Defense program was created in 1998. It is
    designed to help the Russians detect and prevent nuclear proliferation
    or terrorism through the installation of radiation detection equipment
    at strategic transit and border sites in Russia. It also helps to
    strengthen Russia's ability to detect and deter illegal nuclear
    transfers, thus adhering to its international nonproliferation
    commitments. In fiscal year 2002, this program will be expanded
    slightly, to increase our cooperation with the Russian Customs
    Committee. This program's objectives include
      --equipping vulnerable border and transit sites with radiation
            detection equipment,
      --utilizing a ``systems'' approach to equipment installation,
            including rigorous vulnerability assessments, site survey, and
            design of candidate sites, and acceptance testing and data
            evaluation of installed equipment, and
      --ensuring sustainability through training for equipment use and
            procedures for response, using Russian-manufactured and U.S.-
            tested detection equipment, and providing mobile training
            stations for use in remote regions.
        To date, this program has been quite successful on a limited budget
    of several million dollars per year. Equipment has been installed at
    the airports in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and at a port on the Caspian
    Sea. Eight sites are fully equipped and installation at three
    additional sites is underway. This relatively young program already has
    reached significant achievements, including ninety customs officers
    trained, training manuals distributed to 30,000 front-line officers,
    passive searches of roughly 120,000 vehicles, 11,000 railroad cars, and
    greater than 750,000 pedestrians, using radiation detectors installed
    under our joint program.
    Policy and Analysis
        The Policy and Analysis office provides analytical support and
    technical expertise for arms control and nonproliferation treaty, and
    for agreement policy formulation, negotiation, and implementation at
    DOE and NNSA facilities and for regional security initiatives. In the
    next fiscal year, the NNSA will continue to promote arms control and
    nonproliferation activities, both under formal treaty-related
    mechanisms and under less formal mechanisms, including the Warhead
    Safety and Security Exchange (WSSX) Agreement, negotiations on Russian
    plutonium oxide measurements, under the Plutonium Production Reactor
    Agreement, and testing, evaluating, and demonstrating technologies, in
    accordance with the Joint DOE-DOD Integrated Technology Plan. These
    technologies would support transparency negotiations for several
    initiatives, including the monitoring regime, to be implemented at the
    Fissile Material Storage Facility being built by the DOD at the Mayak
    Production Association in Ozersk, Russia, the 1996 Plutonium Production
    Reactor Agreement implementation, and U.S.-Russian Federation-IAEA
    (International Atomic Energy Agency) Trilateral Initiative
    negotiations.
        The U.S. and Russian Federation have declared their commitment to
    pursuing transparent and irreversible reductions in nuclear arms. The
    mission of the NNSA Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program
    is twofold. First, we are comprehensively evaluating the impact of a
    warhead monitoring regime on the NNSA nuclear weapons complex, to
    ensure that there is no adverse impact on the U.S. requirement to
    maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, and to
    ensure that no classified information is revealed. Second, NNSA experts
    are developing and implementing technical measures that can be applied
    at Russian nuclear weapons facilities, to provide confidence that
    Russian nuclear weapons are being dismantled, and that excess fissile
    materials removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons cannot be
    used again for weapons purposes. This program reduces the potential for
    theft and diversion of Russian warheads and fissile material, by
    increasing the safety and security of Russian warheads. It also obtains
    access to Russian scientific and technical information, and gains
    access and provides transparency in the Russian nuclear weapons
    complex.
        The Warhead Safety and Security Agreement/Laboratory-to-Laboratory
    Transparency Program is intended to provide a greater understanding of
    the Russian nuclear warhead dismantlement process, while encouraging
    advocates for transparency in Russia. The Laboratory-to-Laboratory
    program is implemented through contracts signed between U.S. and
    Russian national laboratories. Upon receipt of deliverables from
    Russian institutes, U.S. laboratories provide funds to Russian
    scientists, who worked on the deliverables. This program is conducted
    under the auspices of the extended Nuclear Warhead Safety and Security
    Agreement. Strict guidelines and oversight are used by the U.S. and
    Russian Federation to ensure that only unclassified information is
    exchanged. Areas of work include radiation measurement technology, tags
    and seals, remote monitoring, and other topics related to nuclear
    weapons transparency.
        The ``Agreement between the United States of America and the
    Government of the Russian Federation, on the Exchange of Technical
    Information in the Field of Nuclear Warhead Safety and Security,'' more
    commonly referred to as the Warhead Safety and Security Exchange
    Agreement (WSSX), was signed on December 16, 1994, entered into force
    in June 1995, and was extended for an additional five-year term last
    year. Participants in the Agreement are DOE and DOD for the U.S. and
    MinAtom and the Ministry of Defense for Russia. The June 2000 extension
    incorporated any ongoing or future DOE/MinAtom Laboratory-to-Laboratory
    activities concerning the transparency associated with dismantlement of
    nuclear weapons under the WSSX Agreement. As established under the
    original WSSX Agreement, a Joint Steering Committee and Joint
    Coordinating Group approve new Laboratory-to-Laboratory topics/projects
    for program technical exchange consideration and provide oversight to
    Agreement implementation.
        The Monitoring Warhead Inventories and Dismantlement Program
    focuses on identifying technical measures and technologies to monitor
    warhead inventories and dismantlement under future monitoring regimes.
    Future initiatives involving the monitoring of nuclear warheads,
    nuclear warhead dismantlement, or fissile material, resulting from
    dismantled nuclear warheads, will have a significant impact on the NNSA
    nuclear weapons complex. The NNSA Warhead and Fissile Material
    Transparency Program comprehensively evaluates the issues associated
    with potential monitoring regimes, to ensure that there is no adverse
    impact on the U.S. requirement to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable
    nuclear weapons stockpile, and that no classified information is
    revealed. In fiscal year 1999, DOE and DOD agreed to combine resources
    in support of a joint DOE-DOD Integrated Technology Plan to
    comprehensively develop, test, and ``red-team'' technologies that could
    be used to support Mayak transparency, the U.S.-Russia-IAEA Trilateral
    Initiative, Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement, and potential
    future initiatives.
        The Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement (PPRA), signed in 1996,
    commits the Russian government to cease production of weapon-grade
    plutonium at three reactors that also provide heat and electricity to
    two cities and their surrounding regions in Siberia. As part of the
    PPRA, both sides agreed to allow teams from the other side to monitor
    the shut-down reactors, as well as the plutonium storage facilities.
    NNSA and Russian technical experts are developing jointly technologies
    and mechanisms that will enable our monitors to perform their
    transparency activities, without revealing any sensitive information.
        The Trilateral Initiative began in 1996. Its goal is to provide
    international confidence that excess United States and Russian weapons
    plutonium is not returned to weapon use. Technical experts from Russia,
    the United States, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
    have been working diligently during the past four years to devise
    technologies and methods to allow IAEA verification of the material,
    without revealing sensitive information. IAEA inspections at the Mayak
    Fissile Material Storage Facility will verify that Russian excess
    plutonium remains removed from weapons programs. The U.S. will place
    its excess plutonium under IAEA verification at the K-Area Material
    Storage Facility at the Savannah River Site.
    Non-Russia-Focused Programs
        While the bulk of our nonproliferation activities take place in
    Russia, the NNSA is also involved in nonproliferation and arms-control-
    regime projects in many other parts of the world. For instance, since
    1995, the United States and Kazakhstan have been working to reduce
    proliferation risks associated with three tons of weapons-grade
    plutonium. This material, which is located at the BN-350 fast-breeder
    reactor in Aktau, Kazakhstan, contains enough plutonium to manufacture
    hundreds of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, unlike most spent fuel, the
    majority the BN-350 spent fuel material poses no significant radiation
    hazard to a would-be thief. The project has
      --reduced the threat to United States national security posed by the
            vulnerability of the weapons-grade material,
      -- significantly enhanced physical protection and material control
            measures at the plant,
      --utilized a former weapons-related complex in Kazakhstan, which was
            converted to peaceful uses under the Cooperative Threat
            Reduction program, to manufacture most of the storage
            canisters,
      --instilled a safety and security culture, by conducting all U.S.-
            sponsored activities in a cost effective manner, consistent
            with international safeguards, security, and safety standards,
            and
      --packaged the nearly 3,000 fuel assemblies in welded and evacuated
            1\1/2\-ton steel canisters in such a way that ``hot''
            assemblies are combined with ``cool'' assemblies, to provide a
            radiation barrier to theft, while also stabilizing the spent
            fuel for long-term storage. This phase will be complete this
            summer, securing three metric tons of very high-grade
            plutonium.
        The Aktau project will, as funding allows, continue to support the
    IAEA in the implementation of internationally accepted safeguards
    measures over the material, continue to provide non-weapons-related
    employment for nuclear scientists in Kazakhstan, and provide security
    and international safeguards measures for the transportation and long-
    term dry storage facility for the BN-350 material.
        NNSA experts are also actively working in North Korea to reverse
    and prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, by securing approximately
    thirty kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium contained in Nyongbyon 5
    megawatt reactor spent fuel. Similar to the objectives of the Aktau
    project, NNSA technicians have
      --packaged the 8,000 assemblies in canisters and placed those
            canisters under IAEA monitoring, and
      --performed field operations to maintain packaged spent fuel in a
            safe condition, appropriate for future shipment.
        We are also supporting the IAEA in the implementation of
    verification and international safeguards of the material, while
    helping to prepare plans to support future shipment and disposition of
    spent fuel.
        In an effort to impede the use of weapons of mass destruction, the
    NNSA supports several projects targeted at reducing the amount of
    fissile material that could be available to potential proliferators to
    fashion into a nuclear device. In the Reduced Enrichment for Research
    and Test Reactors (RERTR) Program, NNSA continues to work to reduce
    international commerce in civil HEU, by developing technologies to
    convert foreign and domestic research and test reactors from HEU to
    LEU. To accomplish this, the program continues to
      --develop denser LEU fuels that can be used to convert most, if not
            all, research reactors to LEU fuel,
      --develop LEU targets and chemical processing methods that can be
            used for production of medical radioisotopes,
      -- perform design and safety analyses, and transfer technology to
            assist conversion of research reactors to use of to LEU fuel
            and targets; and
      --provide support to the Russian RERTR program, to develop high-
            density fuels and to complete the design and safety analyses
            needed for LEU conversion of Russian-designed research
            reactors.
        Along those same lines, and based on its own experience with the
    RERTR program, NNSA experts have begun cooperation with Russia to
    establish a Research Reactor Fuel Take-Back Program, to prevent
    proliferation of nuclear weapons, by repatriating to Russia civil HEU
    fuel, from Soviet/Russian-supplied research reactors in sixteen
    countries, many of which are located in regions of proliferation
    concern. This program is in its early stages, and is working closely
    with the IAEA.
        NNSA is also active in strengthening regional security and
    nonproliferation, not only on the Korean peninsula, but also throughout
    East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. We are doing this by
    participating in U.S. policymaking, promoting regional security
    dialogues, and sharing with key states in these regions the expertise
    of the national laboratories on technical measures to implement
    nonproliferation agreements. Under a program to strengthen the
    Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) regime, NNSA supports the
    United State in its efforts to negotiate a legally binding protocol to
    the 1972 BWC. This protocol is part of a larger effort to deter
    noncompliance with the BWC and to reinforce the global norm against the
    proliferation of biological weapons. Our technical experts facilitate
    U.S. commerce through implementation of bilateral peaceful nuclear
    cooperation agreements with our nuclear trading partners.
                    goal 4: providing naval nuclear reactors
        Our fourth goal is to provide the Navy with safe, militarily
    effective nuclear propulsion plants, and ensure their continued safe
    and reliable operation.
        Naval Reactors is a highly successful semi-autonomous organization
    inside of the NNSA. Admiral Bowman, the Program's director, is
    responsible for providing the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily effective
    nuclear propulsion plants, and ensuring their continued safe and
    reliable operation.
        The responsibilities and authority of the Director of this unique
    dual agency organization were set forth in Executive Order and in
    Public Laws. This cradle-to-grave responsibility begins with technology
    development and continues through reactor operation and, ultimately,
    reactor plant disposal.
        With 102 operating Naval reactor plants in warships comprising
    forty percent of the Navy's major combatants, primary emphasis and most
    effort is placed on ensuring the safety and reliability of these
    plants. Naval Reactors is developing the next-generation reactor for
    the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarines and a reactor for the
    Navy's new CVNX class of aircraft carriers.
        I will continue to support and promote this unique Program that
    produces the ``culture of excellence'' that NR is known for.
             goal 5: vitality and readiness of the nnsa enterprise
         Our fifth goal is to ensure the vitality and readiness of the
    NNSA's scientific and technical enterprise, for the next decade and
    beyond. We are particularly concerned about attracting and retaining a
    preeminent workforce and revitalizing our aging infrastructure.
    Nuclear Expertise
        A key strategy for ensuring the readiness of the enterprise is to
    attract and retain the best workforce possible, in today's highly
    competitive market for technical talent, by providing a challenging and
    rewarding work environment. Within a decade, most of our weapons
    designers with nuclear testing experience will be eligible for
    retirement and may have left our workforce. This means that when our
    newest system, the W88, reaches the end of its original, expected
    design life in 2014, we may no longer have anyone with test-based job
    experience to help evaluate modifications that may be required, due to
    aging. As part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, we are using the
    remaining critical staff to train and mentor the next generation of
    stockpile stewards, who will use the new stockpile stewardship tools,
    along with existing nuclear test data and the weaponization database.
        As I indicated in the beginning of this testimony, our people are
    our most important asset. But our experienced cadre of scientists,
    engineers, and manufacturing personnel is dwindling, as workers retire.
    Attracting and retaining the critically skilled people we need is one
    of the major problems faced by the nuclear weapons complex today.
        We provided a report to Congress last year, in response to section
    3163 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
    that describes the situation at each of our contractor sites, with
    regard to their current and projected critical skills status and their
    plans for maintaining essential nuclear weapons expertise. At present,
    we believe the situation is manageable, but we will carefully monitor
    the implementation of each site plan. We are also currently reviewing
    our policy with our management and operating contractors to ensure that
    it promotes effective recruitment and retention. The three new
    contracts with our production plants, awarded in fiscal year 2000,
    contain a new clause that states it is our policy not to inhibit
    recruitment and retention. The new contracts with the University of
    California for the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratories include maintenance of critical skills as one of the key
    improvement areas that will receive focused evaluation by the NNSA.
        One might think that recruiting and retaining the critically
    skilled people we need could be solved by simply paying higher
    salaries. Certainly that is true in some instances, but not all. One of
    the problems in cyber security is that once we have trained individuals
    in the latest techniques, we often lose them to private industries that
    are paying higher salaries. Of course, a number of the critically
    skilled people that are needed in the complex have less direct
    application in private industry, for example, plutonium metallurgists.
    This raises the problem of encouraging individuals to enter these
    fields in the first place, and it is here that our new experimental
    facilities and capabilities come into play.
        A significant element in attracting and retaining personnel at the
    national defense laboratories has always been the Laboratory-Directed
    Research and Development (LDRD) Program. I would like to thank Congress
    for removing the restrictions against allowing our contractors to set
    aside up to six percent of their weapons activities appropriations for
    Laboratory-Directed Research and Development. The central objective of
    the LDRD program is to enhance the scientific and technical
    capabilities of the national laboratories, by investing in fundamental
    science and technology to meet long-term national needs. Sustained
    support for this program is essential, as it impacts recruitment.
    Overall, the personnel pool is still low which reflects the time it
    takes to recruit individuals. A similar program, authorized by Congress
    for the production plants, began in fiscal year 2001.
        Although Laboratory and Plant Manager Directed Research and
    Development Programs are essential elements in attracting people to the
    nuclear weapons program, the enduring attraction and retention of these
    people is fundamentally related to three issues: national importance of
    the mission, technical challenge of the program and advanced
    experimental, computational, and manufacturing capabilities.
    Maintenance of the Complex
        Another key strategy for assuring the vitality of our enterprise is
    to provide state-of-the-art scientific and technical tools and
    facilities, in a safe and secure environment. The current budget
    request for fiscal year 2002 will provide approximately the same level
    of funding available to our facilities and sites, as it has during the
    past several years. As I indicated in my testimony before the Senate
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee on March 13th,
    that level of funding has focused maintenance activities each year on
    those facilities necessary to carry out the immediate workload. We have
    not been able to make a significant investment for sustained,
    preventive maintenance or investments to reduce the risk of equipment
    failures, to increase operational efficiency and effectiveness, or to
    extend facility lifetimes. As a result, our aging nuclear weapons
    complex--more than half of our structures are greater than fifty years
    old--is deteriorating at an accelerating rate. The assessment Defense
    Programs conducted last year indicated that, in just the last five
    years, the percent of the complex found to be in either excellent or
    good condition had fallen from roughly 56 percent to only 26 percent.
        The condition of our facilities and infrastructure is certainly not
    a new story, having been documented in a number of studies over the
    past decade, and addressed by various construction-oriented
    initiatives, including Utilities and Equipment Restoration, the
    Facilities Capability Assurance Program, R&D Revitalization, Non-
    Nuclear Reconfiguration, and the Stockpile Management Restructuring
    Initiative, during the past three decades. The condition of our
    facilities and infrastructure has also been recognized by Congress,
    which, since fiscal year 1998, has earmarked $86 million above
    requested levels, specifically for infrastructure improvements at Y-12,
    Pantex, Kansas City, and Savannah River. Certainly, increased funding
    is vital, but it is only one part of the solution. Excellent facility
    management is a standard business practice of most major organizations
    and I have already taken steps to establish an office within NNSA to
    manage the facilities and infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
    complex. This office will focus on long-term planning, establishing the
    processes--absent too long--that will institutionalize the procedures,
    standards, and expectations for the complex.
        A Recapitalization Initiative has been developed to redress
    infrastructure problems throughout the complex in response to a recent
    comprehensive study of facilities and infrastructure. This multi-year
    initiative to correct maintenance deficiencies, with the goals of
    stabilizing the infrastructure, increasing availability of our current
    facilities, and extending their useful lives will be reviewed as part
    of the strategic review of national security programs.
                  goal 6: creating a well-managed organization
        Our sixth goal is to create a well-managed, responsive and
    accountable organization, by employing effective business practices. On
    March 14, 2001, I announced my plans for realigning the NNSA's
    organizational structure to improve performance of our core mission of
    strengthening national security and reducing the global threat from
    weapons of mass destruction, through applications of science and
    technology.
        This past January, after listening to the findings of my two
    organizational options teams, I concluded that NNSA should be realigned
    into ``product'' and ``support'' divisions, as is the practice in many
    major private sector enterprises.
        Our ``product'' divisions, Defense Programs and Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation, will focus on defining and advocating for the most
    effective means of accomplishing our mission. On the other hand, key
    support functions have received less-than- adequate attention in the
    past. Security and safety management, infrastructure and project
    management, the personnel system, and the planning and budgeting
    process all need focus and dedicated management attention. In creating
    two new Associate Administrators, one focused on facilities and
    operations and the other on management and administration, we will
    establish the advocates for many of the functions that the Congress
    recognized as needing attention in the crafting of Title 32. By taking
    these functions off the plates of my Deputy Administrators, I am
    freeing these managers to focus more intensively on program concerns
    and mission accomplishment.
        We have no intention of realigning Naval Reactors within this
    reorganization--they will remain separately managed as specified in
    Title 32. We have made use of this program's record of success and
    their many lessons-learned in the shaping of the NNSA.
        The two new Associate Administrators will support the mission
    organizations. The Associate Administrator for Management and
    Administration will be tasked to ensure efficient management of budget,
    finance, procurement, information, and people, to make them serve the
    needs of the product divisions. The Associate Administrator for
    Facilities and Operations will ensure responsible stewardship of our
    facilities and will be successful only if these facilities are
    available to the program organizations for performing our missions.
    These changes are designed to consolidate responsibility for security,
    safety, and environmental issues at NNSA sites; to establish clear and
    direct lines of communication for laboratory directors and plant
    managers; establish greater personal accountability; and to improve
    productivity and morale.
        The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will focus on
    maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear
    stockpile. Significant strides have been made in that area with the
    Department of Defense, in that we are implementing plans for detailed,
    requirements-driven stockpile life extension and refurbishment. Defense
    Programs will direct planning and set goals for production at the
    plants and for the science-based stockpile stewardship activities at
    the national laboratories. Defense Programs will retain responsibility
    for major program-oriented construction and facility initiatives.
        The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation organization will continue to
    reduce the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, strengthen
    nonproliferation institutions and norms, develop technologies to
    prevent nuclear smuggling, detect proliferation, respond to possible
    chemical or biological weapons use, and reduce the danger posed by
    unsafe operation of Soviet designed reactors worldwide.
        I recognize that establishing these ``product'' and ``support''
    divisions creates a degree of tension within the organization, but I
    expect that this tension will evolve into cooperation and support as
    each element begins to work with the others to accomplish our mission.
    This organizational structure works, if we are able to adopt a
    corporate approach to accomplishing the mission. Each Deputy and
    Associate Administrator must recognize that their personal and
    organizational success is tied to the success of the overall
    organization. We are creating a Management Council consisting of the
    Deputies and Associates that will be tasked with resolving cross-
    cutting issues and disputes. These issues will be referred to the
    Administrator, only if the Council cannot resolve them. Also, I will
    seek establishment of a Principal Deputy Administrator to help me
    resolve operational issues among NNSA elements and to assist in the
    day-to-day management of the enterprise. In sum, we are trying to
    develop a corporate approach to decision making.
        Mindful of the legislative mandate to provide the Armed Service
    Committees with a plan by May 1, 2001, ``for assigning roles and
    responsibilities to and among the headquarters and field organizational
    units of the NNSA,'' we divided the effort into two phases. The first
    phase addressed headquarters elements. In January, we assembled ten
    teams to tackle these issues for the headquarters elements. The reports
    of these teams formed the basis for the recently-announced
    reorganization. The May 1, 2001 interim plan is the first step in a
    multiphased effort, and will include mission and function statements
    for each major element of our realigned headquarters organization; it
    will describe relationships between each NNSA element; and it will
    discuss relationships between NNSA elements and those organizations
    external to the NNSA. The report will also contain an implementation
    plan for making this organizational transition by October 1, 2001,
    describing anticipated changes to organizational units and presenting a
    strategy for making the staffing transition. A final report will be
    transmitted to Congress in October. I have made a commitment that, in
    this initial reorganization phase, everyone currently employed will
    either be retained in a job similar to their current position or be
    placed in a new job within NNSA. We need to retain our federal talent
    for this to be a success!
        Realigning the field structure is the second phase of our efforts
    to establish an effective and efficient NNSA enterprise. Our May 1st
    plan will include a design outline for allocating roles and
    responsibilities between headquarters and the field. As the next step,
    I intend to charter a neutral group of experts to advise me on options
    for addressing key structural issues uncovered in by previous studies
    of this issue. This group will be asked to gather information and
    develop options over the next six months, with a view to resolving
    field-structure issues by the end of the year.
        My focus in these organizational adjustments is on making measured,
    thoughtful changes that improve NNSA's effectiveness in accomplishing
    our mission and then seeking to improve our efficiency through a
    structured process that does not disrupt current mission performance.
    Detailed Budget Proposals and Multi-Year Plans
        One of the key strategies for creating a well-managed organization
    is to adopt an integrated business management system that links
    strategic planning, programming, budgeting, execution, and evaluation.
    On the budgeting front, the good news is that NNSA submitted a Future-
    Years Nuclear Security Budget to the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) on March 2, 2001. OMB intends to carefully evaluate our future-
    year budget, over the next few months, in conjunction with the
    Administration's strategic review.
        Internally, our focus within NNSA is on improving our planning,
    programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. Our first future-
    year budget request was constructed while we began to implement a
    systematic process for connecting and integrating our plans, programs,
    funding requests, and performance evaluation processes. At the moment,
    these processes are not as well synchronized as we want. We expect that
    the fiscal year 2003 budget process will be a transition year in our
    implementation of a PPBE system. The system should be fully implemented
    during the fiscal year 2004 process. The graphic attached to my
    testimony presents a picture of how we expect the process to operate
    when the system is fully implemented.
        The NNSA PPBE system will (1) establish standardized business
    management processes where feasible and will provide flexibility for
    programs as appropriate; (2) improve discipline in program and project
    management; (3) assure that each program and project receives
    appropriate consideration as tradeoffs are made in establishing the
    integrated budget; and (4) create meaningful performance measurement
    and feedback systems. We hope to demonstrate the value of this system
    through measurable improvement in our mission performance.
        The system is divided into four phases:
      --Long-Range Planning--for the fiscal year 2004 cycle, this will be
            performed between June and October of fiscal year 2001.
      --Programming--guidance for fiscal year 2004 will be issued early in
            2002, and program decisions will be reached by June 2002.
      --Budgeting--NNSA senior managers will review the budget in June or
            July of 2002 and will then participate in the Department's
            process, tied to the preparation of the President's budget,
            which is released in January or February of 2003.
      --Execution and Evaluation--execution year funding will cascade down
            through program and implementation plans. Program managers will
            perform periodic reviews and report the results to appropriate
            officials.
        With the help of the Institute for Defense Analysis, NNSA has
    developed a detailed plan for implementing this system. NNSA's near-
    term priorities include:
      --communicating our plans throughout our enterprise,
      --establishing and implementing an Integrated Priority List and
            resource prioritization process,
      --improving the quality, timeliness, and integration of future-year
            program and implementation plans,
      -- establishing and implementing a formal change control process,
      --conducting periodic, formal evaluations, and
      --reviewing and establishing NNSA information technology requirements
            for the process.
        Development of a future-years defense budget process that brings us
    more in line with the needs of our missions, plants, and national
    laboratories is an important step. We have established momentum toward
    reaching that goal and we are making slow but steady progress. Your
    continued support for our efforts will be needed to reach this
    objective.
    Improving Personnel Management
        Another key strategy for improving business processes is to stress
    accountability at all levels of the organization. We must hold managers
    and contractors accountable for program and service results, hold
    individuals accountable for meeting performance goals, and reward
    individuals, units, and contractors accordingly. Finally, we must
    foster an orientation toward self-development.
        Title 32 contains limited, but important authority for the NNSA
    Administrator to begin revitalizing the Federal staffing of our
    nation's nuclear security enterprise. Review of our interim policy for
    implementing excepted service appointments and compensation authority
    for no more than 300 scientific, engineering, and technical positions
    within the NNSA is nearly completed. We expect to begin exercising this
    authority by the beginning of July 2001.
        The policy was developed by NNSA staff, in consultation with other
    agencies, that use similar authorities. Indeed, our team leader was the
    architect and implementer of the excepted service authority granted to
    the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board by Congress. His expert
    advice was invaluable in establishing this interim policy.
        Our interim policy is designed to provide NNSA managers with
    sufficient flexibility to attract and retain key personnel needed to
    meet our demanding mission, while ensuring that NNSA uses this special
    authority with due regard for the Merit Systems principles of federal
    personnel management. An integral element of the policy is the Pay-For-
    Performance feature, allowing for performance increases and performance
    bonus pools. Implementation of this Pay-For-Performance feature will be
    deferred until a uniform performance appraisal system can be
    established for our excepted service employees, and until our managers
    can be trained to develop fair and accurate measures of staff
    performance.
        We see this interim policy as just the first step in revitalizing
    our federal staffing process. We urgently need to begin hiring staff at
    entry and mid-career tiers to avoid future gaps in staffing and
    leadership. As you may be aware, almost fifty percent of our staff is
    within a decade of retirement. We intend to outline a more complete
    plan for improving personnel management and continuity in the May 1st
    Report to the Armed Services Committees.
                                   conclusion
        I believe that NNSA is on the right course. The NNSA enjoys the
    support and endorsement of Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. It is
    the right idea to bring together the national security missions of DOE,
    and to focus our work with clear goals and plans, clean lines of
    authority, and a strong view to the future. We are on a good path to
    improve on our management and performance, to manage our programs
    efficiently and effectively, and to plan our future.
        The culmination of all the stockpile stewardship activity--of all
    our surveillance, maintenance, refurbishment, research and development,
    and construction--is annual certification of the stockpile. The
    Stockpile Stewardship Program has, for the past five years, given the
    Secretaries of Energy and Defense the necessary confidence to inform
    the President that a return to nuclear testing is not required to
    maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons
    stockpile. With appropriate resources, we will be able to continue to
    provide that confidence for the foreseeable future, maintaining a
    credible nuclear deterrent for as long as we should need it.
        This confidence--and I cannot emphasize this enough--is largely the
    product of expert judgment, the expert judgment of some of America's
    best and brightest men and women, in both federal service and
    throughout the nation in our laboratories and plants. Their judgment is
    only meaningful because of their experience in pursuing the highest
    standards of excellence in science, engineering, manufacturing, and
    management. If we offer these people anything less--if we continue
    asking some to work in substandard facilities with aging equipment, if
    we burden them with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements and politics,
    if we fail to give them challenging work--then they will go elsewhere,
    our confidence in our weapons will suffer, and, under such
    circumstances, our nuclear deterrence will fail.
        The scientists and engineers that are stewards of our nuclear
    arsenal have also been making important technical contributions to
    controlling, detecting, and deterring the use of weapons of mass
    destruction. NNSA's unique contribution is evident in the caliber of
    personnel working on these complex, interrelated threat reduction
    programs. Their expertise resident in our national laboratories has
    been honed by years of working in support of the U.S. nuclear complex.
    Our technical experts are ready and willing to share their
    nonproliferation and counterproliferation experience with their
    counterparts in Russia. Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, I
    think we can all agree that as a nation, we may face no greater
    challenge than preventing weapons or weapons usable materials from
    falling into the hands of those who would use them against the United
    States or our allies. It has been more than a decade since the Berlin
    Wall fell, opening a new era in history. In many ways, we live in a
    more dangerous world now, since the demise of the Soviet Union. The
    threat to our safety and international security is more diffuse, which
    makes it harder to defend against. Rather than one monolithic threat,
    we must be prepared against rogue nations or terrorist organizations
    with interests inimical to ours. I am very proud of the
    nonproliferation programs that are rightfully part of the defense
    nuclear security enterprise. The review being conducted at the present
    time by the White House is timely and I am confident it will reveal
    that the NNSA's programs are making solid contributions to the national
    security of the United States.
        Again, I thank the members of this Panel for their commitment and
    support of our mission, and for your support of the people of NNSA who
    actually do the work and accomplish the mission: scientists, engineers,
    technicians, policy planners, administrators--at headquarters, in the
    field, at our laboratories, plants and the test site.
        Simply stated, NNSA has great people and a great mission. Thank you
    again for the opportunity to appear here today.

                 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2002 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET REQUEST
                                                  [Dollars in Millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                2000            2001         Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal
                                             Comparable      Comparable     2002 Request      2002 vs.     Year 2001
                                               Approp.         Approp.       to Congress                   (Percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Weapons Activities...................      $4,563,505      $5,069,289      $5,30O,025       $+230,736      $+4.6
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.....         712,672         873,884         773,700        -100,184      -11.5
    Naval Reactors.......................         669,637         687,560         688,045            +485       +0.1
    Office of the Administrator..........             350           9,978          15,000          +5,022      +50.3
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, NNSA....................       5,946 164       6,640,711       6,776,770       +136,3059       +2.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        General, might I just quickly say we thought the nuclear
    weapons and non-proliferation activities within the Department
    of Energy needed to be somewhat carved out with a National
    Nuclear Security Administration, becoming a semi-autonomous
    management scheme for them. From this Senator's standpoint we
    worked very hard on that.
        I remain thoroughly convinced that was the very best way to
    go, and I think you understand that role and have explained it
    very well. I would say we're not close to where we ought to be;
    we've just taken the first--maybe the first snap from center
    and the quarterback's back ready to do something. We look
    forward to being of help wherever we can as you begin to put
    this total organization together so that much of the difficulty
    in managing within a department as dysfunctional as DOE, almost
    dysfunctional by mandate, how we put it together.
        We look forward to helping you wherever we can make that a
    much more straightforward management of some very serious,
    dangerous, and yet important activities.
        General Gordon. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Domenici. Our next witness will be Admiral Bowman--
    --
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Yes, please.
        Senator Reid. If I could just say one brief thing?
        Senator Domenici. Absolutely.
        Senator Reid. When the idea of you and Senator Kyl and
    others to develop this entity that now General Gordon runs I
    was very dubious. I didn't stand in the way but I wasn't on the
    side cheering you on, and I in hindsight recognize that I was
    probably wrong.
        But it appears to me that the DOE is functioning better in
    this regard than it ever has. A lot of it has to do with the
    leadership of General Gordon, but it's also the entity that was
    set up. So I want to tell you that I'm not sure I found
    religion but maybe so.
        General Gordon. Could I react to that, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Domenici. Yes. Briefly, General.
        General Gordon. I appreciate that very much, Senator Reid,
    but I also just want to say that one of the things that's
    helped turn the morale around and the energy around within the
    complex in the field itself has been the clear signal from the
    Congress that there's a mission, there's a long-term mission
    that people care and appreciate and they're willing to put some
    resources behind it.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you. Admiral, we're fortunate to
    have you back, and I want to say to you in the event you have
    never heard me make reference to your great successes, whenever
    this Senator speaks of nuclear power, is it safe and can we do
    it right, and should it be something we seriously consider
    during these energy-short times, I most of the time give as an
    example that there's over a hundred boats, American Navy boats
    of various sizes and shapes that are on all the oceans and seas
    of the world and that in those boats are one or two nuclear
    power plants that are generating the same kind of waste that we
    are so worried about here at home and yet they're carrying them
    around in their boat bottoms, so all the sea ports of the world
    except perhaps in Australia--all the others let you go into
    them, let you dock, you have right on them a nuclear power
    plant, and I think that's a great testimony to their safety.
        And that's from its origins, but that's from its
    continuation, which is what you brought forward after a great
    Admiral started this and made sure of its safety, and I
    compliment you, and we'll listen to your testimony now.
        Senator Reid. I think that's an answer to our nuclear waste
    problems. Just put them on the boats.
        Senator Domenici. All right, Admiral.

                       ADMIRAL BOWMAN'S OPENING STATEMENT

        Admiral Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
    of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
    and thank you very much for those very kind words.
        As you know, Admiral Hyman Rickover organized this Naval
    Reactors program back in the late 1940s. His visionary concept
    then was cradle to grave responsibility for all aspects of
    maintaining and operating the Navy's nuclear powered warships,
    managed centrally by a single purpose organization with clear
    lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability.
        Naval Reactors basic structure, policies, and practices
    were preserved in an executive order signed by President Reagan
    on the day Admiral Rickover retired in 1982. The key to Naval
    Reactors operational excellence over these years and its
    unsurpassed record has been adherence to the tenets of that
    executive order.
        Congress has fully supported this concept by writing that
    executive order into law twice in two defense authorization
    acts. As a result I would say the country has benefitted. In so
    doing Congress placed great faith in this program and has duly
    protected the core values that have been the hallmark of our
    success for more than 50 years and the enabler of even more to
    come. I appreciate that faith very deeply.
        The core values of Naval Reactors must be preserved. I'm
    committed to operational excellence and an unsurpassable record
    of innovation and safety. We must continue to design and
    deliver the world's finest warships for our Navy and our
    country.
        I don't take lightly my responsibility to continually
    revalidate the faith that you have placed in us.
        We all recognize that the threats that the country faces
    today aren't the ones that we faced yesterday. How to protect
    our Nation's interests, what forces are needed for our defense,
    and how we will respond to those threats are among the most
    pressing and important issues faced by the leaders of this
    country.
        Just as the Nation's defense environment and requirements
    have evolved, Naval Reactors has also evolved to deliver what
    is demanded of it. Let me very quickly run through some facts
    about our fiscal year 2002 DOE budget request and this Naval
    Reactors program.

                      NAVAL REACTOR BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY

        My DOE budget request remains flat as General Gordon said,
    at $688 million from this year's fiscal year 2001 numbers to
    fiscal year 2002. In real dollars therefore it is actually
    decreasing by about $18 million due to inflation.
        To put my budget in perspective, it's less than 4 percent
    of the DOE budget and less than 1 percent of the country's
    defense budget. I think the returns say that it's a good solid
    investment.
        Today the Naval Reactors program supports 102 reactors, as
    General Gordon said earlier, and 55 attack submarines, 18
    ballistic missile submarines, 9 nuclear powered aircraft
    carriers, and 4 training and prototype platforms along with the
    deep diving NR1 deep submergence vehicle. We have one fewer
    attack submarine this year than when I testified last year, and
    that force number could drop even lower if we don't watch
    what's going on and if action isn't taken soon.
        Our number one priority at Naval Reactors is supporting the
    nuclear powered fleet and ensuring their safe and effective
    operation. The average age of these ships today is about 16
    years old. The average age will be over 22 years by the end of
    this decade. As the ships age they place a greater demand on
    the Naval Reactors DOE budgets.
        The nuclear Navy is being employed at an unparalleled and
    unrelenting pace today. For example, the national level
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions
    requirements for our attack submarines has nearly doubled over
    the last decade while the number of those attack submarines has
    nearly been cut in half.
        Our carriers are also stretched to their limits, attempting
    to meet all the power projections and forward presence
    requirements placed on them. Every one of our last 11 carrier
    battle groups to deploy actually engaged in combat. To meet
    just the top priority requirements being placed on the
    submarine fleet we simply must refuel the five remaining Los
    Angeles class submarines scheduled for early inactivation, and
    I think we should also seriously consider converting Trident
    submarines coming out of the strategic inventory to Tomahawk-
    shooting SSGNs.
        Those ships can carry by design as many Tomahawk missiles
    as an entire battle group does today.
        We must also increase the build rate of the new Virginia
    Class submarine, but even doing all of this will leave us short
    of attack submarines, as judget by the Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs' requirements. Fortunately, our technological
    superiority is allowing us to stretch the assets we have to
    fill some of that gap.
        For example, we've extended the life of selected submarines
    and have also begun now looking to further extend that
    lifetime. However, pushing the life of these submarines comes
    at a cost. Life extension exacerbates the aging fleet problem,
    and as the fleet ages, it takes more resources to support.
        We are also forward basing three submarines in Guam to get
    them closer to their operational areas, eliminating the long
    transit from the west coast to the Pacific Rim and greatly
    increasing the mission days on station available from these
    three ships. We're designing better, more cost effective ships
    for the future.
        When the Navy's new Virginia Class attack submarine is
    delivered it will provide needed capability for the 21st
    century at an affordable price. The reactor plant design, which
    will be about 96 percent complete by the end of this fiscal
    year--I'm sorry--by the end of fiscal year 2002 will use
    advance component and systems technology, including a life of
    the ship core, which will make future refuelings unnecessary.
        The nuclear propulsion plant design of the new carrier, the
    new CVNX aircraft carrier is well underway. The CVNX reactor
    plant will provide 25 percent more energy than the Nimitz Class
    ships and will have more than triple the electric power
    available to the skipper on demand.
        We are designing and developing CVNX--the carrier of the
    future--nuclear propulsion plant without an increase in the DOE
    budget. We're focused on designing and delivering warships to
    the fleet that are more capable, more adaptable to technology
    insertion, and more enduring. To do so, my program will
    continue to require highly skilled and qualified professionals.
        To that end, Mr. Chairman, in particular I was pleased to
    see and read of your proposed legislation supporting nuclear
    programs in our Nation's universities. Our laboratories and
    vendor base draw to some extent upon the shrinking pool of
    uniquely skilled individuals, and I'm very grateful for your
    support.
        I would note that I sit on two of the visiting committees
    of these nuclear engineering departments at two of our
    universities in this country, and I am seeing exactly what your
    legislation is addressing, and I certainly appreciate your
    initiative.
        Where science leaves off we are employing smart business
    strategies to get more out of every dollar. Multi-year
    contracts, block buys, advance appropriations, shipyard teaming
    are just a few of the examples of what we're studying. I
    strongly advocate these types of initiatives because they do
    use the taxpayers' dollars more efficiently.

                               prepared statement

        The nuclear Navy is a true crown jewel in our Nation's
    defense arsenal. No other nation has anywhere close to this
    level of capability. That's due in very large part to the
    wisdom of Congress and your support. You have consistently
    supported this program in its endeavors. Naval Reactor's record
    is strong and the work is important and the funding need is
    modest. I offer you my thanks and gratitude.
        Mr. Chairman, with your permission I have a longer written
    statement for the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Admiral Frank L. Bowman

        Thank you for inviting me to testify on Naval Reactors' fiscal year
    2002 Department of Energy budget request.
        Naval Reactors is a semi-autonomous, 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 specific
    responsibilities within the Department of the Navy and the Department
    of Energy, and as necessary, direct access to the Secretary of the Navy
    and to the Secretary of Energy to fulfill these duties. 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.
        Admiral Hyman Rickover organized Naval Reactors in the late 1940's.
    His visionary concept was cradle-to-grave responsibility for all
    aspects of maintaining and operating the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet.
    The Program's basic structure, policies, and practices were preserved
    in Executive Order 12344 signed by President Reagan upon Admiral
    Rickover's retirement in 1982.
        The key to Naval Reactors' operational excellence and unsurpassed
    record has been strict adherence to the tenets of this Executive Order.
    Congress has fully supported this concept by writing the Executive
    Order into law in two Defense Authorization Acts. This charter,
    incorporated into the National Nuclear Security Administration Act,
    maintains my responsibility for all aspects of the Naval Reactors
    Program, including:
      --Research, development, design, test, and construction;
      --Operation, operator selection and training, maintenance, and
            disposal; and
      --Administration (e.g., security, nuclear safeguards, transportation,
            public information, procurement, and fiscal management).
        Congress has placed faith in this Program and protected the core
    values which have been the hallmark of the Program's success for the
    past 50 years and which are the enabler for continued success into the
    future.
        I do not take lightly my responsibility to continually revalidate
    the faith you place in Naval Reactors. Our core values must be
    preserved; Naval Reactors is committed to operational excellence and an
    unsurpassable record of innovation and safety. We must continue to
    design and deliver the world's finest warships for our Navy and our
    country. In this regard, Naval Reactors has compiled an unparalleled
    record of success:
      --Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed over 122 million
            miles-equivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.
      --Naval reactor plants have accumulated over 5,200 reactor-years of
            operation, compared to about 2,540 for the U.S. commercial
            industry. In addition, our operating experience is about half
            that of the entire commercial power industry worldwide (our
            5,200 reactor-years compared to about 9,660 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.
        We all recognize that the threats the United States faces today are
    not the ones we faced yesterday. How to protect our Nation's interests,
    what forces are needed for our defense, and how we respond to these
    threats are among the most pressing issues faced by the leaders of the
    country. Just as the Nation's defense environment and requirements have
    evolved, the Naval Reactors Program has evolved to deliver what is
    demanded of it.
        Let me quickly recount some facts about the Naval Reactors Program:
      --Today, the Naval Reactors Program supports 102 reactors in 55
            attack submarines, 18 ballistic missile submarines, 9 nuclear-
            powered aircraft carriers, 4 training and prototype platforms,
            and a deep submergence vehicle. We have one less attack
            submarine than we did just a year ago, and submarine force
            level could drop even lower if our country fails to act soon.
      --The Program's number-one priority is supporting the nuclear-powered
            fleet and ensuring its safe and effective operation. The
            average age of these ships today is about 16 years. This
            average age will be over 22 years by the end of the decade
            because so few new ships are being added. As these ships age,
            they place a greater and greater demand on Naval Reactors' DOE
            budgets.
      --The nuclear Navy is being employed at an unparalleled and
            unrelenting pace. For example, the national level Intelligence/
            Surveillance/Reconnaissance (ISR) mission requirements for our
            attack submarines have nearly doubled over the last decade, yet
            the force has been cut nearly in half. Our carriers are
            stretched to their limits, attempting to meet all of the power
            projection and forward-presence requirements placed on them.
            Every one of our last 11 carrier battle groups to deploy has
            engaged in actual combat.
      --To meet just the highest priority requirements being placed on the
            submarine fleet, we simply must refuel the five remaining LOS
            ANGELES-class submarines scheduled for early inactivation and
            seriously consider converting Trident ballistic missile
            submarines coming out of the strategic inventory to SSGNs.
            These ships can carry as many Tomahawk missiles as an entire
            battle group does today. We must also increase the build rate
            of the VIRGINIA-class submarines. But even doing all this will
            leave us short of attack submarines.
      --Fortunately, our technological superiority is allowing us to
            stretch the assets we have to fill some of the gap. For
            example, we have extended the life of selected submarines, and
            we are looking to extend some further still. However, pushing
            the limits comes at a cost. Life extension exacerbates the
            ``aging fleet'' problem; and as the Fleet ages, it takes more
            resources to support.
      --We are forward-basing three submarines in Guam to get them closer
            to their operational areas-eliminating the long transit from
            the West Coast to the Pacific rim and significantly increasing
            the mission days on station available from these three ships.
      --We are designing better, more cost-effective ships for the future.
            When the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarine is
            delivered, it will provide needed capability for the 21st
            century at an affordable price. The reactor plant design, which
            will be about 96 percent complete by the end of fiscal year
            2002, will use advanced component and systems technology-
            including a life-of-the-ship core, which will make future
            refuelings unnecessary.
      --The nuclear propulsion plant design of the new CVNX class aircraft
            carrier is well underway. The CVNX reactor plant will provide
            25 percent more energy than the NIMITZ-class ships and will
            have more than triple the electric power available to the
            skipper, on demand. We are designing and developing the CVNX
            nuclear propulsion plant without an increase in our DOE budget.
                             value of nuclear power
        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 United States to trouble spots or to shift them from one
    crisis area to another. Nuclear propulsion helps the Navy stretch
    available assets to meet today's worldwide commitments.
        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 55 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. Should tensions escalate, submarines
    can also execute Tomahawk strikes from undisclosed locations without
    warning, often from inside an adversary's defensive umbrella.
                   highly technical and specialized employees
        We are focused on getting more out of existing ships and designing
    and delivering new warships to the Fleet that are more capable, more
    adaptable to technology innovation, and more enduring. Doing so
    requires highly qualified and skilled professionals.
        Naval Reactors' highly technical work requires rigorous technical
    discipline and attention to detail. We have extremely talented
    engineering staffs, both in Government service and at our prime
    contractors, including many young people who have been out of college
    less than 5 years. The importance of the work to our country is a key
    factor for keeping the talented people we need. However, retaining
    these people is a challenge given a decade of economic expansion and
    the resulting opportunities in the private sector. Unfortunately, today
    government service has difficulty keeping pace due in large measure to
    antiquated hiring practices and noncompetitive compensation programs.
    Today, the top three levels of government Senior Executive Service
    civilians are pay-capped at the same dollar value. Attention should be
    given this situation.
        Naval Reactors touches a highly technical and specialized vendor
    base, therefore I am acutely aware of the shortages of engineering
    graduates, especially in the nuclear field. Declining enrollments in
    nuclear engineering departments at schools across the United States and
    a declining number of universities offering degrees in nuclear
    engineering have limited the employment candidate pool of nuclear
    engineering graduates. To that end, I was particularly pleased to read
    of proposed legislation supporting nuclear programs in our Nations'
    universities. Our laboratories and vendor base draw to some extent upon
    this shrinking pool of uniquely skilled individuals and I am grateful
    for your support.
              fiscal year 2002 department of energy budget request
        Naval Reactors' fiscal year 2002 DOE budget request is $688M, about
    the same amount as appropriated for fiscal year 2001. With inflation,
    this means the Naval Reactors fiscal year 2002 budget request is $18M
    less in real terms than the fiscal year 2001 budget. To put my budget
    request in perspective, it is less than 4 percent of the DOE budget.
    Since the beginning of the 1990's, Naval Reactors' budget has declined
    30 percent in real terms.
        Naval Reactors' number-one priority is to support the 82 nuclear-
    powered warships that make up over 40 percent of the Navy's major
    combatants. This responsibility includes ensuring safe and reliable
    operation of reactor plants in these ships, enhancing the reactor
    plants' performance, and developing improved reactor plants to support
    the Navy's needs for the future.
        Sustaining today's 102 operating reactors requires continual
    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
    and easily maintainable by the Sailors who must live next to them.
        Naval Reactors' DOE laboratories have made significant advancements
    in components, materials, core lives, and predictive capabilities.
    These advancements allowed the Navy to extend the service life and
    intervals between major maintenance periods for nuclear-powered
    warships and reduce ship off-line time for maintenance. Increasing ship
    availability also increases the Navy's warfighting capability, while
    simultaneously reducing maintenance costs. Added ship availability is
    particularly important in the face of Fleet downsizing, as the
    operational demands on each remaining ship continue to increase. In the
    same vein, some development effort is devoted to ensuring that we can
    meet the Navy's need to extend warship lifetime.
        New development and analysis challenges continually arise as a
    result of Program 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 that materials and components are
    performing properly. Extended ship lifetime also demands exhaustive
    testing and performance enhancements to ensure that component
    endurance--despite potential corrosion and mechanical strain--can be
    ensured for significantly longer than the original design life. As data
    are gathered from deploying ships with long-lived reactor cores, the
    emphasis on evaluating material performance 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. Testing and verification,
    therefore, become even more important to ensure that naval reactor
    plants will continue to perform safely.
        New plant development work at the Program's DOE laboratories is
    focused on completing the design of the next-generation submarine
    reactor for the Navy's new VIRGINIA-class attack submarines and on
    continuing the design for a new reactor plant for the Navy's new CVNX-
    class aircraft carriers.
        The design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA-class submarine
    will be about 96 percent complete by the end of fiscal year 2002.
    Currently, the design of the reactor plant for the VIRGINIA-class is
    over 90 percent complete. Today, 99 percent of reactor plant components
    have been delivered-all on schedule to support ship construction, and
    within budget. The lead-ship pre-reactor-fill testing and initial
    reactor fill have been completed. Significantly, the initial reactor
    fill was completed within 3 months of the schedule established 6 years
    ago. Reactor plant construction is 89 percent complete, and overall
    lead ship construction is 45 percent complete and is on schedule.
    VIRGINIA is expected to go to sea in fiscal year 2004 and will provide
    needed capability for the Navy at an affordable price.
        CVNX is the first new carrier designed since the 1960's NIMITZ
    Class. The 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 lifecycle costs.
        Reactor plant design work is well underway to support the long
    design and manufacturing lead-times of reactor plant components needed
    for the CVNX ship construction schedule. Current design efforts include
    general arrangement design, system description and diagram development,
    and component design, such as final sizing and system interface
    evaluations. Long lead reactor plant forging contracts were placed this
    fiscal year and necessary system descriptions and general arrangements
    required for later design activities have been established. By the end
    of this year, over 70 percent of reactor plant system descriptions will
    be approved. The first contract for major reactor plant components will
    be placed in fiscal year 2002.
        Naval Reactors also is continuing inactivation of six 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 our eight land-based prototype
    reactor plants. Since 1993, Naval Reactors has been inactivating and
    dismantling the shutdown plants in three States as promptly as funding
    and manpower have allowed.
        Major inactivation work is nearly finished. The last of the
    prototype reactor plants at the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho was
    defueled in fiscal year 1999. Inactivation and cleanup work at the
    Windsor site in Connecticut is complete, and regulatory approval for
    unrestricted release has been requested. The two shutdown prototype
    reactors at the Kesselring site in New York have been inactivated and
    defueled, and major dismantlement work will be completed in fiscal year
    2002.
               naval reactors department of energy budget detail
                         program technical requirements
        Naval Reactors' technical budget request is categorized into four
    areas of technology: Reactor Technology and Analysis; Plant Technology;
    Materials Development and Verification; and Evaluation and Servicing.
    This approach supports the integrated and generic nature of our DOE
    research and development work. The results of Naval Reactors DOE funded
    research, development, and design work in the following technology
    areas are not only incorporated into future ships, but also retrofitted
    into existing ships.
      --The $226.0M requested for Reactor Technology and Analysis will
            continue work on the next generation reactor for the VIRGINIA
            Class submarine, development work on the new reactor for CVNX
            Class aircraft carriers, and ensure the safe and reliable
            operation of existing reactors. The reduction in operating
            plant maintenance periods places greater requirements on
            thermal-hydraulics, structural mechanics, fluid mechanics, and
            vibration analysis work to accurately predict reactor
            performance and to identify and 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 throughout extended core life. Other
            efforts in this area include revising core manufacturing
            processes to reduce cost and hazardous waste, performing
            reactor safety analyses, developing components and systems to
            support the Navy's acoustic requirements, and developing
            improved shield designs to reduce costs and radiation levels.
      --The $116.0M requested 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 develop
            improved steam generator performance, which will benefit CVNX
            steam generators-the largest components developed to date.
            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 requirements. 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 harder-to-support equipment.
      --The $130.9M requested for Materials Development and Verification
            will fund essential material analysis and testing as ships are
            kept in service longer than originally intended, and materials
            are, therefore, called upon to perform safely and reliably for
            a longer time. Work 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 materials with such enhancements 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.
      --The $132.3M request for Evaluation and Servicing is needed to fund
            the operation and servicing of land-based test reactor plants
            and part of Naval Reactors' share of the Advanced Test Reactor,
            a specialized materials testing facility operated by the DOE
            Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. Materials,
            components, cores, and systems in these plants provide
            important technical data and experience under actual operating
            conditions, thus allowing potential problems to be identified
            and addressed before they occur in the Fleet. With proper
            maintenance, upgrades and servicing, the two operating test
            reactor plants and the Advanced Test Reactor will meet testing
            needs for some time.
        The accumulation of operational data from the prototype and fleet
    operating plants, expended core examinations, and advances in computer
    modeling developed by Naval Reactors have enabled the Program to shut
    down six of the Program's eight land-based prototype plants, resulting
    in significant cost savings. For most of the last decade, Evaluation
    and Servicing funds have been focused on inactivating and laying up or
    dismantling the shutdown plants to place them in an environmentally
    benign state.
        As inactivation work on the six shutdown prototypes comes to
    completion, resources in this area decrease to a base level to continue
    ongoing cleanup of facilities at all Naval Reactors sites, to reduce
    hazards to personnel, and to reduce potential liabilities due to aging
    facilities, or changing conditions.
             program infrastructure and administrative requirements
        In addition to the budget request for the important technical work
    discussed above, infrastructure and administrative funding is also
    required for continued operation of the Program. Specifically, the
    fiscal year 2002 budget request includes:
      --$22.6M in Program Direction funding to cover Naval Reactors' 191
            DOE personnel at Headquarters and the Program's field offices,
            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-necessitates substantial effort.
      --$47.0M in Facility Operations funding to maintain and modernize the
            Program's facilities, including the Bettis and Knolls
            laboratories and the Expended Core Facility (ECF).
      --$13.2M in Construction funding to refurbish and expand Program
            facilities. This includes the continuation of the ECF Dry Cell
            project in Idaho, which will significantly improve Naval
            Reactor's ability to process naval spent fuel for dry storage.
            (As identified and agreed to in a Settlement Agreement signed
            by the Department of Energy, the Navy, and the State of Idaho,
            Naval Reactors fuel must be among the early shipments of spent
            fuel to the first permanent repository or interim storage
            facility.) The requested funding also enables the continuation
            of the Major Office Replacement Building project.
                                   conclusion
        The ongoing support of the Senate Appropriation Committee,
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is one of the single most
    important factors in our success story. The Subcommittee has recognized
    the requirements and demands the Program confronts daily: a growing
    need for power projection and forward presence far from home, which
    strains our dwindling number of nuclear ships; an aging nuclear fleet;
    the competitive climate in which we recruit and develop our people; and
    the funding required to meet these commitments today and into the
    future.
        For the post-Cold War period, many have urged the armed forces to
    transform into expeditionary units capable of rapid deployment and
    sustained presence where regional unrest requires it. The nuclear Navy
    is just such a force-and it is available today.
        The nuclear Navy is a true crown jewel in our country's defense
    arsenal. No other nation has our level of capability. That is due in
    large part to the wisdom of Congress. You have consistently supported
    this Program in its endeavors. I offer you my thanks and gratitude.

                  STATUS OF THE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

        Senator Domenici. It will be made a part of the record.
    Thank you.
        General Gioconda, do you have a statement?
        General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Do you have a written one?
        General Gioconda. No, sir. I don't.
        Senator Domenici. Okay. Thank you. Would you proceed?

                    STATEMENT OF GENERAL THOMAS F. GIOCONDA

        General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
        Good afternoon to the members of the subcommittee. I'd just
    like to make a few important points about the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program and amplify some of the things that General
    Gordon has said.
        Senator Domenici. Please.
        General Gioconda. First, I'm pleased to report that the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program is delivering to the American
    people a safe and secure and reliable stockpile, and that's
    important, being the money that we have spent up to date. The
    program is working because of the continued dedication and
    patriotism of thousands of men and women, both Federal and
    contractor across the country, who make up the nuclear weapons
    complex, and it's important that we recognize their
    contribution of 50 years.
        We have completed the fifth annual certification of the
    stockpile as safe and secure and reliable with no need to
    return to underground nuclear testing at this time. The annual
    certification process is very important in that it places every
    part of the complex on alert to be that every year, and it's
    important to recognize that certification assessment goes on
    every year and now for the fifth time is very successful.
        Mr. Chairman, it's important to understand that the
    investments made by this committee for the new science hardware
    developed over the last 5 years is already making remarkable
    contributions to sustaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent. For
    example, the DARHT facility at Los Alamos is providing data on
    primary implosions needed specifically for the W88 and W76
    assessment.
        The Jasper facility in Nevada will begin shots this fall,
    which will provide critical data on the unique material
    properties of plutonium. We'll also begin experimental
    activities in ATLAS later this year.
        The program is also delivering for the stockpile--we have
    responded to the needs of the Department of Defense. We feel
    that the 61-11s replace the B53. We met the W87 initial
    operating capability and are continuing with that work load
    through fiscal year 2002. We are very proud of the Pantex team
    for meeting this important milestone for the Air Force.
        We're about to begin refurbishment of the B61. We're
    producing W76 neutron generators and Acorn Tritium reservoirs.
    We're doing preliminary development in engineering work to get
    ready for the future refurbishments of the W76 and the W80.
    Refurbishment of all these weapon systems would represent a
    significant portion of the active stockpile on alert today.
        The pace and scope of these refurbishments are part of the
    ongoing strategic defense review called by the President. We
    have met important milestones in reconfiguring the complex for
    the future. Sandia has made its first new neutron generator,
    the first since the closure of the Pinellas plant in 1994.
        We are making development pits at Los Alamos, recovering
    from the capability loss of the shutdown of Rocky Flats in
    1989. The Tritium program is on track to deliver new gas to the
    stockpile by 2006, all very important parts of the nuclear
    weapons complex.
        Next week we begin to pour concrete for the Tritium
    Extraction Facility at Savannah River. This TEF will extract
    tritium gas from burnable, absorber rods irradiated by the TVA.
    These are important achievements that have required a
    tremendous effort over the past several years, and I want to
    make note of those.

                             INFRASTRUCTURE STATUS

        Our success in the stewardship program rests in part on the
    facilities where we work. We've completed a comprehensive study
    of the weapons complex facilities and infrastructure that you
    mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. We're taking
    the first steps to systematically maintain and manage the
    infrastructure and to arrest the serious rate of deterioration.
        As General Gordon has testified, we have a multiyear
    initiative to restore operational efficiency, reduce facility
    down time, and ultimately move us to the right facility
    configuration for the future. We must not ask our work force to
    perform their important national security mission in antiquated
    facilities.

          CHALLENGES AND ADVANCES OF THE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

        But there are also other challenges before us. The NIF
    project is back on track and it must stay on track. We continue
    to watch this program very closely. We have established a
    headquarters office for NIF that reports directly to me. We
    plan to do our first stockpile experiments in NIF as early as
    fiscal year 2004, and to have completed some 1,500 experiments
    by fiscal year 2008, when it will be completely done.
        The NIF is vital for the long-term success of the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program, especially in its crucial contribution to
    high-energy density physics needed for the health of the
    stockpile. We have a vibrant and successful program of
    subcriticals going on at the Nevada Test Site that must be
    sustained, above-ground experimental capabilities such as
    radiography which must be further developed for the future
    health of an aging stockpile.
        The advanced 3D simulations of models being developed by
    the ASCI program are already providing benefits to the
    stockpile. We're using archive test data and new above-ground
    data to validate the codes that our designers so rightly need.
    But with all the competing requirements for dollars in the
    program today, we're slowing the computer procurement schedules
    by about 1 year to keep the balance right in all aspects of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program.
        As mentioned earlier, we have met the W87 deliveries needed
    for the Air Force, but schedules are tight and the complex as a
    whole was stretched to make this milestone due to age and
    dormant infrastructure. We have an agreement with the Nuclear
    Weapons Council on the future life extensions for the B61, 76,
    and the W80. Only the B61 is fully supported by fiscal year
    2002 budget requests pending completion of the strategic
    defense review.
        Again, I must state as I said last year before you, I don't
    believe we can get there without significant investments in the
    infrastructure. We are getting on top of managing our pit
    program by our new campaign, which includes both manufacturing
    and certification, and while we're on schedule for
    manufacturing a certifiable pit by 2003 our resource and
    commitment to final certification of a pit without nuclear
    testing must await the strategic defense review.
        On the management front we have put in place three
    performance based contracts at Pantex, Kansas City, and Y-12.
    These new contracts are already providing benefits to us. At
    Pantex BWXT Technologies has implemented several process
    improvements that have increased the rate of pit repackaging
    and reduced radiation exposure to our technicians. Pantex has--
    --
        Senator Domenici. General, could you summarize, please?
        General Gioconda. Yes, sir.
        The other part I was talking about is the--also the
    renegotiated contracts with the University of California, and I
    recently co-chaired the first quarterly review of that contract
    to let you know that the performance programs milestones are in
    place and on track in that regard.
        Also, regarding the budget, I think we've said enough
    there, but the current budget request is a current services
    approach for the work on the B61 and improvements in security,
    but all have to await the strategic review outcome.
        Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Yes, Senator Reid.
        Senator Reid. Since I'm the junior member of this group I
    can see my questions will be coming. I'm not going to be able
    to be here so I would ask your permission to be able to submit
    the questions in writing. Perhaps General Gordon could--most of
    them are directed towards him. If he could get them back to me
    in a couple of weeks?
        Senator Domenici. Certainly.
        General Gordon. Of course, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Any questions will be answered within 2
    weeks.
        Senator Reid. Thank you very much.
        Senator Domenici. All of yours and any others.
        Senator Hollings, you were here first and besides, it's
    your turn. Would you permit me one observation then I'll yield
    to you for whatever you'd like?
        Senator Hollings. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. Let me say to both of you, General
    Gordon, and you, Brigadier General Gioconda, you know I'm
    reading in your statements this notion that some of these very,
    very important issues are subject to strategic review--defense
    strategic review. I want you to really know what I think that
    means.
        I don't think that means that. I think it means nobody
    wanted to put in the money this year.
        In any event, we anxiously await the strategic review. We
    hope it really addresses these issues and we hope it's done
    pretty quickly, because some of us have been looking at three
    or four of the issues you just recited reference the
    certification of the pits and others, and some that you have
    recited, and they were all ready to go, and they should have
    been funded this year.
        And I guess that I will accept temporarily the excuse that
    somebody is reviewing them in some kind of overall strategic
    look, but I'm not sure of that. I think we'd better keep our
    eyes open, and I guarantee you as chairman of this committee I
    will. If we don't have something in the next couple of months
    my propensity is not going to be to wait around for it but
    rather to pay for it.
        Senator Hollings.
        Senator Hollings. The administration wants to make room for
    some other programs or cuts or even tax cuts, and he told poor
    General Gordon, he said: Now, General, you find the money and
    you cut $156 million of the environmental management one, and
    specifically that's why I had to come with respect to this MOX
    facility down there at Savannah River.
        Now, let me first thank, because as chairman of the Budget
    Committee you've got a hard charger but you're very generous to
    me as the chairman of the Energy Committee, and I appreciate it
    very much.
        Admiral Bowman, I'm glad to see you again. He has a nuclear
    power school down there at the Navy Yard in Charleston, South
    Carolina, and being one of Hyman Rickover's boys, you've got to
    be the best.
        General Gordon, I commend you for your enthusiasm. It's
    hard to find a general enthused in this town.

                         STATUS OF MOX FACILITY PROGRAM

        So, let's get right to the point. Three years ago we had a
    competition. Senator Gramm down there with Pantex in Texas, me
    at SRS, others and so forth about this disposing of surplus
    plutonium in the MOX facility and of course the pit disassembly
    to feed into it, and commitments were made specifically that we
    were going to ramp those things over the years. Certainly it
    is--you had to have the pit disassembly before you could get
    the MOX. Otherwise you couldn't key it into the MOX facility.
        And you look at this budget and find out that not only is
    the pit disassembly cut back but they even eliminated the
    immobilization program there.
        I'm ending up with what I said 3 years ago when I said,
    wait a minute. I'm going to end up with all the storage. Now,
    that's not just an individual environmental view of mine. It's
    the Nation's view in the sense that we've got the Tuscaloosa
    Aquifer that comes right through the Savannah River.
        And I was chairman of the Regional Advisory Nuclear Energy
    Commission they had back in 1955, 45 years ago, and we looked
    at a desert island out in the Pacific for disposal. We looked
    at the chalk caves in Kansas. We looked into the deep ocean and
    we finally got into Senator Reid's back yard at Yucca, and I
    hope we can move forward there, but, I can't stand all this
    storage here that's coming in. That's not only standard, it's
    very dangerous.
        Don't you think so? What's the score here? I seems that
    you're trying to comply with OMB and not with nuclear policy is
    what bothers me.
        General Gordon. Senator, the request as we've noted that
    came out was $100 million less than last year, and that has--at
    that funding level we are compelled to either reduce or do
    something about it.
        What we tried to do was to keep the focus on the MOX
    program for the very reasons that you just said, so that there
    would be a way out for the material once it got there. And with
    the amount of money that was potentially available or at least
    within the request was to try to keep focus on the MOX so we
    could keep that moving, and one of the things we did to try to
    balance out the funding was to then to significantly defer the
    immobilization so that the----
        Senator Hollings. But can it get to MOX with it not going
    through the pit disassembly? I know--they talked about the
    canyons about back 3 or 4 years ago and they said it was
    untried and not necessarily secure, and maybe they want to try
    that or at least rhetorically say that's what they're going to
    do.
        Senator Domenici. Let me ask Mr. Baker to try to jump in on
    that.
        Mr. Siskin. Senator.
        Senator Domenici. Ed Siskin.

                               MOX PROGRAM STATUS

        Mr. Siskin. Using the facilities at Los Alamos National Lab
    and potentially using canyon facilities at Savannah River we
    can get enough oxide to operate the MOX facility for about 3
    years, so by delaying the pit disassembly and conversion
    facility, basically what we'll do is we use existing oxide
    supplies--and oxide supplies that we will get in the next 5
    years--to operate that facility until we can bring the pit
    disassembly and coversion facility on line.
        With respect to the immobilization facility our intent is
    this. The facility has the capability to handle about 3.5 tons
    a year. The amount of material we have to process through the
    immobilization facility is 8.4 tons, so the schedule was
    originally calling for that facility to be available in 2010 to
    be completed by 2022. Obviously we have a little bit of
    flexibility in the schedule before we have to start building
    and operating that facility and still meet all of our
    commitments.
        We still remain committed to meeting our commitments to
    South Carolina and everything that goes into South Carolina
    will come out.
        Senator Hollings. Will come out?
        Mr. Siskin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hollings. You've tried this in the canyons already
    you say?
        Mr. Siskin. We have not tried it in the canyons. We have
    tried it in areas at TA-55 at Los Alamos National Lab, and by
    using certain surplus pits that have an awful lot of plutonium
    in them it will be possible to provide a continual amount--a
    significant amount of plutonium oxide to support the MOX
    facility.
        So by doing this we do several things: we support the
    President's budget, although it's very, very tight. I have to
    admit that I certainly wouldn't object to some additional
    funding in that regard. But we also meet our commitments to
    Russia and we also meet our commitments to South Carolina
    within the confines of the bilateral agreement.
        Senator Hollings. Well, I thank you very much, and you, Mr.
    Chairman, and the committee. I'll have some other questions but
    we've got to sort of work this out. And I know these gentlemen
    are working in good faith and they're expert on it, and I want
    to make sure we just don't end up with what exactly I had a
    grave misgiving about some 3 years ago when we had this
    commitment that we just end up with a bunch of storage there,
    which has been going on now since we started in the early
    1950s, almost 50 years, and we've got to get it out of there
    some way or somehow.
        General Gordon. Senator, we understand that commitment.
    We're trying to work a very tight budget issue, and Mr. Siskin
    has outlined to the best way we can figure out to look ahead to
    meet those commitments that have been made in an extremely
    tight budget environment.
        Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, General.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Gordon. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Hollings, I might say that to be
    honest with you I was quite surprised when the proposal was put
    forth that we would go with MOX as we are now, at least as we
    contemplated. As you know, the United States had kind of
    abandoned that approach for quite some time. The new plan
    seemed very feasible and with all the work that was done in
    your State by your State and your experts in your State we came
    up with a reasonable plan.
        That isn't to say that the building and operational
    functioning of a MOX plant is an easy proposition. You and I
    both understand it is for some people something we should never
    do. For others it's an absolute necessity. In any event, I'm
    going to try very hard as you get the final allocations from
    Senator Stevens to get a little more defense money in this than
    the administration put in, and one of the reasons is because of
    our commitments.
        And I just stated them in a very general sense, but the MOX
    commitment is included in it.
        Senator Hollings. You've been outstanding, Senator, and I
    appreciate it very much, and I appreciate the witnesses too.
    Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        General Gordon. Thank you.
        Admiral Bowman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Domenici. The senator from Mississippi, Senator
    Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

                       NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY STATUS

        General Gordon, last year you wrote a letter to the
    chairman, Senator Domenici, and you said without the National
    Ignition Facility the ability of the weapons laboratories to
    continue to certify the safety, security, and reliability of
    the nuclear weapons stockpile into the future without
    underground testing is doubtful. That's a quote from your
    letter.
        My question is: Is the budget that's submitted sufficient
    to construct the National Ignition Facility on the schedule
    that you have so that we can avoid underground testing?
        General Gordon. Senator, I contend--I continue to believe
    that the NIF is a very critical facility. It contributes
    significantly to the ability to certify significantly the
    program and significantly to being able to attract the people
    we need. At the requested budget it will be extremely tight to
    be able to do that, even in this stretch out that we've done
    over the last year until we do this program. It will be very,
    very difficult.
        Senator Cochran. What does that mean in terms of our
    perception as having a reliable deterrent? Is that called into
    question as well?
        General Gordon. It doesn't call it into question in the
    near term, Senator, but in the long-term deterrence is going to
    be seen in both the stockpile, the qualities we have, the
    confidence we have in the overall stockpile, and what we are
    seen to be able to do and to continue to do into the future
    with an aggressive program.
        So it's an important program to me. We need to continue to
    figure out how to fund it and keep it on track. It is a program
    that has been put about to its limits on ability to stretch it
    out. We're already spending more money on a yearly basis than
    we ought to. As a project it ought to be a little bit shorter.
    It would be a lot more efficient to build it in that way.
        Senator Cochran. We learned at an earlier hearing that one
    of the capabilities of the NIF was to examine the part of the
    weapon known as the primary, and in previous testimony we
    learned also that the primary, if it fails, would render the
    weapon of limited or no value. If we've learned that probably
    our adversaries know that too.
        Does that create a problem for us in terms of the
    perception of our deterrent capability?
        General Gordon. The primary is key. There is no weapon
    without a primary. That's your point. And the NIF program and
    the full range actually of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
    contributes to the certainty that the primary will work. It's
    an important element of what we're trying to do. Yes, sir.

                           CERTIFIABLE PITS SCHEDULE

        Senator Cochran. When you talked about this certification
    and the certifiable pits, we understand the schedule has
    changed on that now, and my question is when do you expect at
    this point to produce the first certifiable plutonium pits?
        General Gordon. Sir, we've produced about--we're pretty
    happy with the manufacturing process that's going on in Los
    Alamos. We really made some turn arounds in there. We've
    produced seven or eight development pits at this time, and we
    expect to produce what we will call a certifiable pit in 2003.
    That means it meets all the standards, been through all the
    processes.
        What that pit will not have done though is been certified
    because we have not done all the science behind it to assure
    that these new processes are identical to that which was made
    years ago in Rocky Flats. We'll stay on project with this
    budget--this budget request for the production and for the
    certifiable pits. I cannot say at this budget level when I can
    get the science done to certify it.
        Senator Cochran. Do you think we should be considering
    restarting pit production somewhere in the production complex?
        General Gordon. As I alluded in my statement, Senator, what
    I--it is now time in my opinion to get very serious about
    suggestions and recommendations that have been made by the
    Foster Panel and others that we look to structures that would
    give us capability and capacity beyond that which could be
    reasonably expected to be produced in a laboratory environment,
    and I'm putting that up on one of our priorities this year to
    take the work, the understanding that we've learned from the
    Los Alamos work and from moving the pit manufacturing into the
    modern processes that must come today.
        We now know enough how to start seriously designing a long-
    term, more capable facility.
        Yes, sir?

                           CERTIFICATION OF STOCKPILE

        Senator Cochran. Have you discovered anything in the work
    that you've done that if we were in a testing mode that would
    lead you to conclude that we should conduct a test?
        General Gordon. We haven't seen anything--just the
    opposite. We continue to certify the stockpile. It does not
    need to be tested at this date. The existing stockpile does not
    need to be tested at this date. Stockpile Stewardship is
    working from that regard.
        We are finding numerous aging related problems, and thus we
    propose to put with agreement with the Nuclear Weapons Council
    in the military to put some 60 percent of the stockpile through
    refurbishment over the next 10-plus years. We know what needs
    to be fixed. What we know about doesn't need testing. We need
    to fix stuff that's aged out.
        If we were in a test environment there would be certain
    things we're doing--would do, but there is no requirement for
    safety, reliability of the existing stockpile to test now or in
    the immediate future.

                             INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

        Senator Cochran. Senator Domenici asked you about the
    infrastructure and talked about the hard hats and gear people
    are having to wear just to protect themselves from things
    falling from the ceiling. Is there sufficient funding in this
    budget request to do something about that and to put the
    infrastructure into a modern and safe mode?
        General Gordon. Senator, at this budget request we will do
    very little to change the infrastructure situation we have and
    will not be able to complete the infrastructure changes
    required to accommodate the stockpile life extension programs
    for the entire stockpile that we've agreed to do for the
    military.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. I would say, Senator Cochran, even though
    the idea is to start on a 10-year plan for infrastructure
    building, we already know what the first one would be, and then
    you've just reiterated it. There's two facilities combined in
    Tennessee that have to be replaced in order to be functional
    both for some of the things that are needed and also just to
    have something that we're not embarrassed about putting our
    workers in a service kind of facility wearing hard hats because
    of a roof--those would be the first ones, and then the
    inventory's ongoing as to real old facilities that are part of
    the nuclear complex for years.
        And they do--they are beginning with a 10-year plan. We
    don't have the startup money for it in this budget.
        General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, the plants really are the
    worst situations that we have out there, and we put people in
    very, very difficult situations and make them do their work in
    tough ways, and we ask the--we tell the plant manager that his
    profit, his fee is dependent upon the safety of the workers, so
    make sure you wear your hard hats when you go into that
    dangerous facility. That's not right.
        But the point I was going to make is it's now reached the
    point where it's getting beyond the factories, beyond the
    plants, and in some focus groups in Los Alamos the last couple
    of months sitting down with the younger scientists, they're
    starting to complain about their work environment, their
    facility as well. It's going to start affecting recruiting and
    retention as well.
        Senator Domenici. Well, I think Senator Cochran will
    support me wholeheartedly. It's a question of where do we find
    the money?
        Thank you, and I'm going to ask a few questions and then
    let Mr. Baker conclude the testimony today.

                   5-YEAR PLAN FOR NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY

        General Gordon, in the language that permitted you to
    proceed with NIF if you saw it as being necessary, that is to
    proceed with the remainder of the funding for this year, there
    was a requirement imposed by Congress that you submit to the
    Congress a 5-year plan and budget projections with reference to
    the future nuclear security needs. I understand we did not get
    that, yet you released the money. I'm not blaming you. It seems
    like the administration said you didn't have to submit the plan
    even though the language is pretty clear that you could go
    ahead and release the money.
        Is the plan ready and just something that the
    administration wasn't ready to give us? Is that what I can
    conclude?
        General Gordon. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my statement, we
    wrote what is to me a very competent, if not perfect yet, 5-
    year plan. We worked very hard at it. We developed it so it
    would have a budget to fit a strategy. We've actually started
    with the strategy first rather than the budget. We tried to
    figure out how to balance in these programs that we're talking
    about and lay that out for a period of time and so we could do
    sort of a logical planning, a logical management if you want.
        And as part of our submission in the normal administrative
    budget process that was submitted to the Office of Management
    and Budget.
        Senator Domenici. Right. The Stockpile Stewardship budget
    request of $5.3 billion is 6 percent above current levels. Is
    that correct?
        General Gordon. I think $4.6 billion, but yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Okay. Within that request for actual work
    on nuclear weapons called directed stockpile work there's an
    increase of 13 percent. However, even with these increases the
    NNSA work will--you will not be able to perform all the
    required weapons work.
        So isn't it true that if you look through and say what do
    you actually need so that you can accomplish the purposes that
    you set out to do in 2002 is about $6.1 billion or thereabouts?
        General Gordon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. We'll submit a written question for you
    to tell us what the $5.3 billion will do and what's left out in
    terms of the $6.1 billion needed. You can do that later though
    if you have that. I think you do.

                                 PIT PRODUCTION

        The pit production--I have a series of questions on it, but
    I think I understand it. What we're really saying is we know
    how to do it but part of doing it is to certify that it indeed
    is a replacement part in all respects, and that part,
    certifiability, is not completed yet. Is that correct?
        General Gordon. There's good news and there's bad news.
        Senator Domenici. Okay.
        General Gordon. The good news is the manufacturing is
    working. It was a hard way to go. The folks up at Los Alamos
    turned to it, produced it. It looks good. It really, really
    does.
        We had the Secretary out there the other day. We actually
    had him holding one. It looks good.
        The certification of that is a difficult, complex process.
    It's taking longer than one. It's more expensive than one, and
    I don't quite have the funds to be able to proceed at the pace
    we should.
        Senator Domenici. I think what I'm going to do is submit
    the rest of the questions to you and General Gioconda and let
    Mr. Baker wrap up our hearing. I have a 3:30 meeting to see if
    we can complete the total budget in terms of the dollars, and I
    don't want to let the people that I'm negotiating with sit up
    too long and wait.

                         STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. BAKER

        Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, I will--if I can I'd like to
    submit this for the record. I'll just read some of the
    highlights that I think----
        Senator Domenici. Great. It will be made part of the
    record.

                     NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AREA STATUS

        Mr. Baker. First of all, I want to thank you for your
    support, this committee's support over the years for threat
    reduction, and once again, I ask for your help in making this
    world a safer place.
        As you know, the nuclear non-proliferation area is where we
    do our non-proliferation work. The national non-proliferation
    efforts to reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass
    destruction come in three areas. First we detect the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We prevent the
    spread of weapons of mass destruction, technology and
    expertise, and we then of course we reverse the proliferation
    of nuclear weapons capabilities.
        As you stated, sir, the Baker-Cutter report concluded that
    U.S. non-proliferation work within Russia represents some of
    the most crucial dollars spent to protect the U.S. national
    security. The possibility that weapons of mass destruction or
    the material to create them could fall into the hands of
    terrorists or nations of concern poses the greatest unmet
    threat to America's citizens abroad and at home.
        It is more effective to try to control and secure these
    materials than it is to try to locate them some place in the
    Russian territories. It's like trying to find a needle in a
    haystack.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $773.7 million--this
    is a decrease, sir, of $101 million as compared to the 2001
    budget, but this does not represent a lessening of NNSA's
    proliferation team's commitment to the challenges we face with
    international non-proliferation. We remain focused on our
    mission which is essential for the security of this Nation, but
    the pace and scope of our efforts will have to be reduced
    because of funding levels.

                              MPC&A PROGRAM STATUS

        I want to take a few minutes to run through our main
    programs with you. The MPC&A program--it secures nuclear
    material at its source. It consolidates material into fewer
    buildings, and now we're working to sustain the security
    improvements for years to come.
        By the end of the decade we estimate that the security
    upgrades will be completed on all the warhead storage locations
    for which the Russian Navy has requested--and this is a
    classified number, but it's a very high number of warheads,
    sir--as well as 603 metric tons of weapons useable materials
    located outside of weapons sites and at 53 other sensitive
    sites. This is enough material to build approximately 41,000
    bombs.
        In fiscal year 2002 we hope to take advantage of our recent
    agreement on access and expand our activities, which combined
    have more than 300 metric tons of weapons useable material.
    Additionally, we plan to increase our highly successful
    cooperation with the Russian Navy as well as innovative
    material consolidation and conversion program.

                               IPP PROGRAM STATUS

        I would like to turn now to the IPP program third. Thanks
    to you and many others, the Initiatives for Proliferation
    Prevention is a major success story with immediate non-
    proliferation impact. IPP commercialization has taken off.
    Eight IPP projects are now commercially successful, providing
    300 long-term private sector jobs in Russia and more than $17
    million in annual sales revenues.
        There are another 20 IPP projects that are posed for
    commercialization this year. IPP projects are successful due to
    the U.S. private sector involvement from the start of the
    requirement for business to match NNSA funding. On average the
    U.S. industry contributes $3 for each $2 that the U.S. taxpayer
    puts in.
        This year we have started to see infusions of substantial
    venture capital. Two U.S. member companies have attracted over
    $40 million worth of private sector investment as a result of
    technologies developed through IPP. We know the long-term
    solution of the proliferation problem of unemployed Soviet
    weapons scientists lies in the private sector and commercial
    self sustainability and is a basis for our exit strategy in
    IPP.

                        NUCLEAR CITIES INITIATIVE STATUS

        We have generated substantial momentum in the U.S. industry
    community with roughly $30 million private sector in new IPP
    projects ready for implementation. The Nuclear Cities
    initiative is not as successful.
        Mr. Chairman, we have been criticized for lack of fast work
    in this area. However, it is important to recall that the
    program is still young and requires the initial period to lay
    the foundation for programs, as was the case for the IPP
    program.

                     SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE PROGRAM STATUS

        The Second Line of Defense Program is with the Russian
    Customs Service. This program helps detect--prevent nuclear
    proliferation and terrorism through the installation of
    radiation detection equipment in strategic transit and border
    sites in Russia; thus far a small amount of money.
        This program has been quite successful. Equipment has been
    installed at the international airports at Moscow and St.
    Petersburg, and on the Port of the Caspian Sea. Ninety custom
    officers have been trained and training manuals have been
    distributed to 30,000 front-line officers. These radiation
    detection monitoring systems have roughly checked 120,000
    vehicles, 11,000 railroad cars, and 750,000 pedestrians.
        Building on these successes we plan to expand this into six
    other locations this year.

                         INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS STATUS

        The Office of Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation is involved
    in important non-proliferation projects outside the country.
    For example, we have achieved major successes and three tons of
    weapons grade plutonium, enough to manufacture hundreds of
    nuclear weapons, and we've done other things, sir, that I will
    submit for the record in non-proliferation. I would like to get
    to fissile materials.
        The fissile materials program is responsible for disposing
    of inventories of surplus U.S. weapons-usable plutonium and
    highly enriched uranium in order to reduce the potential theft
    or diversion of these materials, especially in Russia, as well
    as to reduce the significant cost associated with long-term
    storage of these materials in the United States. We are
    leveraging our domestic program to obtain reciprocal
    disposition agreements with the Russian plutonium program.

                              MOX FACILITY STATUS

        In fiscal year 2002 funding will be used to complete the
    MOX fuel fabrication facility. We will continue to design the
    pit disassembly conversion facility at a reduced rate. Due to
    budgetary constraints, we will suspend a design of the
    plutonium immobilization facility. These changes are to reduce
    the anticipated future year peak funding requirements that
    would have been associated with previous plans while
    simultaneously building three facilities in Savannah River.
        I would like to submit the R&D program for the record. We
    do need more money. We have cut programs in the R&D, programs,
    sir, that are big in proliferation detection that helps not
    only DOE but also this country.
        But I would like to close and say, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell
    you without a doubt even with this budget the people of NN and
    the national labs are unsung heroes. They have spent days,
    weeks, and months in places where accommodations were worse
    than I have ever seen, with no hot water, windows that wouldn't
    close in the winter time. However, they continue to work.
        Why? It's because they know the opportunity to make
    American citizens safer will not last forever. The window is
    still open. The time is now to work harder. The Russian
    federation is undoing a time of change. Presently we are
    hopeful that this will provide new and improved opportunities
    for us. The fruit of our work will be experienced for our
    generation and generations to come.
        I think you will agree that this Nation has faced no
    greater challenge than preventing weapons and weapons useable
    material from falling into hands of those who might use them
    against us and our allies. We live in a more dangerous world
    now than we did during the cold war. The threat to our safety
    and our international security is more diffuse, which makes it
    harder to defend against.
        I think the review being conducted now in the White House
    is a useful and timely exercise, but I am confident that the
    review will show that NN's programs that you have helped so
    much will make a solid contribution to national security and
    the United States of America.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        I want to thank all of you and tell you how I feel about us
    having such a short period of time. It's obviously not enough
    for this subject, but somehow or another we have more to do
    around here than we can get done. I'm very pleased that we get
    to work together on an ongoing basis on most of these issues
    and we'll continue to do that.
        General Gordon, good luck in filling the rest of your high
    positions, and hopefully by the end of this fiscal year you
    will have many more of the functions right under you being
    accomplished directly through the organization that you had.
        To the rest of you, thank you very much. I tend to think
    that the whole area of nuclear activity somehow or another as
    we go through both an energy crisis and a pollution problem--
    that is air pollution problem of high, high importance if not
    here and in the world that somehow or another nuclear is going
    to come back and people are going to take a look at it. I'm
    reading that the Cheney task force is doing that.
        The reason, Admiral, that I frequently use the story about
    your boats at sea is because--not because they're at sea, but
    rather they're in ports. They're not at sea forever. They stop
    places, and those places mean that in seaports of the world we
    have two nuclear--or one nuclear reactor right there in the
    water in the hull of an American boat with all the nuclear
    power plant on it and the waste--the highly enriched waste that
    comes out of there and the rods. they're on board.
        And somehow or another with the medium being water, which
    is miscible and can--seems like you could gender up all kinds
    of fears about what would happen. It would seem like the world
    understands there is no risk.
        Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir. We are welcome in over 150 ports
    around the world today.
        Senator Domenici. Yes. And I want to close by saying before
    the year's out I want to pull out on one of your nuclear
    submarines. Okay?
        Admiral Bowman. Terrific.
        Senator Domenici. We'll do that.
        Admiral Bowman. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. I'll call you and we'll go together.
        Admiral Bowman. Great.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Specter. Thank you very much. There will be some
    additional questions which will be submitted for your response
    in the record.
        [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 Gordon, is the nuclear weapon stockpile safe,
    reliable and secure?
        Answer. Yes. On January 11, 2001, the Secretaries of Energy and
    Defense certified to the President that the stockpile remains safe,
    reliable and secure--the 5th annual certification without the need for
    underground nuclear testing.
        Question. Do you have confidence that the weapons in the stockpile
    can and will perform as designed?
        Answer. Yes, I do. This confidence is based on the fact that the
    weapon systems in our current stockpile were thoroughly tested and
    documented prior to the cessation of underground nuclear testing in
    1992. Since that time, DOE has conducted extensive surveillance,
    analysis, simulations and tests through the science-based Stockpile
    Stewardship Program to detect and anticipate problems that could
    degrade the performance of the stockpile.
                        how to use additional resources
        Question. General Gordon, in my opening statement, I identified
    several critical areas as being underfunded in the request. Please
    respond for the record how you would use an additional $800 million
    within the stockpile stewardship program in fiscal year 2002.
        Answer. You suggested that the fiscal year 2002 budget request is
    underfunded in the areas of weapon refurbishments, pit work, and
    infrastructure. Let me discuss each of these in turn.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request includes a 14 percent increase
    over fiscal year 2001 associated with refurbishment work. We will
    continue with the W87, and we are about to begin the refurbishment
    planning for the B61. We have agreement with the Nuclear Weapons
    Council on future life extensions for the W76, and W80. The budget
    supports limited engineering development work for these two systems.
    However, the pace and scope for these refurbishments are part of the
    ongoing strategic defense review called for by the President, and final
    determinations on resource requirements for these two systems will be
    made in light of the conclusions from the strategic review.
        Regarding pits, the fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $128
    million for the Pit Manufacturing and Certification campaign, and
    another $90 million spread throughout the programs for facilities and
    supporting research. We are on schedule for manufacturing a certifiable
    pit in fiscal year 2003. We have identified the series of experiments
    necessary to certify a pit and we have completed a detailed resources
    based manufacturing and certification plan to certify a pit by 2009.
    You are concerned that a lack of resources has caused a slip in this
    schedule, but in fact, the schedule has been quite fluid due to
    technical issues. Whether we go forward with this plan must await the
    results of the Administration's Strategic Review.
        Finally, you suggest that infrastructure is underfunded in the
    request. We have developed a multi-year infrastructure initiative to
    systematically address high priority maintenance backlog items, and put
    in place proactive management of the infrastructure to arrest the rate
    of deterioration and improve the operation and availability of our
    facilities. Since the initiative is designed to address problems, it
    would require resources in addition to the base maintenance funding
    request.
        The base maintenance funding included in the fiscal year 2002
    request, estimated at between $300-$350 million, will be managed under
    this new approach. The fiscal year 2002 request does not now include
    funding for the new initiative because the infrastructure issue is
    expected to be addressed by the strategic defense review.
        The $800 million above the budget request that you suggest
    corresponds roughly to the increment to fund the Defense Programs
    requirements estimate included for fiscal year 2002 in the Future Years
    Budget Plan currently pending before the Office of Management and
    Budget. About 60 percent of this increment would be associated with the
    three items discussed above. Another 20 percent would be used to
    accelerate the pace of cyber security improvements, and computing
    activities and their associated facilities. The remaining 20 percent is
    associated with rebalancing campaign activities with the directed
    stockpile workload, readiness in technical base and facilities, and
    program direction to lower the program risks in these key areas.
                adequacy of the fiscal year 2002 budget request
        Question. Are there any critical needs not addressed in the budget
    because of lack of budgetary resources?
        Answer. No. The Administration has stated that final resource
    decisions for the fiscal year 2002 budget will be made following
    completion of the strategic defense reviews. The fiscal year 2002
    request provides a 4.6 percent increase that maintains ongoing
    programs, sites, and M&O employment levels at roughly the fiscal year
    2001 level and all critical needs are met within this level.
        Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow NNSA
    to meet all DOE annual weapons alterations, modifications and
    surveillance schedules?
        Answer. Yes. Funding for these activities is included in Directed
    Stockpile Work, Stockpile Maintenance and Stockpile Evaluation, and it
    will support the workload requirements in the current Production and
    Planning Directive, and will reduce the backlog in evaluation testing
    as recommended in the 150 Day Study.
        Question. Will the budget request before the committee allow the
    NNSA to meet life extension program production milestones for the B61,
    W76, and W80?
        Answer. The budget request fully funds life extension and
    refurbishment activities in fiscal year 2002 for the W87 and B61, and
    supports limited engineering development for the W76 and W80. Although
    we have agreement with the Nuclear Weapons Council on the schedules for
    the W76 and W80, these may be revisited following the Administration's
    strategic review. We anticipate further guidance on pace and scope for
    these systems, and budget adjustments will be made as necessary.
        Question. Does this budget make the appropriate investments in
    future manufacturing facilities, process development, critical skills
    so that NNSA will be able to meet the known future military
    requirements as well as the stockpile life extension program?
        Answer. This budget request begins to make many investments in
    future manufacturing facilities, including continuing nine major
    construction projects with an estimated cost of over $770 million at
    the production plants, and production-related construction at the
    laboratories. Process development is funded through the ADAPT campaign,
    at essentially the fiscal year 2001 level. With the impetus of the
    Chiles Commission recommendations, and the promise of future workload,
    the production plants continue to make progress in addressing critical
    skills and transforming their workforce for the future. The budget
    request will support fiscal year 2001 contractor employment levels for
    ongoing programs, and we anticipate no involuntary layoffs for defense
    programs.
        We have pointed out that infrastructure investments are needed,
    beyond what is in the current budget request, to arrest the
    deterioration of our facilities due to insufficient maintenance
    expenditures in the past. In addition, depending on the schedule for
    weapon life extensions recommended by the strategic reviews, there may
    be additional investments required.
        Question. If the Committee were to provide you additional funds,
    what would be your next priorities and at what level of funding?
        Answer. I will be in a position to respond to this question after
    completion of the strategic reviews. The President stated his views
    about strategic vision driving resources and budget priorities, and I
    expect that the Administration will follow through on its commitment to
    finalize fiscal year 2002 and outyear funding requests to meet
    validated requirements for defense-related programs at the conclusion
    of the reviews. My priorities will always be centered on the people,
    directed stockpile work, our science technology base, and our critical
    infrastructure.
                  size of the future nuclear weapon stockpile
        Question. If it turns out that the defense policy reviews
    ultimately recommend a smaller nuclear stockpile, how will that affect
    your five-year budget plan?
        Answer. We believe that the on-going defense reviews may result in
    potentially significant upward pressure on our current five-year budget
    plan. While there may be some modest reduction in direct weapon system
    funding needs, the emerging concerns to: reestablish a near-term pit
    manufacturing capability; rebuild a rapidly aging human and capital
    infrastructure; provide an assured resource of tritium; and establish
    and maintain the tools and capabilities necessary to continue to
    certify the reliability, safety, and security of the enduring stockpile
    without underground testing ultimately will affect the size of our
    five-year budget plan. We also would expect to increase our need for
    dismantlement of weapons if the stockpile is reduced.
        It is also worth noting that those weapons most likely to be
    retained have already been planned for refurbishment. Regardless of the
    ultimate decisions on the stockpile, our refurbishment requirements are
    well defined for at least the next five years which in turn drives
    scientific, facility, and budgetary needs.
        Question. Will you still need to rebuild the complex
    infrastructure?
        Answer. Absolutely. Should we move to a smaller stockpile it would
    place a greater premium on the reliability, safety, and security of the
    remaining weapons. It would require the complex to be able to
    remanufacture components on a very timely basis if problems were
    discovered, or to respond quickly to new threats.
        Question. Will you still need the full suite of science-based
    diagnostic and test facilities?
        Answer. Yes. The suite of capabilities planned for the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program was developed by considering the technical
    requirements for maintaining a safe, secure and reliable stockpile over
    the long term. The scientific and engineering issues that will arise in
    maintaining the stockpile are independent of the size of the stockpile
    and the capability and tools required for assessing the safety and
    performance of weapons do not change with the number of weapons. The
    NNSA considers that a full suite of diagnostic and test facilities will
    be required even in the event of any arms reductions.
       microsystems and engineering sciences applications (mesa) complex
        Question. When additional resources are provided for the NNSA,
    would you agree that MESA construction funding should be significantly
    increased?
        Answer. MESA is one of a number of activities that we have slowed
    pending the outcome of the Administration's strategic review. Depending
    on recommendations from that review concerning the future of the W76,
    we will need to revisit the MESA schedule. MESA is needed to produce a
    new arming, firing, and fuzing component that is currently planned as
    part of the eventual W76 refurbishment.
                                 cyber security
        Question. Last year, Congress provided a supplement of $20 million
    for NNSA to make some immediate improvements in cyber security and to
    develop a cost-effective plan for the longer term. The resulting
    program for the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative has been received.
    The schedules shows 15 major milestones for this fiscal year and 26
    more by the end of 2005.
        How much funding is requested for this initiative
        Answer. There is $30 million specifically identified in the
    President's budget request to fund the Integrated Cyber Security
    Initiative. At the current funding level the DOE will provide cyber
    security in fiscal year 2002 comparable to that provided in the fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. Is the plan on tract to meet its milestones in fiscal
    year 2001?
        Answer. The current efforts will support development of a cost-
    effective implementation plan for the long term and have provided some
    immediate improvements in cyber security at select sites.
        Question. How much will the necessary activities cost and how will
    they be funded?
        Answer. The exact cost of the program will be developed along with
    the development of a detailed implementation plan. The actual cost will
    depend on which options are selected by the Department. That selection
    will take place as the plan is finalized. Funding will be requested
    based on identified need.
        Question. What is the Department's plan to upgrade cyber-security
    throughout the weapons complex?
        Answer. The overall plan was presented in a report provided to
    Congress on the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative. Effort is
    underway to develop additional implementation details of this plan.
        Question. How important is cyber security and what is the
    appropriate level of funding to address our cyber security
    vulnerabilities over the next 5 years.
        Answer. As the United States becomes more reliant on electronic
    means to store, move and access its critical information, it further
    the concern over the vulnerability of that information. The amount of
    protection must be based on a prudent determination of the value of the
    information and the processes that are supported. From a DOE
    perspective, the funding will be requested to maintain protection of
    the valuable DOE information and processes.
                           national ignition facility
        Question. Should not funding for NIF only be provided after we have
    ensured adequate resources are available for the near-term weapons
    refurbishment mission?
        Answer. If NNSA requirements remain the same after the
    Administration's strategic review, maintenance of the safety and
    reliability of the stockpile clearly requires increased expenditures
    for infrastructure, stockpile life extension programs, and development
    of a pit production capability. At the same time, the Stockpile
    Stewardship Program (SSP) must develop and deploy new scientific tools
    like NIF that are the only known means of assuring that we properly
    understand stockpile aging and the actions that we plan to undertake to
    sustain the deterrent. As we reaffirmed in the recent high-energy-
    density-physics (HEDP) study, a vital HEDP Program is an essential
    component of SSP, and that with the full 192-beam NIF, the program
    meets its requirements. No alternative to the NIF was found that meets
    the program needs.
        We are working hard to balance the SSP, while meeting near term
    commitments and investing in critical capabilities required to provide
    for the longer term health of the stockpile. To fit within the
    available resources, many elements of the SSP including the NIF have
    been deferred and stretched out to the maximum extent possible over
    several years. Further stretch-out of NIF funding could damage the SSP
    immediately, as well as in the longer term. Without the NIF, in my
    opinion, the SSP could be unable to perform its long-range mission of
    maintaining the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons
    stockpile.
        The timing of NIF's availability is an important issue for the SSP.
    In the next ten years, we will embark on major weapon refurbishment
    programs while at the same time the majority of the remaining
    experienced weapons experts will be retiring. It is vital that NIF and
    other new SSP tools be brought on board during this time. As NIF begins
    to come on-line during the latter half of this decade, it will provide
    unique experimental capability in the high-energy-density regime to
    investigate stockpile issues. It is estimated that approximately 1,500
    experiments will be conducted at NIF between fiscal year 2004 when
    eight laser beams will be on line and fiscal year 2008 when all 192
    beams are expected on line. NIF will also provide both basic physics
    data, and model validation needed to support computer simulation and
    thus the health of the Nation's stockpile.
                          foster panel recommendations
        Question. The Foster Panel has suggested a number of additional
    activities as a part of the stockpile stewardship program. Such as:
      --exercising end-to-end design, production and certification
            capabilities not currently being used
      --dual revalidation of all weapons designs
      --developing new designs of robust, alternative warheads
      --increasing enhanced surveillance
      --possibly reducing the nuclear test readiness response time to less
            than one year
        What is your response and what would these items add to the SSP
    baseline?
        Answer. DOE and the NNSA have been supportive of the Foster Panel
    since its inception and there is agreement on many of the issues
    identified in the report. However, the Foster Panel and NNSA have
    different views on the integrated solutions to best address the issues
    and the trade-offs between cost, scope, schedule, and risk. The Foster
    Panel recommendations all act to reduce risk, but some may do so at a
    significant cost or represent a significant change to current national
    policy. We are continuing to study the recommendations and potential
    implementation of solution sets.
        There is currently no military requirement to produce new weapons,
    and we have not received such a request. The life extension programs
    authorized by the Nuclear Weapons Council for the B61, W80, and W76
    will sufficiently exercise the design, production and certification
    capabilities of the weapons complex. Successful completion of these
    programs represents a workload and workscope unmatched in the weapons
    complex in more than ten years.
        NNSA has developed an alternative approach to Dual Revalidation
    which achieves the same high-priority objectives, but takes less time
    and is less costly. Baselining, a first necessary step of any Dual
    Revalidation effort, will be applied to all of the warhead types during
    the next five years, while some designers that originally worked on the
    system are still available. The first Dual Revalidation on the W76
    Trident was valuable, but was much more expensive than estimated, and
    took much longer than originally anticipated--five years instead of
    three. If we choose to perform Dual Revalidation studies in the future,
    their focus and scope can be based on the key points brought out by
    completed baselining studies.
        Enhanced surveillance is systematically fielding diagnostic tools
    and conducting studies of components and materials in the stockpile to
    identify impacts from aging before there is impact to the stockpile. We
    agree that additional resources in this area could expand or accelerate
    capabilities to detect and respond to aging issues.
        We reported in the ``Nuclear Test Readiness Posture Report to
    Congress'', dated February 2001, that for anything other than an
    extremely simple demonstration of capability, a six-month nuclear test
    response time was not technically feasible, especially considering the
    safety, environmental, and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty reporting
    requirements associated with a nuclear test resumption. In addition, it
    is estimated that maintaining a six-month posture would cost and
    additional $75 million per year, precluding investment in other more
    urgent areas of stockpile stewardship. Other options are being
    investigated.
                                critical skills
        Question. The Chiles Report in 1999, and many others since then,
    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. The Laboratory Critical Skills Development Program under
    the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities element of our budget is
    a direct funded initiative at $5.4M, aimed at identifying and
    developing critical scientific, engineering and technical skills at the
    three laboratories. The Laboratory Directed Research and Development
    programs which are targeted at 6 percent of our laboratories' budgets,
    and the Plant Directed Research and Development programs which are
    targeted at 2 percent of the budgets of the weapons plants, contribute
    to the recruitment, development and retention of needed critical
    skills. In addition to these initiatives which have a clear connection
    to critical skills, most of the key technology initiatives in the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program such as NIF, ASCI, Advanced Design and
    Production Technologies, etc. are intended to meet programmatic
    objectives while also promoting contractor efforts to recruit, develop
    and retain the right critically skilled workforce. A large share of the
    initiatives that directly impact on recruitment and retention such as
    pay levels, benefit programs and working conditions are within our
    contractors' discretion or covered by contractor overhead programs. We
    review proposed changes to these programs and have encouraged our
    contractors to propose pay and benefit changes that promote recruitment
    and retention of critical skills. We also use the contractor evaluation
    process in our performance-based management contracts to encourage and
    incentivize effective critical skills programs. One of Defense Programs
    key performance targets in both the fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
    2002 budgets is ``Maintenance of critical skills to meet long term
    requirements.'' The restructured contracts with the University of
    California for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories
    include a special management initiative on critical skills which will
    ensure senior University and laboratory management focus on the issues.
                        pit production and certification
        Question. NNSA continues to work to reestablish plutonium pit
    production and certification 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 original deadline for delivering a pit to the military was
    1998, it then slipped to 2001, then 2003, then 2006. As of your interim
    report last Fall, the date was 2007.
        Please update the committee on NNSA's efforts to reestablish pit
    production at Los Alamos?
        Answer. The pit manufacturing effort is fully funded in fiscal year
    2001 and fiscal year 2002 and is on track to fabricate a certifiable
    W88 pit in fiscal year 2003. The manufacture of a certifiable W88 pit
    is the first major milestone required to establish that W88 replacement
    pits manufactured at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are
    qualified for use in the nuclear stockpile; the later milestone is
    certification that the pit will meet required functions. Manufacturing
    and process specifications required to build W88 pits have been
    established and LANL has fabricated eight W88 development pits. NNSA,
    with LANL, has developed a certification plan for non-nuclear testing
    required to confirm equivalent performance of LANL pits with Rocky
    Flats pits. Risk mitigation actions to avoid single test failures
    continue to be assessed and project management systems to measure
    ``earned value'' will be in place for fiscal year 2002.
        Question. Is it true, that under the Administration's budget
    request, delivery of a certified pit is put off indefinitely?
        Answer. With the current fiscal year 2002 funding for the pit
    manufacturing and certification project, NNSA will fabricate a
    certifiable pit in fiscal year 2003. However, the current fiscal year
    2002 request will not enable the laboratory to conduct all
    certification activities required to place a newly fabricated
    replacement W88 pit in the nuclear weapons stockpile in fiscal year
    2009. However, we expect to review the pit manufacturing and
    certification request following completion of the Administration's
    strategic review.
        Question. Is it true that $148 million must be added to the request
    for fiscal year 2002 in order to get back on a schedule that would
    allow delivery of a pit no later than 2009?
        Answer. A laboratory assessment of the March W88 Pit Manufacturing
    and Certification Integrated Project Plan and associated support for
    facilities at LANL estimated an additional $148 million in fiscal year
    2002 would enable the delivery of a W88 pit to the Department of
    Defense in 2009. We still need further NNSA peer review and independent
    assessments to validate the entire resource allocation need.
                   laboratory directed research & development
        Question. 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. Do you concur that the weapons programs have
    benefitted very significantly through the LDRD program and the funding
    should be maintained at 6 per cent?
        Answer. Definitely yes. Our weapons programs and the laboratories
    as national research institutions have benefitted significantly from
    the LDRD program. Many of the most innovative technical discoveries
    applied to the weapons programs originated in LDRD projects. Further,
    the NNSA concurs with the Laboratory Directors' previous testimony that
    the weapons program, and national defense in general, have been more
    than repaid for the cost of the LDRD program. We believe funding should
    be maintained at 6 percent. Our experience during fiscal year 2000,
    when the funding was reduced to 4 percent, was that the program
    suffered in several different ways, the impact of which will be
    experienced over several years.
                            industrial partnerships
        Question. Congress has frequently noted that carefully structured
    partnerships with United States industry can enable the labs to
    accomplish their missions more effectively, at the same time that they
    assist industry with new products and processes that boost our domestic
    competitiveness. The previous Administration reduced their support for
    such partnerships, which Congress reversed for the current fiscal year.
        In your view, are partnerships being used effectively by the
    laboratories?
        Answer. Yes, we believe that partnerships (collaborative
    activities) are currently being used effectively. One effective
    mechanism is the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
    which was established as a contractual mechanism to encourage and
    simplify collaboration with the private sector. In fiscal year 2000,
    the NNSA complex initiated over 50 new CRADAs bringing to almost 350
    the number of active CRADAs. In fiscal year 2001, the Department
    initiated a new budget structure for the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
    Technology partnerships are not directly supported as a separate
    program by Stockpile Stewardship within this new budget structure. At
    this point in fiscal year 2001 there have been four newly executed
    CRADAs, 137 continuing CRADAs for a total of 141 active CRADAs all of
    which directly support the NNSA national security mission. Since the
    funding mechanism for CRADAs transitioned this fiscal year, we are
    carefully monitoring the effects of that change. We anticipate that
    there will be a reduction in those CRADA activities where there are
    only `spinoff' benefits to industry. We hope that the program-sponsored
    partnerships and funds-in CRADAs will more than make up for the spinoff
    partnership reductions.
        Question. Is Congressional guidance to increase partnerships being
    followed?
        Specifically, Congress recommended at least $30 million be invested
    in industrial partnerships in the current year, plus set aside $3
    million for assistance with small business technology-based companies
    near the weapon labs and identified $6 million for a program, to be
    matched with $6 million from NIH, to evaluate and develop NNSA
    technologies for medical needs.
        Answer. NNSA fully supports the development and execution of
    technology partnerships that support the NNSA missions and has directed
    that program officials consider funding partnerships as part of the
    planned execution of their programs when it is appropriate and
    advantageous. The accounting system does not provide information on
    partnerships, however , a staff estimate indicates that approximately
    $17.6 million has been invested in industrial partnerships. We
    anticipate that this number will increase as time goes on. Although the
    set aside for assistance to small business technology-based companies
    near the weapon labs was not appropriated, we recognize that support
    for small business in the vicinity of the laboratories and facilities
    not only contributes to technological advances in the private sector
    and maintenance of the procurement base, but also promotes local good
    will and acceptance of the continuing operation of the laboratories and
    facilities. The NNSA laboratories and facilities have been encouraged
    to participate in these small business programs.
        With respect to working with NIH to explore joint opportunities for
    the development of medical devices, our involvement with NIH has
    resulted only in encouragement to continue to respond to NIH
    solicitations. Although we have not yet been successful in the
    development of a joint NNSA/NIH medical devices program, the NNSA
    laboratories continue to use their unique skills in support of national
    security for the development of medical devices.
              administration support for nonproliferation programs
        Question. Why does the Administration propose such deep cuts in the
    nonproliferation programs in Russia?
        Answer. Although the fiscal year 2002 request is $100.2 million
    (11.5 percent) below the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level, it
    represents a $52.2 million (7.3 percent) increase over the fiscal year
    2000 level. The fiscal year 2002 request normalizes growth over two
    years at just under 4 percent per year. A review is underway to examine
    the nonproliferation programs with Russia. At the end of this review, I
    expect to have a clear understanding of the Administration's policy
    requirements for our threat reduction activities. The National Nuclear
    Security Administration's final Future-Years Nuclear Security Program
    for fiscal year 2002 through 2007 will be submitted after completion of
    the strategic review of national security-related activities.
                           safety and security record
        Question. Admiral Bowman, Naval Reactors has long enjoyed an
    outstanding record on safety and security. Would you elaborate on your
    Program's success in these areas and describe how your management
    systems support safety and security?
        Answer. Naval Reactors is a semi-autonomous, centrally managed,
    single-purpose organization with clear lines of authority and total
    responsibility and accountability for all aspects of naval nuclear
    propulsion. The precepts of this organization, developed under the
    leadership of Hyman G. Rickover were preserved upon his retirement in
    1982 by Executive Order 12344 issued by President Ronald Reagan
    (attached). This executive order was subsequently set forth in two
    Defense Authorization acts. The clear focus of the organization's
    mission, combined with a management philosophy which clearly assigns
    responsibility and authority, has resulted in an organizational culture
    that intertwines the need for safety, environmental stewardship and
    security with everyone's daily efforts.
        Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program technology is among the most
    sensitive and valuable military technologies currently in use in the
    United States. Nuclear powered vessels comprise about 40 percent of the
    U.S. Navy's combatant fleet, including the entire sea-based nuclear
    deterrent. All submarines and over half of the Navy's aircraft carriers
    are nuclear powered. This nuclear technology measurably contributes to
    the United States ability to defend its interests worldwide. The
    proliferation of this technology and the resultant development of
    nuclear powered submarines and surface combatants in other countries
    could result in destabilizing geopolitical conditions, to the detriment
    of world stability and U.S. interests.
        For that reason, information that permits nuclear propulsion to be
    applied to warships must be protected. This information is identified
    as naval nuclear propulsion information and concerns the design,
    arrangement, development, manufacture, testing, operation,
    administration, training, maintenance and repair of the propulsion
    plants of Naval nuclear-powered warships and prototypes including the
    associated shipboard and shore-based nuclear support facilities.
    Program personnel are trained from their first days to develop a
    knowledge of the details to ensure they can identify and correct
    problems, or resolve issues while they remain small. They understand
    the vital role of security in meeting the mission of the Navy.
        Security is ``mainstreamed'' in the Program. Shortly after entering
    the Program, all personnel are indoctrinated in the requirements and
    the importance of safeguarding naval nuclear propulsion technology.
    Then, protection of this technology is factored into the daily Program
    routine and reinforced periodically. Consequently, security is not an
    afterthought requiring retrofit into Program operations at a later
    date. Some of the principles employed to protect classified information
    are used to protect Program sensitive unclassified information. For
    example, foreign nationals are not permitted access to classified or
    unclassified Naval Nuclear Propulsion information except through
    approved government-to-government agreements, and assignment of foreign
    nationals at Program laboratories and other facilities is not
    permitted.
        The U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is centrally controlled
    by a highly experienced but lean integrated organization of Department
    of the Navy and Department of Energy personnel. This organization is
    responsible for all aspects of the Program, including research, design,
    development, testing, operation, and personnel. In addition, peer
    review of reactor safety aspects of design, crew training, and
    operating procedures is provided by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
        U.S. nuclear-powered warships and their reactors have been designed
    to the most exacting and rigorous standards. They are designed to
    survive wartime attack, and include redundant systems and means of
    auxiliary propulsion, and are operated by highly trained crews using
    rigorously applied procedures. All of these features enhance reactor
    safety just as they contribute to the ability of the ship to survive
    attack in time of war.
        Over 100,000 officers and enlisted technicians have been trained in
    the Program. The officer selection process accepts for interview by the
    Director only applicants who have high standing at colleges and
    universities. All personnel receive over a year of training in
    theoretical knowledge and practical experience on operating reactors
    that are like the reactors used on ships. Even after completing this
    training, before manning a key watch station, the personnel must
    specifically qualify on the ship to which they are assigned. Despite
    the extensive training and qualification program, multiple layers of
    supervision and inspection are employed to ensure a high state of
    readiness and compliance with safety standards.
        All U.S. nuclear-powered warships use pressurized water reactors.
    The radioactive fission products are contained within high-integrity
    fuel modules that can withstand battle shock. The fuel is fabricated
    such that U.S. Naval reactors do not operate with fission products
    released to the primary coolant. The reactor compartment forms a
    container and shields the crew from radiation. This compartment
    contains no loose radioactivity in accessible areas and can be entered
    without any protective clothing within minutes of shutting down the
    reactor.
        The U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has historically
    incorporated major efforts to minimize radiation exposure. No civilian
    or military personnel in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has ever
    exceeded the Federal accumulated limit, which until 1994 allowed 5 rem
    of exposure for each year of age beyond age eighteen. Since 1967, no
    person has exceeded the Federal quarterly limit, which allows up to 3
    rem per quarter year. Since 1968, no person has exceeded the Navy's
    self-imposed limit of 5 rem per year for radiation associated with
    naval nuclear propulsion plants. The Federal limit was changed in 1994
    to adopt the 5 rem per year limit already in use by the Navy in lieu of
    the accumulated exposure limit. The average exposure to nuclear-powered
    ship operators for the last 10 years is less than 0.04 rem, compared to
    0.30 rem per year from background radiation for the general public.
    This occupational exposure record is indicative of the conservative
    design employed in U.S. naval application. With regard to liquid
    discharges of radioactivity, design and operating practices strictly
    enforce a policy of minimum discharge to the environment. Within twelve
    miles of land, where no intentional discharge is allowed, the total
    gamma radioactivity discharged by all U.S. ships and facilities during
    any single year is less than 0.002 curie. That amount is 100 times less
    than the radioactivity discharged by a single typical U.S. commercial
    nuclear power station in a year, which is itself within permissible
    limits.
        While the strict procedures followed to control release of
    radioactivity preclude the need for environmental monitoring, the U.S.
    Navy does conduct environmental monitoring in locations where U.S.
    nuclear-powered ships are home ported or serviced, such as bases and
    shipyards, so there will be independent evidence to confirm the absence
    of any environmental effect. This monitoring consists of analyzing
    harbor water, sediment, and marine life samples for radioactivity
    associated with naval nuclear propulsion plants; radiation monitoring
    around the perimeter of support facilities; and effluent monitoring.
    Environmental samples from each of these harbors are also checked at
    least annually by a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory to ensure
    analytical procedures are correct and standardized. The U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency has conducted independent surveys in
    U.S. harbors and results have been consistent with Navy results. These
    surveys have confirmed that U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships and
    support facilities have no significant effect on the radioactivity of
    the environment.
        In addition to the many safety considerations referred to above,
    there are several other factors that enhance naval reactor safety.
    Naval reactors are smaller and lower in power rating than typical
    commercial plants. They also operate at lower power levels,
    particularly when in port or in restricted waters. Thus, the amount of
    radioactivity potentially available for release is less than one one-
    hundredth of that for a typical commercial reactor. Naval reactors have
    ready access to an unlimited source of seawater that can be used for
    emergency cooling and shielding, and are mobile. In the event of a
    problem, the ship can be moved, which, of course, is not the case for a
    fixed, land-based reactor.
        On the whole, the Program's success in safety and security is due
    in large part to its clear lines of authority and total responsibility
    and accountability for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion. The
    success of this organization and its personnel is unsurpassed. The
    safety record of United States nuclear-powered warships is outstanding.
    In the history of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, there has never
    been a nuclear reactor accident, nor has there been a release of
    radioactivity having a significant effect on the environment or the
    public. The Program currently is responsible for 82 operating nuclear-
    powered warships and 102 operating reactors. Since 1955, U.S. Navy
    nuclear-powered ships have steamed over 122 million miles and amassed
    over 5200 reactor-years of operating experience. These ships have
    visited more than 150 ports in over 50 foreign countries and
    dependencies.
                           nuclear cities initiative
        Question. What progress has been made recently in downsizing of the
    complex and conversion of weapons manufacturing plants to alternative
    missions?
        Answer. Significant progress has been made at the Avangard
    Electromechanical Plant, a nuclear weapons facility in Sarov where a
    non-weapons related Technopark is being created. The strategy for
    closure at Avangard is the following: as a significant new project is
    developed, a suitably-sized facility is identified for installation of
    production and assembly lines for the project; then additional real
    estate is carved out of the active area, thus enlarging the Technopark
    and reducing the footprint available for weapons work. The effect is to
    reduce the size of the plant piece-by-piece and to contribute to the
    irreversibility of downsizing by bringing in commercial enterprises.
        Through the impetus of the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI), about
    10 percent of the Avangard site--including 10 acres, 6 major buildings
    and over 500,000 square feet of available floorspace--has already been
    moved out of the weapons area and is available for commercial non-
    weapons activities. Four significant commercialization projects and
    three infrastructure projects are underway at Avangard. The projects
    include contributions from the Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) and
    other Russian sources, and agreement has been reached between MinAtom
    and the Department on levels of fiscal year 2001 funding from the NCI
    program. The projects will become fully operational in 2-4 years. At
    full production and employment these four commercialization projects
    will provide jobs for about half of the 3,600 Avangard employees and
    well over 1,000 jobs for VNIIEF employees.
        Question. How much funding could be intelligently used within that
    program to generate significant progress--but always conditioned on
    meeting transparent milestones?
        Answer. Progress is viewed differently by our two nations, and the
    differences must be recognized if we are to be successful in developing
    transparent milestones. To reduce costs, Russia wants to downsize its
    nuclear weapons complex, but it will not abandon the people to
    unemployment. Hence, the MinAtom objective is to create civilian jobs
    through sustainable commercial activities and the metric is the number
    of jobs created. The Russian approach is step-by-step; success with
    Avangard at Sarov will allow us access to other closed nuclear cities.
    In addition, strong and stable funding of the program will engender
    Russian confidence in the U.S. commitment to the program, further
    accelerating progress.
        The U.S. objective for NCI is to obtain irreversible reduction of
    the Russian nuclear complex. The metric at this time for the United
    States is, therefore, the square feet of facilities (buildings) and
    acreage of space converted to civilian commercial activities. As a
    detailed integrating strategy develops for our Russian programs, the
    metric will naturally evolve toward specific facilities that represent
    a high priority for the United States.
        To this end, we believe that now is the appropriate time to move
    aggressively toward the rapid and irreversible closure of the Avangard
    nuclear weapons facility. Given the infrastructure, which has already
    been developed and the significant number of companies expressing
    interest in moving into the Technopark, NCI could advance the closure
    of Avangard over the next two years and be in a strong position to move
    into another city.
        A secondary benefit associated with this strategy is the avoidance
    of cost for Material Protection, Control and Accounting Program
    upgrades at these two sites.
                  laboratory directed research and development
        Question. Did the return to the historic level for LDRD help with
    morale?
        Answer. Yes. The return to the 6 percent funding for LDRD did
    improve morale. One of the aspects most significantly affected by the
    reduction was the ability of the Laboratories to recruit new Post
    Doctoral Candidates. The LDRD program supports, on the average, about
    half of the funding for Post Docs across the three NNSA Laboratories. A
    6 percent funding level helps provide these scientists and engineers
    motivation to bring good ideas forward, both to advance the missions of
    the laboratories and their own careers.
        Question. I've heard a suggestion that some small amount of LDRD,
    probably in addition to the 6 percent, be set aside specifically for
    helping new staff members gear up for major contributions in key
    programs. That strikes me as an excellent suggestion.
        Do you concur that such funds would provide important new ways of
    hiring new staff and helping them gain the specialized knowledge they
    need for programmatic contributions?
        Answer. Yes. Such funds would help in enabling the labs to improve
    their efforts to recruit and retain new scientists and engineers.
    Integrating new technical staff into the system of research at our labs
    is vital to our retention efforts. Innovative, high-risk ideas explored
    through the LDRD Program lead to research activities that team senior
    technical staff with relatively new staff members. This collaboration
    is beneficial for the training of new technical staff, retention of
    existing staff, the development of new ideas and helping new staff
    integrate into the mission of the nuclear weapons laboratories.
                                   polygraphs
        Question. Do you agree that Congress moved too fast to impose too
    many requirements for polygraphs, before we have information from the
    National Academy?
        Answer. First, I must say that the DOE Office of
    Counterintelligence has worked hard to design a professional and
    effective Polygraph Program in compliance with the federal rule and the
    legislation mandating its existence. Thus far, DOE has tested more than
    2,000 contractors and employees and 99 percent of those tested have
    stated they felt the examination was fair and did not constitute an
    unwarranted invasion of privacy. Also, none of those selected to take
    the test has refused to do so. I'm very happy with those results.
    However, there obviously remain concerns about the test, and I want to
    be responsive to those. I view the Congressionally mandated DOE
    polygraph program and the National Academies' study as necessarily
    moving in parallel. I do not think the program implementation should
    necessarily have been delayed to await the results of the study, though
    the study may provide information useful to program improvement. In
    hindsight, we have concerns that the groupings of personnel required by
    the legislation may not have been the most effective approach to
    identifying those personnel who should be subject to a polygraph.
    Within groups there are positions that vary in degree of sensitivity,
    and we are studying assessment methodologies to be able to identify
    those ``high-risk'' positions that we feel are most appropriate for
    polygraph. This is an ongoing study whose results may suggest a change
    to the legislative requirements may be appropriate. We are also very
    interested in the National Academies' study of polygraph. The NAS study
    will include what is known about the effect of medications, sleep
    deprivation, and illnesses on the physiological responses measured
    through polygraph exams. The 15-month study began on January 1, 2001,
    and the final report is to be released next year. I view this study as
    a potential means through which DOE may further improve on its
    successful Polygraph Program.
                         polygraphs and employee morale
        Question. Do you agree that polygraphs are negatively impacting
    morale and potentially doing far more harm than any good?
        Answer. I know that personnel from Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratories have discussed their concerns with the
    Office of Counterintelligence, and I am aware that they are engaged in
    an ongoing dialogue on the topic. We are doing all that we can to
    address employee concerns with respect to the polygraph program, and
    seek to minimize any negative impact it may have on recruitment and
    retention. Unlike the National Security Agency and the Central
    Intelligence Agency, where polygraph has long been used as a condition
    of employment and is seen by employees as something of a ``rite of
    passage'', our scientists in many instances are just now being
    confronted with this prospect, after many years of loyal service. We
    must deal with this cultural shift in a straightforward manner;
    addressing their concerns while protecting our most sensitive equities
    and complying with the legislation mandating polygraph.
        While polygraph may now be a factor, the issues of recruitment and
    retention are complex and pre-date DOE's proposed use of
    counterintelligence-scope polygraph examinations. This is well
    documented in the March 1999 Report of the Commission on Maintaining
    United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise (Chiles Report). The Chiles
    Report characterized DOE as being in a war for talent with the private
    sector. The scientific and technical talent that DOE must attract and
    retain has many options in today's competitive technology marketplace.
        The Department is committed to achieving the goal of having both
    good science and good security, and will continue to work hard to
    address employee concerns that impact on that goal.
                                  apt and aaa
        Question. In the current year, Accelerator Production of Tritium
    (APT) is funded within Defense Programs and Advanced Accelerator
    Applications (AAA) is funded within the Nuclear Energy Office. The
    Department has recently issued a report, requested by Congress, from
    the Office of Nuclear Energy which was coordinated with the NNSA. That
    report outlines a comprehensive program for a future AAA program that
    incoroporates APT, and includes partnering with Defense Programs.
        Do you concur with plans to incorporate APT into a broad AAA
    program?
        Answer. Yes. The nation has invested more than $600 million in
    accelerator technology under the APT project. That investment can
    better be realized under the AAA Program than through closure of the
    project and archiving of data. The AAA Program's proposed new test
    facility could provide data valuable to civilian science as well as
    national security programs. In addition, the new facility, if built,
    could retain the capability to be upgraded to produce tritium, if that
    is ever required.
        Question. And, do you agree that it is in the national interest to
    advance APT technologies to the point where they could be readily
    scaled up to meet stockpile needs for tritium if any issues develop
    with the reactor-based program for tritium production?
        Answer. I believe it is in the national interest to capitalize on
    the investment of more than $600 million in accelerator technology
    represented by the APT by transitioning the technology development to
    the AAA program. Our primary tritium program, which will use TVA
    reactors to produce tritium, is going extremely well, and we,
    therefore, believe that the need for a `readily scaled up' backup is
    not a wise use of taxpayer resources. Nonetheless, I agree that it
    would be prudent, to include in any new facility at least the
    capability to be upgraded for tritium production.
                               retirement systems
        Question. Retirement systems are one of the most important benefits
    that staff must evaluate in selecting places of employment. There are
    currently vast differences among retirement benefits at the different
    weapons laboratories. Furthermore, the private sector has a far wider
    range of benefit options, such as stock options, that can be used to
    encourage people to accept employment.
        I hear from many constituents that retirement systems, most notably
    at Sandia, are seriously lagging other laboratories. Sandia has
    conducted their own analysis of this situation and confirmed this
    discrepancy. The employees are particularly concerned because the
    Sandia retirement system is extremely well funded and probably could
    support much higher benefits.
        In my view, the Department should be encouraging its contractors to
    maximize their retirement benefits since this can have a significant
    impact on their ability to hire and retain highly qualified staff.
        Do you concur with this view?
        Answer. Retirement systems are indeed an important consideration
    when applicants and employees compare employment offers. The Department
    has found that the weapons laboratories provide retirement benefits
    that are equal to or above what is offered by comparable employers with
    government contracts and in the private sector. Among NNSA sites (LANL,
    LLNL, Sandia, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Kansas City
    Plant, Bechtel Nevada, and Bechtel Bettis) the Sandia salaried Pension
    Plan is second only to those at the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratories which are covered by the University of California
    Retirement Plan. The Department's contractors have almost every benefit
    option available to offer employees, including, in the Sandia case, the
    ability to offer stock options although they have chosen not to do so.
    The Department supports and encourages contractors to develop
    attractive, contemporary, and competitive benefits packages.
        The Department is very concerned about public and media statements
    that claim that Sandia benefits are below standard. Based on our
    review, the Sandia analysis entitled ``Current Pension Plan Review
    March 26-29, 2001 by Joan Woodard and Ralph Bonner,'' supports the
    Department's analysis and findings that Sandia's pension plan for
    salaried employees and the 401(k) defined contribution plan provide a
    retirement benefit equal to or greater than most comparable employers.
    According to the two studies referenced in the Sandia analysis, the
    2001 Hewitt Associates survey for salaried employees and the 2000
    Towers Perrin High Technology BENVAL survey, Sandia's retirement
    benefits rank at or near the top in a list of comparable employers.
    Only when compared to the University of California Retirement Plan
    (UCRP) for older employees is the Sandia defined benefit plan lower.
    However, in the case of employees leaving employment before age 55,
    Sandia's benefits actually exceed the UCRP in some cases. Moreover,
    when the employer portion of the Sandia 401(K) defined contribution
    plan is factored in for salaried employees they compare even more
    favorably with the UCRP which does not include a 401(K).
        With regard to the use of excess assets in the pension plan to fund
    benefit increases, the Department does not view the existence of excess
    assets as justification for benefit increases. To do so would
    effectively penalize both the contractor and the Department for advance
    funding and good asset management. Moreover, the Department's Inspector
    General has previously warned the Department to not allow unwarranted
    benefit increases which would be funded by the available excess funds
    from the pension plans. The overfunding of a pension plan is no more
    compelling a reason for increasing benefits than an underfunded plan is
    for decreasing benefits, particularly in light of the fact that they
    are subject to significant market fluctuations.
        Finally, the Department evaluates the compensation and benefit
    packages provided by its contractors from the prospective of Total
    Compensation. To separate individual elements of compensation and
    benefits for comparison without consideration of the Total Compensation
    can be misleading and result in unnecessary cost escalation.
                      advanced hydrotest facility at lanl
        Question. An advanced hydrotest facility has long been planned for
    the stockpile stewardship program. In fiscal year 2001, $15 million was
    appropriated for R&D and pre-conceptual designs for a facility using
    protons. As you know Los Alamos has had some substantial developments
    in this area.
        What are the plans for continued development of this facility in
    fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. The continuing program of proton radiography experiments at
    Los Alamos and Brookhaven have been successful and show that this new
    technology is a promising and viable option for application to meet the
    radiographic requirements for primary certification. NNSA's plans and
    path forward for Advanced Radiography are contained in the Hydrotest
    and Radiography Requirements--Interim Report provided to this committee
    in response to HR 106-116. The AHF pre-conceptual design activities led
    by Los Alamos continue to meet the milestones laid out in this report.
        Principal milestones for NNSA are to complete pre-conceptual design
    review activities in fiscal year 2001 and then to review our
    understanding of the requirements for an advanced radiography facility
    and the status of current technologies in order to support a mission
    need determination in early fiscal year 2002.
        We have commissioned a JASON review of primary certification
    requirements and the role of an AHF in meeting those requirements. This
    study will be performed this summer and will give us a preliminary look
    at the issues that we will review further before making a mission need
    determination.
        If a mission need decision is made (Critical Decision-0), then we
    would continue to support Conceptual Design activities in fiscal year
    2002 with Operation and Maintenance funding in the advanced radiography
    campaign. The effort that can be applied to conceptual design and
    engineering development and demonstration activities in the fiscal year
    2002 budget submission have been balanced against other requirements,
    including advanced radiography campaign efforts to optimize DARHT I,
    support the commissioning of DARHT II, and certification activities.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Larry E. Craig

                     upgrades to the advanced test reactor
        Question. Upgrades to the Advanced Test Reactor. The Naval Reactors
    Program is the primary programmatic ``customer'' at the Advanced Test
    Reactor at the INEEL. There have been proposals to invest in some
    facility upgrades at the Advanced Test Reactor to construct a dedicated
    experiment assembly area and to upgrade experiment handling equipment.
    These upgrades would attract additional users to the Advanced Test
    Reactor, and would therefore reduce the overhead costs charged to Naval
    Reactors. Would you be supportive of these facility upgrades, if
    funding could be found within DOE's budget?
        Answer. Yes, NR supports the proposed upgrades. Seven years ago NR
    vacated test space in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) to provide access
    for other customers to reduce NR costs. Since that time, NR has
    actively supported efforts by DOE and the operating contractor to bring
    in new customers to use this space. Two years ago, DOE's branch of
    Nuclear Energy (NE) funded the installation of a new experiment
    facility, the Irradiation Test Vehicle (ITV) to support additional
    testing. The ITV enhanced ATR capabilities by allowing for the testing
    of multiple capsules with independent temperature control. Currently
    the ITV is not being used, and only a small number of other capsule
    experiments are being run in ATR. Enhancing the ability to assemble
    capsules and handle tests will increase the likelihood for other
    customers to use the ATR, reducing the costs paid by NR through the
    DOE. NR supports these upgrades that will have minimal effect on NR
    testing, while enhancing the utilization of the ATR. NR supports
    continued effort by NE to make upgrades that will improve ATR testing
    and data gathering capabilities and bring in other customers.
                                 bn-350 reactor
        Question. Given the strategic importance of Kazakhstan from both an
    energy and a geopolitical perspective, could you describe the
    Department's plan for fulfilling the commitments that the U.S. has made
    to assist Kazakhstan?''
        Answer. The project at the BN-350 breeder reactor in Aktau has
    indeed been a major nonproliferation success. By June, NNSA will have
    completed the packaging of the plutonium-rich BN-350 spent fuel. The
    theft vulnerability of the material is now orders of magnitude less
    than it was in 1995 when the Department first visited Aktau. The
    Department has spent $15 million on material protection, control, and
    accounting measures at the reactor facility. In June, we will complete
    the packaging of nearly 3000 assemblies containing about three tons of
    weapons-grade plutonium. The packaged material is now in the BN-350
    pool and is as secure from theft as it will ever be. By July, NNSA will
    have spent $43 million on the spent fuel disposition aspects of this
    project.
        The 1997 agreement provided a ``provisional'' approach to the long-
    term storage at the Baikal site on the opposite side of Kazakhstan from
    the BN-350. The agreement committed the Department to support that
    approach unless logistical, technical, or costs issues made that
    approach infeasible. Last September, a joint U.S./Kazakhstan study
    concluded that there are significant advantages to storing the material
    at Aktau both technically and financially. For unclear reasons, the
    Government of Kazakhstan decided to ship the material to Baikal. The
    Department does not have the funds to support that decision and is
    concerned that this approach was not supported by the joint U.S./
    Kazakhstani study.
        In January, Kazakhstani officials announced that they had developed
    a plan that would allow them to transport and store the material at
    Baikal on their own. They asked for U.S. help in the area of security
    and for the design and construction of the storage site, as well as any
    other aspect of the project. The Department's priorities remain focused
    on the proliferation risks of the material. Therefore, we intend to
    address the physical protection requirements of transporting and
    storing the material, as the Kazakhstanis requested. We also intend to
    continue supporting the IAEA in a comprehensive program of safeguards
    against a successful diversion of the material's plutonium. These two
    efforts will require most of the project's budget.
        In February 1999, Kazakhstan requested NNSA assistance in upgrading
    the safety of the reactor following a critical review of the plant by
    an IAEA team. Subsequently, Kazakhstan announced that the reactor would
    be shutdown permanently. The plan is to place the reactor in a
    radiologically and industrially safe condition over the next 7 years
    and to maintain it for up to 50 years before it is dismantled.
    Kazakhstan has requested United States and international technical and
    financial assistance for the shutdown project.
        In December 1999, the Secretary of Energy and Minister Shkolnik
    signed a joint Implementing Arrangement for decommissioning the BN-350.
    The Arrangement states that the United States and Kazakhstan will
    cooperate in the shutdown project. Specifically, DOE will support
    decontaminating, draining and deactivating the sodium coolant; and
    development of a decommissioning plan that will be reviewed under the
    auspices of the IAEA. The Implementing Arrangement also states that DOE
    will assist Kazakhstan to find additional international partners for
    the decommissioning project.
        Decommissioning the BN-350 will permanently eliminate a source of
    weapons-grade material production. It also will eliminate a nuclear
    safety concern on the shores of the Caspian Sea in a strategically
    vulnerable region that is about 150 miles south of the Kashagan oil
    field. The project has the additional objectives of sustaining a
    nuclear infrastructure within Kazakhstan to support the remaining four
    research reactors and fostering Kazakhstan independence.
    Decontaminating, draining and deactivating the coolant, as well as the
    immediate safety upgrades, will cost about $29 million over five to
    seven years. Because of the nonproliferation nature of the project,
    NNSA has been able to obtain commitments from State's NDF, ISTC and AID
    programs for most of these funds. NNSA is also working to form a
    collaborative project with Japan.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

                        administration strategic review
        Question. I've heard that the budget we just received up here may
    be changed as a result of the recommendations in the forthcoming
    strategic review of the DOD programs. Is this true?
        Answer. Yes. The results and recommendations of the strategic
    reviews will set the Administration's budgetary priorities for defense
    and national security-related activities. The President believes that
    the Nation's defense strategy must drive decisions on defense
    resources--not the other way around. Accordingly, the Administration
    plans to determine final fiscal year 2002 and outyear funding requests
    once the Strategic Defense Review is complete. That means that there is
    a possibility that a budget amendment will be forthcoming.
        Question. Can you give me an idea about when this will come up to
    us?
        Answer. I must defer to the White House on when the reviews will be
    finalized. We will work with you and your staffs to assure that we
    provide all of the information you need to evaluate our requirements
    for fiscal year 2002 and the outyears.
                                 infrastructure
        Question. Several weeks ago, you testified to this committee about
    infrastructure problems across the weapons complex. For the members who
    couldn't make that hearing, can you briefly tell this committee why
    this occurred?
        Answer. The current condition of the nuclear weapons complex is
    attributable to several factors, among which are the age of the
    complex, facility & infrastructure underfunding, and the increasing
    demands placed on facility management by current environmental, safety
    and health laws and regulations. The majority of the facilities are 40
    years or older. The design lives of many of these facilities have been
    exceeded, using any reasonable standard. Facility and infrastructure
    requirements have been underfunded for a long time. This chronic
    underfunding has taken a significant and measurable toll on our
    facilities. Finally, the costs directly attributable to compliance with
    today's health, safety, and environmental requirements continues to
    grow.
        Question. What will it cost Congress to make repairs after this
    long period of neglect?
        Answer. I believe that I am prepared to efficiently execute between
    $200-$300 million to start our recapitalization of the complex in the
    first year. Following thereafter, I believe that $500 million will be
    required annually for the next ten years to restore and recapitalize
    the complex. No funds were included in the current fiscal year 2002
    request pending completion of the strategic review.
        Question. DOE has a very bad record of construction management. If
    the Congress were to provide that much money, how can we be assured
    that the problems will get fixed?
        Answer. As stated in the Defense Programs ``Annual Report to
    Congress on Construction Project Accomplishments'' dated January 17,
    2001, Defense Programs has committed to a multi-year project management
    improvement campaign that is targeted at eliminating root cause project
    management problems through a fundamental change in culture and
    process. The PM Improvement Campaign encompasses the recommendations of
    numerous external review groups and the results of extensive bench
    marking of best practices being employed by both public and private
    industry. The Campaign is subdivided into eight individual goals
    designed to significantly improve project planning, decision making,
    lessons learned, career development for project managers, and complex
    wide procedures. Definitive results will not occur over night, studies
    by OMB have shown that at least three years is required to turn a
    culture around.
        Defense Programs/NNSA is committed to maintaining the momentum of
    implementing change through such techniques as new start Independent
    Project Reviews (IPRs) of line item new starts to ensure program
    requirements are clearly defined, a competent integrated project team
    is in place to address stakeholder issues, and sound planning baselines
    have been established for execution of the work.
        Question. Why not wait on the infrastructure initiative until after
    the Administration completes its strategic review?
        Answer. I remain close to the analysis being conducted by the
    Department of Defense regarding our military needs, particularly those
    dealing with the strategic nuclear posture of our forces. We are
    committed to retention of a weapons production capability, even if we
    reduce the number of weapons on hand. There is not a strong direct
    correlation between weapons reduction and facility requirements. One
    element of a credible deterrent is to have a production complex that
    can meet existing requirements and respond to emerging threats in a
    timely manner. As you also know, I am committed to reducing the
    footprint of our current sites and facilities. In this case, we are
    looking for additional resources to eliminate unused facilities that
    have no part in our recapitalization plan.
                        administration strategic review
        Question. Last year's authorization act strongly reinforced the
    requirement for a Five Year Budget Plan for NNSA. Is it included with
    the fiscal year 2002 budget?
        Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration's final Future
    Years Nuclear Security Program for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
    2007 is currently undergoing review and will be submitted to Congress
    after completion of the President's strategic review of national
    security-related activities.
        Question. How much money is allocated to the weapons laboratories
    in the fiscal year 2002 request?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget request allocates $2.901
    billion to the three national security laboratories. This comprises 55
    percent of the request. It is important to remember that this is a
    preliminary allocation based on the Congressional request, and it will
    likely be updated with the completion of the strategic review.
                                nevada test site
        The NNSA, in order to meet its legal obligations under the Federal
    Facility Agreement with the State of Nevada in regards to the Nevada
    Test Site is required to provide for the protection of underground
    water resources that may be threatened by the underground nuclear
    testing program.
        The plugging and abandonment of underground nuclear test boreholes
    will prevent the transmigration of radiological contaminant between
    groundwater layers and potentially prevent the contamination of
    drinking water supplies. I am particularly pleased that your budget
    request provides a significant increase in funding (from $800,000 to $4
    million in fiscal year 2002) over past years, but I am interested in
    your long term commitment to this project. I have heard that this
    project could ultimately cost over $150 million and take over five
    years to accomplish.
        Question. Will the NNSA support this long term effort or should
    this subcommittee explore placing this project with the Environmental
    Restoration and Waste Management Program?
        Answer. The NNSA agrees that protection of ground water in and
    surrounding the Nevada Test Site is very important. Total Project Cost
    estimate to accomplish the project in 6 years is in the $144 million
    range. To that end, we have set aside approximately $4.6 M in fiscal
    year 2002 to support work to prevent potential contamination from
    expended nuclear test holes and plan to continue this work at a funding
    level of $5 M in fiscal year 2003. We are projecting that increased
    work, funded at a level of approximately $10 M, will be appropriate in
    fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2005, the program effort will be
    evaluated to determine what future work and funding levels will be
    optimum. Outyear funding is contingent on the conclusion of
    Administration's review of our 5-year budget.
        The NNSA works closely and cooperatively with the Department of
    Energy Environmental Management staff on this effort. However, the
    areas of the Nevada Test Site in which these expended nuclear test
    holes are located, are integral to the NNSA mission and correcting
    these effects remains our responsibility.
        Question. Are you going to move the Atlas facility from LANL to the
    Nevada Test Site since additional funds were provided last year?
        Answer. We have utilized the funds provided last year to fully plan
    the move but we have not provided funds in the fiscal year 2002 budget
    request to move the facility. An ATLAS project team has been formed, an
    environmental assessment has been performed, and design of a new
    building to house the machine at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is
    underway. Plans are also being formulated to dismantle, move,
    reassemble, and recommission the ATLAS machine to prepare for full
    scale operation at the NTS.
        It is expected that ATLAS will operate on an interim basis at Los
    Alamos for the entire year of fiscal year 2002 to conduct experiments
    for the Dynamic Materials Properties Campaign in support of the
    Stockpile Stewardship Program. It is expected that the actual
    disassembly, move, and reassembly of the machine will be started in
    fiscal year 2003 and be completed in early fiscal year 2004, assuming
    adequate budget support.
        Question. Is the sub-critical program on track?
        Answer. Yes. The subcritical experiment program is active,
    providing important information for stockpile stewardship and helping
    to maintain nuclear test readiness. In fiscal year 2001, we are
    planning to complete three experiments and eight are planned for fiscal
    year 2002. Subcriticals are providing valuable data on the behavior of
    plutonium which is crucial to an enhanced understanding of nuclear
    weapons. The conduct of these experiments exercise many of the skills
    that would be needed if it were necessary to resume underground
    testing.
                                 plutonium pits
        Question. At a previous hearing regarding the status and challenges
    that face the NNSA you mentioned the problem of Pit Certification. You
    indicated in that testimony that we could expect pit certification to
    be the same kind of story as NIF.
        ``Underfunded, under-costed, under-scheduled, and under-planned''
    were your words. Your fiscal year 2002 request calls for over $128
    million for what is termed ``Pit Manufacturing and Certification.'' In
    addition you have requested almost $83 million for the CMR and TA-55
    facilities at Los Alamos where a majority of that Pit work will be
    done. I went through the financial schedule for this CMR facility that
    the Department provided to this Subcommittee in last year's budget
    request and the total appropriation provided for this facility from
    fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 2001 was over $106 million.
    Appropriations for Pit Manufacturing and certification in fiscal year
    200 and fiscal year 2001 totaled over $250 million.
        I'm sure that if we go back to the early 90's and check, we will
    find close to a billion dollars total for this mission whose completion
    is still not within sight, and which, by your own acknowledgement, is
    badly broken.
        Question. General Gordon, can you outline for me, either now or in
    writing, the precise steps you are planning to take to restore this
    program's credibility?
        Answer. This program has been assigned the highest priority by the
    NNSA and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and both are committed
    to its success. LANL has appointed experienced project managers for
    both the pit manufacturing and pit certification projects and has given
    them the necessary fiscal and programmatic responsibility. Similarly,
    the NNSA has established a Pit Project Office at DOE Headquarters
    headed by an experienced project manager. This Office will ensure that
    the pit project meets programmatic objectives. The pit manufacturing
    and certification effort is being projectized for fiscal year 2002
    based on a W88 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project
    Plan. The W88 pit manufacturing and certification effort has been
    reviewed both technically and programmatically by DOE and external
    reviewers. Additional reviews will be conducted to assess programmatic
    risks and to ensure the program is on track. The W88 pit manufacturing
    and certification project is essential to demonstrate that the nuclear
    stockpile can be maintained without nuclear testing and will continue
    to receive the highest level of attention.
        Question. Why is Los Alamos producing plutonium pits if the United
    States isn't manufacturing new nuclear weapons?
        Answer. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is working to produce
    replacement pits for the W88 warhead because production of W88 pits was
    abruptly stopped at the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) in 1989 before enough
    pits were produced to meet required destructive pit assessments during
    the projected 20-year design life of the W88 warhead. In addition, the
    manufacture and certification of a W88 pit without nuclear testing is a
    principal challenge of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Absent the
    manufacture of new nuclear weapons, newly manufactured pits still must
    be produced to replace those pits that are destructively assessed in
    the surveillance process during the design life of the nuclear warhead.
                           national ignition facility
        Question. You recently submitted to the Congress the NIF
    certification package. I will let Chairman Domenici's thoughts on the
    completeness of that certification stand as my view. Setting those
    concerns aside for the moment, I want to hear from you, clearly and
    concisely, both that you must have the full 198 Beam NIF and an
    explanation of why NIF is so important to the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program. You have been the Administrator for long enough now to form
    your own view.
        Is this something you have to have to fulfill your mission?
        Answer. Yes, the NNSA must have the full 192-beam NIF in order to
    meet the needs of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) and fulfill
    the NNSA mission to maintain the safety, security and reliability, of
    the US nuclear weapons, both now and in the future.
        NIF is important to the SSP for three reasons. One, it will provide
    unique experimental weapon physics capability, for the study of issues
    which can affect an aging or refurbished stockpile. Two, it will
    advance critical elements of the underlying science of nuclear weapons
    that will play a major role in validation of the advanced simulation
    codes. Three, it helps to attract and train the exceptional scientific
    and technical talent required to sustain the SSP over the long term.
        NIF is an essential facility of the high-energy-density physics
    (HEDP) program within the SSP. As you know from my NIF certification
    package, NNSA's Office of Defense Programs recently reviewed the HEDP
    program, with a particular focus on the NIF, and whether there are
    alternatives to the full 192-beam NIF. The baseline HEDP program,
    including the full 192-beam NIF, meets the requirements, and is the
    appropriate path forward.
        If we do not have the NIF to further our knowledge and capabilities
    in the area of high-energy-density physics (HEDP), as it relates to the
    current nuclear weapons stockpile, the deterrent, will be at risk.
    Without the full tool set identified for SSP, we will not be able to
    adequately assess the types of issues that are sure to arise.
        We must provide our future stewards the ability to quantitatively
    determine the validity of their models when applied to situations not
    explicitly covered by the existing set of test results. NIF is the only
    HEDP facility currently in the Defense Program's baseline or being
    discussed that provides the experimental capabilities needed to
    approach this task.
        Question. What is included in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    National Ignition Facility and is it consistent with recently approved
    baseline for the project?
        Answer. Senator, I included the approved NIF Funding Profile
    through fiscal year 2008 in the referenced certification. In addition,
    I submitted a follow-up, clarifying letter on April 13, 2001 wherein I
    stated that under the current fiscal year 2002 budget profile, the
    National Nuclear Security Administration would be required to
    restructure the NIF and other elements of the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program if the requirements remain the same. However, the Nuclear
    Security Program for fiscal year 2002 through 2007 is currently under
    consideration as part of the President's comprehensive strategic review
    of national security-related activities. Any changes resulting from the
    conclusion of the review will be transmitted to Congress as part of the
    final plan.
        Within the requirements budget, the NIF construction project
    requires at total of $246 million construction funding with an
    additional $72 million operating and maintenance funding for a total of
    $318 million in fiscal year 2002. This is consistent with the approved
    baseline.
                              hazardous activities
        Question. During our subcommittee hearing last year I expressed
    some concern about the planning process that is employed by NNSA in
    selecting technologies and ultimate location for high hazard high risk
    work. I have an overriding concern that large investments in hazardous
    new facilities are being made with consideration for the premature
    obsolescence of these facilities brought about by public encroachment.
    The fiscal year 2001 Appropriation made available $15 mission to
    support research, development and conceptual design for an advanced
    hydrodynamic test facility for advanced radiography. Your fiscal year
    2002 budget request indicates that Defense Programs may initiate a
    conceptual design for an AHF or advanced hydro facility which will cost
    in excess of $3 billion.
        General, I am very concerned that this subcommittee and the
    Congress are blindly agreeing to a major system acquisition without the
    appropriate reviews and validations of technologies. Additionally, the
    informed decision making required to determine the right location
    should be completed before another billion dollar stockpile stewardship
    physics machine is agreed to for your agency.
        Are you willing to provide me with a report describing the process
    that you intend to use to make the requisite recommendation to this
    subcommittee and the Congress prior to the Administration making any
    further expenditure of resources?
        Answer. We reported our planning and review process for an advanced
    radiography facility in an interim report on Advanced Radiography and
    Hydrotest Requirements submitted to Congress this past February. As
    indicated in the report, we expect to complete trade studies and
    requirements studies for a proton radiography based facility by the end
    of fiscal year 2001 so that we can make a mission need determination
    (CD-0) during the first quarter of fiscal year 2002. A complete set of
    independent reviews will be part of our process for making any
    determination about mission need.
        I have committed to submitting a final report to the Congress upon
    completion of these reviews, which I expect to occur in early fiscal
    year 2002. We have commissioned the JASONs to undertake a review of
    primary certification requirements, the role and conduct of
    hydrotesting, and the status of development of advanced radiography
    technologies and capabilities.
        NNSA shares your concerns about the impact of encroachment on the
    long term viability of facilities and this is a significant factor in
    any site selection determination. The potential siting of an advanced
    hydrodynamic facility (AHF) was described in the Stockpile Stewardship
    and Management Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
    (September 1996) and remains unchanged. Due to the nature of dynamic
    experiments and hydrodynamic testing to be conducted in the facility,
    AHF would probably be considered for location at the Nevada Test Site
    and Los Alamos only. Appropriate National Environmental Protection Act
    studies and completion of the conceptual design report are among the
    requirements to be completed prior to site selection.
                                    tritium
        Question. What is the status of the tritium program?
        Answer. The tritium program is on schedule to meet current
    requirements and remains within its baseline budget. DOE and TVA
    continue to implement the Interagency Agreement that went into effect
    in January 2000 for the irradiation of tritium-producing rods in TVA's
    Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors. Regulatory review by the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission of TVA's license amendment requests associated
    with the use of the DOE tritium rods are expected to be completed well
    in advance of the fall of 2003, when the initial irradiation of the
    rods would take place given current requirements.
        Construction of the structural portions of the new tritium
    extraction facility at the Savannah River Site is underway, and
    detailed design of the balance of the facility will be completed as
    scheduled.
        A contract has been signed with WesDyne, a subsidiary of
    Westinghouse, for fabrication of the tritium rods, and contracts with
    vendors for all components have either been signed or are in final
    negotiation. Finally, a Request for Proposals has been prepared, issued
    for comment by potential bidders, and will soon be issued in final form
    to acquire transportation services to take the rods from the TVA
    reactors to the tritium extraction facility.
        Question. What about the APT program?
        Answer. The APT program is proceeding with engineering development
    and demonstration and preliminary design activities planned for fiscal
    year 2001. This year, the program will document the status of
    preliminary design work on the APT plant. The program will also
    complete radio-frequency quadrupole beam halo experiments using the APT
    Low Energy Demonstration Accelerator. Consistent with Congressional
    legislation and funding for fiscal year 2001, the APT program is
    supporting the Department's efforts to establish a program for Advanced
    Accelerator Applications. If fully implemented, this program would
    conduct research and develop technologies for transmutation of spent
    nuclear fuel. If implemented, the AAA program would include the design
    and construction of an Accelerator Driven Test Facility that could be
    upgraded to produce tritium for the stockpile, if that is ever needed.
        Due to funding constraints and priorities for the Stockpile
    Stewardship program, $1 million was requested for the APT program in
    fiscal year 2002. This funding level will not support continuation of
    APT project work beyond fiscal year 2001.
        Question. I thought the license amendments were to be submitted to
    the NRC in March. Is there a technical issue that could delay
    irradiation in TVA's reactors?
        Answer. We are on track to produce tritium by early 2006 and I do
    not believe there is any problem, technical or administrative, that
    will delay the irradiation of the tritium rods in the TVA reactors. The
    Watts Bar and Sequoyah license amendment packages have been completed,
    and with the exception a number of calculations that are being
    independently checked, the great majority of the analyses for Watts Bar
    was submitted to the NRC on May 1, to be followed in the next few weeks
    with a similar Sequoyah submittal. The NRC has committed to expedite
    the review of these license amendment requests.
        We have awarded a contract for the production of the tritium rods
    and in July 2000, ground was broken for the new Tritium Extraction
    Facility (TEF) at the Savannah River Site. Construction of the facility
    is underway.
        Question. When will the license amendments be submitted to the NRC
    now? Any impact on supplying tritium for the stockpile?
        Answer. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has now received the
    great majority of the license amendment submittal for Watts Bar, and
    will receive a similar package for Sequoyah within the next several
    weeks. The remaining calculations that are now being independently
    reviewed for both plants will be submitted when the reviews are
    completed and any necessary modifications made. The timing of these
    submittals will have no impact on our ability to supply tritium to the
    stockpile when required, and the NRC has committed to an expeditious
    review of the amendment applications.
           progress on the accelerated strategic computing initiative
        Question. Describe the progress on the Accelerated Strategic
    Computing Initiative, and what is included in the fiscal year 2002
    budget.
        Answer. ASCI has, in fewer than five years, produced results that
    make it the most successful high-performance computing program in U.S.
    history. The world's four fastest computers are ASCI systems. These
    systems coupled with other ASCI accomplishments is such areas as
    scalable algorithms, programming techniques, and visualization
    capabilities have enabled unprecedented modeling and simulation
    achievements. In December 1999, the first-ever, three dimensional
    simulation of a nuclear weapon primary explosion was successfully
    completed and in April 2000 the first-ever three dimensional simulation
    of a nuclear weapon secondary explosion was successfully completed. At
    about the same time we completed the first-ever , three-dimensional
    computer simulations of a weapon system exposed to hostile radiation
    and blast environments. These simulations included the performance of
    the neutron generator in a radiation field. Only a few years ago, it
    would not have been possible to run these calculations. These
    accomplishments give us high confidence that all computational program
    goals and objectives can be achieved.
        The requested 2002 budget continues the ASCI program at a slightly
    reduced pace. It provides for continued procurement of the 30 teraOPS
    machine for the Los Alamos National Laboratory and for the initiation
    of procurement activities for a 20 teraOPS machine for the Sandia
    National Laboratories and a 60 teraOPS machine for Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory. Final delivery of the 30T machine is scheduled for
    April 2002. The 20T and 60T machines are planned for delivery in fiscal
    years 2003 and 2004, respectively. No commitment can be made for the
    delivery date of the 100 teraOps machine pending completion of the
    strategic review. Development of the weapons performance and
    engineering codes will continue at the planned pace. Major deliverables
    from the code projects are the prototype three-dimensional full-system
    burn code due December 2001 and the completion of a three-dimensional
    safety simulation of a complex explosion-initiated scenario due in the
    fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002. The ASCI University Alliance
    program will be supported in fiscal year 2002 at the same level as in
    fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Why do you need all those large and expensive machines
    since I understand that the laboratories aren't fully utilizing what
    they have?
        Answer. ASCI computers currently at each of the weapons
    laboratories are being fully utilized. At present, about 50 percent of
    the time is devoted to directed stockpile work, about 25 percent is
    utilized for the ASCI milepost calculations, and the remainder supports
    code development and validation activities. We receive and monitor
    monthly machine usage reports from the labs, and we poll the tri-lab
    resource allocation committee frequently. These reports indicate that
    not only are the machines fully utilized, they are oversubscribed as
    measured by the number of jobs waiting in queues in order to gain
    access to the machines. Some jobs wait many days to access these
    limited resources.
        The supercomputers currently at the laboratories are helping us to
    meet the present needs of the stockpile stewardship program but larger
    systems are required, our scientists and engineers say in the 100
    teraOps range, to fully simulate a nuclear detonation.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Domenici. Okay. Thank you all. We stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:19 p.m., Thursday, April 26, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                              TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert F. Bennett presiding.
        Present: Senators Bennett, Craig, Reid, and Dorgan.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

      Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

    STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT DIXON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
                SECRETARY

                               Office of Science

    STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER, ACTING DIRECTOR

                Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, DIRECTOR

                    OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

        Senator Reid [presiding]. The subcommittee is called to
    order.
        Senator Domenici is one of the busiest people around here
    and, as you know, Senator Domenici has the responsibilities to
    lead this subcommittee. And in addition to that, he has other
    responsibilities as one of the senior members around here. He
    is not here now, and he asked me to start this hearing.
        I am not nearly as busy as Senator Domenici, but I also
    have other things to do. And as a result of that, this hearing
    will probably be a little bifurcated, to say the least.
        Senator Domenici has also, I understand, been called to a
    meeting with the leader, Senator Lott, at 10:30. So be patient.
    This could take a little while today, according to what Senator
    Domenici wants. But he did give me permission to start this
    hearing, to get my statement out of the way.
        Let me say that I have a complete statement. I would ask
    you gentlemen--we will submit a copy of it to you, each of you,
    and I would ask you to read it.
        I simply want to say that we welcome you here this morning.
    We have looked at your statements.
        The concern that I have--and Senator Domenici can speak for
    himself, but I think he may have some problems also, I think we
    have some real problems with these numbers here.
        I am very, very concerned that we have these drastic cuts
    in programs that I think are so, so important.
        And we are here today talking about the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Science, the
    Office of Nuclear Energy. Every one of these is so important to
    the future of this country and to the future of the world, and
    to have these severe cuts is really unbelievable.
        We know we need to have new clean energy technologies. They
    are emerging every day. We have to be involved in those. It
    simply will not happen unless there is a clear, unambiguous
    stamp of approval from Congress and the White House for a range
    of policies, mechanisms and funding to move forward.
        We know the benefits of stronger commitments to renewable
    energy, to enhance national security due to reduced dependence
    on foreign sources of oil, enhance security of energy supply,
    revitalize and stabilize agricultural economy, new
    manufacturing and service jobs, increased export markets,
    cleaner air and water, and more sustainable use of productive
    lands and forests.
        So I can certainly make my case by numbers. There is really
    no reason to do that. It is in my statement.
        But we know that on average we throw away about two-thirds
    of the energy we use to generate electricity in the United
    States. The amount of heat energy that is sent up to cooling
    towers down rivers and otherwise wasted is equivalent to
    Japan's total annual energy use.
        Modern combined heat and power plants can more than double
    the efficiency of electricity generation of fossil fuels, but
    without Federal R&D dollars, deployments of these types of
    technologies will be delayed, delayed, and delayed. We have to
    be involved.
        We have heard many times that our nation, which has just 5
    percent of the world's population, produces more than 25
    percent of the CO2 emissions. So no matter where one
    stands on climate changes, this is a percentage that should
    concern everyone, and renewable technologies to help us to
    drive this percentage down.
        We have done so much better in the ability to produce
    electricity by wind. And it is a result of the research that
    has been done, stimulated by the federal Government. Prices
    have dropped 90 percent since 1980 to produce electricity by
    wind, 90 percent. As a result, electricity can now be generated
    more cheaply from wind than natural gas in the United States.
        So I met with some power folks yesterday from Nevada and
    they were very enthused about what Bonneville is attempting to
    do; that is to solicit 1,000 megawatts of wind power for the
    energy-challenged Northeast. And this is a lot of electricity,
    hundreds of thousands of homes.
        North Dakota and Texas, we are told, have enough wind there
    to supply most of the nation's power, just those two States, if
    they had adequate transmission capabilities, properly placed
    R&D investments.
        Around the Nevada test site, we are told that there is
    enough sun there to generate enough solar electricity to take
    care of the whole United States.
        Now, I know that covering this area of Nevada with solar
    panels is probably not very practical, but it shows what can be
    done. And right now in most of that area, there is nothing.
    That is where we have set off bombs.
        But none of this is going to happen unless we do some
    research and development to continue that. I know that the Vice
    President, the Secretary of Energy, and the rest of the members
    of the present energy task force are some place, and they are
    trying to solve all these energy problems. And I think it is
    important that they are doing that.
        But one of the places we have to start is right here with
    this subcommittee. And I think that you should all take the
    message back to the Administration that these cuts simply will
    not happen.
        So each of you should go back to your offices and tell the
    Office of Management and Budget that you are going to get more
    money. And if they need to prove how you are going to spend it,
    that is fine. But you are going to have more money.
        We are not going to stand by at a time when we are talking
    about blackouts, global warming and all the other things, to
    cut back on something this important.
        Is Senator Domenici on his way, do you think?
        Staff. I believe he is on his way.
        Senator Reid. Senator Domenici is on his way, and you would
    be surprised what I have also. I have a Travel and Tourism
    matter at 10:15. I have got the Interior Committee, where we
    are going to hear from the head of the Forest Service at 10
    o'clock. And then Senator Daschle has called me to a meeting in
    his office at 10:30. So I am sorry that we have all that.

                         STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT DIXON

        I would like Dr. Robert Dixon, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
    Office of Power Technologies, to proceed with your statement.
        Dr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are submitting
    written testimony for the record. I would also like to offer an
    oral statement this morning. And we have made copies of the
    statement available for Members----
        Senator Reid. That will be made part of the record.

                FISCAL YEAR 2002 RENEWABLE ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST

        Dr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, good morning and thank you for the
    opportunity to present our fiscal year 2002 budget request for
    the energy and water development programs in Renewable Energy
    Resources.
        I am Dr. Robert K. Dixon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
    the Office of Power Technologies. I'm here today on behalf of
    our Acting Director, Dr. Abraham Haspel, who was called away,
    due to some serious health problems.
        The energy investments proposed in our 2002 budget request
    address today's energy problems and provide the technology base
    for the next generation of energy needs. These investments can
    help reduce our dependence on imported energy sources, address
    the critical need for expanded energy supply and upgrade the
    energy infrastructure in the electric power sector.
        The 2002 budget request totals almost $277 million. This
    figure includes an amendment to our original budget request for
    a little more than $39 million. The Administration expects to
    submit this amendment in the next few days.
        In an effort to control spending, it's always necessary to
    identify priorities and focus on the most critical activities.
    Because of their strategic importance, the Secretary has
    identified five programs to be funded at or near fiscal year
    2001 levels.
        These programs include bioenergy, hydrogen, hydropower,
    electric energy systems and the Renewable Energy Production
    Incentive program.
        While we have adjusted the request for our other programs,
    the requested funding levels still maintain core competencies
    and allow a continued progress towards our national technology
    goals.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that solar, wind and
    geothermal programs remain a vital part of our portfolio and
    are essential to implementing a balanced and robust national
    energy policy.
        Next graphic, please.
        [Presentation of a slide.]

                            NATIONAL ENERGY PROBLEM

        Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, clearly we are facing severe
    national energy problems. The President of the United States
    recently called the electricity crunch a national crisis.
        If the worst-case electricity shortage scenarios occur, up
    to two-thirds of the 125 million American electricity users
    could be affected. We have developed an alternative energy R&D
    portfolio that is responsive to these national needs.
        Next graphic, please.
        [Presentation of a slide.]
        Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, we are working together. We have a
    window of opportunity to address national energy problems. The
    new national energy plan, which is being developed under the
    leadership of Vice President Cheney is expected to be released
    in the next several weeks and will contain important guidance
    for the future directions and priorities of our programs.
        The Hydrogen Reauthorization Bill is before Congress. It
    lays the foundation for revitalization of the nation's energy
    infrastructure, a critically important undertaking in solving
    America's energy crisis.
        Hydroelectricity, a vital resource today, could be
    significantly less important in the future if we do not
    streamline our re-licensing processes.
        Creation of new rules of the game for utility markets and
    regulation is proving to be an extraordinarily complex
    undertaking. We can do better.
        Our power generation, transmission and distribution
    infrastructure needs to be modernized. We need new power
    supplies and an up-to-date infrastructure to keep the lights on
    and the Internet humming.
        The electricity intensity of the newly emerging E-commerce
    sector is placing great demands on our power system, and is
    spurring the transition from the analog to the digital age for
    power.
        Mr. Chairman, this is truly a decade of decision for
    alternative energy R&D investments.
        Next graphic, please.
        [Presentation of a slide.]

                              RENEWABLE ENERGY R&D

        Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, this is our portfolio of
    technologies and programs. We invest in three areas: Renewable
    energy, distributed energy resources, and electricity system
    reliability and power quality.
        I will highlight two of the Secretary's fiscal year 2002
    R&D priorities, bioenergy and distributed energy resources,
    before I close my remarks.
        Mr. Chairman, our proposed bioenergy activities focus on
    three elements: Biomass for electric power production, biomass
    for transportation fuels, and biomass for industrial feed
    stocks and products.
        We are requesting almost $82 million for collaborative
    research and we are working hard to align our program to help
    carry out the Biomass R&D Act of 2000.
        We are working very closely with our industrial and
    academic partners and with other Federal agencies, especially
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
        Next graphic, please.
        [Presentation of a slide.]

                          DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES

        Dr. Dixon. Mr. Chairman, our activities in distributed
    energy resources are an example of our 2002 budget directions
    and priorities.
        Distributed energy is an important concept in a
    restructured utility market that focuses on energy technologies
    that can be installed on site, provide clean, affordable,
    reliable energy supplies directly to the consumers. Natural gas
    is an important fuel for the distributed energy systems of
    today and for tomorrow.
        The nation needs a distributed energy system that can
    operate efficiently and safely in concert with the traditional
    power system. It needs to be integrated, optimized, seamless
    and able to incorporate emerging technologies.
        For example, hydrogen energy is plentiful and clean and is
    compatible with existing distributed energy devices, such as
    fuel cells, engines and combustion turbines. Distributed energy
    resources provide new supplies and address the nation's aging
    transmission and distribution infrastructure.
        Approximately 70 percent of the transmission lines,
    transformer banks, circuit breakers in the United States are
    over 25 years old. And we greatly need to work together to
    improve or upgrade or replace this equipment.
        The proposed program, Electric Energy Systems, includes
    funding for high-temperature superconductivity, R&D for cables,
    motors, and transformers that have near-zero line losses.
        Mr. Chairman, our distributed energy resources portfolio is
    responsive to our nation's near and long-term energy needs.
        I would like to close my remarks by highlighting a few key
    points. The 2002 budget request provides for a robust portfolio
    of research and development programs in renewable and energy
    efficiency resources.
        These Federal investments are critical to address America's
    energy needs, both today and in the future. Again our request
    is almost $277 million, this figure--and it includes an
    amendment for a little over $39 million, which will be
    submitted by the Administration in the near future.
        The Secretary has identified five programs to be funded at
    or near the 2001 levels. These include bioenergy, hydrogen,
    hydropower, electric energy systems and the renewable energy
    production incentive activity.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to offer this
    presentation today. I stand ready to respond to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert K. Dixon

        Chairman Domenici, Senator Reid and members of the Subcommittee, it
    is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Administration's fiscal
    year 2002 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy. Fiscal year 2002 is a transition year for our
    programs. Our budget supports the Administration's commitment to
    moderate discretionary spending while meeting critical national needs
    in energy security and environmental quality. Furthermore, our budget
    adjusts program requests to refine the Department's missions, and to
    allow the implementation of management strategies that will meet future
    challenges.
        The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's budget also
    reflects two Administration themes: first, enhancing energy security--
    decreasing U.S. reliance on oil imports by increasing technology
    efficiencies and by increasing domestic renewable energy supplies; and
    second, enhancing electricity reliability--ensuring grid reliability
    and advancing small-scale, on-site power generation. While we have
    adjusted the requests for some of our programs, we are still presenting
    a strong portfolio of R&D activities in fiscal year 2002. Many of our
    programs such as Distributed Energy Resources, bioenergy, hydrogen,
    hydropower, electric energy systems, the Renewable Energy Production
    Incentive are held at or near fiscal year 2001 levels.
        The beginning of this decade has already borne witness to the
    impending energy problems that face our nation and this planet. The
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's mission of advancing
    clean energy technologies, including energy efficiency and renewable
    energy, 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 and demonstration of
    affordable, advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technology
    and practices.
        The Administration plans to send an fiscal year 2002 budget
    amendment to the Congress that reduces funding of $39.176M from the
    Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program (within the
    Interior and Related Agencies account) and increases several renewable
    activities. More detailed information is included in the following
    budget table.
        Recently, the electricity situation in California and other western
    states have highlighted the effects of low capacity margins for
    electricity generation. Additionally, the National Electricity
    Reliability Council predicts that over 35 states will be operating with
    capacity margins under 10 percent by the year 2009. Another data point
    in the emerging energy crisis comes from the petroleum product price
    spikes in the Midwest and northeast last summer. I would offer that the
    results of our program like: superconducting wires, distributed power
    generation, and biofuels for cars and trucks, represent government
    programs that might make a difference. The Federal Government remains
    committed to helping develop renewable energy technologies to help
    relieve these problems.
        Our Office of Power Technologies is leading research efforts to
    significantly improve energy reliability and power quality through the
    use of on-site distributed energy resources that reduce energy losses
    and increase stability of the national grid. Moving energy supplies
    closer to the point of end-use provides advantages in: load management,
    power quality, high efficiency and reliability.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        The following table provides details of our fiscal year 2002 budget
    request. The sections following the table describe ongoing programs and
    our fiscal year 2002 budget request for renewable energy resources and
    program direction.

                       OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY--FISCAL YEAR 2002 REQUEST
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal      Fiscal                   Request
                                Program                               year 2001  year 2002  Amendment \1\     with
                                                                     comparable   request                  amendment
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Renewable Energy Resources.....................................     373,179    237,477       39,176      276,653
    Biomass/biofuels Energy Systems................................      86,268     80,500        1,455       81,955
    Geothermal Technology Develop..................................      26,911     13,900  .............     13,900
    Hydrogen Research..............................................      26,881     13,900       12,981       26,881
    Hydropower.....................................................       4,989      2,500        2,489        4,989
    Solar Energy:
        Concentrating Solar Power..................................      13,710      1,932  .............      1,932
        Photovoltaic Energy........................................      75,060     39,000  .............     39,000
        Solar Buildings............................................       3,911      2,000  .............      2,000
    Wind Energy....................................................      39,553     20,500  .............     20,500
    Electric Energy Systems & Storage..............................      51,746     33,927       17,819       51,746
    Renewable Support & Implementation:
        Departmental Energy Mgmt...................................       1,984      1,000  .............      1,000
        International Renewable Energy.............................       4,949  .........        2,500        2,500
        Renewable Energy Production Incentive......................       3,991      2,059        1,932        3,991
        Renewable Indian Energy Resources..........................       6,585  .........  .............  .........
        Renewable Program Support..................................       3,991      2,059  .............      2,059
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory...........................       3,991      5,000  .............      5,000
    Program Direction..............................................      18,659     19,200  .............     19,200
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------
          Total, Renewable Energy Resources........................     373,179    237,477       39,176     276,653
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The amendment is expected to be submitted by the Administration in the next several weeks.

                           renewable energy resources
    Biomass/Biofuels and the Bioenergy Research and Development Initiative
            ($81.9M)
        The Bioenergy Initiative provides an integrated framework for
    collaborative research and development to improve our Nation's ability
    to not only convert biomass into electric power, heat, and clean liquid
    transportation fuels, but also extract high-value biobased industrial
    materials such as chemicals, plastics, and building materials.
        Developing this ``home-grown'' resource with multiple applications
    can provide significant near term benefits to many sectors of our
    economy, contributing to a healthier, more robust rural economy;
    improved environmental quality; and reduced oil imports. Our biomass
    activities in the Energy and Water Development account focus on two
    distinct elements: Biopower, which co-fires biomass with coal or
    gasifies biomass material that is combusted to generate power; and
    Biofuels, which converts agricultural products to ethanol. Combined,
    these core activities provide the underpinnings of our national effort
    to more effectively utilize a vast domestic resource. With the strong
    support from industry, government, academia, and the national
    laboratories, we believe that biomass holds great promise to help meet
    our future energy needs.
    Biopower Systems ($37.8M)
        The Biomass Power Systems Program works towards making biopower
    systems a significant contributor to the U.S. energy market by 2010,
    through collaboration with the private-sector and other Federal
    agencies, and by providing power in a variety of settings, including
    utility and distributed applications. Biomass systems promise to help
    meet our national energy needs, while simultaneously strengthening
    conventional energy security, protecting our environment, and improving
    our rural economy. To meet these objectives, biopower R&D involves a
    combination of
    near-, mid-, and long-term activities. Biopower activities fall within
    five categories: Thermochemical Conversion ($4.0M); Systems Development
    ($26.6M); Feedstock Production ($3.5M); Regional Energy Biomass program
    ($1.2M); and Bioenergy ($2.5M).
        Thermochemical Conversion.--This effort conducts basic and applied
    research, testing, and feasibility studies in the areas of biomass
    combustion and biomass gasification to provide the foundation for
    advanced and improved technology. Experimental research is conducted in
    the areas of biomass combustion and cofiring as well as on the coupling
    of biomass conversion devices to power generation equipment, including
    engines, gas turbines and fuel cells. Analytical studies are also
    conducted on the cost, performance, economic potential, and life-cycle
    emissions of existing, novel, and competing power generation
    technologies. In fiscal year 2002, the program will add research
    efforts that support systems integrated research and modeling efforts
    of gasification, including gas cleanup and conditioning.
        Systems Development.--Within Systems Development the programs
    focuses on Cofiring with Coal, Biomass Power for Rural development,
    Small Modular Biopower and Gasification R&D. Our cofiring activities
    will continue developing co-firing coal and biomass by exploring
    advanced technologies that enhance system reliability, performance, and
    efficiencies including work with municipalities and rural electric
    cooperatives. Performance is monitored and verified by analyzing
    initial cofiring and feedstock production trials and establishing
    operation and maintenance protocols.
        Biomass Power for Rural Development activities include the New York
    Salix Willow project that will produce 30-40 MW of generating capacity
    through cofired applications, and the Iowa Chariton Valley Switchgrass
    project that will utilize up to 50,000 acres of switchgrass dedicated
    to co-firing operations. Performance will be measured by completing two
    Biomass Power for Rural Development projects with more than 50 MW of
    new biomass power generating capacity.
        The Small Modular biopower program continues its efforts to
    research and develop systems that integrate small scale gasifiers with
    advanced power generating components such as internal combustion (IC)
    engines, microturbines and fuel cells. Performance will be measured
    through field verification R&D of systems that are being developed
    under current contracts. This effort will be expanded to include other
    feedstocks, to increase the flexibility, applicability and reliability
    of these systems.
        The Vermont Gasifier R&D project has been completed and the
    technology is being commercialized by the contractor (FERCO). Efforts
    will now focus R&D on technologies that produce product gas from a
    broad range of biomass feedstocks. These efforts will focus on gas
    production, hot gas cleanup, gas preparation, and innovative and
    productive uses of gasifier waste streams. This R&D will form the basis
    for future bio-refinery development.
        Feedstock Production.--This program focuses on research to improve
    yields and reduce handling costs of herbaceous and woody crops produced
    on farms. We will continue efforts to create tools for evaluating
    viability of multiple bioenergy technologies, with an emphasis on
    Biopower, and their impact on feedstock demand. Performance will be
    measured by developing 3 high-yield willow clones which increase yields
    by at least 20 percent. A slight increase in fiscal year 2002 will be
    used to fund an assessment of the effects of variability in soil type
    and climate on feedstock characteristics relevant to combustion and
    gasification systems and on soil carbon sequestration processes, as
    well as yield variability.
        Regional Energy Biomass Program.--The activity sponsors grants to
    State Energy Offices that enable technology transfer and industry
    support of activities to expand the near-term use of biomass conversion
    technologies and provide reliable information to potential biomass
    users. This funding continuation will sponsor grants to State Energy
    Offices and local industries for biomass power projects as well as to
    complete the integration of biomass resource assessments.
    Biofuels ($44.8M)
        The Ethanol Program funds research, development, and demonstration
    of technology to enable and support the expansion of an indigenous,
    integrated biomass-based industry that will reduce reliance on imported
    fuels; promote rural economic development; and provide for productive
    utilization of agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes.
    Ethanol activities are divided into five activities: Ethanol Production
    ($34.6M); Renewable Diesel Alternatives ($750,000); Feedstock
    Production ($3.5M); Regional Biomass Energy Program ($2.0M) and
    Integrated Bioenergy Research ($2.5M).
        Ethanol Production.--The Ethanol Program has identified ethanol as
    the most promising near-term/mid-term liquid transportation fuels
    option. In the next several years, we expect industry to deploy ethanol
    by using underutilized agricultural components (e.g., corn fiber and
    stover), because they are readily available as low-cost feedstock
    materials. Energy crops are being developed for the long-term, as
    demand increases and as scientific and engineering advances make the
    growing, collection, and conversion of these feedstocks more
    affordable. We believe that many of the advances in reducing ethanol
    production costs depend on the development of cost-effective enzyme
    technology to break down cellulose to simple sugars. These sugars can
    be converted to ethanol and/or to other chemicals (lactic acid and
    levulinic acid, among others), which can be used in an integrated
    biorefinery of the future. Ethanol production activities are divided
    into Advanced Fermentation; Advanced Cellulase R&D; Pretreatment R&D;
    and Cellulose to Ethanol production facilities.
        Our Advanced Fermentation activities collaborate with industry and
    academia to develop organism platforms with increased stability,
    robustness, and ability to ferment mixed sugars from cellulosic wastes,
    agricultural residues, and energy crops such as switchgrass, and to
    lower the cost of ethanol production from biomass. Increased funding of
    $2,000,000 will initiate yeast platform work by developing advanced
    genetic engineering tools and begin nine genetic manipulation of
    promising yeast strains. Performance will be measured by developing a
    yeast that can ferment the biomass-derived sugars, glucose, arabinose
    and xylose to meet cost goals for ethanol low blend markets. This yeast
    can also be the basis for the production of other high-value chemicals.
        Our Cellulose to Ethanol production facilities effort will continue
    to support partnerships to demonstrate cost-effective conversion of
    corn stalks to ethanol. The use of corn fiber for ethanol production
    offers an opportunity for integrating cellulosic ethanol into existing
    commercial corn-derived facilities. Competitive solicitations will be
    conducted to support the integration of cellulosic conversion processes
    with existing commercial facilities. Performance will be measured by
    demonstrating feasibility of commercially producing ethanol and co-
    products from corn fiber stream, in partnership with a major ethanol
    producer. Decreased funding will reduce the number and require higher
    cost share by industry partners, in order to focus on core R&D
    (Advanced Organism R&D, Advanced Cellulase R&D, Pretreatment R&D) and
    integrated process testing.
        Pretreatment R&D.--Increased funding of $2,400,000 in fiscal year
    2002 will focus on developing and understanding fundamental principles
    of biomass depolymerizations, in collaboration with academia and
    industry, to aid in developing novel pretreatment systems to improve
    process efficiency and reduce costs.
        The Feedstock Development Centers program conducts research and
    development of model energy crops and residues at integrated biomass
    feedstock development centers in the Southeast and Midwest/Plains
    States. Projects include residue management, breeding, physiology,
    advanced biotechnology, carbon sequestration and storage. The funding
    decrease eliminates research and development of model tree crops such
    as hybrid poplar and willow at the integrated biomass feedstock
    development centers, consistent with analyses indicating that
    agricultural residues and perennial grasses have better potential as
    feedstocks for ethanol and biobased chemicals production in the near
    and mid-term.
    Geothermal Energy Technology Development ($13.9M)
        The Geothermal Technology Development Program works in partnership
    with U.S. industry to establish geothermal energy as an economically
    competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. The Program sponsors
    research and development that will help the United States realize
    substantial economic, environmental, and energy security benefits.
    Technology improvements will reduce the levelized cost of generating
    geothermal power to 3 to 5 cents/kWh by 2010, as compared to 5 to 8
    cents/kWh in 2000.
        In helping to meet the priority needs of industry, the Program will
    focus primarily on exploration and drilling research. Better
    understanding of geothermal processes and improved analytical methods
    of exploration will enable industry to locate and characterize new
    geothermal fields. Advanced technology for drilling wells will provide
    access to deeper resources while lowering costs, thereby expanding the
    economic resource base. Program goals will be achieved with a balanced
    strategy of technology improvements in partnership with industry on
    cost-shared, competitively-selected projects.
        The Geothermal program is divided into three activities: Geoscience
    and Supporting Technologies ($3.5M), Exploration and Drilling Research
    ($6.9M), and Energy Systems Research and Testing ($3.5M).
        Geoscience and Supporting Research.--Two activities are funded
    within this category: Core Research and University Research. Within the
    Core Research program, the Department will continue to investigate
    complex natural geothermal processes and develop technology to
    facilitate producing geothermal resources in an economical manner.
    Research activities include improving reservoir models, studying
    fracture dynamics, developing tracers, and conducting geochemical
    research. The funding provides for a continuation of projects in
    reservoir management that promise to give industry reliable tools for
    reservoir analysis and production. Our University Research efforts will
    focus on earth science at studies universities to expand the geothermal
    knowledge base. Knowledge gained from this work will result in new and
    improved technology that will help meet cost goals. The decrease in
    funding reflects the completion, or termination, of multi-year grant
    awards and a realignment of project activities to complement core
    research. No funding is requested in fiscal year 2002 for Enhanced
    Geothermal Systems.
        Exploration and Drilling Research.--We will continue cost-shared
    exploration projects initiated with industry in fiscal year 2000 to
    find and confirm new geothermal resources within the United States. We
    will also continue to conduct geophysical, geological, and geochemical
    exploration research. Work will continue on developing new drilling
    components, such as the Diagnostics-While-Drilling subsystem, for
    integration into an Advanced Drilling System that will reduce the cost
    of drilling geothermal wells by up to 50 percent, from $300 per foot in
    2000 to $150 per foot by 2008.
        Energy Systems Research and Testing.--Advanced heat and power
    systems activities seek to improve technology in heat conversion and
    power systems for application to a broad range of geothermal resources
    and environmental conditions. The subactivity involves laboratory
    research on innovative systems, including heat exchangers, air-cooled
    condensers, and other components, for both low and high temperature
    applications. The reduction in funding stems from the completion of
    work on advanced heat cycles and some condenser studies. Finally, no
    funding has been requested for the Geopowering the West initiative.
    Fiscal year 2001 efforts will be completed and information accumulated
    will be shared with the public.
    Hydrogen Research ($26.9M)
        The Hydrogen Program includes research and validation projects for
    the development of safe, cost-effective hydrogen energy technologies
    that support and foster hydrogen energy as an integral part of the
    energy economy. To enable a future that includes hydrogen energy, four
    strategies are pursued that will provide benefits in efficiency,
    environment and economy. (1) Expand the use of hydrogen by working with
    industry, including hydrogen producers, to improve efficiency, lower
    emissions, and lower the cost of technologies that produce hydrogen
    from natural gas. (2) Work with fuel cell manufacturers to develop
    hydrogen-based electricity storage and generation systems that will
    enhance the introduction and penetration of distributed, renewables-
    based utility systems. (3) Continue to coordinate with the Department
    of Transportation and EERE's Office of Transportation Technologies to
    demonstrate safe and cost-effective fueling systems for hydrogen
    vehicles in urban non-attainment areas and to provide on-board hydrogen
    storage systems. (4) Work with the National Laboratories to lower the
    cost of technologies that produce hydrogen directly from sunlight and
    water. The Hydrogen program is divided into three activities: Core
    Research and Development ($14.8M); Technology Validation ($9.0M); and
    Analysis and Outreach ($3.1M).
        In fiscal year 2002 our emphasis in the Core Research and
    Development Program will be on thermal processes that improve the
    efficiency and lower the cost of fossil-based and biomass-based
    hydrogen production processes to achieve $12-$15 per million Btu for
    (5000 psi) pressurized hydrogen when reformers are mass produced; on
    photolytic processes that support research into biological systems and
    advanced semi-conductors which will directly split water to hydrogen
    and oxygen; on storage activities to develop and demonstrate safe and
    cost-effective storage systems for use in stationary distributed
    electricity generation and for stationary and vehicle applications in
    urban non-attainment areas; and utilization which is developing a
    technology blue print for new building codes and equipment standards
    for hydrogen technologies. By 2005, we expect to meet key milestones
    for engineering validation of several reversible fuel cell systems.
        We will perform Technology Validation activities that include
    installing and operating a biomass to hydrogen conversion system as
    well as installing and testing an integrated wind/reversible hydrogen
    fuel cell system incorporating hydrogen storage. An important outcome
    of these activities is to confirm their economic viability in remote
    and distributed applications. In order to understand the requirements
    and operation, by 2010, we expect to validate distributed hydrogen
    refueling systems for hydrogen electric vehicles in collaboration with
    state and local governments. The fueling system will show the use of
    high pressure storage systems. We will also explore hydrogen use in
    distributed energy systems.
    Hydropower ($5.0M)
        Working with industry and other Federal agencies, the Hydropower
    Program's R&D activities support the development of a new generation of
    more environmentally-friendly hydropower turbines. Current hydropower
    technology, while essentially emission-free, can have undesirable
    environmental effects, such as fish injury and mortality from passage
    through turbines, as well as detrimental changes in the quality of
    dissolved gases in downstream water. Advanced hydropower turbine
    technology could minimize these adverse effects and help preserve the
    Nation's ability to generate electricity from an important renewable
    resource. Fiscal year 2002 activities will focus on Biologically-Based
    Criteria Development, Advanced Turbine Pilot-Scale Testing, Low-Head/
    Low Power Testing and Mini-Hydro Research and Development.
    Solar Energy Programs ($42.9M)
        The fiscal year 2002 funding request for the Solar Energy Programs
    (Concentrating Solar Power, Photovoltaics, and Solar Buildings) is
    $42.9M. The program supports R&D that improves the performance and
    reliability while reducing the cost of solar technologies that can
    harness the sun's energy. With their inherent flexibility and
    scalability, the solar programs support a tremendous range of
    applications including large-scale power production, on-site
    electricity generation, and thermal energy for space heating and hot
    water.
        Concentrating Solar Power--$1.9M.--This funding request provides
    for program close-out costs. After the installation and checkout of the
    25 kW dish system at the University of Nevada has been completed, all
    program activities will be terminated.
        Photovoltaics--$39.0M.--The Photovoltaics program is divided into
    three activities: Fundamental Research ($9.4M); Advanced Materials
    ($20.1M); and Technology Development ($9.5M).
        Fundamental Research.--Within this account we will continue
    research to identify efficiency-limiting defects and advance the
    fundamental understanding of both PV materials and devices using state-
    of-the-art characterization techniques. We will continue university and
    industrial research in response to competitive solicitation issued in
    fiscal year 2000 for basic R&D on breakthrough, non-conventional PV
    technologies (Beyond the Horizon) and conduct research and analysis
    that improves the understanding of fundamental properties and
    performance of crystalline silicon, thin film materials and novel
    materials and cell devices. We will reduce High Performance Initiative
    to focus only on contracts that can lead to higher efficiency thin film
    technologies and will postpone contracts and research on 33 percent
    concentrator systems.
        Advanced Materials.--We will re-compete the Thin Film Partnership
    Program in fiscal year 2002 and fund industry cost shared contracts
    that address near term advancements. Support will continue on high
    efficiency devices and silicon crystal growth methods but with a
    reduced emphasis. We will fully fund the 3-year cost shared contracts
    for a new competitive solicitation to develop in-situ process
    diagnostics and intelligent processing needed for integrated module
    manufacturing scale-up. All contracts will have 50 percent cost
    sharing. The Advanced Manufacturing R&D activity will focus on high
    throughput large area thin films and next generation high efficiency
    thin wafer silicon technologies.
        Technology Development.--All manufacturing R&D and PVMaT activities
    under Technology Development will be completed in fiscal year 2001.
    These cost-shared contracts achieved manufacturing cost reductions of
    50 percent from 1996 levels. More advanced R&D activities are being
    funded in Advanced Materials and Devices. The systems and reliability
    activity will refocus its efforts on the critical need to improve
    reliability of the entire PV system, including balance-of-system
    components such as inverters. This effort also supports development of
    standards and codes, and procedures for certifying performance of
    commercial systems. No funding is requested for the Million Solar Roofs
    program in fiscal year 2002. Commitments for installation of nearly a
    million ``roofs'' have already been received. This activity will be
    privatized in fiscal year 2002.
        Solar Building Technology Research--$2.0M. In our Space
    Conditioning and Water Heating activity, we will build and field test
    prototypes of a low-cost solar water heater, utilizing newly-developed
    polymers, in collaboration with industrial partners.
    Wind Energy Systems ($20.5M)
        The fiscal year 2002 funding request for the Wind Energy Systems
    Program is $20.5M. The program helps the United States attain the
    substantial economic, environmental, and energy security benefits of
    expanding the domestic and worldwide use of wind energy, and of
    fostering a world-class, domestic wind energy industry. The Program
    focuses on completing the research, testing, and field verification
    needed by U.S. industry to fully develop advanced wind energy
    technologies, and on coordinating with partners and stakeholders to
    overcome barriers to wind energy use. Over the last decade, wind has
    shown high promise for becoming a major supply of low cost, clean
    energy in the United States. However, wind is still contributing only a
    small fraction of its potential and faces many challenges to becoming a
    substantial contributor to U.S. energy supply, particularly in dynamic
    restructured markets for electric power. As a result of increased U.S.
    wind energy development, industry, states, and stakeholder partners are
    becoming more active in supporting activities to facilitate further
    introduction of wind energy. The Wind Energy program has three
    components: Applied Research ($8.4M); Turbine Research ($7.5M) and
    Cooperative Research and Testing ($4.6M).
        Applied Research.--Continue research efforts in wind turbine
    aerodynamics, structures, materials, advanced components, and wind
    characteristics to support development of new or improved tools for
    advanced wind energy system design and applications, with a focus on
    enabling low wind speed turbine technology. Performance measures in
    fiscal year 2002 will include completion of one year of data collection
    under the Long-Term Inflow and Structures Test and completion of design
    code validation using wind tunnel test data obtained in fiscal year
    2000. Reduced funding for fiscal year 2002 follows from completion of
    advanced control systems field testing and several activities for
    refinement and validation of design codes in fiscal year 2001.
        Wind Partnerships for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT).--
    Conclude wind turbine system scaling analyses and prepare final
    reports. As a result of expanded industry interest and research
    capabilities, transition advanced drive train and rotor blade projects
    to industry partners. Prototype testing for a sub-scale advanced drive
    train system and proof of concept blade fabrication processes will
    commence at the end of fiscal year 2002
        Turbine Research.--Our activities in the Next Generation Turbine
    research will focus on completing design and begin fabrication of final
    prototype turbines. Funding is decreased as industry partners begin
    assuming higher share of project costs. The Low Wind Speed Turbine
    activity is the follow on from the fiscal year 2001 Advanced Turbine
    Concepts activity. In coordination with the outcome of the WindPACT
    project, we will complete Advanced Turbine Concepts studies initiated
    in fiscal year 2001 to identify promising technology path(s) leading to
    cost-effective wind turbines for sites with annual average wind speeds
    of 13 miles per hour. Two industry partners will be competitively
    selected to continue WindPACT component technology research efforts and
    to commence a multi-year effort to develop cost-effective low wind
    speed turbines.
        Cooperative Research and Testing.--Fiscal year 2002 funding will
    support laboratory testing and design review services in support of the
    U.S. wind turbine certification agent. We will continue to operate the
    National Wind Technology Center facilities at the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory, and provide testing support to industry. In our
    Regional Field Verification activities we will complete development
    activities and commence field operation of projects selected in fiscal
    year 2001, and provide technical, data collection, analysis, and
    reporting support to cost-sharing project hosts. Project development
    reports will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2002.
    Electric Energy Systems and Storage ($51.7M)
        The request is $51.7M, level with fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
    The program is divided into three activities: High Temperature
    Superconducting R&D ($36.8M); Energy Storage Systems ($6.0M); and
    Transmission Reliability ($8.9M). The Electric Energy Systems and
    Storage programs conduct research and development of advanced
    technologies to enhance the reliability of electric power transmission
    and distribution and to significantly improve efficiency, reliability,
    capacity, and power quality of electric generation, delivery, and end-
    use in the United States. Energy Storage and Transmission Reliability
    program goals are to develop energy storage facilities with an energy
    density greater than 5kWh per square foot at a cost below $700/kWh; and
    improving the reliability of electric power generation and distribution
    system through the integration and interconnection of distributed
    energy resources (at least 20 percent of new installed capacity by
    2012) and integrating real time measurement and control networks
    throughout the grid. The fiscal year 2002 request is $51.7M, level with
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
        The successful, industry-led, Superconductivity Partnership
    Initiative supports aggressive projects to design advanced electrical
    applications such as generators, transformers, motors, transmission
    cables, current controllers, flywheel energy systems, and magnetic
    separation systems. The industry-led Second Generation Wire Development
    exploits breakthroughs at national laboratories that promise
    unprecedented current-carrying capacity in high-temperature
    superconducting wires. Several industry teams are now working with the
    national laboratories to scale-up the new discoveries. The strategic
    research component, led by the national laboratories, provides the
    underlying knowledge base needed for the success of these
    superconductivity projects. The goal of high-temperature
    superconductivity is to reduce energy losses by half and provide
    equipment half the size of current systems by 2010 through the use of
    high temperature superconducting wires to create super efficient
    generators, transformers, and transmission cables.
        DOE's Energy Storage and Transmission Reliability are part of a
    portfolio of Distributed Energy Resources activities that work together
    to implement DER technology deployment strategies that address
    standards making, infrastructure, energy delivery, technical,
    institutional, and regulatory needs. Transmission Reliability research
    develops real-time measurement and control networks, and electric
    system models and tools. This research ensures reliable and efficient
    grid operations and markets while integrating distributed energy in the
    competitive marketplace. It also removes technical, regulatory and
    institutional barriers and develops interconnection standards for
    deployment of DER near the potential users. Energy Storage Systems
    funds the design of integrated systems, research on advanced storage
    components, and development of economic and performance models. The
    Department partners with EPRI, the National Rural Electric Cooperative
    Association (NRECA), the American Public Power Association (APPA), the
    electricity industry, National Laboratories and universities to
    implement research and development activities.
        High Temperature Superconducting R&D.--The High Temperature
    Superconductivity (HTS) R&D program investigates the properties of
    crystalline materials that become free of electrical resistance at the
    temperature of liquid nitrogen. The lack of electrical resistance makes
    possible electrical power systems, super-efficient generators,
    transformers, and transmission cables, that reduce energy losses by
    half and allow equipment to be half the size of present electrical
    systems. Electrical wires from high temperature superconductivity
    ceramic materials will carry 100 times the amount of electricity
    compared to the same diameter conventional copper wires. Three
    activities comprise the High Temperature Superconducting R&D program:
    Superconductivity Partnership Initiative; the Second Generation Wire
    Initiative; and Strategic Research.
        The Superconductivity Partnership Initiative funding provides for
    field testing and evaluation of cost-shared, competitively selected,
    major projects with industry to develop electrical systems
    demonstrating advances in efficiency and reliability from use of the
    latest high temperature superconducting wire.
        Energy Storage, together with other distributed energy resources,
    provides the high nines of reliability required by the digital economy,
    telecommunication, and high tech manufacturing. While today's grid can
    at best give 3 nines of reliability, energy storage provides seamless
    power during micro outages, voltage sags, and frequency disturbances.
    Such disturbances are estimated to cost U.S. industry up to $150
    billion per year. Energy storage systems, backed up by distributed
    generation, are the cost effective way to provide required reliability
    for the consumer. Fiscal year 2002 funding of $5.9M is at last year's
    levels.
        Transmission Reliability.--Transmission Reliability will be
    implemented through National laboratory/electricity industry/university
    partnerships to conduct research on the reliability of the Nation's
    electricity infrastructure. Power System Reliability will develop
    advanced transmission technologies that promote competitive markets,
    ensure system reliability, increase network capacity for large scale,
    long distance power transfers, and promote the large scale integration
    of distributed energy resources into power system operations and
    competitive electricity markets. Fiscal year 2002 funding of $8.9M is
    at last year's levels.
    Renewable Support and Implementation ($9.5M)
        The Renewable Support and Implementation line item is comprised of
    several programs submitted in prior year budgets as separate line
    items: Departmental Energy Management; International Renewable Energy
    Program; Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program; Renewable
    Indian Energy Resources; and Renewable Program Support. These programs
    collectively encourage the use of renewable energy technologies by
    state and local governmental entities, internationally in developing
    countries worldwide, non-profit electric cooperatives, residents in
    remote areas of the U.S. not served or under-served by the electric
    grid, and Native Americans both on Tribal lands and at Tribal colleges
    and universities. Renewable Support also includes activities which
    promote the use of renewable technologies, improved energy efficiency
    measures, and better management of utility costs at Department of
    Energy facilities throughout the country.
        Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP).--The fiscal year
    2002 request is $1.0M. The Departmental Energy Management Program is
    administered by the Federal Energy Management Program's (FEMP)
    Departmental Utility and Energy Team (DUET). DUET targets FEMP services
    at DOE facilities to improve energy and water efficiency, promote
    renewable energy use, and manage utility costs in DOE's facilities and
    operations.
        International Renewable Energy Program. Our fiscal year 2002
    request for the International Renewable Energy Program (IREP) is $2.5M.
    The program supports diplomatic and technical assistance efforts to
    encourage the use of renewable energy technologies in economies in
    transition and developing countries worldwide.
        Renewable Energy Production Incentive. Our fiscal year 2002 request
    for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive is $4.0M, equal to
    current levels. This program encourages state and local governmental
    entities (usually public power electric utilities) and non-profit
    electric cooperatives to acquire renewable energy generation resources
    by providing financial incentives comparable to production tax
    incentives or investment tax credits that are available to private
    sector power generators.
        Renewable Indian Energy Resources.--No funding is being requested
    for the Indian Renewable Energy Resources Program.
        Renewable Program Support.--The fiscal year 2002 request is $2.0M.
    The Competitive Solicitation Program obtains, analyzes, and
    disseminates essential cost and operational information needed to
    improve the efficiency and effectiveness of renewable energy projects,
    as well as to remove the perceptions of risk in selecting renewable
    energy and hybrid renewable energy generation systems for use in the
    competitive power market. The Electricity Restructuring activity
    provides Federal and State officials unbiased technical assessments of
    utility restructuring issues relating to energy efficiency and
    renewable energy. As the only national effort, the mission of the
    restructuring program is to work with states and the electric power
    industry to either maintain or expand energy efficiency and renewable
    energy, whether in states that have chosen to restructure their
    electric markets, or those that have not.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ($5.0M)
        The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) leads the nation
    toward a sustainable energy future by developing renewable energy
    technologies, improving energy efficiency, advancing related science,
    and engineering, and facilitating technology commercialization. NREL's
    research efforts cover nearly 50 areas of scientific investigation
    including photovoltaics, wind energy, biomass-derived fuels and
    chemicals, energy-efficient buildings, advanced vehicles, solar
    manufacturing, industrial processes, solar thermal systems, hydrogen
    fuel cells, superconductivity, geothermal, and waste-to-energy
    technologies. Many of NREL's research achievements have been ranked
    among the Nation's most significant technical innovations by R&D
    Magazine, Discover, and Popular Science.
        The funds requested support NREL's infrastructure needs including
    necessary repairs, maintenance, calibration, equipment replacement, new
    construction, and facility modifications. These expenditures protect
    the Federal Government's investment and support of the domestic
    renewable energy industry. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 budget
    request includes for the first time, facility project engineering
    design (PED) funding as directed in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
    Water Development conference report. The envisioned Science and
    Technology Facility in Golden, CO is intended to relieve overcrowding
    at NREL's current Solar Energy Research Facility (SERF). That structure
    was designed for 160 persons, but now is accommodating over 200
    researchers A lack of space is limiting participation by visiting
    professionals, industrial partners, and students at SERF. This
    overcrowding is also damaging worker productivity and discouraging the
    retention of high quality staff.
    Program Direction ($19.2M)
        Program Direction provides the Federal staffing resources and
    associated funding to support the management and oversight of the
    Renewable Energy Resources Programs. This activity includes all funding
    for support service contractors, equipment, travel, crosscutting
    activities, and Assistant Secretary initiatives. Program Direction
    encompasses two principal activities: (1) Headquarters executive and
    program management; and (2) program operations at the Golden Field
    Office.
        Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to respond to any questions you may
    have.

        Senator Reid. To all the panel members, we have some
    questions. I will submit mine in writing and would ask that you
    get them back to the subcommittee within 2 weeks, so we can
    prepare for the markup of this important legislation.
        I apologize, but this committee will stand in recess
    pending the call of the Chair.
        Senator Bennett [presiding]. The committee will come to
    order.
        I understand prior to Senator Domenici's being called away,
    Dr. Dixon, you had finished your testimony or you were in the
    midst of it?
        Dr. Dixon. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I completed my testimony.
    Thank you.
        Senator Bennett. Okay. So we are with Dr. Decker.
        All right. Let us move from right to left, as they say, Dr.
    Decker, we appreciate it and we look forward to your testimony.

                         STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES DECKER

        Dr. Decker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate having
    the opportunity to testify before you today on the fiscal year
    2002 budget request for the Office of Science.
        Before I begin, I would like to thank this Subcommittee for
    the strong support that it has shown for our research programs
    in past years.
        I have submitted written testimony describing our $3.16
    billion request, supporting the basic research that underpins
    the science, energy, environment and national security missions
    of the Department of Energy.
        The Office of Science is a primary source of Federal
    support for fundamental research and physical sciences, which
    includes physics, chemistry and material sciences. In addition,
    my office plays a key role in the life sciences, environmental
    research, advanced computation and mathematics.
        This important research is conducted by scientists at the
    DOE National Laboratories and at more than 250 universities
    located in virtually every State.
        In funding this research, we develop the new scientific
    knowledge that helps support both the DOE missions and the
    nation's economy in the future, as well as helping to train the
    next generation of researchers.
        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,
    synchrotron light sources and neutron sources.
        This year, these facilities will serve more than 16,000
    researchers from academia, industry and Federal laboratories.
    These facilities are essential to progress in virtually every
    scientific discipline.
        The past year has been a very productive one for the Office
    of Science. A working draft of the human genome was completed,
    a major milestone in the human genome project, which the Office
    of Science initiated in 1986.
        We developed many of the underlying technologies used by
    all of the institutions involved in the sequencing process as
    well as sequencing of three of the human chromosomes.

                        HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS

        In high energy and nuclear physics, experiments have both
    supported and challenged established theory.
        Fermilab observed the Tau neutrino, the last of the leptons
    predicted by the Standard Model, while the so-called G minus 2
    experiment at Brookhaven generated a new challenge to the
    Standard Model, as did strong evidence for neutrinos having
    mass.
        At the same time the B Factory at the Stanford Linear
    Accelerator Center has been gathering evidence of so-called
    charged parity violation with implications for understanding
    why matter dominated over anti-matter in the universe.
        And early results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
    at Brookhaven indicate the presence of a predicted state of
    matter--the quark-gluon plasma that existed shortly after the
    Big Bang.
        Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at the Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory is approximately 20 percent complete
    and projected to remain within budget and on schedule for
    completion in 2006.
        The Spallation Neutron Source will be the world's most
    powerful pulsed neutron source producing six to ten times
    greater neutron flux than any existing source. It will provide
    a critical research capability in a wide range of areas
    including materials research, structural biology and
    development of drug design.
        Our researchers have also made substantial progress in many
    other areas, such as understanding and controlling energy
    losses from magnetically confined plasmas due to turbulence,
    developing techniques for bonding wear-resistant ceramic
    surfaces to metals, a technique with great promise for improved
    artificial knees and hips, as well as energy technology
    applications requiring high levels of heat resistance and also
    investigating the effects of Ritalin on the brain through
    positron emission--positron emission tomography studies.

                           SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE

        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2002 will
    fully fund the Spallation Neutron Source construction, continue
    operations of our existing scientific user facilities, support
    development of the next generation of high-performance
    computing and communications tools for science, continue
    research in support of DOE missions, and support our
    stewardship for those areas of science of which we are the
    predominant supporter, such as high energy and nuclear physics,
    nuclear medicine, catalysis and heavy element chemistry.
        In my remaining time, I would like to briefly focus on
    three of the important areas in our budget request: Genomes to
    Life, Physics of the Standard Model and Beyond, and
    Nanoscience.
        In each area, we are building knowledge and capabilities
    that have been created through sustained investments in the
    Office of Science programs.

                            GENOMES TO LIFE PROGRAM

        The proposed Genomes to Life program is aimed at
    determining how the single cell and consortia of cells
    function. A single cell is an amazing, complex chemical
    factory. With our ability to sequence the genome of any living
    thing, today we can determine the instruction set for making
    the parts of the cell. However, we do not know what the parts
    are and how they function together.
        We also do not have an understanding of how a consortia of
    cells, such as complexes of different microbes, work together.
    Eventually, we want to understand the behavior of more complex
    cellular organizations, including people.
        We do know that these systems are so complex that the only
    way that we will be able to obtain a predictive capability is
    through computational modeling. So to successfully tackle this
    problem, interdisciplinary teams will have to be formed, and we
    will need many of the tools that we have developed over the
    years, including our Terra scale computers, our synchrotron
    light sources, our neutron sources, and our DNA sequencing
    capabilities.
        Our initial focus is on microbes relevant to Department of
    Energy missions needs, including energy production, carbon
    sequestration, and environmental cleanup.
        We also anticipate this effort will contribute to a better
    understanding of the health effects of various environmental
    toxins and will allow us to better understand the impacts of
    low doses of radiation.

                        HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS

        In high energy and nuclear physics, the Department of
    Energy laboratories are now the site of the most advanced
    experimental facilities in the world. The 2002 budget proposes
    a program to allow the Tevatron at Fermilab to explore the
    energy range where physicists now expect to observe the Higgs
    boson, believed to be the source of mass for the fundamental
    constituents of matter.
        This proposed budget will also allow the B Factory to
    dramatically speed up its program of research into the
    asymmetry that led to the dominance of matter over anti-matter.
        At Brookhaven the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider will
    examine the qualities of a man-made quark-gluon plasma,
    addressing the question of why quarks are so strongly confined
    inside protons and neutrons, and shedding light on the
    evolution of the early universe.
        The G minus 2 and neutrino experimental programs will
    continue to see if they have, indeed, found signs of new
    physics beyond our present understanding.
        We are also exploring another scientific frontier, science
    at the nanoscale, where the physics of materials is governed by
    the interactions of individual atoms and molecules and is
    qualitatively different than at larger scales.
        The promise for the future is immense. We are now entering
    a stage of research where structures can be designed atom by
    atom so that the desired characteristics and chemical activity
    can be controlled.
        In the future, we should be able to design and synthesize
    new alloys, ceramics, chemical catalysts, and other materials,
    tailored for specific tasks, leading to significant
    improvements in solar energy conversion, more energy efficient
    lighting, and stronger, lighter materials to improve efficiency
    in transportation.
        The budget request of the Office of Science balances
    support for our existing programs, the facilities, with new
    investments such as Genomes to Life, and new tools such as the
    Spallation Neutron Source.
        This provides a strong basis for scientific progress and
    all other disciplines that we support, while capitalizing on
    exciting new opportunities and new areas of research.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral remarks. And I will be
    pleased to answer any questions that the subcommittee may have.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Dr. James F. Decker

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the
    Office of Science (SC). This budget request, part of the Science
    appropriation, supports: Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR),
    Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Biological and Environmental Research
    (BER), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), High Energy Physics (HEP), Nuclear
    Physics (NP), Energy Research Analyses, Multiprogram Energy
    Laboratories-Facilities Support, Safeguards and Security, and Science
    Program Direction. The Technical Information Management budget request
    is located within the Energy Supply appropriation.
        The Department of Energy (DOE) budget for fiscal year 2002 requests
    $3,159,890,000 in the Science Appropriation. This budget will support
    SC's unique scientific user facilities and continue our remarkable
    scientific achievements in the physical and life sciences, mathematics,
    computation, and environmental research. It will also permit continued
    investments in thousands of individual research projects at our
    national laboratories and at research universities across the Nation.
        SC's diverse basic research portfolio, with its emphasis on
    sustained investments in knowledge creation that results in scientific
    discoveries that enable tomorrow's technologies, is a cornerstone of
    our Nation's efforts to maintain lasting economic prosperity. In a
    recent major economic address, the President emphasized the need for
    long-term planning when he said: ``. . . lasting prosperity requires
    long-term thinking.''
        Our fiscal year 2002 basic research portfolio supports the
    President's goal of strengthening the U.S. scientific enterprise to
    ensure continued international leadership in scientific and
    technological innovation, and will advance the DOE missions in energy,
    environment, and national security.
        In fiscal year 2002, SC will pursue new and challenging scientific
    opportunities in a wide range of areas of great importance to our
    Nation's future. It will:
      --Continue operations and some enhanced capabilities for the large
            scientific user facilities that SC operates on behalf of the
            Nation's scientific and industrial research community, serving
            over 16,000 researchers annually.
      --Support the ``Genomes to Life'' program, the next step in our
            Nation's effort to build on the extraordinary success of the
            Human Genome Project, begun by SC in 1986. ``Genomes to Life''
            will combine biological research and the development of
            computational tools for a greater understanding of complex
            biological systems with promise of innovative solutions to some
            of the many complex challenges inherent in DOE's missions for
            energy, environment and science.
      --Exploit a window of opportunity during which the U.S. will be the
            undisputed research center of the world's high energy physics
            community to continue the search for the elusive Higgs boson
            (believed key to understanding the origin of mass) and exploit
            the improved capabilities of the Stanford Linear Accelerator
            Center (SLAC) B Factory to determine the nature of the
            asymmetry between matter and anti-matter.
      --Continue research programs in nanoscience to explore the potential
            for the development of nanoscale technologies that will
            revolutionize many areas of industry and medicine.
      --Open enormous research opportunities in neutron sciences through
            construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) for basic
            research, applied research and technology development in the
            fields of condensed matter physics, materials sciences,
            magnetic materials, polymers and complex fluids, chemistry, and
            biology. SNS is on time and on budget.
      --Continue development of the scientific understanding necessary to
            effectively harness fusion energy as an environmentally benign,
            economically viable, and abundant energy source for future
            generations.
      --Revolutionize the way science is conducted by building on dramatic
            advances in supercomputing power to develop large-scale
            scientific simulation as a tool for the solution of complex
            scientific problems of vital importance to DOE's missions and
            the Nation's scientific community.
                    our accomplishments and recent successes
        As the Nation's primary supporter of fundamental research in the
    physical sciences (materials research, chemical sciences, physics,
    etc.), and one of the largest supporters of basic research in
    mathematics, computing and environmental sciences, SC is uniquely
    poised to make important contributions to our general scientific
    knowledge and to the U.S. industrial base. SC programs fund researchers
    at more than 250 colleges and universities located in 48 states, as
    well as thousands of world-class researchers at DOE's national
    laboratories.
        SC provides the largest share of Federal support for major
    scientific user facilities, which together host more than 16,000 users
    annually from all research sectors. University-based scientists are
    among the principal users of these facilities, which provide powerful
    probes of matter at a range of scales from viral proteins to sub-atomic
    quarks--realms inaccessible by any other means.
        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 the major professional scientific societies. Recent
    awards have included: the 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics, shared by SC
    researcher Martinus Veltman, for theoretical work that helped establish
    the Standard Model; Supercomputing (SC 2000) Awards for High-Bandwidth
    Applications and Infrastructure advances supported by SC; one of top 10
    ``Algorithms of the Century'' announced by Computing in Science and
    Engineering magazine was developed by SC research; three of the 2000
    ``R&D 100 Awards'' and two of the 2000 Discover magazine awards went to
    SC researchers in the national laboratories.
        The following selected program highlights are illustrative of the
    broad range of research activities supported by SC. These highlights
    testify to the depth, diversity and importance of the research
    portfolio managed by SC, and the great impact that scientific
    discoveries can have on energy production and use, environmental
    sciences, the life sciences, and national defense, as well as the
    general creation of new knowledge that helps sustain other scientific
    disciplines.
        Solving optimization problems easily and inexpensively.--
    Optimization applications range from designing circuits, to estimating
    the value of risk in environmental cleanup, to determining routing
    patterns on the Internet, to finding energy functions for molecular
    structures. Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern
    University completed a project to attack such problems successfully.
    The project involves development of a novel environment, called the
    Network-Enabled Optimization System (NEOS). NEOS allows users to solve
    optimization problems over the Internet with state-of-the-art software.
    The NEOS project recently gained considerable visibility with the
    release of a new portable version that can be run on various computers,
    Web servers, and email servers. Over the past year, the number of users
    has risen to an average of 2,600 problem submissions per month. NEOS is
    now used as an educational tool at universities worldwide.
        Ion-implantation for strong metal-ceramic bonds.--Ceramics are hard
    and corrosion resistant, but fracture easily. Metals resist fracture,
    but are not as wear or corrosion resistant as ceramics. Coating a metal
    with a ceramic is a way to improve both. However, current coating
    technologies can degrade the performance of metals. A new approach has
    been successfully developed that employs ion-beam intermixing of the
    coating with the metal from collision cascades, which are microscopic
    (nanometer-sized) ``hot-zones'' formed along the ion track. Since the
    heating in collision cascades is very short and localized, macroscopic
    heating of the metal does not occur. A patent has been filed using this
    new approach to improve hip, knee, and dental prosthetic devices. This
    approach of bonding of ceramics to metals also has applications for
    energy technology metal surfaces that require resistance to high
    temperature, corrosive, and erosive environments
        Genome sequencing named scientific advance of 2000.--In December
    2000, Science magazine named genome sequencing, enabled by seminal SC
    contributions, as the top scientific advance of 2000. In addition to
    its contributions to current sequencing technology, SC supports a wide
    variety of sequencing projects including its ongoing sequencing of the
    mouse and puffer fish (also acknowledged by Science magazine) to help
    understand human gene function, microbial genomes (more than 50 to
    date) and, previously, the fruit fly. SC also contributed to the
    sequencing of the human genome, fully sequencing 3 human chromosomes,
    which culminated in the publication of the draft human DNA sequence in
    Nature on February 15, 2001. The three human chromosomes sequenced by
    SC contain genes that contribute to a number of human diseases
    including, leukemia, colon, breast and prostate cancer, as well as
    kidney disease, Crohn's disease (an inflammatory bowel disease),
    asthma, deafness, diabetes, obesity, atherosclerosis (disease of the
    arteries in which fatty material is deposited in the vessel wall
    constricting blood flow), attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia,
    and mental retardation.
        Making drugs safe for children and treating obesity.--Positron
    Emission Tomography (PET)/radiotracer studies sponsored by BER have
    demonstrated that Ritalin, a drug commonly used in the treatment of
    attention deficit disorder, when given orally will effectively block
    the dopamine transmitter system without putting the child at risk or
    causing a ``high'' as observed with addictive drugs. In addition, BNL
    scientists have used PET and specific radiotracers to demonstrate that
    the brain dopaminergic pathways are poorly developed in obese
    individuals. These data may enable alternative methods for treatment of
    obesity.
        Tools created for controlling plasma turbulence.--The performance
    of tokamaks and other magnetic confinement systems are limited by
    turbulence. Researchers at MIT have discovered that radio waves are a
    powerful tool for creating and manipulating desired ``internal
    transport barriers,'' which prevent unwanted turbulent heat leakage
    from magnetically confined fusion plasmas and dramatically increased
    plasma density. Scientists have discovered that, depending on the
    location of the resonant radio wave heating, the overall rotation of
    the plasma can be significantly slowed, or even reversed.
    Simultaneously with this change, a clear internal transport barrier
    developed, resulting in an extraordinary peaking of the plasma density,
    one that was at least two times greater than before. Similarly,
    experiments in Germany and at General Atomics in the United States have
    shown that fusion energy content and other properties in magnetically
    confined plasmas can be significantly improved by a relatively small
    amount of even higher frequency microwave power applied at precisely
    the right location, in the plasma.
        Extraordinary tools for extraordinary physics.--This has been a
    period of great excitement in the Office of Science High Energy and
    Nuclear Physics program. Completion of the Relativistic Heavy Ion
    Collider (RHIC) and the upgrade of the Tevatron at Fermilab have made
    the U.S. the world leader in experimental facilities for high energy
    and nuclear physics. At the same time, while some experimental results
    have confirmed the predictions of the Standard Model, others have
    suggested new physics beyond the Standard Model. First measurements
    from RHIC indicate that its energy density--a measure of the energy
    deposited in the collision region by the colliding nuclei--is the
    highest ever achieved in a laboratory and is sufficient to create the
    long sought quark-gluon plasma, believed to be the state of matter of
    the universe shortly after the ``Big Bang.'' Fermilab produced the
    elusive Tau neutrino (the last of the leptons predicted by the Standard
    Model) and capped a major American achievement: the discovery of all
    but one of the quarks and leptons in the Standard Model of elementary
    particles. (The first of the 12, the electron, had been discovered in
    England in 1897.) Another Fermilab team observed a B meson containing a
    charmed quark and measured its properties, completing the observations
    of the predicted family of B mesons, required by the Standard Model.
    Also at Fermilab, a team of university and laboratory scientists
    working on the KTeV experiment found the first convincing observation
    of direct Charge-Parity (CP) violation (manifestation of a subtle lack
    of perfect symmetry between particles and antiparticles believed
    responsible for the domination of matter over anti-matter in the modern
    universe). Physicists using HEP's new BaBar detector at SLAC's B
    Factory announced their first measurement of CP violation in the B-
    meson system in fiscal year 2000 and work is continuing to resolve the
    question of whether CP violation can be fit within the Standard Model.
    The g-2 experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory, designed to study
    magnetic properties of the muon, has obtained the most precise
    measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment that does not appear
    to agree with the Standard Model, suggesting the possibility of new
    physics beyond the Standard Model.
                    looking to the future--fiscal year 2002
        The Office of Science's fiscal year 2002 budget request provides
    sustained support to U.S. university and national laboratory
    researchers working on enormously complex scientific problems that will
    help to ensure our economic prosperity by advancing the mission of the
    DOE. The diversity of SC's basic research portfolio, combined with our
    traditional strengths in the operation of national scientific user
    facilities and support for multidisciplinary research, will prove vital
    to our national pursuit of the scientific challenges of fiscal year
    2002.
        ``Genomes to Life'' has the goal of using SC's 15-year investment
    in research on human and microbial genomes, it's expertise in
    computational modeling of complex systems, and it's unique suite of
    scientific facilities, to address DOE missions through a deeper
    understanding of the structure and function of microbes and microbial
    communities, and of the impact environmental toxins and radiation on
    human beings. The Genomes to Life program builds on the Microbial Cell
    Project, expanding it to (1) include characterization of life's
    multiprotein molecular machines and the genes' regulatory networks and
    processes that control those molecular machines; and (2) to include
    characterization of the overall functional capabilities of microbial
    communities--groupings of microbes that can work together to perform
    DOE missions--by understanding the ``community genome'' and how it
    influences performance.
        Microbes have evolved for 3.8 billion years and have colonized
    almost every environment on Earth. In the process, they have developed
    an astonishingly diverse collection of capabilities that will help DOE
    meet its challenges in toxic waste cleanup, energy production, global
    climate change, and biotechnology. To use these capabilities to address
    our missions, however, will require the development of new
    technologies, analytical tools, and modeling capabilities. It will
    require the talents of academic, nonprofit, and industrial partners, as
    well as the scientific capabilities of our national laboratories. These
    capabilities include high-throughput genomic DNA sequencing, microbial
    biochemistry and physiology, imaging, and structural biology. National
    user facilities such as synchrotrons will play important roles, as will
    capabilities in high-performance computing. Interdisciplinary
    collaborations among biologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, and
    computer experts will also be critical to this effort.
        The ``Genomes to Life'' program has four goals leading to its final
    objective:
      --Identifying life's molecular machines, the multiprotein complexes
            that carry out the functions of living systems;
      --Characterizing the genes' regulatory networks and processes that
            control life's molecular machines;
      --Characterizing the functional repertoire of complex microbial
            communities in their natural environments; and
      --Developing computers and other computational capabilities needed to
            model the complexity of biological systems.
        This program has great promise, but faces great challenges.
    Biological systems, through evolution, have achieved levels of
    intricacy and subtlety that dwarf the complexity of the 20th Century's
    most sophisticated engineering feats. The eventual objective of the
    Genomes to Life program is to use the greatly increased computational
    capabilities of modern supercomputers to model and understand many of
    these systems. This promises solutions to many as yet intractable
    problems in DOE mission areas. For example, M. jannaschii's ability to
    produce methane may have implications for new fuel generation
    strategies. Deinococcus radiodurans has potential for cleanup of toxic
    mixed-waste sites containing radioactive waste, in addition to heavy
    metals and organic solvents, because it can survive extremely high
    levels of radiation and repair its own radiation-damaged DNA.
        In addition, DOE has a need to protect its workers and the public
    from the health effects of energy production and use and from the low
    levels of radiation generated by weapon-related materials at DOE waste
    sites and those still in use at its laboratories. Because of their
    genetic makeup, some individuals may have a much greater health risk
    from exposures to these materials. A detailed understanding of how
    basic metabolic and regulatory pathways in microbial cells respond to
    environmental changes may offer insights into similar pathways in human
    cells. This knowledge can be used to help clarify the biological
    mechanisms responsible for adverse human responses and to develop the
    tools needed to identify individuals at greatest risk, information that
    is a key component of the Low Dose Radiation Research Program.
        The search for the Higgs boson and the possibility of physics
    beyond the Standard Model presents an extraordinary opportunity for the
    U.S. high energy physics community, which receives 90 percent of its
    Federal support from the Office of Science, to demonstrate its
    continuing leadership in international physics research.
        An excellent opportunity exists for U.S. researchers to identify
    the Higgs boson and measure its properties, which are believed key to
    understanding the source of mass for quarks and leptons, the
    fundamental constituents of matter. The Large Electron-Positron
    Collider (LEP) experimental program at CERN (located in Switzerland)
    was terminated in November 2000, leaving behind a tantalizing hint of a
    Higgs boson with a mass of about 115 GeV, within reach of Fermilab's
    Tevatron accelerator, recently upgraded with the new Main Injector.
        With protons and antiprotons colliding head-on at an energy of
    nearly one trillion electron volts (1 TeV), the Tevatron will be at the
    world's energy frontier for particle physics during the next five
    years. In order to find the Higgs, the Tevatron will need to run
    extensively and to increase its luminosity (and thus its data
    collection rate) as much as possible. Doing this will require
    progressive fine-tuning of collider operations and further equipment
    upgrades to increase luminosity by a factor of ten to be carried out
    from 2002 to 2004, interwoven with intensive data runs. The data taken
    in 2005-2007 should then be enough to find the Higgs if its mass is
    less than 165 GeV. Tevatron data will also give more information about
    the surprisingly heavy (170 times the mass of the proton) top quark
    discovered at Fermilab in 1995, and could reveal other important new
    particles that have been predicted by current theories (for example,
    supersymmetric particles).
        Why is the universe made of matter instead of a balance of matter
    and antimatter or nothing at all? This question is being addressed
    intensively at the new B Factory facility at the Stanford Linear
    Accelerator Laboratory, which is now operating above its design
    luminosity (or collision rate). The study of CP violation at the B
    Factory during the next few years will shed light on the mysterious
    preponderance of matter over antimatter in the universe. However, the B
    Factory will need a progressive series of small upgrades in order to
    maximize its productivity.
        Discovery and characterization of the quark-gluon plasma is about
    to be undertaken as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) begins
    its first run at full energy and approaches its design luminosity (or
    collision rate). Over 1,000 scientists, of which about one-half are
    from 18 foreign countries, participate in research with four detectors
    at RHIC, a $616.5 million facility (completed within budget and on
    schedule) located at Brookhaven National Laboratory. They are searching
    for a new state of nuclear matter, deconfined quarks and gluons,
    thought to have existed for a few microseconds after the ``Big Bang.''
    Discovery of the quark-gluon plasma is eagerly awaited by the physics
    community, in the hope that it will provide insights into the origin of
    confinement-why free quarks cannot be observed. The properties of this
    new state of matter will have far-reaching implications for
    cosmological theories of the expansion of the early universe.
        The collider and detectors were commissioned last year. The
    subsequent brief run at a reduced energy from its design energy yielded
    tantalizing results of possible plasma formation, and several papers
    have already been published reporting on these early results. The
    discovery and characterization of the quark-gluon plasma is a key
    element in our understanding of the origin of the universe; a campaign
    to understand the detailed properties of the plasma is expected to take
    at least five years. We look forward to the upcoming run this year that
    will give us the first detailed information in this exciting quest.
        Science at the nanoscale, creating materials and machines one atom
    at a time, is today's frontier in materials and the life sciences. The
    triumphs of science in the 20th Century, which benefit all Americans,
    included the discovery and characterization of the atomic building
    blocks of matter, of the elementary excitations in materials, and of
    the fundamentals of chemical reactivity.
        We use this knowledge to design, synthesize, and characterize
    simple molecules and to combine them in a variety of ways to make
    alloys, ceramics, catalysts and other materials. We are now entering a
    more complex stage of research where structures can be designed atom-
    by-atom so that the desired characteristics and chemical reactivity can
    be predicted and controlled.
        The Office of Science is forging a path into the world that Richard
    Feynman described in his now-famous 1959 lecture, ``There is Plenty of
    Room at the Bottom--An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics.'' In
    it, 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.'' In fiscal year 2001, SC began
    seriously to move in this direction. In fiscal year 2002, SC will
    continue to forge ahead--supporting innovative research and the design
    of centers for nanoscale science.
        DOE's missions in science, energy, defense, and environment will
    benefit greatly from nanoscale research. Nanoscale synthesis and
    assembly methods, for example, are expected to 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.
        But before we can reach the stage where nanoscale science begins
    producing these kinds of products, the basic researchers supported by
    the Office of Science must address some of the most formidable
    scientific questions of our age:
      --Can we design materials having predictable and, yet, often unusual
            properties? This will require ``bottoms-up'' atomic and
            molecular design, the use of nanostructured materials having
            special properties, novel routes for materials synthesis and
            processing, and parallel fabrication approaches.
      --Can we design and construct multicomponent molecular devices and
            machines having desired properties--optical, mechanical,
            catalytic, electrical, tribological? We have begun to use
            molecular building blocks to create self-organized structures.
            These might form the basis of systems such as nanometer-scale
            chemical factories, molecular pumps, sensors, and self-
            assembling electronic/photonic devices.
      --Can we harness, control, or mimic the exquisite complexity of
            natural processes? Living organisms represent the most
            sophisticated use of the chemical processing of basic elements
            to create materials and functional complexes. Nature's
            achievements allow us to set goals for the development of
            materials and systems with incredibly enhanced properties,
            including the ability to self-assemble, self-repair, sense,
            respond, and evolve.
      --Can we develop the tools to visualize and predict phenomena
            spanning the length scales and time scales of natural
            phenomena? Spatial scaling involves lengths ranging from that
            of the atom, to thousands of atoms (molecules), to the bulk
            phase (organisms) and, finally, to the macroscale (ecosystems).
            Temporal scaling involves times ranging from those of chemical
            reactions (femtoseconds) to geologic times (millennia).
        Opening a new frontier in neutron science will be made possible by
    the commissioning of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory (ORNL), now scheduled for completion in 2006. When
    completed, SNS will be the world's most powerful accelerator-based,
    pulsed neutron source, producing 6-10 times more neutrons than any
    other such source. SNS will be used annually by 1,000-2,000 researchers
    from academia, national laboratories, and industry.
        DOE and its predecessor agencies have been the major supporters of
    neutron science in the United States since the late 1940s. DOE has
    served as the prime steward of this field throughout the entire course
    of its development--from the earliest work of Clifford Shull and E. O.
    Wollan at ORNL's Graphite Reactor in the 1940s to the Nobel Prize in
    physics shared by Clifford Shull and Bertram Brockhouse in 1994 for
    their work on neutron scattering.
        The importance of neutron science for fundamental discoveries and
    strategic research is universally acknowledged, and led France,
    Germany, Great Britain, Japan and other countries to aggressively
    pursue neutron science. By the early 1970s, new and upgraded European
    neutron machines were beginning to appear. This trend continued through
    the 1980s and 1990s without construction of U.S. counterparts--thus
    shifting the focus of neutron research away from the U.S.. The SNS will
    reverse this trend and will open new opportunities and capabilities for
    neutron research to U.S. researchers.
        The information that neutrons provide about the hundreds of
    materials that we use every day has wide ranging impacts on our
    everyday lives. For example, neutrons can ``see'' light atoms, which
    are far more difficult or impossible to see with x-ray or electron
    probes. As a result, chemical companies use neutrons to make better
    fibers, plastics, and catalysts, and drug companies use neutrons to
    design drugs with higher potency and fewer side effects.
        Neutrons also possess a tiny magnetic moment, making them one of
    the best probes for the study of magnetism. Research on magnetism using
    neutrons has led to higher strength magnets for more efficient electric
    generators and motors, and to better magnetic materials for magnetic
    recording tapes and computer hard drives.
        Fusion energy research in the United States is managed by SC's
    Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), which funds virtually all basic
    research conducted by U.S. scientists in the area of high energy
    density plasma physics. In addition, FES, in partnership with DOE's
    Scientific Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Science
    Foundation, plays a role in all aspects of basic research in fusion and
    plasma science.
        The major challenge today is to make fusion energy practical by
    further advancing our scientific understanding of high-temperature
    plasmas. The current U.S. fusion research effort integrates core
    capabilities in the national laboratories, universities, and industry
    and has been restructured to focus on science objectives. A 1999 review
    by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board concluded that the fusion
    challenge will be solved, and they endorsed the restructured fusion
    energy sciences program.
        This science-based approach focuses on achieving a predictive
    capability based on detailed experimental campaigns, sophisticated
    modeling, and terascale computing. Dramatic advances in the scientific
    understanding of fusion plasmas led the National Research Council in
    2000 to conclude: ``. . . the quality of the science funded by the U.S.
    fusion research program in pursuit of a practical power source (the
    fusion energy goal) is easily on a par with other areas of contemporary
    physical science.''
        There are two distinct approaches to producing fusion energy:
    magnetic fusion energy (MFE) and inertial fusion energy (IFE). In MFE,
    plasma is confined by a magnetic field and held at the needed density
    and temperature. The fusion energy produced in a single magnetic
    confinement fusion experiment has risen by a factor of more than one
    trillion during the time period when computer speed has risen by a
    factor of one-hundred thousand. Along with this progress in fusion
    energy has come a much deeper understanding of the underlying plasma
    science.
        To date, MFE has been the primary subject of research worldwide for
    fusion energy applications. Consequently, the U.S. program is highly
    leveraged against the more than $1 billion in magnetic fusion research
    performed by other nations. MFE research is an international effort in
    which experimental results are openly shared and in which collaboration
    on experiments is extensive.
        With IFE, powerful lasers of particle beams are focused on a small
    pellet of fuel for a few billionths of a second. IFE research has been
    pursued primarily as a key component of the DOE's Scientific Stockpile
    Stewardship Program. Leveraging off of this large investment is an
    excellent opportunity for FES because IFE may also present a promising
    path to practical fusion power.
        The science-based approach to fusion offers the U.S. an affordable
    path to practical fusion energy and is advancing our knowledge of
    plasma physics and associated technologies, yielding near-term benefits
    in a broad range of disciplines. Examples include plasma processing of
    semiconductor chips for computers and other electronic devices,
    advanced video displays and innovative materials coatings.
        Scientific discovery through advanced computing brings together the
    Office of Science's 50-year investment in mathematics, computation,
    software development and multidisciplinary research in the quest to
    develop new tools that can be used by the U.S. research community to
    solve some of the most complex scientific questions of the 21st
    Century.
        Scientific computing programs and facilities are already essential
    to progress in many areas of research critical to the nation. Major
    scientific challenges exist in all SC research programs that only can
    be addressed through advances in scientific supercomputing--designing
    materials atom-by-atom, revealing the functions of proteins,
    understanding and controlling plasma turbulence, designing new particle
    accelerators, and modeling global climate change, to name just a few.
        Extraordinary advances in computing technology in the past decade
    have set the stage for major advances in scientific computing. Within
    the next five to ten years, computers 1,000 times faster than today's
    computers will become available. These advances herald a new era in
    scientific computing. Using such computers, it will be possible to
    dramatically extend our exploration of the fundamental processes of
    nature as well as advance our ability to predict the behavior of a
    broad range of complex natural and engineered systems.
        To exploit this opportunity, these computing advances must be
    translated into corresponding increases in the performance of the
    scientific codes used to model physical, chemical, and biological
    systems. This is a daunting problem. Current advances in computing
    technology are being driven by market forces in the commercial sector,
    not by scientific computing. Harnessing commercial computing technology
    for scientific research poses problems never before encountered in
    supercomputing, in magnitude as well as in kind. This problem will only
    be solved by increasing investments in computer software--in research
    and development on scientific modeling codes, as well as on the
    mathematical and computing systems software that underlie these codes.
        During fiscal year 2002, SC will continue a set of coordinated
    investments that focused on creating a Scientific Computing Software
    Infrastructure that bridges the gap between advanced computing
    technologies and its scientific research programs. The SC effort will:
      --Create the Mathematical and Computing Systems Software to enable
            the Scientific Challenge Codes to take full advantage of the
            extraordinary capabilities of terascale computers.
      --Create the Collaboratory Software Infrastructure to enable
            geographically-separated scientists to effectively work
            together as a team, as well as provide electronic access to
            both facilities and data.
      --Create a new generation of Scientific Challenge Codes for terascale
            computers that can address the most critical scientific
            problems in SC's research programs
        The Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure, along with the
    upgrades to the hardware infrastructure, will enable laboratory and
    university researchers supported by the Office of Science to solve the
    most challenging scientific problems at a level of accuracy and detail
    never before achieved. These developments will have significant benefit
    to all of the government agencies that rely on high-performance
    scientific computing to achieve their mission goals, as well as to the
    U.S. high-performance computing industry.
        Creating the 21st century scientific and engineering workforce
    requires educational and training activities that are designed to
    ensure an adequate supply of talented American scientific, engineering
    and technical personnel. The Office of Science is uniquely positioned
    to assist in the creation of this workforce through the offering of
    research training opportunities at our scientific user facilities and
    world class national laboratories. During the past five decades, SC and
    its predecessor organizations have helped train tens of thousands of
    the best and brightest young students our Nation has produced.
        An expanded effort in fiscal year 2002 will carry on that legacy of
    achievement. SC will support undergraduate research internships for
    undergraduate students from four-year institutions, community college
    students and pre-service teachers preparing to teach math, science or
    technology at the K-12 level. In addition, SC will support the work of
    thousands of graduate students and post-docs who are working side-by-
    side with DOE researchers on key research projects.
        To attract a wider cross section of students, the Department of
    Energy has entered into a collaboration with the National Science
    Foundation (NSF). Students participating in NSF undergraduate programs
    will be encouraged to apply for SC undergraduate research internship
    opportunities. The partnership with NSF will be expanded in fiscal year
    2002.
                              performance measures
        The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires
    accountability from all Federal programs. SC has always relied upon
    external peer review, independent construction management review, and
    regular program reviews to ensure the excellence and relevance of our
    research portfolio. These effective evaluation tools will continue.
        In addition, SC has embraced the recommendations of the National
    Academy's Committee on Science and Engineering in Public Policy
    (COSEPUP) report ``Science, Technology and the Federal Government:
    National Goals for a New Era,'' which calls for the U.S. to maintain a
    leadership position in key areas of science and to be ``among the world
    leaders'' in all areas of research. This enables the U.S. to quickly
    capitalize on breakthroughs in science worldwide. Therefore, the SC
    will evaluate its programs for scientific excellence, relevance to DOE
    mission areas, scientific leadership and management excellence. This
    will be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms, that may include:
    external review by peers, review of prizes and awards to SC's
    researchers, citation analysis, and a characterization of the
    significance and impact of the research as recognized at international
    conferences and Advisory Committee evaluations.
        SC is widely recognized for its world-class research and for the
    construction and operation of major scientific facilities. Demand for
    these facilities has steadily increased and calls for new or improved
    facilities greatly exceed budgetary resources. To ensure that the
    proper balance is maintained between laboratory research and facility
    operations, and between new and existing facilities, SC relies upon the
    advice of external Advisory Committees, feedback from facility User
    Groups, and the results of the merit review process.
        Critical to ensuring the excellence, relevance and leadership of
    SC's research is the human and physical infrastructure that enables
    world class science. SC will continue to evaluate the health and
    utility of its laboratory infrastructure through on-site institutional
    reviews, program reviews, and through merit evaluation. A continuing
    supply of talented researchers in critical subfields will be ensured
    through fellowships, support of graduate students within research
    grants, and through student use of research facilities.
        All four of SC's global scientific performance measures were fully
    met in fiscal year 2000.
      --At least 80 percent of all new research projects supported by SC
            will be peer reviewed and competitively selected, and will
            undergo regular peer review merit evaluation. In fiscal year
            2000, 96 percent of new research projects supported by SC were
            peer reviewed and competitively selected.
      --Upgrades and construction of scientific user facilities will stay
            within 10 percent, on average, of cost and schedule milestones.
            In fiscal year 2000, all scientific user facility construction
            projects were within 10 percent of baselines. As an average,
            weighted by total project cost, SC scientific user facility
            construction projects varied from cost and schedule baselines
            by about 3 percent.
      --The SC scientific user facilities will be operated and maintained
            so that unscheduled operational downtime will be kept to less
            than 10 percent, on average, of total scheduled operating time.
            In fiscal year 2000, SC scientific user facilities operated, on
            average, 96 percent of the scheduled time.
      --The Office of Science will ensure the safety and health of the
            workforce and members of the public and the protection of the
            environment in all SC program activities.
            science programs--advanced scientific computing research
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$165.7M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $165.7M \1\
        The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program's
    mission, which is primarily carried out by the Mathematical,
    Information, and Computational Sciences (MICS) subprogram, is to
    discover, develop, and deploy the computational and networking tools
    that enable scientific researchers to analyze, model, simulate, and
    predict complex physical, chemical, and biological phenomena important
    to the Department of Energy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A Pending Budget Amendment to transfer $10M to Fusion Energy
    Sciences from Advanced Scientific Computing Research ($2.7M), High
    Energy Physics ($5.0M), Energy Research Analyses ($0.3M), and Science
    Program Direction ($2.0M) will be submitted shortly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fiscal year 2002, ASCR will continue to invest in research that
    advances the next generation of high performance computing and
    communications tools that are critical to the Department's scientific
    missions.
        The MICS subprogram will support research in applied mathematics,
    computer science, electronic collaboratory tools and network research.
    Competitively selected partnerships will continue to work toward
    discovering, developing, and deploying key enabling technologies for
    scientific research. These partnerships, called Integrated Software
    Infrastructure Centers, play a critical role in providing the software
    infrastructure that will be used by the Scientific Discovery through
    Advanced Computing (SciDAC) applications teams. Other MICS investments
    include fundamental research in networking and collaboratory tools,
    partnerships with key scientific disciplines, and advanced network
    testbeds for electronic collaboration tools.
        In fiscal year 2002 the Laboratory Technology Research subprogram
    will continue to support basic research at SC labs that will advance
    innovative energy applications.
        In fiscal year 2000, a Federally-chartered advisory committee was
    established for the ASCR program that is charged with providing advice
    on: promising future directions for advanced scientific computing
    research; strategies to couple advanced scientific computing research
    to 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.
                             basic energy sciences
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$991.7M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $1,004.7M
        The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is a principal sponsor of
    fundamental research for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences
    and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates
    to energy. This research underpins the DOE missions in energy,
    environment, and national security; advances energy related basic
    science on a broad front; and provides unique user facilities for the
    scientific community.
        For fiscal year 2002, a very high priority is the continuation of
    construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to provide the
    next-generation, short-pulse spallation neutron source for neutron
    scattering. The project, which is to be completed in June 2006, is on
    schedule and within budget.
        Enhancing U.S. research in neutron science, in preparation for the
    commissioning of the SNS, is also a program priority. A common finding
    among BES Advisory Committee studies has been the importance of
    establishing a large and well-trained user community by the time the
    SNS is fully operational in the 2008-2010 timeframe. To this end,
    funding will be provided for teams of scientists to participate in the
    development of neutron scattering instruments and for support for the
    neutron science/scattering programs at the host institutions of the BES
    facilities. Additional operations funds will be provided to High Flux
    Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS) to
    ensure that these facilities are available to the scientific community.
        In the areas of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology
    (NSET) research, BES will continue the new research directions
    initiated in fiscal year 2001 and will explore concepts and designs for
    Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs). NSRCs will be user
    facilities similar in concept to the existing BES major scientific user
    facilities and collaborative research centers. They will provide
    unique, state-of-the-art nanofabrication and characterization tools to
    the scientific community. NSRCs will enable research programs of a
    scope, complexity, and disciplinary breadth not possible through the
    support of individual investigators or small groups. Significant
    partnerships with regional academic institutions and with state
    governments are anticipated.
        The response of the scientific community to the fiscal year 2001
    NSET initiative has been strong. University researchers submitted 745
    pre-applications, 313 of which received encouragement letters from BES
    inviting the submission of full proposals. The DOE labs were restricted
    to four field work proposals per laboratory and 46 proposals were
    received. Proposals were also received for pre-conceptual design of
    NSRCs from ANL, BNL, LBNL, ORNL, and Sandia/LANL. All proposals will
    undergo peer review to determine which will be funded in fiscal year
    2001.
                     biological and environmental research
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$482.5M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $443.0M
        The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program develops
    the knowledge needed to identify, understand, anticipate, and mitigate
    the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy
    production, development, and use.
        As the founder of the Human Genome Project, BER will maintain a
    critical role in the International Human Genome Consortium that
    includes the National Institutes of Health.
        A redirected effort entitled, ``Genomes to Life,'' will support
    research and computational tools that will lead to an understanding of
    complex biological systems. It will incorporate research to develop a
    comprehensive understanding of the Microbial Cell that will be used to
    engineer microbes for DOE mission applications such as environmental
    cleanup. Understanding how complex biological systems respond to their
    environments also promises the ability to accurately predict the impact
    of low doses of radiation and environmental toxins on living organisms,
    including people. In fiscal year 2002, BER microbial research will
    provide DNA sequences for four additional microbes important in
    bioremediation, clean energy, global carbon cycling, and human health/
    low dose radiation research.
        The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program will improve
    the models that track the radiation balance through the atmosphere,
    including cloud and water vapor effects, to reduce uncertainty in
    predicting the effect of greenhouse gases on future climates. Carbon
    cycle and sequestration research will help to assess current carbon
    sinks and to develop methods of enhancing natural processes for
    terrestrial and ocean sequestration of carbon. Ecological research will
    provide data to develop and test robust models to predict the effects
    of changes in climate and atmospheric composition on important
    ecological systems and resources.
        BER will continue research in environmental bioremediation focusing
    on research at the Field Research Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
    Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), a national
    scientific user facility provides analytical and experimental
    capabilities to address the complex scientific barriers to restoring
    our environment. The EMSL computational facility will upgrade its
    computing capability by leasing a high performance computer in fiscal
    year 2002. This will enable the simulation of key environmental and
    molecular processes.
        Medical sciences research will develop advanced technology and
    instrumentation to image single molecules, genes, cells, organs, and
    whole organisms in real time with a high degree of precision. These
    achievements will have a broad impact on biomedicine, in particular the
    fields of cell and developmental biology and on more accurate medical
    diagnoses and effective treatments.
        The resources of the DOE national labs enable rapid advances in our
    programs in biophotonics (harnessing light and other forms of radiant
    energy for new biomedical research tools such as noninvasive diagnostic
    tools for the early detection of breast cancer), lasers in medicine,
    biological and chemical sensors, and advanced imaging instrumentation.
    BER and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have developed a
    partnership in which the advanced technologies, instrumentation, and
    computational modeling capabilities developed in the DOE national labs
    will be applied to specific biomedical problems of high importance in
    the NIH intramural program. This partnership will benefit both agencies
    since complex biosensors capable of detecting and discriminating among
    large classes of biomolecules could be important not only to biology
    and medicine but also to environmental sensing. Cooperation will
    facilitate rapid application of advances in the biophysical sciences to
    solve clinical problems of national importance.
                             fusion energy sciences
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$248.5M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $238.5M \1\
        The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program's mission is to advance
    plasma science, fusion science and technology. The program emphasizes
    the underlying basic research in plasma and fusion sciences, with the
    long-term goal of harnessing fusion as a viable energy source. The
    program centers on the following goals: understanding the physics of
    plasmas; identification and exploration of innovative and cost
    effective development paths to fusion energy; and exploration of the
    science and technology of energy producing plasmas, as a partner in
    international efforts.
        In fiscal year 2002, the program will incorporate the
    recommendations of reports by the National Research Council, the
    Secretary of Energy Advisory Board and recommendations of the Fusion
    Energy Science Advisory Committee.
        The fiscal year 2002 FES program includes basic research in plasma
    science in partnership with NSF, plasma containment research, and
    investigation of tokamak alternatives along with continued operation of
    DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and the National Spherical Torus Experiment.
    Research on alternate concepts is pursued to develop a fuller
    understanding of the physics of magnetically confined plasma and to
    identify approaches that may improve the economical and environmental
    attractiveness of fusion.
        The inertial fusion energy activity will continue exploring an
    alternative path for fusion energy that would capitalize on the major
    R&D effort in inertial confinement fusion that is carried out by NNSA
    for stockpile stewardship purposes. Ongoing theory and modeling
    efforts, aimed at developing a predictive capability for the operation
    of fusion experiments, will continue as will enabling technology
    development.
                              high energy physics
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$712.0M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $721.1M \1\
        The High Energy Physics (HEP) program's mission is to understand
    energy and matter at a fundamental level by investigating the
    elementary particles and forces between them. Until the Large Hadron
    Collider (LHC) at CERN is completed in 2006, the U.S. will be the
    primary center of activity for experimental research in the field of
    high energy physics. There is the potential for exciting new
    discoveries, and the program needs to position itself to take advantage
    of these opportunities.
        The HEP program will concentrate on utilizing and upgrading its
    facilities, including direct support for research scientists. In fiscal
    year 2002, Fermilab will begin a five-year campaign to discover the
    Higgs particle (believed key to understanding mass) and other new
    particles predicted by current theories. The B Factory at SLAC will
    begin a three-year campaign to make important contributions toward
    understanding the preponderance of matter over antimatter in the
    universe.
        A small HEP program continues at the Alternating Gradient
    Synchrotron (AGS). The muon g-2 experiment recently announced results
    that showed a higher magnetic strength for the muon than that predicted
    by the Standard Model. If confirmed, these findings could lead science
    into exciting new territory beyond the Standard Model.
        Appropriately focused support for university and laboratory based
    physics theory and experimental research will be emphasized in fiscal
    year 2002. The experimental programs are performed by university
    (primarily) and laboratory based scientists. These scientists
    construct, operate, and maintain the detectors and analyze the
    resulting data as well as train the next generations of scientists.
        An important element of the program is successful completion of
    construction and major capital equipment projects. Continued
    participation in the LHC is a high priority as is construction of the
    Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project at Fermilab and its
    detector, MINOS. When NuMI/MINOS is completed in fiscal year 2003, it
    will provide a world-class facility to study neutrino properties and
    make definitive measurements of masses.
        In partnership with NASA, the HEP program will continue two
    particle astrophysics projects--the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)
    and the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST). The experiments
    are expected to lead to a better understanding of dark matter, high
    energy gamma ray sources, and the origin of the universe.
        Accelerator R&D is essential to the development of the next
    generation facility as well as to the future of the HEP program.
    Research continues on accelerator-related technologies aimed at
    reducing costs and improving performance.
                                nuclear physics
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$360.5M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $360.5M
        The mission of the Nuclear Physics (NP) program is to advance our
    knowledge of the properties and interactions of atomic nuclei and
    nuclear matter in terms of the fundamental forces and particles of
    nature.
        The NP program is the major sponsor of nuclear physics research in
    the U.S., providing about 85 percent of Federal support. The program
    educates and enlarges the Nation's pool of technically trained workers
    and facilitates the transfer of knowledge and technology.
        With the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven
    National Laboratory researchers have a unique opportunity to create and
    characterize the quark-gluon plasma, a phase of matter thought to have
    existed in the very early stage of the universe. Initial data from
    gold-gold collisions have yielded results that show aspects of possible
    plasma formation; the fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2002 run will
    provide the first opportunity to explore this exciting new physics in
    depth.
        New knowledge and insights on how quarks and gluons bind together
    to make protons and neutrons are being gained using high intensity
    electron beams from the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
    (CEBAF) at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. In
    fiscal year 2002, the G0 Detector, a joint DOE-NSF project, will be
    completed and will provide an opportunity to map quark contributions to
    the structure of the nucleon.
        Measurements of the solar neutrino flux by the Sudbury Neutrino
    Observatory (SNO), constructed by a collaboration of Canadian, British
    and U.S. supported scientists in a deep underground nickel mine in
    Ontario, Canada, will provide first results shortly on the
    ``appearance'' of oscillations of electron neutrinos into other
    neutrino flavors. Such evidence would confirm indications that
    neutrinos have mass, an observation that would force a re-evaluation of
    the existing Standard Model of particle physics.
        The search for new super-heavy elements will continue in fiscal
    year 2002, focusing on the techniques developed in the recent discovery
    of elements 116 and 118 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
    Future studies will focus on the search for neighboring elements and
    will work to understand the surprising observation of enhanced
    stability for these very heavy elements.
        In fiscal year 2002, R&D activities will be supported for a
    proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) facility. This facility would
    produce beams of highly unstable nuclei that can explore the limits of
    nuclear existence and measure reaction rates. These data are critical
    to computer modeling of the dynamics of supernovae explosions and other
    aspects of stellar evolution and to understanding the origins of
    elements.
              multiprogram energy laboratories--facilities support
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations--$30.2M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $30.2M
        The Multiprogram Energy Laboratories--Facilities Support (MEL-FS)
    program's mission is to support the general purpose infrastructure of
    the five Office of Science multiprogram national laboratories by
    funding line item construction to rehabilitate, renovate and replace
    laboratory and office buildings, utility systems, and other structures.
    This support helps enable high technology scientific research that is
    conducted in a reliable, cost effective, and safe manner. Together,
    these laboratories have over 1,600 buildings (including 500 trailers)
    with 15.5 million gross square feet of space and an estimated
    replacement value of over $10 billion. The total DOE and non-DOE
    research program funding for these laboratories is over $3 billion a
    year.
        In fiscal year 2002, MEL-FS will support Project Engineering and
    Design funding for the initiation of three new line item construction
    projects and construction funding for six ongoing line item
    construction projects.
        The request also supports SC's landlord responsibility at the Oak
    Ridge Reservation and DOE facilities in the town of Oak Ridge,
    including Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) at this and two other sites.
                            energy research analyses
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$1.0M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--$1.3M
            \1\
        The mission of the Energy Research Analyses (ERA) program is to
    evaluate the excellence, relevance and international leadership of DOE
    research programs and projects. Fiscal year 2002 funding will support
    the development of performance measurement and evaluation tools that
    are utilized by SC programs and meet the requirements of the Government
    Performance and Results Act.
        In addition, the overall value of SC's research efforts will be
    communicated to the public and other stakeholders, and original
    research will be conducted into the best management practices of
    publicly funded science organizations. This research will result in the
    identification of best practices in the management of science
    organizations that could be adopted by SC to improve overall management
    efforts.
                    safeguards and security program support
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations--$36.4M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $50.5M
        The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program mission is to provide an
    appropriate level of protection of personnel, property, information,
    and nuclear materials in a technically sound and cost-effective manner.
    This program ensures that essential S&S services are provided at all SC
    facilities through a tailored approach according to risk.
        The S&S program is concentrating on countering the vulnerabilities
    of the 21st Century. These vulnerabilities have been identified through
    program reviews as well as Inspector General (IG) and General
    Accounting Office (GAO) audits. In fiscal year 2002, S&S funding
    includes countermeasures for the ever increasing advances in and
    reliance on computer technologies. This request also supports the
    upgrading of aging physical security systems. Where applicable, these
    systems further advance our control of our small but vital national
    security interests.
        The S&S program must maintain a sustained vigilance so that science
    and technology operations are not adversely effected. The benefits of
    an effective S&S program include: providing the public with confidence
    that the taxpayer assets are appropriately protected; a safe work place
    for employees; adequate protection of user facilities, operations and
    scientific research data; and an attractive security climate supportive
    of international collaborations and leading edge scientific projects.
    The protection of these research programs and projects helps maintain
    science's critical contribution to American competitiveness and lasting
    prosperity around the world.
                           science program direction
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$126.9M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--
            $144.4M \1\
        The Science Program Direction (SCPD) budget supports three
    subprograms: Program Direction, Field Operations, and Science
    Education. Program Direction is the funding source for SC's Federal
    staff responsible for managing and supporting the scientific
    disciplines. Field Operations provides funding for the daily operations
    and administrative functions performed at the Chicago and Oak Ridge
    Operations Offices that support the departmental programs, projects,
    laboratories, facilities, and grants under their purview. Science
    Education sponsors programs designed to promote interest in science,
    math, engineering and technology fields for college and university
    students and faculty.
        In fiscal year 2002, SC will continue to focus on strategic human
    capital management and planning with the goal of building and
    sustaining a talented and diverse workforce. SC needs to attract,
    recruit and retain highly skilled employees to offset the existing and
    projected shortfall in the scientific and technical workforce, and to
    continue to manage its programs in a safe, efficient, and effective
    manner.
        SC will also support the DOE Corporate R&D Portfolio Management
    Environment (PME) project, which will modernize and streamline the
    Department's R&D management processes. Process improvements and
    automation will enable electronic ``cradle-to-grave'' tracking of
    research projects that are critical to DOE corporate sharing and
    reporting of energy-related research across programs. In addition, SC
    will continue to standardize, integrate, and invest in information
    technology that will improve management processes and promote efficient
    use of resources among SC Headquarters and Field counterparts, e.g.,
    increase remote accessibility to corporate systems, and enhance cyber
    security.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2002, funding for safeguards and security
    functions at the Oak Ridge Operations Office is included in SCPD as
    part of congressional direction to align such functions with line
    management.
        In fiscal year 2002, the Science Education subprogram will support
    research experiences at our national labs for a diverse group of
    competitively selected undergraduate students. In collaboration with
    the National Science Foundation, an effort is underway to attract a
    wider cross section of students to this program and a system is being
    created to document student career paths. In fiscal year 2002, this
    partnership will be expanded.
        The Office of Science also manages and supports the National
    Science Bowl for high school students from across the
    country and provides the students and teachers a forum to receive
    national recognition for their talent and hard work. In fiscal year
    2000, Saturday seminars on scientific topics were added to the National
    Science Bowl weekend. In fiscal year 2002, students
    participating in the National Science Bowl will be tracked
    to document the long-term impact on their academic and career choices.
          energy supply r&d programs--technical information management
    Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriation--$8.7M; Fiscal Year 2002 Request--$9.0M
        The Technical Information Management (TIM) program leads DOE's e-
    government initiatives for disseminating information resulting from the
    Department's R&D programs. The Office of Scientific and Technical
    Information (OSTI) manages the TIM program, providing electronic access
    to worldwide energy science and technical information to DOE
    researchers, industry, academia, and the public. The TIM program also
    coordinates technical information-related activities at sites
    throughout the DOE complex, which includes developing and implementing
    information exchange policies and standards; managing a 50-year archive
    of 1.1 million unclassified and 100,000 classified documents;
    maintaining a classified information program that collects, preserves
    and exchanges, in a secure environment, classified, sensitive and
    limited circulation documents; and serves as DOE's leader in the
    international exchange of scientific and technical information.
        In fiscal year 2002, the TIM program will make DOE's scientific and
    technical journal citations, technical reports, and preprints
    searchable and retrievable through e-government systems.
                                    closing
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of Science
    illustrates how long-term research is vitally connected to our Nation's
    lasting prosperity. Advances in life science, materials science,
    computation, fusion research, and other scientific disciplines
    supported by SC have made significant contributions to our economy and
    our national standard of living during the past 50 years. Future
    investments in SC-sponsored research at our Nation's universities and
    national laboratories will provide similar returns during the coming
    decades.
        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.

                        STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD

        Senator Bennett. Mr. Magwood.
        Mr. Magwood. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, I am
    Bill Magwood. I am Director of the DOE's Office of Nuclear
    Energy, Science and Technology. I am pleased to appear before
    you today to discuss our fiscal 2002 budget request. I will
    submit a written statement for the record.

                              NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

        When we met at this time last year, I told you that we were
    seeing the early signs of a turnaround in prospects for nuclear
    energy in the United States. At that time, U.S. nuclear power
    plants were setting new records in producing inexpensive and
    reliable electric power. The utility industry was moving
    forward with the relicensing of its nuclear power plants, and
    utilities were beginning to talk about the possibility of
    building new nuclear power plants in the United States.
        This year, evidence of this turnaround is even greater.
    Nuclear power set even higher generation records last year.
    Nearly all U.S. nuclear power plants are now expected to
    receive NRC license renewals. Utilities are now actively
    engaged in developing the business cases for specific nuclear
    power plant projects in this country. We expect that next year
    we will be able to report even greater progress.
        It is difficult to measure the degree to which the
    government encouragement and support fosters this renewed
    interest. Clearly, industry makes its decision based on the
    economics and business factors, but you cannot underestimate
    the impact of having the Vice President of the United States,
    as he did yesterday, articulate the clear national interest in
    building new nuclear power plants in the United States.
        You also cannot underestimate the impact of renewed Federal
    funding for nuclear research and development. Since our R&D
    budget hit essentially zero in fiscal year 1998, the Department
    has received slightly more resources each succeeding year. We
    have set these resources to support both near-term National
    needs for increased power production and long-term strategic
    interests in advanced nuclear technology for the future.

                      NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

        I would first like to thank the Subcommittee for its
    leadership and vision in providing funds for the Nuclear Energy
    Technologies Program. While very small in comparison to many of
    the DOE programs, its impact has already been huge.

                                 GENERATION IV

        At its core is the Generation IV Technology Roadmap. This
    roadmap has become a large international project, involving
    nearly 150 experts from 10 countries.
        We have established a new international collective known as
    the Generation IV International Forum, or GIF, through which
    the United States and other nuclear experienced nations will be
    able to work together, to set the goals, establish the programs
    and collaborate in the research that will lead to the next
    generation of nuclear energy systems.
        I am pleased to report that since last year, the Department
    has--with very limited funding and staff--reasserted a U.S.
    leadership position that many thought was long dead.
        Generation IV Technology goals have been drafted by a
    Subcommittee of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee
    (NERAC) with input from U.S. industry, laboratories,
    universities.
        These goals, now essentially complete, have been accepted
    by the international community through the GIF and through the
    International Atomic Energy Agency and are at this very moment
    being presented to the full NERAC for final review.
        The GEN IV goals set very aggressive targets for future
    technologies, such as eliminating the need for offsite
    emergency planning, and ensuring the economy of proliferation
    resistance of future nuclear systems.
        Now, international teams based mostly in the United States,
    but a few also overseas, all under the guidance of the NERAC,
    will evaluate a large number of concepts against the Generation
    IV goals and agree on a small set of technology concepts,
    around which the international R&D community will rally.
        The roadmap should be complete by the end of next year and
    we have requested $4.5 million in fiscal year 2002 to complete
    this historic work.
        Other portions of this program have enabled us to work with
    the NRC and industry to address the technical and regulatory
    issues that could slow the deployment of advanced light water
    reactors and gas-cooled reactors in the United States.
        Our work in these areas has been important and has
    encouraged the industry to move forward with their planning for
    new nuclear power plants.

                   ADVANCED ACCELERATOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM

        We have also made significant progress in the Advanced
    Accelerator Applications program. When we last discussed this
    program, the Department has made tremendous progress in
    defining the parameters for a potential project to build the
    necessary facilities and establish the research to explore the
    transformation of nuclear waste into less toxic and in smaller
    quantity forms than untreated spent fuel.
        We have worked very closely with the NERAC Subcommittee on
    Advanced Nuclear Transformation Technology chaired by Professor
    Burt Richter, former Director of SLAC, to define the technical
    issues and set appropriate paths forward.
        Yesterday, Professor Richter reported to the NERAC that we
    were on the right track, and that the prospect for
    international collaboration toward building a major facility in
    the United States is very real, if the United States makes a
    clear commitment to the project.
        I can validate this prediction. Soon, we will sign an
    agreement with the French CEA to share costs in performing a
    series of experiments over the next few years. The French are
    very interested in joining an activity in the United States to
    build an accelerator driven test facility in this country.
        Should such a project proceed, the support of the CEA, the
    Swiss Paul Scherrer Institute and other organizations, would be
    absolutely essential, as the United States is a relative
    newcomer to this area of study, and other countries have made
    important progress in many relevant areas.
        For this initiative, as well as most other aspects of our
    R&D portfolio, the fiscal year 2002 budget request reflects a
    need to pause and reflect on the direction of our research.
    With the entry of President Bush's Administration, it is
    appropriate to assess the energy needs of our Nation and
    consider the DOE's activities in that light.
        As you know, the Vice President is leading a task force to
    review these issues. Once these priorities are clearly
    identified, the Department will be in a better position to
    recommend future directions for research and development and to
    request appropriate funding for the new initiatives.

                          UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTORS

        Finally, I would like to inform you of an urgent matter
    discussed at the NERAC meeting yesterday. NERAC is very
    concerned about the potential closure of essential university
    research reactors in the United States and a continued decline
    in university nuclear engineering programs.
        Faced with the likely closure of important facilities at
    Cornell, MIT, and the University of Michigan, NERAC formed a
    task force, chaired by Bob Long, former Senior Vice President
    of GPU Nuclear and a former professor at the University of New
    Mexico.
        This task force has recommended that the Department provide
    a near-term influx of funds to keep these three facilities in
    operation and set up a longer term structure to assure the
    continued operation of a limited number of nationally
    significant university research reactors. The Department will
    soon announce specific actions we plan to take in response to
    the NERAC recommendations.
        With that, I will end my oral remarks and would be pleased
    to answer any questions you may have.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of William D. Magwood

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    present the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 budget request for
    the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE). We are
    proposing a $223 million investment during fiscal year 2002 to conduct
    vital nuclear research and development programs; to enhance the
    Nation's science, technology and education infrastructure; and to
    manage NE's Federal nuclear facilities and materials. We believe that,
    by supporting nuclear energy technology, the U.S. can achieve a
    balanced and sustainable energy supply, reestablish its international
    leadership in nuclear technology development, promote national
    security, and attain environmental goals.
        The Administration is currently developing a new national energy
    strategy. Secretary of Energy Abraham, speaking in March to a National
    Energy Summit, stated the essence of the new review:

        ``Our national energy policy will stress the need to diversify
    America's energy supply. It will be founded on the understanding that
    diversity of supply means security of supply . . . and that a broad mix
    of supply options--from coal to windmills, nuclear to natural gas--will
    help protect consumers against price spikes and supply disruptions.''

        The review will provide the guidelines of a new, comprehensive
    strategy to deal with our Nation's near-term energy challenges and put
    the technical ingenuity of our universities, laboratories, and industry
    to work to assure that we have long-term sources of energy to power the
    United States in the longer-term future.
                 the revitalization of the nuclear power option
        The last few years have truly been an exceptional period for
    nuclear power in the United States. With demand for electricity at
    record highs, the Nation's nuclear power plants have been producing a
    record amount of power--up 3.7 percent to 755 billion kilowatt-hours
    last year. The nuclear share of electricity generation in 2000 (almost
    23 percent of the total) also set a record. U.S. nuclear power plants
    exceeded peak operating performance records set over the last few
    years, increasing plant capacity to nearly 90 percent. Meanwhile, the
    costs of producing electricity from nuclear power hit a record low in
    2000, leading nuclear power plants to surpass coal-fired plants--for
    the first time in more than a decade--as the leader in low-cost
    electricity production.
        In addition, the industry is aggressively and successfully moving
    forward with plant relicensing to extend operation of the existing
    fleet of plants for another twenty years. Last spring, the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved license extensions authorizing
    five nuclear units at two nuclear sites (Calvert Cliffs in Maryland and
    Oconee in South Carolina) to operate another 20 years. NRC is presently
    reviewing five other applications at three nuclear sites and the
    applications for thirty other units are pending. Today, industry and
    government alike expect that nearly all of the 103 U.S. nuclear plants
    will extend their licenses another 20 years.
        Furthermore, the consolidation that has been taking place in the
    utility industry over the last several years has created a cadre of
    utilities with the experience and resources to operate nuclear units
    efficiently and effectively, and the ability of undertaking
    construction of new baseload electrical capacity in time to meet
    national needs.
        After decades without any orders for new nuclear power plants in
    the United States, U.S. utilities are demonstrating a renewed interest
    in this technology. The factors that came together in the 1970's to
    make nuclear power less attractive than other energy sources, such as
    an over-supply of electricity and high interest rates, are no longer
    applicable. Today, we are facing rapidly rising natural gas prices,
    increasing reliance on imported oil supplies, and growing concerns
    about air pollution.
        As a result of this changing environment, in March, nuclear
    industry representatives indicated that one or more U.S. utilities were
    on the verge of filing applications for approval of sites for potential
    construction of nuclear power plants. Following NRC approval of these
    applications, the utilities could return to the NRC at a later date to
    ask for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for a pre-
    approved nuclear power plant design. We are pleased with these recent
    developments since the Department has worked long and hard as a partner
    with the industry to achieve these milestones and is continuing to
    support demonstration of the NRC early site permit and COL processes.
    In addition, utilities are beginning to look at new nuclear power plant
    designs that may be attractive in the current market. For example,
    Exelon Corporation has invested in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
    (PBMR) project currently under development in South Africa with the
    goal of exploring its feasibility for the U.S. market. The DOE Nuclear
    Energy office is leading discussions with the NRC on requirements for
    gas-cooled reactors such as the PBMR and the Gas Turbine Modular Helium
    Reactor (GT-MHR). Further, interest in advanced light water reactor
    technologies such as the AP-600/1000 and Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
    remains high among U.S. utility decision-makers.
        With interest in building new nuclear power plants higher today
    than at any point in three decades, the Department is focusing its
    efforts to assure that Government is an appropriate partner to industry
    and not an obstacle. We are focusing on removing unnecessary barriers
    and leading the development of new technologies. In this way, the
    Department can best support the national need for clean and economic
    supplies of electric power for the near and long term.
        The Office of Nuclear Energy is also pursuing advances in nuclear
    medical technologies through our Medical Isotope Program. This program
    promotes vital U.S. research into the use of isotopes to treat and
    diagnose cancer and other illnesses. Radioisotope therapy has the
    potential to become standard medical treatment for a number of cancers
    that are major causes of death in the United States, including breast,
    prostate, and bone cancer. Our budget request for the Medical Isotope
    Program will support advanced research and assure that reliable
    supplies of these life-saving therapeutic and diagnostic isotopes will
    be available. Human trials of new isotope-based treatments often
    require the administration of multiple doses of radioisotopes over a
    period of time, and disruptions in supply may spell the difference
    between life and death for critically ill patients.
        Many of the most important radioisotopes have short half lives and
    cannot be stockpiled against vagaries in facility operation. The
    importance of a reliable supply of radioisotopes was driven home for us
    last summer when the Cerro Grande fire temporarily shut down operations
    at Los Alamos and threatened the security of our facilities there. The
    need for reliability of supply requires that we maintain, and upgrade
    as necessary, the facilities at which radioisotopes are produced, and
    our efforts this year include upgrading a facility to help ensure that
    availability.
        The Department also has an essential role in enabling the United
    States to explore space. Our Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems
    program provides critical support to our nation's efforts to better
    understand the universe in which we live. NASA's space exploration
    program requires reliable, long-term supplies of electricity and heat
    to power spacecraft and to maintain a suitable environment for people
    and equipment. For some missions, particularly long-term, deep space
    missions, radioisotope power systems are the only possible sources of
    power. Conventional sources of energy would require too much fuel, and
    solar power simply will not work for missions that extend to the outer
    portions of the solar system and beyond. The same types of systems that
    support space exploration are also used for national security missions
    of the Department of Defense (DOD). Our role, for both NASA and DOD, is
    to provide the radioisotope power systems that meet their mission
    needs. This requires that we maintain a sufficient supply of plutonium-
    238 to meet the schedules and energy demands of upcoming missions of
    both agencies, as well as the infrastructure to build and deliver the
    needed systems on time. We also support research and development on
    advanced systems to assure that we can meet future needs, which may
    call for longer operating times and higher powers. Our research is also
    driven by the current limitations in the supply of plutonium-238; we
    are simultaneously working on options for additional supplies. NASA and
    DOD provide funding for mission-related activities, while DOE is
    charged with maintaining the infrastructure to meet the NASA and DOD
    needs.
        Finally, I want to bring to your attention another important
    function of the Office of Nuclear Energy: the support of the
    infrastructure that makes all these efforts--development of new
    reactors to meet future energy needs, production of life-saving
    isotopes, and support of space exploration--possible. By
    infrastructure, I mean not only the hardware, but also the people, and
    not only the government facilities, but also the other facilities that
    support critical training needs. To these ends, the Office of Nuclear
    Energy both supports operations at the remaining reactors and related
    facilities at our national laboratories and provides a variety of types
    of support to the academic infrastructure that supports the training of
    future scientists and engineers. Regarding the national laboratory
    facilities, one problem we are facing is that we are operating an aging
    infrastructure, and continued operation of these important facilities
    requires not only the normal operating expenses, but also significant
    expenditures to maintain aging structures and to bring facilities into
    compliance with modern standards of electrical and fire safety. The
    university reactor infrastructure, which is used for DOE and NRC
    sponsored research, is also at risk. With tightening university
    operating budgets, some universities are very near to shutting down
    some of the most important university reactor facilities. This will
    impact ongoing DOE and NRC research. We are working with the
    universities to identify ways to prevent such shutdowns, and have
    chartered a special subcommittee of our advisory committee, the Nuclear
    Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) that will be presenting its
    recommendations at the end of April.
        In the meantime, we are trying to assure that the funding we
    provide for reactor upgrades and other reactor support is as effective
    as possible in meeting critical, near-term needs. We are also
    continuing to support students and faculty at the universities to the
    extent possible through scholarships, fellowships and research funding,
    and have been heartened this year to note an apparent reversal of the
    previous declining trend in enrollments in nuclear engineering
    departments. We believe this to be a result of both our sustained,
    though modest, support for the academic community, and of the new level
    of excitement about a future for nuclear power.
        In accomplishing its program mission, the Office of Nuclear Energy,
    Science and Technology will engage research institutions in industry,
    U.S. universities, national laboratories, international organizations,
    and other countries in cooperative and collaborative efforts. The major
    program elements that contribute to the mission are: Advanced
    Radioisotope Power Systems, Medical Isotope Program, University Reactor
    Fuel Assistance and Support, Research and Development (includes Nuclear
    Energy Plant Optimization, Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, Nuclear
    Energy Technologies), Infrastructure (includes Test Reactor Area
    Landlord, Fast Flux Test Facility, and Argonne National Laboratory-
    West), Nuclear Facilities Management, and Program Direction.
        The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 request for
    Nuclear Energy programs:

    Nuclear Energy Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Energy Supply:m Element                                          Request
        Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.......................    29,094
        Medical Isotope Program...................................    18,177
        University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support............    11,974
        Research & Development....................................    27,079
        Infrastructure............................................    81,279
        Nuclear Facilities Management.............................    30,457
        Program Direction.........................................    25,062
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total, Energy Supply....................................   223,122
                            research and development
    Accelerating Technology Innovation
        I would now like to discuss in more detail the drivers for nuclear
    energy research, how we have structured and improved our processes for
    conducting research, our major accomplishments, and how our fiscal year
    2002 budget request helps position the Nation to take full advantage of
    exciting new developments in nuclear technology.
        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 to focus on accelerating innovation and assuring 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.
        The Department obtains advice on the direction of its nuclear
    energy R&D activities from the NERAC. NERAC, a formal Federal advisory
    committee, provides expert advice on long-range plans, priorities and
    strategies for the nuclear technology R&D and research infrastructure
    activities of our office. NERAC has several active subcommittees
    examining various aspects of nuclear technology R&D. Reports issued by
    these subcommittees that address the future of nuclear energy include
    the Long-Term Nuclear Technology Research and Development Plan, to
    guide nuclear energy research out to the year 2020, and the Nuclear
    Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap. NERAC is also providing
    expert advice to help guide development of the Generation IV Technology
    Roadmap. In addition, NERAC provides recommendations regarding
    government-industry cooperative research in support of the Nation's 103
    operating nuclear power plants.
        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 design and manage commercial nuclear fuel,
    we may be able to 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. By exploring such advanced
    technologies as modular reactors with long-life cores and thorium-based
    fuel cycles, we may find technology-based solutions to one of nuclear
    power's most significant long-term challenges.
        The Long-Term R&D Plan, developed by NERAC with significant input
    from the wider research community, recommends that R&D budget levels be
    increased in order to enable the Nation to realize further value from
    our currently operating nuclear plants; provide for economic
    technologies and approaches to build improved advanced reactors in the
    United States; complete a design for a Generation IV nuclear energy
    system; and support a range of enduring missions within the Department.
    NERAC has established a goal of conducting $240 million in nuclear
    energy research by 2005.
        The Department initiated the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
    Project in January 2000 by convening a meeting of senior policy
    officials from interested countries. Representatives of nine countries
    participated in this initial discussion and considered the long-term
    interest of the countries in the application of nuclear energy, the
    international interest in advanced nuclear technologies, the barriers
    that might prevent the future expansion of nuclear energy, and the
    interest of the representatives in exploring potential multilateral
    research projects to explore and develop new technologies. These
    representatives agreed to a Joint Statement regarding the importance of
    the nuclear energy option to the future and informally committed to a
    process to explore further cooperative activities.
        As a result of this meeting, and subsequent meetings, the nine
    nations that first came together in January 2000 are planning the
    formal creation of a Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to pursue
    multilateral coordination and cooperation with the goal of identifying
    and developing Generation IV technologies that could address the
    factors impacting the expansion of nuclear energy internationally:
    economic competitiveness of building and operating nuclear energy
    systems; remaining concerns regarding nuclear safety and proliferation;
    and the challenge of minimizing and dealing successfully with nuclear
    wastes.
        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.
        The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), a competitive, peer-
    reviewed research and development selection process to fund researcher-
    initiated R&D proposals from universities, national laboratories, and
    industry, has reinvigorated the Nation's nuclear energy R&D
    organizations. Focused on research to address the potential long-term
    barriers to expanded use of nuclear power--economics, safety,
    proliferation resistance, and waste minimization--the NERI program is
    yielding innovative scientific and engineering R&D in nuclear fission
    and reactor technology. Initiated in fiscal year 1999, this program
    signaled the return of the United States to nuclear R&D, but a return
    that reflected important lessons learned and a new appreciation for
    harnessing outside expertise to focus the research. NERI has, despite
    its limited funding, gone a long way to reinvigorate nuclear R&D in
    this country.
        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 the 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. The program is managed to promote
    collaboration between U.S. research institutions and information
    exchange with international organizations.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Department launched an international
    version of NERI, the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
    (I-NERI), to sponsor innovative scientific and engineering research and
    development conducted by joint teams of U.S. and foreign researchers.
    Established as a cost-shared R&D program, the program objectives of the
    I-NERI program are to: promote bilateral and multilateral collaboration
    with international agencies and research organizations to improve the
    development of nuclear energy; and promote and maintain the U.S.
    nuclear science and engineering infrastructure to meet future technical
    challenges.
        We are in the final stages of signing I-NERI agreements with France
    and South Korea. We are negotiating agreements with Japan and South
    Africa, which we hope to conclude this year. We also expect to conclude
    I-NERI agreements with the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization
    for Economic Cooperation and Development and with Euratom. When
    implemented, these agreements will magnify modest U.S. investments in
    R&D with great benefit to both the United States and our research
    partners. In addition to accelerating innovation and leveraging costs,
    I-NERI provides to the United States and the Department a key seat at
    the table in international policy discussions on the future direction
    of nuclear energy.
        Our request of $18.1 million for NERI in fiscal year 2002 will
    allow continuation of the NERI and I-NERI research projects currently
    underway. The fiscal year 2002 request, however, reflects the
    Department's decision not to initiate new energy research activities
    until the Vice President's Task Force issues its national energy policy
    recommendations; therefore, no funding is being sought in fiscal year
    2002 budget request for new research projects. During fiscal year 2002,
    the Department will complete 43 NERI research projects awarded in
    fiscal year 1999, and continue the 10 NERI research projects awarded in
    fiscal year 2000 and the 15 NERI projects expected to be awarded in
    fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, the Department will continue the
    bilateral international projects initiated in fiscal year 2001.
        The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) program plays a vital
    role in ensuring that current nuclear plants can continue to deliver
    reliable and economic energy supplies up to and beyond their initial
    40-year license period by resolving open issues related to plant aging,
    and by applying new technologies to improve plant economics,
    reliability, and availability. The NEPO program is cost-shared with
    industry through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and is
    conducted in close cooperation with the NRC. The research conducted
    under the NEPO program is identified, prioritized, and selected with
    broad input from utilities, national laboratories, NERAC, and other
    stakeholders. With about a dozen projects underway, this program
    demonstrates the Department's ability to lead without massive funding:
    about 60 percent of NEPO funding is provided by industry and the suite
    of projects focuses on areas that industry would not have pursued on
    its own-projects that look at the long-term and focus on the need for a
    stable, reliable, non-polluting electricity source for the United
    States. We are requesting $4.5 million in fiscal year 2002 for NEPO
    research to improve existing plant operations, safety and reliability.
        In fiscal year 2002, our NEPO program will sponsor several 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. This comprehensive strategic R&D
    plan, developed jointly by the Department, industry, and a subcommittee
    of NERAC, includes near-term R&D that industry is doing on its own;
    long-term R&D in which the Federal investment is leveraged with
    industry to apply the unique infrastructure or expertise of DOE; and
    R&D that is needed to accelerate solutions to generic technical
    problems affecting existing nuclear power plants. The research projects
    conducted in the NEPO program address technical issues associated with
    a range of topics, including materials fatigue, fuel performance,
    component inspections, in-service inspections and testing, stress
    corrosion, and digital instrumentation and control.
        New in fiscal year 2001, the Nuclear Energy Technologies (NET)
    program is enabling the Department to begin to work on the development
    of the next generation of advanced reactor technologies. We are
    currently developing a Generation IV Technology Roadmap to evaluate a
    variety of advanced nuclear energy system concepts using rigorous
    technology goals developed by NERAC and the international community and
    to define the needed research activities for the most promising
    concepts. The Generation IV goals include the ability of the designs to
    successfully compete in all markets with the most cost-efficient
    electricity production technologies available while further enhancing
    nuclear safety, minimizing the nuclear waste burden, and further
    reducing risk of proliferation.
        The Generation IV Technology Roadmap project is drawing on a wide
    array of researchers, designers, and operators from industry, academia,
    the national laboratories, and the international community. Together,
    approximately 150 senior, experienced engineers and scientists from at
    least 10 countries will work together to create the Generation IV
    Technology Roadmap. We have found that U.S. leadership has been
    essential to this process and that without the Department's initiative,
    this type of effort would not have been possible. Moreover, our
    leadership in this area has proven to be a very important element in
    achieving our overall foreign policy and national security objectives.
    The Generation IV Technology Roadmap will also provide additional
    detail and focus to the Department's long-term R&D plan for nuclear
    technology. The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $4.5 million
    includes funding to complete the roadmap, which will be submitted to
    Congress by fall 2002.
        Finally, in fiscal year 2001, the Department initiated the Advanced
    Accelerator Applications (AAA) program to pursue research and
    development on an accelerator technology with the potential to
    significantly reduce the radioactive toxicity and volume of civilian
    spent nuclear fuel, as well as to produce electricity to help offset
    the life cycle costs of the program. As part of this effort, the
    Department established a new ``AAA University Fellowship'' program and
    plans to award ten fellowships to support Masters Degree studies in
    areas related to the AAA program. Awards are planned to be given out
    within the next 60 days. As required by the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
    Water Appropriations legislation, the Department has prepared a ten-
    year program plan for management and execution of the AAA program,
    exploring the potential of this new type of research facility to meet
    U.S. needs in the 21st Century. However, for fiscal year 2002, the
    Department has requested no new funds for the AAA program. The
    Administration is reviewing U.S. energy policy and related research
    priorities. Until these priorities are clearly identified, the
    Department will not request funding for major new energy initiatives.
                 university reactor fuel assistance and support
    Investments in Education
        Government, industry, and academia face similar challenges today as
    we seek to preserve the aging but highly developed science and
    technology infrastructure that the United States has developed over the
    last 50 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. More trained personnel will be
    required 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. For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting $12
    million in total for this program, an amount equivalent to previous
    years. 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.
    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 education support programs. NE's
    Nuclear Engineering Fellowship and Scholarship Program provides
    fellowships and scholarships to students enrolled in nuclear science
    and engineering programs at U.S. universities. This activity also pairs
    minority-serving institutions with nuclear engineering degree-granting
    institutions with the aim of increasing the number of minority students
    entering the field of nuclear engineering, while simultaneously
    strengthening the infrastructure of nuclear engineering education. In
    fiscal year 2001, we expect to fund three minority/majority
    partnerships, and plan to increase the number to six partnerships in
    fiscal year 2002.
        In fiscal year 2001, and proposed in fiscal year 2002, the
    Department will provide 18 or more grants under the DOE-Utility
    Matching Grants Program to support education, training and innovative
    research at participating universities, in 50-50 cost-shared
    partnership with industry. We provide grants of up to $60,000 to each
    participating university. We also expect to award up to 50 scholarships
    and 24 fellowships this year and next. The fiscal year 2002 request
    also supports the Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) program
    to stimulate innovative research at U.S. universities, at a level of
    $5.0 million. 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 19 NEER grants and, with
    continuation of existing grants, increase the total number of research
    projects underway to 50.
        In fiscal year 2002, Nuclear Energy will continue a program to
    support nuclear engineering education by teaming with a professional
    society with expertise in nuclear science and technology to provide
    information to high school teachers and students. This program will
    help ensure a highly informed group of students are available to enter
    university nuclear engineering programs and related scientific courses
    of study. We also will make new radiochemistry awards for the first
    time since fiscal year 1999. The three-year awards provide faculty
    support and student fellowships to help educate a new generation of
    radiochemists to address the technical challenges associated with
    radioactive wastes and contaminated sites.
        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. However, many U.S.
    universities are currently considering the future of their reactors and
    some are contemplating the closure of their research reactor
    facilities. The Department is concerned about these developments, as is
    the NRC.
        In response to this situation, the Department has asked NERAC to
    establish a special task force to recommend the most appropriate action
    for assuring that university-based facilities vital to our national
    infrastructure remain in operation. The task force has been conducting
    an intensive review and will report its findings and recommendations
    later this month.
        This year, and proposed in fiscal year 2002, we will continue to
    supply fresh fuel to and transport spent fuel from university research
    reactors and to fund reactor equipment upgrades. Also, under the
    reactor sharing initiative, this year, and proposed in fiscal year
    2002, 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.
                      advanced radioisotope power systems
    Enabling Space Exploration and Discovery
        When the astronauts first walked on the moon over 30 years ago,
    they placed radioisotope power systems on the surface to power through
    the long lunar night the experiment packages they left on the surface.
    The images of the outer planets Neptune and Jupiter that have thrilled
    the general public were made possible by the radioisotope power systems
    that powered these scientific spacecraft. Future exploration of the
    outer planets and their moons will continue to require nuclear power
    systems as scientists search to find answers on the origins of our
    solar system and even of how life began. Long time robotic exploration
    of Mars to pursue the potential of finding water or past life forms and
    eventual human exploration will also be made possible by radioisotope
    power systems and eventually by space reactors.
        The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program is our Nation's
    only program for providing the capability to develop and build advanced
    nuclear power systems for deep space exploration and national security
    applications. The program supports and funds DOE activities related to
    sustaining the unique infrastructure that allows the Department to
    develop, demonstrate, test, and deliver power systems to the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other Federal agencies.
    In fiscal year 2002, the Department is requesting $29.1 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
    and heater units for use on a total of 26 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 continue to be indispensable if we are
    to continue our exploration and advance human understanding of the
    universe. Clearly, there will be future missions and there will be a
    need for these systems.
        In supporting these missions, consideration is being given during
    fiscal year 2002 to both a Small Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
    and a new, more efficient, Stirling engine conversion technology. The
    Stirling technology would require a lesser amount of plutonium-238, the
    heat-producing isotope that is used for all radioisotope power systems.
    Efforts will also proceed in support of providing Radioisotope Heater
    Units for two Mars Lander missions in 2003. This effort includes safety
    and environmental analyses to support both NASA's environmental
    documentation and the Department's preparation of Safety Analysis
    Reports, which are required to seek launch approval.
        The expanding needs of our Nation's national security missions 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. In
    fiscal year 2002, we will continue testing the thermoelectric element,
    proceed with design, and initiate fabrication of an engineering unit of
    this new generator.
        For the Department to be able to continue to support these
    important uses of radioisotope power systems, there must be an adequate
    supply of the radioisotope plutonium-238 that is the heat producing
    isotope upon which these systems are based. There is a finite U.S.
    supply of this isotope and the existing U.S. capability to produce the
    isotope is being shut down. Because of the projected long term need for
    this isotope to support future space missions, the Department evaluated
    the option of reestablishing a domestic production capability as part
    of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the
    Department's nuclear Infrastructure. The Record of Decision on this
    PEIS included a decision by former Secretary Richardson to reestablish
    this domestic capability. Funding for the initial planning for this
    capability is included in the fiscal year 2002 request.
        The Department is also trying to position itself so that it can
    support future space exploration that will require higher power levels
    than can realistically be provided by radioisotope power systems--this
    requirement leads to the need for some type of space fission reactor. A
    space-based reactor will have to meet stringent requirements for
    reliability, size and weight. Therefore an assessment of potential
    space fission reactor technologies and concepts that could meet such
    requirements is a necessary first step in a space reactor program. Such
    an effort was begun in fiscal year 2001 will continue in fiscal year
    2002 at a modest level. The assessment will focus on refining selected
    concepts and on evaluating programmatic factors such as cost, safety
    and schedule that would be associated with their potential development
    and delivery. NASA is an integral partner in this assessment and has
    provided the preliminary requirements upon which the assessments are
    based.
                            medical isotope program
    Harnessing Nuclear Technology to Save Lives
        Medical isotopes save lives and reduce health care costs.
    Furthermore, accurate nuclear medicine diagnoses can enable physicians
    and patients to precisely target therapies, thus, in many cases,
    avoiding surgery or other debilitating treatments. The vast majority of
    these procedures use technetium-99m, an isotope first developed for
    medical applications in the 1960s at the Department's Brookhaven
    National Laboratory. Today, ground-breaking human clinical trials at
    Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center are demonstrating that alpha-
    particle-emitting isotopes being produced at the Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory may be extremely effective in treating Acute Myelogenous
    Leukemia. Alpha-emitting isotopes work well when targeted to cancers
    because they provide high-intensity radiation over an extremely short
    distance. Thus, the cancer cells are destroyed with very little damage
    to surrounding tissues.
        The Medical Isotope Program takes advantage of the Department's
    unique infrastructure, including DOE's research reactors and particle
    accelerators, to provide a reliable supply of stable and radioactive
    isotopes used in medicine, industry and research. Support of research
    applications that use isotopes is the Medical Isotope Program's primary
    focus. The program achieves this by providing peer-reviewed grants for
    medical research and education through the Advanced Nuclear Medicine
    Initiative (ANMI), by producing the low-volume, high-cost ``boutique''
    isotopes that are needed for research, and by maintaining the unique
    Department of Energy infrastructure that is needed to produce isotopes.
        The Department's fiscal year 2002 request for the Medical Isotope
    Program is $18.2 million. In fiscal year 2002, the Department will
    continue its emphasis on isotope-based research by applying $2.5
    million to the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, a program that
    applies the Department's unique expertise to advance the state of U.S.
    medical research, diagnosis and treatment. We believe that, as in the
    example of alpha isotopes, 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 the conduct of advanced research
    in the United States where isotopes are needed. In addition, the ANMI
    supports the development of science and technology programs at U.S.
    universities and colleges to address the critical need to train experts
    in fields relevant to nuclear medicine such as radiochemistry and
    radiopharmaceuticals.
        The ANMI uses a peer-review process in which members of the NERAC
    and other prominent experts judge the scientific merits of projects
    proposed by universities, hospitals, and the national laboratories for
    funding. I am pleased with the results to date. In September, 2000,
    nine research grants were made. Recipients of these grants include the
    Garden State Cancer Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Regents of
    the University of Michigan, University of Chicago, University of
    California Davis, University of Washington, Westinghouse Electric
    Company LLC, and two awards to the Curators of the University of
    Missouri. Five educational grants to support nuclear medicine
    disciplines at universities and colleges were made in March 2001 to
    Washington University, Purdue University, University of New Mexico
    Health Sciences, Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, and
    Washington State University. With the $2.5 million requested in fiscal
    year 2002, we propose to continue the research projects and assistance
    to students provided this year.
        A total of $11.0 million will go toward maintaining core personnel
    and operating capabilities at the four Isotope Production and
    Distribution sites, and $250,000 toward improving the quality of
    isotope products and production processes. The fiscal year 2002 program
    will continue to serve its customers through the production and
    distribution of stable and radioactive isotopes necessary for medical,
    industrial, and research purposes. The Department is continuing 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.
        However, we must reinvest in the production of isotopes to support
    the Nation's researchers. One of our most important projects in this
    area is the construction of an Isotope Production Facility (IPF) at Los
    Alamos National Laboratory which will maintain the Government's ability
    to produce short-lived isotopes required for some of the most important
    medical research underway in the United States.
        During the past year, we became aware of some issues arising in the
    project to construct the IPF. Changes in the operating schedule of the
    LANSCE accelerator at the laboratory, increased costs for design and
    construction, and other issues were uncovered during reviews last year.
    We convened a special expert review to assess the situation and make
    recommendations about the continuation of the program. The primary
    charge to the review committee was to evaluate the IPF project team's
    revised cost and schedule estimate for completeness and credibility by
    analyzing the following: technical progress relative to the scientific
    requirements for the instrument; completeness of the scope; proposed
    budget, cost and schedule profile, including the commitment of funds
    and personnel and its adequacy to complete the project on schedule and
    within budget; proposed budget, cost and schedule profile for the
    instrumentation and controls on the new accelerator beam line and
    target handling system; whether the contingency is adequate for the
    project at this stage of its development; adequacy of management
    structures, including the relationships to the LANSCE mission
    organization, to deliver the IPF within specifications and budget and
    on time; and proposed budget, cost and schedule profile for the
    development, review and approval of the safety basis documentation and
    performance of the required readiness review.
        With the help of this review, we have established a new, high-
    confidence bottom-up cost estimate of the remaining work. Our request
    of $2.494 million for the IPF in fiscal year 2002 is being submitted to
    enable the project to be completed in September 2003.
        The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
    disappointed that these problems have occurred. In response to the
    problems that have developed in this project, oversight of the project
    will be strengthened by establishing an expert project review
    capability at the site which will report directly to the Office of
    Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. We also plan to issue a
    competitive procurement for a separate subcontract to complete portions
    of the work on the IPF instrumentation and control system, an area
    where the current contractor's initial estimate proved to be extremely
    problematic. The current project request incorporates corrections to
    reflect actual costs and revised estimates deemed necessary to complete
    the project successfully.
        Another key initiative of the Medical Isotope Program is the
    processing and extraction of alpha-emitting isotopes from residual
    uranium materials stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
    Researchers throughout the United States are assessing alpha-emitting
    radioisotopes that can destroy cancer cells and reduce tumors. Alpha-
    emitters such as Bismuth-213 have been demonstrated to be successful
    for cancer therapy. In an effort to meet increased demand to support
    human clinical trials, the Department is expanding its processing to
    achieve a 30 percent increase in supply over the next year. For the
    long term, the Department plans to double the supply of Bismuth-213 by
    2002. However, this will require installation of a new processing line
    at ORNL. As additional supply is made available, researchers will
    increase human clinical trials and develop treatments for other serious
    cancers including cancer of the pancreas, kidneys and other organs.
        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, have 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. To that end, the Department will have to make capital
    investments in new, replaced, or enhanced processing equipment and
    infrastructure to improve production and processing of isotopes to meet
    current and anticipated future increases in demand.
                  infrastructure/nuclear facilities management
    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
    in Idaho. Nuclear Energy is also responsible for the safe shutdown of
    the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in Hanford, Washington. As part of
    our stewardship over these facilities, we are responsible for the
    management and disposition, where appropriate, of nuclear materials.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request for Nuclear Facilities
    Management--$30.5 million--supports Experimental Breeder Reactor-II
    shutdown activities; the disposition of spent fuel and legacy
    materials; and research on, and development of, various waste
    disposition technologies. The activities of the Infrastructure program
    are focused on maintenance of the Argonne National Laboratory-West
    nuclear infrastructure, the TRA Landlord program, and the Fast Flux
    Test Facility (FFTF) shutdown and deactivation. A funding level of
    $81.3 million is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2002.
        Under the Nuclear Facilities Management program, in March 2001, the
    Department completed the processing of the EBR-II secondary and primary
    sodium and the Fermi reactor sodium, in compliance with the Idaho
    National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Treatment Plan, two
    months ahead of schedule. In fiscal year 2002, we will complete the
    engineering and technical efforts supporting the deactivation of the
    EBR-II and directly related facilities. The deactivation of EBR-II is
    currently on schedule to be completed by March 2002. We are requesting
    $4.2 million to complete EBR-II deactivation.
        We will continue to carry out the disposition of spent fuel at ANL-
    West in accordance with the Record of Decision on the treatment and
    management of stored sodium-bonded fuel. Also, we intend to continue
    research that supports NRC approval of the 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 and is now stored by a commercial entity at ANL-West. These
    activities account for $16.3 million of the fiscal year 2002 request.
        Finally, we are requesting $10.0 million for waste disposition
    technology activities, including R&D of process refinements to ensure
    proper treatment of EBR-II fuel rods; a development and test effort on
    waste stream treatment process equipment of a scale suitable for
    inventory treatment; long-term waste characterization tests;
    improvements to existing process equipment; and development of zeolite
    columns and other equipment refinements to reduce waste volume and
    improve process efficiency.
        Within the Infrastructure program, 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 privatization
    of production of isotopes for medicine and industry. The program also
    funds operations, maintenance and upgrade activities for common site
    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. In fiscal year 2002, we are requesting $8.7 million
    for these TRA-related activities.
        The permanent deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)
    was directed in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Department in
    January 2001. The fiscal year 2002 NE budget request reflects the
    investment required to continue FFTF deactivation, and to reach
    milestones crucial to an expeditious completion of deactivation
    activities in subsequent fiscal years. Experience gained from the
    deactivation of the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) is being
    applied to the deactivation planning and execution for the FFTF. In
    fiscal year 2002, Argonne National Laboratory engineers will continue
    to work closely with deactivation staff at FFTF to ensure that lessons
    learned are imparted to the extent practicable. This engineering and
    analytical support is anticipated to result in efficiencies, and, in
    some cases, such as sodium processing, direct application of state-of-
    the-art technology developed specifically for deactivation purposes.
        The remainder of the Infrastructure budget request is for Argonne
    National Laboratory-West Operations, for which we are requesting $34.1
    million in fiscal year 2002. This funding will provide the engineering,
    technical, operator and technician support for maintaining the nuclear
    facilities at ANL-W in compliance with DOE Rules and Orders,
    environmental and industrial safety requirements, and good management
    practice. It will also support conceptual design activities for the
    Remote Treatment Facility project, which is needed for disposal of
    mixed transuranic waste stored at ANL-W. Construction on this facility
    is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005, with operations commencing
    in fiscal year 2009.
                    program direction/organizational issues
    Continuing to Refocus the U.S. Nuclear R&D Program
        NE represents the Federal Government's core expertise and
    capability in a wide range of civilian nuclear technologies. NE is one
    of the most diverse organizations in the Department. It is a research
    and development program that crosses many fields of application, all
    unified by its expertise and experience in the application of nuclear
    science and technology. The previous sections illustrate the breadth of
    our efforts.
        During the past year, two nuclear-related activities were moved to
    other offices. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation language transferred
    Uranium Programs and related personnel funding from NE to the Office of
    Environmental Management (EM) in recognition of the fact that the bulk
    of activities in Uranium Programs fell closely under the areas of
    expertise and effort covered by EM. This change will assure that NE
    activities are strongly focused on research and development. Therefore,
    the fiscal year 2002 budget request for NE does not seek funding for
    any Uranium Program activities or personnel expenses. In addition, the
    Department decided in fiscal year 2001 that safeguards and security
    activities within the DOE complex are so important that they should be
    direct-funded programs rather than be funded as an indirect cost of
    doing business. Therefore, all of the funding included in the fiscal
    year 2002 NE budget request for safeguards and security activities
    reflects the transfer of funds to other program offices for carrying
    out these activities.
        In the Program Direction category for fiscal year 2002, NE is
    requesting $25.1 million for salaries, travel, support services and
    other administrative expenses for headquarters and field personnel
    providing technical direction to NE programs. Our Program Direction
    funding also supports the many intensive activities of the NERAC.
        As part of the Department's objective to maintain a highly skilled
    workforce, NE must hire additional staff to replenish critical
    technical expertise such as that required to assure the safe operation
    of the Department's various reactor facilities and to carry out new
    responsibilities such as the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)
    and the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) programs. In addition,
    NE is faced with another issue concerning the aging workforce. The
    average age of NE employees is 49, and there are many employees who
    will soon be eligible to retire (25 percent by December 31, 2001). Over
    50 percent of the current organization could turn over within just a
    few years. Staffing levels have reached the point where some
    augmentation is necessary to be able to maintain a core staff of
    knowledgeable, competent, and experienced scientists and engineers to
    meet the growing responsibilities now being placed on the Office. NE is
    currently recruiting several entry-level engineering and scientific
    positions to replace senior, experienced technical staff expected to
    retire in the near future.
                                   conclusion
        Over the last three years, the Nuclear Energy program has made
    great strides. We have launched three new research initiatives, and
    have successfully demonstrated a major technology for treatment of
    spent fuel. The budget we are proposing for fiscal year 2002 would
    provide for more focused international collaboration and leveraging of
    the Federal investment in nuclear energy R&D, and would sustain our
    enduring role in support of space exploration, would ensure the
    continuing supply of medical and research radioisotopes, and would
    provide for ongoing 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 50 years. I look forward to working with you and
    the Subcommittee as we embark on preparing the technologies needed for
    this new century.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would like to
    thank you and the Subcommittee members for your continuing support of
    the Nuclear Energy program. I will be happy to answer any questions.

        Senator Bennett. Senator Craig, do you have some questions
    or comment?
        Senator Craig. I do.
        Senator Bennett. You are recognized.
        Senator Craig. And if you have to go----
        Senator Bennett. No. You go ahead, and then we--we both
    have to go at 11:00.
        Senator Craig. Oh, okay.
        Senator Bennett. We--we have--yes.
        Senator Craig. All right. Well, then I will--then we will
    move right along.
        Senator Bennett. Yes, we have a vote.

                           GENERATION IV TECHNOLOGIES

        Senator Craig. Gentlemen, thank you all for your testimony.
    I am pleased to hear your discussion about what is moving
    forward with nuclear energy and the concern, because I agree
    with you, Mr. Magwood, that where we are and where we need to
    be is--is very critical.
        The Department of Energy has named the Idaho National
    Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National
    Laboratory-West as lead laboratories for advanced nuclear
    reactor development. The budget request, as you mentioned,
    includes $4 million for Generation IV advanced nuclear
    activities. What would DOE do--or what do you plan to do with
    that level of funding?
        Mr. Magwood. With that level of funding, we will be able to
    complete the Generation IV Technology roadmap. That roadmap is
    being administered and run largely by Idaho National
    Engineering Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. And
    they have been coordinating with the entire international
    research community to perform this effort.
        Without them, quite frankly, it would not be possible to do
    this, so much of those resources are being used by Argonne and
    Idaho to pursue the technology roadmap, and we should complete
    it on schedule by the end of next year.

                       NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

        Senator Craig. Of course we understand that the budget
    request was cut by--well, there was an $18 million initiative
    there, the National Research--the National Energy Research
    Initiative, and that was cut down.
        What are the implications of this reduction--reduced
    funding level for ongoing multi-year proposals, and will the
    program be able to fund any new research proposals?
        Mr. Magwood. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)
    is down from last year, down to about an $18 million request
    for fiscal year 2002.
        We will not be able to support new proposals for 2002 with
    that funding level. This is somewhat of a concern to the
    research community obviously because we have been building some
    momentum with that program.
        However, I think it is appropriate that we not make
    commitments for new programs unless we are certain that NERI
    will continue. Until the Department sets its priorities based
    on the Vice President's analysis, we would not want to make any
    promises we could not keep.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        Senator Craig. Okay. I am concerned that funding requested
    for Argonne West in nuclear facilities management and--and
    infrastructure accounts is insufficient to meet the EBR2 spent
    fuel treatment deadlines and adequately maintain Argonne West's
    facilities as agreed to by DOE.
        At the requested funding level, will DOE be able to meet
    the fuel treatment deadlines and also maintain Argonne West
    facilities?
        Mr. Magwood. For fiscal year 2002, the answer to that is
    yes. We are able to meet our commitments. It is clear, however,
    that in the future we will require more funding to meet all the
    commitments, particularly for treating spent nuclear fuel, but
    for 2002, we would have sufficient funds to continue to work
    where necessary.

               UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROGRAM

        Senator Craig. Okay. You mentioned the need to keep
    university reactors up and the emergency situation there. I
    recently co-sponsored a bill with the Chairman of this
    subcommittee, Senator Domenici, and others, to provide other
    $30 million for support to university nuclear science and
    engineering programs to address the critical need to educate
    the next generation of nuclear experts.
        The budget request is only $12 million for these programs.
    Do you feel the level of funding will adequately address the
    university needs, and does that fit into this emergency
    situation you are speaking to?
        Mr. Magwood. Clearly, the budget was structured long before
    we had clear recommendations from NERAC as to what actions the
    Department should take.
        We have now received those recommendations from NERAC, just
    yesterday. And while NERAC has not provided us with a specific
    target, it is clear that the current funding levels would not
    be adequate to respond to the need that NERAC has foreseen.
        We clearly have to look closely at the NERAC's
    recommendations. They recommended we hold a workshop among the
    university community this summer. And after that, we would be
    in a position to better estimate what the need would be. But it
    would be more than the current $12 million budget.

                   ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING LEGISLATION

        Senator Craig. Thank you.
        Mr. Decker, I just happened to have come from the Commerce
    Committee where I testified on climate change. And a week ago,
    I was sitting with Dr. Charles Canal, who is the head of the
    National Research Council arm of the National Science--National
    Science Foundation as it relates to this overall study.
        We were talking about the need of coordinating Federal
    resources to get to the business of building a major computer
    model for us to determine our future and our policy as it
    relates to climate change.
        I think a lot of us forget that the Department of Energy is
    really a premiere science agency in many respects. And, of
    course, you have mentioned the human genome and the advanced
    computing applications worked on by DOE scientists. It is that
    computer capability that we need.
        We do not need to go out and acquire new super computers.
    We simply need to be able to work, to schedule accordingly--and
    that may well be an approach that comes from this
    Administration and others. We are all counciling together now
    to see where we can get as it relates to bringing our science
    and our scientists together.
        There is lots of good science out there. The question is
    the application, how it is analyzed, how it is peer-reviewed,
    and how it is applied. And it--probably from a regional and
    global standpoint, it is going to take a modeling that we are
    satisfied with compared to what we have been using.
        Are you aware of Senate Bill 193, and are you supportive of
    it?
        Dr. Decker. No, sir, I am not aware of that bill.
        Senator Craig. This would deal with--this is legislation
    related to advanced scientific computing programs within the
    DOE, within the Office of Science. I was just curious whether
    you were sensitive to that.
        Dr. Decker. I remember that there was some work being done
    on drafting a bill, but I do not think I have seen a recent
    version.
        Senator Craig. Well, my guess is we are going to be working
    even more closely. I do not know how much all of this will come
    together, but it is very possible that in the near future a
    great new project for the supercomputers will be working to
    help shape a model.
        Do I have time for one more question, or do you have some?
        Senator Bennett. Go ahead. Surely. Go ahead.
        Senator Craig. Okay.
        And this is for you, Mr. Dixon. Within the Office of Energy
    Efficiency, there is a program called Industries of the Future,
    which funds energy efficiency research and development divided
    by industry sector.
        One of the industry sectors involved in the program is the
    mining industry. This program funds projects related to
    advanced mining equipment and technologies aimed at improving
    the safety and the productivity of mining and processing
    operations.
        A total of only about $9 million has been spent on this
    program from fiscal year 1999 to 2001. Although the budget
    request for this program is only about $2 million in fiscal
    year 2002, this program is strongly supported by the National
    Mining Association and by mining programs at colleges around
    the country, such as the University of Idaho.
        Do you feel the amount requested in the budget for the
    mining industry program is adequate? Is $2 million sufficient
    to continue funding an ongoing multi-year--or the ongoing
    multi-year proposal?
        Dr. Dixon. Senator Craig, thank you for that question. The
    Industries of the Future's program is outside my specific
    jurisdiction, but I would be happy to take your question back
    to the Department and provide you an answer for the record.
        Senator Craig. If you would do that and we will help direct
    it, we appreciate that. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Dixon. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        [The information follows:]

                     Mining Industry of the Future Program

        The fiscal year 2002 congressional budget request of $2.11 million
    for the Mining Industry of The Future (IOF) program is an appropriate
    level. It will be used to maintain the funding of existing cost shared
    research programs targeted to increase cross cutting technologies in
    the coal and hard rock mining industries. It will also fund start up,
    costs shared, projects for mining industry wide processing research.
    These projects are aimed at energy savings while developing new,
    innovative, technologies that produce higher quality products at lower
    costs and protecting human health and the environment.
        Mining Industry of The Future research and development projects,
    supported by the Department of Energy laboratories, are displaying
    improved energy conservation, while improving industry visions of
    advanced technologies that produce higher quality products and enhance
    the United States mining industry as the world leader in mining and
    mineral processing. The processing roadmap projects that are initiated
    will develop new outreaching technologies that will continue to advance
    the mining industry.

                              NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Mr. Magwood, long before I came to the Senate, as a private
    citizen, I supported an increased use of nuclear power in the
    United States. It simply made sense to me. Now, as a Senator,
    the more I get into it, the more sense it makes to me,
    particularly in view of the California situation and the
    difficulties that we are facing with respect to power. So your
    comments are very welcome and very optimistic.
        My question is an unfair question, but we ask unfair
    questions all the time, and are asked unfair questions by the
    press all the time. How realistic is it?
        Do you really sense that the political atmosphere is such
    in this country now that we can, in fact, build a new nuclear
    plant; or do you think that the appeals, the protests, the
    pickets, the rest of the folklore that has been built up around
    nuclear power will still be so strong that, in fact, we cannot
    build a new nuclear plant regardless of what the science says?
        Mr. Magwood. I think it is very realistic and I will give
    you the best reason why. When you talk to people across the
    country, there are obviously a variety of views about nuclear
    power: however, the people who are generally most familiar with
    nuclear power and the most accepting of nuclear power are these
    who live in communities around existing nuclear power plants.
        They are very well informed due to the kinds of
    communications that take place with the utility. They reflect
    very high numbers in the polls when asked, ``Would you like to
    see more nuclear power plants built in the United States?''
        These communities would accept and have accepted the
    relicensing of existing nuclear power plants at existing sites.
    We believe that most utilities that are thinking about new
    nuclear power plants would build these new plants at existing
    sites.
        So instead of breaking ground at a greenfield site, they
    would add to the nuclear power plants at a site that is already
    in operation. I think that the public around those plants are
    finding that very acceptable. And utilities are having those
    conversations and are thinking about that very carefully right
    now.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I hope you are right. I am afraid
    that the protestors very often do not live anywhere near the
    site that they are protesting.
        I have had that experience in my own State. The Southern
    Utah Wilderness Alliance is made up of people who do not live
    in Southern Utah and, indeed most of them have never set foot
    in the State of Utah, but they are--I will not go down that
    road anymore. I am sorry.

                          RECYCLING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

        Let us talk about recycling spent fuel in less toxic ways.
    You mentioned that in your opening statement. Bring me up to
    date on where the science is and how--how close we are to--to
    getting nuclear waste to a much more benign state.
        I know you cannot ever reduce it completely to common dirt,
    but you can at least lower it from what it used to be. And just
    kind of go there for a little--for a little while with me.
        Mr. Magwood. Sure. It is an interesting subject, obviously
    over the last several years, it has been very difficult to have
    much of a conversation in the country about it. There was not
    really a political environment to have a discussion about the
    possibility of recycling spent nuclear fuel.
        Currently there is policy on the books that would prohibit
    the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. I think this is something
    that needs to be evaluated.
        Senator Bennett. Is that a Congressional mandate, or is an
    executive----
        Mr. Magwood. There is an executive order.
        Senator Bennett. Executive order, okay.
        Mr. Magwood. Rather Presidential decision directive, number
    13, I believe.
        We have had significant conversations with other countries,
    particularly the Japanese and the French, about advanced
    recycling technologies and also the use of high energy
    accelerators to transmute nuclear waste into less toxic forms.
        I was talking to Burt Richter, the chairman of our NERAC
    Subcommittee, about this just yesterday. He told me that his
    calculation is that compared to spent nuclear fuel, which has a
    life of about 300,000 years, he believes that after going
    through recycling and transmutation, the resulting waste would
    last only about 3,000 years.
        He also said that is just about the lifetime of the
    pyramids, so obviously we can deal with that. That was his
    quick analysis.

                         PUREX REPROCESSING TECHNOLOGY

        There are clearly a lot of technical issues that remain. We
    would not want to see a vast expansion of the Purex
    reprocessing technology, which is practiced in Europe.
        It creates a significant amount of separated plutonium. It
    also creates large amounts of high-level waste that would need
    to be dealt with. But there are prospects for more advanced
    technologies, such as accelerator transmutation to address
    these situations.
        While I think we are not there yet, I certainly think that
    over probably about a 10-year period we could find technologies
    that would enable us to deal with nuclear waste. As you know
    the Department recently submitted a 10-year plan to Congress on
    the potential of using accelerators to transmute nuclear waste.
        Senator Bennett. That is encouraging, because aside from
    the waste issue--and I do not mean to minimize the waste
    issue--nuclear power is the cleanest and safest--I guess with
    the exception of hydroelectric.
        But there is great opposition also to the building of dams.
    Indeed, there are those who say we must take down the dams that
    we currently have.
        But nuclear power has the best safety record of any power
    plant that we operate. Is that not true or--is that hyperbole
    that I have heard that needs to be corrected?
        Mr. Magwood. Well, I have never heard of anyone killed by a
    solar cell. But I think that it is clearly true that----
        Senator Bennett. I do not know, sun cancer.

                                 NUCLEAR SAFETY

        Mr. Magwood. I think it is clearly true that when you look
    at the fuel cycle of any source of electricity, be it coal, or
    natural gas, that there have been, injuries and deaths
    associated with these industries.
        However, in the United States, I do not think that anyone
    has ever been killed from the use of nuclear power. But there
    is a little hyperbole there, because there is, of course, with
    nuclear power the need to carefully manage the materials, to
    make sure the spent fuel is dealt with appropriately.
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Mr. Magwood To make sure that the plants are operated
    safely. As long as these things are done, nuclear power is very
    safe, and in this country it has an excellent record that we
    are very proud of. So I would conclude that nuclear power is
    very safe.
        Senator Bennett. Yes. I am glad to have you add that
    caveat, because we need to, ``in this country.''
        Obviously, the specter of Chernobyl is there for the
    problems of nuclear in places where they do not do the kinds of
    things that you have described and that your office is involved
    in.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I regret
    I had two other hearings and another meeting this morning, so I
    missed the----

              FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET REQUEST FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Senator Bennett. We understand, because we have all been
    cycling through here.
        Senator Dorgan. I missed the testimony, but I have reviewed
    it. And I would like to ask a couple of questions, especially
    about renewable energy, if I might.
        The renewable energy budget request for solar, wind,
    biomass, hydrogen, geothermal, hydropower, and so on, research
    and development is $237.4 million or a cut of 36 percent. I am
    very disappointed by that.
        Obviously, we are facing very serious energy issues that we
    have to deal with. We are talking about increased production
    needs, increased conservation needs and so on. In my judgment,
    part of the solution is to continue to work to make renewable
    commercial and acceptable and to have it contribute to our
    energy supply.
        Now, Dr. Dixon, you indicated there would be a budget
    amendment, and that is helpful, but it will still leave us far
    short of what we had last year and where we ought to be, in my
    judgment.
        Let me just run through a couple of numbers. A $135 million
    cut, or a 36-percent cut from last year in renewables. The wind
    energy program is $20.5 million. Last year, the budget request
    was $50.5 million. That is a dramatic cut in support from the
    Administration.
        Last year it was a substantial increase. This year, it is a
    dramatic request for a cut. Last year, we appropriated $39.5
    million for wind. This year, you are asking for a cut nearly in
    half for wind energy. It seems to me like you are moving in
    exactly the opposite direction in this budget.
        Can you tell me what the basis would be for taking the
    renewable section and gutting it?
        Dr. Dixon. Thank you, Senate Dorgan. I believe your summary
    of the--the historical budget information is correct.
        Just for the record, our 2002 budget request will total
    almost $277 million with a $39 million amendment, which is
    finding its way up to Capitol Hill.
        I would like to refer you to the Secretary of Energy's
    statement when the President's budget was announced about 3
    weeks ago. The Secretary of Energy specifically identified the
    hydrogen, high-temperature superconductivity, geothermal, and
    wind energy research programs, that they were maintained at
    levels that provide a launching point for new initiatives
    following the release of the Vice President's energy
    development task force report.
        Senator Dorgan. What does that mean?

                              ENERGY POLICY REPORT

        Dr. Dixon. The report will contain a number of chapters
    which address a variety of energy sources including renewable
    energy, and we have all been working together on the report.
    And we understand that our input is being considered and that
    there will be recommendations with regard to all energy sources
    in the future, development of those energy sources, including
    renewable energy.
        So the wind energy program would be well positioned to be
    launched, pending the recommendations of that report.
        Senator Dorgan. Do you know something? I do not have any
    idea what you just said, Dr. Dixon. I admire your public
    service but I just do not understand. You dig a hole and then
    talk about positioning for a launch.
        Wind energy, which in my judgment has significant promise
    for this country. Let me just deal with wind for a moment. The
    efficiencies of the new wind turbines are very substantially
    improved. The capabilities for wind energy to be commercial and
    provide substantial opportunities for this country are
    enormous, and it looks to me like the proposal, even with the
    add-back is to cut wind energy by 50 percent. That does not
    make any sense to me.
        I think you are saying, ``Well, maybe, when the Vice
    President comes out with his program, we are going to launch
    something new,'' but, you know, you do not launch from a hole.
    And you are digging a hole here.
        I do not mean to diminish what you just said. I just do not
    understand it. Any way to be more clear?
        Dr. Dixon. Well, I think we need to wait for the
    recommendations of the Vice President's task force----
        Senator Dorgan. Do you think that that is----
        Dr. Dixon [continuing]. And hopefully that will provide
    some clarity with regard to the future priorities and
    directions of these programs.
        Senator Dorgan. Is there some hope among this panel that
    the Vice President's task force will recommend at least
    equivalent funding, if not increased funding from last year
    with respect to wind energy, solar, biomass, hydrogen,
    geothermal, et cetera?
        Dr. Dixon. Well, again, I would refer you to the
    Secretary's statement in which he specifically identified the
    wind energy program as being well positioned to be launched
    based upon the recommendations of the report.
        Senator Dorgan. But that, of course, is at odds with the
    budget recommendation. So let me try again.
        Are you saying that there is some possibility that when the
    Vice President announces his program that we may actually see
    wind energy funded at least at last year's level and perhaps an
    increase? Does that possibility exist in your judgment?
        Dr. Dixon. That possibility exists.
        Senater Dorgan. Can I call you?
        Dr. Dixon. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. Let me just say that I think this is an
    awful time to be cutting these areas. I guess when you do your
    add-back here in 2 weeks, you are going to submit a budget
    amendment. And that amendment excludes, as I understand it,
    wind energy. The budget amendment is going to add to some
    renewables. But it will still come up far short.
        You are saying in addition to this adding back, which
    represents a judgment that we are short, the Vice President
    will probably add back even further in some areas. Why would
    the 2-week add-back not include the Vice President's
    recommendations?
        Dr. Dixon. Well, of course, the report is still a work in
    progress. And the amendment that is finding its way up here
    would address those priorities of the Secretary of Energy.
        And we are hopeful that, in fact, the recommendations
    provide a clear list of priorities, and investments would be
    aligned with those priorities.

                                  WIND ENERGY

        Senator Dorgan. Last year, 54 Senators joined me in sending
    a letter to the Chairman and the Ranking Member supporting the
    renewables program. These 54 members of the U.S. Senate signed
    up to say, ``Yes, we think this is really important.'' It is
    much more important this year, given what we see with respect
    to our energy problem.
        We have to do a lot of everything. We have to find more,
    produce more. We have to conserve more. We have to do a lot of
    everything.
        In my judgment, because I am a big fan of these areas, we
    especially have to find ways to bring renewable technologies
    into the commercial sector through research and development.
        We are making great progress in doing that. Again, I have
    spent some time on the issue of wind energy myself and I am
    mightily impressed by the new technology in wind turbines.
        The last thing we ought to do is slip and slide back on
    this issue. And that is what the budget does.
        The add-back excludes wind; would you agree with that?
        Dr. Dixon. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. Okay. So we have about a 50-percent cut in
    wind energy and you are going to have an add-back that excludes
    wind and I am to leave here hoping that we have dug a hole we
    are going to launch from when the Vice President offers his
    advice on renewables.
        Well, I have got your phone number, Mr. Dixon, and you and
    I will chat again. I did want to at least come here and say
    that I think this energy issue we have is an abiding issue. It
    is a very difficult issue.
        Some say, ``We will drill in ANWR, and that is the
    solution.'' Some others say, ``Renewables,'' but we are not
    going to get our way out of this very quickly. And we have not
    had a decent energy policy under any administration, Republican
    or Democrat.
        We are trying to find our way to do a lot of things, some
    of them very difficult. I am not a big fan of nuclear energy, I
    might say.
        But, you know, I understand all the discussion about all
    these things, because this country is in a bind on energy. And
    we need to do a lot of things and do them right.
        And included in that, at least from my little perspective
    here, is renewables. And I am terribly disappointed in the
    budget and very much hope that there would be good news coming
    from the Vice President's recommendations. But I must tell you
    that in the discussions that I have been privy to, I have heard
    talk about things other than renewable in a substantial way.
        Mr. Chairman, we have a vote.
        Senator Bennett. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. Thank you for indulging me, even though I
    was late.
        Senator Bennett. No, no, not at all.
        Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Bennett. Senator Domenici's opening statement will
    be included in the record, and his questions will be submitted
    in the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

        Questions Submitted to the Office of Power Technologies, Energy
                        Efficiency and Renewable Energy

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

                                      wind
        Question. The fiscal year 2001 Wind Energy Systems appropriation
    directed $100,000 to be provided to the Turtle Mountain Community
    College in North Dakota for a wind turbine for educational purposes.
    What is the status of this activity?
        Answer. The Department's Wind Energy Systems Program has authorized
    this funding to the Golden Field Office, and negotiations are currently
    underway for the award of a grant to the College. We look forward to
    helping Turtle Mountain Community College make this project a
    successful experience for educating themselves and their community on
    the many benefits of wind energy.
                                   geothermal
        Question. Why has the Department chosen to close out all Geothermal
    systems field verification projects?
        Answer. Funding has already been provided under the existing field
    verification contracts for completion of preliminary engineering
    designs. The documentation of those designs will provide a useful basis
    for decisions regarding future power plant developments and may be
    sufficient to attract the private sector investment needed to complete
    the current projects.
        Question. What is the status of the $2,000,000 Congressional
    earmark for the Lake County Basin 2000 Geothermal Project in
    California?
        Answer. The Department's Idaho Operations Office has established a
    grant for the Lake County Sanitation District as a result of the
    $2,000,000 Congressional earmark. The funds will be used to complete
    the second phase of a pipeline project to transport treated wastewater
    to The Geysers geothermal steam field for power generation activities.
    The Department is pleased the project will provide benefits to Lake
    County residents and help maintain stable power production.
                                    hydrogen
        Question. How much funding are you prepared to provide to the
    Nevada Test Site to develop the fuel cell locomotive and front-end
    loader?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001 Congress appropriated $2 million for
    the development of a PEM fuel cell powered front-end loader for
    underground mining applications. This vehicle is intended to be
    refueled and tested in an underground mine in Nevada.
        The goal of this fuel cell project is to develop and validate an
    articulated front-end loader capable of operating in deep mines without
    any of the emissions normally produced from diesel engines. This
    project will demonstrate the ability of the fuel cell to provide the
    power density necessary for a single shift operation, and interface
    dynamically with the rest of the mining equipment with the advantages
    of a longer-term storage system than a battery system. This technology
    offers application opportunities for both U.S. and Canadian mines. The
    Canadian government is also providing cost share funding.
        A solicitation was issued for the design, development and
    manufacture of a locomotive and front-end loader for Nevada mines, and
    responses were received on March 1, 2001. The proposals are in the
    process of being evaluated. Provided there is a favorable review by the
    merit review committee and the proposal meets programmatic factors for
    a technology validation project, there should be a procurement decision
    shortly.
        The Department expects to expend the entire two million dollars
    that has been allocated for this project in fiscal year 2001.
                               superconductivity
        Question. There was an increase in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation to accelerate development on the ``second generation'' of
    HTS (high temperature superconductivity) wires. What has resulted?
        Answer. The funding increase was used to accelerate cost-shared
    research with several private sector companies and to better equip Los
    Alamos and Oak Ridge national laboratories to effectively work with
    U.S. industry to develop the ``second generation'' of HTS wires.
        The funding has been used at Los Alamos to hire three new staff
    members and to purchase state of the art research equipment for a new
    10,000 square foot laboratory in the Industrial Research Park now under
    construction at the LANL site. The research park will host joint
    laboratory/industry research for accelerated HTS wire development.
    Dedication of the new laboratory will take place this summer.
        The funding has also been used at Oak Ridge to equip a renovated
    2,300 square feet laboratory space where research previously conducted
    in several separate laboratories has been consolidated. The new
    laboratory was dedicated on April 19, 2001 in a ceremony attended by
    House Science Committee staff. A new permanent Oak Ridge staff member
    and two post-doctoral research fellows have been hired to staff the
    laboratory.
                                    biomass
        Question. What is the status of the Iowa switchgrass project and
    are you requesting funds for the continuation of this project?
        Answer. The Iowa Chariton Valley switchgrass project was awarded on
    a Rural Development competitive solicitation to demonstrate closed loop
    biomass co-firing with coal. This project has great potential to
    successfully verify the co-firing of switchgrass with coal and the
    potential for establishing a new alternative energy crop that can
    provide financial benefits to the farm economy. The cooperative
    agreement is a three-phased arrangement. Phase 1 is defined as:
    Integrated system development, engineering, and environmental
    permitting and licensing; Phase 2 as a demonstration phase is comprised
    of the establishment of the biomass crop, facility construction, and
    testing of both the supply system and the conversion facility; and
    Phase 3 as a commercial operation phase in which the integrated biomass
    production and conversion facility will be functioning in a commercial
    operations mode without Federal funds.
        We are currently negotiating the advancement of the project from
    Phase 1 to Phase 2 which will use fiscal year 2001 appropriations and
    the work will be completed as part of each Phase. The program has
    planned for up to $3 million of the fiscal year 2002 requested budget
    to be directed toward this project, however, this is dependent upon the
    results of the aforementioned ongoing negotiations.
                                     solar
        Question. For the last several years, your office has been
    extolling the virtues of PV--now you are reducing the PV budget by
    about 50 percent. What changed your mind about the benefits of PV?
        Answer. We have not changed our mind. We will continue core
    research and development in photovoltaics. The reduction in funding
    reflects the early achievement of agreements to meet the goals of the
    Million Solar Roofs program. In addition, the Administration will be
    examining other options for expanding the use of solar power.
        Question. Do you still believe in the technology?
        Answer. Yes, but the Nation needs a balance of clean and reliable
    near-term and long-term energy options; if our new National Energy
    Policy is to succeed, we will need to make adjustments in funding for
    programs based on overall National priorities.
        Question. How will reduced funding impact our U.S. industry?
        Answer. The photovoltaic industry in the United States is growing
    rapidly. For example, U.S. photovoltaic manufacturing has increased by
    about 20 percent per year for a decade. The Administration will
    continue to examine other avenues besides R&D funding to ensure that
    this industry will continue to grow.
                              million solar roofs
        Question. You have not requested funding for the Million Solar
    Roofs Initiative. What happened to these activities?
        Answer. The Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSRI) served as an
    organizing impetus for more than 50 state and local community solar
    partnerships, which include people and groups with a broad range of
    interests and expertise in solar. These partners have already committed
    to seeing that more that one million solar energy systems are installed
    on homes and buildings across the nation in these communities by 2010.
    We regard the mission of this program successfully completed.
        Question. What was accomplished with these funds?
        Answer. The Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSRI) provides direct
    technical and information service to the more than 50 state and local
    community solar partnerships which volunteered to promote the use of
    solar technologies in their communities. No funding was used for
    subsidizing or purchasing equipment. The bulk of the 6.8 million
    dollars in funding from fiscal year 1999-2001 was distributed as small
    grants to community partnerships to be used for planning and
    implementing community based activities meant to encourage solar energy
    deployment. The partnerships benefit from the information outreach and
    barrier reduction tools (such as training programs, web based
    information, informational brochures) that were developed under the
    program. All program milestones were met ahead of schedule.
                                  reliability
        Question. What is Reliability?
        Answer. The long-held definition of electric reliability is that
    the power system is able to provide a secure and adequate amount of
    electric power to meet customer demand. ``Secure'' means that reserve
    system capacity is maintained to meet unexpected contingencies like a
    sudden loss of a large generator or transmission line, and ``adequate''
    means that sufficient generation and transmission capacity is available
    to supply the projected load. Normally, system operators maintain
    reserve capacity for a contingency that is equivalent to the loss of
    the largest generator or transmission line in the system. Adequate
    power is the amount needed to serve the peak load for the coming year,
    usually caused by air conditioning load during extended periods of
    extreme heat, plus reserves for contingencies. If these conditions are
    not met, system operators are likely to institute voltage reductions
    and rolling blackouts rather than risk damage to equipment or system
    voltage collapse that could result in extended wide spread outages.
    Reliability can be compromised by either inadequate generation or
    transmission.
        A variation of reliability is the high power quality required in
    today's digital economy. Highly sensitive digital equipment used in
    process controls, internet routers, and e-commerce requires an
    extremely stable and continuous voltage and power supply. This power
    quality is being supplied today by combinations of multiple utility
    feeds to these customers as well as distributed generation and energy
    storage incorporating high speed power electronic switching sited near
    the sensitive load.
        Question. What is this program doing to support the Western
    Situation?
        Answer. The Transmission Reliability (TR) program is engaged in
    research and development activities to address both the generation and
    transmission problems on the Western electric power system.
        The Transmission Reliability program is supporting installation of
    a voltage monitoring system that includes enhanced visualization to
    allow California's transmission operators to view the health of the
    system in real time and take pro-active steps to avert emergency
    situations. Other prototype reliability tools capable of tracking
    generator outputs and power flows throughout the Western system will be
    available this year. The TR program is also working with California
    regulators and system operators to adapt existing interruptible load
    programs to allow loads to respond to system emergencies and high
    prices. The Program is also supporting the development of advanced
    composite conductors that can be used to replace existing conductors to
    carry two to three times the power, and relieve transmission
    bottlenecks.
        On the generation side, strategically located distributed
    generation can also relieve transmission bottlenecks, provide capacity,
    and enhance power quality to sensitive customer loads. While economic
    incentives for conventional generation are provided through competitive
    markets, TR program support is being directed to help clear the
    regulatory, technical, and institutional barriers to the deployment of
    significant numbers of small distributed generation and storage
    technologies sited near the customer load. The Program is supporting
    the accelerated development of standards to interconnect distributed
    generation, along with energy storage, into the system and developing
    models to optimize their penetration into the distribution system to
    provide highly reliable energy and power quality services into
    competitive markets. Planning is underway for distributed generation
    test beds at various locations, including the Nevada Test Site, to
    evaluate and certify these interconnection standards and system models.
                                   renewables
        Question. We need to increase energy supply and reduce demand. How
    does cutting the renewables program help the nation increase its supply
    of energy, a supply that doesn't pollute the air and water?
        Answer. Renewable energy resources provide a comparatively small,
    but still important, percentage of energy in the United States today.
    Depending upon water availability for hydroelectric production,
    renewables provide between nine and twelve percent of our Nation's
    electric power. Two to three percent of this electricity comes from
    non-hydro and non-wood renewable resources today. Since the U.S. demand
    for energy continues to climb, the Department believes the most
    responsible course of action is to focus its energy production R&D
    dollars on those technologies with the greatest potential for providing
    affordable electricity, heat, and liquid fuels for the American public.
    Research in renewables is only part of the solution to the energy
    supply program. We will also strive to ensure that these technologies
    do not compromise our shared goals for a clean environment.
        Question. The OPT strategic plan calls for a tripling of U.S.
    capacity of non-hydroelectric renewables by 2010. That's a change from
    3.5 percent today to about 10-11 percent in 2010. How will that be
    accomplished with the reductions in funding for renewable R&D? Is all
    the technology in place to triple the renewable supply? By the way, EIA
    predicts U.S. renewable capacity will remain essentially flat through
    2010.
        Answer. First to clarify, the OPT strategic plan referred to the
    tripling of non-hydroelectric, non-biomass ``new'' renewable
    electricity generation. It excluded from the 1997 baseline traditional
    biomass electricity generation such as the pulp & paper industry's use
    of wood waste to generate electricity with a relatively low efficiency
    boiler/steam turbine configuration. Thus, the baseline in 1997 was
    8,300 MW (according to EIA's Annual Energy Outlook). A tripling of this
    would be 25,000 MW, which our Fiscal Year 2001 Government Performance
    and Results Act (GPRA) metrics indicated we could reach by 2010,
    assuming flat fiscal year 2001 funding into the future and no policy
    change. We used this analysis last spring to support the goal stated in
    the strategic plan. In contrast, 10-11 percent of EIA's projected 2010
    capacity would be 93,000-103,000 MW, which is larger than this 25,000
    MW goal.
        Our preliminary GPRA estimate for the requested fiscal year 2002
    budget is that the tripling of non-hydroelectric ``new'' renewables
    would now be achieved by about 2015. (See p. 266 of the budget request)
    However, our estimate does not take into account the effect of the
    removal or reduction of non-funding barriers like siting and
    permitting, or the addition of financial incentives.
        To date, we have only one detailed technology analysis--for the
    Wind Program--of the impact of the fiscal year 2002 amended request,
    assuming flat fiscal year 2002 funding into the future and no policy
    change. This analysis indicates that we do have the technology ``in
    place'' for wind's contribution to tripling the renewable supply by the
    delayed goal year of 2015--mainly by exploiting class 6+ (high average
    wind speed >15 mph) winds. Longer term goals to tap more abundant class
    4 winds (moderate average wind speed of 13 mph) will be pursued on a
    slower track, because the funding changes could affect the advances in
    applied R&D and slow market penetration. Increased market incentives
    would help class 6 wind technology enter the market more quickly, but
    would have less impact on class 4 wind technology which requires more
    R&D. We are working on detailed estimates for all OPT technologies with
    major changes in funding levels in fiscal year 2002 relative to fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. It's nice to see funding for the ``hydrogen'' program
    held constant, but it should increase. To prevent pollution, hydrogen
    must come from splitting water (i.e., electrolysis) using a renewable
    or clean energy source--and not from cooking a hydrocarbon source. So,
    why are we cutting renewables that should be the primary source to
    generate hydrogen.
        Answer. The Department strongly supports the Hydrogen R&D program
    and has structured a balanced approach for pursuing the development of
    hydrogen production, storage, infrastructure, and utilization
    technologies. Substantial progress toward achieving the much-discussed
    ``hydrogen economy'' may be possible within the next twenty to forty
    years. In the near term, our approach is to cost-effectively produce
    hydrogen from existing resources as cleanly as possible, with longer
    term goals of cost-competitively producing hydrogen from renewables or
    other clean sources. With regards to the former, within the DOE
    Hydrogen program itself today, we are studying innovative methods for
    extracting hydrogen from readily available fossil fuels and
    sequestering the carbon so that it does not enter the atmosphere. We
    are also funding research on photobiological methods for producing
    hydrogen, using specialized bacteria as the hydrogen production source.
    Finally, cost-effective hydrogen may also someday be produced by using
    excess electric production from renewable energy technologies to split
    water into hydrogen and oxygen during non-peak times. This opportunity
    may well help enable certain renewable energy technologies achieve
    better cost profiles and enter the marketplace faster due to their
    expanded product capabilities. However, it is important that these
    renewable energy technologies also attain significant marketplace value
    in their own right. The Department continues to fund renewable energy
    research and development at adequate levels.
        Question. It sounds fantastic, but a 100 mile by 100 mile
    photovoltaic array placed in Nevada today could actually meet the
    entire country's energy needs. Why, then, are we cutting solar
    renewables by more than 50 percent ?
        Answer. The Department's current Solar Energy Technologies program
    focuses on three principal areas: Concentrating Solar Power,
    Photovoltaics, and Solar Buildings technologies. Research on
    Concentrating Solar Power has pursued three types of applications--
    power towers, solar troughs, and dish/engine systems. DOE's power tower
    R&D and analysis was completed in fiscal year 2000. Commercial power
    tower systems are currently being developed in Spain, with Morocco and
    Egypt also actively considering use of these systems. While this
    generation of technology is not generally considered cost-competitive
    for use in the U.S. at the present time, one could reasonably expect
    that industry will continue to make incremental technology and
    operating and maintenance improvements that may one day allow their
    introduction into the U.S. market in appropriate locations. Solar
    troughs have been operating in the U.S. Southwest for a number of
    years. Substantial federal funding leading to big improvements in
    operating and maintenance cost reductions and the potential for new
    thermal storage techniques to increase energy efficiencies suggest that
    it is time for Federal R&D on this application to end. Finally, DOE
    research has led to the development of several sizes of solar dish/
    engine systems that can provide onsite, village, or even utility scale
    electric power. While these dish/engine systems require a modest amount
    of additional R&D, we believe that the private sector partners can be
    encouraged to carry out any further efforts.
        In Solar Buildings, research and testing on new polymers for key
    components of an advanced solar hot water (SHW) system that cuts costs
    in half and weighs 50 percent less is entering the final phases of R&D.
    Thus the portion of the request pertaining to SHW development is less
    than in prior years. Additionally, the funding in this area maintains
    the core of other solar buildings research.
        Finally, the reduction in funding requested for photovoltaics
    reflects the early achievement of agreements to meet the goals of the
    Million Solar Roofs program and refocusing of the rest of the program
    on essential R&D.
        Question. Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal and can develop
    2500-3700 MW by 2010, meeting a significant fraction of the State's
    energy needs. Why are we cutting geothermal renewables in half,
    especially since these resources are in the West?
        Answer. The budget will maintain an adequate level for the
    Geothermal Program. The Program will focus at exploration and resource
    characterization and plans on providing technical support to better
    define the resource potential. We agree that Nevada possesses
    substantial geothermal resources. But a sizeable fraction of those
    resources has not been well defined or characterized to allow
    development. To the extent possible, the Program will work with
    industry to develop and provide the tools and information needed by
    Nevada and other states to explore and characterize the potential of
    their geothermal resources. In addition, the Administration will look
    for ways to reduce regulatory and siting barriers to increased
    geothermal use--key priorities of the industry.
        Question. If we added $135 million to the EE/RE budget, where would
    you put it?
        Answer. Based on recommendations in the National Energy Policy, the
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has been asked to
    begin a strategic review of its programs' current funding and historic
    performance. The National Energy Policy also calls for such a review of
    the Renewable Energy program. Based on this review, we will propose
    appropriate funding of those research and development programs that are
    found to be performance-based and are modeled as public-private
    partnerships. We will be able to make more specific recommendations as
    our program reviews progress.
        Question. What would the impact be on the solar, geothermal and
    wind industries and their potential to supply additional clean power in
    the near future if this budget request goes through?
        Answer. The benefits to our Nation's energy portfolio from these
    domestic energy technologies will be impacted but in varying degrees as
    each has a different time frame for R&D needs.
        The main constraint impacting the near-term supply of photovoltaic
    (solar electric) energy systems is limited manufacturing capacity.
    Reduced Federal spending on photovoltaic R&D may potentially affect
    progress in expanding manufacturing capacity; the private sector will
    have to increase its investment in R&D to address this problem.
    Reductions in longer term research will not impact the near term
    potential for photovoltaics to supply electricity, but will result in
    slower progress toward the next generation of photovoltaics and
    manufacturing technology.
        In the geothermal industry, the slower pace of research and
    development to decrease costs will extend the time-frame for potential
    new geothermal facilities to be installed. Geothermal technology goals
    leading to commercialization of the next generation systems will be
    extended.
        Technologies presently under development by the DOE wind energy
    program, in conjunction with the U.S. wind industry, can enable a
    twenty-fold or more expansion of usable wind resources and make wind
    energy economically viable without the need for Federal incentives.
        DOE wind and geothermal programs will turn over to industry the
    efforts to characterize resources and identify technical and market
    barriers to supply.
        Question. What is the Department's goal for renewable energy's
    share of electricity generation.
        Answer. The official DOE renewable energy goal as published in the
    April 2001 DOE Performance plan states: ``The Department's research,
    development and deployment efforts (past as well as current) will help
    contribute to \1\ nearly 25,000 megawatts of non-hydroelectric
    renewable \2\ generating capacity by 2015.'' The Energy Information
    Administration estimates that total U.S. electricity generation
    capacity in 2015 will be 994,400 MW. Thus, DOE's tripling goal for non-
    hydro, non-wood renewables would translate into an estimated 2.5
    percent of total electric generation capacity by 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Other factors other than the OPT program such as production tax
    credits for renewables, state renewable portfolio standards,
    international (especially European) programs also contribute to this
    goal.
        \2\ This also excludes electricity generated with pulp & paper
    industry by-products.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. Why is the Indian renewable resources program zeroed out?
        Answer. All projects presently being undertaken by this program are
    scheduled to either be completed or are assumed to be continued by
    private sector partners. No further funding is being requested in
    fiscal year 2002 in order to support higher priorities within Renewable
    Energy Resources programs.
        Question. What portion of the EE/RE budget, if any, is intended to
    help satisfy our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
        Answer. None of the EE/RE budget is undertaken specifically and
    solely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the EE/RE programs
    address a wide variety of public interests-including reducing energy
    costs for consumers, reducing local, regional, and global environmental
    burdens and impacts, reducing oil consumption, and maintaining U.S.
    leadership in energy science and technology. At the same time,
    virtually all of the EERE programs support RD&D on or the deployment of
    technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, either through
    reducing the use of fossil fuels or by substituting renewable energy
    for fossil fuels--and most renewable energy produces no or very small
    amounts of net greenhouse gas emissions. EERE programs have particular
    value because they provide these multiple benefits simultaneously.
        Question. What impacts will these proposed cuts have on achieving
    the petroleum displacement and renewable energy production (and
    consumption by Federal facilities--FEMP) goals in the Energy Policy Act
    of 1992?
        Answer. The reduction in the 2002 budget of the Federal Energy
    Management Program will not have a direct impact on the Federal energy
    reduction goal in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The EPACT goal called
    for a 20 percent reduction in Federal building energy by 2000 compared
    to 1985 when measured on a Btu-per-square-foot basis. This goal was
    achieved in fiscal year 1999 with a reduction of 20.7 percent and
    preliminary data for fiscal year 2000 indicates a reduction of greater
    than 21 percent.
        Question. What is the current electricity bill for Federal
    facilities? How much of the that could be met using renewables? What's
    the average price per kilowatt hour paid in DOE regions?
        Answer. During fiscal year 1999 (the latest year for which
    finalized data is available), the Federal Government spent $3.033
    billion for 54,057.3 gigawatt-hours of electricity. This translates
    into a national average price per kilowatt hour of $0.056. Average
    prices by DOE region of Federal Government purchased electricity is
    unavailable because Federal agencies do not report energy consumption
    and cost data on a state by state basis.
        Using national generation data from the Energy Information
    Administration, we estimate that approximately 10 percent of
    electricity consumed by the Federal Government is already generated
    from renewable sources as part of the conventional electrical
    distribution system (i.e., including large-scale hydropower).
        Excluding electricity from hydropower, the Government is working
    toward a goal of using the equivalent of 2.5 percent of facilities'
    electricity consumption from new renewable energy sources by 2005.
    Using 1999 Federal energy consumption data as the basis for
    calculations, the 2005 goal translates to 1,351 gigawatt-hours of
    electricity annually that will come from new renewable sources. A
    preliminary analysis conducted last year found that 173 GWh (0.3
    percent of total consumption) of new renewable energy was either
    already in use or available under contract in the Federal sector. In
    addition to purchasing renewable electricity, agencies are pursuing
    renewable energy in the form of solar thermal applications and
    distributed energy resources that use photovoltaics, wind power, and
    biomass, among other renewables. We believe these activities will
    result in meeting that goal. The Department will continue to monitor
    and report progress by Federal Government agencies in meeting the
    Executive Order 13123 goals which implicitly includes the renewable
    goal.
        Question. If Federal facilities were required to purchase at least
    7 percent of their electricity from generators using renewable energy
    sources, what would the avoided pollution benefits be? What is the
    current percentage?
        Answer. Using national average generation mix and carbon
    coefficients from the Energy Information Administration, a renewable
    electricity purchase of 7 percent of the Federal facility total would
    represent emissions of approximately 600,000 metric tons of carbon
    equivalent annually.
        Using national generation data from the Energy Information
    Administration, we estimate that approximately 10 percent of
    electricity consumed by the Federal Government is already generated
    from renewable sources as part of the conventional electrical
    distribution system (i.e., including large-scale hydropower).
                               energy efficiency
        Question. How much money has industry saved as a result of energy
    efficiency programs? Isn't there a huge return on investment?
        Answer. As a result of DOE research and development partnerships
    with industry, over 140 technologies have successfully reached the
    marketplace since 1980. The documented cumulative energy savings of
    these technologies and other Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT)
    programs was approximately 1.6 quads through 1999. Using an industrial
    energy price of $6.3 billion per quad (source: Energy Information
    Agency), the cumulative energy cost savings to industry to date is over
    $10 billion; in 1999 the savings in that year alone was $1.2 billion.
        It is difficult to accurately calculate the return on investment,
    since the technologies developed are usually the result of multi-year
    research and program efforts with substantial contributions from
    industry. The cumulative savings of $10 billion from these technologies
    and programs was achieved with the cumulative fiscal OIT budgets over
    that time of less than $2 billion. However, this comparison includes
    neither the private sector cost share nor the investment that is
    required to commercialize and deploy these technologies, and where
    technology was replaced, no allowance was made for competing technology
    efficiency. On the other hand, the comparison does not include the
    significantly larger cost savings over the expected future life of the
    technology nor from the productivity, environmental, and safety
    benefits of these technologies. It also does not include the indirect
    cost benefits from OIT programs, such as knowledge transferred through
    workshops, case studies, grants, information clearinghouses, decision
    tools, and cooperative programs with state and local agencies. These
    integrated efforts facilitate the adoption of best energy practices in
    industrial facilities and accelerate the development of other advanced
    technologies.
        Question. Doesn't it make better sense to promote energy
    efficiency? Isn't it cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel.
        Answer. We cannot simply conserve our way out of our current energy
    needs. Consumers can invest in more energy efficient appliances and
    equipment when it makes economic sense for them to do so, and energy
    efficiency is certainly a vital component of the recommendations made
    by Vice President Cheney's National Energy Policy report. But while
    energy efficiency will continue to improve, our growing population and
    economy, plus new energy uses, will add to our overall energy needs. A
    healthy economy requires that we have sufficient, affordable, and
    reliable domestic energy resources to meet those energy needs.
        Question. Now that the Administration has chosen to relax the
    energy efficiency standard for central air conditioners--a matter of
    great concern to Nevadans--how are we going to make up for all that
    lost energy?
        Answer. By 2030, the standards (13 SEER) for residential central
    air conditioners and heat pumps that was issued in January 2001 are
    projected to save 4.2 quads. The proposed 12/12 SEER standard for
    residential central air conditioners and heat pumps is projected to
    save 3 quads by 2030. The proposed standard of a 13 SEER is the subject
    of a legal challenge, which questions the validity of that rule due to
    a potential detrimental impact on consumers. The new energy policy
    under development will address additional opportunities to save energy.
        Question. How much of your budget will be devoted to updating
    existing appliance efficiency standards? Are any major rules for new
    standards expected this fiscal year? Or are there any more relaxations/
    rollback/revisions coming up? How many standards?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2002 approximately $5.1 M will be devoted to
    updating existing appliance efficiency standards. There are no major
    rules expected in fiscal year 2002. Having completed 5 final rules in
    fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, we are just initiating three
    standard rulemakings. Because it takes approximately three years to
    complete a rule, we anticipate some final rules in fiscal year 2003. We
    do not anticipate any more relaxations/rollback/revisions. We will be
    reopening the rule on residential central air conditioners and heat
    pumps and expect that the rule will be finalized some time this year.
        Question. Does the Administration intend to maintain the Executive
    Orders on bioenergy and energy efficiency? If so, how does this budget
    request comport with the requirements of those Orders?
        Answer. Public Law 106-224, Title III--Biomass Research and
    Development Act of 2000 established the Biomass Research and
    Development Initiative. The Initiative is to stimulate collaboration in
    all aspects of biomass processing, strengthen the intellectual
    resources of the United States in the field of biomass processing, and
    promote integrated research partnerships among colleges, universities,
    national laboratories, Federal and State research agencies, and the
    private sector. The Act superceded the Executive Order in the
    establishment of the Interagency Council and the Advisory Committee and
    created the Biomass Research and Development Board and the Biomass
    Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. Both the
    Executive Order and the Act specify broad cooperation and coordination
    in biomass research and development to leverage the Federal investment,
    specify research and development to allow biomass to provide national
    benefit for sustainable resource supply, the reduction in greenhouse
    gas emissions, healthier rural economies, improved strategic security
    and trade balances, and continue to support the Federal investment in
    research that will support the biobased industry. The Biomass Research
    and Development Act of 2000 provides the launching point for continued
    investment, coordination, and leveraging of efforts across the Federal
    structure, and significant benefit to the Nation from biobased products
    and bioenergy. The fiscal year 2002 budget request provides near-level
    funding for biobased products and bioenergy including $5 million new
    integrated research and development projects, and will allow these
    important activities to go forward strongly.
        The Administration intends to maintain Executive Order 13123,
    Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management. The Energy
    Policy Act of 1992 required that Federal buildings reduce their energy
    consumption by 20 percent from 1985 levels by 2000. Executive Order
    13123 builds on these goals by requiring Federal agencies to reduce
    energy use in Federal buildings by 35 percent from 1985 levels by 2010.
    As the President indicated with the new directive on Federal energy
    conservation, this Administration is committed to smart energy
    management in our Federal facilities. We are working not only to reduce
    energy use in general, but also to reduce peak demand in key areas and
    thereby help prevent power outages. FEMP plays an important role in
    providing technical assistance and information to agencies on how to
    best implement energy conservation projects. FEMP also helps agencies
    access private sector financing to undertake many of these projects. We
    encourage Federal agencies to use energy savings performance contracts
    and utility contracts to help save energy and money.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

        Question. Mr Dixon, the President's budget has significant cuts in
    Renewable Energy Budgets--roughly 30-35 percent. Can you provide a
    rationale as to how these cuts can be defended at a time when we have a
    significant energy supply shortage in the west, including the Pacific
    Northwest.
        Answer. Given both the many public and programmatic
    responsibilities of the Department--as well as our obligation as
    stewards of taxpayer resources--DOE's fiscal year 2002 budget request
    outlines a new approach to meeting our Nation's most near-term energy
    needs and lays a foundation for meeting longer term priorities. For
    example, significant funding is requested for electric energy systems
    R&D that is critical to meeting our Nation's growing need for highly
    reliable and responsive power delivery systems. Our inability to
    deliver power from points where supply is ample to regions experiencing
    a shortage is severely hampered by our aging and constrained current
    system. We have also requested nearly level funding for Biomass
    research and development to provide new sources of electric power,
    liquid fuels, and high-value products. If one considers that nearly 20
    percent of last year's appropriations for Biomass R&D were earmarked,
    the request for this line item as it stands would actually increase
    funds available for key biomass research as requested by the
    Department. Additionally, several programs are either at a point in
    their development where industry should begin to take on funding
    responsibilities and the Federal role should be phased out.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                             working with nnsa labs
        Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
    operation as a semi-autonomous agency with the Department last year.
    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, states 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 Office of Science funds over $150,000,000 in research
    at the three National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) national
    laboratories at Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia. The Office of
    Science programs use both prospective and retrospective merit or peer
    review in evaluating proposals for new science and in managing on-going
    research programs at all of the Department's laboratories, including
    the NNSA laboratories. The programs take into consideration the results
    of these reviews in making decisions on what future research to fund
    and which ongoing meritorious projects to continue within available
    research budgets.
        A recent review by the Office of Science of the research activities
    at the NNSA laboratories concluded that the current process is working
    well and that no new barriers have arisen to our ensuring effective
    management of the Office of Science research programs at the NNSA
    laboratories. Therefore SC expects that with outstanding merit and peer
    reviews, and adequate research funds from the congress, to be able to
    continue to support excellent research at the NNSA labs.
        Question. Have discussions been initiated between your Office and
    NNSA to define mechanisms to maintain close collaborations, both for
    NNSA lab support to your Office and for your labs to support NNSA as
    required?
        Answer. As you know, many of the NNSA laboratories work in
    partnerships with the Office of Science laboratories to achieve the
    most outstanding and cost effective results for SC and DOE research
    projects ranging from the construction of the Spallation Neutron
    Source, to operation of the Human Genome Center; and even participating
    in NNSA partnerships with the private sector, like the recent Extreme
    Ultraviolet Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA).
    Using the existing outstanding core competencies of all of the
    laboratories in the Department's system, we are able to avoid
    duplicating outstanding capabilities that already exist.
        The Department, including NNSA and the Office of Science, is
    committed to ensuring that this cost effective laboratory complex
    approach will continue to thrive within the new organizational
    framework and ensure the most effective use of all of the DOE
    laboratories. SC and NNSA have discussed our commitment to this
    approach at the Quarterly Laboratory Directors Meetings with all of the
    major laboratories, and there is broad support for its continuation.
        General Gordon held a series of Science Day celebrations at the
    three NNSA laboratories, in partnership with the Office of Science,
    where both discussed their commitment to close collaboration and
    support for each others needs, as required.
        The Office of Science uses the annual Institutional Planning
    process to review regularly on-going work and new initiatives of all of
    the programs at its laboratories in the context of a five year plan and
    a 15-year projection of each laboratory's overall vision. These plans
    are reviewed by all of the program users of the laboratory and the
    plans and initiatives are discussed at an on-site meeting at the
    laboratory with participation by representatives from the DOE programs
    supporting research there. This process is one way to ensure that the
    close collaboration with NNSA continues and that any problems that
    arise are addressed on a regular basis and resolved.
        Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
    relations between your Office and the NNSA?
        Answer. No. In fact, our relations are closer than they were before
    the creation of the NNSA.
                             working with nnsa labs
        Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
    operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department last year.
    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. Work with the NNSA will continue as appropriate to
    expertise and available funding. Several of these labs have critical
    expertise to our programs and should continue to provide support as
    defined by the overall goals of the programs they support.
        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. We have not begun any new discussions with NNSA. We
    continue to honor our ongoing collaborations. The goal has been to
    utilize the best expertise available and this goal will continue to be
    the basis for ongoing or new work with these labs.
        Question. Do you foresee any barriers to maintaining close working
    relations between your Office and NNSA?
        Answer. No, we do not anticipate any barriers.
                                biomass v. solar
        Question. Dr. Dixon, the Renewables budget was cut substantially in
    the request. However, I note that biomass programs were largely funded
    at last year's level, while solar programs are almost cut in half.
        How do you account for the great disparity in the treatment between
    solar and biomass?
        Answer. Both these programs are important. Biomass power has great
    potential to impact near term emissions from existing coal plants when
    it is co-fired with coal. As our country will continue to rely heavily
    on coal power for electricity generation, making that process as clean
    as possible is a critical national need. DOE's integrated biomass R&D
    efforts also address the need for clean domestic liquid transportation
    fuels and high-value chemical feedstocks and other products that are
    often derived from imported oil.
        Solar's greatest potential is longer term. As a small but rapidly
    growing technology, it holds great promise for very large future public
    benefits. We are attempting to support both these technologies. We have
    attempted to place priority on the projects in both these programs that
    have the clearest, near term benefits to the public in return for their
    financial support.
        The Solar R&D funding request maintains an adequate level of
    effort. Additionally, the Administration recently sent a budget
    amendment to the Congress that reduced funding for the Partnership for
    a New Generation of Vehicles by $39.1M and allocated the funds to
    selected renewable energy technologies.
        Question. What is the reason behind your decision to close-out the
    Concentrating Solar Power research effort?
        Answer. While some research remains to be done on this technology,
    we are re-prioritizing our Federal energy research efforts as described
    above.
                                  reliability
        Question. In Senate report language for the current year, the
    Department was urged to begin a research program to develop solutions
    for grid reliability issues through the use of advanced computer
    simulations capabilities available within the national laboratories.
        What has the Department done in this area?
        Answer. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is leading
    a project to use real time data to validate existing models in the
    Western electric power system, and establish specifications and
    standards for data sharing and communications for real time control
    systems. PNNL and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are investigating
    the integration of on-line and off-line security analysis software
    tools to manage security assessment and congestion management in a grid
    that is becoming increasingly complex. The Department also supported
    discussions with Los Alamos National Laboratory concerning their
    capabilities in computer simulation and power system analysis for
    possible participation in the program.
        Question. Does DOE have any plans to increase its leadership in the
    area of understanding policies and issues related to power grid
    reliability?
        Answer. The Department recognizes that reliable power system
    operation depends on the availability of sufficient reliability related
    (or ancillary) services to the system operator. Under electricity
    restructuring, electric energy and ancillary services will be acquired
    through market-based approaches. Therefore, in collaboration with
    electricity industry stakeholders, the Department's Transmission
    Reliability program defined and initiated a reliability and markets
    activity that takes a science-based approach to the analysis of
    evolving market structures and institutions to assess the market's
    efficacy in maintaining reliability. Projects in the reliability and
    markets activity include: load as a reliability resource; experimental
    market simulations to assess market participant behavior under
    alternative market structures; tools to reveal in advance how system
    constraints affect markets; and the evaluation of emerging markets on
    reliability. Proposed market structures were subjected to the
    experimental market simulation, and the results communicated to a Blue
    Ribbon panel examining market issues in that State. The Department is
    also increasing its emphasis on the evaluation of issues surrounding
    transmission system congestion relief.
                   high temperature superconductivity center
        This year the committee added more money to accelerate the
    development, commercialization, and application of high temperature
    superconductor technologies through joint efforts of Oak Ridge and Los
    Alamos National Labs.
        Question. Please provide an update of this effort and describe the
    types of commercial possibilities that exist?
        Answer. DOE funding specified for the Accelerated Coated Conductor
    Initiative (ACCI) has been used to increase cost-shared research at
    several private companies. It has also enabled the acquisition of
    additional capital equipment and technical staff at both Los Alamos and
    Oak Ridge national laboratories that will greatly accelerate
    development of the next generation of superconducting wire. The effort
    has already accomplished a great deal. A January 2001 two-day workshop
    with over 100 industry, government and academic experts produced an R&D
    roadmap for research activities and respective government/industry
    roles that will guide activities over the period through 2010. Los
    Alamos will use their additional equipment and staff in a 10,000 square
    foot laboratory being constructed for joint laboratory/industry
    projects in the new Industrial Research Park on the LANL site.
    Dedication will take place this summer. Oak Ridge has purchased
    equipment and added staff for a 2,300 square foot refurbished
    laboratory space for joint research with private companies that allows
    consolidation of activities previously spread throughout the
    laboratory.
        Question. In order to achieve commercial success, what level of
    investment should be made in R & D over what period of time?
        Answer. Commercial possibilities include cost-effective, high
    performance power cables, transformers, motors, generators, and other
    equipment that will strengthen the US electric power system.
        At fiscal year 2002 funding levels, we believe we can produce and
    field a precommercial High Temperature Superconductor power transformer
    by 2005 and produce a 100 meter second generation cable capable of
    carrying 2,000 amps by 2006.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted to the Office of Science

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

                             fusion energy sciences
        Question. If Japan and Europe proceed with the next phase of
    International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), is there any
    problem if the US is just a bystander and does not contribute to this
    effort?
        Answer. If Japan and Europe, and Russia proceed with the next phase
    of ITER, which would be construction, and the U.S. is a bystander, the
    U.S. would miss an excellent opportunity to be involved in a meaningful
    way in highly relevant fusion research. The science and technology to
    be gained from a burning plasma fusion facility like ITER are important
    to the scientific understanding of the fusion process as well as to the
    future development of fusion energy. The Secretary of Energy Advisory
    Board, the National Research Council, and the Fusion Energy Sciences
    Advisory Committee have all recently emphasized that study of burning
    plasmas is an essential next step in understanding the science of the
    fusion process, and the U.S. scientific community would be eager to
    participate in the research experiments to be conducted in such a
    facility.
        Early involvement in the construction phase of this project would
    allow the Department and U.S. industry to benefit from the technology
    development inherent in construction of a state of the art scientific
    facility. There are also specific subsystems, such as the diagnostic
    instruments that measure and record the phenomena occurring in the
    plasma during experimental runs, in which the U.S. has world class
    design capabilities and could contribute significantly to the eventual
    success of the project. Finally, early involvement would place the U.S.
    program in a better position to influence details of the design, to
    ensure that the scientific needs of our program are met.
        Question. We keep hearing we are entering another ``energy crisis''
    and we have been hearing about fusion for many years. Should we still
    be funding Fusion research?
        Answer. Fusion remains an important element in the Nation's long-
    term energy supply portfolio. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board,
    in the report of its 1999 review of the fusion program, stated `` . . .
    in light of fusion's potential 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 energy
    aggressively.''
        There has been great progress in fusion energy development in the
    past decade. It is now the consensus of the fusion community in the
    United States, in Japan, and in Europe, that we can now design and
    build a large fusion device capable of producing a large net power
    output for brief periods. The challenge today is to more fully develop
    our scientific understanding of the behavior of high temperature
    plasmas, as well as needed fusion materials and technologies, to allow
    us to design and build fusion devices that can meet the utility
    industry's need for economically viable power plants.
        The results of fusion research also continue to contribute to our
    economy in other ways. The fusion program has been the driving force
    behind the development of plasma science, which is key to such
    innovative technologies as plasma processing of semiconductor chips,
    new forms of lighting, state-of-the-art video display screens, fiber
    optic communications systems, and pollution control devices.
                                genomes to life
        Question. This ``Genomes to Life'' program looks interesting. Why
    isn't this a National Institutes of Health (NIH) program? How does DOE
    funding of Genomes to Life help DOE's mission?
        Answer. Genomes to Life is about the future of biology now that the
    potential for and value of doing genome-scale science has been so
    clearly demonstrated by the ongoing success of the Human Genome
    Project. Genomes to Life has its origins in the wealth of recently
    acquired DNA sequence information from a growing number of organisms
    (from humans to microbes). The Human Genome Project is about decoding
    the basic set of instructions, the DNA sequence, for human life.
    Genomes to Life is about developing the next level of technologies and
    knowledge needed to understand how that basic instruction set is
    converted into living organisms--whether a human or a microbe. While
    there are clearly differences between humans and microbes, many of the
    fundamental ``rules of life'' for the conversion of DNA sequence
    information into life will be common among all forms of life.
        DOE is a logical agency to initiate this research program for two
    reasons. First, DOE has unique multi-disciplinary resources and
    capabilities in high throughput biology and in the mathematical,
    computational, engineering and physical sciences all of which will be
    needed to systematically tackle questions about critical life
    processes. Second, DOE facilities and research supported at its
    national laboratories and in premier academic institutions that played
    key enabling and scientific roles in the genomics revolution will also
    be needed for Genomes to Life. From the initiation of the Human Genome
    Project and the Microbial Genome Program to the development of key
    enabling technologies and resources, DOE already has a strong record of
    ``kick-starting'' various aspects of the biotechnology revolution. DOE
    is again poised to make important contributions to this next revolution
    in biology.
        Other agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
    will play central roles in using and expanding the technologies and
    information generated in Genomes to Life. NIH has an interest in
    pathogenic microbes which are not a focus of this program while DOE's
    focus, and the focus of Genomes to Life, is on microbes that can be
    used to address DOE needs. In addition, there are subtle differences in
    the strategies used to fund research at these different agencies,
    including DOE. These differences make the funding of new, high risk,
    technologically intensive research more likely at DOE than at NIH, an
    observation repeatedly made by many NIH-funded scientists and both
    current and former members of NIH advisory committees. A strength of
    the U.S. research enterprise is its diversity of funding sources,
    organizational strategies, and management styles. The initiation of
    this new initiative, Genomes to Life, by DOE is an excellent example of
    the value of this diversity.
        The fundamental knowledge acquired in Genomes to Life about the
    multiprotein molecular ``machines'' that make living things come alive,
    about the on/off switches and rheostats that control these machines,
    and about the functional capabilities of complex microbial communities
    will address DOE mission needs. Having this information will enable
    scientists to develop new biologically based strategies for energy
    production, mitigating the long-term impacts of climate changes,
    cleaning up the environment, and reducing the threat of biological
    terrorism. This understanding of complex biological systems will also
    help protect people from adverse effects of exposure to environmental
    toxins and radiation by leading to an increased understanding of
    genetic factors that determine individual susceptibility to these
    agents.
                             attracting scientists
        Question. Are you having problems attracting scientists to your
    labs given that some of them are 50 years old and in deteriorating
    condition?
        Answer. We have anecdotal comments from Lawrence Berkeley,
    Brookhaven and Oak Ridge National Laboratories that scientists are, in
    fact, declining job offers based on the quality of working space. Their
    concerns range from quality of facilities and equipment and appearance
    to location and amenities. At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they
    are having difficulty recruiting, even in the very ``hot'' field of
    genomics, due to the current state of the existing labs.
        Recruitment of new staff is particularly critical at this time as
    the generation that helped build the labs retires and the labs compete
    in the job market to replace them. While it is always difficult in hot
    new areas like genomics and nanoscience, decaying facilities and sites,
    lack of adequate housing for post-doc and graduate students, and salary
    gaps are making recruitment even more difficult. I should add that
    retaining the current staff is not easy either.
                         project management environment
        Question. What is this new Project Management Environment (PME)
    system? Is this another DOE computer system? How will PME improve
    things at DOE?
        Answer. The Corporate R&D Portfolio Management Environment is the
    technology infrastructure, information integration methodologies, and
    process enhancements that will enable cradle-to-grave tracking of
    research projects, information sharing across programs, and
    ``corporate'' snapshots of the Department's R&D.
        It is a corporate, distributed information management system that
    enables the electronic assembly of R&D project management data from
    existing heterogeneous systems from across the DOE complex and where
    needed, provides the information management modules that enable
    electronic capture of critical data elements necessary to have a
    complete e-government solution to track research projects from the
    point of proposal submission to the Department, through reviews, funds
    distribution, tracking and reporting back to the Department (e.g.,
    progress, highlights, publications, funds expended) to completion.
        Fully implemented the environment will: (1) streamline the proposal
    submission significantly reducing the burden (by eliminating the need
    to submit proposals in multiple formats for different program offices)
    on the researchers; (2) streamline the funds instructions and
    distribution process to enable an earlier start on projects (in some
    cases, 30-60 days) after completion of the review process; (3) reduce
    reconciliation, copying, and redundant data entry costs across the
    complex; (4) enable the Department to track and report, on a routine
    basis, on R&D efforts using a consistent approach for a ``corporate''
    perspective; (5) enable program managers to work together to make
    strategic R&D investments; (6) reduce the burden on the program
    managers, and hence the field, for ad hoc queries and data collection
    efforts; (7) enable the Department to better report to Congress, OMB,
    and OSTP in a consistent manner not previously possible; (8) change the
    culture to make R&D tracking and reporting an integrated, team effort
    across the Department with standards and methodologies to help guide
    the development of future systems across the DOE complex; and (9) move
    the Department toward R&D project management best practices and better
    alignment with applicable laws.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

                  environmental molecular sciences laboratory
        Question. Mr. Decker, the Science budget contains all of the
    funding for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Environmental
    Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), as well as a variety of research
    programs. Will the funds in the Administration's budget accomplish the
    goal of a $10 million equipment upgrade for EMSL?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001, the William R. Wiley Environmental
    Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) received capital equipment funds
    of $4,450,000 to ``. . . expand the user capabilities of EMSL to
    include high-throughput functional genomics and structural biology.''
    The fiscal year 2002 President's Request includes $5,461,000 to ``. . .
    lease and operate a 2 to 3 teraflop high performance computer for the
    EMSL to replace its current \1/4\ teraflop computer . . .'' The fiscal
    year 2001 capital equipment funds are expected to increase the number
    of EMSL users conducting structural biology research by 10 percent over
    the fiscal year 2000 level of 590. The fiscal year 2002 funding for the
    high performance computer will allow EMSL to increase the number of
    users conducting ``grand challenge'' computational projects by 10
    percent over the fiscal year 2001 level of 750.
                                genomes to life
        Question. Mr. Decker, the Science budget also includes the funding
    for the initiative called ``Genomes to Life'' (GTL). This is the new
    program that seeks to build upon the information from the human genome
    to understand proteins and how they work in organisms. What are the
    long term plans for the Department's Genomes to Life initiative?
        Answer. Whereas the Human Genome Project has focused on DNA,
    Genomes to Life will focus on proteins, the action molecules of living
    systems. Proteins are the motors, pumps, chemical catalysts, detectors,
    signals and signalers, structural units, gatekeepers, dismantlers,
    assemblers, and garbage handlers of living systems. Proteins rarely
    work alone. They assemble into larger multi-protein complexes often
    referred to as molecular machines. Understanding the nature and
    regulation of these molecular machines is a major goal of Genomes to
    Life. Similarly, microbes of potential importance for DOE's energy and
    cleanup missions rarely work alone in nature and are often found as
    part of complex, and poorly understood consortia of many different
    types of microbes. Understanding these consortia is another major goal
    of Genomes to Life.
        The scientific plan of Genomes to Life is to identify life's
    molecular machines, the multiprotein complexes that carry out the
    functions of living systems; characterize the gene regulatory networks
    and processes that control these multiprotein molecular machines;
    characterize the functional repertoire of complex microbial communities
    in their natural environments; and develop computers and other
    computational capabilities needed to model the complexity of biological
    systems.
        These scientific goals, and the broader context for Genomes to
    Life, are described in detail in the recently completed Genomes to Life
    ``roadmap.'' This document is available in hard copy and at http://
    www.doegenomestolife.org/. The Genomes to Life roadmap describes a very
    broad outline for 10 years of research to address the fundamental
    scientific goals outlined above. It includes estimates of time for
    broad program goals. The Genomes to Life roadmap was prepared in
    response to a report of the Biological and Environmental Research
    Advisory Committee (BERAC).
        Although the use of the new resources and technologies developed in
    Genomes to Life by scientists in the public and private sector will
    eventually involve funding that dwarfs investments in Genomes to Life,
    the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC)
    recommended sustained funding of $200,000,000 per year for Genomes to
    Life for 10 years.

                 Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                               budget for science
        Question. What is your view of the impact of a relatively flat
    Science budget and what is your view of the imbalance of investment
    between the life sciences and the physical sciences?
        Answer. Over the past decade, the Office of Science has been faced
    with relatively flat budgets. This has resulted in below optimum
    utilization of some large scientific facilities, and prioritization of
    our research to focus funding on areas with the greatest promise. In
    this environment, we have continued to make significant contributions
    to both the DOE mission and to the advance of science more broadly. We
    have also made our unique suite of state-of-the-art large scientific
    user facilities available to a user community that has grown
    significantly, even if the operation of some facilities was not funded
    at desired levels. Nevertheless, we have not been able to take full
    advantage of many research opportunities.
        The substantial increases in funding for life sciences during this
    same period have been justified by the scientific advances in this
    area, and their potential contributions to both the health of our
    citizens and the growth of the economy. I believe that the physical
    sciences are now faced with equivalent opportunities in many areas. For
    example, nanoscience promises a revolutionary impact on our lives
    comparable to that following the development of semiconductors, and has
    profound implications for the future of medicine and the life sciences
    generally.
                              facility operations
        Question. With the increased number of new facilities and an
    increasing proportion of the Science budget going to facilities support
    at the expense of the R&D budget, what are the impacts of this trend
    and what dangers are lurking if it is not corrected?
        Answer. The Office of Science is the world's premier organization
    for the planning, construction, and operation of major scientific user
    facilities for physics, high performance computing, materials sciences
    and related disciplines, and environmental sciences. More than 16,000
    users perform experiments at these facilities each year, producing
    seminal results in all fields. This collection of facilities is a
    remarkable success story, and it is the envy of the world.
        Yet, at the same time, funding for research in the physical
    sciences--and in particular for the Office of Science--has not kept
    pace with scientific inflation for more than a decade. The survey done
    last summer on staffing levels throughout the SC laboratory system
    showed that, during the past decade, research staffing levels had
    declined by 15 percent or more at most of the laboratories in virtually
    all SC program areas. The situation in the university community is
    similar--fewer principal investigators and students are supported. The
    situation is further exacerbated because several of the laboratories
    are now in the process of redressing past salary imbalances with
    respect to local and national competition.
        This flat funding for the physical sciences will continue to erode
    staffing levels at the DOE laboratories and in the universities. Within
    a decade, these losses will likely impact U.S. industrial
    competitiveness, since virtually all of this Nation's advances in
    communications, information technology, and other high tech industries
    and products had their origins in the physical sciences.
                                genomes to life
        Question. The Office of Science really provided enormous positive
    press for the DOE with its outstanding contribution to the completion
    of the human DNA sequence. The follow-on program designed to understand
    how genes function is called ``Bringing the Genome to Life.'' This
    program is very important now that we have the genetic blue-print in
    hand.
        How do you see this new program working within the national
    laboratories?
        Answer. Genomes to Life will fund research at national
    laboratories, universities, and research institutions and in
    partnership with the private sector. Within the national laboratories,
    DOE has unique multi-disciplinary resources and capabilities in high
    throughput biology and in the mathematical, computational, imaging,
    engineering, and physical sciences all of which will be needed to
    systematically tackle questions about critical life processes. DOE
    facilities and research supported at its national laboratories and in
    premier academic institutions that played key enabling and scientific
    roles in the genomics revolution will also be needed for Genomes to
    Life. While research funded as part of Genomes to Life will only be
    funded following our normal process of rigorous peer review, we
    anticipate that the success of this new program will depend on all of
    these various national laboratory capabilities.
        Question. What role will the NNSA laboratories have in this
    program?
        Answer. The role of the NNSA laboratories will be the same as that
    of the other DOE laboratories. The NNSA laboratories provide some of
    the key capabilities that serve as the foundation for Genomes to Life
    such as unique multi-disciplinary resources and capabilities in high
    throughput biology and in the mathematical, computational, imaging,
    engineering, and physical sciences all of which will be needed to
    systematically tackle questions about critical life processes. For
    example, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories are
    key members of DOE's Joint Genome Institute that will certainly play an
    important role in the DNA sequencing components of Genomes to Life. The
    recently signed CRADA between Sandia National Laboratory and Celera
    Genomics is an example of the kind of computational investments that
    will be needed for Genomes to Life to which NNSA laboratories will make
    key contributions.
                       infrastructure at the science labs
        Question. The infrastructure problems in the defense nuclear
    weapons complex have received a lot of attention lately. But the
    infrastructure problems at the DOE are not exclusive to the weapons
    complex. DOE has failed to properly invest in its facilities
    throughout.
        Dr. Decker, how serious is the infrastructure problem in the
    Science Labs?
        Answer. The Science infrastructure problem is very serious. Nearly
    41 percent of the SC laboratories space was built in the 40's and 50's
    and another 27 percent was built in the 60's. Together, this is a
    whopping 68 percent that is 30 years or older. And, over the last ten
    years as the full effects of aging were hitting our facilities and the
    need to repair and replace facilities became more urgent, our
    infrastructure budget has remained level as the overall Science budget
    has remained level. The infrastructure funds that we have received have
    been directed primarily toward environmental, safety and health needs
    and utility systems because they have a higher, immediate priority
    compared to most building renovations. At our current budget levels, we
    cannot provide the significant funds needed to address the projected
    modernization needs of our Office of Science laboratories without
    significantly reducing our scientific research activities.
        We have determined in our recent planning efforts that the
    shortfall of unfunded backlog of capital investment needs to modernize
    the Science laboratories is $1.3 billion. Capital investment needs
    include general purpose facility line item construction, general plant
    projects and general purpose equipment. New scientific research
    facilities such as accelerators or user facilities are not included.
    This figure is based on a total ``projected'' modernization cost of $2
    billion over the next 10 years less the current projected funding level
    of $730 million for the same period. It is our strong view that a
    modern, effective and efficient physical infrastructure is of critical
    importance to maintaining the capability of the Science laboratories to
    continue America's world-class scientific research into the twenty
    first century.
        Question. How are the infrastructure problems affecting your
    mission?
        Answer. Mission activities are affected in many ways. We have many
    outdated facilities that are not fully utilized because of design and
    layout issues. Facilities are unable to support next-generation
    equipment. Ventilation systems and environmental controls are
    inadequate for modern sensitive equipment. Utility systems are
    noncompliant with current regulations and approaching end of service
    life. The removal of excess facilities is proceeding very slowly due to
    funding and priority issues in DOE's cleanup program. Deferral of
    excess facilities removal requires continuing expenditures for
    surveillance and maintenance along with associated liabilities of these
    facilities. High operating, maintenance, and utility costs for older
    facilities (both active and excess ones) are driving up the overall
    cost of R&D. Decaying facilities also make recruiting and retaining
    scientific staff much more difficult.
        Question. Have you completed a comprehensive assessment of the
    infrastructure problems and how do we fix the problem?
        Answer. Yes, we have completed a survey of the projected
    modernization needs as mentioned and briefly described above. The
    Strategic Facilities Plans that the laboratories submitted and our
    summary survey report are available on our web site: ``http://
    www.sc.doe.gov/production/er-80/er-82/labs21/index.htm''.
        Our strategy for fixing the problem includes: increasing our
    capital investment rate to a level more consistent with the size, age
    and condition of our facilities; pursuing third party financing (such
    as we are doing at Oak Ridge National Laboratory); increasing the use
    of Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utilities Incentive
    Programs to address energy efficiency issues; increasing laboratory
    maintenance and facilities retirement funding; and, addressing the
    clean-up and removal of excess facilities. Additionally, we plan a much
    stronger focus on facilities management throughout the Science complex
    and a better understanding of the true cost of doing the Science
    research business.
                           spallation neutron source
        Question. The Department has requested $276 million in construction
    funding for the Spallation Neutron Source in Tennessee. There has
    recently been a change in the leadership of that project.
        Is that project on cost and on budget?
        Answer. Yes, the SNS project is on cost and on schedule.
        Question. Was anything lost in the transition from the project team
    led by David Moncton to the project team now led by Thomas Mason?
        Answer. The leadership transition from Dr. David Moncton to Dr.
    Thomas Mason was smooth. There was no loss in project momentum, largely
    because Dr. Mason had been associated with the SNS project in a senior
    leadership position for several years.
        Question. Are there any technical, engineering, management or
    scientific issues that remain that could impact on the successful
    completion of this project?
        Answer. At present there are no high-risk technical, engineering,
    management, or scientific issues. Monthly earned value reporting by the
    project and semi-annual reviews of cost, schedule, technical scope, and
    management by the Office of Science ensure that future issues that may
    arise will be addressed quickly.
                           research on brain imaging
        Question. The National Foundation for Functional Brain Imaging has
    been operating in New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Minnesota for three
    years. It has compiled a superb record of research on the integration
    of magneto-encephalography or MEG and functional MRI into systems
    enabling dramatically new vistas into brain function.
        Please explain the rationale for zeroing funding for this
    Foundation after the first three years of its planned five year funding
    cycle?
        Answer. The National Foundation for Functional Brain Imaging is not
    an Administration initiative. It was established by Congressional
    Direction in fiscal year 1999. The National Foundation for Functional
    Brain Imaging received $9,617,000 in fiscal year 1999, $9,660,000 in
    fiscal year 2001, and $10,544,000 in fiscal year 2001 by Congressional
    mandate. Given other priorities in the Biological and Environmental
    Research (BER) program with large potential impacts on human health,
    energy production, and environmental cleanup, no funding was requested
    in fiscal year 2002.
        Question. Do you concur that this Foundation has begun to make
    significant contributions to improved understanding of brain function
    and that integration of different modalities of imaging can provide
    important new insights?
        Answer. The clinical programs in functional brain imaging supported
    by the Foundation have made a significant contribution. Funding has
    been used to develop an infrastructure for the Foundation, develop
    computational capabilities, purchase imaging equipment, and initiate
    scientific and clinical programs. In general, the clinical applications
    go beyond the programmatic goals of the BER program. BER imaging
    technology programs conduct basic biological and physical sciences
    research to develop instrumentation and computational tools used in
    medical imaging. We do not fund clinical studies on the medical
    applications of these technologies.
                            nanotechnology research
        Question. I've been briefed on the promise of nanotechnology to
    address a wide range of new projects. It seems to have immense and most
    exciting potential.
        I understand that the Department is developing plans to create
    several new centers focused on nanotechnology research. I know a
    consortium involving the University of New Mexico, and the two New
    Mexico national labs is preparing a proposal for such a center.
        Please describe your plans to create nanotechnology centers?
        Answer. Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) will provide
    facilities for advanced synthesis, processing, and fabrication at the
    nanoscale in the same location as the existing Basic Energy Sciences
    (BES) user facilities and will make this combination widely available
    to the scientific community in the same way as are the BES user
    facilities. NSRCs will involve conventional construction of a simple
    laboratory building or equivalent, usually sited adjacent to or
    appended to an existing user facility. Contained within NSRCs will be
    clean rooms; chemistry, physics, and biology laboratories for
    nanofabrication; one-of-a-kind signature instruments and other
    instruments e.g., nanowriters and various probe microscopies; and
    beamlines at the host synchrotron light source or neutron scattering
    facility.
        NSRCs have been proposed by Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven
    National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory, and Sandia/Los Alamos National Laboratory/
    University of New Mexico. Selection of NSRCs will be based on peer
    review of the proposed centers. Fiscal year 2002 budget authority is
    requested for Project Engineering Design (PED) to provide Title I and
    Title II design-only funding for Nanoscale Science Research Centers
    (NSRCs) to assure project feasibility, define the scope, and provide
    estimates of construction costs and schedules.
        Question. Please outline some of the ways in which nanotechnology
    may impact future products and processes?
        Answer. Nanotechnology is the creation and utilization of
    materials, devices, and systems through the control of matter on the
    nanometer-length scale, that is, at the level of atoms, molecules, and
    supramolecular structures. The essence of nanotechnology is the ability
    to work at these levels to generate larger structures with
    fundamentally new molecular organization.
        The DOE is currently making a broad range of contributions in these
    areas. For example, the enhanced properties of nanocrystals for novel
    catalysts, tailored light emission and propagation, nanocomposites and
    supercapacitors are all being explored. Nanocrystals and layered
    structures offer unique opportunities for tailoring the optical,
    magnetic, electronic, mechanical and chemical properties of materials,
    and DOE researchers have synthesized layered structures for
    electronics, novel magnets, and surfaces with tailored hardness.
        The principal missions of DOE in science, energy, defense, and
    environment 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.
            underground science at the waste isolation pilot project
        Question. Is the Office of Science prepared to encourage
    development of scientific experiments utilizing the underground
    environment of WIPP?
        Answer. The DOE Office of Science (SC) has been made aware by the
    scientific community of the unique underground characteristics of WIPP
    and its potential for accommodating various experiments for particle
    and nuclear physics. The possible science looks very interesting and SC
    would certainly like to seriously explore the possibility of implement
    these experiments. The priority of these experiments will depend upon
    the priority that the science of these experiments is given in the long
    range planning exercises in which both the High Energy and Nuclear
    Physics communities are presently engaged, the merit and feasibility of
    the specific proposed experiment and, of course, the availability of
    resources to pursue these new initiatives.
        Question. It is my understanding that the Environmental Management
    programs of the Department are fully cooperating with the Office of
    Science to make the WIPP facilities available. Is my understanding
    correct or is additional cooperation required from the EM Office?
        Answer. The DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) has fully
    cooperated with the Office of Science in assessing the conditions under
    which scientific research could be performed in the WIPP facility.
    Certainly, a strong incentive for researchers is that WIPP
    infrastructure, when not needed to support the EM mission, could be
    available to support the scientific research teams. EM has proceeded on
    your request for an evaluation of the impact and costs on repository
    performance of creating a lower horizon for experiments with a draft
    report, to be shared with the Environmental Protection Agency,
    scheduled to be completed July 2001.
                       low dose radiation effects program
        Question. Three years ago, Congress created a program, anticipated
    to require ten years to provide a better scientific basis for the
    radiation standards used for low doses of radiation. Last year, the GAO
    completed a study that noted that the scientific basis for such
    standards is woefully inadequate. When DOE started the program, a
    program plan was carefully developed by the Department, which calls for
    about $25 million in fiscal year 2002.
        The Department requested only $12,700,000 for fiscal year 2002.
        That same GAO report noted that hundreds of billions of dollars in
    costs, much of it focused on cleanup of DOE facilities, are directly
    driven by these radiation standards. The cost of the research, which
    may provide better standards, is trivial compared to these
    expenditures.
        Why is the Department not following its own program plan for this
    critical research program?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2002 President's request for the Low Dose
    Radiation Research Program does represent an increase of $1,000,000
    relative to the fiscal year 2001 request but is substantially below the
    $25,000,000 recommended by the Biological and Environmental Research
    Advisory Committee (BERAC) program plan and below the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation that included $8,453,000 of Congressionally added funds.
    The amount requested was balanced relative to the other priorities in
    the BER program with equally large potential impacts on energy
    production, environmental cleanup and even to radiation standards
    through new understanding of genetic factors that affect susceptibility
    to low dose of radiation. Scientists may also apply to BER's Genomes to
    Life or Instrumentation programs for Low Dose-relevant research funds.
                                   pubscience
        Question. What is the Agency's justification for creating
    PubSCIENCE and using taxpayer dollars to support a project which
    duplicates products already available within the private sector?
        Answer. PubSCIENCE is a modernization of the journal coverage that
    DOE and predecessor agencies have been providing since 1948. Such
    coverage has been continuous throughout this 53-year period, and
    information products have descended in a direct line to PubSCIENCE. All
    these dissemination products have been developed by the same
    organization operating out of the same dedicated building since 1948.
        Prior to 1974, DOE's predecessor agency was the Atomic Energy
    Commission (AEC), which focused on nuclear technology, rather than
    fossil energy, renewable energy, or other energy sources. Nuclear
    Science Abstracts (NSA) began in 1948. The cataloging mission, of which
    PubSCIENCE is the most recent manifestation, began with NSA. Throughout
    its history, DOE and predecessor agencies used the technology of the
    day to deliver citation information and, as appropriate, the
    corresponding full text.
        From the 1970s until the present time, DOE's bibliographic needs
    were addressed by the Energy Database (EDB). The EDB was designed to
    meet DOE's bibliographic needs, both journal literature and gray
    literature. PubSCIENCE is designed to meet these same bibliographic
    needs for journal literature. In conjunction with the DOE Information
    Bridge for gray literature, PubSCIENCE is in essence a web version of
    EDB.
        As the scope of DOE's bibliographic needs has changed little over
    the last few years, there is little difference between the scope
    addressed by EDB with its old technology and the scope addressed by
    PubSCIENCE with its new technology. Both products cover all forms of
    energy and related disciplines.
        Legislation makes it clear that government has an affirmative
    responsibility for promoting energy science and technology through the
    free exchange of ideas. PubSCIENCE addresses this need while supporting
    commercial entities through the agreements DOE has with 45 publishers
    of research articles.
        DOE has the statutory mandate to disseminate scientific and
    technical information to encourage scientific and industrial
    developments related to energy sources and technologies. DOE also has
    mandates to provide information to the public on various energy
    resources ``through use of mass communication'' (Energy Reorganization
    Act of 1974, Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5813 (7)) and to assist in education
    and training activities in institutions of higher education.
    Additionally, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires all agencies
    to ``provide information resources management, increased program
    efficiency and effectiveness and improve integrity, quality and utility
    of information to all users within and outside the agency, including
    capabilities for ensuring dissemination of public information (Title 44
    U.S.C. Sec. 3506(b)(1)(B)(C).
        Question. What steps did DOE take prior to the development of
    PubSCIENCE to comply with existing laws governing agency
    responsibilities to provide notice to the public before initiating new
    information services?
        Answer. PubSCIENCE is the application of Web technology to an
    information dissemination function that has been in operation for over
    50 years. PubSCIENCE represents not a new role but a more cost-
    effective way of doing business. PubSCIENCE retains the same purpose
    and scope of predecessor products and reflects modifications only in
    the delivery technology. PubSCIENCE was introduced in October 1999
    following on the Web model established by the National Institutes of
    Health (NIH) with PubMed.
        Through web technology, PubSCIENCE offers a number of advantages
    over EDB (the pre-Web predecessor product), not least of which are
    advantages that are functional in nature, rather than in scope.
    PubSCIENCE's functional benefits over EDB include: more convenient
    access, ease of use, desktop access, and increased timeliness to
    information. Such advantages are driving all agencies toward electronic
    government, with strong encouragement from the Office of Management and
    Budget.
        The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended, 44 U.S.C.3501-3520,
    requires agencies to provide adequate notice--when initiating--
    significant information dissemination products. Id. 3506(d)(3). This
    requirement is echoed in OMB Cir. A-130 at para 8.a.6.j. In its
    analysis of these provisions, OMB explains that agencies are
    responsible for having ``an active knowledge of, and regular
    consultation with, the users of their information dissemination
    products . . . [and that] Consultation with users might include
    participation at conferences and workshops, careful attention to
    correspondence and telephone communications . . . or formalized user
    surveys.'' Consistent with guidance from OMB Circular A-130, public
    forum presentations, discussions, and publicly available articles about
    the development of PubSCIENCE began one year before the product was
    introduced. Throughout fiscal year 1999, more than 7 speeches, 3
    published articles, 2 demonstrations and beta tests, and Congressional
    Testimony by Dr. Martha Krebs, then Director, Office of Science, before
    the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Science,
    U.S. House of Representatives, announced the initiative to develop
    PubSCIENCE. These were the more formal communications, and do not
    include informal working discussions held in various forums with
    potential users. In addition to these communications, telephone
    interviews about this product to discuss opportunities for partnership
    were held with approximately 90 representatives from the primary,
    secondary, society, and university publishing communities. Other
    federal agencies with scientific and technical information management
    missions were also notified of the development of PubSCIENCE through
    periodic meetings and communications. Special communication efforts
    with GPO resulted in their partnership with the Department to provide
    public access to PubSCIENCE through the GPO Access system. OMB Circular
    A-130 guidance also says that ``In all cases . . . determination of
    what is a significant information dissemination product and what
    constitutes adequate notice are matters of agency judgment.'' We
    believe that the Department took appropriate steps to make the user and
    publishing communities aware of this information resource.
        Question. What is the Agency's justification for creating
    PubSCIENCE and using taxpayer dollars to support a project which
    duplicates products already available within the private sector?
        Answer. PubSCIENCE is a modernization of the journal coverage that
    DOE and predecessor agencies have been providing since 1948. Such
    coverage has been continuous throughout this 53-year period, and
    information products have descended in a direct line to PubSCIENCE. All
    these dissemination products have been developed by the same
    organization operating out of the same dedicated building since 1948.
        Question. In general, what is the Department's policy regarding
    creation of services that represent direct competition with the private
    sector?
        Answer. The Department's policy is to not create new services
    outside the scope of its mission and not supported by legislation.
    Those are not the conditions relative to PubSCIENCE. Journal titles
    included in PubSCIENCE are selected due to their relevance to DOE's R&D
    mission. The Department's enabling legislation and a number of other
    laws require that DOE make energy science and technology information
    accessible to the public. PubSCIENCE promotes energy science and
    technology through the free exchange of ideas both within the DOE
    scientific community and the public at large. PubSCIENCE is not a new
    service but a modernization of a longstanding service to fulfill this
    requirement. Rather than a competition with the private sector, it
    represents a strong partnership with over 40 commercial publishers in
    the private sector.
        PubSCIENCE does not duplicate any single commercial system. In
    fact, PubSCIENCE is designed to mimic the Department's R&D portfolio.
    Systems that present bibliographic information have a broad range of
    characteristics. Most commercial systems are typically geared to
    institutional subscribers, rather than the individual researcher or
    science-attentive citizen. Some systems are free to the user, while
    others require that each institution pay start up fees of hundreds of
    thousands of dollars, an amount comparable to the entire annual
    operating costs of PubSCIENCE; some are narrow in the scope of
    disciplines covered, while others are broad in scope; some are
    comprehensive within their disciplines, while others are less so; some
    offer any of a wide variety of value-added features, e.g., citation
    counting, targeted to specific user communities; some host abstracts,
    while others focus on authors and titles; some re-host primary
    publishers--full-text, while others link to publishers--servers and are
    thus especially compatible with electronic subscriptions or site
    licenses for full text. Internet technology is causing systems to
    evolve extremely rapidly so that generalizations applicable today may
    become outdated soon.
        Many other federal R&D agencies also capture and make available
    citations to journal articles on the Internet at no charge. The
    National Institutes of Health's PubMED is one such example; PubSCIENCE
    was modeled after PubMed. Through PubSCIENCE, researchers and the
    public are able to identify articles of concern to them, which then
    leads to commercial transactions with publishers to obtain the full-
    text information. Thus, PubSCIENCE fulfills its legally-mandated
    mission to advance energy science and technology through the free
    exchange of ideas, while facilitating private sector commercial
    transactions.
                                     ______

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

                    Question Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

                generation iv nuclear energy systems initiative
        Question. Please give an update on the Generation IV international
    forum and how it relates to the Generation IV technology roadmap.
        Answer. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is currently
    comprised of nine countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan,
    the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, the United
    Kingdom, and the United States. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the
    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are permanent observers.
    Additional countries, such as Switzerland, and organizations such as
    the European Commission are interested in becoming members. We expect
    that the nine countries participating in this activity will sign a
    charter formally constituting the GIF during May or June 2001.
        The participating countries have demonstrated serious intent to
    pursue collaborative research and development (R&D) to develop one or
    more advanced reactor designs that could be deployed commercially by
    2030. The GIF provides them a forum and clearing house to organize R&D
    collaborations with similarly interested nuclear research institutions
    in other countries. We expect these collaborations to result in
    innovative approaches and to permit the leveraging of scarce R&D
    dollars.
        The GIF is participating in the development of the Generation IV
    Technology Roadmap--a comprehensive R&D plan for advanced reactor
    development. It is our belief that, in the current world energy
    environment, reactors developed for deployment in the United States
    will also have to be attractive to purchasers elsewhere in the world if
    they are to be economically successful. Consequently, the Office of
    Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has invited GIF member
    participation in development of the roadmap.
        GIF members will participate in each of the Generation IV
    Technology Working Groups (TWG), i.e., light water, liquid metal, gas
    cooled, and non-classical design TWGs. They will also participate on a
    working group that will examine fuel cycle issues and on another cross-
    cutting working group that will develop and compare methods for
    evaluating one technology against another. Together, over 100 U.S. and
    foreign scientists are supporting this DOE-led activity.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                generation iv nuclear energy systems initiative
        Question. Last year, this Subcommittee led the way in creating a
    new R&D program in Nuclear Energy Technologies. Among other things, the
    DOE was directed to use the funding to develop a road map for the
    commercial deployment of a next generation power reactor that would
    have superior economics, no possibility of a core melt-down,
    substantially reduced production of high level waste, proliferation
    resistant fuel and waste, and much greater efficiencies. Please update
    the Committee on the status of the Generation IV activities. Please
    give an update on the Generation IV international forum and how it
    relates to the Gen IV technology roadmap.
        Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
    leading an international effort to establish a comprehensive research
    and development program for the next generation of innovative nuclear
    energy systems. The Generation IV Technology Roadmap will evaluate
    nuclear energy concepts, select the most promising concepts for further
    development, and define the research and development (R&D) needed to
    bring these concepts to maturity for potential commercialization. The
    Roadmap, which is being developed over a period of approximately two
    years by U.S. and international experts from industry, national
    laboratories, and academia, will identify those technologies that will
    successfully address the factors impacting the expansion of nuclear
    energy: economic competitiveness of building and operating nuclear
    energy systems; remaining concerns regarding nuclear safety and
    proliferation; and the challenge of minimizing and dealing successfully
    with nuclear wastes.
        A plan for developing the roadmap, including management, staffing,
    and schedule for completion, has been established. In addition, we have
    established Technical Working Groups (TWG) to collect information on
    and evaluate four broad classes of nuclear energy system concepts:
    water cooled reactors, gas cooled reactors, liquid metal cooled
    reactors, and non-classical reactor systems. Additional crosscutting
    groups will be established as necessary to conduct comparative
    assessments of specific technology areas.
        We have also recently completed the process of defining technology
    goals that capture sustainability, safety and reliability, and economic
    goals for energy production for Generation IV technologies. The
    technology goals for Generation IV nuclear energy systems were
    developed by a subcommittee of the Department's independent Nuclear
    Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) in close cooperation with
    the U.S. and international nuclear energy research community. After
    multiple reviews by U.S. and international experts, the goals are now
    widely endorsed as an appropriate basis for development of advanced
    nuclear energy technologies.
        The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a consortium of a
    small number of countries with an active interest in working together
    to plan and conduct research and development on innovative, next
    generation nuclear energy system designs. The GIF is currently
    comprised of nine countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan,
    the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom
    and the United States. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the
    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are permanent observers.
    Additional countries, such as Switzerland, and organizations such as
    the European Commission are interested in becoming members. We expect
    that the nine countries participating in this activity will sign a
    charter formally establishing the GIF during May or June 2001.
        The GIF member countries have demonstrated serious intent to pursue
    collaborative research and development (R&D) to develop one or more
    advanced reactor designs that could be deployed commercially by 2030.
    The GIF provides a forum and clearing house to organize R&D
    collaborations with similarly-interested nuclear research institutions
    in other countries. We expect these collaborations to result in
    innovative approaches and to permit the leveraging of scarce R&D
    dollars.
        At the invitation of the U.S., the GIF is participating in the
    development of the Generation IV Technology Roadmap--a comprehensive
    R&D plan for advanced reactor development. It is our belief that, in
    the current world energy environment, reactors developed for deployment
    in the United States will also have to be attractive to purchasers
    elsewhere in the world if they are to be successful. Consequently, the
    Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology invited GIF member
    participation in the development of the Roadmap.
        GIF members will participate in each of the Generation IV
    Technology Working Groups (TWGs). They will also participate on a
    working group that will examine fuel cycle issues and on another cross-
    cutting working group that will develop and compare methods for
    evaluating one technology against another. Together, over 100 U.S. and
    foreign scientists are supporting this DOE-led activity.
        Concurrent with the long-term-focused Roadmap effort, a near-term
    review of the regulatory, technical, and institutional issues that need
    to be addressed to support the deployment of new reactors in the U.S.
    within the next ten years is well underway. This review will be
    incorporated into the roadmap to give it both near- and long-term
    vision.
                   advanced accelerator applications program
        Question. The Department just delivered to Congress the required
    report on future plans for AAA program. That report painted a picture
    of major contributions from AAA, with study of improved nuclear waste
    strategies, demonstration of tritium production, and support for the
    nation's nuclear engineering research. Yet the Department zeroed the
    program. Do you share the enthusiasm which I have for this program?
    What funding level would be required in fiscal year 2002 to continue
    the AAA program?
        Answer. The Department is very interested in this technology and
    its potential for reducing the toxicity of high level waste and thus,
    significantly reducing the quantity of this waste that must be disposed
    of in a geologic repository. As you know, at the Congress's request,
    the Department has been exploring this technology over the last year
    with the assistance of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the
    Argonne National Laboratory. In March 2001, the Office of Nuclear
    Energy, Science and Technology provided a Ten Year Plan to Congress
    that provides more detail on mission need, objectives, research and
    development needed for proof of performance, and with preliminary cost
    estimates for the initiative. As contemplated in this report, year two
    of the AAA program would cost about $120 million.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2002 request does not include
    funds for this initiative. As you know, under the Vice President's
    leadership, the Administration is conducting a comprehensive evaluation
    of energy policy and related research priorities. Until these
    priorities are clearly identified, the Department will not request
    funding for major new energy initiatives. However, with its completion,
    I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress on the
    research priorities and the funding requirements to support the
    Administration's priorities.
                     status of nuclear engineering programs
        Question. Specialists in Nuclear Engineering and related
    disciplines are essential for our nuclear energy programs, as well as
    cleanup of the DOE complex and the nation's national security programs
    involving nuclear technologies.
        Enrollment in these programs is at very low levels. Some schools
    are considering dropping their programs and closing research reactors.
    What is your assessment of this critical part of the infrastructure?
    What would be your recommendations, both in the short and long terms to
    address the problem? Should the Government consider directly supporting
    university research reactors? What would it cost to cover the
    operations of all 29 university research reactors?
        Answer. The Department believes the U.S. nuclear engineering
    university programs are vital to the Nation's current and future energy
    security, environmental stewardship, and national security programs. As
    such, we have been very concerned about the U.S. nuclear engineering
    education infrastructure for the past several years. We have instituted
    a variety of programs to assist the university community in attracting
    students, improving the facilities--particularly the university
    research reactors, providing research funding, and attracting and
    supporting new faculty. To date, we have made some progress in
    increasing the number of students, especially at the undergraduate
    level, but university research reactors continue to be in need of more
    upgrading than current funds allow and many are laboring under a
    financial strain as universities try to support emerging fields of
    study. Several studies initiated and/or supported by DOE recently have
    made recommendations to the Department on how best to address the
    issues confronting nuclear engineering education.
        The two most recent studies; the Blue Ribbon Panel on the Future of
    University Nuclear Engineering Programs and University Research and
    Training Reactors headed by Dr. Michael Corradini of the University of
    Wisconsin and the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC)
    University Reactor Panel chaired by Robert Long, formerly of GPU and
    the University of New Mexico, provided recommendations in the
    University Reactor Task Force Report on how to address both the short
    and long term issues confronting nuclear engineering education. The
    Blue Ribbon Panel recommends large increases in the amount of support
    we provide for fellowships and scholarships, faculty support
    (especially junior faculty), nuclear research through the existing
    Nuclear Engineering Education Research program, research reactor
    upgrades, increased exchanges between universities and national
    laboratories, a national outreach and communication programs with local
    communities. We agree that all of these would be beneficial to nuclear
    engineering education in the U.S.
        The University Reactor Panel reported its findings on April 30,
    2001. Its primary area of interest was the university research
    reactors, especially the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
    University of Michigan, and Cornell University reactors which are
    facing an uncertain future due to funding shortfalls for operations and
    other problems such as shortage of staff. The two-tier (short and long
    term) approach recommended by this Panel would provide near term
    operating support for the three reactors to assist them over the next
    year or so. In the longer term, support would be made available to
    university research reactors based on a peer review of proposals
    submitted by each institution and centers of excellence would be
    established at those reactors that are most suitable for research and
    training. This increased funding, over and above a base level that
    every reactor would receive, would permit the upgrading of these
    facilities to make them more useful to the research community and
    better able to sustain themselves financially. These recommendations
    were endorsed by the full NERAC committee on April 30, 2001.
        The exact cost to cover the operating expenses of all 29 U.S.
    university research reactors is very difficult to determine given the
    various accounting systems at each university, but we are aware of
    estimates ranging from $5 million to $10 million.
            report to congress on thorium fueled reactor assemblies
        Question. The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for the current
    year required a report from the Department by March 1, 2001, on
    approaches for disposition of weapons-grade plutonium in thorium-based
    fuel assemblies in light water reactors. The request noted that work
    funded under the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program,
    accomplished jointly with the Kurchatov Institute in Russia, showed
    extremely promising disposition rates for this approach, with
    potentially important benefits for non-proliferation. I understand that
    the Nuclear Energy Office was tasked to prepare this report. The report
    is now over two months late. When will it arrive? The Report was
    completed by the Nuclear Energy Office, but the Non-Proliferation
    Office has held up its release. Staff understands that the NN office
    feels the report is too critical of its current MOX program. Congress
    should be provided with the opportunity to review the report it
    requested and draw its own conclusions.
        Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
    working closely with the Office of Defense Nuclear Non-Proliferation
    (NN) on the Report to Congress titled, ``Alternative for the
    Disposition of Surplus Weapons Plutonium in Existing Light Water
    Reactors.'' We believe that most of the concerns raised by NN have been
    resolved and that the report is nearly ready for final approval within
    the Department. We hope to transmit this report to Congress by the end
    of May 2001.
                               budget development
        Question. Mr. Magwood, in reviewing the budget request for nuclear
    energy R&D, it appears you have at best requested money to continue
    existing research projects, but have requested virtually nothing to
    begin new research projects. Why such a substantial cut, given the
    incredible long-term importance nuclear energy may play in our future
    energy strategy?
        Answer. The investments that the Department proposes to make in
    nuclear energy are driven by the recognition of the important role that
    nuclear energy serves in providing reliable, affordable and
    environmentally sustainable electricity. These investments are based on
    the recognition that nuclear energy is and will remain an important
    component of the Nation's energy mix today and in the future. The
    Department's proposed fiscal year 2002 budget request of $223.1 million
    is focused on enabling us to meet our most critical needs--for
    research, for training and educating of the next generation of
    engineers and scientists and for maintaining the Nation's nuclear
    science and technology infrastructure. Our future investments in energy
    and energy technologies will be informed by the Vice President's
    National Energy Policy Development Group's review of energy policy,
    currently underway. The Department will assess its long-term research
    and development portfolio once the review is issued.
                 national nuclear security administration labs
        Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration started
    operation as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department last year.
    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 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Act
    allows the NNSA laboratories to continue to perform significant
    research for all Department of Energy 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. The
    Department remains committed 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) continues
    to 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, Advanced Accelerator
    Applications 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 was issued last year.
    This implementation plan 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. For example, NE
    and NNSA are finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the
    joint management of the Advanced Accelerator Applications Program. The
    MOU combines the Accelerator Production of Tritium Program with the
    Accelerator Transmutation of Waste Program, integrating the two
    programs and enabling the use of the Low Energy Demonstration
    Accelerator at Los Alamos as well as assuring a tritium backup
    capability if needed to meet national security requirements. The MOU
    should be finalized by the end of May 2001.
        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.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Bennett. And we thank you all for coming. The
    subcommittee is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Tuesday, May 1, the subcommittee
    was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:36 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Domenici, Bennett, Craig, Reid, and
    Murray.
        Also present: Senator Crapo.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                       Office of Environmental Management

    STATEMENT OF CAROLYN L. HUNTOON, PH.D., ACTING
                ASSISTANT SECRETARY

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Senator Reid has indicated we should
    proceed. He will get along here shortly, he said. So let us get
    started. I have a brief opening statement, after which I will
    yield to you, Senator Craig, and then we will ask you, Senator
    Crapo, for your comments. You are welcome to either join us
    here or there, whichever you prefer.
        Senator Crapo. This will be fine.
        Senator Domenici. Today we meet to review the Department of
    Energy's 2002 budget request for environmental management
    programs and the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
    Management, otherwise known as Yucca Mountain. We will hear
    today from Dr. Carolyn Huntoon, Acting Assistant Secretary for
    Environmental Management, and Mr. Lake Barrett, Acting Director
    of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
        Today's hearing will complete our series of hearings to
    specifically review the 2002 budget requests for programs
    within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. We will continue to
    have oversight hearings as appropriate during the remainder of
    the year.
        For environmental management programs at the Department of
    Energy, the administration has requested $5.914 billion for
    next year, $348 million less than the current year
    appropriation. That is a 6 percent reduction in just that
    account. The environmental management programs are the largest
    part of the DOE's budget outside of the NNSA, representing
    about one-third of the total DOE budget.
        The program's mission is primarily focused on cleanup of
    sites involved some way in the production of nuclear weapons.
    These programs are very important to the country and are of the
    utmost importance to those Senators who have major sites within
    their State.
        The administration has proposed drastic cuts in the
    environmental management. One example from my own State is the
    budget for waste isolation pilot plant. That is the only United
    States effort to take care of transuranic, low level
    transuranic wastes, on a permanent basis. That complex that
    handles the shipments will be reduced by 13 percent. This cut
    should not stand and we should restore money clearly for this
    purpose.
        In your written statement, Dr. Huntoon, that you submitted
    to us you state that Secretary Abraham has directed a top to
    bottom management review of the EM program with the goal of
    identifying efficiencies and speeding up cleanup efforts. I
    commend you in this endeavor, but I must raise a few concerns.
        For example, the management review is supposed to identify
    steps to strengthen project management. That is, identify steps
    to strengthen project management. That is in parentheses. But
    the budget request actually increases the time line for current
    projects, which ultimately leads to increased costs and greater
    project uncertainty. At least that is how we see it.
        The management review is supposed to implement better
    contracting strategies, but the budget request does not
    adequately fund the new performance-based contracts that you
    have negotiated, that we have negotiated in the past few years.
        The management review is supposed to lead to greater use of
    technologies to reduce cleanup costs, but the budget request
    proposes a 27 percent cut to EM science and technology
    department.
        There may be answers to all of these. From what I can tell,
    they are not very good answers. While I remain optimistic that
    the management review will identify areas for improvement,
    clearly we have been trying to do that for quite some time. You
    may have better good fortune at it than we have had in the past
    in determining new ways to solve these very long and costly
    cleanup operations.
        For the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
    the administration has requested $445 million for next year, an
    increase of $45 million or 10 percent over current year level.
    This budget should allow the Department to transition towards
    the potential licensing of Yucca Mountain once the Department
    makes an onsite recommendation to the President the end of this
    year.
        A 10 percent increase in the Yucca Mountain budget is quite
    remarkable, given that the administration proposed deep cuts in
    almost every other account of the Department of Energy for
    fiscal year 2002. Mr. Barrett, you probably deserve both
    condemnation and warning. We will do what we can the support
    the President's request and I look forward to working with the
    new administration on spent fuel management issues.
        Today we are going to proceed, as I indicated before, by
    yielding first to Senator Craig and to Senator Crapo. Then, Dr.
    Huntoon, you will follow. Senator Craig.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG

        Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all thank you
    for your leadership in this area and the work you have done.
        What I think the record has to show today is the importance
    to me and to my colleague Senator Crapo of the commitment that
    DOE has made to the people of Idaho regarding the cleanup of
    nuclear contamination and waste at the Idaho National
    Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This is an issue that
    we have discussed with the Secretary of Energy, Secretary
    Abraham, on numerous occasions, both prior to and since his
    confirmation. It is an issue that I have raised with the
    nominees for the key Department posts at Energy as they have
    appeared before us.
        The reason why this issue is so important is that States
    such as Idaho which have hosted the DOE sites for decades need
    to have confidence in the ability of DOE to keep its promises.
    It will not sit by while communities such as those in
    southeastern Idaho are penalized, if you will, for their
    patriotism and their role in winning the Cold War by being
    told, do not worry, DOE will get around to you some day, maybe
    next year, maybe decades from now, and maybe never; and if we
    decide that we do not need to clean up your site or we are
    finding it more challenging than we thought or more expensive,
    we are just going to tell you that we cannot do it, it is your
    problem.
        Now, Ms. Huntoon, you know that we have a good program
    going. There are substantial milestones that have been made. To
    stop now or to substantially cut back now does not make any
    sense. To analyze what we are doing and to examine it in light
    of the efficiencies that the chairman spoke of that may be
    there, that is good business. But the kind of cuts that we are
    talking about in my opinion is very bad business. A budget that
    cannot address DOE's cleanup commitments is the same as saying
    to Idaho Falls in Idaho and Pocatello in Idaho: Maybe some day
    we will finally get around to you and address the waste and
    potential environmental contamination problems that were
    created in your State, but right now it just is not a priority.
        Well, Mr. Chairman, these are the sentiments that I have
    heard expressed in my State, and I am sure that my colleague
    Senator Crapo has heard them, too. These concerns are the
    reasons why I visited with you earlier. We talked about these
    needs. You have worked very closely with us to see where we can
    resolve this and find the additional funding for DOE's
    environmental management program. I want to acknowledge this
    publicly now, that you have worked very hard with us.
        In the 4 years that I have served on this subcommittee, we
    have consistently kept on line these programs and we will work
    to continue that consistency.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that tremendous support.
        Now then, we need an additional billion dollars. In a
    trillion dollar budget, that sounds like a manageable task, or
    a trillion plus. But what I am talking about is a system-wide
    commitment that deals with Idaho and deals with Hanford and
    deals with Paducah and all of those areas that have been well
    understood and well designated to have problems, environmental
    problems.
        While I am working with the chairman here, we are working
    with the chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, and
    yesterday he clearly gave his commitment to working to resolve
    these kind of things. Additionally, I must acknowledge the hard
    work, obviously, of the witnesses before. I have recognized
    you, Dr. Huntoon. Tomorrow another committee on which I serve,
    the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will hold
    confirmation hearings for the person that President Bush has
    nominated to fill your shoes, Jessie Robertson, and we have
    already had that discussion. I have met with her and we have
    discussed the issue, and I know that you are working to prepare
    her for the responsibilities that she is going to be facing.
        This may be my best chance to speak to you and I sincerely
    want to acknowledge the hard work and the dedication of service
    that you have provided to the Department and to our lab in
    Idaho and the work that you have undertaken and in many ways
    accomplished.
        Finally, I have mentioned him, but let me recognize my
    colleague Mike Crapo. We have worked together to fight for this
    issue and for the additional funding necessary for years. Those
    of us in the Senate who represented the States with DOE sites
    have been somewhat loosely joined at times in alliances to
    support environmental cleanup. Now we have a formalized
    alliance, if you will, of the Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus. I
    thank both Doc Hastings in the House and Senator Crapo here for
    their leadership in organizing that and working with us to make
    sure that this happens, and it must happen, Mr. Chairman.
        We have a responsibility and a commitment to the States
    involved and to the citizens involved and to our country that
    when we initiate these programs we work to complete them in the
    end. 50 years of defense activity can oftentimes not be walked
    away from lightly. Again, I will work to find the efficiencies
    necessary, but with your commitment, Mr. Chairman and others,
    we will also work to fund the programs across the country. You
    cited one in your State that is critical to my State, the WIPP
    facility where our transuranic waste is now moving to.
        Cutbacks and slowdowns are certainly not a solution to a
    problem at a time when you and I are both wanting to see
    nuclear in a commercial sense lead and also deal with that
    particular waste problem that is generated for the sake of
    energy for this country.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your support
    in this effort. I think collectively we will get there.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Crapo, would you like to make a statement?

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO

        Senator Crapo. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
    Senator Craig, and members of the subcommittee, I would like to
    thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak briefly to
    you on the need to provide adequate funding for the Department
    of Energy's environmental management program.
        As Senator Craig has said so well, he and I have been
    working aggressively for the last few years to make certain
    that adequate funding is available to make clear that the
    Department of Energy will meet its commitments, not only in
    Idaho, but throughout the Nation and the DOE complex.
        I come before the subcommittee as the co-chairman of the
    Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus and as a Senator with a
    major DOE lab and a cleanup facility near my home town, Idaho
    Falls. On March 8 Senator Craig and Senator Murray and I asked
    interested colleagues to join our informal caucus to raise
    awareness of the challenges facing the DOE complex as it tries
    to clean up the wastes left over from nuclear weapons
    production and nuclear reactor development.
        At present, 14 Senators have joined the caucus, including
    four members of this subcommittee, Senators Murray, Craig,
    McConnell, and Hollings. Today at DOE facilities across the
    country in States such as Ohio, Washington, Tennessee, South
    Carolina, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and New York,
    the DOE is working to safely store, treat, and process large
    volumes of high-level liquid wastes, mixed wastes, trans-uranic
    waste, low-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, and contaminated
    soils and water.
        All of this waste, which is the result of important
    national missions, requires careful handling to protect public
    health and the environment. Much of the work and progress being
    made cleaning up waste at DOE sites is driven by commitments
    made by the Federal Government under the Federal Facilities
    Compliance Act. Under this law, enacted in 1992, the Federal
    Government waived its right of sovereign immunity and entered
    into legally binding agreements to bring Federal facilities
    into compliance with existing environmental laws.
        This process lifted the veil of secrecy that surrounded
    many DOE sites and it gave communities and States a promise
    that cleanup commitments would be kept. Mr. Chairman, as
    members of this subcommittee know better than others, the DOE
    cleanup program is a very complicated, long-term, and a costly
    endeavor. In the not too distant past, this program has
    suffered from poor management, poor contracting, and poor
    performance. But in recent years the program has turned the
    corner and real progress is now being made on the ground.
        Indeed, the progress can be seen most clearly in the
    opening of the WIPP facility and the safe shipment of waste to
    this permanent disposal facility.
        Unfortunately, the DOE cleanup budget proposed by the
    administration will change that picture and slow or halt some
    of the critical progress being made in cleaning up waste across
    the DOE complex. On the surface, the proposed fiscal year 2002
    budget appears to reduce DOE EM accounts by about $350 million.
    But on closer scrutiny, the major cleanup accounts--defense
    closure projects, defense environmental restoration and waste
    management, and non-defense environmental restoration and waste
    management--are reduced by over $450 million from the fiscal
    year 2001 appropriated level.
        When the proposed cuts in the cleanup budget are matched
    against legally binding compliance agreements and requirements,
    the shortfall approaches $1 billion. The reductions proposed
    for the fiscal year 2002 DOE cleanup budget will increase risks
    to the environment and increase the long-term cost to complete
    the EM program. In addition, the proposed budget cuts will
    result in contracts being cancelled, enforceable milestones
    being missed, and thousands of workers being laid off.
        The proposed budget cuts are much deeper than they appear
    because as projects are stopped, milestones missed, and workers
    laid off, the States will impose fines and penalties,
    contractors and subcontractors will be paid termination costs,
    and displaced workers will receive severance packages and
    worker transition assistance.
        Congress needs to keep the commitments made to communities
    across the country to clean up DOE facilities and bring them
    into compliance with current environmental laws. In order to
    meet these commitments, additional funding is needed. That is
    why Senator Craig and Senator Murray and I authored the
    successful amendment to the budget resolution adding $1 billion
    to the DOE cleanup program. Mr. Chairman, in your capacity as
    chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I appreciated your
    support for this same amendment and I look forward to working
    with you to identify opportunities during consideration of the
    supplemental appropriations bill or during the 2002
    appropriations process to provide these additional funds to the
    EM program.
        If the Federal Government breaks its word and reneges on
    its commitment to clean up existing DOE facilities in a timely
    manner, how will we ever be able to convince State governments,
    regulators, and stakeholders, and the public that the U.S.
    government will responsibly handle waste generated from today's
    national defense and energy programs? Who will believe today's
    promises if the Federal Government breaks promises made just a
    few years ago regarding the cleanup of nuclear waste?
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving me a few
    minutes to urge members of this committee to do everything they
    can to support adequate funding for the DOE cleanup program. I
    know the members of the Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus
    stand ready to work with you on this effort. The members of the
    Senate Nuclear Waste Cleanup Caucus also stand ready to assist
    Secretary Abraham in his review of the DOE cleanup program, but
    we do not support making cuts in the budget before efficiencies
    are identified.
        Mr. Chairman, speaking of caucuses, I want to thank you for
    your leadership in creating the Senate Nuclear Caucus, which
    seeks to promote a balanced evaluation of the contribution of
    nuclear energy, that it can make to our national energy
    strategy. In that regard, I am pleased to be an original co-
    sponsor of S. 472, which will ensure that nuclear energy
    remains a viable component of our national energy strategy.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to
    increase the role of clean and reliable nuclear energy in our
    national energy strategy, and I thank you and Senator Craig for
    your strong and consistent work in this area.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Crapo.
        Senator Crapo. Mr. Chairman, I might also ask to be
    released. I have got to preside on the floor in about 5
    minutes.
        Senator Domenici. You are. If you are finished with your
    statement, you are released, because that is all we want to
    hear from you.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
        Senator Domenici. Now we are going to proceed to you,
    doctor. I can recall when you took this job we talked a long
    time and on at least two occasions as to the nature of it and
    why in the world you would want it. You said you wanted the job
    very badly and that you would work very hard to make some real
    progress.
        I want to just open by saying there are a couple things
    about this account that make it very difficult. The first is
    that it is defense money. Money for this program comes
    predominantly from the Department of Defense. Now, that is a
    commitment. That is the way we have been appropriating it. That
    is the way they are supposed to be budgeting it. So it is not
    really the Department of Energy's money. It is the Department
    of Energy manages the money given to them by the Department of
    Defense to do this work.
        I think, Senator Craig, you and I have discussed on a
    number of occasions that makes it pretty difficult, because it
    is a very big ticket item each year, and when it comes out of
    the defense budget if they feel they have got a tight budget,
    it is pretty hard for them to figure out why they should give
    so much to this activity if they think some of their
    requirements of the military are being shortchanged.
        But the message is coming across this year loud and clear
    that if these programs have to be redone, if they have to be
    improved, reformed, changed, better management, you cannot do
    it by shortchanging them this year in the manner suggested in
    the President's budget. You need to have time to do that and
    you have to have time to sit down and work on these problems.
        Some of the projects are too expensive and have lasted too
    long. I do not think I put your project, Senator Craig, in that
    category.
        In any event, we would like to hear from you now and we
    have a few questions. This is our last chance to say thank you.
    You took a hard, hard job when you decided to do this in
    compliment you and thank you for your effort.
        Now, your statement will be made a part of the record. If
    you would please summarize it, we would be glad to hear from
    you.

                        STATEMENT OF CAROLYN L. HUNTOON

        Dr. Huntoon. Thank you, Senator Domenici and Senator Craig.
    It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about the budget. I
    am here to ask you to support our environmental management
    budget for fiscal year 2002. As you mentioned, the 50-year
    legacy that we are trying to clean up left profound
    environmental contamination. I am talking about the trillions
    of gallons of contaminated ground water, millions of cubic
    meters of contaminated soil, millions of gallons of highly
    radioactive liquid waste, and thousands of contaminated
    buildings across our country.

                               CLEAN UP PROGRESS

        Although progress in addressing these problems was
    initially slow, I believe we have turned a corner and we are
    making real tangible progress. For example, we have cleaned up
    71 of the 113 sites, or 66 percent, and 3 more will be done by
    the end of this year. We have completed cleanup at over 4,900
    of the nearly 10,000 release sites. We have stabilized 57
    percent of our nuclear material residues and 12 percent of the
    plutonium metals and oxides.
        At the Hanford site in Washington State, we are moving
    spent nuclear fuel from the K basins to a safe dry storage. At
    Oak Ridge in Tennessee, we completed the cleanup of gunnite
    tanks 10 years ahead of schedule by using innovative
    technologies. At Paducah in Kentucky, we completed the removal
    of the infamous Drug Mountain ahead of schedule. At the
    Savannah River site in South Carolina, we have produced over
    1200 canisters of vitrified high-level waste and we have
    disposed of over 1500 cubic meters of transuranic waste at
    WIPP.
        We are doing so well at Rocky Flats now that 2006 is moving
    from being a vision to being a realistic goal. In short, we
    have accomplished a lot, but we still have a lot to do. We have
    been doing it safely.

                               BUDGET PRIORITIES

        For fiscal year 2002 we are requesting, as you mentioned,
    $5.91 billion for this program. This may not be as much as we
    would like, but $5.91 billion is still a lot of money and I
    believe we can make progress. The budget continues to place the
    highest priorities on protecting the health and safety of our
    workers, the public at all the DOE sites, and continuing to
    work to mitigate our highest risks. We will ensure nuclear
    materials are properly managed and safeguarded and we will
    maintain compliance as the priority, but, given the demands of
    this budget, it will be a challenge at many of our sites.
        We have given priority to several key projects that will
    reduce high risk, provide significant reduction, or are key to
    completing activities at other sites. These projects include
    keeping Rocky Flats and Fernault in Ohio on track to meet their
    accelerated closure schedules, continuing progress to design
    and construct a vitrification plant to immobilize high-risk
    highly radioactive waste at Hanford, vitrifying the highly
    radioactive waste at Savannah River and selecting a technology
    to pretreat a portion of that waste, we almost double the
    shipments of transuranic waste to WIPP, to support closure or
    compliance requirements at other sites, including Idaho, Rocky
    Flats, Savannah River, and Argonne Laboratory East in Chicago.
        We are going to be stabilizing spent nuclear fuel or moving
    it from wet storage into dry safe storage at a number of our
    sites. We are going to continue progress on disposing of waste
    and cleaning up sites. We are completing active cleanup at
    Weldon Springs in Missouri and we are developing a long-term
    stewardship program to monitor and maintain remedies across the
    complex after cleanup is done.
        The budget continues to fund development and deployment of
    new technologies that can help reduce cleanup costs and
    schedules.
        The fiscal year 2002 request also funds high priority new
    responsibilities that EM has been given: turnover of the
    uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth, Ohio, and activities
    required to keep it safe and operable; design and construction
    of the depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion plants at
    Portsmouth and Paducah; and acceptance of some excess
    facilities from the National Nuclear Security Administration
    and the Office of Science for decontamination and
    decommissioning.

                                EFFICIENCY GOALS

        The Secretary has challenged every program in the
    Department to become 5 to 10 percent more efficient. In
    addition, he challenged us to reduce the schedules and cost of
    completing cleanup. The EM budget reflects this challenge. The
    Secretary has asked me to initiate a top to bottom assessment
    of the program that will be completed by my successor. The
    goals here are to strengthen our project management, reduce
    contractor overhead, employ effective contracting strategies,
    ensure that we are performing work as efficiently as possible
    and in the proper sequence, and ensure that our decisions are
    based on sound science.
        In implementing this approach, EM will continue an open
    dialogue with the Federal and State regulators. The Secretary
    has invited the governors of the States that host our sites and
    EPA Administrator Whitman to work with him to find more
    efficient ways to do business and improve our compliance
    framework.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        By working together with our Federal partners and our
    contractors and with your support of this budget, we can
    develop solutions to achieve our shared environmental goals.
        Thank you for your continued support of this program. I
    will be happy to answer any questions.
        [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 2002 budget
    request.
        The Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002 request of $19.2
    billion fulfills President Bush's commitment to responsible
    discretionary spending while meeting critical requirements and
    priorities in the national security, energy, science and environmental
    quality programs the Department administers. We faced some tough
    choices for all of the Department's programs, but the end result is a
    balance among the critical national priorities in the programs
    administered by DOE.
        The Environmental Management program constitutes nearly a third of
    the Department's budget, second only to our national security
    activities, illustrating the scope and complexity, as well as the
    challenge, of the cleanup we face. Our budget request of $5.913 billion
    for fiscal year 2002 for the EM program will enable DOE to continue the
    cleanup of the contamination and wastes that resulted primarily from
    nuclear weapons research and production over the past 50 years. The
    request seeks $5.771 billion in traditional budget authority and $142
    million in budget authority to support privatization projects. Detailed
    information on site activities covered under this account are attached
    to this testimony.
        The level of funding in our request reflects the Department's
    priorities for the EM program. These priorities are, first and
    foremost, to ensure the safety of the workers and the public at all our
    sites. The request supports critical safety programs for the protection
    of workers who carry out cleanup activities across the DOE complex. Our
    request supports activities needed to address high risk wastes and
    nuclear materials to ensure they are safe and secure and that progress
    continues to reduce risks. It keeps us on track to meet accelerated
    closure schedules at Rocky Flats in Colorado and the Fernald site in
    Ohio. It supports many key projects, including the development of a
    waste treatment plant at Hanford to immobilize high-level waste,
    increased waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and
    stabilization of spent nuclear fuel and plutonium materials at the
    Savannah River Site in South Carolina. It supports the completion of
    cleanup at the Weldon Spring Site in fiscal year 2002. Our budget
    request continues efforts to develop and deploy innovative technologies
    that can reduce the cost and schedule of cleanup. While the budget
    addresses the major cleanup problems covered by compliance agreements
    and other essential requirements across the complex, Energy Secretary
    Abraham also has directed a top-to-bottom management review of the EM
    program with the goal of identifying efficiencies and speeding up our
    cleanup efforts.
        The Secretary has challenged every program in the Department to
    become five to ten percent more efficient and the EM review will focus
    on meeting this challenge. Under this management review, the program
    will work to identify steps to strengthen project management, implement
    contracting strategies that help reduce costs and schedules, make
    greater use of new technologies, and sequence work more effectively. We
    must be sure that we are spending our cleanup dollars on the right
    problems and that we are addressing cleanup problems as effectively as
    possible.
        Critical to the success of these efforts is the involvement and
    support of our state and federal partners. The Department is firmly
    committed to conducting the cleanup safely and in compliance with
    applicable laws and regulations. It is critical, however, that we are
    conducting the cleanup in the best and most practical way possible.
    Accordingly, the Secretary has invited the governors of the States that
    host our sites and EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to work
    with us to improve the compliance framework that governs much of the
    cleanup work at our sites. We need to review our cleanup work to ensure
    it promotes on-the-ground results, makes use of technologies that are
    efficient, and reflects the lessons and technical understanding
    developed over the past decade. I am confident that, working
    cooperatively, we can find ways to achieve our shared environmental
    goals more efficiently.
                                  introduction
        Before discussing the specifics of our fiscal year 2002 budget
    request, I would like to provide an overview of our program, 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. A
    common theme among the very diverse facilities across the country where
    the EM program is conducting cleanup 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 will no longer be needed
    to support the Department's mission. The EM program also is responsible
    for critical nuclear non-proliferation programs to accept and safely
    manage spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors that contain
    weapons-usable highly enriched uranium.
        Completing the cleanup of the legacy from nuclear weapons
    production will meet our obligations 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.
                accomplishments and progress in fiscal year 2001
        I am pleased to report that EM is making significant progress
    around the country. Our accomplishments reflect the program's continued
    commitment to performance-based management, establishing goals and
    performance measures that demonstrate our progress in on-the-ground
    environmental cleanup and meeting our goals. For example:
        1. In fiscal year 2000, EM completed its cleanup work at two more
    sites--the Battelle Columbus-King Avenue site in Ohio and the
    Monticello site in Utah. We plan to complete cleanup of the Grand
    Junction site in Colorado, General Atomics in California, and Argonne-
    West in Idaho by the end of fiscal year 2001. This will bring the
    number of completed sites to 74, with 40 sites (including the Moab site
    in Utah) remaining that require active cleanup.
        2. The rate of shipments of transuranic waste for disposal at the
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the world's first deep geologic
    waste repository, continues to increase. WIPP received 58 shipments in
    fiscal year 2000 and plans to receive an additional 381 shipments by
    the end of fiscal year 2001, which will bring the total number of
    shipments to 471 containing over 3,000 cubic meters of waste since WIPP
    began operations in March 1999. We are receiving waste from Rocky
    Flats, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, Hanford, and the
    Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), and
    made the first shipment from the Savannah River Site last week.
        3. We continue progress toward the ambitious goal of closing Rocky
    Flats by 2006. In February 2000, we put in place a new ``closure''
    contract that provides incentives to the contractor to meet the
    December 2006 target date for site closure. We completed the demolition
    of Building 779 in January 2000, eight months ahead of schedule. This
    is the first plutonium facility of its size and complexity in the
    nation to be decommissioned and demolished. Shipments of waste
    continue, including 249 cubic meters of transuranic waste to WIPP in
    fiscal year 2000 with another 1,000 cubic meters scheduled for fiscal
    year 2001. And we are removing nuclear materials from the site--we
    completed shipments of plutonium scrub alloy to the Savannah River Site
    in fiscal year 2000 and will complete shipments of classified metals to
    Los Alamos and the Savannah River Site in fiscal year 2001.
        4. In December 2000, we awarded a ``closure'' contract for the
    Fernald site in Ohio, which includes incentives to the contractor to
    accelerate closure ahead of the 2010 closure date in the site's current
    baseline. We continue to stay on track for closure by deactivating and
    decommissioning facilities, disposing of contaminated soils and waste,
    and shipping nuclear materials off-site.
        5. We produced a total of 241 canisters of vitrified high-level
    waste in fiscal year 2000 at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina
    and at West Valley in New York. In fiscal year 2001, we expect to
    produce 220 more canisters at the Savannah River Site facility and to
    complete five or more canisters at West Valley.
        6. At INEEL, we recently finished moving Three Mile Island spent
    nuclear fuel debris to a newly constructed dry storage facility, almost
    two months ahead of the milestone in the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
    Construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project started in
    fiscal year 2000 under a privatization contract. This facility will
    treat up to 65,000 cubic meters of stored waste. Transuranic waste
    shipments to WIPP continue in support of the Settlement Agreement with
    the State.
        7. At the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, we completed the
    cleanup of all eight ``Gunite'' tanks containing highly radioactive
    sludge in fiscal year 2000, eight months ahead of schedule and ten
    years ahead of the original baseline. We began shipments of low-level
    waste to the Nevada Test Site for disposal, which allowed the
    resumption of off-site shipments of waste to the Toxic Substances
    Control Act (TSCA) Incinerator under an agreement with the State. In
    fiscal year 2001, we will begin construction of a new on-site disposal
    facility for remediation wastes, as well as the construction of a
    transuranic/alpha waste treatment facility which will prepare Oak Ridge
    waste for shipment to WIPP.
        8. At the Hanford site in Washington State, we continue to make
    significant progress in reducing the urgent risks associated with the
    177 underground high-level waste tanks, some of which have leaked to
    the surrounding soils threatening groundwater and the nearby Columbia
    River. We are successfully resolving tank safety issues--in fiscal year
    2001 we will resolve an issue related to flammable gas safety, the last
    of high priority safety issues, and remove all remaining tanks from the
    ``Watch List.'' We continue interim stabilization of single-shell
    tanks, transferring free liquids in the tanks to more secure double-
    shelled tanks. We began pumping free liquids from four single-shelled
    tanks in fiscal year 2000 and will begin pumping another six tanks in
    fiscal year 2001, meeting all milestones in the Consent Decree with the
    State of Washington. In December 2000, a new performance-based contract
    was awarded ahead of schedule for construction of the treatment
    facility that will immobilize a significant portion of the high-level
    tank waste.
        9. Also at Hanford, in December 2000, we began moving spent nuclear
    fuel from the K-West basins to safer, dry storage away from the
    Columbia River. We plan to remove, dry, and transport 116 metric tons
    heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel in fiscal year 2001. We are also
    continuing the stabilization of plutonium-bearing liquids and materials
    in the Plutonium Finishing Plant, completing about 50 percent of
    solutions and nine percent of the containers by the end of fiscal year
    2001. In fiscal year 2001, we will dispose of more than 490,000 tons of
    contaminated soil and debris in the on-site disposal facility.
        10. In December 2000, we completed the removal and packaging of
    ``Drum Mountain,'' a pile of thousands of crushed contaminated drums,
    at the Paducah site in Kentucky.
        11. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete construction of the
    Decontamination Waste Treatment Facility at the Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory in California. This facility will provide new,
    state-of-the-art technology for treatment of Livermore waste.
        12. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, we began full operation
    of our sealed source program in fiscal year 2001 to recover radioactive
    sources that exceed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's upper
    limit for commercial disposal and therefore currently have no approved
    disposal pathway. This program removes unwanted radioactive sources
    from the private and public sector and places them in safe storage at
    Los Alamos. We have brought 1100 private sector sealed sources to Los
    Alamos for storage and expect to recover over 2000 sources by the end
    of fiscal year 2001.
        In support of non-proliferation goals, we have completed a total of
    19 shipments to date of spent nuclear fuel from foreign research
    reactors in 25 countries since the start of the acceptance program,
    including three shipments in fiscal year 2001 from Argentina, Chile,
    Germany, Italy and Japan. All told, these 19 shipments effectively
    removed from commerce an amount of uranium equivalent to over 20 crude
    nuclear weapons. This program is crucial in supporting U.S. policy to
    reduce and eventually eliminate the use of highly enriched (nuclear
    weapons-capable) uranium in civil commerce world-wide.
        All EM sites achieved full implementation of Integrated Safety
    Management (ISM) by the end of fiscal year 2000. ISM is a ``common
    sense'' approach to safety management that defines the necessary safety
    structure for any work activity that could affect the safety of the
    public, the workers, or the environment.
        Our on-the-ground use of new innovative technologies continues to
    increase, many of which contributed to or resulted in the
    accomplishments described above. During fiscal year 2000, DOE sites
    used EM-sponsored innovative technologies 210 times in cleanup
    activities. For example, a breakthrough technology
    (LASAGNATM) that uses buried electrodes to produce a flow of
    groundwater and dissolved contaminants toward ``in situ'' treatment
    zones was deployed at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to treat
    trichloroethylene and technetium contamination in the ground. During
    the next two years, this technology is expected to reduce the level of
    contamination in the soil to a level that presents no threat to
    groundwater.
        Also in fiscal year 2000, 30 innovative technologies were made
    available for use for the first time. One such technology is the Vadose
    Zone Characterization System which measures contaminants that have
    leaked from high-level waste tanks into the groundwater. We also
    initiated 37 full-scale demonstrations of innovative technologies,
    including the Fiber Optic Tritium Detector and Quantifier, which
    enables tritium measurements to be made safer, faster (real time),
    better and cheaper than traditional liquid scintillation-based
    techniques.
        During fiscal year 2001, the sites expect to deploy new technology
    at least 60 times in cleanup activities. For example, we plan to deploy
    a new technology recommended by the fiscal year 2001 ``blue ribbon
    panel'' on alternatives to incineration at Hanford to treat organic
    hazardous and radioactive mixed waste.
                          the fiscal year 2002 request
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $5.913 billion will enable
    EM to continue making progress in cleaning up its sites. The request
    supports the Department's key priorities needed to meet the
    environmental management mission. Our request:
      --protects the health and safety of the workers and the public at all
            our sites as our first priority;
      --ensures the safety and security of high risk wastes and nuclear
            materials and continues the progress in addressing our high-
            risk cleanup problems and addresses critical needs across the
            DOE complex;
      --keeps the major sites on track for meeting accelerated closure
            goals;
      --continues investments in science and technology to find safer, less
            expensive and more efficient solutions for cleanup problems;
      --provides for long-term stewardship responsibilities after cleanup
            is done.
        In addition, the budget request for fiscal year 2002 reflects an
    increased scope of responsibility from previous requests, including:
        Turnover of the Portsmouth Plant.--In June 2000, the U.S.
    Enrichment Corporation (USEC) announced its intention to cease uranium
    enrichment operations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in
    Ohio. The Department must take steps to keep the facilities in a safe
    and operable standby condition to ensure, if necessary, that U.S.
    energy security and nuclear fuel commitments can be met; mitigate the
    impact of the cessation of enrichment activities on workers; and
    transition the facility from USEC operation to DOE stewardship.
        Uranium Programs.--The Energy and Water Development Appropriation
    for Fiscal Year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and
    cleanup activities and authorized the transfer of federal personnel
    from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to EM to
    carry out the associated responsibilities. With this transfer, EM is
    now the landlord at the gaseous diffusion plant sites, responsible for
    the management and disposition of 680,000 metric tons of depleted
    uranium hexafluoride, among other activities associated with the
    gaseous diffusion plants now leased to USEC.
        Remediation of the Moab Site.--The National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2001 directed the Department to undertake the
    remediation of the uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah, a site
    previously owned and operated by a now-bankrupt private company.
        Transfer of Excess Facilities.--Beginning in fiscal year 2002, EM
    will resume for the first time since 1996 accepting excess contaminated
    facilities, on a limited basis, from other DOE program offices for
    eventual deactivation and decommissioning.
        I would like to highlight some of the critical activities supported
    in the fiscal year 2002 request and our plans for the Environmental
    Management program.
                                  safety first
        The safety of our workers is paramount in all we do. We expect
    outstanding safety performance as a matter of course, demand this from
    ourselves and our contractors, and accept nothing less. Full and
    continued implementation of Integrated Safety Management is our way of
    achieving and sustaining a safe and healthful cleanup. The fundamental
    principle of Integrated Safety Management is that all accidents are
    preventable and that safety requirements must be consistent and defined
    at all steps of planning and conducting work. We recognize that safety
    culture flows down from actions by the senior management of an
    organization. These actions enforce the belief at every level that
    constant attention to safety has an incremental beneficial effect. The
    Office of Safety, Health and Security was created to track safety and
    to assist our managers, programs and sites in meeting their safety
    responsibilities.
        We influence workers' approach to doing a job by instilling a
    safety culture; ensuring that workers have the proper knowledge,
    qualifications, training and equipment; identifying areas for
    improvement and verifying that safety deficiencies are corrected, and
    measuring progress and disseminating lessons learned.
        We also have a new initiative to more formally assure that new
    technologies are developed with the safety of the worker using them as
    a primary consideration. New technologies, however cost effective, will
    not be developed and deployed unless they can be used safely. Our goal
    is develop technologies that are safer to use, and make cleanup safer.
        Our enhanced focus on safety has begun to pay off. Currently, the
    total recordable case rate (a measure of occupational injuries and
    illnesses, more serious than those requiring first aid) for EM
    contractors and federal employees was 1.7 compared to the overall DOE
    rate of 2.0 and the private industry average of 6.7, despite the fact
    that the construction type work employed in EM activities is considered
    to be among the most hazardous. We have, in fact, reduced the EM total
    recordable case rate by 25 percent since 1999. There has also been
    considerable progress in closing out corrective actions in response to
    independently-observed safety deficiencies. There is every indication
    that workers are committed to the principles of Integrated Safety
    Management and are taking an active role in making it a part of
    workplace culture. We are driving safety performance to new levels of
    excellence, and are developing new ways to safely manage the risks
    associated with cleanup. Our fiscal year 2002 request fully funds the
    safety systems and processes that ensure our workers are protected.
            giving priority to the highest risk materials and wastes
        Moving spent nuclear fuel to safe storage at Hanford.--In December
    2000, we began removing spent nuclear fuel from K-West Basins at the
    Hanford Site in Washington as part of our ongoing effort to protect the
    Columbia River. This project is 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 into safe, dry
    storage in a new facility away from the river. Our fiscal year 2002
    request of $163 million for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project at Hanford
    allows this critical project to continue on schedule, supporting the
    transport of 662 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from K-West Basin
    and the completion of modifications to K-East Basins.
        Stabilize Plutonium at Hanford and the Savannah River Site.--We are
    reducing risks by stabilizing plutonium-bearing materials at Hanford
    and the Savannah River Site, consistent with our commitments to the
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. At Hanford, our request
    provides $73.8 million to continue stabilization activities at the
    Plutonium Finishing Plant, where we will complete stabilization of the
    remaining 4,300 liters of plutonium-bearing solutions and polycubes and
    continue stabilization and packaging of plutonium oxides and residues.
    These stabilization activities are a critical step in the deactivation
    of Plutonium Finishing Plant, which will significantly reduce
    ``mortgage'' costs at Hanford.
        At the Savannah River Site, our request of $357.6 million will
    continue operations in the two chemical processing canyons to stabilize
    nuclear materials, including plutonium residues and plutonium metals
    and oxides, as well as plutonium alloys from Rocky Flats. Stabilization
    of these ``at risk'' materials is critical in resolving health and
    safety concerns surrounding these liquid or unstable radioactive
    materials; in supporting closure goals at Rocky Flats; and in
    responding to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendations.
    By the end of fiscal year 2002, with stabilization of sand, slag and
    crucible plutonium residues, we will complete processing of all nuclear
    materials currently planned to be stabilized using the PUREX process in
    F-Canyon.
        Safely Manage and Treat High-Level Waste in Underground Storage
    Tanks at Hanford.--The River Protection Project at Hanford includes the
    safe storage, retrieval, and treatment of 53 million gallons of high-
    level waste now stored in 177 underground tanks near the Columbia
    River. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue interim stabilization of
    the tanks, i.e., pumping liquid waste from single-shelled tanks, which
    are at or beyond their design life or do not conform to current design
    codes, into more reliable double-shelled tanks. We will initiate
    pumping of four additional single shell tanks, staying on track to meet
    our commitment to complete interim stabilization of all single-shell
    tanks in 2004.
        Fiscal year 2002 is a critical year in developing the facility to
    vitrify the high-level tank waste, one of the most critical, complex
    and costly projects in the DOE complex. The fiscal year 2002 request
    provides $500 million to develop treatment facilities to vitrify at
    least 10 percent by volume and 25 percent of the radioactivity of the
    53 million gallons of high-level tank waste. Initially being developed
    under a privatization approach, the privatized contract was terminated
    in May 2000 because of price and management concerns, and a new
    contract using a cost-reimbursement approach was awarded in December
    2000. The new contract contains incentives tied to performance,
    encouraging the contractor to meet or exceed cost and schedule goals.
    The request provides funds to initiate construction of high-level waste
    pre-treatment and low-activity vitrification facilities and continues
    the design and installation of waste retrieval systems that will
    provide waste feed to the treatment facilities.
        Treat High-Level Waste and Begin Construction of Salt Processing
    Pilot Plant at Savannah River Site.--The fiscal year 2002 request
    includes $110.6 million to support continued vitrification of high-
    level waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility that has produced
    more than 1,080 canisters of vitrified waste. By the end of fiscal year
    2002, we will complete about 22 percent of the expected lifetime total
    of 6,025 canisters. The request also supports development of a
    technology to separate the high-activity and low-activity fractions of
    the salt waste, in order to minimize the amount of waste that must be
    vitrified and disposed of in a deep geologic repository. The Department
    is scheduled to identify a preferred alternative technology or
    technologies in June 2001 to replace the In-Tank Precipitation
    technology, which was terminated in 1998 because of excessive benzene
    generation. Two of three technology options currently being considered
    are a result of the EM science program--without this work, Savannah
    River Site would have had to begin development of new alternatives,
    creating a further delay of at least six years. In fiscal year 2002, we
    will begin construction of a pilot plant that will provide design and
    operational information for a full-scale salt processing plant.
        Complete Construction of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project
    at INEEL.--The request includes $40 million in budget authority for the
    Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) at INEEL, a
    privatization project that will greatly increase the INEEL's capability
    to prepare 65,000 cubic meters of waste for disposal at WIPP. In fiscal
    year 2002, we will complete construction of the facility, and we will
    be on track to begin operations in 2003 in accordance with the
    agreement with the State.
        In response to a lawsuit and community concerns, the Department put
    the incineration component of the AMWTP on hold pending an expert
    review of alternative technologies to incineration that can meet legal
    standards. The ``blue ribbon panel'' of experts, in a December 2000
    report, identified several promising technologies. The request provides
    $5 million to explore several of these technologies, which may
    eliminate the need for the incinerator that had been planned for AMWTP.
        Increase Shipments to WIPP.--The request of $164.6 million plus
    $2.6 million for safeguards and security for the Waste Isolation Pilot
    Plant will allow us to increase shipments of contact-handled
    transuranic waste to WIPP in fiscal year 2002. We will continue
    critical shipments from Rocky Flats to support the closure schedule and
    from INEEL to meet its agreement with the State, as well as limited
    shipments from other sites. The WIPP facility remains critical to
    meeting our closure and completion goals at other sites.
        Begin Construction of a Pilot for ``Melt and Dilute'' Technology.--
    The Savannah River Site has been developing a cost-effective path
    forward for spent nuclear fuel that does not require stabilization for
    health and safety reasons. This research and development effort is
    helping us identify technologies to manage spent nuclear fuel and other
    nuclear materials without chemical separation. Our efforts to develop
    the ``melt-and-dilute'' process have been so successful that we
    selected it as the preferred technology to prepare aluminum-based spent
    nuclear fuel for geologic disposal. Construction of a pilot plant that
    will test real spent fuel to demonstrate the viability of the melt and
    dilute process will be completed this fiscal year, and the $4 million
    requested in fiscal year 2002 will support operations of the pilot
    plant. This will provide a firm basis for the design and construction
    of the full-scale facility to prepare and store this spent nuclear fuel
    prior to final disposition in a geologic repository.
                     supporting the closure of major sites
        Staying On Track to Close Rocky Flats.--The fiscal year 2002 budget
    request of $628.6 million plus $35.4 for safeguards and security, or a
    total of $664 million, supports the closure of Rocky Flats by December
    15, 2006, the closure date targeted in the contract. The Rocky Flats
    site is the largest site challenged to accelerate site cleanup and
    achieve closure in 2006. To date, significant progress has been made
    toward making this goal a reality. A key ingredient for closing Rocky
    Flats is being able to ship nuclear materials and waste off-site, which
    requires that other sites--often DOE sites--are available and prepared
    to accept the materials. Our request also provides the necessary funds
    to other sites, such as Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge, Nevada Test
    Site, and WIPP, to support their part of the Rocky Flats closure
    effort. The coordination and support of these planned shipping
    campaigns to the receiver sites demonstrates the Department-wide
    commitment to the goal of achieving accelerated closure of Rocky Flats.
        Accelerating the Closure of the Fernald Site.--Our request of
    $285.3 plus $4.7 million for safeguards and security also funds efforts
    to complete cleanup and close the Fernald site in Ohio. The site is
    currently scheduled to close in 2010, but the new closure contract for
    Fernald awarded last November includes incentives to the contractor to
    accelerate the completion date to 2006. Fiscal year 2002 efforts build
    on past years' cleanup progress, including stabilization of liquid
    uranium solutions, off-site shipment of low level radioactive wastes,
    disposition of excess nuclear materials, and decontamination and
    demolition of several large industrial buildings at Fernald. We will
    continue these activities in fiscal year 2002, including completing
    shipments of uranium materials to the Portsmouth site in Ohio for
    disposition, and beginning the full-scale remediation project for Silos
    1 and 2 that contain radium-bearing residues generated from the
    processing of high-grade uranium ore.
                          meeting new responsibilities
        The budget request for fiscal year 2002 reflects an increased scope
    of responsibilities assigned to EM as a consequence of Congressional
    action in last year's legislation or internal initiatives. We have
    incorporated these new requirements into our request and prioritized
    the necessary activities in consideration of existing requirements of
    the Environmental Management program.
        Turnover of the Portsmouth Plant.--In June 2000, the United States
    Enrichment Corporation (USEC) announced its intention to cease uranium
    enrichment operations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio
    and to return the plant to DOE. The EM program is responsible for
    placing and maintaining the plant in cold standby condition and for
    other critical transition-related activities, as well as eventual
    decontamination and decommissioning of the plant.
        A total of $125 million requested in fiscal year 2002 supports
    activities to winterize the facilities, place the facilities in cold
    standby, and mitigate the impacts on the workforce. Some of these funds
    will be used to replace some of the funding sources for an fiscal year
    2001 reprogramming for transition activities now pending before
    Congress. In fiscal year 2002, this will allow us to complete the
    winterization of the plant, an activity we must begin this year. It
    will fund actions needed to place those portions of the plant needed
    for production of enriched uranium in a condition that would allow for
    restart of the operations within 18 to 24 months, should that become
    necessary in the future. And it allows us to selectively begin
    deactivating other parts of the plant and structures at the site that
    are no longer needed in order to reduce the surveillance and
    maintenance costs.
        Uranium Programs.--The Energy and Water Development Appropriation
    for fiscal year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and
    cleanup activities, and authorized the transfer of federal personnel
    from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) to the
    Environmental Management program. With this transfer, EM became
    responsible for a number of additional activities, including safely
    managing 680,000 metric tons of depleted uranium hexafloride
    (DUF6) now stored at three gaseous diffusion plant sites and
    the design, construction and operation of DUF6 conversion
    facilities at Portsmouth and Paducah. We also are responsible for
    maintenance and cleanup of facilities not leased to USEC, management of
    DOE Material Storage Areas in and around USEC buildings, and for pre-
    existing liabilities arising from law or agreement after the transfer
    of the uranium enrichment operations to USEC.
        The fiscal year 2002 request places priority on actions needed to
    ensure safety, including maintenance of the DUF6 cylinders.
    We also will continue to work with the Commonwealth of Kentucky
    regulators to undertake actions needed to resolve the notice of
    violation issued by Kentucky concerning hazardous waste identified in
    the DOE Material Storage Areas at Paducah. The request also keeps the
    development of the DUF6 conversion facilities on track to
    begin construction in January 2004, consistent with the schedule
    provided in Public Law 105-204.
        Transfer of Excess Facilities.--The Department has a number of
    aging facilities that are no longer needed to support mission work. The
    costs to maintain these facilities so that they do not become a safety
    or contamination hazard can be significant, costs which can increase as
    facilities degrade over time. EM currently manages the majority of the
    Department's excess contaminated facilities. Since 1996, due to
    concerns about funding and increasing the scope of EM responsibilities,
    facilities that became excess to the needs of other programs have been
    managed by those programs. However, consistent with a new DOE order,
    beginning in fiscal year 2002, EM will, on a limited basis, begin
    accepting excess contaminated facilities from other DOE program offices
    for eventual deactivation and decommissioning.
        In fiscal year 2002, ten facilities or facility complexes, located
    at Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, Pantex Plant in Texas, and the Savannah River
    Site, will transfer to EM from the National Nuclear Security
    Administration, the Office of Science, and the Office of Nuclear
    Energy. We are requesting funds for surveillance and maintenance to
    enable EM to manage these newly transferred facilities safely, based on
    a budget transfer from the DOE program that currently ``owns'' the
    facility. Since these excess facilities constitute new work scope for
    the EM program, we are requesting the funding in a separate program
    account to enable DOE and the Congress to track the cost and progress
    associated with the excess facilities transferring in fiscal year 2002.
    We also plan to include facility transfers in future years in this
    account.
              continuing the investment in science and technology
        Developing and using more effective technologies in our cleanup
    continues to be a critical element of our strategy to reduce the cost
    and the pace of cleanup. Since its inception, EM's Science and
    Technology program has made approximately 280 innovative technologies
    available for use. Yet we have seen an increase in the needs for
    technological solutions reported by the sites. This is due to a large
    degree to better problem definition and a better understanding of
    project requirements, uncertainties, and costs. More than two-thirds of
    the EM life-cycle cost estimate occur after 2006, so the need for
    Science and Technology investments continues.
        The fiscal year 2002 request of $196 million for the Science and
    Technology program activities will support the Department's near-term
    needs for technical solutions while allowing us to work toward
    solutions for the more intractable environmental problems.
        Over the past several years, Environmental Management's Science and
    Technology program has concentrated not only on technical achievements,
    but also on ensuring its activities are directly linked to solving
    specific problems identified by project managers in the field and
    enhancing the program's management practices. I am pleased to report
    today that both technical advances and management processes for the
    Science and Technology program are solidly on track:
        On-the-ground Successes.--In fiscal year 2000 alone, there were
    more than 200 innovative technologies used for the first-time in a
    project or site across the complex, demonstrating that EM's Science and
    technology program is successfully meeting real cleanup needs. For
    example, an innovative phytoremediation process was activated at the
    Mixed Waste Management Facility at the Savannah River Site. Tritium-
    contaminated water is pumped above ground and sprayed onto the roots of
    selected trees where it is evapo-transpired into the atmosphere at safe
    concentrations. This process, which is already making improvements in
    downstream water quality, will prevent contaminants from flowing into
    Fourmile Creek and the Savannah River Site.
        At Hanford, the In Situ Redox Manipulation process, a 1998 R&D
    Magazine R&D 100 Award recipient, is being used on the highest-
    concentrated portion of a chromium VI groundwater plume. This process
    replaces expensive pump-and-treat with a permeable treatment zone that
    immobilizes chromium traveling through it.
        And over 30 technologies were used as an integrated system to
    remediate the Oak Ridge Gunite and Associated Tanks, some of DOE's
    oldest tanks. Retrieval operations were completed in fiscal year 2000,
    ten years ahead of schedule and at a savings of $350 million.
        Technical and Deployment Assistance.--While furnishing innovative
    technologies is the cornerstone of our activities, the program also
    provides scientific and technical support to EM cleanup decisionmaking.
    In response to public concern about incinerator emissions, last year a
    Secretarial ``blue ribbon panel'' studied emerging alternatives to
    incineration, which resulted in recommendations on emerging
    technologies that hold greatest promise for further development. EM's
    Science and Technology program led the effort to provide technical data
    for this effort.
        The Science and Technology program is also supporting the
    development of an alternative technology to in-tank processing for
    cesium removal from high level waste. The Tanks Focus Area, one of five
    teams that address DOE's major environmental problem areas, is
    performing much of the testing and will continue to work with the site
    to develop and pilot the selected technology. It will also continue
    development of an alternative until the primary technology has
    successfully completed pilot-scale tests on actual waste.
        Deployment assistance teams were sent to the Paducah Gaseous
    Diffusion Plant and the Pantex Plant last year to perform technical
    reviews of their groundwater, soils and surface water contamination.
    Based on the teams' recommendations, innovative technologies are being
    deployed at both sites.
        Also, a first-ever textbook of reference material related to
    contamination of the vadose zone, a major problem for DOE sites, was
    compiled and published. This is an exhaustive compendium of information
    from multiple agencies and the private sector.
        Basic Research.--Research sponsored by the Environmental Management
    Science Program (EMSP) is yielding beneficial results. To date, this
    work has been documented in 576 publications and has resulted in 28
    patent disclosures and applications. Promising EMSP work is using
    tobacco and rice plants by a University of Georgia team to detoxify
    ionic mercury. This method could be applicable to mercury-contaminated
    soils at shallow depths, such as at Oak Ridge. Also a new technology
    being pursued at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico acts as a
    molecular ``sponge'' by capturing and storing radioactive strontium
    from liquid hazardous waste. Heat turns the sponge into a stable
    material that shows promise of being suitable for disposal.
        With the requested $32 million, EMSP will complete research begun
    in fiscal year 1999 on scientific problems associated with the vadose
    zone, subsurface contamination, and groundwater issues to support
    initiatives at sites such as Hanford. Also, the first full year of
    research will be completed on projects awarded in fiscal year 2001 to
    improve the effectiveness of tank cleanup and decontamination and
    decommissioning processes.
                 meeting long-term stewardship responsibilities
        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 sites that are unable to be cleaned up
    sufficiently to allow for unrestricted use. DOE's cleanup efforts have
    resulted in substantial risk and maintenance cost reductions across the
    complex. However, at most sites, cleanup will make the land available
    for other industrial uses, but not necessarily unrestricted use. Like
    private sites or other federal facilities, cleanup to levels allowing
    for unrestricted use often cannot be achieved for economic or technical
    reasons, including the presence of residual contaminants or deliberate
    entombment of waste or facilities.
        The Department has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure the
    protection of human health and the environment after cleanup is
    complete. The goal of long-term stewardship is the sustainable
    protection of human health and the environment after cleanup, disposal
    or stabilization is complete. The long-term stewardship program allows
    the Department to provide safe and effective long-term stewardship
    while optimizing future land and resource use. Good project management,
    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 is essential to
    a successful long-term stewardship program. 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. These needs are not unique to the Department of Energy--while
    EM's Office of Long-term Stewardship may be the first office addressing
    these issues in the federal government, I would suggest to you that it
    will not be the last.
        In January 2001, DOE reported to Congress on the Department's long-
    term stewardship responsibilities, in response to the fiscal year 2000
    National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The report provides the best
    available information on the cost, scope, and schedule of DOE's current
    and future long-term stewardship. It concludes that DOE currently
    carries out such activities at about 30 sites and may eventually be
    responsible for stewardship at 129 sites.
        Recently, we designated the Idaho Operations Office as the lead
    field office for our long-term stewardship program. The Grand Junction
    Office, which is currently conducting stewardship at sites that have
    completed cleanup, has been transferred from the Albuquerque Operations
    Office to the Idaho Operations Office to provide for continuity of
    critical operations and to coordinate policy and guidance development.
        The fiscal year 2002 request maintains funding for long-term
    stewardship activities at $8 million. In addition, $5.4 million in
    funding for Grand Junction also supports its stewardship activities.
    The number of sites moving from active cleanup to stewardship is
    expected to grow from 30 sites in fiscal year 2001 to 35 sites in
    fiscal year 2002, with an additional 33 sites transitioning into long-
    term stewardship in the next five years.
        The request also supports INEEL and Headquarters activities to
    address complex-wide long-term stewardship challenges. Our emphasis in
    fiscal year 2002 will be on resolving issues that interfere with, or
    potentially delay, the transition of sites through closure and into
    long-term stewardship. We also continue investments 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.
                     ensuring we use resources effectively
        The cleanup facing DOE is perhaps the most complex and challenging
    environmental challenge in the world. And it is one of the most costly,
    currently estimated to cost about $200 billion to complete. It is
    critical that we manage the program well and employ strategies that
    will help us continue progress and meet our commitments more
    efficiently and at a lower cost. The comprehensive, top-to-bottom
    assessment of the Environmental Management mission that the Secretary
    has directed be conducted will help identify opportunities to optimize
    the use of cleanup funds. Strategies to achieve this include:
      --implementing sound project management practices;
      --achieving efficiencies through innovative performance-based
            contracting approaches that provide financial incentives for
            performance;
      --working closely with state and federal regulators, tribal nations,
            and other stakeholders at our sites; and
      --linking sites through integration.
                          improving project management
        Sound project management is fundamental to cost effective and
    timely completion of EM's massive clean-up effort. EM has accomplished
    significant improvements in the past several years in planning and
    execution of project baselines, but certainly more work remains. In
    particular, we need to improve our up-front planning and our project
    risk management practices. The latter is particularly important given
    the high degree of uncertainty associated with many of our first-of-a-
    kind projects.
        EM's Office of Project Management, created in August 1999, is
    charged with bringing state-of-the-art project management tools and
    training into the EM program to enable us to better manage our
    projects. We work closely with the Office of Engineering and
    Construction Management (OECM) in the Office of the Chief Financial
    Officer, the unifying organization for project management for DOE. We
    learn from and compare our performance with the standards and practices
    of external organizations such as the Construction Industry Institute,
    the Project Management Institute, and the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration.
        Over the past year, EM has significantly improved project
    management practices by taking an aggressive approach to implementing
    the new DOE project management order, Program and Project Management
    for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, which mandates that industry
    standard processes and reporting be incorporated into DOE project
    management. We have recently identified over 70 discrete, well-defined
    projects (referred to as Capital Asset Projects) that will be subject
    to the comprehensive project management requirements laid out in the
    new DOE order.
        A sample of the other changes made to promote better project
    planning and reduce overall program costs include:
        1. We are increasingly using a comprehensive project planning tool
    similar to that used by the Construction Industry Institute across the
    complex. We expect its use to result in near term project cost and
    schedule improvements.
        2. We have instituted quarterly performance reviews for key
    projects and formalized a ``critical decision'' approval process using
    the expertise of DOE's Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board
    (ESAAB). These internal and external independent project reviews are
    the independent ``eyes and ears'' assist us in making sound decisions.
        3. We have begun to make use of ``state-of-the-art'' cost
    estimating models for environmental remediation and decontamination and
    decommissioning projects. We plan to extend these models to all types
    of EM projects.
        4. We are putting together Integrated Project Teams to provide more
    effective intra-site communication. These teams are charged with
    expanding technology transfer and reducing project risk associated with
    cross site waste transfers.
        5. We are developing the project management career ladder to ensure
    that future project managers have the right training and experience to
    mange the large complex environmental management projects to come.
        EM is taking project management ``off the drawing board'' and
    putting it into practice. Both headquarters and field offices are
    making changes needed to promote effective project management. While we
    will certainly face challenges ahead, we also anticipate substantial
    project management improvement, and more success stories in the coming
    years.
                         improving contract management
        The EM program accomplishes its work largely through facility
    management contracts that provide for management and operations at each
    site. EM site managers have oversight responsibility for eleven
    facility management contracts. Managing performance under these
    contracts is key to successfully carrying out the EM mission and to
    reducing costs.
        To ensure we get what we pay for and that we get what we need, we
    have moved away from traditional cost-plus-award-fee contracts and are
    applying performance-based contracting and management principles to all
    our facility management contracts, as well as to our support service
    contracts. This contracting approach uses objective performance metrics
    to define and measure contract performance, tying the contractor's fee
    to achievement of these specific performance measures. Innovative
    performance metrics developed and used by EM sites include multi-year
    performance incentives, ``gateway'' provisions requiring the contractor
    to complete previous performance requirements before earning fee in a
    performance area, and ``stretch'' and ``super-stretch'' goals in which
    the contractor uses cost savings to fund unfunded work.
        In the past few years, we awarded new cost-plus-incentive-fee
    ``closure'' contracts for the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites tied to
    completing the closure of the site. The contracts identify a target
    closure and include incentives for accelerated completions and
    reductions in fee for any delay beyond this targeted date. The
    contracts also include cost and schedule incentives focused on ensuring
    the cleanup is conducted safely and compliantly. We also negotiated new
    or extended contracts for operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
    the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River Protection at
    Hanford, and the Savannah River Site that tie fees to performance.
        To further enhance contract reform objectives, EM is taking an
    increasingly active role in defining performance expectations, ensuring
    that these expectations are consistent with the Department's strategic
    plan, reviewing results, and holding both site managers and contractors
    accountable for producing results. In fact, site managers now have very
    specific elements in their annual performance plans concerning contract
    management.
               working with our regulators and other stakeholders
        We have found that performing good technical work is not enough.
    Getting the job done requires coordination 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 made progress in meeting our regulatory commitments in a more
    efficient and cost-effective way.
        Critical to the success of our efforts to improve the efficiency of
    this program and the cleanup results is the involvement and support of
    our state and federal partners. We believe this is an opportune time to
    examine the compliance framework that guides cleanup at all our major
    sites to ensure it reflects the experience gained over the past decade
    when many agreements were put in place. Accordingly, the Secretary has
    invited the governors of the States that host our sites and EPA
    Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to work with us to review our
    cleanup work to make sure it promotes on-the-ground results, and
    reflects the lessons and technical understanding that have developed. I
    am confident that, working cooperatively, we can find ways to achieve
    our shared environmental goals more efficiently.
        Our request supports public participation through continued
    relationships with states, site-specific and national advisory boards,
    and Indian tribes potentially affected by our activities. We will
    encourage an open and frank dialogue with our regulators to ensure that
    we are pursuing the most efficient and most cost effective solutions to
    cleanup and compliance needs, as well as the most appropriate
    sequencing of work.
                       linking sites through integration
        While each DOE site has its own objectives and milestones for
    cleanup and closure, no site can complete its mission without help from
    other parts of the EM program. Making use of the unique capabilities
    for managing and treating nuclear wastes and materials at our sites and
    sharing information and expertise is critical to our success. Through
    integration, we seek to use available capacity rather than construct
    new facilities; apply innovative technologies at multiple sites; and
    apply lessons learned and site successes complex-wide. We work to
    address common problems and challenges across the DOE complex through a
    corporate approach.
        The contribution of other sites to the closure of Rocky Flats
    continues to illustrate the importance of integration. Our ability to
    close Rocky Flats depends on the acceptance of waste and materials by
    other DOE sites, including the Savannah River Site, Los Alamos, Pantex
    Plant, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Nevada Test
    Site. Rocky Flats is in the process of formulating an Integrated
    Closure Project Baseline that integrates the Department's contractual
    commitments to provide items and services with activities to be carried
    out by the site contractor. The Integrated Closure Project Baseline
    highlights that the closure of Rocky Flats is truly a complex-wide
    project, requiring the support and careful coordination of a number of
    Departmental sites and programs. It has improved our ability to
    integrate complex-wide activities, schedules and resources.
        We are working to develop disposition pathways for surplus nuclear
    materials throughout the DOE complex, including orphan materials (i.e.,
    those with unclear programmatic ownership), and wastes that cannot be
    disposed of in their current forms. This requires that the Department
    has a full understanding of the surplus materials inventories and
    corresponding disposition plans prior to termination of facility
    capabilities. For example, EM recently completed the ``Savannah River
    Site Canyons Nuclear Material Identification Study'' (February 2001) to
    determine which materials would potentially require the use of the
    Savannah River canyons. Such disposition studies often identify the
    need to transfer materials and wastes between DOE sites in preparation
    for ultimate disposition. To support one particular transfer, EM
    recently revised DOE's 3013 Storage Standard for surplus plutonium,
    accelerating Rocky Flats closure by allowing metals and oxides stored
    there to be packaged for shipment off-site. We are also working to
    develop a cost-effective disposal approach for the classified waste
    currently stored at Rocky Flats.
        Finally, the transport of radioactive waste and material between
    sites is critical to the success of our integration priorities. Our
    national transportation program, which has 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. For example, EM is working with other DOE
    program offices and with the sites to develop a national packaging
    strategy that will improve the availability of certified casks for
    unique types of DOE shipments, is working with NNSA to ensure the
    availability of Transportation Safeguards System for shipping special
    nuclear materials from Rocky Flats, and is developing the option of
    shipping waste to WIPP via rail. Our efforts will enable us to identify
    future packaging and transportation needs, to support aggressive
    shipping schedules, and to utilize our transportation assets more
    efficiently.
                     providing effective federal oversight
        Critical to successfully managing the cleanup program and to
    identifying and implementing more efficient ways of doing business is
    having the Federal workforce in place to provide effective oversight of
    the contractors that compete for and carry out the actual cleanup work.
    Federal employees establish the program and project goals; they provide
    the direction to the contractors; and they monitor contractor
    performance to ensure we are getting the results we need, at the
    quality and cost promised, and that work is done in a safe and
    compliant manner. Our initiatives to reduce the costs and schedules of
    the cleanup depends on having an effective Federal workforce to keep
    the pressure on the contractor to find more innovative and efficient
    ways of doing business.
        The Federal workforce performs essential tasks that it would be
    inappropriate to have contractors perform. These include formulating
    the annual budget and outyear projections; managing contractors,
    including contract negotiations, oversight, and accountability;
    representing the Department in its dealing with regulators; analyzing
    and formulating program policy and planning; and integrating activities
    and information across sites.
        Our request for Program Direction, which funds Federal salaries as
    well as travel and administrative and technical support services, is
    $355 million. However, our request reduces support services and travel
    funds by almost half, while essentially maintaining the funds for
    Federal salaries. The request supports 2,708 Full-time Equivalents
    (FTEs)--about 84 percent of which are in the twelve DOE field and
    operations offices--and includes increases in the Carlsbad Field Office
    and the Office of River Protection to reflect increased requirements.
    Overall, the Program Direction account has been significantly reduced
    from earlier years. The number of Headquarters FTEs, for example, is 45
    percent less than when at its highest point in 1995. The request for
    Program Direction in fiscal year 2002 is about 15 percent less than in
    fiscal year 1997, the year these activities were consolidated into a
    single account.
        The Department continues to place a high priority on workforce
    management to provide a stable workforce with the right skill mix and
    technical capabilities to accomplish our mission, now and into the
    future.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, the Department is making progress in cleaning up the
    legacy of contamination left from the nuclear weapons production
    process. We are giving priority to reducing our most serious risks,
    accelerating cleanup at our major 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 use science and
    technology to reduce costs and schedules, improve our project
    management, make the most effective use of our unique resources across
    the DOE complex, 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.
                     summary of the fiscal year 2002 budget
        The total fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Department of
    Energy's Environmental Management Program is $5.913 billion, including
    $142 million of privatization funding. The fiscal year 2002
    appropriation will fund cleanup at sites across the Nation. Five sites
    receive almost three-fourths of Environmental Management funding--the
    Hanford site in Washington (including Richland Operations Office and
    Office of River Protection), the Savannah River Site in South Carolina,
    the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory in Idaho, and the Oak Ridge Reservation in
    Tennessee.
        Our fiscal year 2002 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. Summaries
    of budget accounts and the fiscal year 2002 request by State and
    Operations Office are attached. In addition, information on each of
    following sites can be found immediately after the budget summaries.
        1. Hanford Site, Washington--Office of River Protection--Richland
    Operations Office
        2. Savannah River Site, South Carolina
        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. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio
        8. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico
        9. West Valley Demonstration Plant, New York
        10. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky
        11. Nevada Test Site and Operations Office, Nevada
        12. Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico
        13. Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound), Ohio
        14. Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Missouri
        15. Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York
        16. Sites in the State of California

    Hanford Site, Washington--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Office of River Protection:
        Defense ER&WM, Post 2006-ORP........................         812,468
        Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion..............           2,000
        Defense ER&WM, Program Direction....................          23,386
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................         837,854
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Richland Operations Office:
        Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion..............         419,586
        Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion.................         164,642
        Defense ER&WM, Program Direction....................          53,342
        Non-defense EM, Site/Project Completion.............           1,485
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................         639,055
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................          36,844
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security....................          51,544
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total (Hanford Site)..............................       1,565,297

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Hanford Site in Washington State remains the Department's
    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 53 million gallons of high-level
    radioactive waste, and more than 100 square miles of contaminated
    ground water. The Hanford Site remediation activities are regulated by
    the Tri-Party Agreement which was signed by the U.S. Department of
    Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington
    State Department of Ecology. In addition to cleanup of the site, the EM
    program provides critical infrastructure activities and service at the
    site, referred to as ``landlord'' activities.
        The Hanford site mission is carried out by two independent
    organizations, the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River
    Protection (ORP). ORP was established in December 1998 following
    Congressional direction in the Strom Thurmond National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 and is responsible for all
    aspects of the River Protection Project (formerly the Tank Waste
    Remediation System), which includes safe storage, retrieval, treatment
    and disposal of the high-level radioactive tank waste. Richland
    Operations Office responsibilities include all aspects of treatment,
    storage and disposal of legacy radioactive and hazardous wastes; safe
    and secure storage of nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel; and the
    decontamination and decommissioning of facilities associated with the
    production of nuclear materials during the Cold War. The Richland and
    ORP managers report directly to the Assistant Secretary for
    Environmental Management, and their budgets (with the exception of
    integrated safeguards and securities and science and technology
    budgets) are separate. The ORP Manager has been delegated authority for
    contracting; financial management; safety; and general program
    management equivalent to other DOE Operations Offices.
    Office of River Protection
        ORP works closely 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. ORP
    manages the River Protection Project located on the central plateau
    (200 Area) of the Hanford Site. The River Protection Project uses two
    major contracts for the storage, retrieval, treatment and disposal of
    the high-level tank waste. A 10-year contract to design, construct and
    commission a new Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) was
    awarded to Bechtel National, Inc. on December 11, 2000. The goal is to
    treat and immobilize approximately 10 percent of the waste by mass and
    25 percent by radioactivity by 2018. The award of this contract follows
    a privatization effort to design, build, and operate a WTP that
    resulted in an unacceptable proposal submitted by the privatization
    contractor and termination of the privatization contract. However, as a
    result of the privatization effort, DOE acquired a robust technical
    design for the WTP that has been independently verified. In addition,
    the contract for maintenance and operations of the tank farms, which
    will provide waste feed to the WTP, is with CH2M Hill and was recently
    extended through 2006.
        Management of the underground high-level waste tanks remains one of
    the biggest challenges at Hanford. In fiscal year 2001, we made
    significant progress in reducing the urgent risks associated with these
    tanks. The issue of the rising level of tank SY-101 was resolved by
    dissolving the crust on the surface of the waste through a series of
    waste transfers and back dilutions. Elimination of the crust reduced
    the retention of flammable concentrations of gas in SY-101 and
    permitted us to resolve the flammable gas safety issue for this tank
    and to remove the tank from the ``Watch List'' established by the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991. During fiscal
    year 2001, we expect to resolve the flammable gas safety issue for the
    remaining 24 tanks that are affected and to remove those from the Watch
    List. Once this action is complete, there will be no tanks remaining on
    the Watch List. The Department signed a Consent Decree with the State
    of Washington that established a schedule for interim stabilization of
    the single-shell tanks. To date, we have met all Consent Decree
    milestones, which includes declaring seven of 29 single shell tanks to
    be interim stable. The two unstabilized single shell tanks that are
    suspected of having leaked in the past will be pumped during fiscal
    year 2001.
        For fiscal year 2002, we will continue improving tank safety by
    transferring free liquids from single shell tanks to double shell tanks
    in accordance with the Consent Decree schedule. 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 treatment facility and eventual removal of all waste
    from the single shell tanks. Several of these upgrades are adapted from
    technologies developed under the EM Science and Technology Program. For
    example, we have procured a variant of the Houdini robotic platform for
    confined slucing of sludge waste and are planning to test an adaption
    of the fluidic sampler technology in solid waste retrieval.
        In fiscal year 2001, we will continue termination activities
    associated with the privatization contractor, including purchase of the
    pilot-scale melter, and acquisition of the appropriate intellectual
    property rights associated with the pilot-scale melter and with the WTP
    design completed under privatization. In addition, we will continue the
    design and engineering of the WTP, and begin site preparation
    activities to support WTP construction, including site clearing and
    grading, installation of site utilities, and construction of equipment
    laydown areas. In fiscal year 2002, the requested $500 million in
    funding will be used to maintain momentum on WTP design, proceed with
    long lead project procurement, begin facility construction, and manage
    the project.
    Richland Operations Office
        Over the past year, Richland has formulated an outcome-oriented
    version of the Hanford Site's future that embraces priorities of
    regulators, stakeholders, and area Tribal Nations, while recognizing
    the absolute need to make visible progress in the near-term. The three
    elements of that vision are: (1) to restore the Columbia River
    corridor; (2) complete the transition of the Central Plateau to long-
    term waste management; and (3) prepare the remainder of the site to
    contribute to the future welfare and well-being of its neighboring
    communities. This focus on outcomes has resulted in a new contract
    strategy and a revised project baseline. In December 2000, DOE
    negotiated an extension to the current site operations contract through
    2006 for transitional work in the Central Plateau and the Spent Nuclear
    Fuel Project. We are currently exploring awarding a closure-type
    contract for the River Corridor.
        In December 2000, we began moving spent nuclear fuel from K Basins,
    which are leak-prone underground wet storage pools located 400 yards
    from the Columbia River that hold roughly 2,100 metric tons of fuel,
    some of which is corroding. This first-of-a-kind, technically complex
    project entails loading the fuel elements while still underwater into a
    multi-canister overpack using robotic arms, drying it in the nearby
    Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, and transporting the fuel for dry storage
    to the newly-built Canister Storage Building, 12 miles from the river.
    Moving the fuel to safer storage safeguards the health of workers and
    the surrounding communities, and reduces the risks to the health and
    vitality of the Columbia River. By the end of fiscal year 2001, we will
    remove 116 metric tons of spent fuel from the K-West Basin. We will
    also begin design work for the K-Basin sludge and debris removal system
    and the sludge pre-treatment system. Our fiscal year 2002 request
    supports continued transport of spent nuclear in K-West Basin to dry
    storage.
        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 2000, ERDF received
    approximately 639,000 tons of contaminated soil and debris from cleanup
    sites along the Columbia River Corridor, and completed construction of
    cells 3 and 4. In fiscal year 2001 ERDF will receive over 490,000 tons
    of contaminated soil and debris. We plan to complete remediation of
    nine waste sites in the Hanford 100 and 300 Areas, and send up to
    461,000 tons of contaminated soil and debris to ERDF in fiscal year
    2002.
        In fiscal year 2000, we began operating three additional furnaces
    at the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) for thermally stabilizing
    plutonium-bearing materials. We completed stabilization of 574
    containers of plutonium metals and oxides, and began stabilizing
    plutonium solutions via magnesium hydroxide precipitation. We also
    began packaging stabilized plutonium materials using the Bagless
    Transfer System and the Pipe-n-Go system for packaging residues. In
    fiscal year 2001, we will stabilize 2,190 liters of plutonium bearing
    solutions and 527 containers of plutonium metals and oxides at the PFP.
    We will also complete brushing and packaging of plutonium metals and
    initiate startup of the outer container packaging system at PFP.
    Stabilization activities will eliminate the risk posed by the
    plutonium-bearing materials and is a critical step in the deactivation
    of PFP, which will significantly reduce mortgage costs at Hanford. In
    addition, we will continue stabilization of plutonium oxides and
    residues, and complete stabilization of plutonium-bearing solutions and
    polycubes at PFP in fiscal year 2002.
        We continue to decommission the reactor facilities in the 100 Area
    through the Interim Safe Storage Project. In fiscal year 2000 and 2001,
    decommissioning activities continue at the DR and F reactors as well as
    at the 233-S Plutonium Concentration Facility.
        In fiscal year 2000, we made our first shipment of Hanford
    transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for final
    disposal, completing three shipments totaling 18 cubic meters, and we
    plan to complete at least five shipments of 42 cubic meters of
    transuranic waste to WIPP in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, we
    will treat more than 500 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste in
    accordance with Tri-Party Agreement milestones, dispose of more than
    6,700 cubic meters of low-level waste, process over 200 million gallons
    of radioactive and hazardous effluents, and complete treatment of 265
    cubic meters of mixed low-level waste at a contract facility.
        In fiscal year 2002, the Hanford Site Groundwater/Vadose Zone
    Integration Project will implement the highest priority science and
    technology activities identified in fiscal year 2000.

    Savannah River Site, South Carolina--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion..................         391,401
    Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion.....................         585,989
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................          17,526
    Defense ER&WM, Excess Facilities........................             700
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards and Security..................          94,225
    Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................          52,731
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................       1,142,572

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Savannah River Site is a 310 square mile site near Aiken, South
    Carolina with an on-going defense mission. In addition to cleanup of
    the site, the EM program provides critical infrastructure activities
    and services at the site, referred to as ``landlord'' activities.
        One of the critical EM responsibilities at the site is the
    stabilization of nuclear materials resulting from its mission to
    produce strategic isotopes for national security purposes during the
    Cold War. In fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, we will continue to
    operate the two canyons as well as FB-Line, and HB-Line, to stabilize
    ``at risk'' plutonium-bearing materials and spent nuclear fuel covered
    by Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendations 94-1 and
    2000-1. The Savannah River Site also continues it critical role in
    supporting the accelerated closure of Rocky Flats, receiving and
    stabilizing surplus plutonium-bearing materials from Rocky Flats. By
    the end of fiscal year 2002, more than 25 percent of plutonium residues
    at Savannah River will have been stabilized. In addition, surplus
    plutonium metal and oxides from Rocky Flats packaged in DOE-STD-3013
    containers will be received and stored in the K-Area Material Storage
    area until they can be permanently dispositioned. The fiscal year 2002
    budget request also supports continued construction of a process to
    vitrify americium/curium solutions, which have very intense radiation
    fields and require heavy shielding to protect workers and the public.
        The fiscal year 2002 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 2002, we expect
    to receive 22 casks of spent nuclear fuel from foreign sources and
    another 31 casks from domestic sources which will be safely stored 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.
        The Savannah River Site has been developing a cost-effective
    technology for preparing spent nuclear fuel that does not require
    stabilization for health and safety reasons for disposal. This work is
    helping us identify an approach to stabilize spent nuclear fuel and
    other nuclear materials without chemical separations. Last August, we
    selected the ``melt-and-dilute'' process as the preferred technology to
    prepare aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel for geologic disposal. The
    fiscal year 2002 budget provides $4 million for operation of the L-Area
    Experimental Facility to demonstrate the viability of the melt-and-
    dilute process. This will provide a firm basis for the design and
    construction of the full-scale facility to prepare and store this spent
    nuclear fuel prior to final disposition in a geologic repository.
        Much of the EM work at the Savannah River Site that will be
    completed after fiscal year 2006 involves management of approximately
    38 million gallons of high-level waste in 49 tanks, including
    vitrifying waste for final disposal and removing waste from storage
    tanks so the tanks can be closed. Two tanks have already been closed
    and, in fiscal year 2000, we produced 231 canisters of vitrified waste
    in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). As of the end of April
    2001, we had vitrified a total of 1,096 canisters of high level waste.
    We expect the DWPF to produce at least 150 canisters in fiscal year
    2002, which will bring the total DWPF canister production level to
    about 22 percent of its expected lifetime total of 6,025 canisters.
        Due to the long-term nature of this project, there are significant
    potential payoffs if we are able to develop and apply innovative
    technologies. 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 the amount of waste in each canister. These
    advances will allow DWPF to operate more efficiently and ensure that
    our goals for increasing canister production and reducing life cycle
    costs 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 while maintaining production levels for DWPF. 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 and have narrowed them
    down to three. We will select a preferred technology for treatment of
    the salt component of the high level waste this June, and the fiscal
    year 2002 budget request supports continued construction of a pilot
    plant for that technology. The design and operational data gathered
    from this pilot project will support the design and engineering of the
    full scale Salt Processing Project facility by providing a research and
    development test bed.
        The first shipment of Savannah River Site transuranic waste to the
    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant occurred in May 2001, followed by three
    more shipments in fiscal year 2001, with shipping rates increasing to
    about one a month during fiscal year 2002. Storage, treatment and
    disposal operations of low-level, mixed low-level, and hazardous wastes
    will continue, including on- and off-site recycling activities.
        We will also continue to aggressively pursue the use of new
    technologies to characterize and clean up contaminated release sites
    and groundwater plumes. We are using the Vadose Zone Monitoring System
    to determine how fast and in what concentration contaminants are
    traveling to the groundwater. This approach provides sensitive early
    warning of aquifer contamination from the E-Area shallow disposal
    trenches. At the mixed waste management facility, we have begun using a
    phyto-remediation system to remove tritium from groundwater by the
    process of ``evapo-transpiration'' using trees and other indigenous
    vegetation. In fiscal year 2002, we expect to complete key closures at
    the K-Area Burning Rubble Pits and in the L and P Area Bingham Pump
    Outage Pits. We will complete remediation of five release sites,
    bringing the total count of sites remediated to 300, nearly 60 percent
    of the 515 release sites needing remediation. We will also operate
    eight groundwater treatment systems in six of eleven groundwater plumes
    at the site to remove and control contamination.

    Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado--Fiscal Year 2002
    Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense Closure, Site Closure...........................         628,577
    Defense Closure, Safeguards & Security..................          35,423
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................           3,000
    Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................          23,199
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................         690,199

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The accelerated closure of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
    Site is one of the Department's key initiatives. As the first major
    weapons-related facility to be cleaned up and closed, this project will
    offer a wealth of lessons-learned that will be applied to other sites
    in the complex. Similarly, the closure of Rocky Flats requires the
    implementation of innovative approaches and resolution new project and
    policy issues.
        One of the innovative approaches we have applied is the use of a
    cost-plus-incentive-fee closure contract. In January 2000 we awarded
    Kaiser-Hill, L.L.C. a closure contract valued at approximately $4
    billion (excluding incentive fee payments) to complete the closure of
    the site. The contract identifies a target closure date of December 15,
    2006, and includes incentives for accelerated completions and
    reductions in fee for any delay beyond this targeted date. In addition,
    the contract includes cost and schedule incentives focused on ensuring
    the cleanup is conducted safely and compliantly.
        We are continuously working to ensure that safety is not
    compromised in our efforts to complete the cleanup scope as quickly and
    cost effectively as possible. The Department's Integrated Safety
    Management System (ISMS), an integral part of the closure contract, was
    implemented at Rocky Flats in January 2000. Since January 2001, both
    the Rocky Flats Field Office and Kaiser-Hill have been working to
    strengthen the site's safety posture. The site manager requested
    assistance reviews by the Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
    which were recently completed. The contractor has also recently
    completed a site-wide, ISMS-based safety improvement plan.
        The contract also formalized DOE's commitment to site closure in
    that it identified specific activities contractually required by the
    Department to support closure. These activities are referred to as
    government-furnished services and items and largely include activities
    necessary to ship special nuclear materials and wastes off-site. For
    this reason, we are approaching the execution and management of this
    contract as a complex-wide project, and this has required us to develop
    some new management tools. During this first year of the contract
    execution, we have been working to ``projectize'' the activities
    required by the Department through the formulation of the Integrated
    Closure Project Baseline. This integrated baseline will provide the
    formality and structure necessary to ensure the Department meets its
    contractual commitments, as well as improve our means of managing the
    contract. The Integrated Closure Project Baseline highlights that the
    closure of Rocky Flats is truly a complex-wide project, requiring the
    support and coordination of a number of Departmental sites and
    programs. The effort has been fully supported by the contractor and the
    other programs and sites, and has received significant attention from
    external stakeholders, including the General Accounting Office (GAO).
        In February 2001, GAO published their follow-on report assessing
    DOE's ability to complete the closure of Rocky Flats in 2006. Overall,
    the report provides a thorough assessment of the challenges facing us,
    and also demonstrates the progress we have made towards closure.
    Whereas the initial assessment indicated a one percent chance of
    achieving site closure in 2010 (1999 report), this follow-on report
    concluded there is a 15 percent chance of reaching site closure in 2006
    and a 98 percent chance of closure in 2008. As such, the GAO assessment
    is a powerful validation of the progress realized to date. The report
    also recognizes the value of the Integrated Closure Project Baseline,
    and provides useful recommendations for formalizing the
    responsibilities and authorities necessary to resolve any inter-
    organizational resource issues.
        A key ingredient for closing Rocky Flats is being able to ship
    nuclear materials and waste off-site. This requires not only the
    preparation of the materials and waste for shipment, but ensuring the
    receiver sites and the necessary transportation services are available.
    We have made some very significant progress to date. We recently
    completed the shipment of classified plutonium metals to the Savannah
    River Site and Los Alamos National Laboratory. We also began operation
    of the Plutonium Stabilization and Packaging System, which packages
    plutonium metals and oxides into approximately 2,000 containers. These
    containers will be shipped to the Savannah River Site for storage
    beginning in June 2001. The disposition paths for the remaining nuclear
    material streams are being finalized through the integrated baseline
    development. We plan to ship certain weapons components to the Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory and, pending necessary NEPA review,
    highly enriched uranium either contaminated or associated with
    plutonium to the Savannah River Site. With the proper coordination of
    receiver site preparation and transportation services (provided by
    Defense Programs), we hope to complete all nuclear material shipments
    by the end of calendar year 2002.
        We have also made significant progress in the disposition of waste.
    In March 2001, we made our 100th transuranic waste shipment to WIPP.
    Rocky Flats to date has disposed of over 650 cubic meters of
    transuranic waste, more than any other site in the DOE complex.
    Currently, the site is completing an average of four shipments per
    week, and by year end will be nearing an average of nine shipments per
    week. In total, nearly 15,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste and
    about 100,000 kilograms of plutonium residues will be packaged and sent
    to WIPP. In fiscal year 2000, we also nearly doubled our planned
    shipments of low-level waste for disposal.
        The recent reconfiguration of the site's Protected Area is another
    significant accomplishment because it provides considerable
    productivity improvements. All special nuclear material on-site has
    been consolidated within Building 371, enabling us to close material
    access areas in the other major plutonium facilities. This has reduced
    the security requirements in those facilities, improving access for the
    workers performing the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) in
    those buildings. This reduces safeguards and security requirements,
    increasing the total funding available to support actual cleanup
    activities.
        DOE has also clearly made enormous progress in reducing risks at
    the site. About 80 metric tons of plutonium residues have been
    stabilized and/or repackaged to date. This represents 79 percent of the
    total. We have also completed the draining of 32 and removal of 30
    liquid piping systems.
        We continue to make progress in deactivating and decommissioning
    buildings. Early in fiscal year 2000 we completed the demolition of
    Building 779, one of the five major plutonium facilities. Given that
    this facility once contained 133 contaminated gloveboxes, this
    achievement marked a significant milestone for the complex. We continue
    to apply the lessons learned from that demolition to the ongoing
    activities in the four remaining plutonium facilities. We have deployed
    an innovative technology called plasma-arc cutting for glovebox size
    reduction. This technology provides a significant reduction in worker
    risk and improved efficiency.
        In the area of environmental remediation, we are using another
    innovative technology, a horizontal drilling technology, to
    characterize the contamination located under the buildings. This
    characterization information helps us coordinate remediation plans with
    the facility cleanup schedules to support the 2006 closure date. We
    continue to work closely with the regulators and stakeholders to refine
    the details of site cleanup. We expect the regulators will reach a
    decision on the final soil action levels late this calendar year.
    Through our integrated stakeholder focus group, we are working to
    address all the cleanup issues in an integrated fashion to ensure the
    aggregate impact to the project schedule and costs is considered.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request supports the closure contract
    and the closure activities we have identified as necessary for
    accelerated closure, including many of the complex-wide activities
    required to provide the government-furnished services and items. It is
    important to note that activities included in other sites' and
    programs' budgets are also needed to support Rocky Flats closure--
    including the nuclear materials transportation services provided by
    Defense Programs, the storage operations at the Savannah River Site,
    waste treatment operations at the incinerator at Oak Ridge, waste
    disposal operations at the Nevada Test Site, and the availability of
    transuranic waste containers and trailers from WIPP.
        Our fiscal year 2002 request for Rocky Flats enables us to:
        1. Complete the stabilization and packaging of the plutonium
    residues;
        2. Continue the packaging and shipment of plutonium metals and
    oxides to Savannah River Site (620 containers);
        3. Ship over 25,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste for off-site
    disposal; and
        4. Complete the decontamination and decommissioning of 18 work
    sets.

    Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho--Fiscal
    Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion..................         52,105
    Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion.....................        276,551
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................         18,407
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security....................         34,346
    Non-Defense EM, Site/Project Completion.................          5,080
    Defense, Privatization..................................         89,332
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal..........................................        475,821
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
    Use of Prior Year Balances (Defense)....................        (36,770)
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................        439,051

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
    (INEEL), a multi-program national laboratory with a significant cleanup
    mission, occupies 890 square miles of the eastern Snake River Plain in
    southeastern Idaho. INEEL combines a significant environmental and
    nuclear operations component with basic and applied research and
    development supporting the Department's four mission areas:
    Environmental Management, Energy Resources, National Security, and
    Science. INEEL operates under the sponsorship of EM, and has been
    designated a lead laboratory as well as a lead field site on long-term
    stewardship. The EM program provides critical infrastructure efforts at
    the site, referred to as ``landlord'' activities. In addition, the
    INEEL continues to serve important national security functions by
    receiving spent nuclear fuel from the Navy, and spent fuel from foreign
    research reactors that may contain weapons grade nuclear materials.
        In total, most EM activities at the INEEL are regulated by
    enforceable agreements like the Idaho Settlement Agreement, the Federal
    Facility Agreement and Consent Order, the Site Treatment Plan and a
    1999 Voluntary Consent Order. The Idaho Settlement Agreement guaranteed
    the government access to the INEEL for national security missions such
    as spent nuclear fuel examination and storage, in return for meeting
    specific waste treatment and disposal milestones. To date, the INEEL
    has met every milestone in the Idaho Settlement Agreement.
        INEEL has approximately 65,000 cubic meters of waste contaminated
    with transuranic radionuclides that must be removed from the State of
    Idaho under the terms of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. This waste
    originated from weapons production at the former Rocky Flats Plant in
    Colorado. We continue to make progress in characterizing, certifying,
    and shipping the transuranic waste to the WIPP for disposal. A
    significant effort is underway to meet the Settlement Agreement
    milestone to ship the initial 3,100 cubic meters of transuranic waste
    out of the State of Idaho by the end of 2002. In fiscal year 2000, we
    shipped 103 cubic meters of transuranic waste to the WIPP, exceeding
    our goal, and plan to ship 1,160 cubic meters in fiscal year 2001 and
    1,483 cubic meters in fiscal year 2002. 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.
    Construction began in fiscal year 2000 and will continue in fiscal year
    2001 and fiscal year 2002. The facility is expected to begin operations
    in fiscal year 2003. We are requesting $40 million in the fiscal year
    2002 privatization budget for this project.
        INEEL plays a key role in meeting non-proliferation goals by
    providing safe storage and management of spent nuclear fuel from
    foreign research reactor and domestic sources, and currently manages
    more than 50 percent by volume of the spent nuclear fuel in the entire
    DOE complex, constituting about 250 specific fuel types. We are
    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 have transferred all spent nuclear
    fuel in wet storage in the CPP-603 South Basin to improved storage
    facilities well in advance of the Idaho Settlement Agreement milestone
    date of December 31, 2000. We completed movement of Three Mile Island
    spent nuclear fuel and core debris from wet storage at Test Area North
    to dry storage at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center
    (INTEC) six weeks ahead of the June 1, 2001, Settlement Agreement
    milestone. DOE also awarded a privatization contract last year for the
    design, licensing, construction, and operation of a facility for the
    packaging and safe dry storage of other spent nuclear fuel at the
    INEEL. The contractor is now proceeding with the facility design and is
    scheduled to submit its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission in fiscal year 2002.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request supports the management of
    high-level waste at INEEL including about 1.2 million gallons of liquid
    sodium-bearing waste stored in 11 underground tanks, and about 4,300
    cubic meters of calcined mixed high-level waste in separate robust
    temporary storage bin sets. As of June 2001, the volume of liquid
    sodium-bearing waste will be reduced by 250,000 gallons through
    evaporation and consolidation of tank contents. A draft environmental
    impact statement (EIS) for high-level waste treatment alternatives has
    been issued, and a final EIS and Record of Decision are planned for the
    end of 2001. We have deployed the Light Duty Utility Arm in two high-
    level waste tanks, one of a suite of innovative 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 fiscal
    year 2002 to inspect and obtain samples from two additional tanks. In
    addition, we continue to treat and dispose of low level and mixed low
    level wastes in compliance with regulatory commitments with the State
    of Idaho.
        One of the most complex challenges at INEEL is the remediation of
    buried wastes, contaminated release sites, contaminated soils, and
    ground water, which is governed by the Federal Facilities Agreement/
    Consent Order. A key goal is to eliminate the threat these contaminants
    pose to the Snake River Plain Aquifer, a sole-source aquifer underlying
    the site that provides drinking water to a quarter of a million people
    and serves as a critical source of irrigation water for Idaho's
    agricultural industry. Our environmental restoration program continues
    to make progress in assessing and remediating these areas of
    contamination. The INEEL made progress on the Pit 9 buried waste
    project, with the insertion of 43 probes into the pit. These and other
    probes will provide data for the comprehensive study that will support
    selection of a final cleanup remedy for all the buried waste in the
    Subsurface Disposal Area.
        We are applying bioremediation techniques at Test Area North to
    clean up the ground water plume at the injection well and continuing
    pump-and-treat operations for the extended plume. At the Test Reactor
    Area, we will complete remediation of all identified release sites in
    fiscal year 2001, two years ahead of schedule. At INTEC, with the
    signing of the Record of Decision in fiscal year 1999, we are
    undertaking the complex process of remediating soil and groundwater
    release sites while continuing to operate INTEC for spent fuel storage
    and waste management missions. In addition, we will continue design and
    construction of the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facilities for the storage/
    treatment and disposal of contaminated soils generated in the cleanup
    of INTEC and other contaminated sites at the INEEL.
        The INEEL will continue to perform world-class scientific research
    and development, technology demonstration and deployment, and systems
    analysis and integration in fiscal year 2002. The goal of this effort
    is to ensure a sound scientific basis for decision-making and full
    integration of science and technology into INEEL and EM operations. To
    date, INEEL has deployed nearly 100 technologies in its cleanup
    operations, leading to reduced cost, improved worker safety, schedule
    acceleration, and lower risks. In fiscal year 2002, deployments are
    planned to support each major cleanup program at INEEL.

    Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense EM, Privatization...............................          36,876
    Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion.....................         244,102
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................          10,695
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security....................          11,476
    Defense ER&WM, Excess Facilities........................             500
    Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................          18,740
    Non-Defense EM, Excess Facilities.......................             141
    Uranium Facil Main & Rem, Other Uranium Activ...........          12,809
    Uranium Facil Maint & Rem, UE D&D Fund..................          65,538
    Uranium Facil Maint & Rem, UE D&D-DUF6.......          10,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................         410,877

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) is comprised of three facilities--
    the Y-12 Plant, the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) (formerly the
    Oak Ridge K-25 uranium enrichment facility), and the Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory (ORNL). Funding for EM activities at Y-12 and ORNL is
    primarily funded in Defense accounts, funding for the cleanup of ETTP
    comes from both the Defense and the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
    Remediation accounts.
        At ORNL, we continue the decommissioning of the Molten Salt Reactor
    Experiment, an experimental nuclear reactor designed to use a fuel of
    highly-reactive uranium-233 blended with a molten salt coolant. After
    four and a half years of operation, the reactor was shut down in
    December 1969. We have made substantial progress, with input from the
    National Academy of Sciences, in stabilizing and deactivating this
    reactor. For example, we have installed and continue to operate 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 completed fabrication and testing of
    uranium conversion equipment, and completed the planning, major
    equipment design and documentation for fuel salt removal. In fiscal
    year 2002, we will continue conversion of uranium captured in the
    sodium fluoride traps to a stable oxide for repackaging and storage,
    and will begin flushing and fuel salt removal.
        In fiscal year 2001, we completed transferring waste from eight
    highly radioactive waste storage tanks, called the ``Gunite Tanks,'' at
    ORNL. The tanks were built in 1943 and were used for waste from
    chemical separations operations until the late 1970's. The tanks vary
    in size, with most 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 provides access to the tank interior.
    This remotely operated equipment eliminated the need for workers to be
    placed at risk while performing cleanup, while allowing the work to
    proceed more efficiently. The robotic equipment will be reused to
    enhance the cleanup of similar tanks at other sites. In fiscal year
    2002, we plan to continue stabilization of the Gunite tank shells.
        The request supports continued operation of the incinerator at Oak
    Ridge, which is permitted by the State to treat mixed radioactive and
    hazardous wastes regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act and by the EPA to treat PCB-contaminated wastes regulated under
    Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This facility offers unique
    existing treatment capability for the DOE complex and is a vital DOE
    treatment asset. In addition to treating wastes generated by Oak Ridge
    facilities, it has also been used to treat wastes from other DOE sites.
    It provides a cost-effective and integrated approach to reducing the
    risk and managing these wastes.
        The fiscal year 2002 request supports two privatization projects at
    Oak Ridge. Construction of facilities to prepare transuranic waste to
    prepare waste for disposal at WIPP and for low-level waste at the
    Nevada Test Site began in fiscal year 2001 and is scheduled to be
    completed in November 2002, allowing operations to begin in fiscal year
    2003 will be the first year of operation of the facility. The
    Environmental Management Waste Management Facility is an on-site
    disposal facility with a capacity up to 2 million cubic yards of
    contaminated soils and debris resulting from cleanup and D&D actions at
    the site. Construction is currently scheduled to be completed late in
    fiscal year 2001.
        In fiscal year 2002, the Department will continue its effort to
    reindustrialize facilities in Oak Ridge, particularly at ETTP. The 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 December 2000, about
    6,300,000 square feet of space have been leased to 35 private companies
    in a total of 71 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 $182 million in life-cycle costs.
        We are making good progress on the Department's largest ever
    decommissioning project at ETTP. Cleanup of K-33, the first DOE uranium
    enrichment facility to be decommissioned, is already 60 percent
    complete as of March 2001. This first building will be finished in
    fiscal year 2002 and will then be readied for private sector reuse. The
    K-33 building and two other buildings are being decommissioned under a
    fixed price contract with BNFL, Inc. The project has turned the corner,
    and is currently making up for previous schedule delays. The largest
    supercompactor in the United States is now operating and is helping to
    minimize waste disposal volumes.
        The Department's moratorium on releasing into commerce recycled
    metals from radiological areas remains in effect, continuing to impact
    the BNFL project cost. These restrictions are expected to remain
    pending decisions made after completion of an Environmental Impact
    Statement. DOE has minimized impacts by purchasing metals destined for
    recycling and storing them for possible future release.
        Our fiscal year 2002 request for Uranium Programs at ETTP supports
    surveillance and maintenance of the inventory of 4,700 cylinders of
    depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) and 2,500 other surplus
    uranium cylinders at ETTP. We are managing the cylinders at ETTP and
    the other gaseous diffusion plants in Ohio and Tennessee consistent
    with the consent agreements with the affected states and with Defense
    Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 95-1, which was closed
    in December 1999 when the Board determined the Department had met all
    of the relevant commitments.
        The fiscal year 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge
    Account to proceed with the project to chemically convert the
    Department's inventory of DUF6 into a more stable form that
    would make it acceptable for reuse, if applications for the material
    are found, or for disposal. Early in fiscal year 2001, the Department
    issued the final Request for Proposals to design, construct and, for
    the first five years, operate conversion facilities at Paducah and
    Portsmouth. Initially scheduled to be awarded at the end of fiscal year
    2001, we now expect to award the contract early in fiscal year 2002 due
    to the number of proposals received and the complexity of the technical
    and business evaluations. In fiscal year 2002, DOE is requesting $10
    million for the conversion project and plans to allocate an additional
    $12 million to this amount from funds obtained under Memoranda of
    Agreement (MOA) with USEC. The Department is committed to keeping this
    project on track to begin construction by January 2004, consistent with
    the schedule provided in Public Law 105-204.

    Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense Closure, Site Closure...........................         285,299
    Defense Closure, Safeguards & Security..................           4,701
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................             255
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................         290,255

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Fernald site, encompassing approximately 1,050 acres near
    Cincinnati, produced uranium for nuclear weapons from 1951 to the end
    of the Cold War in 1989. Nearly 40 years of uranium production at
    Fernald resulted in 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 radioactive wastes, on-site
    disposal of contaminated soils and debris, and deactivation,
    decontamination and demolition of several large industrial buildings at
    Fernald.
        Achieving the closure of its two major sites, the Fernald and Rocky
    Flats sites, is a high priority for the Department. At Fernald, the
    Department entered into a closure contract with Fluor Fernald on
    November 20, 2000, whereby the contractor is given incentives to
    complete site cleanup before the current completion date in the
    baseline of December 31, 2010. The contractor can earn incentive fees
    by achieving closure by December 2006. Long-term stewardship, including
    continued groundwater remediation and long-term institutional controls,
    will be necessary after active cleanup is completed.
        Our record at Fernald demonstrates that we will not compromise
    safety in our efforts to complete the cleanup quickly and cost
    effectively. In January 2001, DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and
    Health awarded the Fernald Environmental Management Project STAR
    recognition status in the Voluntary Protection Program. This DOE
    program promotes safety and health excellence through cooperative
    efforts among labor, management, and government at DOE sites.
    Contractors that meet the requirements for outstanding performance
    receive STAR recognition. STAR status is the highest safety performance
    and program honor that can be achieved.
        New technology deployments at Fernald are resulting in significant
    project cost and schedule savings. For example, a variety of
    technologies are being used to provide real-time identification of
    radioactive contaminants in the soil. This rapid characterization
    reduces the amount of soil excavated and improves worker productivity.
    These technologies are estimated to reduce remediation costs by over
    $30 million. And a groundwater re-injection demonstration project has
    accelerated cleanup of the Great Miami Aquifer. Current analysis
    indicates that the re-injection technology will reduce treatment time
    from 27 to 10 years, resulting in a cost savings of an estimated $14
    million.
        The On-site Disposal Facility allows for accelerated disposal of
    contaminated soil and debris resulting from cleanup and building
    demolition at a significant cost savings. In fiscal year 2000, we
    disposed of more than 255,000 cubic meters waste, contaminated soil,
    and debris in the facility, including the completion of waste placement
    in Cell 1 and start of waste placement in Cell 3. In fiscal year 2001,
    the placement of a permanent cap on Cell 1 will be completed, and
    approximately 45,000 cubic meters will be placed in Cells 2 and 3. In
    fiscal year 2002, the disposal facility will continue to be monitored
    and maintained.
        The Silo 3 pre-operations/treatment activities continued in fiscal
    year 2000, and the design and initial construction of the Tank Transfer
    Area/Waste Retrieval System, and Radon Control Systems was completed.
    In fiscal year 2001, pre-operational activities for Silo 3 remediation
    will continue, operations of the Radon Control System will begin, and
    the Silo 4 mock-up testing of the Waste Retrieval System will be
    conducted. In fiscal year 2002, Silo 3 operations will begin,
    construction of the Silos 1 and 2 Tank Transfer Area/Waste Retrieval
    System and Radon Control System will be completed, and the Silos 1 and
    2 full-scale remediation project is expected to begin.
        Removal of wastes and materials from the site is critical to
    closure. We are shipping uranium to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
    Plant in Ohio, with 62 shipments containing about 83 metric tons of
    uranium transferred to date. We are currently on schedule to complete
    the disposition of all nuclear product material by June 2002. We are
    also shipping waste off-site for disposal. As of January 2001, thirty-
    two unit trains of rail cars loaded with treated waste have left the
    Fernald site for disposition at a permitted commercial disposal
    facility.
        We continue to make great progress in the demolition of deactivated
    and decontaminated industrial buildings. Approximately 90 of the over
    250 structures that require decontamination and demolition have been
    completed. We will complete cleanup of the Plant 6 Complex in fiscal
    year 2002, and begin work on the Multi-complex and Lab/Pilot Plant
    Complex. In addition, the facility shutdown of the non-nuclear
    facilities onsite will continue in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
    2002. Facility shutdown includes disconnecting utilities on process
    equipment and structures; and removing and dispositioning of residues,
    process material, and equipment as required.
        As remediation proceeds at Fernald, we are carrying out natural
    resource restoration projects and demonstrations using plantings
    similar to what historically and naturally occurs in the area, and
    incorporating a diverse variety of vegetation to promote wildlife
    colonization. Through fiscal year 2000, 31 acres were restored, and an
    additional 40 acres are planned for fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year
    2002, the Area 1 Phase III Northern Woodlot/Wetland Mitigation project
    will be completed, restoring 103 acres, the largest land restoration
    project to be completed to date.

    Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense, Privatization..................................           2,000
    Uranium Facil Maint & Rem/UE D&D Fund...................         113,905
    Uranium Facil Maint & Rem/Other Uranium Activ...........          87,191
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security....................           7,449
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................         210,545

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        Initially constructed to support the Federal government's uranium
    enrichment program for defense purposes, the Portsmouth Gaseous
    Diffusion Plant has been leased to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation
    (USEC), a private corporation, to provide uranium enrichment services
    to commercial nuclear power plants.
        In June 2000, USEC announced that it would cease operations of the
    Portsmouth enrichment facilities. We are working toward a smooth
    transition from USEC operations to DOE stewardship. The Department
    intends to place the facilities in a safe and operable condition, or
    ``cold standby'' status, in the event of a significant disruption of
    the supply of enriched uranium that threatens the ability of the U.S.
    producer to meet its contractual commitments to utilities in both the
    U.S. and U.S. strategic allies. An immediate need is ``winterization''
    of the facilities, which requires development of a new source of heat
    for the facilities, currently heated as a byproduct of the enrichment
    process operations. A total of $125 million requested in fiscal year
    2002 supports activities in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 to
    winterize the facilities, place the facilities in cold standby, and
    mitigate the impacts on the workforce. Some of these funds will be used
    to replace funding for some of the sources for a fiscal year 2001
    reprogramming for transition activities now pending before Congress.
        EM has historically been responsible for the cleanup of existing
    environmental contamination at the site and management of legacy waste.
    Primary environmental problems include cleanup of contaminated areas
    around the site, remediation of several old landfills, disposition of
    legacy waste, and containment and remediation of groundwater
    contaminated with both radioactive and chemical contaminants. There is
    no off-site contamination, and ground-water contamination is contained
    within the shallow aquifer bedrock. With the requested funding in
    fiscal year 2002, EM plans to complete active remediation by fiscal
    year 2003 and all legacy waste disposition by fiscal year 2006.
        In addition, the Energy and Water Development Appropriation for
    fiscal year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and cleanup
    activities and authorized the transfer of federal personnel from DOE's
    Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to the Office of
    Environmental Management to carry out the associated responsibilities.
    With this transfer, EM gained additional responsibilities, addressed in
    the fiscal year 2002 request, including management and disposition of
    the depleted uranium hexafloride (DUF6) inventory.
        In fiscal year 2000, we completed the capping of the last former
    landfill and transitioned from investigation and interim actions to
    implementing groundwater contamination technologies. During fiscal year
    2001, we are focusing on closure of the remaining hazardous waste
    units; containment and contaminant removal of on-site groundwater
    plumes; and disposal of legacy waste. We are also evaluating several
    alternatives for remediation of both soil and groundwater
    contamination, which include the use of innovative technologies such as
    oxidant injection and vacuum enhanced recovery with phytoremediation,
    steam stripping, oxidant recirculation, and groundwater extraction and
    bioremediation. The Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued in the Fall
    of 2001. We will initiate construction of the final remediation
    technology for groundwater plumes and construct caps on several
    landfills located in the southern portion of the site. We will initiate
    final remedial action for the X-701B groundwater plume and continue
    removing contaminated soils from areas associated with this plume. We
    will also initiate final remedial action for the groundwater plume
    located in the vicinity of the main process buildings for completion in
    fiscal year 2002. We will characterize approximately 12,500 containers
    of low-level waste, mixed hazardous and low-level waste, and PCB-
    containing low-level waste for disposal.
        In fiscal year 2002, off-site disposal of low-level and mixed low-
    level wastes will continue. We will operate the ongoing ground-water
    treatment facility and conduct long-term surveillance and maintenance
    of remedial action units and decontamination and decommissioning
    facilities. We will complete disposal of the remaining 2,600 tons of
    scrap metal on the X-747 scrap metal project, continue final
    remediation of ground-water plumes in Quadrant I, and initiate the
    final remedial action in Quadrant II for the X-701B soil and ground
    water.
        Our fiscal year 2002 request also supports maintenance of
    facilities and surplus uranium, and surveillance and maintenance of the
    inventory of approximately 16,000 DUF6 cylinders and 2,000
    cylinders containing other surplus uranium at Portsmouth. We are
    managing the cylinders at Portsmouth and the other gaseous diffusion
    plants in Kentucky and Tennessee consistent with the consent agreements
    with the affected states and with Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
    Board's Recommendation 95-1, which was closed in December 1999 when the
    Board determined the Department had met all of the relevant
    commitments.
        The fiscal year 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge
    Reservation account to proceed with the project to chemically convert
    the Department's inventory of DUF6 at Portsmouth and
    elsewhere into a more stable form that would make it acceptable for
    reuse if applications for the material are found, or for disposal.
    Early in fiscal year 2001, the Department issued the final Request for
    Proposals to design, construct and, for the first five years, operate
    conversion facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. The Department is
    committed to keeping this project on track to begin construction in
    January 2004, consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105-
    204.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request also includes $7.2
    million for pre-existing liabilities at the Portsmouth Plant, which are
    those liabilities that by law or agreement the Department retained
    after the transfer of the uranium enrichment activities to USEC. Pre-
    existing liabilities consist of post-retirement life and medical
    benefits for retirees and employees that existed prior to the time of
    transfer to the USEC (for that portion attributed to service prior to
    privatization for these retirees).

    Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New Mexico--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion.....................         164,570
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security....................           2,550
    Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................           8,510
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................         175,630

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        Operating WIPP is a key element of the Department's strategy to
    provide for the permanent disposal of the Department's inventory of
    radioactive waste. WIPP is critical to achieving site closure at the
    Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site by December 2006 and to the
    closure or cleanup of 26 other sites in the DOE complex that store or
    generate transuranic waste. The total volume of transuranic waste
    currently managed by DOE (stored and projected) is estimated to be
    171,439 cubic meters, of which 167,412 cubic meters is contact-handled
    (CH-TRU) transuranic waste and 4,027 cubic meters is remote-handled
    (RH-TRU) transuranic waste. 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, reduce the management costs of this
    waste, and reduce the long-term risks to the public and the
    environment.
        On March 26, 1999, WIPP began operations, receiving its first
    shipment of transuranic waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory,
    subsequently followed by shipments from the Idaho National Engineering
    and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and Rocky Flats. The State of New
    Mexico issued the final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, with an
    effective date of November 26, 1999, enabling WIPP to receive mixed
    hazardous and transuranic waste, and all five of the major shipping
    sites (Rocky Flats, INEEL, Hanford, Savannah River Sites, and Los
    Alamos) are certified under the permit to ship transuranic waste to
    WIPP. The Hanford Site began shipments in fiscal year 2000, and began
    shipments from the Savannah River Site in fiscal year 2001. As of the
    end of April 2001, there have been 214 shipments to WIPP totaling about
    1,500 cubic meters of waste.
        The Department currently transports CH-TRU waste in Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission certified packages called TRUPACT-II's. To
    support increased shipping requirements, DOE is procuring additional
    TRUPACT-II's. The Department is also pursuing the development of a new
    container called the HalfPACT to transport heavier-than-average drums
    of CH-TRU waste under the current TRUPACT-II fabrication contracts. RH-
    TRU waste requires a shielded cask for safe transportation. The
    Department will transport the RH-TRU waste in a certified cask called
    the RH-72B. Contracts were awarded in August 2000 to two vendors to
    fabricate a total of 12 casks. The Department will use fiscal year 1999
    privatization funds to procure the casks. The fiscal year 2002 budget
    request includes no funds for this project.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Department awarded a new performance-based
    Site Management and Operating Contract for WIPP. The Carlsbad Field
    Office's management and operating contractor assists the Department in
    managing the activities of the WIPP facility and the National
    Transuranic Waste Management Program; therefore, the selection of a
    qualified management and operating contractor for WIPP is not only
    crucial to WIPP but also to DOE's mission and goals.
        In fiscal year 2001, DOE revised the Record of Decision on
    treatment and storage of transuranic waste. The Department has decided
    to establish a centralized characterization capability at WIPP to
    prepare CH-TRU waste for disposal (up to 1,250 of the 7,000 cubic
    meters planned to be received for disposal annually). The New Mexico
    Environment Department must approve a modification of WIPP's Hazardous
    Waste Facility Permit before the Department could perform disposal
    characterization at WIPP. By conducting centralized characterization
    the Department will avoid the necessity of constructing
    characterization facilities at the small quantity sites.
        During fiscal year 2002, WIPP expects to receive CH-TRU waste
    shipments from Rocky Flats, INEEL, the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
    the Savannah River Site, Argonne National Laboratory-East, and limited
    shipments from other sites. We plan to increase shipments from the
    Savannah River Site to WIPP by using mobile facilities to prepare the
    waste for shipment. This will allow receipt of Mound transuranic waste
    at the Savannah River Site, as agreed with the State of South Carolina,
    to support early closure of the Mound Site.
        WIPP will continue activities in fiscal year 2002 to support the
    first receipt of RH-TRU waste. The Department must receive New Mexico
    Environment Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    approvals before RH-TRU waste can be disposed of.
        The funding request for fiscal year 2002 includes $21.5 million to
    provide economic assistance to the State of New Mexico, as authorized
    by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. The WIPP program also funds a variety
    of institutional programs that provide for operational oversight and
    other assistance for affected governments and stakeholder groups.
        The Carlsbad Field Office, working with the Office of Science and
    Technology, will continue to apply innovative science and technology
    solutions that facilitate receipt of transuranic waste and promote cost
    savings in the National Transuranic Waste Management Program.

    West Valley Demonstration Project, New York--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Non-Defense EM, Post 2006 Completion....................          95,115
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................           1,810
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security....................           1,395
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          98,320

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The West Valley Demonstration Project, located in western New York,
    is being conducted at the site of the only commercial nuclear fuel
    reprocessing facility to operate in the United States. Pursuant to an
    agreement with the State of New York, a private company processed spent
    nuclear fuel to extract plutonium and uranium from 1966 to 1972,
    generating 2,200 cubic meters of liquid high-level radioactive waste.
    New York alone became responsible for the site after operations ceased,
    and the 1980 West Valley Demonstration Project Act directed the
    Secretary of Energy to carry out a high-level radioactive waste
    demonstration project to assist the State with cleanup of the site. The
    site will be returned to the State after DOE completes its
    responsibilities under the Act.
        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. Ten canisters of
    solidified high-level waste were produced in fiscal year 2000,
    exceeding the goal of five canisters, and five to eight canisters of
    solidified high-level waste will be produced in fiscal year 2001. Due
    to recent characterization data which indicates that the high level
    waste tanks contain higher than expected levels of radionuclides,
    vitrification operations will continue into fiscal year 2002 to support
    additional tank cleaning efforts, to be then followed by systematic
    shutdown of the melter and other vitrification processing systems.
        The EM program is also responsible for the safe management of 125
    spent nuclear fuel elements stored at the site. The spent fuel is
    scheduled to be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory in the summer of 2001.
        The West Valley site exemplifies the Department's continued
    commitment to the safety of its workers. In fiscal year 2000, the West
    Valley site received the Department's top safety and health award,
    referred to as ``Voluntary Protection Program Star Status.''
        Now that vitrification of the high-level waste is nearly complete,
    our focus shifts to waste management and decontamination of project
    equipment and facilities. Off-site shipments of low-level waste for
    disposal are underway and will continue. We are developing the Remote
    Handled Waste Facility to prepare high activity waste for off-site
    shipment for disposal; we completed final design and started
    construction in fiscal year 2001, and construction will continue in
    fiscal year 2002. Deactivation and decontamination activities on
    project facilities will be carried out, such as clean-out of waste from
    the head-end cells and deactivation of the spent fuel storage pool.
        In addition, work is progressing toward development of a Waste
    Management and Decontamination Environmental Impact Statement Record of
    Decision (EIS ROD) scheduled for fiscal year 2002, to be followed in
    several years by a Decommissioning or Long-Term Stewardship EIS ROD,
    which will determine final closure of the site. New York State and DOE
    have been working together and with stakeholders to formulate a
    preferred alternative for the Decommissioning or Long-Term Stewardship
    EIS. Although negotiations between New York and DOE concluded in
    January 2001 without an agreement, we continue to work successfully
    with the State on day-to-day activities at the site. Should DOE and the
    State ultimately be unable to reach consensus on a preferred
    alternative, DOE will proceed with the Decommissioning EIS on its own.

    Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            In thousands of dollars]

    Defense, Privatization..................................          13,329
    Uranium Facil Main & Rem/UE D&D Fund....................          62,198
    Uranium Facil Main & Rem/Other Uran Activ...............          10,784
    Defense ER&WM, Safeguards & Security....................           2,408
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          88,719

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        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 for defense purposes, U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) now
    operates the facility to produce enriched uranium for commercial
    nuclear reactors. 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 leased
    by USEC.
        The Environmental Management program has historically been
    responsible for remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater, and
    management of legacy wastes and materials at Paducah generated before
    the plant was leased to USEC. The cleanup problems and contaminants
    include both on-site and off-site contamination from radioactive and
    hazardous materials, including off-site groundwater contamination which
    has contaminated private residential wells. There are also numerous
    contaminated areas around the site requiring cleanup, about 55,000 tons
    of scrap metal that must be dispositioned; 6,000 cubic meters of low-
    level waste in drums; and several radioactively-contaminated surplus
    facilities that must be decontaminated.
        In addition, the Energy and Water Development Appropriation for
    fiscal year 2001 consolidated funding for Uranium Programs and cleanup
    activities and authorized the transfer of federal personnel from the
    Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to the Office of
    Environmental Management to carry out the associated responsibilities.
    With this transfer, EM gained additional responsibilities, addressed in
    the fiscal year 2002 request, including management and disposition of
    the depleted uranium hexafloride (DUF6) inventory and the
    cleanup of 160 DOE Material Storage Areas (DMSAs) containing more than
    800,000 cubic feet of materials and equipment.
        The Department continues to monitor residential wells and to pay
    municipal water bills for residents whose drinking-water wells were
    affected by the ground-water contamination. 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
    contaminants have been extracted from ground water since these systems
    began operation.
        In December 2000, we completed the disposition of 6,250 tons of
    radioactively-contaminated drums removed from ``Drum Mountain,'' a
    suspected source of contamination of the Big and Little Bayou Creeks.
    Current plans for fiscal year 2001 call for beginning the removal of
    the remaining scrap yards, which is critical to access and characterize
    the underlying burial grounds, for completion at the end of 2003;
    beginning construction in fiscal year 2001 to remediate the North-South
    Diversion Ditch; issuing a Record of Decision for final remedy for
    groundwater sources contributing to the northeast and northwest plumes;
    and continuing decontamination of the shutdown radioactively
    contaminated buildings, completing the removal of stored equipment and
    materials and accessible loose contamination from the C-410 Feed Plant
    facility. In fiscal year 2002, our plans include completing remediation
    of the North-South Diversion Ditch; continuing removal of the remaining
    scrap metal piles; and removing the building infrastructure of the C-
    410 Feed Plant.
        However, it will be necessary to re-prioritize cleanup activities
    in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 in order to resolve a Notice
    of Violation (NOV) issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in September
    2000. The NOV concerned the possible presence of hazardous waste and
    other regulated substances in the 160 DOE Material Storage Areas
    (DMSAs), which EM became responsible for with the transfer of Uranium
    Programs in fiscal year 2001. Some planned cleanup activities may need
    to be deferred to accelerate characterization and disposition of
    materials and equipment in the DMSAs in response to the NOV.
    Discussions with State and EPA regulators are underway.
        The Department is currently evaluating alternatives for disposal of
    waste generated by site-wide remediation activities at Paducah. One
    alternative being considered is the construction and operation of an
    on-site disposal facility, a cost-effective approach to dispose of
    remediation waste. Environmental planning activities currently in
    progress, such as siting, seismic, and feasibility studies, will lead
    to a Record of Decision early in 2003. (Initially scheduled for fiscal
    year 2002, additional field studies requested by the regulators have
    delayed the schedule for issuing the ROD by several months.) If on-site
    disposal is selected, we would develop the 600,000 cubic yard facility
    through a privatization approach, in which the Department would
    purchase waste disposal services from the private vendor for low-level,
    hazardous, Toxic Substances Control Act defined, and mixed wastes
    generated at Paducah. Our request for $13.3 million in the
    privatization account supports this project and would allow us to carry
    out the procurement planning activities needed to award a contract soon
    after the Record of Decision is issued.
        Our fiscal year 2002 request for Uranium Programs at Paducah
    supports the maintenance of facilities not leased to USEC and of
    surplus uranium inventories. It also supports surveillance and
    maintenance of the inventory of approximately 40,200 mainly
    DUF6 cylinders at Paducah. We are managing the cylinders at
    Paducah and the other gaseous diffusion plants in Ohio and Tennessee
    consistent with the consent agreements with the affected states and
    with Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 95-1,
    which was closed in December 1999 when the Board determined the
    Department had met all of the relevant commitments.
        The fiscal year 2002 request includes $10 million in the Oak Ridge
    Reservation account to proceed with the project to chemically convert
    the Department's inventory of DUF6 at Paducah and elsewhere
    into a more stable form that would make it acceptable for reuse if
    applications for the material are found, or for disposal. Early in
    fiscal year 2001, the Department issued the final Request for Proposals
    to design, construct and, for the first five years, operate conversion
    facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. The Department is committed to
    keeping this project on track to begin construction in January 2004,
    consistent with the schedule provided in Public Law 105-204.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request also includes $3.8
    million for pre-existing liabilities at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
    Plant, which are those liabilities that by law or agreement the
    Department retained after the transfer of the uranium enrichment
    activities to USEC. Pre-existing liabilities consist of post-retirement
    life and medical benefits for retirees and employees that existed prior
    to the time of transfer to the USEC (for that portion attributed to
    service prior to privatization for these future retirees).

    Nevada Test Site, Nevada--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion.....................          74,843
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................           2,429
    Defense ER&WM, Program Direction........................           5,656
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          82,928

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located 65 miles North of Las Vegas
    and encompasses 1,375 square miles (an area roughly the size of Rhode
    Island). The EM program undertakes waste management activities and
    environmental restoration actions resulting from past DOE nuclear
    testing activities at NTS.
        NTS plays a crucial role for other DOE sites as one of the major
    low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in the DOE complex. In
    fiscal year 2000, the NTS disposed of 18,267 cubic meters of low-level
    waste and 29 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste. This year's
    projections are 28,500 cubic meters of low-level waste. NTS disposal
    operations are critical to closing other DOE sites. For example, Rocky
    Flats and Fernald will dispose of more than 38,000 cubic meters of low-
    level waste at NTS to support their closure.
        We are working with the State of Nevada to acquire the required
    permits and to increase capacity for mixed low-level waste disposal at
    NTS as a result of the February 2000 Record of Decision designating NTS
    as a regional disposal facility for DOE low-level and mixed wastes.
    Work is also proceeding on the characterization of transuranic waste
    drums, in preparation for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant,
    to begin in fiscal year 2002.
        Progress continues in the Underground Test Area to address
    groundwater contamination through installation of groundwater wells,
    monitoring activities, and modeling efforts. We installed and sampled
    three deep wells in fiscal year 2000. The corrective action strategy
    for NTS groundwater contamination was also renegotiated in fiscal year
    2000 with the State of Nevada, and have implemented actions to address
    regulator and stakeholder concerns.
        The cleanup of NTS Industrial Sites area that supported the
    historic nuclear testing continues on schedule. To date, corrective
    actions have been completed at over half of the 1,068 release sites.
    Negotiations are continuing with the State of Nevada on corrective
    action levels for cleanup of soils, which were contaminated primarily
    by above-ground testing. The start of corrective actions for soils
    cleanup has been deferred, pending negotiations.
        Project baselines have been reviewed with the regulators and
    stakeholders and fully identify the planned implementation of
    corrective measures for the various Nevada projects. These baselines
    include long-term stewardship obligations and emphasize the use of
    innovative technologies, such as the deployment of laser cutting for
    oversized TRU boxes, and an alternative arid landfill cover and
    monitoring system.

    Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion.....................          73,182
    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................           2,538
    Non-Defense EM, Post 2006 Completion....................           2,500
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          78,220

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Los Alamos National laboratory is a 43 square mile research and
    development site located 60 miles northeast of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    Through fiscal year 2001, the Department expects to complete
    remediation of 1,302 of 1,942 ``release sites,'' or specific areas
    where releases of contaminants had occurred, and decommission 36 out of
    101 surplus facilities. We plan to complete cleanup of one additional
    release site in fiscal year 2002.
        Approximately half of the fiscal year 2002 funding request for Los
    Alamos is devoted to environmental restoration work, such as drilling
    new regional ground water wells to characterize the hydrogeology and
    cleanup work in multiple watersheds. Although no EM funds in fiscal
    year 2002 directly support the project to transfer land to the
    community, a joint project with the Office of Defense Programs, other
    Los Alamos cleanup work, such as the source removal actions at high
    risk sites at the TA-21 parcel and some of the characterization work in
    the canyons, will support the transfer of parcels in future years. At
    this point, cleanup work has been completed at four of the 10 parcels
    proposed to be transferred.
        The EM program provides for the treatment, storage, and disposal of
    all legacy waste that is presently stored at the Los Alamos National
    Laboratory. The legacy waste consists of mixed low-level waste,
    transuranic waste, and mixed transuranic waste generated at 33
    Technical Areas and is treated, stored. 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
    began in fiscal year 2000 with completion scheduled for fiscal year
    2002.
        In March 1999, Los Alamos National Laboratory became the first DOE
    site to ship transuranic waste to WIPP. Los Alamos plans to make 19
    shipments to WIPP in fiscal year 2001, bringing the total number of
    shipments or quantities of waste shipped to 41 which includes
    transuranic waste from the Office of Environmental Management and DOE's
    Office of Defense Programs.
        The Department designated Los Alamos as the lead laboratory for
    research and development efforts to support DOE'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. LANL also manages the
    Off-Site Source Recovery Program for the recovery and storage of more
    than 5,500 commercial sealed radioactive sources, as well as Department
    of Defense sources and radioisotopoic thermoelectric generators. The
    program began full operations in fiscal year 2001 and to date has
    recovered more than 1,100 private sector sealed sources and brought
    them to LANL for storage. We expect to recover over 2,000 sources by
    the end of fiscal year 2001, and an additional 1,000 sources in fiscal
    year 2002.

    Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (Mound)--Fiscal Year 2002
    Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense Closure, Site Closure...........................          70,939
    Defense Closure, Safeguards & Security..................           5,778
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          76,717

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        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. By the end of fiscal year 2001, over one-half
    of the 107 buildings scheduled for removal will have been demolished or
    auctioned for off-site use, a quarter of the 42 buildings scheduled to
    be transferred to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement
    Corporation will have been decommissioned and decontaminated, and two-
    thirds of the soil release sites will have been remediated. We still
    have a goal of completing cleanup of the site by 2006; however,
    changing conditions and increased scope are making a closure date of
    several years later more likely. Expanded project scope, especially in
    the excavation of greater quantities of contaminated soils, has
    significantly impacted cost and schedule. Worker health and safety
    issues at various times have seriously curtailed work in the ``critical
    path'' areas while additional personal radiation protection equipment
    to address these concerns has contributed to increased project cost.
        We continue to make progress towards closure. In fiscal year 2000,
    Mound completed the disposition of its excess nuclear materials, most
    of which were sealed sources used to calibrate and test equipment. The
    site also completed the decontamination or demolition of four buildings
    and the remediation of five contaminated soil areas in fiscal year
    2000, and will complete three buildings and the assessments of six
    contaminated soil areas in fiscal year 2001. We are shipping low-level
    radioactive waste off-site for disposal, approximately 18,000 and
    13,000 cubic meters in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 respectively. And in
    fiscal year 2001, Mound will begin off-site disposition of its
    transuranic waste to the Savannah River Site for interim storage and
    eventual repackaging and shipment to WIPP.
        In fiscal year 2002, Mound will complete shipments of its
    transuranic waste as well as disposition of all remediation-generated
    waste. Groundwater remediation will continue, and up to nine
    contaminated soil areas will be assessed for remedial action. In
    addition, cleanup will continue on the site's most contaminated
    buildings, including the tritium operations facilities that comprises
    three highly contaminated, complex buildings on the site's ``critical
    path'' for cleanup and closure.
        In 1998, the Department signed an agreement to transfer ownership
    of the site to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation
    as remediation of discrete parcels are completed. To date, the
    Department has transferred two buildings and 122 acres, and another
    five acres and two buildings will be deeded over in the next few
    months, bringing the total acreage transferred to 40 percent of the
    site. Currently, 31 private businesses employing 342 workers are co-
    located at Mound in leased or transferred property. The Department's
    radioisotope heat source program, managed by the Office of Nuclear
    Energy, Science and Technology, will remain at Mound after the rest of
    the site is transferred. The program will retain use of three of the
    site's buildings.

    Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project, Missouri--Fiscal Year 2002
    Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Non-Defense EM, Site Closure............................          43,000

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project in Missouri covers
    the cleanup of an abandoned 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. It consists of two separate facilities, the Weldon Spring
    Quarry and the Chemical Plant Site, which includes the raffinate
    disposal areas.
        Our request supports completion of the cleanup of surface
    contamination at the Weldon Spring Site and permanent disposal of all
    contaminated material in an on-site, above-grade cell by the end of
    fiscal year 2002. Groundwater activities, as well as long-term
    surveillance and monitoring for the disposal facility will be conducted
    after surface cleanup is complete. Much of the remaining land is
    planned to be released for unrestricted use.
        In fiscal year 2000, we completed placement of 1.5 million cubic
    yard of waste in the on-site disposal facility, with only minimal
    miscellaneous waste expected to be placed to achieve site closure. The
    last of the legacy plant buildings was demolished, and cleanup of the
    vicinity properties was completed. We also completed the remediation of
    the waste pits and began restoration of the site.
        In fiscal year 2001, most of the disposal facility cover will be in
    place, and we will complete the backfill of the Quarry and the
    demolition of the Quarry water treatment plant. Work on the Quarry
    groundwater interceptor trench operation will continue. Efforts will
    continue on the study of the site groundwater, which will evaluate
    whether a pump-and-treat remediation operation will be needed and will
    support the Record of Decision on site groundwater.
        Fiscal year 2002 will be a transition year for the project as it
    moves from active remediation and restoration to preparation for long-
    term stewardship. In fiscal year 2002, we will complete the
    construction of the disposal facility cover, cap and the restoration of
    the Quarry, soil borrow area, and main site. The Quarry ground-water
    interceptor trench operations and the treatment of trichloroethylene
    contaminants in the site ground water will also be completed. The
    groundwater Record of Decision that will establish whether groundwater
    remediation is required will also be completed in fiscal year 2002.

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense ER&WM, Science & Technology.....................             770
    Non-Defense EM, Site/Project Completion.................          25,658
    Non-Defense EM, Excess Facilities.......................           1,240
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          27,668

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Brookhaven National Laboratory is a Department of Energy
    research and development facility on Long Island, New York, which is
    managed by the Office of Science. The site is located at the headwaters
    of the Peconic River, a New York State-designated Wild and Scenic River
    and included in the federal Estuary Program. The Laboratory has
    extensive groundwater and soil contamination, and overlies a shallow
    sole-source aquifer. EM is responsible for cleanup of on-site
    radionuclide and chemical contamination of groundwater and soils, heavy
    metal contamination in river sediments, and tritium and volatile
    organic compound contamination of off-site groundwater. EM is also
    carrying out the deactivation and decommissioning of two shut-down
    research reactors and for management of legacy waste. Listed on
    Superfund's National Priorities List, the cleanup is being conducted
    under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) and New York State.
        We are continuing to treat contaminated groundwater with the
    operation of five on-site and one off-site groundwater treatment
    systems. This off-site treatment system, installed under EM's
    Accelerated Site Technology Deployment program in 1999, uses innovative
    technology (in-well air stripping) to extract contaminants within the
    well. The Record of Decision to finalize groundwater remedies was
    signed in June 2000. Over the remainder of fiscal year 2001 and in
    2002, we will design and install additional groundwater treatment
    systems. The cleanup of the Ethylene Dibromide Plume is scheduled to
    begin in fiscal year 2002. The cleanup remedy will involve installation
    of a groundwater treatment unit as called for in a March 2001 Record of
    Decision.
        In September 1999, DOE and State and Federal regulators finalized
    the remedy for contaminated soil, which involves excavation and off-
    site disposal. Remedy design was finalized, and soil excavation began
    in fiscal year 2000. Soil excavation will continue over the next
    several years.
        The proposed remedy for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the
    Peconic River is currently being finalized. We anticipate finalizing
    the Record of Decision for this project in fiscal year 2001, with
    remedial design activities beginning in fiscal year 2002. A draft
    Record of Decision for the Sewage Treatment Plant was submitted to the
    regulators in fiscal year 2001.
        In February 1999, EM assumed responsibility for characterizing,
    stabilizing, and decommissioning the Brookhaven Graphite Research
    Reactor. This project is being executed as a series of removal actions,
    allowing an early start to decommissioning. We plan to accomplish
    substantial field work by the end of fiscal year 2001, including
    removal of above-ground ductwork and below-ground piping. In addition,
    EM assumed responsibility for deactivation and decommissioning of the
    High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven in April 2000. Stabilization
    activities funded by the Office of Science and managed by EM were
    performed in fiscal year 2000 and are continuing in fiscal year 2001,
    which will reduce the cost of safely maintaining the facility. We will
    carry out surveillance and maintenance activities for the Brookhaven
    Graphite Research and High Flux Beam reactors in fiscal year 2002.
        The EM program continued to dispose of legacy wastes and to store,
    treat and dispose of wastes generated by on-going Brookhaven operations
    in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001, management of newly-generated
    waste was transferred to the Office of Science. EM will continue
    management of legacy waste; we expect to complete most legacy waste
    disposal in fiscal year 2001.

    Sites in the State of California--Fiscal Year 2002 Request

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    Defense ER&WM, Post 2006 Completion:
        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..............          32,317
        Oakland Operations Office...........................           1,219
    Defense ER&WM, Site/Project Completion: Lawrence
        Livermore National Laboratory.......................             762
    Non-Defense EM, Post 2006 Completion:
        Energy Technology Engineering Center................          13,305
        General Electric....................................             100
        Oakland Operations Office...........................              74
    Non-Defense EM, Site/Project Completion:
        Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory...............           4,950
        General Atomics.....................................             300
        Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research.......           5,893
        Stanford Linear Accelerator Center..................           2,617
        Oakland Operations Office...........................              90
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................          61,627

    NOTE: All dollars include safeguards and security, program direction,
    excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology funding.
    All operations office dollars include safeguards and security, program
    direction, excess facilities, privatization, and science and technology
    funding.

        The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory consists of the
    Livermore Main Site, an operating weapons research and development
    laboratory; and Site 300, located about 15 miles east of the Livermore
    Main Site, which has been used to test high explosives and other
    technologies for defense programs. The EM program is responsible for
    management of both legacy waste and waste generated from on-going
    operations. It also is responsible for site remediation, which includes
    cleanup of hazardous contaminant releases to the soil and ground water
    contamination at the Livermore 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. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California.
        At the Livermore Main Site, we have used an aggressive cleanup
    strategy to contain and extract groundwater contaminants that used
    enhancements to pump-and-treat technology, supplements the existing
    permanent treatment system network with portable treatment units, and
    emphasizes specific source area removal. In fiscal year 2000 we
    continued to install portable treatment units to treat specific areas
    of the site. In fiscal year 2001, we applied an electro-osmosis
    technology to our treatment system strategy to attempt to remove
    groundwater contaminants from fine grained sediments more effectively.
    In fiscal year 2002, groundwater treatment systems will continue to
    operate to maintain control of off-site migration of the Western
    boundary plume.
        In fiscal year 2000, we 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. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue to operate
    waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities and prepare
    documentation for closure of old waste storage facilities.
        At Site 300, the Department has 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 2000, we
    finalized plans and schedules for site-wide cleanup of the site and
    will 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. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue operation and
    maintenance of existing treatment facilities and soil vapor extraction
    units and will complete remedial design for several of the operable
    units.
        The General Atomics facility is a privately-owned and operated
    site, located near San Diego. General Atomics maintained and operated a
    Hot Cell Facility for years to conduct both government and commercially
    funded nuclear research and development. EM is responsible for the
    cleanup of the Hot Cell Facility and surrounding contaminated soils. In
    fiscal year 2000, after an independent verification certification was
    conducted, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and State of California
    amended their respective licenses to release the Hot Cell Facility and
    associated yard for unrestricted use. However, soil from the Hot Cell
    yard, thought to be clean, was found to have particle contamination. In
    fiscal year 2001 we are disposing of that soil at the Nevada Test Site.
    Once the soil is dispositioned, all 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 2003, at
    which time it will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and
    Environmental Laboratory for interim storage.
        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 animals 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
    between DOE, EPA and the State was signed in fiscal year 1999.
        We have made significant cleanup progress at this site. In fiscal
    year 2000, we completed the closure of the mixed waste storage
    facility; and removed three dry wells, a distribution box and piping,
    and Domestic Tank 2. In fiscal year 2001, we will complete removal of
    the Colbalt-60 source, Domestic Tank 3, the radium tank, Imhoff
    Facility tanks and associated leachfield, and begin removal of the
    Western Dog Pen and additional Domestic Tanks. In fiscal year 2002, we
    will complete removal of the domestic tanks, continue work on the
    Western Dog Pens, perform assessments on remaining domestic septic
    tanks, and perform offsite disposal of low-level wastes. However, due
    to additional contamination found and an increased volume of waste
    removed during soil excavation of the southwest trenches, the
    completion of cleanup at the site will extend beyond the original
    projected completion date of fiscal year 2002.
        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 2000, we began the development of an Environmental
    Assessment to evaluate the impacts of the remaining cleanup work at the
    site, completed cleanup of three facilities, and shipped mixed low-
    level and low-level waste offsite for disposal. We began assessment for
    deactivation and decommissioning of the Radioactive Materials Handling
    Facility.
        We also completed the excavation of soil contaminated with
    hazardous constituents from the Former Sodium Disposal Facility (FSDF)
    in fiscal year 2000. However, in response to stakeholder concerns
    raised about the disposal of this material at a hazardous waste
    facility, the soil was temporarily stored onsite pending a re-
    evaluation by the State as to whether the soil could appropriately be
    disposed at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility as planned,
    or whether it should instead be disposed of at a radioactive disposal
    site. The State has completed its evaluation and approved disposal of
    the soil at the hazardous waste disposal facility. In fiscal year 2001,
    we will dispose of the excavated soil as approved by the State.
        Also in fiscal year 2001, we will complete below-grade work at the
    Reactor Test Facility, continue offsite shipments of mixed low-level
    and low-level waste, complete backfill operations at the FSDF,
    dismantle the Hockey Stick Steam Generator at the Sodium Component Test
    Installation, continue the assessment of the Radioactive Materials
    Handling Facility, and complete the site-wide Environmental Assessment.
        Dismantlement of the Sodium Component Test Installation and
    deactivation of Building 4059 will continue in fiscal year 2002, as
    will the development of plans for D&D of the Radioactive Materials
    Handling Facility and offsite disposal of mixed low-level and low-level
    waste.
        The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center is a 426-acre site at
    Stanford University, which conducts theoretical research in high-energy
    particle physics for DOE. Remediation activities at the site involve
    the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-contaminated soil areas
    and several solvent-contaminated groundwater and soil areas. In fiscal
    year 2000, we excavated contaminated soils in the Research and the
    Lower Salvage Yards, and completed the characterization the IR-6
    Drainage Channel. We will complete the pilot testing of the soil vapor
    extraction system at the Former Hazardous Waste Storage yard in fiscal
    year 2001 and begin remediation of soils at the Research Yard. In
    fiscal year 2002, final assessment reports for the Former Hazardous
    Waste Storage Area and plating shop will be submitted to the
    regulators. In addition, soil remediation will continue at several
    locations, the IR-6 Drainage Channel, and a power supply station.
        The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a site leased by DOE
    at the University of California-Berkeley. EM responsibilities at the
    site 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. The Office of Science
    assumed responsibility for newly generated waste in fiscal year 2001,
    but EM continues to manage legacy waste. In addition, the RCRA Facility
    Investigation Report was submitted to the regulatory agencies in fiscal
    year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, we will continue to excavate
    contaminated soils at on-site locations, operate groundwater treatment
    systems to contain off-site plume migration, and continue off-site
    disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste.

        Senator Domenici. Senator Craig, whatever your commitments
    are, I would offer this to you. If you would like to inquire of
    Dr. Huntoon now, and you may proceed to do what you would like
    for the rest of the day and I will finish the hearing.
        Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    that courtesy.

                             COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS

        Dr. Huntoon, you testified before the House Energy and
    Water Appropriations Subcommittee and some of your statements
    were reported in the media. Specifically, it was reported that
    under the funding level in the budget request that you are here
    testifying on today, you said that DOE sites may fall out of
    compliance with their cleanup agreements, but that DOE is not
    sure at which specific sites this will occur.
        I have been doing all that I can, as I mentioned earlier,
    in working with the chairman to avoid this concern from
    happening. Did you testify that some sites might fall out of
    compliance and would you like to comment and-or to clarify that
    statement?
        Dr. Huntoon. Well, thank you for this opportunity. I
    believe what I said--and of course, under the press of the
    moment I may have misspoken. I believe what I meant to say, if
    I did not say it or was quoted incorrectly, was that it is
    going to be a challenge at some of our sites. Because our site
    managers and our program managers here in Washington are still
    working together to see exactly what this 2002 budget would
    look like at some of our sites, we are not certain about
    exactly how many challenges we have in the compliance area.
        We are committed, DOE is committed, Environmental
    Management is committed, to meet our compliance agreements. But
    as you well know, they are very complex in some States, and we
    have to sit down and talk with our regulators--both EPA and
    State regulators.
        To clarify this one step further, those kinds of talks go
    on continually at all of our sites. I know that almost on a
    weekly basis we are discussing milestones and challenges to
    milestones and the ability to clean up. We--just to put things
    in context, Senator--oversee 77 compliance agreements at 25
    sites. We have 1,100 enforceable milestones through the year
    2070 and 187 of those occur in the year 2002 alone.
        So out of this, we are going to have some challenges. But
    we intend to sit with our regulators and discuss with them and
    try to come to some agreement about the ones where we have
    challenges.
        Senator Craig. It also appears that funding for State
    oversight programs, such as the one that we have at the Idaho
    Department of Environmental Quality, have been substantially
    reduced. This is of concern to me and to environmental
    officials who work for the State of Idaho. Would you pledge to
    take another look at that funding level for us?
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes.
        Senator Craig. Obviously, that not only is an important
    balance to have, but it assures the credibility of the total
    program when you have more than one set of eyes looking at it,
    if you will, I think a reasonable and appropriate analysis.

                            INEL BURIED WASTE--IDAHO

        Dr. Huntoon, you and I have visited previously on the issue
    of buried waste at the INEL. In what is known as the subsurface
    disposal area, we have about 88 acres of pits and trenches, one
    of which is, of course, the very infamous Pit 9, buried low-
    level and transuranic waste. Right now DOE and the State of
    Idaho and the Environmental Protection Agency are involved in a
    dispute resolution process over how to proceed regarding
    cleanup of the buried waste. The State would like to see DOE
    demonstrate the retrieval of some of the hotter, more
    radioactive waste. It is my understanding that DOE is refusing
    to talk about any alternatives for buried waste that would
    exceed the DOE's fiscal year 2002 budget request.
        Since doing any cleanup of buried waste is essentially
    underfunded in the budget request, this does not give the State
    much to work with. My question: Would you agree with me that
    when you are in a dispute resolution process it is good to at
    least get all of the options on the table? Is DOE willing to
    engage in a good faith process of negotiating with the State
    about buried waste?
        Dr. Huntoon. Certainly, Senator Craig. I think the ongoing
    discussions--in fact, I thought there was going to be a meeting
    this week. I guess it has been postponed until next week. But
    all the options do need to be out on the table. We have
    discussed the very laborious process of trying to completely
    dig up this waste area. But demonstrating that it can be done
    at some level, I think is appropriate. And I believe that that
    is what they are working toward.
        One of the issues, of course, is not only funding, but is
    the time that it takes. I have asked the people from the DOE
    Idaho office to work with the State on a schedule that would
    pull that into a more realistic time frame. I believe
    stretching it out over a decade is just too long.
        Senator Craig. Well, the last question, I am going to,I
    think, rely on the chairman to ask it because it is in his home
    State. He has mentioned it in his opening comments, and that
    is, of course, the adequate funding of the WIPP facility,
    because from Idaho to New Mexico flows a tremendous amount of
    transuranic waste. Both you and the person that is going to
    proceed you were talking about the succeeded, as it is
    appropriate to talk about. I think it is important for our
    public to know that there are some very real successes out
    there now.
        But one of the successes we like to talk about is Rocky
    Flats. The rest of the story is that that waste, some of that
    waste, a substantial part of the waste at Rocky Flats, is now
    in Idaho. So we clean up one site to store it at another site.
        My suggestion is that in the total text of the story that
    is not a completed process. Yes, it looks good in Colorado, but
    now Idaho has a growing concern that it becomes the recipient
    of cleanups and that we are not facilitating the kind of
    movement out of Idaho that we should, especially in the
    transuranic area. I think we are going to be okay. We were
    concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the number of casks available to
    facilitate the timely movement, and with the 13 percent cutback
    the ability of the facility itself at Carlsbad to be able to
    receive on a timely basis that which not only Idaho, but other
    sites, are shipping, too.
        So I will stop there, but let me suggest that when one
    paints a picture of success I always like the turn the canvas
    over, and in turning the Rocky Flats canvas over and other
    sites around the country, some of the other DOE sites become
    the recipient sites. I would suggest to you that that is not a
    complete picture.
        Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. We will ask about the $26 million cut in
    WIPP in due course. If we do not, we will submit it to you so
    you can answer it.
        Let me follow up here now and see, Senator, if we could
    proceed with Senator Bennett, who arrived.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

        Senator Reid. If I could just ask, courtesy of the Senator
    from Utah, just to take the rest of the minute.
        Senator Bennett. Of course.
        Senator Reid. I had to arrange a pair on the last vote and
    it took me a while to get here, and then my staff gave me the
    wrong room to come to, 128. So I wandered around the halls for
    a while.
        Senator Bennett. He was really scheduled to arrive here
    sooner than I was and we passed in the hall.
        Senator Reid. I just had the wrong place. So I would ask
    unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that I be allowed to submit my
    statement in the record and also some questions that I have. My
    full committee of which I am the ranking member is meeting
    upstairs, and so I apologize. I have to be there.
        Senator Domenici. Sure, we will make your statement and the
    questions part of the record. What do you think we should have?
    2 weeks.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid

        Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for scheduling this final
    budget oversight hearing as we prepare to begin writing the fiscal year
    2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
        Representatives of two DOE programs have joined us today:
      --Mr. Lake Barrett, the Acting Director of the Office of Civilian
            Radioactive Waste Management
      --Carolyn Huntoon, the Assistant Secretary of the Environmental
            Management Program
        I would like to welcome both of you to today's hearing. I have read
    each of your statements and have a number of questions for all of you.
        Unfortunately, most of these questions must be for the record.
        As you know, I am the Ranking Member of the Full Committee on
    Environment and Public Works and I am expected upstairs for a hearing.
        However, I hope you will not take my absence as a sign of a lack of
    interest on my part in what is going on in each of your programs.
        Quite the contrary. Ms. Huntoon, I am very concerned that the
    President's budget has not given you nearly enough money to perform the
    enormous amounts of work we have entrusted to you.
        Mr. Barrett, I worry that perhaps we are giving you too much.
        At a time when program after program at DOE has been slashed or, at
    best, held at last year's level (despite having been given far more to
    do), I am not sure what to think when the budget for the Office of
    Civilian Radioactive Nuclear Waste is given a double digit percentage
    increase.
        Is it because your program is running ahead of schedule or even on-
    time?
        NO. Completion of the characterization report has been repeatedly
    delayed and all of the other milestones have also slipped. The current
    external rumor is that the report will be completed in December,
    although there certainly are signs that it will be later than that.
        Is it because your program has achieved significant cost
    efficiencies and you are being rewarded for such good stewardship?
        NO. If the Department succeeds in foisting this program off on the
    citizens of Nevada, it will do so at about double the originally-
    anticipated cost. The $30 billion estimate of the early 1990's has
    become the $58 billion estimate of 2001. This includes a $12 billion
    increase in just the last three years.
        I needn't remind anyone in this room that we are a LONG ways away
    (both in terms of time and policy) from actually moving any nuclear
    waste in this country ANYWHERE. What are the chances that these costs
    will continue to spiral out-of control?
        Pretty good chance.
        So, I ask my rhetorical question again? What makes this program
    different?
        It costs twice as much as DOE thought. Sounds like a typical big
    DOE project to me.
        It rarely, if ever, meets its critical path milestones. Sounds like
    a typical big DOE project to me.
        The answer is there is really nothing different about the Yucca
    Mountain Project. It is plagued by the same management and budget
    problems that torment every major program at the Department. It is no
    different from the National Ignition Facility or the pit production
    process, or even some of the clean-up efforts.
        There is nothing going on in this program that is so special that
    it needs or deserves such a large increase when so many other worthy
    activities are being left on the floor at OMB.
        The only difference seems to be on this side of the table.
        There is no shortage of outrage from Members (including me) when
    projects like NIF or Pit Production spiral out of control. ``Kill
    NIF!'' we cry. ``Send pit production back to the drawing board until
    they get it right!'' we shout. The yelling and screaming and hand-
    wringing is a sight to behold.
        $30 BILLION over budget at Yucca Mountain? The Silence is
    Deafening.
        I am the first to admit that I am opposed to Yucca Mountain. Always
    have been. Always will be.
        However, I would like to think that any casual observer would be
    concerned about what is going on here.
        If the work of the desperately under-funded Nuclear Waste Technical
    Review Board and some university scientists that we have thrown pocket
    change to over the years has been enough to get the Department to re-
    think some of their fundamentals at Yucca Mountain, just think what
    some adequately funded external oversight might un-earth.
        But, then again, the DOE did just release a giant 1,000 page
    science and engineering report on Yucca Mountain. Unfortunately,
    nowhere--in any of those 1,000 pages--did they find a response to the
    issues the Technical Review Board asked the DOE to address. With all
    the money DOE seems to have for Yucca Mountain, you would think they
    would have the courtesy--let alone the responsibility--to address those
    issues with the full science and engineering report.
        On the off-chance that no one else is as upset about this as I am
    at the moment, I will simply have to bear the bad news to you myself,
    Mr. Barrett: there will be no huge increase for the Yucca Mountain
    Program this year given the current funding profile.
        You and your staff may not agree, but I feel that I have been more
    than fair to your program over the years, all things considered.
    However, I am not going to sit idly by while your program absorbs one
    of the only substantial increases in the DOE budget.
        Even you would have to agree, Mr. Barrett, that it is as least as
    important, for example, for the United States to meet its legal and
    moral commitment to major clean-up activities throughout the Nation's
    cold war weapons complex, as it is to make a little progress in your
    area.
        Which brings me to you, Ms. Huntoon.
        I won't beat around the bush.
        There is no way that the amount of funding the Administration has
    provided for clean-ups, particularly at Washington, South Carolina, and
    Idaho, will fulfill the legal and/or Departmental promises to those
    three States (and probably several others, including Nevada). I think
    you and I both know that your budget is shy hundreds of millions of
    dollars.
        While I appreciate the enormity of the task and the scarcity of
    dollars in this year's budget, the program you have outlined represents
    backsliding. Worse, I think, if enacted, it will subject the Department
    to legal jeopardy. Other States may need to line up behind Washington
    and Idaho at the courthouse door, but line-up they will.
        Congress is going to need to find additional resources to keep that
    from happening.
        That said, my other concern is this: The Department needs to get
    some of these sites closed.
        When Congress created a closure account a number of years ago, it
    was done to give a certain number of sites priority and additional
    resources to get the clean-up done prior to 2006. My staff informs me
    that a fair number of these sites now have closure dates after 2006.
        Obviously, this is not what we had in mind.
        If a site is really a post-2006 site, Congress may need to consider
    treating it as such.
        Hopefully, some more realistic resources will get these sites back
    on track.
        Again, thank you to both of our witnesses for appearing today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator Reid.
        Senator Reid. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Senator Bennett, I have not inquired
    because I wanted to proceed, but I would like to do the same. I
    will stay on and you go ahead and ask your questions.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    that.
        Dr. Huntoon, we are going to talk about Moab. Are you
    familiar with Moab?
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bennett. The tailings problem there.
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bennett. Well, I will not go through the history of
    it, then, except to enter into the record the fact that
    Congress in the last session passed legislation that directs
    the Secretary of Energy to prepare and complete a plan for
    remediation of the Moab site by October 30 of 2001, with the
    National Academy of Sciences directed to provide DOE with
    technical advice, assistance, and recommendations concerning
    that plan, and also for the record PriceWaterhouseCoopers is
    the trustee that controls the site after Atlas Corporation
    filed for bankruptcy and the asset was handed over to a
    trustee.
        Now, with that very, very brief background and
    understanding that you know far more about it than that, let me
    ask when DOE plans to take title to the site?

                            MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE

        Dr. Huntoon. I believe the ownership will become effective
    by October the 30 of this year, DOE will assume ownership.
        Senator Bennett. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has indicated that
    it will resign and return management responsibility for the
    site to DOE on September 1. I do not quite understand what that
    is. Would that be a problem? Would you be prepared to take
    responsibility on September 1, as opposed to October 30?
        Dr. Huntoon. I am sure that is what needs to be done. We
    are planning to take ownership of the site as soon as they
    finish or resign their current management responsibility. The
    schedule may have changed a little, but that is the plan, the
    current plan.
        Senator Bennett. What is the status of the remediation
    plan?

                    MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE REMEDIATION PLAN

        Dr. Huntoon. What we asked for was a reprogramming that was
    submitted by the last administration to get funds, because we
    did not have funds to deal with Moab. The programming is still
    pending. The current administration has resubmitted the request
    and it is with OMB right now, I understand, before coming to
    Congress for funds, we will have to complete the plan.
        Senator Bennett. So the fact that there is no money in the
    budget indicates that you think the money is available through
    reprogramming and that is why it is not necessary to put a new
    item in the budget?
        Dr. Huntoon. The reprogramming funds are necessary to
    create the plan, so we will know how much to ask for, over what
    period of time. That is the work that has not been done.
        Senator Bennett. Do you have any idea when the remediation
    efforts might begin?
        Dr. Huntoon. I think creating the plan, meeting the current
    schedule we are on--and of course, the reprogramming money,
    getting it now will certainly help, but I think the idea of
    having 6 months to a year to not only do the planning but the
    permitting and all to do the necessary remediation work, will
    enable us to have time to ask next year for the money in 2003
    that would be required for the actual work there at Moab.
        Senator Bennett. So you think the work would begin in
    fiscal 2003?
        Dr. Huntoon. That would be the current plan.
        Senator Bennett. Do you have any plans for the site in
    fiscal 2002 other than the study?

                  SURVEILLANCE AT THE MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE

        Dr. Huntoon. Well, the office at Grand Junction that is
    currently now overseeing it will continue in their surveillance
    of the site to make sure that the status remains the same of
    the facility there. They have enough money in their budget to
    continue the surveillance of the site.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. This will be useful
    information. As you may know, there have been a number of
    newspaper articles that raised the flag of great panic and
    suggested that because there was no money in the budget DOE was
    in danger of poisoning the water for 25 million people
    downstream. I take it from what you are saying that it is your
    scientific opinion that there is no health risk in the present
    circumstance, even though the long-term solution to move the
    tailings is the right solution.

                    FUNDING FOR THE MOAB MILL TAILINGS SITE

        Dr. Huntoon. That is correct, Senator. The idea that we had
    not measured any substance from the mill tailings site
    downstream makes us think that that is true, and we are
    watching that now. The responsibility to clean it up has
    certainly been given to the Department of Energy. We did not
    ask, as you said, for the money because we did not have a plan
    and, we did not know what to ask for. We will have that worked
    out and we will come in with a plan and ask for permission to
    proceed with that.
        But it is the intent to clean up the place.
        Senator Bennett. Thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    courtesy.
        Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
        Senator Murray, we have proceeded without taking the second
    witness because I knew the two Senators that had arrived on our
    side of the aisle wanted to inquire with reference to the waste
    management part of this budget.
        Mr. Barrett, is it all right if we proceed to complete and
    then we will take you last?
        Mr. Barrett. As you wish, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. That may very well mean that I am the
    only person here.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, is Dr. Huntoon going to stay,
    because I am going to have some questions for her if that is
    the case.
        Senator Domenici. She is. She is. In fact, she has
    testified and two Senators have inquired of her very briefly.
    If you would like to inquire now of her, I would let you do
    that, and then I will save mine until afterwards. Go ahead,
    Senator.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
        Senator Murray. I will do so as briefly as I can. I really
    appreciate your holding this hearing.
        Dr. Huntoon, I particularly wanted to thank you for all
    your efforts over the past several years and your willingness
    to stay on until the administration has a new Assistant
    Secretary in place. I would be remiss if I did not thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, as well for your support for nuclear waste
    cleanup in my State and across the country. It is not an easy
    challenge. It is one that is pretty easy to ignore. We cannot
    ignore it, and you have been there, and I just want to publicly
    thank you.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murray. Dr. Huntoon, significant progress on
    cleanup has been made at Hanford in the last couple of years
    and we are now moving spent nuclear fuel out of the K basins
    and the environmental restoration work along the river has
    moved along very well. I want to thank you for your efforts on
    that, and the support of Keith Klein and Harry Boston and all
    of the folks at Hanford have really done a good job.
        I know you are not responsible for this budget, but I just
    have to raise some very serious concerns and questions I have
    about the funding that is proposed in the budget for DOE
    Richland and the Office of River Protection. I really fear that
    this budget threatens the progress that has been made at
    Hanford and fails to meet the legal obligations of the triparty
    agreement and it fails to meet our moral obligations to protect
    the health and welfare of citizens and the environment in the
    Pacific Northwest.
        I am especially troubled by the proposed cuts in the waste
    treatment plan which is going to vitrify the high-level
    radioactive waste that is currently stored at our old and
    decaying tanks at Hanford. DOE officials have acknowledged that
    the new contract that was negotiated for this project was based
    on an fiscal year 2002 budget of $690 million, but the request
    that we have is only for $500 million.
        Now, I am told that with a $500 million level for 2002 the
    funding for this project would need to be spiked all the way up
    to $880 million in 2003. Would it not make more sense to
    levelize the funding for this project at $690 million, as it
    was first proposed and actually written into the contract,
    instead of counting on a funding spike next year? And would not
    a measured level of funding base be more consistent with the
    objectives of your top to bottom review of the cleanup program
    and use of commercial type contracts to make it more efficient?
    I would love to hear your response.

                       OFFICE OF RIVER PROTECTION FUNDING

        Dr. Huntoon. Thank you, Senator Murray. I think
    acknowledging the work that has been done out at Hanford is
    certainly appropriate. I know that we have two good managers
    out there and with their help with the stakeholders and
    regulators we have been able to move forward in a lot of areas
    at Hanford.
        I think the danger in meeting the commitments that we have
    is real. I mentioned a little bit earlier in response to a
    question that we do have challenges in several States to meet
    all of our commitments. But we are going to work with the
    regulators and the State and EPA to try to do that.
        Senator Murray, I know you know this, but just to put it in
    context, in 1989 when we signed the triparty agreement with
    EPA, the State of Washington, and DOE, we signed up for 161
    milestones in 1989. In the year 2001 we have completed 900
    milestones, 700 enforceable and 200 targets. What that is
    saying is that this is an ongoing process. It is an iterative
    process.
        We are working, as you know, almost on a daily basis with
    the regulators to meet milestones, to adjust the way we are
    approaching them, to try to keep our agreements we have made,
    but understanding this is a dynamic process.
        I know you know this, but there are 30 regulators that DOE
    pays for that work for the State of Washington that live on the
    site at Hanford. I do not mean live there literally, but work
    there. They are there all the time. So our relationship with
    our regulators I believe is good. There is some tension there.
    I think that tension is probably healthy. But it is an ongoing,
    iterative, very long-range process.
        We have milestones in the State of Washington to reach out
    through the year 2070, and I think that tells you the level at
    which this TPA has gone to to make sure that we do things in a
    regulated fashion that the State and EPA agree with.
        To answer your question about the funding, I think that
    with the money that we requested for the tanks at Hanford we
    can get started on the job.
        Senator Murray. $500 million.
        Dr. Huntoon. The $500 million.

             POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF BECHTEL WASHINGTON CONTRACT

        Senator Murray. Well, I just have to say, Dr. Huntoon, I am
    really concerned that the $500 million is going to trigger a
    renegotiation of the Bechtel Washington contract, which is
    based on a $690 million allocation for 2002. That is an
    incentive-based contract that could result in this facility
    being built for a lower target price than was first expected. I
    am very concerned that if we do not have the $690 million that
    that contract will be renegotiated, and I do not think any one
    of us think that it is going to be renegotiated for a lower
    price.
        So does not that funding level put us in jeopardy of having
    to pay more in the long run?
        Dr. Huntoon. The funding level does give us the potential
    to have to renegotiate. We have not heard that from the
    contractor yet officially.
        Senator Murray. I would assume that renegotiation would not
    mean to a lower contract price.
        Dr. Huntoon. Most often it does not. But the issue is again
    the $500 million can keep us on track to do the 2007 start of
    operations, which is what the contractor agreed to. The funding
    profile would be different, as you mentioned, and it would call
    for quite a bit more funding in 2003 than we had previously
    thought when we negotiated the contract.
        Senator Murray. So if the $500 million comes in this year,
    we are going to have to spike it up to $800 million?
        Dr. Huntoon. That is correct, according to the current
    profile we would have to do that.
        Senator Murray. If we do not do that, that contract could
    be renegotiated, and my sense is that we will have a legal
    challenge as well on the triparty agreement.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have got some very serious
    issues that we need to look at. I have several other questions
    that I will submit for the record that I would like responses
    back on. But I want to work with you, because this is a very,
    very serious issue for my State and I am concerned about the
    funding levels in this budget.
        Senator Domenici. Senator, if you will submit your
    questions they will be answered within 2 weeks, as the other
    questions.
        We will proceed now. I was going to ask you, Dr. Huntoon, a
    series of questions, but I think what I will do is let Mr.
    Barrett testify. Do you mind waiting just another 15 or 20
    minutes? That is all it will be.
        Dr. Huntoon. I do not mind at all. I am here.

                Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

    STATEMENT OF LAKE H. BARRETT, ACTING DIRECTOR
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Barrett, would you proceed. Your
    testimony will be made a part of the record. Would you
    summarize it as best you can.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Murray. I am pleased with this opportunity to present our
    fiscal year 2002 budget request. Our budget request advances
    our Nation's policy for the management of spent nuclear fuel
    and high-level radioactive waste. The request presumes that the
    Department will make an informed science-based decision to
    recommend the Yucca Mountain site for further development later
    this year. If a decision is made, under the process outlined by
    the Nuclear Waste Policy Act we will proceed into the next
    phase of site development.
        Our budget request begins the transition from the
    predominantly investigative science of the site
    characterization phase to the engineering and design phase to
    prepare a license application for submittal to the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission.
        Management of nuclear materials in a repository is
    important in supporting the continued operations of our
    Nation's commercial nuclear power plants, which provide 20
    percent of our Nation's electricity. It is also essential for
    our national defense and international nonproliferation
    objectives.

                   PREPARATIONS FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY

        After nearly 20 years of cutting-edge science to determine
    whether a geologic repository can perform safely, we are close
    to making a decision on whether or not to proceed with
    developing the Yucca Mountain site.
        The fiscal year 2002 request is $444.9 million, a modest
    increase over fiscal year 2001. In the next fiscal year, most
    of our resources will be applied toward preparing a complete
    license application for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        However, science will not end there should a decision be
    reached to proceed with applying for a license to build a
    repository. Our program will continue to strengthen the
    underlying scientific basis for any further potential
    decisions.
        We have allocated $355 million, about 80 percent of our
    request, to conduct activities at Yucca Mountain. For example,
    the core science funding will increase by 15 percent to a
    request level of $76 million. These activities support our
    ability to model individual and combined natural processes
    necessary in assessing how a repository might perform many
    thousands of years into the future.
        Design and engineering funding will increase 41 percent, to
    $104 million. This substantial increase in these activities,
    which were deferred due to past year budget cuts, is necessary
    to resume, and in some cases accelerate, engineering and design
    work to develop a complete license application. For instance,
    we will integrate new design concepts for accepting and
    handling all the different types of spent fuel and high-level
    waste that we might receive.
        We are also evaluating how a flexible repository system can
    integrate new spent fuel management technologies and new
    operating concepts as they may become available in the future.
    A flexible repository is an important part of any future
    advanced nuclear energy technology scenario.
        The operations and construction funding request is $35
    million, and in part, will be used to build additional thermal
    test alcoves and niches to gather performance confirmation data
    in the repository block. The remainder will go to maintaining
    the surface and subsurface infrastructure which supports the
    core science activities.
        If the Yucca Mountain site is recommended and approved for
    further development, a transportation infrastructure must be
    available to move spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste
    in sufficient quantities to meet our obligations. We have
    requested $5.9 million to begin the long-lead time logistical
    and planning activities in this area.

                     CHALLENGES TO THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

        As I have noted in my written statement, some of the
    opportunities and challenges facing us are quite significant.
    If the Yucca Mountain site is ultimately recommended for
    further development, then future program costs could far exceed
    past appropriations. Our administration's budget request
    recognizes these future funding challenges by affirming support
    for efforts to use the nuclear utilities' budgetary receipts
    for their intended purposes.
        The program is looking at engineering, construction, and
    operational strategies for managing potential annual cost
    increases. These strategies seek to distribute annual costs
    over the next 10 years by using modular repository construction
    and operational approaches. The program also intends to submit
    its report on alternative means for financing and managing a
    Federal repository to the Congress this June, as requested in
    last year's energy and water development conference report.
        However, the report identified several statements that the
    Inspector General concluded ``could be viewed as suggesting a
    premature conclusion regarding the suitability of Yucca
    Mountain.'' After the Inspector General's finding, both
    Secretary Abraham and I communicated our firm belief to all the
    program's Federal, laboratory, and contractor employees that
    our work must be performed in a manner that reflects the
    integrity and objectivity necessary for conducting world class
    science. We will continue to operate this program in an open
    and transparent manner worthy of public confidence and trust.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In conclusion, I believe we have made considerable
    progress, despite enormous challenges. Our budget request
    supports the next step in the process, which is development of
    a license application for submittal in 2003. I urge you to
    consider favorably our appropriation request. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Lake H. Barrett

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Lake H. Barrett,
    Acting Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian
    Radioactive Waste Management. I appreciate the opportunity to present
    our fiscal year 2002 budget request to you and discuss our plans for
    scientific and technical activities at the Yucca Mountain site in
    Nevada.
        Our fiscal year 2002 budget request of $444.9 million is devoted to
    advancing our Nation's policy for the long-term management of spent
    nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Based on the presumption
    that a potential decision to recommend the site for further development
    could be made, fiscal year 2002 would begin the transition from
    investigative science under the site characterization phase to
    engineering and design for the pre-licensing phase. Work during the
    fiscal year would focus mainly on preparing a license application for
    submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The license application
    would contain surface and subsurface designs, including descriptions of
    operational parameters to meet the Commission's stringent technical
    licensing and Nuclear Quality Assurance requirements. During the
    transition, we would begin implementing performance confirmation work
    to verify and strengthen the scientific and technical basis for a
    potential repository. Also in fiscal year 2002, we would begin the work
    necessary to develop the national infrastructure necessary to move
    spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from their present
    locations.
                                   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
    wastes. Permanent geologic disposal is essential for managing spent
    nuclear fuel from commercial electric power generation and nuclear
    waste from defense activities.
        Commercial nuclear power plants that currently generate 20 percent
    of our nation's electricity will require permanent disposal of their
    spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository. Past weapons production
    and research activities have accumulated over 2,500 metric tons of
    spent nuclear fuel. Thousands of high-level radioactive waste canisters
    will have been processed at Hanford and Savannah River. Our Navy's
    nuclear powered ships will have generated approximately 65 metric tons
    of spent nuclear fuel by 2035. From dismantling surplus weapons, our
    nation has amassed approximately 50 metric tons of weapons-usable
    plutonium. The nation will require disposition of these materials in a
    geologic repository to maintain our energy options, support cleanup of
    our weapons sites, continue operations of our nuclear powered ships,
    and advance our international non-proliferation goals to isolate
    weapons material in a repository.
        Since the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, our
    nation has made a substantial investment in permanent geologic
    disposal. Almost $4 billion has been committed to the scientific and
    technical work for a geologic repository. After nearly twenty years of
    cutting-edge science, our policymakers are very close to making a
    science-based decision on whether to proceed with further development
    of the Yucca Mountain site. Should the site be approved, we will
    continue with the step-wise process, outlined in the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act, to develop a repository.
               summary of fiscal year 2002 appropriation request
        The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management fiscal year
    2002 budget request of $444.9 million is an increase of $44.6 million
    above fiscal year 2001 funding. This increase not only reflects our
    goal to reverse the over $140 million in funding shortfalls incurred
    over the past four years, but also renews the Administration's
    commitment to address the waste management issue responsibly.
        Our resources will be reallocated and applied towards accelerating
    our efforts--i.e., regaining some lost schedule--to submit a license
    application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2003. The
    Commission will consider information in the license application in its
    determination of how a repository at Yucca Mountain would protect human
    health and safety and the environment, based on the regulatory
    framework provided by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
    Commission.
        Yucca Mountain.--Of the $444.9 million request, $355.4 million,
    eighty percent, is targeted for activities at Yucca Mountain. Of these
    funds, more than sixty-five percent are devoted directly towards
    regaining momentum for license application activities, with particular
    emphasis on resuming and accelerating surface and subsurface Design and
    Engineering. To support a potential license application, Suitability,
    Licensing, and Performance Assessment activities will focus on
    resolving key technical issues identified by the Commission, and
    conducting and refining performance assessments of the surface and
    subsurface design features and operational modes, based on input from
    Core Science activities.
        Core Science activities will continue to strengthen the underlying
    scientific and technical basis, which will be used to make an informed
    decision on whether to recommend Yucca Mountain for further
    development, and to verify and provide scientific data for licensing.
    These scientific activities will focus on understanding more fully how
    lower-temperature subsurface operational modes may reduce uncertainties
    in analyzing long-term repository performance. We also will seek to
    strengthen our performance analysis through our performance
    confirmation activities, which will provide independent lines of
    evidence for our analysis and performance models.
        Waste Acceptance and Transportation.--In fiscal year 2002, the
    Program is requesting $5.9 million to fund activities that will support
    the transfer of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from its
    current owners to a federal facility and to begin revitalizing
    transportation logistical and institutional planning activities. Due to
    budgetary shortfalls during the past four years, these activities,
    especially transportation planning, were deferred while we focused our
    resources on investigative science for a possible decision on whether
    to recommend Yucca Mountain for development as a repository.
                              performance measures
        The fiscal year 2002 request is the start of funding levels that we
    need to meet our most critical performance measure--maintaining the
    schedule to begin waste acceptance at a geologic repository by 2010. If
    there is a decision to proceed, the Program could then move forward
    with the process embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended,
    by submitting a license application in 2003; obtaining Commission
    authorization--as early as thirty-six months after submittal; and
    building the infrastructure to begin waste acceptance in 2010.
                          fiscal year 2002 activities
        I would now like to describe in more detail our fiscal year 2002
    objectives and how this budget request will support our activities.
    Yucca Mountain
        Fiscal year 2002 delineates a shift in focus to engineering and
    design activities necessary for a possible license application in 2003.
    The Program, under direction from language accompanying the 1997 Energy
    and Water Development appropriations, presented our plans, schedule,
    and estimated costs to license a repository in the 1998 Viability
    Assessment. If a decision is made to recommend the site, the Program
    will proceed to implement the general framework presented in the 1998
    plan, supplemented by our greater understanding of how a potential
    repository within Yucca Mountain might perform.
        Our budget request for Yucca Mountain is allocated under the
    following project elements: Core Science, Design and Engineering,
    Suitability, Licensing, and Performance Assessment, National
    Environmental Policy Act, Operations and Construction, and External
    Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes. The activities planned under
    each of these categories are described as follows.
        Core Science.--This year's budget request of $75.6 million
    represents a fifteen percent increase. Core Science activities include
    collecting 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. These efforts will proceed as a part of our
    performance confirmation program to strengthen the underlying
    scientific basis for a potential decision and provide multiple lines of
    evidence supporting the assumptions used in our engineering designs and
    performance assessments.
        Design and Engineering.--The fiscal year 2002 request for Design
    and Engineering is $104.4 million, an increase of 41 percent over last
    year. This substantial increase will allow us to resume engineering and
    design work to support a possible license application. This is work
    that we deferred while the Program focused on scientific and technical
    activities required for any possible decision on whether to proceed
    with repository development. The Program will vigorously continue
    repository surface design efforts to integrate new design concepts for
    accepting and handling defense high-level waste and spent fuel, and
    commercial spent fuel. The Program will analyze a modular surface and
    subsurface design and construction concept to evaluate how a step-wise,
    flexible repository system can integrate new technologies and new
    operational concepts as they become available.
        The Program will refine the repository subsurface design and
    operating modes, including further analyzing the potential advantages
    of cooler repository operating temperatures and what effect they might
    have on reducing uncertainties associated with long-term performance.
    Engineering and design work will analyze fuel blending models that
    could enhance subsurface thermal management. We also will seek a
    greater understanding of long-term performance of waste package
    materials to strengthen our understanding of corrosion properties and
    the effects of manufacturing on waste package integrity.
    Suitability, Licensing, and Performance Assessment
        The fiscal year 2002 request for Suitability, Licensing, and
    Performance Assessment is $84.9 million, a slight decrease of 1.2
    percent. Although our request is lower in this area than fiscal year
    2001, we have reallocated funds to specific activities supporting a
    possible license application. The bulk of our resources will be applied
    towards developing the preclosure safety analysis. This work was
    deferred while our investigative science focused on the post-closure
    long-term repository performance assessment required for a possible
    site recommendation decision. The results from this preclosure safety
    engineering analysis and the long-term post-closure performance
    assessments will provide the Commission in a licensing proceeding with
    a basis to determine whether a repository at Yucca Mountain can
    reasonably assure that public health and safety, and the environment
    would be protected during repository operations, and post-closure.
        In parallel, we will further refine our repository total system
    performance assessments with information from continuing Core Science
    and Engineering and Design work to strengthen our understanding of
    long-term performance at cooler subsurface operating modes. Finally,
    significant resources will be applied to documenting license
    application reports and underlying data into electronic media and web-
    based technologies for a license support network. We deferred these
    activities while we awaited a possible decision on whether to proceed
    with Yucca Mountain, but must address them to meet the Commission's
    requirements under 10 CFR Part 2, if the site is recommended and
    approved.
        Operations and Construction.--The fiscal year 2002 request for
    Operations and Construction is $35 million, a 10.7 percent increase.
    This modest increase is to build additional thermal test alcoves and
    niches in the potential repository block to gather performance
    confirmation data verifying drift scale thermal test results. The bulk
    of these funds would be used primarily to maintain the surface and
    subsurface infrastructure that supports Core Science.
        National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).--In fiscal year 2002,
    $1.6 million, a 27 percent reduction, is requested for NEPA activities
    if the site is recommended. A final environmental impact statement will
    be completed and will accompany the documents supporting the
    comprehensive basis for a potential site recommendation. Afterwards,
    the administrative record compiled during preparation of the final
    environmental impact statement would be finalized, if the site is
    recommended.
        External Oversight and Payments-Equal-to-Taxes (PETT).--The fiscal
    year 2002 budget requests $19.7 million for External Oversight and
    Payments-Equal-to-Taxes. The Administration supports the State of
    Nevada and affected units of local government oversight activities--
    solely for independent review of ongoing scientific and technical
    work--as authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
        Our budget request also includes $10 million to continue our
    cooperative agreement with the University and Community College System
    of Nevada. This agreement, initiated in fiscal year 1999, provides the
    public and the Yucca Mountain project with an independently derived
    body of scientific data, and fosters collaborative working
    relationships between government and academic researchers.
                 waste acceptance, storage, and transportation
        The primary responsibility of the Waste Acceptance, Storage, and
    Transportation Project is to develop processes for the physical
    transfer of spent nuclear fuel to the Federal Government. Because we
    were awaiting a decision on whether to proceed with the Yucca Mountain
    site, we deferred transportation logistical and institutional planning
    activities. However, if the site is recommended and approved, we must
    resume the preparations necessary to implement a transportation
    infrastructure to support the movement of spent nuclear fuel and high-
    level radioactive waste in 2010. For fiscal year 2002, we request $5.9
    million to begin long lead-time logistical and planning activities.
        Transportation.--For fiscal year 2002, we request $3.1 million to
    begin and ramp-up activities that would develop the private sector-
    based national transportation capability necessary to move spent
    nuclear fuel and high-level waste beginning in 2010. This requires
    restarting the solicitation process for a draft request for proposals
    for waste acceptance and transportation services, with the goal of
    releasing a final request for proposals in late fiscal year 2002. Other
    planning activities will consider transportation institutional issues
    within the State of Nevada, as the potential host state for a geologic
    repository, and will focus on resuming development of policies and
    procedures for the training of public safety officials as specified
    under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Section 180(c).
        Waste Acceptance.--For fiscal year 2002, $2.3 million is requested
    to support modifying the Standard Disposal Contract to integrate
    private sector-based transportation services requirements. A
    significant part of our request will be applied to integrating waste
    acceptance criteria and schedules for the wide variety of fuel types
    from defense spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste owned by the
    Office of Environmental Management, Office of Fissile Materials
    Disposition, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
                       program management and integration
        For fiscal year 2002, we request $83.6 million for Program
    Management and Integration activities, a 10 percent increase above
    fiscal year 2001. The Program Management and Integration element
    oversees coordination between the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization
    Project and Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation Project. The
    primary function is to ensure compliance with the statutory
    requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and regulatory
    requirements imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
    Environmental Protection Agency, other Federal oversight groups, and
    Departmental reporting and accounting systems. Particular emphasis will
    be placed on ensuring that the Program meets Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission Nuclear Quality Assurance requirements as we accelerate our
    efforts to submit a possible license application in 2003.
    Future Funding Challenges
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I began my testimony by
    stating that our fiscal year 2002 request is based on the presumption
    that a potential decision to recommend the site for development could
    be made. If the Yucca Mountain Site is recommended and approved, the
    costs to license, build, and operate a waste management system will
    exceed past appropriations levels. Our Administration's budget request
    recognizes these future-funding challenges. The Administration in its
    budget states ``support for efforts to use the nuclear utilities'
    budgetary receipts for [their] intended purposes.''
        The Program is looking at engineering, construction, and
    operational strategies for managing these potential annual costs that
    could occur after the 2002 timeframe. These strategies seek to
    distribute costs to level-out annual costs over the next ten years,
    using modular repository construction and operational approaches. In
    addition, the Program intends to submit a report on alternative means
    of financing and managing a federal repository to Congress in June
    2001, as requested in the 2001 Energy and Water Development Conference
    Report.
                                   litigation
        The Department is in litigation over the delay in meeting our
    contractual obligation to nuclear utility companies to begin accepting
    their spent fuel by January 31, 1998. The issue of waste acceptance is
    among our highest priorities. The Courts already determined that the
    federal government is liable to compensate utilities for additional
    costs they may have incurred due to the delay. We are now litigating
    what the source of funding should be and how much these costs will be.
    Inspector General Inquiry
        Last December, Secretary Richardson decided not to issue the Site
    Recommendation Consideration Report until the Inspector General
    investigated whether bias may have compromised the integrity of our
    work. The Inspector General performed a comprehensive and thorough
    evaluation of this issue and released his report on April 23. I was
    gratified that the Inspector General concluded there was no evidence to
    ``substantiate the concern that bias compromised the integrity of the
    site evaluation process.'' I have told my staff that we must do even
    better. The report also identified several statements that the
    Inspector General concluded, ``could be viewed as suggesting a
    premature conclusion regarding the suitability of Yucca Mountain.'' We
    are well aware that we must perform our work without even the
    perception of possible bias.
        Secretary Abraham, and I firmly believe and have communicated to
    all our employees, that it is Departmental policy, that all Federal,
    laboratory, and contractor employees must perform their work in a
    manner that reflects the integrity and objective approach necessary to
    conduct world-class science. We have reaffirmed our commitment to a
    site suitability evaluation process that is objective, unbiased, and
    based on sound science. We will continue to operate this Program in an
    open and transparent manner, worthy of public confidence and trust.
                               concluding remarks
        The Department has made considerable progress and, despite enormous
    challenges, maintained the essential momentum to implement our Nation's
    policy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
    radioactive waste. We have conducted a world class investigative
    science program to determine whether the Yucca Mountain site is
    suitable for further development. We have developed repository designs
    and operational concepts that would enable future generations to make
    decisions about a repository, providing them the flexibility to choose
    closure, indefinite monitoring, or retrieval of emplaced materials.
        I believe that we are in a position to achieve important national
    and global decisions later this year. I urge you to consider favorably
    our appropriation request. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.

                         YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE TIME TABLE

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Let me just ask you
    three or four questions on Yucca Mountain if I might.
        First of all, the Inspector General has issued a report.
    That caused some delay. Now, that report is considered to be a
    favorable report as I understand it. Is that a correct
    characterization of it?
        Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. How soon will the Department be ready to
    proceed with their recommendations to the President?
        Mr. Barrett. We are proceeding ahead in doing the
    scientific work necessary to support any future decisions. Just
    last week we released a suite of documents which include the
    Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report, which is the
    bulk of the science that would support any future decision, and
    we are proceeding ahead under the processes in the law this
    year.

                       YUCCA MOUNTAIN RADIATION STANDARDS

        Senator Domenici. Recently--well, I will give you the date.
    March the 30 of this year, I wrote to EPA Administrator
    Christine Whitman noting that the scientific credibility of the
    draft EPA regulations for Yucca Mountain were severely
    criticized by the National Academy of Science. No such
    criticism was leveled by the Academy against the proposed NRC
    standards. I suggested in my letter that the EPA and the NRC
    should be working to harmonize their difference in approach to
    the standards.
        Many have suggested that the scientifically flawed EPA
    standards, if implemented, would preclude waste storage in
    Yucca Mountain while offering no benefit of public safety. On
    April the 26, Administrator Whitman responded that the EPA and
    the NRC are working through an inter-agency process to
    determine ``the most appropriate public health standards for
    Yucca Mountain.'' The latter part of that statement is in
    quotes.
        What is the status of discussions among EPA, NRC, and DOE
    to identify scientifically credible radiation standards for
    Yucca Mountain?
        Mr. Barrett. The Office of Management and Budget is in the
    process, through the inter-agency approach, of reviewing that.
    The Environmental Protection Agency is actively involved in
    creating the standard. They requested scientific input from us.
    We have provided that, and that process is continuing under the
    OMB inter-agency review process. So it is very active and Ms.
    Whitman is involved and will, we hope be reaching some
    decisions soon.
        Senator Domenici. A technical question. The Nuclear Waste
    technology Review board, they have expressed some concern
    within the last year over certain aspects of the Department's
    plans for Yucca Mountain. Among those concerns were the
    reliance by the Department on high temperatures in the
    repository to reduce moisture and thereby enhance the life of
    the waste casks. These high temperature storage configurations,
    created by reducing spacing among casks, was criticized in part
    because lower temperature options which would minimize chemical
    reaction rates that could degrade the casks had not been
    reviewed with sufficient care, they said.
        What is the current status of the Department's response to
    the concerns by the NWTRB, the Nuclear Waste Technology Review
    Board?
        Mr. Barrett. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
    pointed out opportunities to strengthen the technical basis for
    any future decisions on Yucca Mountain. We have been working
    very hard over the last 6 months in doing the studies in
    exactly those areas. I just had a meeting last week, where we
    presented the results of many of those studies. We are in the
    process of preparing those documents to strengthen the
    technical bases and address the issues of operational low
    temperature designs and improvements.
        Senator Domenici. This could go to both of you. The
    Washington group--that is a business group. I should say
    Washington Group International--announced that it had reached
    an agreement in principle with the bank group, the steering
    committee for the plan of reorganization in bankruptcy. The
    plan did not include Westinghouse government services companies
    which operate a number of DOE M&O contracts. What is the effect
    of this announcement at existing sites where Westinghouse has
    contracts? Do you know?

                          CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL ISSUES

        Dr. Huntoon. Senator, after they I guess made their
    business decisions we did communicate with the Westinghouse----
        Senator Domenici. Would you pull that up a little closer,
    please.
        Dr. Huntoon. I am sorry.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        Dr. Huntoon. We did communicate with the Westinghouse
    company about our sites and the work they are doing for us, as
    you know, at Savannah River, in New York, and at WIPP. We were
    told that it will have no effect, it will be transparent, our
    operations will continue. So we are not expecting anything to
    happen to our work based on the Washington Group's financial
    issues right now.
        Mr. Barrett. We do not expect any in ours at all.
        Senator Domenici. It will not affect yours.
        Have you received sufficient information at this point to
    conclude yourself that that statement is true?
        Dr. Huntoon. Our procurement people have, our legal people
    have. I have not gotten back input from all my sites. I have
    talked to Savannah River and they have no issues. I will be
    talking to the others today.
        Senator Domenici. All right. In any event, are you telling
    this subcommittee that you believe in that regard things are
    all right?
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes.

                      WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT FUNDING

        Senator Domenici. Let me now ask you a few more questions.
    Let me talk about WIPP just for a minute. There is a lot of
    reductions in this budget that struck me as being kind of
    interesting and in some ways counterproductive. But the one
    that gives me a real strange feeling is, how can you expect
    WIPP to do more and yet reduce the funding by $26 million? They
    are supposed to do more of everything. They are supposed to do
    more on-site characterization. They are supposed to move more
    transuranic wastes there. Their budget is $26 million less than
    last year.
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir. As you know, we had challenges
    across the complex with the budget to get to our budget
    numbers. WIPP was certainly one of them. WIPP has done an
    outstanding job in meeting their commitments in the past and
    coming up on the curve to getting the shipments in. We are past
    20 now in the shipments to WIPP.
        This budget that we turned in, Senator, is focused on
    activities that are essential to the disposal operations
    specifically. We want to maintain the priorities on Rocky
    Flats, Idaho, and Savannah River because that is going to
    support closure at Mound. We talked about limiting the
    shipments from other places until we had the funds to do it. We
    will scale back advisory groups and State organization support
    where we have to.
        We were going to begin the work on the remote handled
    waste. That is an essential aspect, but hopefully working with
    the State and NRC to make some necessary changes to some of the
    permits to decrease the cost and increase the efficiency.
        Senator Domenici. Well, let me just assure you that there
    is no more support from any community on anything of national
    interest that involves nuclear activity than this community of
    Carlsbad and Eddy County and that part of New Mexico. Frankly,
    when they read things like this they wonder over the years why
    they have been so supportive. I can assure you that there are
    all kinds of reasons to say we should cut this or that as it
    pertains to the Department of Energy, but the OMB missed the
    boat on this one. I do not expect you to say that about it--as
    they did on a number of others of these.

                             COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS

        Let me talk about the compliance agreements, Dr. Huntoon,
    for just a minute. Do you believe that this budget keeps the
    DOE in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
    existing programs? How much more money would be required to do
    that if the budget does not?
        Dr. Huntoon. This budget, Senator, gives us some challenges
    in several years to meet compliance. We have sat down with our
    regulators yet to discuss if we can adjust milestones or
    procedures to stay in compliance, but it will be a challenge in
    several areas.
        Senator Domenici. I take it that means you are not sure you
    can live within it. Is that a fair statement of what
    ``challenging'' means?
        Dr. Huntoon. It will be very difficult to do it in a lot of
    areas. I am not prepared to say we will not be compliant, but
    there are going to have to be negotiations.
        Senator Domenici. Well, let me suggest I have been at this
    long enough--I shared with you early on when you took this
    appointment that I sure hope there were some ways we could find
    to be more efficient at all the sites, that we seemed in many
    cases to be walking in place, where we stayed in one place for
    so long, with so much money spent, that I had begun to wonder
    whether some of these activities were employment opportunities
    or cleanup sites.
        So I expect that we can do better. But I want to suggest to
    the Department of Energy, it is not very easy to do it in the
    way you are recommending. It seems to me you have a
    responsibility, the Department, whoever represents the
    Executive Branch, to sit down with those who are cleaning these
    sites up, with the States that they are in, with the
    communities that they have agreements with, and try to work out
    something new and different that is more efficient, and if they
    are unsuccessful to bring that to Congress and say, we have to
    have your help.
        I do not think the way to do it is to dramatically reduce
    the funding and let each one of these communities wonder how
    many hundreds will be laid off while we are looking for a new
    policy. I think that is kind of a reverse approach. It may be
    that there were some in the OMB that concluded that is the only
    way to get change. Well, it might be. You are not going to get
    that change this year, however, that way, if there is any way
    to avoid it. We are going to put the money in and ask that you
    all start a new process of determining how we might improve the
    efficiency of these various sites.
        The top the bottom review that the Secretary is talking
    about, I just want to talk about one aspect of it. Every
    portion of the DOE from what I understand is supposed to become
    5 to 10 percent more efficient in the future and immediately
    cut the budget about 6 percent. That is my own interpretation
    of where we are.
        Now, the management review is supposed to identify steps to
    strengthen project management, but in some respects it
    stretches out projects and increases the cost. Now, this
    management review is supposed to implement better contracting
    strategies, but fails to fund such performance-based contracts
    that you have negotiated in the very past few years. That does
    not seem to me to be very consistent.
        This review is supposed to make greater use of
    technologies, as I understand it, but the cuts in environmental
    science and technology are about 27 percent. Now, I would
    conclude that either those are inconsistent or one would
    conclude that the research being done in the EM R&D effort is
    not very good or something you do not think is very good.
        Which is it, or is it neither of them?

                      FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        Dr. Huntoon. I think our science and technology program I
    think has been excellent. The money invested has already helped
    us through in the last few years. We have reaped benefits from
    money that has been invested over the last 10 years in R&D. So
    you would never get me to say that it is not a good program,
    that it is not worth the money.
        In fact, I believe, as you and I have discussed in the
    past, the one way we are going to decrease the amount of time
    that it is going to take to clean up this complex is by
    applying good science and technology to the problem. So I think
    we are going to be doing that.
        We are, with the money that we do have available in science
    and tech this year, planning plan to our highest priority
    issues and trying to get more work out into the complex from
    the R&D community. We will be not doing as much basic research
    as we would like or university work as we would like.
        Senator Domenici. Well, let me tell you, I would not be
    surprised to hear the Department of Energy say that an awful
    lot of the EM research, that is research within the
    laboratories and not on contract, which has been looking for
    better ways to handle our responsibility with reference to
    cleanup, I would not be surprised if somebody said they have
    been very redundant, some of them have been absolutely
    inapplicable, it just did not fit, some of them were done with
    such scientific esoteric ideas that they are not applicable
    anywhere. I have found that over the years to be the case.
        But I also find that there is nobody what seems to be able
    to do that much better than they do. If you could refine them
    down and make sure they are all focused, they are a pretty good
    source of information on how to handle this. Is that latter a
    fair assessment, they are pretty good at it?
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir, it absolutely is. I will give you
    one example. We have a very tough problem with the salt issue
    down at Savannah River. We are looking at three technologies
    right now and we are going through an assessment to choose the
    one that we will do a pilot on later this year. Two of those
    most promising technologies, have come from our R&D program
    that we funded earlier, that would not have been ready for us
    to apply had we not put money into it.
        Other people do not have the kinds of problems that we have
    in dealing with this nuclear waste.
        Senator Domenici. I am going to submit a question to you
    with reference to performance-based contracts and then close my
    questioning of you by talking about a project and program
    called Waste Management Education Research Consortium. Its
    acronym is WERC. I am not sure you would be aware of that.

               WASTE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

        Dr. Huntoon. No.
        Senator Domenici. There exists a program whereby three
    universities in the State of New Mexico, led by one of its
    technology universities, engages in a curriculum to produce
    civil engineers who are environmentally oriented, and at the
    same time they conduct national competitions among college
    students to prepare actual plans for environmental cleanup. It
    attracts attention from all the universities of America and the
    winners have gone on to be great scientists in cleanup. That is
    a $2.5 million a year program and it is supposed to be extended
    for 5 years pursuant to the last appropriation bill.
        There has not been any extension done on that. I wonder if
    you would look at that for us and report back through the
    committee with a response as to when that is going to be
    funded.
        Dr. Huntoon. Yes, sir, I will.
        [The information follows:]

           Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC)

        The Department has developed a new 5-year cooperative agreement
    with WERC (which is now referred to as A Consortium for Education and
    Technology Development). The agreement became effective on July 1,
    2001. Funding for this agreement is included in the DOE Fiscal Year
    2002 Congressional Budget Request. Future funding will be subject to
    the availability of funds and overall DOE funding priorities.

           WASTE MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CONSORTIUM (WERC)

        Senator Domenici. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Barrett, did you have anything further you would like
    to comment on?
        Mr. Barrett. No, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Dr. Huntoon, did you want the comment?
    This is your last appropriation hearing. We said that. Thank
    you so much for all you have done.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Dr. Huntoon. Well, I would just like to thank you for your
    support of this program. I appreciate it.
        Senator Domenici. You are welcome.
        [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

                          waste isolation pilot plant
        Question. Many elements of the Departments' budget submission are
    puzzling to me, but perhaps none as confusing as the dramatic cut in
    the budget recommended for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
        It seems to me that the Department should be encouraging dramatic
    increase in the material shipment rates to WIPP. Furthermore, one of
    the best ways of increasing those shipment rates would be to improve
    the overall management of the National TRU-Waste progam, which I think
    requires that WIPP and the Carlsbad Office of the Department play a
    larger role in specifying shipments from each site.
        WIPP has also made excellent proposals to assume responsibility for
    characterizing waste from the many Small Quantity Sites around the
    complex. Such centralized characterization can lead to greater
    efficiencies, more rapid shipment of wastes from these sites, and
    greater assurances to the people of New Mexico that the
    characterization is done to State-mandated requirements.
        In light of these issues, can you explain how WIPP is going to
    increase its shipments rates, assume additional waste characterization
    responsibilities, and play a larger role in the National TRU Waste
    program with a funding cut of $26 million?
        Answer. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) budget request is
    focused on activities that are essential to disposal operations and the
    National Transuranic Waste Program. It also assumes that a combination
    of efficiencies being pursued with the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, the New Mexico Environment Department, and the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission will reduce transuranic waste characterization
    and shipping costs.
        The Department will give priority to shipments from the Rocky Flats
    Environmental Technology Site to support closure, and from the Idaho
    National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to support the Idaho
    Settlement Agreement requirements, as well as shipments from the
    Savannah River Site which is assisting in the closure of the Mound Site
    by storing some of Mound's waste. WIPP will also accept limited
    shipments from other sites, such as Argonne National Laboratory-East,
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Nevada Test Site.
        To support the President's fiscal year 2002 budget priorities, the
    Department will need to scale back support to advisory groups and State
    organizations where possible. In addition, the Department has
    eliminated funding for other initiatives that are not core functions of
    WIPP's mission to dispose of transuranic waste at WIPP.
        The Department is also looking at resources needed for the
    increases in waste shipments in fiscal year 2002 from Rocky Flats and
    Idaho. Since the President's fiscal year 2002 budget was submitted to
    Congress, Rocky Flats has identified plans to ship more waste to WIPP
    than was assumed at the time the budget was formulated. Options will be
    reviewed for shifting EM funds to meet these needs and ensure we have
    sufficient shipping containers and adequate carrier services. The
    Administration's recently submitted supplemental budget request for
    fiscal year 2001 includes funds that could be applied to this increased
    workload for WIPP.
                             compliance agreements
        Question. Does this budget keep the DOE in compliance with all
    applicable laws, regulations and existing agreements?
        Answer. We are taking several steps to identify and evaluate new
    ways of doing business to reduce costs and shorten schedules. Recently,
    the Secretary directed the start of an assessment of the Environmental
    Management program to find ways to achieve cleanup goals more cost
    effectively and efficiently. In addition, Secretary Abraham has invited
    the Governors of states that host major DOE sites and the EPA
    Administrator to work with us on this assessment. Working with our
    state and EPA partners, we believe we can find ways to improve the
    program's efficiency and progress.
        Maintaining compliance is a priority for the Department. However,
    until these initiatives and the Congressional appropriations process
    are completed, it is premature to say what our specific compliance
    challenges may be in fiscal year 2002. We will follow applicable
    procedures if any modification to existing requirements is needed.
        Question. How much more money would be required to do so? If you
    wish, you may submit that answer for the record.
        Answer. Until these initiatives and the Congressional
    appropriations process are completed, it is premature to say whether
    additional money will be required to meet our compliance requirements
    in fiscal year 2002. We believe, however, that by working with our
    state and EPA partners, we can find ways to improve the compliance
    framework and our programmatic efficiency, and continue to make
    progress toward Environmental Management cleanup goals.
                          performance-based contracts
        Question. The DOE Inspector General has recently criticized the
    Department for undermining its own performance-based contracts by
    paying incentive fees even though the work did not meet the specific
    requirement DOE established in its contract. This has been a recurring
    problem for the DOE. The Department has placed a lot of hope on the
    success of such contracts for increasing performance and cutting costs.
    Does the DOE have the mechanism in place to completely enforce such
    contracts?
        Answer. Yes. The subject of performance-based contracting has
    received the highest level of management attention within the
    Department. In turn, this top-level emphasis directly resulted in DOE's
    recent implementation of a contract management initiative which
    requires greater responsibility and accountability from both the
    Department's senior managers and its contractors.
        Some of the major provisions of this May 2000 initiative include:
    (1) ensuring that performance fees will be paid in full when earned or
    withheld when performance objectives are not met; (2) ensuring that
    performance bonuses paid by contractors to their key managers are
    dependent on the achievement of established contract performance
    objectives; (3) expanding the Chief Operating Officer's ``watch list''
    to include marginal or poor-performing projects, so that a project
    which is placed on the COO's watch list is subject to more frequent
    reporting and closer scrutiny until its performance improves; (4)
    requiring that contract performance objectives be formally linked to
    the Department's strategic plan; (5) holding Federal senior executives
    accountable for effective contractor management through their own
    performance plans; and (6) conducting briefings to high-level DOE
    management officials of contractor performance assessments and proposed
    performance awards prior to their award.
        Furthermore, the Department's major program offices have
    established policies and procedures to ensure: early identification of
    program expectations to be communicated to Field offices; close
    coordination between Headquarters and Field offices in developing such
    plans; and the approval of these plans, as well as any performance
    awards as a result of the evaluation of the contractor's performance,
    by the responsible program assistant secretary. DOE's Procurement
    Executive has also been reviewing and approving major site and facility
    management contract performance plans since 1998.
        In addition, with the publication of the Department's revised fee
    policy for management and operating contractors in March 1999, DOE's
    Office of Procurement and Assistance Management established an
    iterative program to work with selected Headquarters and Field offices
    to upgrade the effectiveness of the incentives being established for
    the achievement of critical performance. Moreover, the Office issued in
    1998 a ``Performance-Based Contracting Guide'' which provide guidance
    on linking performance incentives to desired results and strategic
    goals. Associated workshops have focused on sharing lessons-learned
    within the Department.
        Performance-based contracting--characterized by results-oriented
    statements of work, strict performance criteria and measures to assess
    the quality of work accomplishment, and incentive-fee arrangements to
    motivate enhanced performance--is now the standard for the Department
    of Energy. All of DOE's major site and facility management contracts
    awarded during and after fiscal year 1999 are performance-based
    management contracts. Despite the identification of occasional
    deficiencies, the Department believes that the appropriate mechanisms
    are available to adequately enforce the provisions of performance-based
    contracts. In turn, with an emphasis on sustained improvements in the
    administration of these contracts, the use of performance-based
    contracts should lead to even more cost-effective performance on the
    part of the Department's contractors and a greater return for the U.S.
    taxpayer.
               waste-management education and research consortium
        Question. The contract for the Waste-management Education and
    Research Consortium (WERC) was specified in the current Appropriations
    Report language to be extended for a 5-year period at a level of $2.5
    million. To date, that contract extension has not been done.
        WERC has compiled an excellent record in their support of
    environmental education and technology development. Over its history,
    now spanning more than 10 years, WERC graduates have filled many
    positions of importance to the nation. Some graduates are now directly
    contributing to cleanup of the Department's environmental legacy
    problems.
        When will the congressional guidance be followed and their contract
    extended?
        Answer. The Department has developed a new 5-year cooperative
    agreement with WERC (which is now referred to as A Consortium for
    Education and Technology Development). The agreement became effective
    on July 1, 2001. Funding for this agreement is included in the DOE
    fiscal year 2002 Congressional Budget Request. Future funding will be
    subject to the availability of funds and overall DOE funding
    priorities.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

                            moab mill tailings site
        Question. What is the status of the remediation plan?
        Answer. The Federal staff at the Grand Junction Office is preparing
    an initial draft remediation plan that will identify remediation
    alternatives and summarize the state of knowledge regarding the Moab
    site. This will be completed by October 30, 2001. The initial draft
    plan will not, however, be sufficiently developed to allow for
    selection of a remediation option. Selection of a remedial action will
    require an in-depth analysis and the legally-required involvement by
    the National Academy of Sciences, for which funding was included in the
    Administration's recent supplemental budget request for fiscal year
    2001.
        Question. Has the DOE made any arrangements with the National
    Academy of Sciences to provide technical advice, assistance, or
    recommendations on the remediation plan?
        Answer. On February 16, 2001, the Office of Environmental
    Management sent a letter to the National Academy of Sciences requesting
    them to perform the analysis required by the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The Administration recently
    submitted a supplemental budget request for fiscal year 2001 that
    includes funding for the Moab project. If this funding becomes
    available, DOE will request the Academy to commence the analysis as
    part of an ongoing long-term institutional management study and provide
    DOE with advice and recommendations in a separate report.
        Question. When is it estimated that the DOE will begin remediation
    efforts?
        Answer. The start of remediation is dependent on the successful
    completion of all preparatory activities, such as National Academy of
    Sciences review, any required environmental review, remedy selection
    and design, and contractor procurements. Appropriate remediation is
    expected to start in fiscal year 2005, subject to the availability of
    funding.
        Question. What actions will the DOE need to take before remediation
    work could begin?
        Answer. DOE will have to complete the National Academy of Sciences
    review, prepare any required environmental review, obtain a Biological
    Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding endangered
    species near the site, receive Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval
    of the remedial action plan, complete design for the selected remedial
    alternative, and procure a remediation contractor.
        Question. What are your plans for the site in fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. DOE will complete the title transfer of the mill site,
    finalize the remediation plan, and perform surveillance of the tailings
    pile. Initiation of the National Academy of Sciences review is
    dependent upon Congressional approval of the Administration's recent
    supplemental budget request that included funding for developing the
    Moab remediation plan.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

                            transportation of waste
        Question. One of the major issues with the proposed Yucca Mountain
    site is transporting the waste from the 103 reactor sites through more
    than 40 states to Nevada. Why has so little effort been placed on
    defining the transportation modes and routes? How can we be studying a
    central disposal site if we do not know if the spent fuel can be safely
    moved?
        Answer. The transportation of spent nuclear fuel has been conducted
    safely for decades. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission have developed regulations that control
    virtually every aspect of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
    waste transportation. The safety record for spent fuel shipments in the
    United States and in other industrialized nations is excellent. Of
    these thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none has
    resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive
    material.
        Because of funding constraints, the Department, in setting
    priorities, applied its available funds to Yucca Mountain scientific
    and engineering activities to determine if this site is scientifically
    suitable for further development as a geologic repository. We have
    deferred activities related to transportation planning until a site is
    designated. If the site is designated, the Department plans to acquire
    a transportation infrastructure by 2010. While we await a decision on
    whether to proceed, identifying transportation routes that could be
    used in 2010 is premature. It is more appropriate to select routes
    taking into account the highway, rail route, and shipping vendor
    considerations that would exist at the time that shipments may occur.
         benefits of cooperation with foreign waste management programs
        Question. Why does the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
    Management feel that it must send senior level managers to foreign
    countries? What is the purpose of the trips? How do these trips benefit
    the U.S. waste disposal program?
        Answer. The general international consensus and the cornerstone of
    the United States waste management strategy is disposal of radioactive
    waste in geologic repositories. All nations with nuclear power programs
    will need to safely dispose of their radioactive waste regardless of
    their nuclear fuel cycle approach. Furthermore, nuclear issues
    transcend national boundaries, and therefore, the global nuclear
    community has a shared interest in protecting human health and safety
    and the environment.
        Developing geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste
    is a first of a kind endeavor. The U.S. continues to play a leading
    role in developing scientific and engineering knowledge for geologic
    repositories. Foreign countries have technical and institutional
    information that is beneficial to the current U.S. effort. In this
    regard, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has
    bilateral agreements with six nations and is working to extend that
    collaboration with other countries. The Office also has formal
    arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
    International Association for Environmentally Safe Disposal of
    Radioactive Materials, and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The purpose of
    these agreements is to share and exchange scientific, technical, and
    other relevant information on radioactive waste management. Senior
    management in the United States and abroad have recognized the value
    and benefits of sharing experiences and information through
    participation in meetings, conferences, and visits to nuclear
    facilities.
                         total systems life cycle costs
        Question. There has been an $11 billion increase to the total cost
    estimates for the proposed repository, bringing the total to $58
    billion. Please explain to me what has driven this large increase in
    total repository costs.
        Answer. Increases in costs are due to design enhancements that
    could improve long-term repository performance, if they are all
    implemented. For example, most of the increases are due to inclusion of
    titanium drip shields. These drip shields would be placed over the
    waste packages within the emplacement drifts just before repository
    closure. However, the decision to include drip shields would be made at
    the time of repository closure, after performance confirmation and
    monitoring. Because the possible use of drip shields is far in the
    future, we believe that monies from the Nuclear Waste Fund will be
    available to pay for them.
                            local oversight funding
        Questions What is the justification for reducing the budget request
    for local government oversight at a time when DOE is asking for an
    increase in its Yucca Mountain budget for fiscal year 2002? Is there no
    longer a relationship between the amount of work to be carried out at
    the site and the amount of work required of local governments to
    monitor, review and comment on those site activities?
        Answer. The Administration fully supports the State of Nevada and
    affected units of local government in their scientific oversight roles
    pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Department's fiscal year
    2002 budget request of $445 million is a modest increase over the
    fiscal year 2001 budget request of $437.5 million. Our fiscal year 2002
    budget request for affected units of local government oversight funding
    of $5.8 million is the same as the fiscal year 2001 request. The fiscal
    year 2002 request for State of Nevada oversight funding is also at the
    same level as fiscal year 2001 appropriations at $2.5 million. We hope
    that fiscal year 2002 appropriations will support continuing oversight
    activities.
                   disposal of waste at the nevada test site
        Question. Data presented by the Department last month at my local
    Community Advisory Board concluded that disposal of low-level
    radioactive soils shipped from the DOE site at Fernald, Ohio to the
    Nevada Test Site is two-and-half times more expensive than disposal at
    a commercial disposal site in Utah, a site I'm advised that has the
    support of its congressional delegation and stakeholders. How can the
    Department justify trucking increasing amounts of low-level waste from
    sites around the DOE complex to NTS when you can use an existing
    contract to ship the same waste directly via rail to the Utah site at a
    much lower cost?
        Answer. The cost of shipping waste from the Fernald site in Ohio to
    the Nevada Test Site (NTS) or to a commercial facility, and the cost of
    disposal at NTS or a commercial facility, is dependent on the type of
    waste requiring disposal. Wastes vary in density, type of
    containerization, level of radioactivity, and heterogeneity (e.g., soil
    or debris). Another key factor in these decisions is the waste
    acceptance criteria at each of the disposal sites. For example, the
    commercial facility in Utah cannot accept radioactive wastes that
    exceed Class A limitations. Prior to selecting a disposal option for
    each waste stream, the Department compares costs for transportation to
    and disposal at DOE and commercial disposal sites. Normally, commercial
    disposal is selected when it is the most cost effective option.
        The data on disposal options presented to the NTS Community
    Advisory Board focused on two examples of low-level waste streams from
    Fernald, to illustrate how waste density, containerization,
    radioactivity level, and heterogeneity influence costs and decisions.
    The wastes chosen for these examples both met the Envirocare waste
    acceptance criteria. However, for one predominantly soil low-level
    waste stream, as you have noted, commercial disposal was the more cost
    effective disposition and was used for that waste stream. In fact,
    Fernald sends the majority of its soil to the commercial facility. The
    second example stream, consisting of contaminated debris, was more cost
    effectively transported to and disposed of at the NTS.
        Other DOE low-level waste, with radioactivity levels that exceed
    the Envirocare license, cannot be disposed of at Envirocare. For these
    wastes, technical criteria, not transportation and disposal costs, are
    the deciding factors in choosing a disposal facility.
                              nuclear power plants
        Question. The industry has recently seen expensive purchases for
    nuclear power plants. In almost no case, has this price been close to
    the actual cost of constructing and operating these plants. In fact,
    Paul Joskow an MIT economist recently said referring to the price per
    unit capacity, ``None of these deals even comes close to covering the
    book costs. You couldn't justify paying $2,000 or $3,000 per kilowatt
    for those plants.'' He added that investors would have to expect a huge
    competitive benefit from nuclear plants to risk putting money in a new
    one ``because of the significant possibility of coming up with a dry
    hole.'' Do you agree with this assessment?
        Answer. Today, purchasing a nuclear plant from another utility has
    become a very cost-effective approach to acquiring additional
    electricity capacity for a given utility. As there are plants that have
    been in operation for, in general, a decade or more, it should not be
    surprising that the cost of purchasing an existing plant is less than
    the cost of building a new nuclear plant. That said, the price paid for
    existing plants is not dramatically lower than what a modern nuclear
    power plant would cost to build.
        With the advances made by the nuclear industry over the last
    decade, the deployment of advanced light water reactors overseas,
    improvements in construction techniques (e.g., modular construction),
    operating efficiencies, and with greater regulatory certainty, we
    believe that a more realistic cost of new nuclear capacity is in the
    range of $1,000 to $1,500 per kilowatt. When coupled with the
    increasing cost of natural gas (due primarily to delivery constraints)
    and the economical track record of current nuclear plants, nuclear
    power presents an attractive option for investors.
        Over the past decade, the nuclear industry has succeeded in
    lowering average production costs (fuel, operations and maintenance) to
    below two cents per kilowatt-hour. Last year, nuclear energy was the
    lowest cost electricity source in the country--attributed to a decade-
    long increase in unit capacity factors following economizing steps
    taken to resolve regulatory issues, reduce refueling outage durations,
    and extend operating cycles. Aside from economics, nuclear power has
    benefits that are not measured in dollars and cents. Nuclear-generated
    power provides electricity that is free of greenhouse gas emissions and
    other pollutants released by the combustion other energy fuels coal,
    petroleum, and natural gas. As a result of its performance and its
    benefits, the value of nuclear power plants has increased, as indicated
    by their more expensive, recent purchase prices. As a result, we expect
    to see new nuclear construction in the United States during this
    decade.
                            vitrification technology
        Question. In last year's Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, Congress directed the Department to re-test the
    Advanced Vitrification System. What is the status of that review? Are
    you willing to commit to providing a complete assessment to Congress in
    a timely fashion to allow Members to make an informed decision about
    the future of this technology?
        Answer. The additional tests of the Advanced Vitrification System
    (AVS), a process under development by the Radioactive Isolation
    Consortium (RIC) designed for vitrification of high-level waste in a
    canister, were performed using surrogate waste provided by the
    Department of Energy. These additional tests were completed by June 1,
    2001, and a project review was initiated on June 12, 2001.
        Yes, we will provide RIC and Congress the results once we have
    completed this review. We anticipate the results will be available by
    July 30, 2001.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

        waivers for disposition of scrap metals from radiological areas
        Question. How do you intend to insure that this waiver is not used
    to circumvent the current suspension on release of metal from
    radioactive areas? Will decisions to use the waiver be reviewed by
    appropriate persons in the Secretary's office to make sure that the
    suspension is not circumvented?
        Answer. The suspension on unrestricted release of scrap metals from
    DOE radiological areas was initiated in July 2000 as part of a process
    in which DOE proposed establishing a new standard that would preclude
    the unrestricted release of such metals if surveys demonstrated that
    the metals had contamination at levels above background levels as a
    result of DOE operations at the site. DOE prepared proposed related
    changes to its procedures and issued them for public comment last fall.
    As a result of public comments on these proposed changes, DOE decided
    to retain the suspension and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
    (EIS) to address this topic. A Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS was
    published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2001.
        While the EIS is being prepared, DOE will continue the July 2000
    suspension on recycling of scrap metal from radiological areas into
    commerce unless DOE makes a specific determination that the metal could
    not have been radioactively contaminated by DOE activities or
    operations. In making a determination, the Department will impose a
    rigorous set of protocols that must be followed to demonstrate and
    document process knowledge about the use and location of the metals and
    the necessary confirmatory surveys that must be performed to validate
    this determination. Field offices would be responsible for implementing
    these protocols, and oversight would be provided by Headquarters
    program offices.
                               excess facilities
        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 the Department of Energy sties across the nation, reduce risks
    to site workers, the public and the environment; and provide a
    practical approach for testing a technology's capability.
        How many contaminated buildings are there to deactivate at the DOE
    complex?
        How many buildings are there to be decommissioned at the DOE
    complex?
        How many years will it take to clean up these sites and facilities,
    and at what cost?
        Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) does not have precise,
    complex-wide data on all facilities that are or may be determined in
    the future to be excess to DOE mission requirements and require
    deactivation, decontamination and/or decommissioning (D&D). However,
    there are two sources of information that can provide rough estimates
    of the total scope of facilities that may need to be deactivated and/or
    decommissioned in the future and give an indication of the life-cycle
    cost of carrying out this work. One source contains information on
    facilities that are the responsibility of the Department's
    Environmental Management (EM) program, and the other source addresses
    those that are the responsibility of other DOE programs.
        For EM facilities, EM's corporate information system, the
    Integrated Planning, Accountability and Budgeting System (IPABS), which
    supports budget formulation and execution, life-cycle planning, and
    performance measurement, provides a good indication of the total
    facilities' workscope currently within the EM program. IPABS lists
    4,222 facilities managed by EM that require D&D over the life of the EM
    program. IPABS further indicates that deactivation has already been
    completed on another 411 of these facilities, and decommissioning on
    639 facilities. The lifecycle cost associated with D&D of all EM-
    managed facilities, including those that are currently operational, as
    reported in IPABS is $10.6 billion from fiscal year 2002 through 2052.
    IPABS does not include data on which of these facilities are currently
    excess, or the level of cleanup that may be required.
        EM is seeking additional, facility-level information to better
    characterize the universe of facilities in the next update of its
    planning estimates, which is expected to be available at the end of the
    summer. However, we will continue after that time to develop methods to
    collect more complete and consistent information that minimizes
    differences in how different field offices manage, maintain, and
    interpret facility data.
        The ``Department of Energy Performance and Accountability Report
    for Fiscal Year 2000'' (DOE/CR-0071) estimates a $26 billion potential
    liability associated with Departmental facilities (both active and
    surplus) other than those in the EM program. This includes about $19
    billion (based on use of a cost-estimating model) to stabilize,
    deactivate and/or decommission about 3,000 contaminated facilities. The
    specific number of facilities associated with the remaining costs in
    the liability estimate (e.g., for decommissioning of Naval Reactor and
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve program facilities), is not identified.
                     national energy technology laboratory
        Question. Is advanced technology needed to clean up the remaining
    DOE facilities?
        Answer. While technologies generally exist to clean up contaminated
    facilities, innovative deactivation and decommissioning technology is
    needed to enhance worker safety, minimize cleanup schedules, and reduce
    costs. For instance, more than 900 plutonium-contaminated gloveboxes
    must be removed, cut up, and disposed of to meet the accelerated Rocky
    Flats closure goal of fiscal year 2006. The baseline method--workers in
    cumbersome protective gear using hand tools--could not have met this
    schedule or budget requirements. In the last three years, several
    innovative technologies that revolutionize this process have emerged as
    a result of the Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area. Through
    these technologies, worker exposure is eliminated or dramatically
    reduced, often enabling cleanup that was impossible otherwise.
        Question. Is the Deactivation and Decommissioning focus area
    helping to address the nation's cleanup backlog?
        Answer. The Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D) Focus Area
    provides support for the demonstration and deployment of improved D&D
    technologies and methods, and through technical assistance to DOE sites
    for the planning and execution of D&D tasks. Through these new D&D
    technologies, worker exposure is eliminated or dramatically reduced,
    often enabling cleanup that was impossible otherwise.
        For instance, the D&D Focus Area is furnishing improved
    technologies to ensure closure milestones can be met at the Rocky Flats
    Environmental Technology Site. The primary focus of these efforts is
    the disposition of over 900 plutonium-contaminated gloveboxes and other
    contaminated equipment, such as process piping, tanks, and vessels.
    Disposition of this equipment is a formidable task that, unless
    improved technologies are implemented, would place workers in extremely
    dangerous and high-radiation environments. Deployment of remotely
    operated robotic systems for size reduction, decontamination, and waste
    handling and packaging in some cases are enabling cleanup that could
    not have been accomplished previously.
        The D&D Focus Area has demonstrated 121 new and innovative
    technologies. And 91 different D&D-sponsored technologies have been
    deployed a total of 336 times, all of which performed cleanup cheaper,
    faster or safer than conventional technologies or enabled cleanup that
    was previously impossible.
        Question. Does the program save taxpayers money? How?
        Answer. The Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area is
    achieving direct cost savings through the deployment of more productive
    and cost-effective methods and technologies, as well as cost avoidance
    through accelerated cleanup schedules thereby reducing long-term
    facility surveillance and maintenance requirements. As important as
    saving taxpayers' money, technologies from this program also minimize
    worker safety and health risks
        Question. The fiscal year 2001 enacted level of funding for D&D
    Focus Area was $27.1 million. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget
    request slashing the budget for this activity to $17.6 million a 35
    percent cut. What impact will this have?
        Answer. At the requested level, there is sufficient funding to
    continue core activities, including some deployment projects, at a
    reduced level.
        Question. How will jobs at National Energy Technology Laboratory be
    impacted as a result of the 35 percent cut in the program?
        Answer. We do not expect any National Energy Technology Laboratory
    employees' jobs will be affected as a result of the request for the
    Deactivation and Decommissioning Focus Area.
        Question. Please provide me a chart, listing of the number of D&D
    Focus Area projects that have been funded in each state, along with
    their total value, and the number of employees that the projects
    support.
        Answer. The requested information follows:

              DEACTIVATION & DECOMMISSIONING FOCUS AREA (1991-2001)
                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Estimates
                   State                 Projects   Total funding  FTE's \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    California.........................        7           $3,640         12
    Colorado...........................        8           16,206         57
    Florida............................        3              535          3
    Idaho..............................       12           10,650         21
    Illinois...........................       10            7,662         23
    Iowa...............................        1              830          1
    Montana............................        1              660          4
    Nevada.............................        7            8,615         20
    New Mexico.........................        5           11,772         37
    New York...........................        6            6,153         18
    Ohio...............................       10           11,157         32
    Pennsylvania.......................        1            1,000          6
    South Carolina.....................        9            8,559         22
    Tennessee..........................       21           14,177         49
    Washington.........................       16           24,114         46
    West Virginia......................        7           12,240         24
                                        ------------------------------------
          Total........................      124          137,970       375
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Full-time equivalents.

        Question. Please also provide me with a listing of the West
    Virginia projects that are funded under this program.
        Answer. The National Energy Technology Laboratory administers all
    the Deactivation and Decommissioning projects for the Environmental
    Management program. See attached chart of activities within West
    Virginia.

      FISCAL YEAR 1991-2001 WEST VIRGINIA DEACTIVATION AND DECOMMISSIONING
                                  (D&D) FUNDING
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year funding
                         Project                     -----------------------
                                                       1991-2000     2001
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Transition of Basic Science for D&D.............           0       1,151
    Characterization Exploratory & Advanced                    0         175
     Development....................................
    Cost Benefit Analysis/Stakeholder Involvement/         1,867       2,637
     Public Participation...........................
    U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.....................       5,000           0
    Phoenix: A Decision Support Tool for D&D                 800           0
     Activities.....................................
    Technology and Program Support to CMST-CP.......         104           0
    Cost Savings Analysis/Technology Summaries......         206         300
                                                     -----------------------
          Total.....................................       7,977       4,263
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        industry and university program
        Question. The National Energy Technology Laboratory also
    administers 100 percent of the Industry and University Program, which
    is the Office of Environmental Management's main mechanism for private
    industry and higher education to provide new technical solutions to the
    DOE cleanup problems.
        How many research and development (R&D) contracts with private-
    sector organizations have resulted from this program?
        Answer. This program has resulted in 123 research and development
    contracts with private sector companies and universities, nearly all of
    which have been managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory
    (NETL). There have also been 11 cooperative agreements and grants with
    universities and nonprofit organizations that conduct applied research
    and development in support of the Environmental Management mission
    under this program, also managed by NETL.
        The Industry and University Program also includes the University
    Robotics Program administered by the Albuquerque Operations Office,
    which consists of a consortium of five universities and has resulted in
    five grants.
        Question. How many technology demonstration and technology
    deployments has the program yielded?
        Answer. Research and development within this program has resulted
    in 87 technology demonstrations and 78 deployments. For instance, a
    robotic vehicle sponsored by this program (Houdini) was instrumental in
    closing the Gunite and Associated Tanks at Oak Ridge ten years ahead of
    the project's initial schedule.
        Question. What is the projected cost savings that can be realized
    with successful technologies?
        Answer. New and innovative technologies can result in significant
    life-cycle savings or cost avoidance for the EM program compared to the
    ``baseline'' technologies that were otherwise planned to be used.
         However, it is difficult to provide reliable and consistent
    estimates of cost savings associated with new technologies across the
    program. Not only have the baselines for many of these first-of-a-kind,
    technically complex projects evolved, but EM has used several methods
    in the past to estimate cost savings/avoidance related to the
    introduction of new technologies. Consequently, these estimates are not
    consistent or comparable.
        To improve the consistency of estimates, EM has adopted a Return-
    on-Investment methodology for estimating and documenting the cost
    savings or cost avoidance resulting from the use of new or improved
    technologies. We have recently issued guidance requiring use of this
    methodology across the program and will begin applying it to
    technologies deployed in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. What will be the primary impacts of these cuts? Will
    there be any new program starts next fiscal year because of the cuts?
        Answer. The requested level provides sufficient funding to support
    core activities at a reduced level and a limited number of new starts.
    It also provides equitable funding for work at universities such as
    Florida International University, Florida State University, the
    Diagnostic and Instrumentation Analysis Laboratory at Mississippi State
    University, and the university consortium conducting work in robotics.
        Question. How many jobs will be eliminated at the National Energy
    Technology Laboratory as a result of the 28 percent cut in the program?
        Answer. We do not expect any jobs at the National Energy Technology
    Laboratory will be eliminated as a result of the fiscal year 2002
    budget request for this program.
        Question. Could a reduction in the number of projects to be funded
    have an eventual impact on the jobs at the Lab since the workload would
    be lessened?
        Answer. We do not anticipate any eventual impact on the National
    Energy Technology Laboratory employees' job as a result of the fiscal
    year 2002 budget request for this program.
        Question. Please provide me a chart, listing the number of Industry
    and University Program projects that have been funded in each state,
    along with their total value, and the number of employees that the
    projects support.
        Answer. The requested information follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number
                   State                    of       Total EM-50   Estimated
                                         projects      funding     FTE's \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       INDUSTRY PROGRAMS (1992-2001)

    Arizona............................        1         $681,636          1
    California.........................       14       14,024,444         34
    Colorado...........................        5        5,664,169         14
    Connecticut........................        1          224,947          1
    District of Columbia...............        1        1,301,425          4
    Florida............................        5        3,888,978         12
    Georgia............................        2        1,148,484         10
    Idaho..............................        1          362,446          2
    Illinois...........................        5        9,709,871         18
    Kentucky...........................        1          267,827          1
    Louisiana..........................        1        1,513,959          3
    Maine..............................        1        2,849,768          4
    Maryland...........................        8       25,073,805         46
    Massachusetts......................       12       42,477,632         57
    Michigan...........................        2          748,793          4
    Minnesota..........................        2        3,429,910          5
    Mississippi........................        1          562,000          6
    Missouri...........................        2          912,329          4
    Nevada.............................        1          111,316          1
    New Jersey.........................        1          526,193          1
    New Mexico.........................       11       20,647,888         28
    New York...........................        5        6,340,768         14
    North Carolina.....................        1          950,519          2
    North Dakota.......................        1       11,786,381         20
    Ohio...............................        2        1,910,340          3
    Pennsylvania.......................       11       43,241,154         59
    South Carolina.....................        9        7,000,362         18
    Tennessee..........................        3        4,795,275          7
    Texas..............................        6        9,248,036         16
    Vermont............................        2          821,089          2
    Virginia...........................       13       13,648,441         23
    Washington.........................        2        2,828,050          9
    West Virginia......................        4       21,338,593         69
                                        ------------------------------------
          Total........................      137      260,093,828        498
                                        ====================================
      UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS (1997-2001)

    Florida............................        3       39,891,248        133
    Louisiana..........................        2        8,770,118         37
    Michigan...........................        1        2,600,000          7
    Mississippi........................        1       21,182,000         60
    New Jersey.........................        1          500,000          6
    New Mexico.........................        1        2,600,000          7
    Tennessee..........................        1        2,600,000          7
    Texas..............................        1        2,600,000          7
    West Virginia......................        1        4,000,000         17
                                        ------------------------------------
          Total........................       12       84,743,316       281
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Full time Equivalents.

        Question. Please also provide me with a listing of the West
    Virginia projects that are funded under this program.
        Answer. The National Energy Technology Laboratory administers most
    of the industry and university projects for the Environmental
    Management program. The list of projects within West Virginia follows,
    including the International Union of Operating Engineers where human
    factors assessment and protocol development are conducted to enhance
    the desirable human values, including improved safety, reduced fatigue
    and stress, and increased comfort.

                      WEST VIRGINIA PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year
                     Project                 -------------------------------
                                                 1992-2000         2001
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Industry Programs:
        Miscellaneous Technical Support           $6,619,732      $1,400,000
         Contracts..........................
        Remote Mining for In-Situ Waste              316,146  ..............
         Containment........................
        West Virginia University............      12,092,365  ..............
    International Union of Operating                 910,350  ..............
     Engineers \1\..........................
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................      19,938,593       1,400,000
                                             ===============================
    University Programs: Development of a          2,000,000       2,000,000
     National Electronics Recycling Center..
                                             ===============================
    Other Funding Managed at NETL:                11,552,828       2,946,000
     International Union of Operating
     Engineers \1\..........................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Originally this activity was funded and managed by Industry
      Programs. Funding and management was subsequently moved to the
      Technology Acceptance budget, but the project is still administered by
      the National Environmental Technology Laboratory.

                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings

                       savannah river ecology laboratory
        Question. Could you please explain your plans for funding the SREL
    for fiscal year 2002 and the future. Can you please assure the
    Subcommittee that you will find the necessary funds in the EM-50
    account to fully realize the plans set forth in the new five-year
    cooperative agreement the SREL is now discussing with the SRS managers.
        Answer. The Secretary has challenged every program in the
    Department to become more efficient, and the Environmental Management
    budget request reflects this challenge. The Department has also
    initiated a management assessment to evaluate our current clean-up
    strategies and to identify ways to become more efficient.
        The Department's highest priorities for the Environmental
    Management program are ensuring safety, addressing high risk waste and
    materials, and supporting the closure of major sites. Accordingly, in
    developing our request for fiscal year 2002, we have placed priority on
    a number of key, high-risk projects at the Savannah River Site and have
    had to balance the needs of other activities funded by the EM program
    in light of these priorities.
        The Department values the independent environmental research
    provided by the University of Georgia. Our request continues support
    for the basic research programs at the Savannah River Ecology
    Laboratory, but the education and public outreach programs may need to
    be cut back, depending on the outcome of the management assessment and
    the response of the Savannah River Site to the Secretary's management
    challenge.
        Question. As the mission of the SRS site grows, what increased
    activities for the SREL does the Department contemplate to help ensure
    that the SRS will continue to have an independent, scientifically
    credible environmental research and assessment capability at the SRS?
        Answer. The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory currently conducts
    ecological research and site-wide monitoring activities at the Savannah
    River Site covering a number of elements and isotopes including
    plutonium. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the expanded plutonium
    disposition mission at the Savannah River Site will require any change
    in the scope of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory side-wide
    activities.
                        environmental management program
        Question. Secretary Abraham testified to the House Appropriations
    on Energy and Water that the Department of Energy Budget for 2002 was
    sufficient. Is this accurate? How can such a representation be made
    when the President's fiscal year 2002 budget will not result in
    compliance with RCRA and CERCLA requirements at SRS?
        Answer. Maintaining compliance at the Savannah River Site is a
    priority. However, we face significant challenges in meeting lower-risk
    environmental restoration commitments in fiscal year 2002.
        Concerned about the cost and schedule estimates for completing the
    cleanup, Secretary Abraham has directed a top-to-bottom assessment to
    focus on ways to more efficiently and cost effectively complete
    cleanup. The Secretary has also asked the Governor in each state in
    which a major DOE site is located to work with us in this assessment.
    Our goal is for the cleanup program to proceed as fast as possible with
    the minimum necessary commitment of federal resources. Given the
    pressing needs of the nation in many other areas that affect citizens'
    well being, health, and safety, it is DOE's responsibility to ensure
    that funds are spent wisely and results are maximized. Until this
    assessment is complete, it is unknown whether any work will need to be
    deferred.
                              meeting commitments
        Question. With the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget reductions at
    SRS, will the DOE be able to meet the following commitments?
        Perform all obligations required by the Federal Facilities
    Compliance Agreement?
        Maintain High Level Waste Vitrification operations and investments
    needed for continuity of operations to meet the SRS Site Treatment
    Plan?
        Shipments of Transuranic Waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant?
        Stabilization of nuclear materials commitments to the Defense
    Nuclear Facility Safety Board?
        Answer. The Environmental Management budget continues to place the
    highest priority on protecting the health and safety of workers and the
    public at all DOE sites, and on mitigating high risks. We will ensure
    that nuclear materials are properly managed and safeguarded. Our budget
    places priority on a number of key projects that reduce higher
    potential risks, provide significant mortgage reduction, or are key to
    completing activities at other sites. For the Savannah River Site,
    these projects include producing at least 150 canisters of vitrified
    high level waste, shipping up to 600 cubic meters of transuranic waste
    to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, completing construction of the melt
    and dilute technology demonstration facility, beginning construction of
    the Salt Processing pilot plant and initiating conceptual design of the
    full scale plant, and completing all currently planned F-Canyon
    dissolution campaigns.
        Maintaining compliance with the Federal Facilities Agreement at the
    Savannah River Site is a priority. However, we face significant
    challenges in meeting some of our lower-risk environmental restoration
    compliance commitments in fiscal year 2002. The Secretary has directed
    a top-to-bottom reassessment of the Environmental Management program to
    examine opportunities for program efficiencies and to review existing
    cleanup strategies. Until this review is completed, it is unknown
    whether any work will need to be deferred.
                        environmental management program
        Question. If Congress restores funding to the DOE EM budget for
    fiscal year 2002, will you, in turn, restore nearly $160 million to the
    SRS EM budget to assure regulatory compliance?
        Answer. Maintaining compliance is a priority for the Environmental
    Management Program. However, until Congress passes a final
    appropriations bill and the Department has had an opportunity to
    evaluate the direction provided by Congress and to consider all program
    priorities, it would be premature to say how much funding would be
    provided to any individual site.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray

                       office of river protection funding
        Question. I am deeply troubled by proposed cuts in the Waste
    Treatment Plant, which will vitrify the high-level radioactive waste
    currently stored at old and decaying tanks at Hanford. DOE officials
    have acknowledged that the new contract negotiated for this project was
    based on a fiscal year 2002 budget of $690 million, but the request is
    only for $500 million. I'm advised that with a $500 million level for
    fiscal year 2002, the funding for this project would need to spike up
    to $800 million in fiscal year 2003.
        Wouldn't it make more sense to levelize the funding for this
    project at $690 million, as first proposed and actually written into
    the contract, instead of counting on a funding spike next year?
    Wouldn't a measured, level funding base be more consistent with the
    objectives of your ``top-to-bottom'' review of the cleanup program and
    use of commercial type contracts to make it more efficient?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes $500 million for the
    Waste Treatment Plant, an increase of $12.4 million above the fiscal
    year 2001 enacted level. We believe the fiscal year 2002 budget request
    will allow the performance of the fiscal year 2002 scope of work agreed
    to by the Department and Bechtel Washington, the contractor. We
    recognize that increased funding may be needed in subsequent years. We
    are working with Bechtel to satisfy the priorities within the terms and
    conditions of the contract in order to meet the goal of beginning
    radioactive waste treatment by fiscal year 2007.
         office of river protection--renegotiation of bechtel contract
        Question. I am concerned that the lower funding level of $500
    million will trigger a renegotiation of the Bechtel-Washington contract
    which is based on the $690 million amount. This is an incentive-based
    contract that should result in this facility being built for a lower
    target price than was first expected. Doesn't the Administration run
    the risk that renegotiating this contract will result in a higher cost
    to the taxpayer?
        Answer. The Department of Energy is currently working to meet the
    commitment of processing wastes through the treatment plant by fiscal
    year 2007. The Bechtel Washington contract was developed to help us
    achieve these milestones and to get the best value for the government.
    The Department of Energy has requested budget authority to cover all
    the work that we expect Bechtel will accomplish through fiscal year
    2002. Bechtel is working with DOE to establish a baseline of work that
    will fit within the limits of the contract and satisfy Departmental
    priorities. Renegotiation of the Bechtel contract is not likely to be
    necessary.
             office of river protection--future funding for the wtp
        Question. As you know, my state has negotiated a legally-binding
    agreement with the Department to get the Hanford tank waste cleaned up.
    Yet, the funding cut for the Waste Treatment Plant raises real concerns
    with my state regulators as to whether you can meet the milestones
    established in this Tri-Party Agreement. For example, what assurances
    can you give me that the facility can commence hot start-up in 2007 as
    required by this agreement?
        Answer. DOE is committed to moving ahead with the design and
    construction of the Hanford vitrification plant and beginning
    radioactive waste treatment by fiscal year 2007. At the requested
    funding level of $500 million in fiscal year 2002 and with adequate
    funding in fiscal year 2003 and beyond, meeting the 2007 milestone for
    beginning hot-waste processing is expected to be achievable.
                   hanford tri-party agreement renegotiations
        Question. My state has been very patient with the Department on
    Tri-Party Agreement compliance issues. We have re-negotiated this
    agreement several times, pushing back deadlines to accommodate DOE's
    slips in the schedule with the promise that additional delays will not
    happen and yet here we are again with a likely delay because of
    inadequate funding. Given the Department's disappointing record in
    complying with the Tri-Party Agreement, why shouldn't my state take
    legal action?
        Answer. The State and the Department have worked together to
    resolve issues that arise under the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA).
    Additionally, we believe that the Department's performance under the
    TPA has been good over the years and we expect to continue that
    performance, even with the challenges we face at Hanford and elsewhere
    in the DOE complex. The Tri-Party Agreement contains 1,261 milestones,
    of which 924 are enforceable. To date, approximately 970 milestones,
    including slightly more than 700 enforceable ones, have come due. All
    but eight of the enforceable milestones have been met. We have
    successfully started shipping transuranic wastes from the Hanford Site
    to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, we are making
    improved progress in removing spent nuclear fuel out of the aging K-
    Basins and transporting it away from the Columbia River, and we are
    stabilizing and repackaging plutonium residues at the Plutonium
    Finishing Plant and moving it to compliant storage. Soil cleanup along
    the river shore has moved forward at a steady and safe rate, and we
    have successfully removed most high-level waste tanks from Congress'
    ``watch list.'' We have successfully removed the liquid waste from 128
    of 149 single-shell tanks, including 65 of 67 suspected leaking tanks.
        The future success of the Tri-Party Agreement will depend on the
    ability of all parties to work collectively to resolve issues. We
    expect to continue to work together to evaluate all aspects of the
    fiscal year 2002 budget, including identifying ways to improve
    efficiency and streamline processes. We expect the Department's ``top-
    to-bottom'' review of its Environmental Management program to assist us
    in more effectively meeting our cleanup obligations.
          office of river protection--building new double-shell tanks
        Question. Given the budget cuts and the uncertainty on the schedule
    for the Waste Treatment Plant, it appears under the terms of the Tri-
    Party Agreement that DOE must build new double-shell tanks for the
    storage of Hanford high-level waste. Do you agree that building still
    more tanks is very wasteful when the real solution to vitrify the waste
    only needs to be funded adequately?
        Answer. The Department currently is not considering building new
    double-shell tanks to replace the single-shell tanks. The Department
    agrees that vitrifying waste is the best solution to the Hanford waste
    problem and is proceeding with that approach as a budget priority. The
    State of Washington, in its regulatory role, continues to require the
    Department to study the possible installation of additional double-
    shell tanks as a contingency against future single-shell tank failures
    and/or to permit the movement of waste out of the single-shell tanks
    prior to the processing of these wastes in the vitrification plant.
                     hanford river corridor cleanup project
        Question. Cleanup of the corridor along the Columbia River is
    another important priority for Hanford. This remediation effort is
    proceeding extremely well. Please explain the Administration's plans to
    keep the momentum going on the Hanford river corridor cleanup project--
    especially when the program has not been funded at levels supported by
    the local site manager and necessary to meet milestones?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2002 Presidential budget request places
    high priority on funding high-level waste and high-risk nuclear
    material activities. It defers some lower-risk environmental
    restoration activities, including remediation work along the Columbia
    River. Other remediation work along the Columbia River will continue,
    including completing nine release site remediations and decommissioning
    one facility, as well as disposing of up to 215,000 cubic meters of
    contaminated soil and debris at the on-site Environmental Restoration
    Disposal Facility. The River Corridor 2012 plan was envisioned to
    combine all work done along the Columbia River (principally in the 100-
    and 300-areas) under one contract and achieve River Corridor cleanup
    and closure of most of the area by 2012. The Department is currently
    working on developing a contract strategy for achieving cleanup of the
    River Corridor, taking into account input from stakeholders and
    potential bidders, the fiscal year 2002 funding levels, and the top-to-
    bottom review of the Environmental Management Program. This review will
    focus on efficiencies and cleanup strategies that will allow us to
    accomplish additional cleanup work at the site and proceed on the most
    expeditious schedule possible.
                             hanford worker layoffs
        Question. It is my understanding that Richland and Office of River
    Protection may need to begin laying-off workers in mid summer if there
    is no indication funding levels will be increased over the
    Administration's budget. How can the Department meet legal milestones
    if the site has to lay-off over a thousand workers?
        Answer. It is our intent that more work will get done per dollar
    spent than in the past as a result of the Secretary's ``top-to-bottom''
    review to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Department's
    Environmental Management program. The Secretary has also pledged to
    work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the States to
    find ways to improve cleanup progress and improve the compliance
    framework at DOE sites. Until these initiatives are complete, it is
    premature to say whether any workforce reductions will be required, or
    what our compliance challenges might be.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Domenici. We stand recessed at the call of the
    Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, May 15, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                                           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 2002
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]

                                ENERGY PROGRAMS

             Prepared Statement of the Geothermal Resources Council

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Ted Clutter.
    I am Executive Director of the Geothermal Resources Council (GRC), a
    non-profit professional education association located in Davis,
    California. I am here before you, today, to request $34 million for the
    Geothermal R&D Program of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for
    fiscal year 2002.
        Geothermal energy is heat derived from the natural geologic forces
    of the Earth. It is of utmost importance to both the environmental
    health of the nation and our energy security, providing highly
    reliable, domestically produced electricity and geothermal heat to
    homes, communities and industry across the American West. Though
    geothermal energy has been used to varying small degrees in the United
    States for centuries, industrial development of this unique, indigenous
    energy resource began only 40 years ago. During that time--and with DOE
    assistance--the U.S. geothermal industry has installed power plants in
    California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii that now produce approximately
    2,800 megawatts of clean electricity--or enough power to serve 2.8
    million homes.
        Geothermal energy is our most valuable renewable energy option.
    Electricity generated from all non-hydro renewal energy sources
    accounts for approximately 0.8 percent of total U.S. energy needs, with
    geothermal contributing over half (60 percent) of that figure. Not only
    is geothermal the largest contributor of renewable electricity in the
    nation, it is not subject to skyrocketing fuel costs or the whims of
    wind and sunlight. These attributes are especially important today,
    with our continuing concern for the environment, a tripling of natural
    gas prices during the past year, and a crisis of power supply centered
    in California reaching out its tentacles to engulf the entire West.
        Geothermal energy development is part of the answer to solving
    these problems for the future as well. According to a 1999 joint study
    by DOE and the Geothermal Energy Association, U.S. geothermal power
    generation capacity could be realistically quadrupled to 10,000
    megawatts with enhanced technologies. Development of geothermal
    resources for conversion to electricity or useful heat, however,
    requires costly and risky exploration of potential geothermal areas,
    costly drilling of wells, and development of power plants or direct-use
    facilities.
        Because of these high up-front costs and risks, continuing well-
    funded assistance by DOE in partnership with the U.S. geothermal
    industry--through cost-shared initiatives and development of new
    technologies--is of paramount importance to future, economical
    installation of geothermal energy facilities in the West.
                           doe geothermal r&d program
        DOE has promoted geothermal energy development through its R&D
    Program since the early days of the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s. With
    that assistance, the U.S. geothermal industry developed a sixfold
    increase in clean power online, and roughly a threefold increase in
    direct-use facilities. Another key factor in fostering this development
    was favorable energy markets and legislation that rewarded geothermal
    power developers with firm long-term power sales contracts. But all
    that changed in the 1990s when utility deregulation and low natural gas
    prices effectively killed those incentives. The result? Without assured
    contracts available to help geothermal energy investors face
    exploration, drilling and development risk, no new geothermal resources
    have come online in the past decade.
        At the same time, DOE's financial resources for its Geothermal R&D
    Program have dwindled to less than $30 million annually. And even that
    marginal amount is now threatened with proposed cuts to DOE's entire
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. During this time of
    change and economic uncertainty, the GRC understands the need for
    fiscal restraint, but also believes that geothermal energy's potential
    contributions to our environment and national energy security far
    outweigh our request of $34 million for DOE's Geothermal R&D Program in
    fiscal year 2002.
        If DOE is to meet the goals of its Geothermal Strategic Plan to
    provide geothermal electricity and heat to over 10 million homes in the
    coming decade, a number of regulatory, legislative and technological
    barriers to development must be overcome. DOE's role is vital in
    assisting the industry in its efforts to solve technological problems
    and spur geothermal energy production to new highs for the benefit of
    the nation. The following highlights important areas of R&D that the
    GRC believes DOE must pursue through industry partnerships to enhance
    geothermal development in the United States:
    DOE Geothermal Focus on the West
        To meet the present energy crisis in the western states--and
    recognizing our continuing need for environmental improvement--we must
    quickly and significantly increase electricity capacity from all forms
    of renewable energy, especially geothermal. In the past year, the DOE
    Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has provided new and dynamic
    leadership for its Geothermal R&D Program, instituting an initiative
    with the assistance of its National Laboratories that has served as an
    effective catalyst for geothermal development in the western United
    States.
        The program, though marginally funded, has succeeded in drawing 21
    industry R&D proposals intended by DOE to put geothermal ``projects on
    the ground'' as rapidly as possible, and to increase the number of
    states with geothermal electric and heat production from 4 to 8.
    Projects initiated by this program have already fostered a successful
    exploratory drilling effort in Nevada that will likely result in
    construction of a 30-megawatt power plant. We recommend that this
    initiative be further funded to continue the momentum already achieved
    for geothermal development in the West.
    Geothermal Resource Exploration
        To help accomplish DOE goals for geothermal development, a campaign
    of exploration must begin at once across the West. Many obvious
    geothermal areas--hot springs, fumaroles and other surface
    manifestations--have already been explored, and where environmentally
    appropriate, many have been developed for their energy potential.
    However, physical and geologic characteristics of many unexploited
    areas in the western United States strongly suggest that many more
    geothermal systems exist where no signs of them are found on the
    surface--and no exploration has been undertaken or completed.
        A critical key to success is DOE incentives to encourage
    exploration for new geothermal resources throughout the West. This
    effort should include development of new geothermal exploration
    technologies, DOE contingent grants and loans to help offset high risk
    of initial geothermal exploration costs, and additional funding for
    federal and state land agencies to provide geologic databases that will
    effectively assist an industry revival of geothermal exploration
    activity.
        With needed improvements in federal agency land-use policies and
    renewed emphasis on geothermal exploration backed by a solid, well-
    financed Geothermal R&D Program at DOE, the U.S. geothermal industry
    can develop needed increases in geothermal power generation at existing
    sites--and begin to tap the West's vast potential for new geothermal
    sources of clean, renewable and reliable energy supplies.
    Geothermal Drilling
        The cost of drilling geothermal steam wells presents the largest
    risk to potential power plant developers. A geothermal well costs
    between $200 and $300 per foot--40 percent more than drilling an off or
    gas well. That makes the cost of a typical 8,000-foot deep geothermal
    well from $1.6 million to $2.4 million! Success rates for geothermal
    exploration wells are only 20 percent in newly explored, untested areas
    (and rising to only 80 percent for wells in proven geothermal fields).
    Given these figures, it's easy to see the up-front risk involved in
    geothermal development--long before power production can begin.
        Reasons for the high cost of geothermal well completions are many.
    First, high temperatures demand the use of costly unconventional
    drilling tools. Second, the hard and abrasive geologic environment
    typical of geothermal formations significantly slow drill penetration
    rates. Third, low reservoir pressures create ``loss circulation'' zones
    that drain away expensive drilling muds and pose costly problems in
    cementing of well casings. And finally, steam from certain reservoirs
    contains minerals that cause corrosion and scale deposition inside well
    casings that are expensive to deal with.
        Sandia National Laboratories is DOE's lead organization in the
    development of much needed geothermal drilling equipment, materials and
    technologies. With its industry partners, Sandia is developing high-
    temperature instrumentation for use in geothermal wells, and high-
    temperature logging tools for geothermal reservoir monitoring and
    evaluation. Bit design is an ongoing area of research, with development
    and testing that has resulted in a marked increase in both bit life and
    penetration rates. Loss circulation control has been addressed with
    development of new cements, cement placement tools and equipment,
    fracture plugging agents, and lightweight drilling and cement
    additives.
        To reach its targeted goal of reducing geothermal drilling costs by
    50 percent, Sandia periodically surveys the geothermal industry for
    needed areas of research, and works through a Request for Proposal
    process to bring these products and technologies to the industry. This
    ongoing effort by Sandia, DOE and its private-sector partners offers
    unparalleled value in reducing the cost of drilling for geothermal
    steam resources for producing electricity.
        A number of projects in this arena are ongoing--to lose these
    partnerships and this momentum at a critical time for western energy
    supply would deal a terrible blow to U.S. geothermal development. To
    successfully proceed in development of geothermal resources in the
    West, this vital research to lower drilling cost by DOE must continue.
    An increase in DOE's Geothermal R&D Program budget will augment this
    valuable potential contribution to our national energy security.
    Enhanced Geothermal Systems
        Currently, all commercial power production of geothermal energy in
    the United States is derived from relatively shallow (less than 2 miles
    deep) hydrothermal zones. Water flows freely through highly fractured
    rock in these geothermal reservoirs, heated by magmatic intrusions
    lying far below. In many cases however, a high degree of geothermal
    development potential lies just beneath these free-flowing reservoirs
    in geologic formations with fewer fractures (low permeability) and
    limited fluid flows.
        Only about 20 percent of total heat is contained in the relatively
    shallow, commercially available hydrothermal zones of currently
    developed geothermal resources, while the remainder (80 percent)
    resides in underlying, low-permeability zones that have yet remained
    untapped for their energy potential. Currently, our ability to produce
    energy from these resources is limited, dictated by available
    technology and cost.
        In concert with other geothermal development promotion initiatives,
    DOE's Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has undertaken a major
    program to develop technologies for the creation and development of
    ``Enhanced Geothermal Systems,'' or EGS. Assistance by DOE in
    development of such technologies is critical if the U.S. geothermal
    industry is to successfully engineer commercially viable power
    production from deep heat reservoirs that offer only limited
    permeability and/or fluid content.
        Cost-effective EGS technologies to ``mine'' heat from beneath areas
    of hydrothermal circulation will have a profound impact on the
    geothermal industry. The life of currently commercial geothermal
    systems will be greatly expanded, making better use of existing power
    plants. And new EGS technologies will also be applicable to other
    potential geothermal resource production areas, including those
    previously considered as candidates for Hot Dry Rock (HDR) development.
        Development of EGS technology is critical to the long-term
    viability of the U.S. geothermal industry after all of our high-grade
    hydrothermal resources have been developed. With assistance by DOE's
    current and future EGS technology program, the geothermal industry can
    continue its contribution of environmentally benign electricity to the
    U.S. power generation mix well into the future.
    Geothermal Co-Production
        Recent developments with the assistance of DOE incentive funding
    have resulted in construction of the world's first geothermal minerals
    recovery facility, using spent geothermal fluids from power plants on
    the shore of southern California's Salton Sea. Potential exists for
    commercial recovery of manganese at the Salton Sea, and high-grade
    silica and other minerals at other geothermal developments in the West.
    A DOE investment in further development of these ``co-production''
    technologies holds the promise to add another revenue stream to certain
    geothermal operations, making them more competitive with fossil-fuel
    power generation while reducing treatment and disposal costs.
    Geothermal Direct Use
        Direct-use employs low- to intermediate-temperature geothermal
    resources (100 deg. to 3000 deg. F) in systems for industrial
    processes, space heating, and agricultural production (greenhouses and
    aquaculture). Currently, there are over 1,000 geothermal direct-use
    projects in 26 states, and geothermal central heating projects in 18
    communities. Recent surveys have shown that this is only a fraction of
    direct-use potential in the United States, which DOE estimates could
    potentially serve as many as 7 million households by the year 2010.
        Unfortunately, interest in and development of direct-uses of
    geothermal energy is limited, largely because of reliable information
    and financial assistance to ``jump-start'' projects is lacking. This is
    especially true in rural areas where the necessary technical
    infrastructure is not available.
        The DOE Geothermal R&D Program can play a vital role in promoting
    and assisting the development of direct-use projects across the West.
    It is already doing so by providing information and technical
    assistance, but can do more with increased funding to assist in the
    critical areas of direct-use resource identification and drilling
    confirmation. Funding to provide this information and expanded
    technical assistance can do much to help develop this extensive
    geothermal energy resource.
        DOE funding is also needed to develop improvements in direct-use
    equipment, reduce the cost of project capital, and lower project
    operations and maintenance costs. The DOE budget should also provide
    funds for promotion of economic and efficient cascaded use of
    geothermal fluids from power production to direct-use developers. In
    addition, direct-use geothermal funding can help foster public-private
    partnerships to help ``buy down'' the up-front risk and financial
    burdens that often discourage potential geothermal direct-use
    developers during the initial drilling and resource confirmation stages
    of potential projects. Once these concerns are satisfied, direct-use
    geothermal resource development can more easily occur with private
    project financing, while accruing additional benefits of economic
    development and employment in rural areas of the West.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Geothermal Resources
    Council urges your attention to these facts, and hopes you will agree
    that given current need, the modest $34 million in funding that we
    request for the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal R&D Program in
    fiscal year 2002 is money well invested in our environment and our
    national energy security. Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fire
                               Fighters

        Dear Chairman Domenici: On behalf of the 240,000 professional fire
    fighters and emergency medical personnel who are members of the
    International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), I write to
    communicate our strong disagreement with the proposal to decimate the
    Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program line item of the Department of
    Energy's budget.
        For the past two years, the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program
    has been funded at $8.5 million. However, in DOE's fiscal year 2002
    request, the funding for this vital program has been slashed to $1
    million. If this devastating budget cut remains unchanged, the result
    will be the termination of the training program that protects fire
    fighters and those communities that they serve.
        The Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program funds training for fire
    fighters on or near DOE nuclear facilities and contract employees
    working at these facilities. The International Association of Fire
    Fighters (IAFF) utilizes the grant from DOE's training program to teach
    fire fighters how to safely and effectively respond to emergencies,
    whether accidental or intentional, at these facilities.
        Since 1994, an average of 2,200 responders have been injured at
    hazardous materials incidents annually. Emergency personnel responding
    to incidents related to DOE complexes face health and safety challenges
    that potentially involve radioactive and other hazardous materials. The
    IAFF provides a flexible training program that emphasizes occupational
    safety and health which is designed to meet these unique challenges.
        For these reasons, the IAFF urges the Subcommittee to appropriate
    $8.5 million, instead of the $1 million DOE has requested, for the
    Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program.
        Please direct all your questions or comments to Barry Kasinitz,
    IAFF Governmental Affairs Director, at 202-824-1581.
        Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geothermal Energy Association

        The Geothermal Energy Association is a trade association composed
    of 84 U.S. companies and organizations that support the expanded use of
    geothermal energy and are developing geothermal resources worldwide for
    electrical power generation and direct-heat uses. Our members have
    offices or operations in virtually every state, though most of the
    energy production from geothermal resources is located in the Western
    half of the country.
        The Department of Energy's geothermal research program has been
    seriously under funded. For over a decade, we have witnessed the near
    abandonment of this program by the political hierarchy of the
    Department of Energy. Budgets have collapsed from a high of over $100
    million to requests for under $30 million in recent years.
        A recent independent review by the National Research Council,
    Renewable Power Pathways, generally agrees with this conclusion. The
    NRC panel states:

        ``In light of the significant advantages of geothermal energy as a
    resources for power generation, it may be undervalued in DOE's
    renewable energy portfolio. Significant amounts of high-grade resources
    are available, and geothermal power technologies can operate in a
    variety of duty cycles (from base load to peak load conditions) . . .
    In addition, the United States has taken the lead in successful
    commercial demonstrations of geothermal energy for generating
    electricity and heat at several sites and is the current technology
    leader in the world among very active competitors in Europe and
    Japan.'' (Renewable Power Pathways, page 53.)

        The DOE geothermal energy program was separate from the renewable
    energy programs for many years. Ever since the program was incorporated
    into DOE's renewable energy efforts, it has lost out in the internal
    competition for budget priority. (Perhaps as one senior official of the
    previous Administration stated, drilling holes and building power
    plants was just viewed as ``PC.'') As a result, the U.S. Department of
    Energy's efforts to advance the technology to tap the enormous
    geothermal resources base have waned, and as a result we are slowing
    the development of new resources in the U.S. and losing our lead in
    foreign markets. This has serious consequences for our Nation's energy
    supply, and the U.S. geothermal industry's competitiveness in one of
    the world's fastest growing power markets.
                        fiscal year 2002 recommendation
        The Geothermal Energy Association recommends an appropriation for
    the DOE research program of at least $60 million in fiscal year 2002.
    This would provide the funds needed to support the institutional
    capabilities of the program, which involves core competencies at
    Sandia, INEEL, NREL, and other research institutions; and provide funds
    to undertake programmatic research efforts in a few significant areas.
    We estimate the base institutional capabilities of the program to
    require annual funding of roughly $20 million. The additional funds
    should be used in prioritized efforts consistent with the programs
    Strategic Plan, as updated on a regular basis.
        Given the expense involved in many geothermal operations, $60
    million for program efforts is not an extraordinary sum. Much of the
    risk and uncertainty in geothermal development involves finding,
    defining and accessing the subsurface resource. Developing new
    technology to improve our ability to identify the resource without
    drilling will be risky and expensive, and corresponding research to
    reducing drilling costs can involve substantial effort. Today, drilling
    one geothermal well can involve several million dollars, and an
    advanced drilling program would likely involve sustained effort at
    several sites over several years costing tens of millions of dollars.
                  the doe geothermal program's strategic plan
        In June of 1998, the Department of Energy released a new Strategic
    Plan For Geothermal Energy Research and Development. This document was
    the product of a multi-year collaborative effort between DOE, national
    laboratories, university researchers, and the geothermal industry.
    Through a series of new initiatives, implementing the Strategic Plan
    would develop the technology to engineer enhanced production from
    geothermal systems. The technology developed would be applicable to
    hundreds of sites in the Western States, as well as to geothermal
    development around the world.
        According to the Strategic Plan, this advanced research initiative
    can develop the technology to ``greatly accelerate development and use
    of the [geothermal resource], providing a reliable alternative energy
    capable of supplying a significant fraction of the world's energy
    needs.''
        Enhanced geothermal systems technology research would have numerous
    benefits. For example, if funded, by 2010 this effort is expected to
    result in:
      --tripling domestic geothermal electricity production, supplying the
            needs of 18 million people in the U.S.,
      --continued expansion of geothermal technology exports, the leading
            US renewable energy export today, by installing at least 10,000
            MW in developing countries.
        A recent study prepared by the Geothermal Energy Association in
    conjunction with DOE and the University of Utah indicates that research
    into enhanced geothermal systems technology, as proposed in the new DOE
    Strategic Plan, could lead to the development of an additional 12,000
    MW of geothermal power in the Western U.S., and open new export
    opportunities for an additional 65,000 MW of power. Both of these
    figures represent developments beyond what would otherwise occur in a
    favorable market place.
                               budget background
        The geothermal energy budget has received low priority at the
    Department of Energy while the program has been reassessing its long-
    term direction. In recent years, the program has been funded at about
    one-half of what internal multi-year plans indicate should be its base
    funding level.
        The DOE budget has included very limited funds to begin
    implementing the Department's new Strategic Plan For Geothermal Energy
    Research And Development. These funds would have supported cost-shared,
    collaborative research by the Department of Energy, national
    laboratories, university researchers, and the geothermal industry.
        The geothermal energy Strategic Plan calls for a near-term annual
    budget level of $50-$60 million. This budget level would be consistent
    with recommendations made by the President's Committee of Advisors on
    Science and Technology (PCAST) in its 1997 report. Critical technical
    needs include the development of advanced drilling, exploration and
    reservoir sensing, energy conversion and metals recovery, and enhanced
    reclaimed water injection. (By comparison, Japan is spending $150
    million on geothermal energy research and development)
                          status of geothermal energy
        Geothermal energy supplies about 6 percent of the electricity in
    California, 10 percent of the power in Northern Nevada, about 25
    percent of the electricity for the Island of Hawaii (the Big Island),
    and significant power in Utah. These states together with Arizona,
    Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington could produce nearly
    20,000 megawatts with enhanced technology. With advanced technology,
    Potential electric power resources could possible be identified and
    developed in nearly every state West of the Mississippi.
        Direct uses of geothermal heat provide energy for businesses
    schools and homes in over twenty-six States. States with potential for
    expanding their direct use of geothermal heat include: Alabama,
    Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia,
    Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
    New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
    Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
        Exports of U.S. geothermal technology involve businesses throughout
    the country. Currently, the U.S. geothermal industry enjoys a lead in
    the international market with its chief competition from Italy, Japan
    and New Zealand. At stake is 80,000 MW of potential new power
    development contracts in developing countries alone, a market that
    could exceed $25 billion over the next ten to fifteen years.
                              near term potential
        Geothermal energy has significant potential to contribute to
    alleviating the energy supply crisis in the West, and the Department of
    Energy's programs could assist with realizing this potential. With
    proper support, hundreds of Megawatts of geothermal electricity could
    be brought on line fairly quickly, and thousands of megawatts could be
    added in a matter of a few years.
        We estimate that electricity production from many existing power
    plants could be improved through better technology and operational
    changes. Existing plants could provide perhaps 20-30 percent more
    power--adding 500-600 MW--if there was a significant short-term
    investment in these improvements. Also, efforts to supply treated
    wastewater to The Geysers need to be continued on a priority basis to
    achieve projected increases in generating capacity.
        In fairly short order, new geothermal capacity could be on-line in
    the West. A thousand megawatts or more of additional capacity lies in
    or immediately near existing facilities. Because there is some
    knowledge of the subsurface resource, and some infrastructure already
    in-place, these sites could be developed as fast as markets and
    permitting allow.
        Further we estimate that between 5,000 and 20,000 of additional
    electric power resources are developable in the West using technology
    that we anticipate would be available if a continued research and
    development effort it supported. Based upon our review of experts in
    the field, this level of power development may be possible over the
    next decade with appropriate federal and state support.
        Of course, this is only electric power resource development. Today,
    there is also a significant direct use industry throughout the West
    that uses geothermal heat in schools, homes, farms, and industrial
    processes. Dr. John Lund of the Oregon Institute of Technology has
    estimated than an equal amount of energy could be harnessed through
    direct use applications in buildings, commercial operations and
    industrial processes. Of course, Dr. Lund also assumes that both
    federal and state governments continue to support expanded use of
    geothermal resources.
        Combined, geothermal power and direct-use energy has enormous
    potential for the Western United States. Together, these estimates
    represent energy equivalent to roughly 20 percent of total current U.S.
    energy needs. And, with continued advances in technology, the ultimate
    potential for geothermal energy will continue to expand far beyond this
    range.
                                   conclusion
        The U.S. geothermal industry strongly supports the research and
    technology development programs in geothermal energy at the Department
    of Energy. Our industry's growth is not limited by geothermal resource
    availability. Rather it is limited by inadequate technology. Despite is
    significant contribution in some states, geothermal technology is not
    mature, but is still in early stages of development. Only the very
    highest-grade geothermal resources can be economically used today, and
    then only at significant risk and cost to a developer. Research is
    urgently needed to expand the range of the resource that can be
    utilized, and to lower both the cost and risk of using geothermal
    energy to produce power and direct-use energy.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statements of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.

                             geothrmal r&d programs
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob
    Lawrence, and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
    consulting firm headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. I am here before
    you, today, to request that the Geothermal R&D Program at the
    Department of Energy be funded at a level of $37 Million for fiscal
    year 2002, since this is the level that will allow ongoing programs to
    continue at their planned rate. My firm has been involved with
    Geothermal technology since 1990, working with both the private sector
    and national laboratories, and we are very impressed with both the
    progress and potential of this technology.
        This Subcommittee, in particular, deserves a great deal of credit
    for your support of the Geothermal Program over the past 25 years. It
    has been a great investment of taxpayer dollars. Cost-shared Department
    of Energy investments in geothermal energy R&D, starting in the 1970s,
    have made possible the establishment of a geothermal industry in the
    United States. In 1975, that industry did not exist. Today, the
    geothermal industry generates over 16 Billion kilowatt-hours per year
    in the U.S., alone, with a value over $1 Billion in annual revenues.
    The industry, today:
      --returns over $41 million annually to the Treasury in royalty and
            production payments for geothermal development on Federal
            lands, an amount significantly exceeding our funding request.
            This amount is in addition to the amount of taxes paid to
            Federal, State, and Local governments.
      --supplies the total electric-power needs of about four million
            people in the U.S., including over 7 percent of the electricity
            in California, about 10 percent of the power in Northern
            Nevada, and about 25 percent of the electricity for the Island
            of Hawaii (the Big Island). Significant power is also provided
            to Southwestern Utah.
      --employs some 30,000 U.S. workers;
      --displaces the emissions of 16 million tons of carbon dioxide, 20
            thousand tons of sulfur dioxide, 41 thousand tons of nitrogen
            oxides, and 1300 tons of particulate matter every year,
            compared with production of the same amount of electricity from
            a State-of-the-Art coal-fired plant;
      --has installed geothermal projects worth $3.0 billion overseas,
            mostly in the Philippines and Indonesia;
        It is very important to note that none of this would have been
    possible without the dedicated and tenacious efforts of the Department
    of Energy's Geothermal R&D programs and the patient and continuing
    support of this Subcommittee. Geothermal developers are, almost
    entirely, financial people with little, internal, technology
    capability. The industry depends upon the wealth of geothermal
    technology and knowledge that has been developed at the national
    laboratories and at university institutes. Cost shared, government-
    industry programs provide the necessary technical know-how to address
    each new geothermal challenge, and we do this better than teams in any
    other country.
        The American geothermal industry is centered in the Western States,
    right in the region which is most threatened by an electric generation
    and transmission shortfall. The industry, working with government
    technologists, has a great deal of near term generation potential. The
    geothermal industry, with appropriate government R&D support, can
    provide an additional 600 Megawatts of power in about 18 months. This
    power will come from:
      --Use of tertiary treated wastewater injection: 200 MW: Pioneering
            efforts being accomplished in Lake County and with the city of
            Santa Rosa, California, are taking thoroughly treated
            wastewater and are injecting this water about 1000 meters down
            into the earth. This depth is well below the water table, but
            in the regions where very hot formations of volcanic rock occur
            and water is lacking. The wastewater turns to steam and makes
            its way back to the geothermal wells which are used for power
            generation. An additional 200MW, using this technique, could be
            obtained over the next 18 months to two years.
      --Implementation of new technologies into old plants, well field
            upgrades, and turbine replacements: 400 MW: Many of the
            geothermal generation units presently operating were put into
            place in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Available
            technology, today, can upgrade the efficiency and capacity of
            these units so that, over the next 18 months to two years, an
            additional 400MW of capacity could be obtained.
        In addition, direct use increases, through the GeoPowering the West
    initiative, can provide an additional 100MW of use for heating,
    cooling, industrial drying, agricultural applications, and recreational
    purposes in the near term.
        This is an additional 700MW of clean, renewable, geothermal energy
    available within two years with appropriate government funding and
    support, right in the heart of the western states that presently have
    the most critical power problems.
        Longer term potential.--The long term potential of Geothermal
    energy in the United States is estimated to be 25,000 MW of electrical
    generation and an additional 25,000 MW of direct use. To date, the
    geothermal industry has made use of only the highest grade geothermal
    resources in the U.S. The key to realizing the enormous potential of
    geothermal energy is improved technology to tap resources that can not,
    at present, be economically developed. Substantial investments in R&D
    by the geothermal industry, acting alone, are unlikely because the
    developers are uniformly financial entities, with small engineering
    components, which rely on the technology centered at national
    laboratories and university institutes for project development and
    engineering. The government investment is essential, with a history of
    providing an outstanding return to the taxpayer.
        Technology Needs.--Applied R&D is essential to reduce the technical
    and financial risks of new technology to a level that is acceptable to
    the private sector and its financial backers. The U.S. geothermal
    industry has conducted a series of workshops to determine the
    industry's needs for new technology and has recommended cost-shared R&D
    programs to DOE based on the highest-priority needs.
        The Geothermal Industry supports the Strategic Plan of the DOE
    Office of Geothermal Technology. The plan calls for increased spending,
    quickly reaching $50--$60 million per year, a geothermal budget level
    consistent with that recommended by the President's Committee of
    Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in their 1997 report.
    Technical needs include:
      --Drilling.--Geothermal drilling differs dramatically from oil and
            gas drilling since the necessary production holes are three
            times as wide as oil and gas and they must be drilled through
            hard, volcanic rock rather than sedimentary soils. Also,
            because of the high temperatures and corrosive nature of
            geothermal fluids, geothermal drilling is much more difficult
            and expensive than conventional oil and gas drilling. Each well
            costs $1 million to $3 million, and an average geothermal field
            consists of 10 to 100 or more wells. The drilling technology
            program continues to show cost-saving advancements.
      --Exploration and Reservoir Technology.--The major challenge facing
            the industry in exploration and development of geothermal
            resources is how to remotely detect producing zones deep in the
            subsurface so that drill holes can be sited and steered to
            intersect them. No two geothermal reservoirs are alike. Present
            exploration techniques are not specific enough, and result in
            too many dry wells, driving up development costs. The industry
            needs better geological, geochemical, and geophysical
            techniques, as well as improved computer methods for modeling
            heat-extraction strategies from geothermal reservoirs.
      --Energy Conversion.--The efficiency in converting geothermal steam
            into electricity in the power plant directly affects the cost
            of power generation. During the past decade, the efficiency of
            dry- and flash-steam geothermal power plants was improved by 25
            percent. It is believed that geothermal power-plant efficiency
            can be improved by an additional 10-20 percent over the next
            decade with a modest investment in R&D.
      --Reclaimed Water Use for Geothermal Enhancement.--Many potential
            geothermal resources are not utilized due to insufficient water
            in the hot zones. Reclaimed water, which is an expensive
            problem for many communities, could be used productively, in
            many cases, to enhance the geothermal resources, making them
            more economically viable for local use. In the US, 271 western
            communities have a potentially useable geothermal resource
            within 5 miles. The technology which will evolve from this
            effort could be broadly applicable to these communities and
            their combined energy and wastewater problems.
        GeoPowering the West.--This initiative, now in its second year,
    seeks to develop and implement those technologies needed to utilize
    geothermal resources in the 271 presently identified ``co-located''
    communities in 17 Western States. These 17 Western States are exactly
    the area presently threatened by electric generation and transmission
    shortfalls. Studies now underway may increase the number of communities
    to over 350. The program is creating partnerships with the subject
    communities to utilize hot geothermal waters for direct use
    applications such as space conditioning, industrial drying,
    agricultural applications, and recreational purposes. Additionally, the
    program will provide technology needed to explore these resources for
    generation potential. First contracts, being issued under a competitive
    solicitation, are studying the feasibility of increased use of a number
    of these sites. Follow-on funding, for cost-shared development of these
    sites, is planned and requires the level of funding requested in this
    testimony, or $37 Million for fiscal year 2002.
        Mr. Chairman, the Geothermal program continues to be a uniquely
    successful effort integrating the traditionally, high-technology roles
    of national laboratories and university institutes with the financing
    and development capabilities of American industry. This program has
    worked the way it should and remains an investment of which the
    American people can be proud. It is reasonable, proper, and rewarding
    to fully fund this effort.
        Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
                                     ______

                           superconductivity program
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob
    Lawrence, and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
    consulting firm headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. Among other
    assignments, our firm carries out market studies addressing
    superconductivity technology and potential products for both the
    private sector and the US Government. Our recent report entitled:
    ``High Temperature Superconductivity: The Products and Their
    Benefits,'' is based on 54 references and a wide ranging set of utility
    surveys. It is a heavily referenced document on the subject of
    Superconductivity. To summarize this 60 page document, it is indicated
    that Superconductivity technology has the potential to produce accrued
    public benefits of $1.086 Billion by 2010, $11.8 Billion by 2015, and
    $61.2 Billion by 2020 (page 40). In addition, the potential of this
    technology to reduce atmospheric pollution reaches annual savings of
    41.96 million metric tons of carbon equivalent, 0.487 million short
    tons of sulfur oxides, and 0.241 million short tons of nitrogen oxides
    by 2020. This program is a classic example of the kind of long term,
    high risk, high payoff technology that the government traditionally
    funds.
        I am here before you, today, to request that the Superconductivity
    program be funded, for fiscal year 2002 at $44M, a modest increase over
    the fiscal year 2001 amount and an amount well justified by the
    progress and promise of this program.
                                   background
        Superconductivity is the property of a material to conduct
    unusually large quantities of electrical current with virtually no
    resistance. Since the middle of the century, researchers have known
    that certain ceramic materials show superconductive properties when
    they approach a temperature near absolute zero. Practical applications
    of these materials are difficult, however, since they are
    characteristically very costly to make, very brittle in nature, and
    prohibitively expensive to cool to the required temperature of liquid
    hydrogen or liquid helium.
        In 1986, a new class of ceramic materials was discovered which
    showed superconductive properties at temperatures up to 34K. Since that
    time, improvements have produced superconducting materials at the
    temperature of liquid nitrogen, or 72K. These ``high temperature''
    superconductive materials have generated great excitement since the
    projected costs of applications have dropped by orders of magnitude,
    and first viable products appear to be within reach.
                                  the program
        Today, a number of HTS-based pieces of electrical equipment are at
    the prototype stage with capable manufacturing entities intimately
    involved. Early candidates for commercial products include
    Transformers, Electric Motors, Generators, Fault Current Limiters, and
    underground Power Cables. Later in the commercialization process,
    replacements for overhead transmission lines are also foreseen;
    however, this will not be an early application. To enhance and
    accelerate the prospects for early commercialization of HTS products,
    the Department of Energy has developed a vertically integrated program
    in which product oriented teams are focused on the development and
    implementation of HTS equipment. Under the title of the
    Superconductivity Partnership Initiative (SPI), these vertically
    integrated teams typically each consist of an electric utility, a
    system manufacturer, an HTS wire supplier, and one or more national
    laboratories. Supporting these vertical teams is a Second Generation
    Wire Initiative, in which development teams are exploiting research
    breakthroughs at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National labs that promise
    unprecedented current-carrying capabilities in high-temperature
    superconducting wires. Since superconducting wire is the main component
    of all superconducting cables, products and systems, the price drop
    projected by the Second Generation technology is highly significant and
    important to successful commercialization.
        Transformer development is being carried out by the team of
    Waukesha Electric Systems, Intermagnetics General Corporation,
    Rochester Gas and Electric, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This team has conducted a series of
    reference designs concentrating mostly on a 30-MVA, 138-kV/13.8kV
    transformer which is representative of a class expected to capture
    about half of all U.S. power transformer sales in the next two decades.
    According to Mehta et al, Japan and Europe are somewhat ahead of the
    United States in transformer development.
        The United States HTS electric motor team is headed by Reliance
    Electric with American Superconductor Corp as the HTS coil supplier and
    manufacturer. Also on this team are Centerior Energy (a utility
    company) and Sandia National Laboratory. ``In February 1996, Reliance
    Electric successfully tested a four-pole, 1800 rpm synchronous motor
    using HTS windings operating at 27 deg.K at a continuous 150kW output.
    The coils . . . achieved currents of 100A. . . , 25 percent over the
    initial goal of 80 A.'' This program has now been extended to ``develop
    a pre-commercial prototype of a 3.7MW HTS motor''. The demonstration of
    this motor will be an important milestone in the commercialization
    process, since it will provide a measure of efficiency, reliability,
    and projected costs and benefits.
        Generator efforts in the United States, again, appear to be behind
    those in Japan. In Japan, funds expended on HTS design, development,
    and demonstration were $75M covering 1995 and 1996. This heavily funded
    effort involves 16 member organizations with representation from the
    electric utilities, manufacturers of electric power equipment, research
    organizations, manufacturers of HTS wire and tape, refrigeration and
    cryogenic suppliers, and independent research institutes.
        Fault Current Limiters represent a new class of electric utility
    equipment with many attractive properties. This type of equipment may,
    in fact, be a market leader, since its properties appear to provide
    substantial potential cost savings to electric utilities as well as
    containing power outages.
        Exciting developments have taken place in the field of underground
    HTS cables for transmission and distribution. In the United States, two
    teams are pursuing two different technical concepts, but each team is
    led by a powerhouse electrical cable manufacturer; Pirelli North
    America, and Southwire Co.
                                  the benefits
        Dramatic cost and energy savings are projected when the candidate
    systems and products from superconducting technology are fully
    implemented, with incremental benefits accruing from the time of
    technology readiness and commercial introduction to the time of full
    market penetration. Generally speaking, one-half the present losses in
    electric generation, transmission, distribution, transforming, and
    using equipment can be saved by the implementation of superconducting
    technology. Since, in round numbers, 10 percent of the electricity
    generated today is lost between generation and use, and another 2
    percent is lost in use, Superconductivity has the potential of saving
    in excess of 6 percent of the total amount of electricity generated.
    Today, that would equate to approximately 225 billion kilowatt hours
    valued at $13.5 Billion. This would be a dramatic savings to Americans,
    especially compared to the small DOE program investment I am
    requesting.
        Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Steamship Association of Louisiana

        Mr. Chairman: I am President of the Steamship Association of
    Louisiana (SALA). Our Association represents ship owners, operators,
    and agents 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
    2000 show a tremendous improvement in channel stability. 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 $22.65 per ton. Using this figure, each foot
    of draft represents an additional $67,950 in vessel revenue, or
    $339,750 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
    becomes. 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 the Ports of
    South Louisiana and Baton Rouge, which are home 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 dustpan
    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 Longshoremen's Association's contract
    ($25 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 2002. 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.
        The Corps is currently conducting a study that will determine the
    feasability of maintaining the MR-GO at a depth of 36 feet. This study
    has been requested due to the increase in costs of maintaining the
    channel and growing environmental concerns. While we urge that the
    Corps be funded in fiscal year 2002 to complete this study, this
    important and viable channel must not be closed to deep-draft traffic
    until construction of the new deep draft IHNC lock is complete. A deep-
    draft lock should accommodate the needs of all business, except the
    Port's container facilities, that require deep-water access. In
    addition to the lock, 100 percent of the container traffic currently
    being handled by the Port of New Orleans must be re-located to the
    Mississippi River. Container vessels are extremely price and time
    conscious and will not utilize a lock. If the channel is closed prior
    to the container traffic being moved, the port will lose traffic that
    will be nearly impossible to recover.
        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. 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 2002 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 Port handled
    34.3 million tons of import cargo and 15.8 million tons of export
    cargo. Also in 1999, a total of 1,056 deep-draft vessels and 7,305
    barges utilized the Calcasieu River. 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 2002.
        Thank you for allowing the Association to submit testimony on the
    Corps' funding needs.
                                     ______

          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 40 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 2002 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
    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.
        APPA believes that investing in energy efficiency and renewable
    programs is critical and urge this Subcommittee to support adequate
    funding 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 2002. 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 support of the Renewable Energy
    Production Incentive Program (REPI) at $25 million in fiscal year 2002.
    At this level of funding, 62 projects would be funded providing 685
    million kWh of electricity from renewable energy resources.
        Established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Section 1212 was
    intended to provide some level of benefit with EPAct programs for tax
    paying entities (sections 1914 & 1916, providing production and
    incentive tax credits for renewable energy projects). The law directed
    the Department of Energy to create a program providing one and half
    cents per kWh of electricity produced 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.
        As the only significant incentive available to locally owned, not-
    for-profit electric utilities to make new investments in renewable
    energy projects, REPI represents public power's only opportunity to
    produce environmentally-friendly electricity to meet the nation's
    environmental and energy goals.
        A fully funded and reformed REPI program will help public power
    improve it's contribution to important renewable energy supply goals.
    Under a fully funded REPI program, 55.8 million metric tons of carbon
    equivalent (mmtce) could be reduced by developing existing landfills
    into gas-to-energy projects. A fully funded REPI would provide the
    needed incentive to spur development of other renewable energy
    projects.
        Even more critical, given today's situation, the nation faces an
    unprecedented energy shortage, requiring the need to bring additional
    sources of energy capacity online. Rising prices in gas and other fuels
    have resulted in higher consumer power rates and power shortages. The
    time is ripe to accelerate the development and use of sustainable
    energy resources which currently represent 2 percent of the nation's
    energy generation (2.8 percent of capacity).
        This subcommittee's support of full funding for REPI at $25 million
    will go a long way in fueling future renewable investments.
                      storage for high-level nuclear waste
        The Federal government's responsibility for deep geologic disposal
    of used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of defense-related activities
    is long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waster
    Policy Act established Federal policy for developing a repository for
    long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel. In 1987, after
    environmental assessments were conducted of five sites, Congress
    focused the repository study on a single site at Yucca Mountain,
    Nevada. DOE is committed to providing a decision on a formal Yucca
    Mountain site recommendation to the president in 2001. Page 3 of 5 APPA
        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
    programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of about $10 billion,
    all of which must be made available for repository construction and
    operation.
        APPA strongly supports the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002
    funding request for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program.
    At this critical juncture, an increase in DOE's fiscal year 2001
    appropriation of $409 million is warranted to continue scientific study
    at Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year will pay more than
    $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
                      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 2002
        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 adequate funding 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.
                  federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
        APPA urges support of at least $175 million in fiscal year 2002 for
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Adequate funding for
    the agency is particularly necessary at this time in Page 4 of 5 APPA
    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 advocates continued support for and funding of the Climate
    Change Technology Initiative in fiscal year 2002. 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.
                  navajo electrification demonstration program
        APPA calls on this Subcommittee to support full funding for the
    Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its $15 million
    authorized funding level for fiscal year 2002 and for each succeeding
    year.
        The Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program is a new program
    authorized in Public Law 106-511, Section 602. The purpose of the
    program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
    structures on the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. The goal of
    the program is to ensure that every household on the Navajo Nation that
    requests electric power has access to a reliable and affordable source
    of electricity by the year 2006. Appropriations for the program are
    authorized at $15 million over each of the next five years beginning in
    fiscal year 2002, October 1, 2001.
        The Navajo Nation is served by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
    (NTUA), an APPA member. NTUA provides electric, natural gas, water,
    wastewater treatment, and photovoltaic services throughout the Navajo
    Indian Reservations in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah at
    the Four Corners.
        APPA believes the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program will
    go a long way to improve the quality of life for the Navajo Nation.
                     national energy reliability initiative
        The nation's economic future is inextricably linked to the
    information revolution. Computer dependent and data-intensive end-users
    such as the Internet, telecommunications, and financial services
    industries, and modernized manufacturers require uninterruptible power
    supplies and high levels of power quality. It is estimated that power
    interruptions cost this nation's economy approximately $50 billion
    annually. The existing power infrastructure is challenged to provide
    the quality of power and high reliability that the information-based
    economy requires. APPA's membership believes that the Federal
    government has an important role to play in addressing these issues.
        APPA believes the time has come for a National Energy Reliability
    Initiative to be established. The solution requires the immediate
    implementation of a joint public/private research, development and
    deployment portfolio in technologies for fuel-diverse distributed
    energy resources, electricity transmission and distribution, end-use
    equipment improvements, natural gas infrastructure, advanced power
    controls and sensors, and energy storage. Advances in these areas will
    help information-based industries for the next few years, while
    providing the technology framework that will enable truly effective and
    efficient competitive energy markets.
        APPA, along with stakeholders in the high tech industry, seek the
    creation of a specific fiscal year 2002 line-item in the fiscal year
    2002 budget focused on the energy reliability needs of the high tech
    industry and urge this Subcommittee to support the program and provide
    adequate funding to assist in achieving its goals.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
    life science organization in the world, with more than 42,000 members,
    appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal
    year 2002 budget for the Department of Energy (DOE).
        The ASM represents scientists working in academic, medical,
    governmental and industrial institutions worldwide. Microbiological
    research is focused on human health and the environment and is directly
    related to DOE programs involving microbial genomics, climate change,
    bioremediation and basic biological processes important to energy
    sciences.
        The ASM strongly supports the basic science programs of the DOE,
    which fund important fundamental discoveries that lead to developments
    in alternative fuels, improvements in the refinement process of fossil
    fuels, environmental remediation and reduction of wastes and pollution.
    These programs are critical for the United States to develop the
    science to respond to the challenges of global warming and to solve the
    nation's growing demand for reliable and environmentally safe energy.
        The DOE Office of Science (SC) provides the primary source of
    support for the physical sciences and is an essential partner in areas
    of biological and environmental science research as well as in
    mathematics, computing and engineering. The SC complements the
    scientific programs of the National Institutes of Health and the
    National Science Foundation and supports peer reviewed, basic research
    in DOE-relevant areas of science in universities and colleges across
    the United States, contributing enormously to the knowledge base and
    training of the next generation of scientists.
        ASM comments focus on research supported by the Biological and
    Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences (BES) programs
    and make recommendations on several programs that include microbiology
    research.
                               microbial genomics
        DOE is the lead agency supporting the genomic sequencing of non-
    pathogenic microbes. Since these bacteria and fungi make up the vast
    majority of microbes on earth and power the planet's carbon and
    nitrogen cycles, clean up our wastes, make important transformations of
    energy, live in extreme conditions and are an important source of
    biotechnology products, the genome sequences of these microbes are
    extremely valuable for advancing our knowledge of the non-medical
    microbial world. ASM applauds DOE's leadership in recognizing this
    important need in science and endorses expansion of its microbial
    genome sequencing efforts, particularly in using DNA sequencing to
    learn more about the functions and roles of the 99 percent of the
    microbial world that cannot yet be grown in culture. DOE's role in this
    science frontier needs to be expanded.
                             microbial cell project
        During the last decade, scientists have determined the sequence of
    millions of DNA base pairs from the genomes, containing the complete
    genetic instructions, for a rapidly growing number of important
    microbes. As the number of sequenced microbes increases, and sequencing
    costs continue to decrease, scientists are faced with the important
    task of deciphering how the information in the DNA sequence determines
    cell function, in short, how a cell assembles functional pathways and
    systems from those genome-determined parts. Since microbial cells are
    the simplest cells, The Microbial Cell Project (MCP) represents a
    logical start to understand the meaning of genome sequences in a
    comprehensive and functional manner. MCP builds upon previous research
    sponsored by the DOE Office of Science, e.g. the Microbial Genome
    Program, itself a spin-off of the DOE Human Genome Program. The ASM
    applauds the bold vision of DOE in starting the MCP and notes that this
    represents the kind of interdisciplinary science that DOE has done
    successfully in the past, making use of advanced technologies,
    specialized facilities, teams of scientists, and computational power.
    The ASM also sees this program as the basis for an expanded effort to
    understand more broadly how genomic information can be used to
    understand life at the cellular level and urges Congress to fully
    support this exciting program.
                              basic energy science
        This program includes initiatives in both microbiological and plant
    sciences focused on harvesting and converting energy from sunlight into
    energy feedstocks such as cellulose and other products of
    photosynthesis, as well as how those chemicals may be further converted
    into energy rich molecules such as methane, hydrogen and ethanol.
    Alternative and renewable energy sources will remain of strategic
    importance in the nation's energy portfolio, and DOE is well positioned
    to advance basic research in this area. The advances in genomic
    technologies have given this research area a tremendous new resource
    for advancing the Agency's bioenergy goals.
                                 bioremediation
        DOE's bioremediation research is largely supported through the
    Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Program (NABIR). This is a well
    coordinated, comprehensive basic research program comprised of seven
    interrelated research elements. The quality of the research has been
    outstanding and is probably the best example of basic research advances
    on this challenging topic area supported by the Federal government.
    Many of the nation's pollution problems cannot be solved by simple,
    existing technologies, which is particularly true of DOE's metal and
    radionuclide contaminated sites. Hence, the basic research effort
    supported by NABIR is particularly appropriate for DOE. ASM notes that
    the funding of NABIR was reduced by 20 percent last year. ASM endorses
    the NABIR program and recommends that the funding be restored to the
    fiscal year 2000 level of $25 million.
                     new technologies and unique facilities
        New technologies and advanced instrumentation derived from DOE's
    expertise in the physical sciences and engineering have become
    increasingly valuable to biologists. The beam lines and other advanced
    technologies for determining molecular structures of cell components
    are at the heart of current advances to understand cell function and
    have practical applications for new drug design. DOE advances in high
    throughput, low cost DNA sequencing; protein mass spectrometry; cell
    imaging and computational analyses of biological molecules and
    processes are other unique contributions of DOE to the nation's
    biological research enterprise. Furthermore, DOE has unique field
    research facilities for environmental research important to
    understanding biogeochemical cycles, global change and cost-effective
    environmental restoration. In short, DOE's ability to conduct large-
    scale science projects and draw on its unique capabilities in physics,
    computation and engineering is critical for future biological research.
        DOE's research programs play a major role in keeping the United
    States at the forefront of scientific discovery and competitive in the
    world marketplace. The ASM encourages Congress to maintain its
    commitment to the Department of Energy research programs to maintain
    the United States' leadership in science and technology.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of DOE University Research Program in Robotics
                                     (URPR)

        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 developing creative solutions to problems of vital importance to
    DOE.
        The URPR would like to thank the Committee members for their
    historically strong support of this successful program and is pleased
    that the URPR is reportedly embedded in the broad DOE EM-50 Budget
    Request for fiscal year. To ensure the continuation of this support, we
    respectfully request the Committee explicitly include language
    endorsing the DOE request.
    Request for the Committee
        We request the Committee include language augmenting DOE's request
    of EM-50 research funds from $4M to $4.35M to support the University
    Research Program in Robotics (URPR) program in developing safer, less
    expensive, and more efficient robotic technology for environmental
    restoration and waste management.
              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.
    Competitively established by DOE in fiscal yearsupport advanced nuclear
    reactor concepts, the project was moved to EM to support the 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
    21st century, and meeting today's applied research needs for DOE.
                   robotics: a strategic national technology
        According to economists, R&D funding is the most effective use of
    Federal funds to promote the nation's well-being. Indeed, technological
    innovation has been responsible for more than half of the GDP growth
    since WW II. 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
    Federal support. The national need for an investment in the development
    of intelligent machines which can interact with their environment has
    now been universally recognized and accepted.
    Intelligent Machines: Grand Challenge for the New Millennium
        Significant advances in computing power, sensor development and
    platform architectures (e.g., unmanned airborne vehicles) have opened
    new opportunities in intelligent machine technology. The long-range
    implications of intelligent mobile machines which can assist humans to
    perform 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. Much as the
    computer has revolutioned life in the 20th century, intelligent mobile
    machines will revolutionize life in the 21st century and beyond.
              urpr: innovation, education, and doe mission support
        The URPR Paradigm The National Science Board (NSB) policy paper
    ``The Federal Role in Science and Engineering Graduate and Postdoctoral
    Education'' reaffirmed the basic principle of a government-university
    partnership in graduate and postdoctoral education, but warned that the
    government ``tends to emphasize short-term research ``products'' and to
    de-emphasize benefits to graduate education.'' The ensuing
    recommendations in that paper argue for better integration of research
    and education, validating the paradigm of the URPR for providing DOE
    mission support.
    URPR: Refining the Right Paradigm in 1902
        The URPR's strategic mission is to make significant advances in our
    nation's robotic and manufacturing technology base while emphasizing:
    education, technology innovation through basic R&D, and DOE mission
    support. Accomplishments in each of these areas for DOE are detailed
    below. Uniquely organized, the Consortium of Universities (Universities
    of Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and New Mexico) are united as a
    powerful technology team advised by a Technical Advisory Committee of
    site users and directed by DOE field managers.
        The URPR has demonstrated the advantages of operating as a
    consortium are significant. The institutions of the URPR partitioned
    the technical development into manageable sections which allowed each
    university 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, the URPR is in an ideal position to continue
    to execute its role in education, technology innovation, and DOE
    mission support.
    Educating 21st Century Technologists
        The URPR has already educated approximately 500 advanced-degree
    students in the critical engineering fields, including many with earned
    doctoral degrees. These students have entered the work force, and are
    powering today's innovation economy, employing intelligent machines,
    advanced manufacturing technology, and related fields. Graduates from
    this project have built successful startup companies and made
    industrial technology transfers in computer vision and robotic
    technology (MI, TN) and medical imaging (MI), video databases (CA), and
    intelligent manufacturing (MI, FL, TX). We have seen an overwhelming
    demand for graduates educated through this project to fill the serious
    skills shortage in our country.
    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, and health and safety concerns. In particular, DOE/EM-0362
    ``Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure'' is the high-level plan to
    clean up and close down many facilities by year 2006 and has objectives
    that are being addressed by the URPR. While the national laboratory-
    based robotics program primarily applies existing technology to current
    problems, the URPR is the only needs-driven research program to provide
    new remote systems technologies to support the EM thrust areas.
    Over the past few years, the URPR projects successfully supported DOE
            EM operations:
      --deployment and testing of SWAMI, an autonomous inspection robot for
            Fernald stored waste drums,
      --design, construction and testing 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 imaging of the MSRE facility at ORNL prior to D&D.
      --design and implementation of a real-time controller for use at
            Hanford in support of the tank waste retrieval project
    During Fiscal Year 2001, the URPR projects have included:
      --a system to reduce the time between a site-defined need and a site-
            delivered implementation of the robotic hardware using
            simulation followed by direct conversion to actual controllers
            (UNM), demonstrated using the coordinated control of dual robot
            arms in a workcell,
      --a portable radiation imager with high efficiency and wide energy
            range for EM cleanup applications (UMI), demonstrated in both
            low and high radiation environments,
      --sensors and navigation algorithms invented, built, and delivered
            for D&D robots to permit semi-autonomous operation (UTN, UMI),
            including the integration of a three-dimensional laser range
            scanner capable of mapping large facilities,
      --a program for design, fabrication, and testing of intelligent
            actuators for environmental robot systems (UTX). These
            actuators are as central to robots as computer chips are to
            computers.
      --a vision system to inspect and sort randomly placed objects for the
            Mixed Waste Operations Focus Area for robotic singulation tasks
            (UTN).
        As shown above, these efforts are directly linked to cleanup
    operations in the DOE complex. During fiscal year 2002, the URPR plans
    to continue its focussed efforts on DOE field cleanup technology needs,
    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 laser imaging
    devices), environmentally hardened components, and dextrous dual-arm
    manipulators. These new machines will have an unparalleled man-machine
    interface and inherent intelligence, with the capability of being able
    to integrate many diverse sensors simultaneously. These devices will
    evolve and inspire the intelligent machines of the future, including
    smart automobiles, obstacle avoidance aids for the disabled, and
    advanced manufacturing cells assembled on demand.
    This level of innovation can also be seen in the following statistics:
      --Approximately 20 patents awarded or pending.
      --Over 700 technical papers published in technical journals and
            conferences.
      --The standard technical books for vision, radiation detection and
            imaging, and mobile robots are authored by researchers
            associated with this project. Faculty and senior scientists who
            have contributed 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; OmniPede, OmniMate, MOVERS, and ARM
            modular manipulators) serve as the research testbeds for this
            project.
                                program request
        During fiscal year 2001, 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 reportedly embedded $4M
    for the URPR for fiscal year 2002 in its broad request for focus area
    support. However, Committeee language is needed to explicitly identify
    this funding for the URPR and to augment this level to the fiscal year
    2001 level of $4.35M.
    Request for the Committee
        To continue this vital program, we request that the Committee
    include the following language into the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
    Water Appropriations Bill:
        The Committee supports the DOE EM-50 request to continue the
    University Research Program in Robotics (URPR), at the fiscal year 2001
    level of $4.35M in fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition

        Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the
    Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC) appreciates this opportunity to
    present written testimony in support of the Department of Energy's
    (DOE) fiscal year 2002 budget request of $445 million for the civilian
    nuclear waste disposal program. While the NWSC supports increasing the
    DOE's budget, the NWSC strongly OPPOSES the DOE's budget request of
    $900 thousand or any appropriations in its budget that supports the
    1998 Department of Justice (DOJ) litigation efforts involving the
    civilian radioactive waste management system. However, the NWSC
    RECOMMENDS the allocated amount be used for transportation related
    systems and infrastructure activity.
                                 about the nwsc
        The NWSC is an ad hoc group of state utility regulators, state
    attorneys general, electric utilities and associate members
    representing 43 member organizations in 25 states. The NWSC was formed
    in 1993 out of frustration at the lack of progress by the DOE's Office
    of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) to develop a permanent
    repository for high-level radioactive waste. The mission and purpose of
    the NWSC is to seek on behalf of the ratepayers of the United States:
      --The removal of commercial spent nuclear fuel from 72 temporary
            storage sites located in 33 states.
      --The authorization of a temporary, centralized commercial spent
            nuclear fuel storage facility.
      --The allocation of appropriate funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund
            (NWF) by the U.S. Congress to the DOE so that it will fulfill
            its statutory and contractual obligations.
      --The capping of the NWF payments at the present one-tenth of a cent
            per kilowatt-hour by the U.S. Congress.
      --The approval of the Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository by the
            President of the United States and the U.S. Congress with the
            requirement that the repository will be operational by 2010.
      --The augmentation of existing Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
            hazardous and nuclear materials transportation planning and
            regulations to facilitate transportation systems.
                                 budget request
        The DOE requests $445 million in its fiscal year 2002 budget for
    the civilian nuclear waste disposal program. The $445 million requested
    by the DOE is the minimum required and is barely adequate to keep its
    nuclear waste disposal program on track. The NWSC strongly urges
    members of Congress to appropriate the total funds collected into the
    Nuclear Waste Fund, and that the DOE be funded so that it stays on
    track with the permanent repository and transportation infrastructure
    to remove spent nuclear fuel from plant sites.
        The DOE cites in its budget request that the requested $445 million
    is essential to complete the scientific and technical reports obligated
    of the Secretary to determine the suitability of Yucca Mountain,
    present the site recommendation to the President in 2002 and complete
    the licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by
    2003. The budget further highlights transportation activities for the
    removal of waste from plant sites to include the development of legal
    and physical processes and management and integration systems that
    support program functions. The NWSC is concerned that the ratepayers
    who have contributed multiple billions of dollars into the NWF are
    seeing none of these funds directed to build the transportation-related
    systems and infrastructure necessary to ultimately remove the spent
    fuel from commercial reactor sites. The DOE's schedule not to begin the
    fabrication and deployment of transportation casks and waste acceptance
    capabilities until the end of the decade, as documented in the DOE's
    January 2001 response to the House Committee on Appropriations request,
    is unacceptable--these programs need to begin now. If Congress
    continues to reduce essential funds to complete this program, as it has
    done in the past, there will be further delays and excuses by the DOE
    not to fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations. Every delay
    increases the amount and cost of spent nuclear fuel stored at the plant
    sites.
                   progress of the civilian disposal program
        The NWSC is encouraged by the timeline proposed in the DOE's fiscal
    year 2002 budget to maintain progress towards the civilian disposal
    program. It is indeed heartening news that the DOE will soon release
    the Science and Engineering Report requested by the Nuclear Waste
    Technical Review Board and a Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation
    Report with hearings to be held in Nevada sometime this summer.
        On the other hand, the DOE and OCRWM have been evaluating
    alternatives to the design of the permanent repository and packaging
    for the removal of high-level nuclear waste from plant sites for
    eighteen years. Since 1983, the DOE and OCRWM have released several
    scientific and environmental studies on the progress at Yucca Mountain
    and yet, in 2001, we are still waiting to see actual progress. Progress
    reports are not what Americans have paid for. We have paid to have
    high-level radioactive waste removed from power plants beginning by
    January 31, 1998. We want sound science that evaluates the viability
    and suitability of Yucca Mountain. We also want the DOE to produce high
    quality work with a comprehensive framework that accommodates safety
    and bolsters confidence in the performance of Yucca Mountain as the
    permanent repository site. Hopefully, we will see actual performance in
    2001 towards the development of a permanent repository and not just
    progress reports.
                               nuclear waste fund
        The NWF collects annually more than $680 million from the nation's
    ratepayers. Americans have already paid more than $17 billion,
    including interest, to the NWF for nuclear waste disposal services we
    are not receiving. We continue to pay at the rate of $80,000 every hour
    of every day. Meanwhile, tons of high-level radioactive waste continues
    to accumulate at 73 sites in 33 states because of the DOE's failure to
    fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations with the nation's
    ratepayers to move this waste to a permanent repository. Because of
    continued missed deadlines by the DOE, an additional $40 billion to $80
    billion in costs could occur, paid from the Department of Treasury
    Judgment Fund and NOT from the Nuclear Waste Fund as the DOE has
    claimed. Clearly, it is time for Congress to hold the DOE accountable
    for its expenditures, especially its contract obligations, by expressly
    linking the $445 million requested by the DOE in its fiscal year 2002
    budget to an action plan that includes (1) a settlement with contract
    litigants and (2) until there is a permanent repository in the U.S.,
    initiate immediately a pilot program to transport byproducts from
    plants threatened with shutdown or are already shutdown. It is time for
    Congress to appropriate, at a minimum, the $445 million requested by
    the DOE in its fiscal year 2002 budget so that the Department stays on
    track with the nuclear waste disposal program.
                lawsuits and funds for the department of justice
        The DOE has requested $900 thousand from the NWF to defend itself
    against 1998 lawsuits brought by various utilities seeking performance
    under the contract with the DOE. The NWSC vigorously OPPOSES any
    appropriations to the DOE in support of the 1998 Department of Justice
    litigation involving civilian radioactive waste management system. The
    NWSC RECOMMENDS that this $900 thousand be allocated instead to
    transportation related systems and infrastructure necessary to remove
    spent nuclear fuel from plant sites.
        It is almost 3 years since the DOE defaulted on its obligations, as
    stated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, to remove spent nuclear
    fuel from the nation's nuclear power plants. In its 1996 Indiana--
    Michigan decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that the DOE was
    obligated to start moving waste on January 31, 1998, ``without
    qualifications or condition.'' The DOE ignored the Court, prompting 46
    state agencies and 36 utilities to again seek relief from the Court.
    The DOE has meanwhile ignored repeated Court orders to begin moving
    waste from commercial nuclear plant sites on the grounds that it has
    yet to build a permanent repository and has no authority to provide an
    interim storage and transport high-level nuclear waste from plant
    sites.
                           rigorous safety standards
        The DOE has proven that it can safely transport spent nuclear fuel
    and high-level nuclear waste from plant sites across the nation. More
    than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants,
    government research facilities, universities and industrial facilities
    have crossed the United States, ``without a single death or injury due
    to the radioactive nature of the cargo.'' \1\ Shipments include 719
    containers from the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program between 1957 and
    1999, and 2,426 highway shipments and 301 railway shipments from the
    U.S. nuclear industry from 1964 to 1997. In addition, since 1996,
    shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been safely transported to the
    United States from 41 countries to the DOE facilities; \2\ again,
    without a single death or injury. Furthermore, the DOE has safely and
    successfully made more than 100 shipments to the WIPP in New Mexico
    since 1999.\3\ The Western Governors' Association (WGA) signed an
    agreement with the DOE in April 1996 that affirmed regional planning
    processes for safe transportation of radioactive waste. All regional
    high-level radioactive waste transportation committees also endorsed
    the WGA approach. The WIPP transportation planning system is setting
    the standard for safety and proving to be a critical step toward
    solving the nations spent nuclear waste disposal program. To ensure
    safety at on-site spent fuel storage facilities and during
    transportation, the material is stored in containers that meet the
    NRC's rigorous engineering and safety standards testing. To satisfy the
    NRC's rigorous standards for subsequent transportation approval, these
    containers have been dropped 30-feet onto an unyielding surface,
    dropped 40 inches onto a 6-inch vertical steel rod, exposed for 30
    minutes to a 1,475 deg.F fire, submerged under 3 feet of water for
    eight hours, immersed in 50 feet of water for at least eight hours
    (performed in a separate cask), and immersed in 656 feet of water for
    at least one hour.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Conference of State Legislatures' Report, January
    2000.
        \2\ U.S. Department of Energy Report to the Committees on
    Appropriations, January 2001.
        \3\ U.S. Department of Energy Report to the Committees on
    Appropriations, January 2001.
        \4\ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Testing Requirements, 10 CFR
    Sections, 71.61, 71.71, and 71.73.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    protect nation's environment and energy
        Nuclear power comprises 20 percent of our nation's base-load
    electric generating capacity and is consistently emission-free when
    properly monitored. According to the International Atomic Energy
    Agency, U.S. commercial nuclear power plants prevent the emission of
    147 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 2.5 million tons of
    nitrogen oxide into our nation's atmosphere per year; and by doing so,
    significantly reduces the global greenhouse effect and improves the air
    quality of this country. Nevada is unfortunately among the states that
    rely primarily on coal fuel for energy. These states struggle for
    solutions to the downwind effects of that energy's byproducts.
    Regardless of the merits of nuclear energy, nuclear byproduct
    management advocated by the NWSC is policy-neutral. That is, access to
    Federal storage and disposal facilities is required immediately whether
    nuclear power plants are closed, re-licensed or licensed in a Neo-
    Nuclear Age.
                                   conclusion
        The NWSC is an environmentally minded ad hoc group concerned about
    the nation's civilian nuclear waste disposal program. For the last 18
    years, those who want to derail commercial nuclear power in this
    country have used this program as a political tool. In fact, the
    Federal government's failure to deliver extends back several decades.
    The U.S. Congress and the Federal government need to immediately
    address the growing problem of high-level nuclear waste that now
    exists. We can no longer pretend that stranded waste at plant sites
    does not exist and is without economic consequence to the nation. We
    can no longer pretend that the problem is going away. The NWSC strongly
    urges the U.S. Congress to release, as a minimum, the $445 million
    requested by the DOE to bring the nuclear waste disposal program to
    fruition as promised and mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
    1982. The NWSC also urges Congress to deny the DOE's request for any
    funds from the NWF requested in support for the 1998 Department of
    Justice litigation involving civilian waste management system. The DOJ
    expenses incurred in the DOE's breach of contract with the utilities
    should be paid by the nation's taxpayers and not by the nation's
    electric ratepayers who are already paying for the disposal of high-
    level radioactive waste.
                                     ______

              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 2002.
        As you may know, ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational
    organization, chartered by Congress, representing more than 163,000
    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.
        We firmly believe that advances in science and engineering have
    produced more than half of our nation's economic growth in the last 50
    years. They remain the most important factor in the productivity
    increases responsible for our growing economy and rising standard of
    living, economists agree. Each field of science contributes to our
    diversity of strengths and capabilities and has given us the
    flexibility to explore new fields and apply science in unexpected ways.
    Over the last 25 years, funding for biomedical research has increased
    while Federal support for most other disciplines has remained flat or
    declined. Congress took an important step in the right direction last
    year when it increased funding for scientific research for fiscal year
    2001. To nourish the roots of innovation in all fields and help ensure
    the success of growing investments in biomedicine, balance must be
    restored to the nation's R&D portfolio while supporting overall growth
    in the nation's science and technology budget. This should be a top
    priority for Congress and the administration as fiscal year 2002
    appropriations are considered.
                           doe budget recommendations
        The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the nation's
    largest supporter of research in the physical sciences and is
    responsible for managing major scientific facilities. To meet the
    challenges of the nation's 21st century energy needs, ACS strongly
    supports funding the Office of Science in fiscal year 2002 at $3.62
    billion, a 15 percent increase.
        The Office of Science's fiscal year 2001 budget was a step toward
    reversing ten years of declining funding (in constant dollars) that
    eroded research capabilities and adversely impacted DOE-managed
    facilities used by the scientific community. A strong fiscal year 2002
    budget will enable the Office of Science to support additional peer-
    reviewed research, better maintain and operate scientific facilities,
    and participate more fully in cutting-edge multi-disciplinary research
    such as nanotechnology and advanced scientific computing.
        To ensure value for research dollars and excellence in performance,
    the Office of Science depends on rigorous peer reviews and on
    scientific advisory committees. These committees regularly provide
    recommendations on program content, scientific quality, future
    directions, research priorities, and proposed scientific user
    facilities. This overall approach is recognized by many in the
    scientific community to be among the best and most thorough processes
    in the field of public research.
        Currently, DOE must decline many highly rated grant proposals.
    These are lost opportunities for significant discoveries. Increases in
    core, peer-reviewed research are essential to provide clean and
    affordable power, advance energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
    improve energy production. Within the Office of Science, ACS is
    particularly supportive of the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) and
    Biological and Environmental Research (BER) programs.
        The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program funds an array of long-term
    basic research to improve energy production and use and environmental
    progress. BES research, for example, has fostered improvements in
    battery storage, superconducting materials, and the understanding of
    combustion at a fundamental level.
        The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program 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 and identify opportunities to prevent pollution.
        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 energy production and use may
    affect these processes. Such research includes critical efforts to
    capture, measure, and reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
    and the consequences of global climate change. ACS supports a strong
    role for BER in Federal efforts to understand and address global
    climate change.
        Each year, over 15,000 scientists and students from academia,
    industry and government--many funded by agencies other than DOE--
    conduct cutting-edge experiments at the national laboratories and user
    facilities DOE manages. These experiments are vital to advances in
    nearly every scientific discipline. With demand for these world-class
    facilities intensifying, additional funding would allow more operating
    time, upgrades, instrumentation, and technical support. More complete
    utilization of DOE's facilities would increase the return on investment
    made in their construction and maximize their scientific contributions
    and educational value. Additional funding for DOE user facilities
    should not come at the expense of individual investigator grants.
        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.
                                     ______

          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 40 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 2002 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
    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.
        APPA believes that investing in energy efficiency and renewable
    programs is critical and urge this Subcommittee to support adequate
    funding 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 2002. 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 support of the Renewable Energy
    Production Incentive Program (REPI) at $25 million in fiscal year 2002.
    At this level of funding, 62 projects would be funded providing 685
    million kWh of electricity from renewable energy resources.
        Established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Section 1212 was
    intended to provide some level of benefit with EPAct programs for tax
    paying entities (sections 1914 & 1916, providing production and
    incentive tax credits for renewable energy projects). The law directed
    the Department of Energy to create a program providing one and half
    cents per kWh of electricity produced 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.
        As the only significant incentive available to locally owned, not-
    for-profit electric utilities to make new investments in renewable
    energy projects, REPI represents public power's only opportunity to
    produce environmentally-friendly electricity to meet the nation's
    environmental and energy goals.
        A fully funded and reformed REPI program will help public power
    improve it's contribution to important renewable energy supply goals.
    Under a fully funded REPI program, 55.8 million metric tons of carbon
    equivalent (mmtce) could be reduced by developing existing landfills
    into gas-to-energy projects. A fully funded REPI would provide the
    needed incentive to spur development of other renewable energy
    projects.
        Even more critical, given today's situation, the nation faces an
    unprecedented energy shortage, requiring the need to bring additional
    sources of energy capacity online. Rising prices in gas and other fuels
    have resulted in higher consumer power rates and power shortages. The
    time is ripe to accelerate the development and use of sustainable
    energy resources which currently represent 2 percent of the nation's
    energy generation (2.8 percent of capacity).
        This subcommittee's support of full funding for REPI at $25 million
    will go a long way in fueling future renewable investments.
                      storage for high-level nuclear waste
        The Federal government's responsibility for deep geologic disposal
    of used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of defense-related activities
    is long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waster
    Policy Act established Federal policy for developing a repository for
    long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel. In 1987, after
    environmental assessments were conducted of five sites, Congress
    focused the repository study on a single site at Yucca Mountain,
    Nevada. DOE is committed to providing a decision on a formal Yucca
    Mountain site recommendation to the president in 2001.
        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
    programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of about $10 billion,
    all of which must be made available for repository construction and
    operation.
        APPA strongly supports the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002
    funding request for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program.
    At this critical juncture, an increase in DOE's fiscal year 2001
    appropriation of $409 million is warranted to continue scientific study
    at Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year will pay more than
    $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
                      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 2002
        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 adequate funding 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.
                  federal energy regulatory commission (ferc)
        APPA urges support of at least $175 million in fiscal year 2002 for
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Adequate funding for
    the agency is particularly necessary at this time in Page 4 of 5 APPA
    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 advocates continued support for and funding of the Climate
    Change Technology Initiative in fiscal year 2002. 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.
                  navajo electrification demonstration program
        APPA calls on this Subcommittee to support full funding for the
    Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its $15 million
    authorized funding level for fiscal year 2002 and for each succeeding
    year.
        The Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program is a new program
    authorized in Public Law 106-511, Section 602. The purpose of the
    program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
    structures on the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. The goal of
    the program is to ensure that every household on the Navajo Nation that
    requests electric power has access to a reliable and affordable source
    of electricity by the year 2006. Appropriations for the program are
    authorized at $15 million over each of the next five years beginning in
    fiscal year 2002, October 1, 2001.
        The Navajo Nation is served by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority
    (NTUA), an APPA member. NTUA provides electric, natural gas, water,
    wastewater treatment, and photovoltaic services throughout the Navajo
    Indian Reservations in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah at
    the Four Corners.
        APPA believes the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program will
    go a long way to improve the quality of life for the Navajo Nation.
                     national energy reliability initiative
        The nation's economic future is inextricably linked to the
    information revolution. Computer dependent and data-intensive end-users
    such as the Internet, telecommunications, and financial services
    industries, and modernized manufacturers require uninterruptible power
    supplies and high levels of power quality. It is estimated that power
    interruptions cost this nation's economy approximately $50 billion
    annually. The existing power infrastructure is challenged to provide
    the quality of power and high reliability that the information-based
    economy requires. APPA's membership believes that the Federal
    government has an important role to play in addressing these issues.
        APPA believes the time has come for a National Energy Reliability
    Initiative to be established. The solution requires the immediate
    implementation of a joint public/private research, development and
    deployment portfolio in technologies for fuel-diverse distributed
    energy resources, electricity transmission and distribution, end-use
    equipment improvements, natural gas infrastructure, advanced power
    controls and sensors, and energy storage. Advances in these areas will
    help information-based industries for the next few years, while
    providing the technology framework that will enable truly effective and
    efficient competitive energy markets.
        APPA, along with stakeholders in the high tech industry, seek the
    creation of a specific fiscal year 2002 line-item in the fiscal year
    2002 budget focused on the energy reliability needs of the high tech
    industry and urge this Subcommittee to support the program and provide
    adequate funding to assist in achieving its goals.
        Clean Coal Power Initiative.--APPA strongly urges the Subcommittee
    to support the Administration's request of $150 million in fiscal year
    2002 to fund joint government/industry-funded research, development and
    demonstration of new technologies to enhance the reliability and
    environmental performance of coal-fired power generators. The CCPI will
    also develop the technological foundation for the next generation of
    even cleaner, more efficient technologies for both new power plants and
    for modernizing older ones.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors

        The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
    provide testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development as it considers fiscal
    year 2002 funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy (EERE) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Adequate funding
    for EERE is a vital component in the nation's ability to secure a
    diverse, balanced and reliable energy portfolio. Within this
    appropriation, the CONEG Governors specifically support an increase in
    funding for the Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP)--an important
    partner in DOE's multi-faceted initiatives to encourage a diverse
    energy resource mix and energy efficiency across the nation.
    Congressional support for an fiscal year 2002 funding level of $5.5
    million for the RBEP within the EERE biomass program budget will allow
    this Federal-state-private sector initiative to continue the pioneering
    regional projects and informational and technical assistance networks
    which help bring bioenergy into regional energy markets across the
    nation.
        Recent increases in the price of energy have placed a new emphasis
    on the need for alternative and domestic energy production. Bioenergy,
    which is both renewable and sustainable, includes forestry and
    agricultural crops and residues; wood and food processing wastes; and
    municipal solid waste. Today, ethanol and electricity generation from
    biomass feedstocks contribute three percent of the nation's energy
    consumption. Biomass resources and technology offer additional
    potential as the nation seeks to secure additional domestic energy
    production from diverse energy resources.
        Biomass is particularly important to the Northeastern United
    States--a region heavily dependent on imported energy. Today, bioenergy
    produced from the region's forest and agricultural resources
    contributes approximately five percent of the region's energy
    consumption. Increased use of these indigenous energy resources for
    electricity production and fuels offers the potential to diversify the
    region's energy resource mix, generate jobs, and achieve important
    environmental objectives.
        The RBEP, a U.S. DOE supported program which encompasses all 50
    states in five regional programs, is an important tool in the nation's
    effort to realize the opportunities which bioenergy offers for energy
    production, economic development and sound environmental management.
    The regional programs are unique in tailoring their services to the
    specific biomass resources and unique energy market opportunities of
    each region. These services include regional projects and information
    and technical assistance networks which help identify opportunities for
    bioenergy resources and technology, and mitigate institutional and
    market barriers to the development and deployment of bioenergy
    technologies. To accomplish these goals, the RBEP and its state
    partners have established partnerships with industry, fostered intra-
    state coordination, and established a reputation for providing
    objective and reliable information to Federal and state officials and
    the public sector.
        From Maine to Maryland, the Northeast Regional Biomass Program
    (NRBP) makes possible state working groups which promote state policies
    supportive of bioenergy. It provides critical informational networks
    which share policy, technical and market information about bioenergy
    among the states and with the energy industry and the Federal
    government; and encourages public and private sector cooperation in
    undertaking demonstrations of bioenergy technologies. The NRBP
    activities encompass a wide range of biomass resources and
    technologies--from promoting experimental trials of energy crops such
    as willow and switch grass; demonstrating leading edge technologies
    such as fuel cells powered by biomass fuels; regional analysis of
    residues and wastes suitable for energy production; and facilitating
    the understanding of the role of bioenergy production in rural
    economies.
        Recent RBEP funding has fallen to just over $2 million. This
    decrease has resulted in a significant reduction in funding to states
    and the elimination of regional projects. By restoring funding to $5.5
    million, regional studies that support state and national activities
    can continue; and states can continue to support critical public-
    private sector bioenergy networks which transfer information and
    coordinate activities within a state, throughout the region and
    throughout the nation.
        We thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views
    of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to
    provide you with any additional information on the importance of the
    Regional Biomass Energy Program and the Northeast Regional Biomass
    Program to the Northeast and the rest of the nation.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the City of Gridley

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Thomas
    Sanford, Energy Commissioner of the City of Gridley. I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the City and rice
    growers in Northern California who provide 20 percent of the nation's
    total rice production. We submit the following testimony in support of
    our request that an additional $5,000,000 (above the President's
    request) be earmarked in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations bill, under the Department of Energy, Solar
    and Renewable Energy, Biomass/Biofuels, for the Gridley Rice Straw
    Project. These federal funds will be used to complete feasibility,
    permitting and environmental assessment efforts, and initiate
    construction of facilities to implement technologies and processes for
    cost-effective rice straw removal and utilization in the production of
    ethanol, silica and electric power.
                                   background
        The City of Gridley has spearheaded development of technologies and
    processes for cost-effective rice straw removal and utilization in the
    production of ethanol. Gridley is in the heart of Sacramento Valley
    rice growing region in Northern California. Thousands of jobs and more
    than $500 million of the Sacramento Valley's economy are directly
    dependent on the rice industry. Clean air mandates have required
    exploration of alternative methods of clearing and disposing rice
    straw. Without alternatives to open field burning, rice acreage would
    likely diminish, with adverse economic consequences. This key component
    of the Gridley Rice Straw Project, rice straw disposal, will assist the
    State of California in meeting air quality objectives, help maintain
    cost-effective operations in the rice industry, and create hundreds of
    direct and indirect jobs in Northern California communities. This is
    particularly important to communities facing double-digit unemployment
    and significant seasonal reductions in agriculture-related jobs.
              rice straw conversion to ethanol and electric power
        The Gridley Rice Straw Project (Project) has made great strides
    towards an efficient process of gathering, processing and converting
    rice straw into ethanol. The present design capacity of the Project
    will be a minimum of 365,000 bone dry tons (BDT) of rice straw
    annually--approximately 40 percent of the reasonably available
    feedstock in the Sacramento Valley. The present Project design is
    expandable, and could handle up to 700,000 BDT of rice straw.
    Application of new technology for economical separation of silica and
    favorable transportation costs are key factors in increasing the
    Project's consumption of rice straw and overall efficiency. Production
    of up to 43,000 BDT of marketable silica will add significantly to the
    project's overall output/revenue generation.
        In addition to producing 15.5-26 million gallons of ethanol
    annually, the Project can convert rice straw to lignin, a high energy
    content boiler fuel. The project's net electric generation capacity is
    currently estimated to be 11-20 megawatts, depending on the project's
    configuration.
        The processes and technology at the foundation of the Gridley Rice
    Straw Project can also utilize other renewable biomass feedstocks for
    the production of ethanol; including the byproducts of corn harvest,
    and even municipal greenways (grass clippings).
             project timing, cost and prior federal appropriations
        Environmental assessment and permitting work is expected to be
    completed in 2001, with construction scheduled for 2002. The Project
    will be operational in 2003, at a total capital cost of $80-$104
    million, depending on the final plant configuration. Between fiscal
    year 1995 and fiscal year 2000, the Project has received $12.15 million
    in federal support under the Department of Energy, Solar and Renewable
    Energy, Biomass/Biofuels.
                                   conclusion
        This project to collect, transport and process rice straw,
    eliminate open-field burning, and implement new technologies for
    ethanol, silica and electric energy production represents the best
    efforts of local communities working with state and federal agencies to
    implement state-of-the-art biomass to biofuel conversion and
    electricity production. Once established, this technology can be
    utilized in other California communities, and across the country--
    providing cost efficient renewable energy.
        We strongly urge and respectfully request your support for
    $5,000,000 in addition to the President's budget request for the
    Gridley Rice Straw Project, to implement technologies and processes for
    cost-effective rice straw removal and utilization in the production of
    ethanol, silica and electric power.
                                     ______

       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 Senate Committee on
    Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
        UCAR is a 66 university membership consortium that manages and
    operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and
    additional programs that support and extend the country's scientific
    research and education capabilities. 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. 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. UCAR is supported by the National Science Foundation
    (NSF) and other federal agencies including the Department of Energy
    (DOE).
        The President's Blueprint budget stated that ``DOE intends to
    achieve significant savings in 2002 from restructuring and reevaluating
    the performance of major projects . . . including . . . science
    projects . . .'', and the detailed DOE proposed budget includes only a
    0.1 percent increase for the Office of Science. While constructive
    assessment of continuing programs is desirable, I urge the Committee to
    examine carefully any ``significant savings'' coming from DOE's science
    programs to ensure that programs contributing to the nation's
    scientific and technological preeminence and world economic leadership
    are not compromised.
        I would like to comment on the following programs within the DOE
    Office of Science that are of particular importance to the work of the
    atmospheric sciences community:
                  biological and environmental research (ber)
        The environmental component of BER is of great importance to the
    welfare of the country since 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. BER programs, particularly
    those involving support of peer-reviewed research at universities and
    national laboratories, are critical to the work of researchers
    focussing on climate change and climate change impacts, and represent
    an important part of DOE's contribution to the multi-agency U.S. Global
    Change Research Program. These include the following:
    Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program
        ARM is a key component of DOE's research strategy to address global
    climate change. 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.
        The work of many university principal investigators is supported
    through ARM as are interactions and collaborative work with prominent
    climate modeling centers. The proposed fiscal year 2002 funding for ARM
    is $13.4 million for research, only a $362,000 increase; and $27.3
    million, or flat funding, for ARM infrastructure. I urge the Committee
    to allocate increases to cover at least a 4 percent cost of inflation
    for BER's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program research and
    infrastructure accounts, or $13.65 million and $29.3 million,
    respectively.
    Climate Modeling
        DOE is working with agencies such as NSF, NASA and NOAA to improve
    the state of climate modeling. Positioned within Climate and Hydrology
    in BER, the Climate Modeling effort is an important component of the
    USGCRP and integrates the BER climate modeling programs, including the
    successful Computer Hardware, Advanced Mathematics, and Model Physics
    (CHAMMP) activity. This initiative supports the development of the next
    generation circulation models and smaller scale climate model
    simulations for global and regional studies of environmental changes.
        Teams involving national laboratories and the university community
    produce and apply observational and modeling data to study 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. The proposed funding of $27.1 million for Climate Modeling in
    fiscal year 2002 is only very slightly higher than that of fiscal year
    2001 and is insufficient to cover inflation, much less make the kinds
    of scientific progress that it possible. I urge the Committee to
    appropriate an amount of at least $29.0 million (approximately a 4
    percent increase) for Climate Modeling within BER.
    Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle
        Contributing critical work to the USGCRP, DOE's Atmospheric
    Chemistry and Carbon Cycle programs support research at university,
    DOE, and non-DOE laboratories across the country to provide information
    on the atmospheric environment that is critical for long-range energy
    planning. The DOE-supported carbon cycle research explores movement of
    carbon on a global scale and is key to understanding the sources and
    sinks of carbon both in terrestrial and ocean systems. The agencies of
    DOE, NOAA, NSF, and EPA have a coordinated strategy to work toward
    completing our knowledge of the carbon cycle. One of the especially
    important aspects of the DOE carbon cycle program is its support of
    long-term measurement sites and data holdings that are used by climate
    change researchers around the world. Proposed overall funding for this
    critical work is decreased from the fiscal year 2001 amount by
    $735,000. I urge the Committee to appropriate for Atmospheric Chemistry
    and Carbon Cycle (within BER) an fiscal year 2002 amount of $37.0
    million, a 4 percent increase over fiscal year 2001 to account for
    inflation.
        Within Atmospheric Chemistry and Carbon Cycle, the Atmospheric
    Science programs acquire critical data to advance our understanding of
    the transport and fate of energy-related chemicals and particulate
    matter in the atmosphere as well as the important roles of aerosols in
    weather and climate. Proposed funding for this work is flat for fiscal
    year 2002. I urge the Committee to specify for DOE's Atmospheric
    Science programs (within BER) an fiscal year 2002 amount $13.1 million,
    a 4 percent increase over fiscal year 2001.
                 advanced scientific computing research (ascr)
        DOE's ASCR complements the work of and enables 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. By their very nature, problems
    dealing with the interaction of the earth's systems and global climate
    change, cannot be solved by traditional approaches. 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.
        The ASCR section of the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget states
    that, ``High performance computing is rapidly increasing its importance
    as a science tool.'' A completely flat budget of $165.4 million is then
    recommended. If I am reading the budget correctly, that flat request
    will be reduced soon by $2.7 million to increase the Fusion Energy
    Science Program. While I understand the immediate need for enhanced
    energy science, I disagree strongly with handicapping one critical
    scientific program to boost another, particularly at a time when we
    enjoy a national surplus in large part because of scientific and
    technological advances. I urge the Committee to examine carefully the
    importance of Advanced Scientific Computing Research in the context of
    the world's computing capabilities and the country's needs and
    appropriate, at the very least, an increase of 4 percent to cover
    inflation, for a funding level of $172.4 million.
                        global change education program
        DOE's Global Change Education program (within Human Interactions in
    the budget) performs a great service for the atmospheric sciences
    community by joining with the NSF and other agencies to support
    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. I would like the Committee to be aware that the Global
    Change Research Program 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.
        On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the Committee for the important
    work you do for U.S. scientific research. We appreciate your attention
    to the recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal year 2002
    budget of the Department of Energy.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of New York University

        On behalf of New York University, I appreciate the opportunity to
    submit testimony in support of public investment in basic research and,
    in particular, to salute the Department of Energy (DOE) whose funding
    of fundamental research is so important to the health and well being of
    our nation.
        The DOE's support of university-based research is essential to our
    national ability to prepare for the scientific and technological
    challenges that we will face in the 21st century. The Department of
    Energy supports biological and environmental research, nanoscale
    science, physical, life, as well as computational, and social sciences.
    The DOE's funding is critical both for its direct support of research,
    training, and education, as well as its indirect impact in enabling
    extramural (university-based) researchers to attract additional funding
    for research and science infrastructure from other federal agencies,
    private foundations, and industry. In that regard, I urge Congress to
    support increased funding for the Department of Energy for fiscal year
    2002.
        At the Washington Square Campus of New York University, DOE funding
    has supported leading-edge research across a range of areas. In
    environmental science, DOE supported our efforts to test climate models
    against what is known about paleoclimates. In quantum physics, DOE is
    aiding the theoretical understanding and experimental pursuit of quark-
    gluon plasma. In the broadening field of genomics, DOE has funded work
    in everything from optically mapping the genome to studying chemical
    and energy-related mutation to isolating the genes that regulate plant
    growth. I would like to underscore genomics, as it is an important
    priority for DOE and an area in which NYU intends to make major
    contributions.
                              advances in genomics
        The genome is the recipe or blueprint for life. During the last
    decade--and particularly during the last two years--the unraveling of
    the genetic code has opened up a vast range of new opportunities for
    evolutionary and developmental biologists, chemists, and information
    scientists to understand what genes are, what they do, and how they do
    it. Genomics is revolutionizing biology and is dramatically changing
    the way we characterize and address biological questions. As a field
    that straddles biology, chemistry, computer science, and mathematics,
    genomics is growing at an extraordinary pace and is 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 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
    bring perspectives from other fields, like immunology, genetics, and
    neurobiology to pursue investigations that are driven by hypothesis
    rather than technique. This third phase is generally termed functional
    genomics and uses the map and sequence information already collected to
    infer the function of genes.
        At New York University, we think the key issues facing genomics
    today are how to translate the enormous quantities of gene sequence
    data into knowledge of gene function. The answers lie, we believe, in
    comparative functional genomics, an approach that 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 periods, and (2) determining
    crucial differences that distinguish two closely related species. This
    focus can provide the key to unraveling the complex regulatory networks
    for crucial biological functions.
        Studies in comparative functional genomics are necessarily
    multidisciplinary. Comparative functional genomics synergizes basic
    science research programs such as those at NYU's Faculty of Arts and
    Science, with computational science, specifically bioinformatics, at
    its Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. Further, the scope of
    the enterprise is such to encourage collaboration not only within but
    also between research institutions. As an example, the concentration
    within NYU of strengths in evolutionary biology, neurobiology,
    developmental genetics, human genetics, applied mathematics research,
    imaging and computation is further extended through the University's
    research collaborations and affiliation agreements with major
    metropolitan area institutions. Productive affiliations that were
    recently articulated in response to New York State's major new
    initiative to develop the State's science and technology resources link
    NYU with The New York Botanical Garden and the American Museum of
    Natural History which house the world's largest collections of well-
    characterized specimens from the animal and plant kingdoms
    respectively, and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, one of the world's
    centers for molecular biology and genomics research.
        New York University and other major research institutions are
    poised to make important contributions to the next phase of genomics
    research. DOE funding is critical to maintain and strengthen the
    vibrancy of university-based science research.
                  research applications and national benefits
        Research in genomics can offer benefits to our citizens in a wide
    range of domains from new energy sources to crops that resist disease,
    insects and drought to better industrial processes to identification
    (or exoneration) of crime suspects. Genomics can be a major resource
    for directly energizing a range of commercial enterprises, and can
    provide a strong framework for economic development in vital, high-tech
    industries.
        Advances in Biological, Computational, and other Research Fields.--
    The understanding of the human genome has very broad applications to
    cell biology, embryology, developmental biology, and population
    genetics. Genomics connects and illuminates science in all these
    fields. Further, functional genomics research has created a need for
    information processing structures that efficiently compare and analyze
    patterns in enormous data sets and allow ready representation and
    interpretation of their common elements and differences. As an example,
    computer scientists at NYU are working closely with molecular
    geneticists and business entrepreneurs to develop a library of genomics
    software tools. Some of these tools are already being considered by
    medical researchers for use in diagnosing tumors, which have a genetic
    structure different from healthy tissue.
        Applications for Environmental Issues.--Genomics offers important
    new approaches to addressing environmental problems and conservation.
    As an example, knowing the genetic sequence of plants may allow us to
    identify clusters of genes and their function (to produce a flower from
    a shoot) and manipulate them (to cut flowering time); enhance seed
    viability without affecting the quality of a fruit; and increase the
    nutritional value of grains. As we continue to sequence new plants and
    isolate more genetic clusters, we can expect to discover how to develop
    crops that have increased resistance to temperature extremes and
    disease, and that can also grow in less hospitable soils. As we learn
    more about how genes are switched on and off by environmental factors,
    we may be able to predict how a crop will function in a particular
    climate before attempting to cultivate it. These discoveries and others
    can revolutionize agriculture within a decade.
        Commercial Applications.--Fundamental studies in genomics are
    producing new data about the function of genes that will have
    widespread commercial applications for the development of novel human
    and veterinary therapeutics and diagnostics; ``customized'' patient
    care; the development of crops with improved growth capabilities or
    improved resistance to herbicides; and so on, in a list that can impact
    virtually every aspect of our health and well being.
        Economic Development.--R&D investment in genomics is energizing
    biotechnology, pharmaceutical, biomedicine, agbiotech, computer
    software, and engineering enterprises, as genomics research begins to
    spawn a new generation of commercializable technologies, and new
    bioinformatics and software companies and genomics platform companies
    (that generate specific genomic data for product development).
        More generally, investment in research can foster vital university-
    centered concentrations of industrial activity: In a now familiar
    dynamic, 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 and attracts still more firms.
    And, once a core of high-tech industries locates in an area, venture
    capitalists identify the area as ``promising'' and the flow of
    capital--a key ingredient for high-technology growth--increases.
        In a related economic spiral, R&D funding spurs job growth across a
    range of economic sectors. 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: The
    BEA calculates that each $1 million in R&D grants supports roughly 34.5
    full and part time jobs directly within the university and indirectly
    outside the university as the university's expenditures ripple through
    the local and state economy.
        Biomedical Applications for National Health Needs.--An investment
    in genomics research will help us to understand complex, multi-gene
    diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's; distinguish
    different forms of a disease, permitting precisely targeted treatment;
    and understand why drugs work and how to design better ones. Genomics
    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.
        In summary, investment in genomic science is a strategic and
    efficient vehicle for advancing fundamental studies in a wide variety
    of scientific fields, facilitating applications that can greatly
    enhance the public welfare, and energizing existing and new industries.
    Increasing the investment in state-of-the-art equipment and in research
    that enables geneticists, computer scientists and physical chemists to
    readily interact with each other is essential for the development of
    this important area. We firmly believe that a federal investment in
    these and other biomedical research fields repays itself many times
    over.
        The commitment of this committee to support the Department of
    Energy and its capacity to support the study of genomics is greatly
    appreciated. And, in general we urge Congress to continue its
    commitment to increase the funding of the basic sciences.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium

        It is proposed that the U.S. Department of Energy support a pilot
    technology transfer program in Oklahoma and Arkansas called the
    Petroleum Extension Agent Program through the Integrated Petroleum
    Environmental Consortium (IPEC). Federal support of $1.5 million is
    specifically requested as part of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation
    for the Department of Energy or other source the Subcommittee may
    determine to be appropriate
            the integrated petroleum environmental consortium (ipec)
        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.
        Since September 1998 IPEC has funded 18 research projects that
    promise to help ease the regulatory burden on the domestic petroleum
    industry. These funded projects include: 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 assessment of petroleum production sites;
    improving the economics of well plugging; improving the efficiency of
    oil-water separation; and enhancing the remediation of oil contaminated
    soils. These projects were first reviewed and approved by our
    Industrial Advisory Board (dominated by independent producers) as
    relevant to our mission of increasing the competitiveness of the
    domestic petroleum industry and finally reviewed and approved by our
    Science Advisory Committee (SAC) on the basis of scientific quality.
    The EPA has endorsed each member of the IPEC SAC.
        IPEC has provided $1,612,071 in funding for these projects.
    However, another $1,432,226 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 provided by the Oklahoma State
    Reagents for Higher Education ($750,000). IPEC has pledged to Congress
    to work for a 1:1 match of federal dollars. As you can see IPEC is
    living up to that promise! 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 objective of this program 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 are being used to deliver these tools to the
    independent producers.
        IPEC's technology transfer flagship is the International Petroleum
    Environmental Conference. In November, 2000 IPEC held the 7th
    International Petroleum Environmental Conference in Albuquerque, NM.
    There were 345 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
    7th conference featured several plenary lectures, over 135 technical
    presentations, exhibits, a poster session and a special symposium on
    characterization and remediation of the subsurface. 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 fifteen state regulators from Oklahoma and Arkansas
    each year at the conference. The 8th International Petroleum
    Environmental Conference will be held November 5-9, 2001, in Houston,
    TX.
            the continuing crisis in the domestic petroleum industry
        Much attention has been paid recently to the high costs to
    consumers of gasoline and natural gas. 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 and the number
    of working drilling rigs has seriously declined. Thirty-six refineries
    have closed since 1992 and no new refineries have been built since
    1976. Most energy analysts agree that we need to ``drill our way out''
    of the current high prices and shortages; however, the industry's
    infrastructure (in terms of equipment and trained personnel) cannot
    support the amount of drilling activity current prices would otherwise
    encourage.
        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. These efforts are especially needed now as
    we develop new sources of natural gas such as coal-bed methane. This
    new source of natural gas is desperately needed to meet our nation's
    energy demand but coal-bed methane presents some unique environmental
    problems which must be addressed in a cost-effective manner. 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 3,500 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 in 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
    2002 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 American Museum of Natural History

                  about the american museum of natural history
        The American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is one of the
    nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
    education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
    mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
    research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
    world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
    collections of more than 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts.
    With nearly five million annual visitors--approximately half of them
    children--its audience is one of the largest, fastest growing, and most
    diverse of any museum in the country. Museum scientists conduct
    groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of zoology,
    comparative genomics, and informatics to earth, space, and
    environmental sciences and biodiversity conservation. Their work forms
    the basis for all the Museum's activities that seek to explain complex
    issues and help people to understand the events and processes that
    created and continue to shape the Earth, life and civilization on this
    planet, and the universe beyond.
        Today more than 200 Museum scientists with internationally
    recognized expertise, led by 47 curators, conduct laboratory and
    collections-based research programs as well as fieldwork 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, and one of the
    world's most important bird collections. Collections such as these are
    historical libraries of expertly identified and documented examples of
    species and artifacts, providing an irreplaceable record of life on
    earth. They provide vital data for Museum scientists as well for more
    than 250 national and international visiting scientists each year.
        In the exhibition halls AMNH scientific knowledge and discovery are
    translated into three dimensions. One of the most exciting chapters in
    the Museum's history culminated just over one year ago with the opening
    of the Rose Center for Earth and Space in February 2000. Greeted with
    critical and popular acclaim and record-setting attendance surpassing
    all projections, the Rose Center includes a rebuilt Hayden Planetarium,
    Hall of the Universe, and Hall of Planet Earth. In Planet Earth,
    exhibits explore the processes that determine how the Earth works and
    questions about natural resources. It leads to the Hall of
    Biodiversity, which opened in 1998 and reveals the variety of Earth's
    living things and expands the Museum's efforts to alert the public to
    the critical role biodiversity plays in sustaining life as we know it.
    Together, the new planetarium and halls provide visitors with a
    seamless educational journey from the universe's beginnings to the
    formation and processes of Earth to the extraordinary diversity of life
    on our planet.
        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 come on school visits, 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.
               support for department of energy mission and goals
        The American Museum shares DOE's 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 in concert 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, advanced sequencing
    technologies, and instrumentation. With the historic completion of the
    first draft of the human genome, its work on the frontier of genome
    science continues, including research in energy-related biology,
    comparative genomics, and organisms' responses to biological and
    environmental cues. The American Museum, in turn, is home to a
    preeminent molecular research effort and is deeply engaged in genome
    research closely tied to DOE's mission areas and research priorities.
    Indeed, natural history and genomic science are intricately related.
    The AMNH molecular systematics program is at the forefront of
    comparative genomics and the analysis of DNA sequences for evolutionary
    research. In its molecular laboratories, in operation now for ten
    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 an invaluable resource for worldwide research in fields
    including genetics, comparative genomics, and medicine. Such a tissue
    collection will preserve genetic material and gene products from rare
    and endangered organisms that may become extinct before science fully
    exploits their potential. With nearly 40,000 samples already collected,
    it will be the largest super-cold tissue collection of its kind and
    will increase the possibilities for DNA research exponentially. We also
    plan an online collection database to ensure public access as well as
    to facilitate loans to scientists worldwide.
    Cluster Computing
        Parallel computing is an essential enabling technology for
    phylogenetic (evolutionary) analysis and intensive, efficient sampling
    of a wide array of study organisms. A 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 concert with the scientific
    goals and efforts of 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. The Museum intends to
    establish the Institute with funds from federal as well as nonfederal
    sources.
        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 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 critical challenges in
    medicine and health care, energy resources, 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).
        The Museum has already established its parallel computing facility,
    enhanced the molecular labs with state-of-the-art DNA sequencers, and
    built 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.
        Working cooperatively with New York's outstanding biomedical
    research and educational institutions, 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, 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 data sets; 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 Museum has already launched an
    ambitious agenda of genomics-related exhibition, conference, and public
    education programming, including the landmark exhibition, ``The Genomic
    Revolution,'' which opens in May 2001. The exhibition, the most
    comprehensive ever presented on genomics, will examine the revolution
    taking place in molecular biology and its impact on modern science and
    technology, natural history, biodiversity, and our everyday lives. In
    conjunction with the exhibition, the Museum may also display a video
    bulletin on genomics 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 and link to
    computer kiosks and websites.
        In fall 2000 the Museum hosted ``Sequencing the Human Genome: New
    Frontiers in Science and Technology,'' an international conference
    featuring leading scientists and policymakers. Spring conferences will
    include: ``Conservation Genetics in the Age of Genomics,'' co-sponsored
    by AMNH's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation and the Wildlife
    Conservation Society; and ``New Directions in Cluster Computing,''
    which will explore how parallel computing can make sense of the huge
    complex data sets that genomic science and other fields generate. In
    September, the Museum will convene ``Assembling the Tree of Life:
    Science, Relevance, and Challenges.''
        In establishing the Institute, the Museum plans to expand its
    curatorial range in microbial work; grow the super-cold tissue
    collection; and draw on our exhibition and educational expertise to
    offer enhanced public education and outreach. Plans also entail
    expanding and renovating lab space and facilities to accommodate
    additional curators and students.
        We seek $5-$10 million to establish the Institute for Comparative
    Genomics at the Museum. Together, 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 enormously the possibilities
    for DNA research and provide an invaluable international scientific
    resource. Our online collection database 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 Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
                                     (LRRI)

        It is proposed that the Department of Energy through its
    constituent agencies support the renovation of the LRRI clinical
    facilities and purchase of necessary equipment to support LRRI's
    ability to maintain its high research and clinical standards, and to
    better provide appropriate patient data security.
        LRRI has committed to a building campaign using $10M in private
    funds to improve its laboratory facilities and equipment. LRRI's
    clinical study facility is in need of renovation to better accommodate
    the thousands of outpatients recruited for these studies and to better
    maintain security of their patient information. LRRI requests $2M to
    help renovate this facility.
        LRRI has a long and distinguished history of providing critical and
    superior research to DOE. Through a long standing cooperative
    agreement, LRRI managed and operated the DOE Inhalation and Toxicology
    Research Institute (ITRI) for many years. With the encouragement and
    support of DOE, LRRI went through a five-year transition to privatize
    the use of the ITRI facility. LRRI continues and it is anticipated,
    will do so into the future, provide research services to DOE through a
    new Cooperative Agreement, which is pending final execution. As part of
    its services to DOE, LRRI will continue to use its clinical trial's
    facility in furtherance of scope of services defined in that agreement.
    Project Impact:
        LRRI, as a private non-profit research institute, places top
    priority on its ability to translate its basic science findings from
    animal models, into protocols designed to evaluate new approaches for
    treating respiratory disease. These protocols lead to new innovative
    techniques and approaches to health care.
        LRRI conducts clinical studies requiring the recruitment of
    thousands of patients that provide the basis for making the link
    between genetic and cellular defects and clinical disease presentation
    and demographic characteristics. Currently, LRRI is conducting
    population-based genetic studies in:
      --Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD),
      --Early detectors for lung cancer,
      --Pulmonary fibrosis, and
      --Mechanisms of asthma and other lung diseases in Hispanic and Native
            American children.
        Two events have greatly enhanced the ability to better understand
    the mechanisms of human disease in communities. One is the dramatic
    advance in molecular and cellular biology over the last 10 years,
    especially in human genetics. The other is the ability to collect and
    process data using advance computer systems and statistical techniques.
    This process called ``molecular epidemiology'' makes the link between
    genetic and cellular defects and clinical disease. LRRI has formed
    collaborations with national and local a private health providers to
    collect and manage patient data to carry out their ``molecular
    epidemiological'' studies. These partners include, the:
      --Lovelace Health Systems (LHS),
      --Albuquerque Veterans Administration Medical Center (VA),
      --University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM), and the
      --University of Miami School of Medicine (UMSM).
        Given the nature of the clinical studies performed, LRRI's facility
    requires security mechanisms well beyond those of ordinary medical
    clinics. As one can well imagine, this facility is the repository of
    very sensitive personal data, including that linked to an individual's
    DNA. To carry out this responsibility for privacy and confidentiality,
    there is a need to renovate the facilities and equipment necessary to
    be physically and electronically impenetrable to all but those who have
    specific and authorized access.
        The existing 8,000 sq. ft. facility was constructed in the 1950's
    and requires renovation and upgrades to provide a suitable, efficient,
    functional and secure facility. The proposed project would require
    reconfigured space, upgrades to meet current fire and safety codes, new
    interior finishes, new plumbing, upgraded electrical and a new heating,
    ventilation and air conditioning system.
        The current clinical trial's facility is occupied in part by other
    LRRI functions. Some of these functions will need to be relocated to
    provide the required additional space for the clinical studies.
    Unfinished space is being made available in the new research facility
    included as part of the $10M LRRI campaign. The proposed project will
    include the completion of 8,000 square feet of the unfinished space for
    this purpose.
        Accordingly, to meet this responsibility and to improve LRRI's
    ability to conduct its clinical studies, we respectfully request $2M.
    The responsible Federal agency is the Department of Energy--Biological
    and Research Account.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners,
                            Alachua County, Florida

        Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
    County Commissioners to submit this written testimony before your
    Subcommittee concerning the County's Energy Conservation Prototype for
    the New Alachua County Criminal Courthouse. This innovative and state
    of the art project is described below in detail.
       energy conservation prototype for the new alachua county criminal
                 courthouse ($3.0 million in funding requested)
        In order to be a model for energy and resource conservation, the
    new Alachua County Criminal Courthouse has been designed in accordance
    with the highest national standards (LEED Certification Program) for
    energy conservation. Federal funding is being sought in order to
    augment the building's present energy saving measures with four
    additional items: potable water reduction, alternative energy source,
    reduction of heat loads, and higher performance systems for the
    building's heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system.
    Together, these systems will effectively reduce energy consumption, as
    well as the future operating costs of the new Courthouse.
        The following narrative outlines in detail the energy saving
    measures that are presently being incorporated into the design of the
    new Courthouse. For ease of review, they are broken down into the five
    major categories of the LEED Certification Program.
    Site Considerations
      --Erosion will be controlled to reduce any negative impact on water
            and air quality.
      --The site will increase the density and urbanity of downtown
            Gainesville.
      --The site is adjacent to and provides good access for mass transit.
      --On site parking requirements have been reduced to their minimum,
            and parking preference will be provided for car pooling.
      --Site construction impact has been limited to an area of four blocks
            to minimize disturbance.
      --Fifty percent of the open areas will be planted with native
            vegetation.
      --Existing storm water runoff patterns will be undisturbed, and on
            site water treatment will be provided.
      --Parking areas will be provided with landscaping to reduce heat
            islands.
      --Screening measures will be used to ensure that direct lighting beam
            emissions do not fall outside of the property line.
    Water Conservation and Efficiency
      --Landscape material will be selected from native plant materials
            that require minimal watering.
      --Waste water needs have been minimized by reducing the user
            requirements for showers to a minimum of two for the building's
            staff.
      --All of the plumbing fixtures specified utilize 30 percent less
            water than the industry standard.
    Energy Conservation and Atmospheric Efficiency
    The building is being designed so that it is 30 percent more efficient
            in energy use than the industry requirements (ASHRE 90.1).
      --The mechanical and fire protection systems will contain no HCFC, or
            ozone damaging liquids.
      --An extensive commissioning routine will be utilized to insure that
            the building systems are constructed as designed, and operated
            in the most efficient manner.
    Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency
      --Program areas to facilitate the recycling of materials will be
            provided in the building.
      --Whenever possible, existing site materials will be recycled into
            the new construction. Examples include asphalt pavement and
            crushed concrete to be used for base material.
      --Fifty percent of all materials that will be specified are to be
            manufactured within a 500-mile radius of the site.
      --All wood products utilized in the project will be acquired from
            companies providing responsible forest management, and from
            rapidly renewable sources.
    Indoor Environmental Quality
      --The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system in the
            facility will be monitored and operated through a carbon
            dioxide monitoring system.
      --Fresh air effectiveness will be equal, or greater to 0.9 as
            determined by ASHRAE 129-97.
      --A construction indoor air quality management plan will be
            implemented, and monitored.
      --All materials specified will have low, or no emission of VOCs.
      --The HVAC system in the facility will be monitored and operated
            through a relative humidity monitoring system, and will comply
            will ASHRAE standards for thermal comfort.
      --Natural day lighting will be provided to all spaces regularly
            occupied, when not in conflict with confidentiality and
            security measures.
        As previously noted, the items described above constitute those
    design measures and mechanical systems that are presently being planned
    for the new Courthouse. However, the County is requesting a total of
    $3.0 million to augment these systems with four additional energy
    saving items. These items, with their estimated costs, are describe
    below.
    Potable Water Reduction (Estimated Cost: $570,000)
        In order to reduce potable water consumption, the County is
    investigating the use of a centralized vacuum toilet system that will
    reduce the water consumption for every single flush from 1.6 gallons to
    0.5 gallons. This system utilizes a centralized vacuum extractor to
    help move the solids through the piping network. This allows water to
    used only to clean bowl, and to work as a lubricant to facilitate
    movement.
    Alternative Energy Source (Estimated Cost: $900,000)
        The use of a fuel cell power plant is being analyzed in order to
    help reduce the building's dependence on traditional electric systems.
    Specifically, fuel cells are designed to produce electrical power from
    natural gas fuel (through an electro-chemical process) and recoverable
    heat. The fuel cell system being studied for the new Courthouse would
    be utilized for both a portion of the building's normal energy needs,
    and the emergency power needs of the facility. With the approval of the
    appropriate agencies for the storage of some natural gas on site, the
    dependence upon a traditional diesel-powered generator can be avoided
    for this facility.
    Reduction of Heat Loads (Estimated Cost: $1,000,000)
        The single largest contributor of heat in this facility will be the
    building's direct exposure to the sun. In order to minimize the heat-
    gain of the building, and thus reduce the energy demand to cool the
    building and its users, the design team has developed an alternative
    exterior shading device in the form of horizontal fins. This system
    will shade all of the glazing, and the exterior of the building. By
    acting as a parasol shade, all of the building's glazing will be
    protected at the peek exposure time. The state of the art shading
    coefficient for 1.0 inches of insulated glass without a mirror finish
    is in the range of 0.24 to 0.28. The goal of the shading system for
    this building is to bring that shading coefficient of the glass to near
    zero.
    Higher Performance Systems for the Heating, Ventilation, and Air
            Conditioning (HVAC) System (Estimated Cost: $530,000)
        The County's efforts in the design of the building's HVAC system
    concern the utilization of the most energy efficient equipment and
    technology available on the market. As part of those efforts, the
    following systems are being analyzed for the final implementation of
    this design. These systems include:
      --High efficiency condensing natural gas boilers that provide hot
            water to all air handling units, and VAV box heating coils.
            Consequently, the boilers shall be the direct vent type with
            PVC combustion air ducts and stainless steel exhaust flues out
            of the roof of the mechanical room. This would include two
            boilers rated two million BTU each. Finally, the hot water
            pumping system will be a primary/secondary pumping system with
            variable frequency drives on secondary pumps.
      --Air handling equipment that would be designed as follows: double-
            wall construction with two inch insulation, IAQ-type sloped
            drain pans, 30 percent pre-filters, and 90 percent to 95
            percent cartridge filters. In order to provide optimal energy
            efficiency, the air-handling units that are variable volume
            shall be controlled via variable frequency drives. This system
            also greatly increases the latent cooling ability of the system
            at part-load conditions, preventing humidity buildup in the
            summer months. Each air-handling unit shall have a humidity
            sensor to monitor and modify control sequences if necessary to
            maintain proper humidity levels. All motors shall be high-
            efficiency. The coils within the system will all operate using
            two-way control valves to provide the most efficient use of
            chilled and hot water. Cooling coil temperature differential
            shall be selected to minimize energy use.
      --A ventilation system for the building that would be provided in
            accordance with the amounts prescribed in ASHRAE 62-1989.
            Specifically, carbon dioxide sensors will monitor the carbon
            dioxide level in the building's habitable spaces, and utilize
            this information to control the amount of outside air being
            supplied to the building's system. This will reduce energy
            consumption by reducing the amount of outside air that needs to
            be cooled and dehumidified.
                   concluding comments for written testimony
        In conclusion, Alachua County proposes an energy conservation
    prototype for the new Alachua County Criminal Courthouse. In addition
    to serving as a centerpiece of downtown redevelopment, the Courthouse
    will also serve as a model project for the conservation of energy and
    natural resources in public buildings. To demonstrate the County's
    commitment to this project, numerous energy and resource conservation
    measures have already been planned for the building.
        Therefore, the federal funding requested in this initiative will
    allow other conservation measures to be included in the building's
    design, making it a remarkable state and national example of energy
    conservation and environmental protection. For these reasons, we hope
    that the Subcommittee will find this project worthy of your support.
    Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
                                     Jersey

        UMDNJ is one of the of the largest public health sciences
    universities in the country. In its 30-year history, the university has
    become a statewide system with 8 schools on 5 academic campuses. UMDNJ
    has developed a network of core and affiliated teaching hospitals as
    well as academic partners that provide health care and higher education
    to citizens throughout the state.
        The university's president and board of trustees developed a
    strategic plan to place UMDNJ in the top tier of academic health
    centers in the nation. Foremost in that plan is the development of
    centers of excellence such as the Cancer Institute of New Jersey and
    the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
        The Cancer Institute is New Jersey's only NCI-designated cancer
    center. CINJ was established in 1990 with a capital grant from the
    federal government and other grant support. Over the past decade, CINJ
    has developed a provider network that includes 20 hospital partners
    across the state to provide seamless access to the exceptional cancer
    programs at CINJ. Over the past 3 years, the Gallo Prostate Cancer
    Center achieved $9 million in federal funding to enhance prostate
    cancer education and treatment programs throughout New Jersey. Because
    African-American males are 2.5 times more likely to develop prostate
    cancer than white males, we are especially pleased of our partnership
    with the 100 black men organization through which we offer prostate
    cancer screenings in minority communities. To date, this initiative has
    provided screenings for prostate cancer to more than 1,500 men in three
    counties. Our goal is to extend that service to every county in New
    Jersey.
        CINJ also works with the Chandler Health Center, a federally
    qualified community health center operated by the UMDNJ-Robert Wood
    Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ. The center provides early
    detection programs and examinations to medically indigent adults and
    children. CINJ also provides outreach to make the benefits of clinical
    trials more widely available to minorities.
        CINJ currently occupies a 76,000 square foot research and treatment
    facility, but demand has outpaced its capacity. The facility was
    designed to accommodate 16,000 patient visits, but last year there were
    more than 37,000 patient visits. These visits continue to increase at
    an annual rate of 10 percent. We anticipate between 50,000-60,000
    patient visits at CINJ by 2003. UMDNJ has approved the construction of
    a new addition to the CINJ facility in New Brunswick and has
    commitments of $16,000 toward the construction cost of $30 million. The
    new facility will take about two years to build and will create
    numerous construction-related jobs in the area. When completed, the
    facility will accommodate nearly 200 additional employees (faculty,
    support staff, nurses, clinical researchers, etc.) and will be the new
    home of the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Center. We are seeking
    $10 million in federal funding toward construction of the new CINJ
    addition.
        Our second priority is the Child Health Institute, a comprehensive
    research institute dedicated to the prevention, treatment and potential
    cures of childhood diseases, disabilities and disorders. The strong
    support of parents and families of affected children has produced
    important collaborations for the institute. Advocacy groups know the
    value of research as a tool toward treatment and cures. An example is
    autism. The Child Health Institute is home to the governor's council on
    autism, which distributes $1.5 million in grants from the state to
    provide education and treatment services to autistic children and their
    families.
        The Child Health Institute will act as a magnet for additional
    growth in research and healthcare in New Jersey. The Institute will
    encompass 100,000 square feet to house more than 40 research
    laboratories and associated support facilities. When completed, there
    will a full complement of 130 employees at the CHI.
        The Child Health Institute is estimated to cost about $40 million.
    To date, CHI has achieved close to $5 million in federal funding and
    $30 million from private, individual, foundation and other government
    sources. We are seeking $5 million to complete the federal government's
    commitment to the development of the Child Health Institute.
        The ability of urban based academic health centers such as UMDNJ
    and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School to conduct research that will
    translate to better health care must be supported through a partnership
    of federal, state and private resources. We thank this committee for
    supporting the critical needs of research and economic development
    throughout the nation and for your past support of our programs.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy

                                  introduction
        The Business Council For Sustainable Energy is pleased to offer
    testimony on the role for government in promoting energy research,
    development and deployment, specifically the renewable energy programs
    at the Department of Energy (DOE).
        The Council was formed in 1992 by businesses and industry trade
    associations sharing 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.
                    a federal energy commitment is critical
        The recent election focused on the energy crisis like none other we
    have faced in recent memory. We continue to experience spiraling prices
    and supply interruptions in California for electricity and we may see
    problems spread to other regions this summer. The environmental
    challenges of energy supply and use abound, and even energy's national
    security implications are coming to the forefront. All of these
    challenges will persist for years and will only be resolved by the
    concerted efforts of industry, government and the public.
        Regarding the Federal role in energy supply and use, we eagerly
    await implementation of the Administration's demonstrated commitment to
    fixing the problems, and a commitment by Congress to ensure that there
    is a diverse, environmentally and economically sound menu of energy
    options available to the market.
             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 will
    meet our needs. In fact, in the deregulated California wholesale
    electricity market, many renewable energy projects are the margin in
    keeping the lights on, and their contribution to grid reliability will
    be realized many more times in more areas of the nation as summer
    approaches.
        The ability of these technologies to fulfill this role is due in
    large part to a sustained commitment by industry and the Federal
    government to research and development. In addition, the private sector
    has and continues to be important in helping share the risk of
    investing in deployment of clean technologies that, while at or near
    economical viability, face obstacles to their wide market availability.
        With the energy needs of the nation having never been more acute,
    the need for a continued Federal commitment is likewise critical. We
    believe it vital that the following programs receive the full support
    of the Congress in order to lead the nation through the challenges we
    face and will continue to face in the foreseeable future.
                                      wind
        Markets for utility-scale wind energy continue to accelerate their
    growth rate. Over the past year in the U.S. alone, nine separate
    hundred-plus megawatt projects were announced, including in Nevada,
    California and along the Washington-Oregon border, which will aid the
    heavily stressed West coast grid, three projects in Texas, and smaller
    projects in Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Kansas, Wyoming and
    elsewhere. Collectively, they represent the output of several
    traditional central station power plants yet have a minimal impact upon
    the environment.
        In addition to increasing their contribution to national
    electricity needs, wind facilities are some of the most rapidly sited
    and constructed energy providers. Major wind facilities can move from
    proposal to being on line in a fraction of the time of traditional
    power plants. In short, they are making a difference now.
        Wind energy technology as it stands today is capable of providing
    electricity at cost-competitive rates in only 5 percent of potential
    wind sites in the U.S. Further refinement from continued research and
    development can make wind a viable energy resource in more and more
    regions, over a wider range of wind conditions and make more
    significant contributions to our national electricity needs. To do so,
    Federal support is critical.
        Small wind turbines are also on the rise. Companies like Bergey
    Windpower, a Council member and manufacturer of small wind systems
    serving the distributed generation market for rural homes and
    facilities, are working overtime to satisfy orders from electricity-
    starved regions. These distributed generation systems have great
    potential to reduce energy costs, promote competition and strengthen
    the electrical grid.
        DOE has significant programs for many technologies but not for
    small wind. A Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) would reduce the
    costs of small wind systems for homes, farms, and small businesses by
    promoting deployment that would lead to higher production volumes,
    reducing market barriers and improving the technology. SWTI aims to
    make small wind turbines cost-effective for an estimated 6 million to
    10 million potential rural residential users, opening a potential
    market of up to 60,000 MW that could make small wind a major
    contributor to our domestic energy supply.
                                  solar energy
        Solar energy continues to provide an increasing amount of energy
    for the world. The concentrated solar power, photovoltaics and solar
    buildings programs at the Department have played and will continue to
    play an important role in the deployment of these technologies.
    Concentrated Solar Power
        This technology can provide both heat and power for baseload energy
    demand. Three primary technologies are emerging today: solar troughs;
    solar-driven dish/engines; and concentrators. Storage technologies and
    hybrid designs provide for energy production even when the sun is not
    shining. Together these technologies are expected to contribute over
    5,000 megawatts of electricity worldwide by 2010.
        The Council supports funding for a combination of activities
    related to concentrated solar power (CSP). This includes research and
    technical assistance directed by industry but administered through the
    national laboratories and universities, cost-shared funding provided
    directly to U.S. industry for applied research, development and
    deployment and the establishment of the CSP Southwest Border
    Initiative, which would provide a blend of CSP technologies to help
    provide badly needed power to this region (Arizona, Nevada, California,
    and New Mexico). Together we request funding for concentrated solar
    power activities at a level of $25 million.
    Photovoltaics
        This technology utilizes silicon to convert sunlight directly into
    electricity. Research has already succeeded in cutting the cost of
    producing electricity in this manner in half between 1995 and 2000. The
    industry has grown three-fold in less than a decade. On the horizon
    over the next five years is the potential to halve cost again, making
    photovoltaic-produced electricity competitive with all other
    distributed electricity generation options in the U.S.
        U.S. preeminence in this field can only be maintained with a
    committed Federal effort. New materials development, integrating
    photovoltaic systems with structural building materials, increasing
    manufacturing efficiencies and technology validation partnerships that
    increase confidence in the technology are all efforts requiring Federal
    assistance. Funding at a level of $100 million in fiscal year 2002
    would build upon past achievements and increase market penetration of
    this environmentally benign technology.
    Solar Buildings
        Continued technological developments and a Federal commitment in
    this arena have seen solar thermal water heating and other technologies
    penetrating the building market. This program has successfully
    established performance and certification criteria that can predict the
    performance of solar water heating systems and improve efficiencies at
    lower costs. Today, large-scale homebuilders are actively integrating a
    variety of solar, energy efficiency and other renewable energy
    technologies into their designs and marketing them to consumers.
        The Council supports $12 million in funding for this program to
    develop integrated technology packages that can deliver competitive
    energy in today's market. Its blending of technologies including energy
    efficiency, other renewable and natural gas technologies creates
    solutions that provide reliable, low cost and environmentally sound
    energy options to consumers.
    The Zero Energy Building Initiative
        The Council supports the creation of this initiative. The
    combination of solar technologies with energy-efficient construction
    techniques and highly efficient appliances can result in a new
    generation of cost-effective buildings that have zero net annual need
    for off-site energy while generating zero air pollution emissions.
                               geothermal energy
        The Council supports Federal programs directed towards taking
    advantage of geothermal resources. California today receives six
    percent of its electricity from geothermal resources and the western
    U.S. could realize nearly 20,000 megawatts of electrical and thermal
    energy using enhanced geothermal technology. That would represent a
    tripling of today's output, and would satisfy the needs of 18 million
    residents. The Council requests an increase to $60 million in
    geothermal funding in fiscal year 2002.
                   residential renewable energy grant program
        Senator Murkowski has proposed this program to offset a portion of
    the cost of renewable energy systems that include solar, photovoltaic,
    wind, biomass, waste, hydroelectric or geothermal energy resources. We
    support the full authorization level of $30 million for fiscal year
    2002.
                               distributed power
        Reliable power generated on-site has received much attention since
    rolling blackouts struck California. Whether the energy is produced by
    microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells or other gas-fueled
    systems, or by renewable energy technologies, challenges to widespread
    deployment remain. In some instances it is the lack of real-world
    operating experience due to the newness of some technologies; in other
    cases it may be problems associated with hooking up to the grid due to
    the lack of interconnect standards or emissions issues associated with
    siting new generating capacity. In all of these cases and despite
    demands of the marketplace, the Federal role remains strong.
        We view the new National Energy Reliability Initiative as a serious
    effort to address many outstanding distributed power and reliability
    issues. Its integrated examination of the challenges, backed by
    meaningful resources, has the potential to make substantial inroads
    toward deploying distributed energy resources. To meet these needs, the
    Council requests appropriations in the amount of $30 million for the
    initiative and $9 million for traditional distributed energy resources
    programs.
                     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 develop
    wind and solar generating facilities. We very much support this program
    and request the Committee provide $25 million in funding for the REPI.
                            international activities
        Finally, the Council would like to offer its support for 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 often 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, with an
    anticipated expenditure of $4 trillion to $5 trillion. Traditionally,
    most ``new'' 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 easily double in less then 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, and providing for the energy needs of some of the 2 billion
    people in the world now without electricity.
        The Council is extremely supportive of the fiscal year 2002 funding
    for international energy programs and urges that funding 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
        A wide range of energy options is needed to create energy security
    and ensure our economic and environmental integrity. With a full slate
    of choices, choices in part aided by research and development supported
    by the Department of Energy, the marketplace will have options to
    select those most appropriate solutions to meet specific needs. These
    are options that are already having an impact in many states and
    countries.
        In the near-term, these technologies provide the shortest lead-time
    to getting new generation capacity on the grid. Simultaneously, they
    provide American jobs, stronger economies here and abroad, enhanced
    export opportunities for domestic manufacturers and a cleaner
    environment. Continuing Federal emphasis on developing low- and non-
    polluting energy technologies and services will help achieve these
    goals. Utilizing 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 urges the Congress to continue its support of
    Federal research, development and validation programs for renewable and
    distributed energy technologies. By adopting a robust budget, Congress
    can demonstrate its genuine commitment to the U.S. economy throughout
    this time of critical energy constraint.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the National Hydrogen Association

        Dear Chairman Domenici: The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) was
    formed by a group of ten industry, university/research, and small
    business members in February 1989. The National Hydrogen Association
    now has over 70 members, including automobile companies, energy
    providers, fuel cell developers, gas producers, chemical companies and
    others. The NHA provides a national focal point for hydrogen interest
    and information transfer.
        With active participation from three major energy companies (BP,
    Shell Hydrogen, and Texaco Energy Systems), as well as three major
    hydrogen suppliers (Air Products and Chemicals, BOC Gases, and
    Praxair), the NHA is better positioned than ever to achieve the goal of
    industry and government to implement a hydrogen energy infrastructure.
    The Department of Energy must be ready to support this effort with
    improved technology and safe infrastructure while removing the barriers
    to commercialization.
        The mission of the National Hydrogen Association is to foster the
    development of hydrogen technologies and their utilization in energy
    applications. I am writing to underscore the NHA's support for
    increased funding of the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2002
    Hydrogen Research Program. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, authored by
    Congressman Robert Walker while he was Chairman of the Science
    Committee, authorized $40 million for the Hydrogen Research Program for
    fiscal year 2001. This act expires this year, and reauthorization
    efforts are underway. The current proposed DOE budget for hydrogen
    falls short of the targets in the draft bill and in fact falls short of
    the authorized amount for fiscal year 2001 of $40 million. The NHA
    encourages you to fund the fiscal year 2002 DOE Hydrogen Program at the
    $40 million level that was authorized, but not appropriated for fiscal
    year 2001.
        The development of programs that create jobs, and enhance the
    economy while not polluting our environment should be a priority and
    should be funded at the level that Congress has authorized. The
    introduction of hydrogen as a clean energy carrier will have wide
    ramifications. Hydrogen and the associated technologies will provide us
    with a degree of energy independence that we have not experienced in
    the world market for oil, and will unleash this nation's ability to
    influence world markets through U.S. production of clean energy
    technologies.
        A $40 million appropriation for such an important program is
    modest, especially when compared to the funds being spent by domestic
    and foreign businesses and foreign governments. We should not be left
    at the starting gate when it comes to the opening of New World markets.
    Full funding of the Hydrogen Research Program is a cost-effective
    investment in America's future.
        Hydrogen was rated highly by the Department of Energy in a study
    conducted by Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) on carbon
    displacement, a key indicator in their budget allocation in response to
    the Administration's climate change initiative. Auto companies and
    energy companies have publicly stated that if certain technical issues
    with hydrogen were solved, they would not be looking at other alternate
    fuels. Why has DOE reduced the budget for the Department's core
    competency in hydrogen when the need for clean, sustainable energy has
    significantly increased?
        The administration's budget recommends only $13.9 million for
    hydrogen research and development. A supplemental budget may be in the
    works. At $13.9 million, many activities critical to assure a safe
    hydrogen infrastructure will not be funded. These include ceramic
    membrane technology efforts cost-shared with industry; the development
    of codes and standards for hydrogen energy systems, including
    transportation and stationary power systems; critical outreach with
    regulatory bodies and others who want to work with the hydrogen
    community to assure public safety; outreach to the public on the proper
    use and benefits of these new technologies; niche market demonstrations
    including fuel cell mining vehicle demonstration projects, hydrogen
    refueling stations, hydrogen storage technologies using new materials;
    and others. Even at $27 million, demonstrations of stationary fuel
    cells and vehicles at Federal facilities, efforts to meet cost targets
    for hydrogen production by reformation of natural gas, and other
    activities described in Title II of the Hydrogen Future Act will not be
    fully funded.
        Hydrogen technologies have made significant progress both
    technically and economically due to the benefit of a focused
    government-industry program at the U.S. Department of Energy. The
    Hydrogen Program allows for a single focal point for hydrogen energy
    system information and activities. This core competency is supported by
    industry and avoids redundancy and duplication of effort, while
    enabling hydrogen to have a visible activity. This activity is
    monitored with support from the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel,
    mandated by Congress, and tracked through an effective peer review
    process annually. This type of accountability has allowed the Hydrogen
    Program to make significant progress with limited budgets.
        Given that demonstrations will be taking place over the next three
    years in California and other states, timing for the development of
    hydrogen storage and refueling systems is now. The DOE Hydrogen
    Program, in which the National Hydrogen Association and many of our
    members participate, has been called upon by industry to address these
    issues and is responding to industry's requests. The NHA has been
    working closely with the DOE Hydrogen Program to ensure that industry
    has the tools it needs to commercialize the technologies developed
    through our national laboratories and cooperative research efforts. I
    believe it is unwise for the hydrogen program to suffer a funding
    reduction and turn these activities over to other DOE areas, since this
    diffuses the hydrogen effort and would lead to independent or poorly
    coordinated hydrogen projects.
        Hydrogen has enjoyed support on Capitol Hill and from industry by
    providing a balanced program focused on proving key technological
    concepts, which industry may then use to make products, based on their
    own market analyses. The NHA encourages you to fund the Hydrogen
    Program at its fiscal year 2001 authorized level of $40 million in
    fiscal year 2002. Thank you for your past leadership in this energy
    area. I look forward to working with you to increase the fiscal year
    2002 appropriation for the DOE Hydrogen Program.
                                     ______

               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 2002.
        The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) coordinates public policy for
    the U.S. nuclear industry. NEI represents 270 members with a broad
    spectrum of interests, including every U.S. electric company 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 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 record levels for efficiency and
    electricity production.
        The industry thanks Senator Pete Domenici for his leadership in
    supporting the major U.S. source of emission-free electricity. The
    nuclear energy legislation introduced by Senator Domenici in March
    provides concrete steps to set our nation on a sound energy course for
    decades to come, including an appropriate robust role for nuclear
    energy in our nation's electricity portfolio.
                     federal 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
    is long established U.S. national policy. In 1982, the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act codified Federal policy for developing a repository for
    long-term stewardship of used nuclear fuel. In 1987, after
    environmental assessments were conducted at five sites, Congress
    focused the repository study on Yucca Mountain, Nev. DOE is committed
    to forward a formal decision on the site suitability of Yucca Mountain
    to the president this year.
        DOE's 1998 viability assessment, 1999 draft environmental impact
    statement (EIS) and additional scientific evaluations support
    preliminary findings that the proposed repository at the remote, desert
    ridge at Yucca Mountain can protect public health and safety far into
    the future. DOE's science consistently predicts that peak radiation
    releases 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 received by traveling on a transcontinental
    airplane flight.
        DOE must start meeting its contractual and statutory obligations to
    begin removing used nuclear fuel from nuclear power plant sites,
    national laboratories and defense facilities in approximately 150
    communities in 40 states. The industry thanks the committee for its
    commitment to rectify DOE's 1998 default on this obligation by
    sufficiently funding the repository program. We urge the committee to
    continue to hold DOE accountable for making a decision on a formal
    Yucca Mountain site recommendation to the president by the end of this
    year.
        Since 1983, American electricity consumers have committed $16.8
    billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund, specifically to finance the Federal
    management of used nuclear fuel. Federal taxpayers have paid an
    additional $1.4 billion for disposal of waste from defense-related
    nuclear programs. The Nuclear Waste Fund has a balance of $10.1
    billion, which must be made available for repository construction and
    operation.
        The nuclear energy industry strongly supports the Department of
    Energy's fiscal year 2002 funding request of $445 million for the
    Civilian Radioactive Waste Management program. At this critical
    juncture, an increase in DOE's appropriation is warranted to continue
    the scientific study of Yucca Mountain. Electricity consumers this year
    will pay more than $700 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
        Although the repository program is the foundation of our national
    policy for managing used nuclear fuel, the nuclear industry also
    recognizes the value in researching future used fuel management
    technologies. Farsighted research and development programs allow our
    nation to remain the world leader in nuclear technologies. However, it
    is important to note that even technologies like transmutation--the
    conversion of used nuclear fuel into less toxic materials--require a
    repository for disposal of the radioactive byproducts generated from
    the process.
                     nuclear energy research & development
        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 grew by 2.3 percent a year on average
    during the 1990s, and by 2.6 percent in 2000. Even if electricity
    demand grows by a modest 1.8 percent annually over the next two
    decades, the nation will need nearly 400,000 megawatts of new electric
    generating capacity, including replacement of retired capacity,
    according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This capacity
    is the equivalent of building about 40 new mid-size (500-megawatt)
    power plants--20,000 megawatts--every year for the next 20 years.
        The industry is disappointed that DOE has requested less funding
    for its fiscal year 2002 nuclear energy research and development
    programs than last year, and urges the committee to approve $433
    million in fiscal year 2002 for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
    and Technology--twice the current budget.
        This funding level is consistent with recommendations in
    legislation recently introduced authorizing increases in nuclear energy
    R&D programs. Funding increases also have been suggested in recent
    years by the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
    Technology (PCAST), the Secretary of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research
    Advisory Committee and DOE's Near-Term Deployment Group.
        The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)--which seeks to
    expand America's nuclear energy program in the 21st century--fills a
    vital need identified in a 1997 PCAST report. PCAST recommended an R&D
    program to address potential barriers to nuclear energy's long-term use
    and to maintain America's nuclear science and technology leadership.
    PCAST also recommended another R&D initiative--the Nuclear Energy Plant
    Optimization (NEPO) program--to generate more low-cost energy from
    America's nuclear power plants.
        A blue ribbon panel of seven experts appointed by the Nuclear
    Energy Research Advisory Committee has offered recommendations on how
    DOE can support university nuclear engineering programs, help to
    maintain university research and training reactors and promote
    collaboration between universities and DOE laboratories. DOE's Near-
    Term Deployment Group is developing recommendations on agency actions
    needed in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 to facilitate the NRC
    review of early site permit applications for new nuclear power plants.
        Also, authorizing legislation introduced this year in the U.S.
    Senate and House of Representatives would expand funding in these areas
    as well as provide incentives to increase electricity generation at
    nuclear power plants.
        The nuclear energy industry urges the committee to approve $60
    million in fiscal year 2002 for the NERI program, which is paving the
    way for the expanded use of nuclear energy and maintaining U.S.
    leadership in nuclear plant technology and safety. In fiscal year 2001,
    NERI received $22.5 million--less than one-half of the $50 million
    annual appropriation recommended by PCAST in its 1997 report. Beginning
    in fiscal year 2002, PCAST recommended NERI funding be increased to
    $100 million a year. Although current funding has been sufficient to
    continue projects initiated in previous fiscal years, it leaves little
    funding for new R&D projects.
        The nuclear energy industry also encourages the committee to
    allocate $15 million for the 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. NEPO received $5 million in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
    year 2001--half the annual funding recommended by PCAST.
        DOE has launched a project to prepare a technology roadmap for
    developing and deploying ``next generation'' nuclear plants, called
    Generation IV. As a part of this effort, DOE is preparing a report on
    near-term deployment activities needed to have new nuclear plants in
    operation by 2010 or sooner, while longer term technologies are being
    developed.
        DOE is coordinating with NEI's Executive Task Force on New Nuclear
    Plants. In the interim, DOE is preparing recommendations on activities
    requiring immediate attention and is expected to released them in the
    near future. To support completion of the DOE technology roadmapping
    effort and to begin implementing these near-term recommendations, NEI
    urges the committee to approve $42 million in fiscal year 2002 for the
    Nuclear Energy Technology Development program.
        The industry also requests $34.2 million for DOE's University
    Support Program, which enhances vital research and educational programs
    in nuclear science at the nation's colleges and universities. The
    number of college programs in nuclear engineering and science is
    dwindling. To maintain our nation's position as the international
    leader in nuclear technology, it is vital that this trend be reversed
    and that our nation's best and brightest technical minds be attracted
    to the nuclear technologies. We urge Congress to adequately fund
    student recruitment, teaching facilities, fuel and other reactor
    equipment, and instructors to educate a new generation of American
    nuclear specialists.
        Finally, the industry supports the new initiatives included in
    authorization legislation introduced this year. One such initiative is
    the Production Incentive Programs, which the industry believes should
    be funded at $15 million.
                         nuclear regulatory commission
        The industry commends Congress for important changes to the nuclear
    industry user fee assessments supporting NRC activities that are
    unrelated to industry activities. That legislation requires that the
    proportion of the NRC's budget derived from user fees be decreased by 2
    percent each year through 2005. In that year, licensees will support 90
    percent of the NRC's budget, but not activities that are not directly
    related to regulating the industry.
        As industry and national energy supply priorities change, sound
    public management and budgeting principles dictate 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. Last year, the NRC issued a strategic plan for fiscal
    years 2000-2005. In addition, the agency submitted a fiscal year 2001-
    2005 resource information document in response to requests from
    Congress.
        The industry urges the NRC to review its budget in the context of
    those documents and the changing needs of the agency. In particular,
    the agency should carefully review its organizational structure and
    employment levels. The NRC, in its resource information document, has
    acknowledged that additional organizational changes may be desirable.
    Although the NRC has reduced its staffing levels during the 1990s, its
    projections reveal that it may begin increasing those levels over the
    next few years. The industry believes there are a number of
    opportunities for reallocating resources that should be explored before
    additional resources are authorized. These include: reevaluating NRC's
    regional structure in light of the results of the reactor oversight
    process; eliminating research efforts of questionable value, such as
    human performance and organizational effectiveness; limiting the role
    of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS) to technical
    matters; and streamlining the differing professional opinion process to
    minimize its impact on issue resolution and management time.
        The NRC will be facing several issues in the near future that will
    challenge its management flexibility. The possibility of early site
    permitting and new reactor licensing, for example, will raise issues
    that have not been considered by the NRC for many years. It may not be
    possible to simply reassign current staff due to the levels of
    specialized expertise that may be required. The industry urges the
    committee to request a detailed explanation of how the NRC's proposed
    budget will address this important issue as well as the impact that
    license renewal may have on this and future NRC budgets and resource
    allocation.
        The industry thanks the committee for its continued oversight of
    the NRC and support for the agency's new reactor oversight process,
    which is designed to make regulation of the industry more focused on
    areas significant to safety. The industry and other stakeholders are
    working with the NRC to incorporate lessons learned during initial
    implementation of the process in 2000 and to enhance the efficacy of
    the oversight process.
        The industry believes that the majority of U.S. nuclear power
    reactors will be relicensed for an additional 20 years. The first two
    electric companies seeking 20-year license extensions for a total of
    five reactors received regulatory approval within 24 months. The
    industry expects future license renewal applications to be streamlined
    as the NRC applies lessons learned from the initial applications. The
    committee's continued oversight of license renewal is greatly
    appreciated.
        Other programs supported by the industry include:
        Nuclear Nonproliferation: The industry supports the disposal of
    excess weapons grade nuclear materials through the use of mixed-oxide
    fuel in reactors in the United States and Russia.
        Low-Dose Radiation Research: The industry strongly supports
    continued funding for the DOE's low-dose radiation research program.
    This program will produce a better understanding of low-dose radiation
    effects to ensure 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 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 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. NEI urges the committee to ensure that these monies are spent on
    decontamination and decommissioning activities at these facilities.
    Other important environmental, safety and/or health activities at these
    facilities should be paid for out of the general fund.
        International Nuclear Safety Program & Nuclear Energy Agency: NEI
    supports the funding requested for 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. We support continued funding for the Advanced Nuclear
    Medicine Initiative to fill the gap where other funding sources, such
    as the National Institutes of Health, have been either unable or
    unwilling to provide support for radioisotope production.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Physiologists, the
     National Corn Growers Association and the American Phytopathological
                                    Society

                               summary paragraph
        The Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences,
    Energy Biosciences program is a highly competitive research program
    that supports leading basic research on plants and microbes. Plant
    genomics and recombinant DNA technology (biotechnology) offer
    revolutionary new tools to plant scientists to engineer plants that
    will address the nation's energy needs. Basic plant research is leading
    to plants that will produce valuable chemicals that will replace
    petroleum-derived industrial products. These home-grown energy crops
    will provide benefits to the U.S. economy, farmers, the chemical
    industry, consumers and environment. Environmental benefits will also
    result from research on engineered plants that remove heavy metal
    contaminants from the soil and water. Scientists supported by the
    Energy Biosciences program have gained prominence in the national and
    international science communities. As just one of these examples,
    Energy Biosciences-sponsored research on capture of energy from
    photosynthesis by Professor Paul Boyer led to the award of the 1997
    Nobel Prize in Chemistry (biochemistry) for Dr. Boyer. The Energy
    Biosciences program is an example of the optimum way basic science can
    be used to solve some of our country's most challenging energy and
    environmental problems.
        Mr. Chairman, the American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP),
    representing 6,000 plant scientists, the National Corn Growers
    Association (NCGA), representing more than 30,000 members, and the
    American Phytopathological Society (APS), representing 5,000 plant
    pathologists, appreciate having this opportunity to submit comments on
    opportunities offered by energy-related plant research sponsored by the
    Department of Energy. The DOE Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences,
    Energy Biosciences program funds basic research in the plant sciences
    and non-medical microbiology in several important areas.
        The Energy Biosciences program supports basic research that makes
    use of the sun's energy and atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce in
    plants renewable sources of energy including fuels and industrial
    products. Promising research on plants in the area of phytoremediation
    sponsored by the Energy Biosciences program is leading to enhanced
    plants that can be used to clean heavy metal contaminants from soil and
    water.
        Until the latter part of the 19th Century, people throughout the
    world were dependent upon plants and other contemporaneous biological
    sources for the production of organic materials. Plants and animals
    provided the only sources of fibers, coatings, lubricants, solvents,
    dyes, waxes, fillers, insulation, fragrances detergents, sizing,
    leather, wood, paper, rubber and many other types of materials.
        Dr. Chris Somerville, whose research has been supported by the
    Energy Biosciences program, and Dario Bonetta, provided in the January
    2001 issue of the peer-reviewed science journal Plant Physiology a
    historical background and projected future advances in energy-related
    plant research. These scientists identified a number of opportunities
    offered by advances in plant genomics and modern transformation
    technologies such as biotechnology that will lead to development of
    novel plant products to replace petroleum-derived chemicals. Research
    in this area has been identified by Plant Physiology as one of the
    greatest advances in plant science of the past 25 years. The DOE Energy
    Biosciences program is the key source of support for this basic energy
    research. This statement includes in part some of the findings of
    Somerville and Bonetta endorsed by the ASPP and the APS.
        As recently as 1930, 30 percent of industrial organic chemicals
    were derived from plants. The discovery of extensive petroleum reserves
    and advances in chemistry and petroleum engineering resulted in a major
    shift to reliance on fossil sources of organic feedstocks such as
    petroleum. These developments also led to the development of petroleum-
    based materials, such as inexpensive plastics, with properties that
    could not be duplicated by abundantly available natural materials.
        However, many important materials are still derived from plants and
    animals including wood, cork, paper, leather, cotton, ramie, hemp,
    flax, sisal, wool and silk. Rubber from natural latex is still the only
    material that can be used to produce tires that will reliably withstand
    the forces associated with airplane landings. Linseed oil is still used
    to make paint. Clearly, for many applications, biological sources can
    still be used to produce materials on the scale necessary to meet the
    needs of the U.S. and other populous industrialized nations.
        Research leading to home-grown genetically engineered plants that
    produce commercially valuable chemicals offers many benefits for the
    U.S., which is now greatly dependent upon imported petroleum for these
    products. Enhanced energy crops would help diversify crop production in
    the U.S. by producing high-value chemicals and other technical
    materials that are currently produced from declining petroleum or coal
    feedstocks. In addition, it is possible to envision the production in
    plants of novel biologically inspired materials with properties not
    easily simulated through chemical synthesis. These enhanced crops could
    create potentially large new markets for excess production of American
    agriculture. Plants engineered to be chemical feedstocks would also
    address the long-term goal of developing more sustainable and
    environmentally benign methods of meeting national needs for chemicals
    and other materials. This includes the use of the most environmentally
    benign methods for protecting these enhanced crops against their pests
    and diseases. Like any other efficient use of crops for the benefit of
    society, the crops must be healthy.
        Two major factors suggest that the trend toward use of petroleum-
    derived products over plant-based products can be reversed. First, the
    costs of agricultural plant products have declined steadily over the
    past 75 years, while oil prices have generally increased. Second, we
    now have the ability through genomics and genetic engineering to tap
    into the vast chemical diversity produced biologically. Within the
    plant kingdom alone, over 50,000 different organic chemical structures
    are produced biologically. The microbial world provides many additional
    opportunities. A practical example of the possibilities offered was
    demonstrated by the use of a bacterial gene to modify a plant to
    produce a biodegradable plastic at levels up to 14 percent of the dry
    weight of the plant's leaves. Basic research leading to this example
    was made possible by the DOE Energy Biosciences program. Plant-produced
    products can also provide the chemical industry with much greater
    diversity than available from the comparatively limited structures
    found in crude oil.
        Examples of transgenic plant oils in commercial production include
    high-lauric acid canola, which can be used in a variety of applications
    including specialty foods and soap and detergent manufacture. A
    transgenic soybean variety has very low saturated fatty acids and more
    nutritional unsaturated fatty acids. Such oils are both healthier for
    human consumption and are extremely stable making them useful as
    biodegradable lubricants.
        The lab of Michigan State University Professor John Ohlrogge, who
    has been supported by the DOE Energy Biosciences program, is now
    working to develop plants which will provide the feedstocks for new
    types of polyurethane, nylon with stronger and more flexible fibers,
    and biodegradable lubricants. These are not niche markets. The U.S. now
    produces nylon, polyurethane and other plastics to supply multi-
    billion-dollar markets. Genetically modified crop plant production of
    nylon alone could create over $2 billion in new income for American
    farmers. American farmers will benefit from these enhanced plants
    because they will have new markets for their products. The American
    chemical industry will benefit because it will have new structures on
    which to build improved plastics and other products. American consumers
    will benefit because more of the nation's products will be based on
    renewable and biodegradable resources that do not contribute to
    landfill overflow or higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The
    nation would also become less dependent on foreign oil for production
    of these products.
        The Energy Biosciences program is an example of the optimum way
    basic science can be used to solve some of our country's most
    challenging energy and environmental problems. We appreciate the strong
    support of the Committee for the Energy Biosciences program in past
    years. ASPP, NCGA and APS respectively urge the Committee to increase
    support for Energy Biosciences and the Office of Science by 15 percent
    in fiscal year 2002 to help the nation more effectively meet its
    enormous energy needs.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to submit testimony on solar energy programs sponsored by
    the Federal government. Solar energy will play an important role in the
    years ahead not just in promoting America's energy independence, but
    also in cleaning up our environment, and in expanding a domestic high-
    tech industry and the precision manufacturing jobs that come with it.
        At the outset, let me express our profound disappointment with the
    Administration's budget request for solar programs. It is apparently
    the Administration's judgment that bipartisan majorities in Congress
    last year wasted an enormous amount of taxpayer money with your fiscal
    year 2001 appropriations for solar research and development. The facts,
    however, reflect that the Federal government's investments in solar
    programs over the last two decades have lead to steady improvements in
    efficiency of solar products and in steadily declining costs to produce
    solar energy.
        As you well know, Administrations sometimes under-request funds for
    programs when they know Congress will correct the deficiencies. Perhaps
    this is the case here. In any event, it makes your work this year more
    important than ever. We request that Congress appropriate for these
    programs in fiscal year 2002 amounts that will enable solar energy to
    contribute not just to expanding our energy supply, but also to help
    clean our air, as solar energy creates no emissions.
        Our budget recommendations are consistent with an important
    amendment, sponsored by Senator Harry Reid, which was adopted as part
    of the Senate Budget Resolution. The amendment increased by $450
    million our nation's commitment to renewable energy R&D programs for
    fiscal year 2002.
        The United States has invested millions of dollars in solar RD&D,
    which is a tiny amount compared to its investment in conventional
    energy technologies. While SEIA recommends the following minimum
    investments in Federal solar energy RD&D, we are also equally
    recommending that existing programs in other agencies be co-invested in
    the development and demonstration (deployment) part of the RD&D budget.
    In fact, the priority for these investments this year and beyond should
    now be focused on the second ``D,'' which we call ``deployment.''
        The funding levels for solar RD&D programs through the Department
    of Energy for fiscal year 2002 should be:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Concentrating solar power.........................................    25
    Photovoltaics.....................................................   100
    Solar buildings...................................................    12

        SEIA believes that one-quarter of these budgets ($35 million)
    should be reserved for basic research directed by industry but
    administered through the national laboratories and universities. SEIA
    believes that one-third of these funds ($45 million) should be cost-
    shared with US industry directly from DOE for applied RD&D (i.e.,
    manufacturing initiatives, partnerships, etc.). SEIA urges that the
    remaining funds ($58 million) be competitively awarded to the U.S.
    solar industry through the states by leveraging with other Federal and
    state programs, aggregating nearly $200 million per year for actual
    deployment and system validation demonstration programs.
        There are three other valuable programs that merit the Committee's
    attention. SEIA urges your support for the Concentrating Solar Power
    (CSP) Southwest Border Initiative, which would utilize a blend of CSP
    technologies to help provide badly-needed power to the states of
    California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, while also improving these
    technologies for deployment elsewhere in the nation. The Zero Energy
    Building (ZEB) Initiative would combine solar technologies with energy-
    efficient construction techniques and highly efficient appliances to
    develop the next generation of buildings that will have zero net annual
    need for off-site energy while generating zero emissions. This multi-
    disciplinary program deserves your support. Finally, SEIA urges the
    Committee to support and fund fully Senator Frank Murkowski's
    innovative Residential Renewable Energy Grant Program, which would
    offset a portion of the cost of renewable energy systems.
        SEIA further recommends that other Federal agency, and other DOE,
    programs direct a certain portion of their funds for deployment and
    technology validation, as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Department of Defense.............................................    20
        Defense Advanced Research Program (DARPA).....................    10
        FEMP Procurement..............................................    10
    Department of Energy..............................................    26
        Combined Heat & Power.........................................    10
        Distributed Power.............................................     2
        Hydrogen......................................................     3
        Industries of the Future......................................    10
        Storage.......................................................     1
    Environmental Protection Agency...................................    10
        Energy Star...................................................     5
        Office of Research and Development (ORD)......................     5
    Housing and Urban Development.....................................     4
        Office of Energy..............................................     2
        Partnership of Advanced Technology in Housing.................     2
    National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)...............    10

        SEIA also recognizes that several hundred million dollars are
    available through the State Trust Funds established by some states that
    have deregulated their electric utilities. The basis of SEIA's
    recommendations is to leverage the Department of Energy and other
    Federal agency funds and co-invest with these state-based funds. SEIA
    also suggests that states and local governments with other resources
    should be sought out to co-invest as well, so that a strong geographic
    dispersion of solar energy technologies and applications can occur.
        The US solar industry believes that increased market penetration
    tied to relevant applied research and technology validation is the most
    effective path to exponentially increase the use of solar technologies
    in realistic market-driven uses. Solar technology today can provide
    real solutions to real problems such as power reliability, energy rate
    fluctuations, fossil fuel shortages, pollution and noise, as well as
    high-technology economic development.
        Particularly in this time of rolling blackouts in California, and
    the potential for these disruptions to expand across the country in the
    summer months ahead, the added capacity that solar represents could
    make the difference for critical needs of businesses, governments and
    homes. As we seek to expand our nation's energy mix and capacity, the
    Department of Energy's solar energy RD&D efforts should continue their
    important work.
        The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national
    industry organization of the photovoltaics and solar thermal
    manufacturers, component suppliers, distributors and installers. We
    have been active in guiding and promoting solar energy through the U.S.
    Department of Energy (and its predecessors) over the last 26 years. We
    would be happy to provide you with further information, and answer any
    questions you may have.
        We look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead,
    as solar energy helps more and more families and businesses meet their
    energy needs in a clean and reliable way. Thank you very much for your
    consideration.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA)

        This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2002 (fiscal year 2002)
    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 biomass research. Our objectives are to promote education
    and research on the production of energy and fuels from virgin and
    waste biomass that can be economically utilized by the public, and to
    serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs.
    BERA does not solicit or accept federal funding for its efforts.
        On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for the opportunity to present our Board's position on the
    funding of mission-oriented biomass RD&D. On this occasion, I would
    like to focus on the high-priority projects and programs that we
    strongly urge be continued or started.
        One of the primary goals of the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative,
    which was created as a result of ``The Biomass Research and Development
    Act of 2000,'' and Executive Order 13134, ``Developing and Promoting
    Biobased Products and Bioenergy,'' is to triple U.S. usage of bioenergy
    and biobased products by 2010. Congress provided funding for the
    Initiative in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. A strategic plan
    has been developed to attain the Initiative's goal by the multi-agency
    Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB) co-chaired by the
    Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture. Achievement of
    this goal is sorely needed because of what has happened to U.S. crude
    oil, natural gas, and electricity markets, our continually increasing
    dependence on imported oil, and environmental issues. It is time to
    determine whether practical biomass systems can be developed that are
    capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels. The amount
    displaced in 1999 was 1.65 million barrels of oil equivalent per day
    (3.49 quad per year). The BRDB will address this question, and help to
    coordinate the many different biomass RD&D projects in progress in the
    different agencies to ensure that each is necessary and on course.
    Estimation of the potential contribution to the program goal of each
    technology that is funded is essential to optimize the project mix. New
    projects should not be started until this is done. The BRDB has
    projected that achievement of the targeted goal requires RD&D funding
    to be increased by $500 million to $1 billion per year of public-sector
    investment. It is clear that a significant increase in RD&D
    appropriations is necessary to implement this program.
        The Regional Biomass Energy Program (RBEP) authorized in 1983 by
    Congress covers the entire country and is nationally known for its
    information and outreach programs. It has a successful track record in
    partnership with almost all states, and has brought many local
    government and business communities together to plan the development of
    practical biomass energy and fuel systems using indigenous resources in
    the respective state areas. We urge that the RBEP be continued because
    it promotes and helps facilitate commercialization of biomass through
    its established networks with the states and the private sector, and
    can make major contributions to the goal of tripling biomass
    consumption.
        In its core RD&D, DOE has been required to terminate research in
    several microbial and thermochemical conversion areas because of the
    cost of scale-up programs. BERA believes that a balanced program should
    be sustained and protected, so we continue 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. DOE's basic research on biomass energy outside of EERE by the
    Office of Science, 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 are presented in a separate BERA statement for the Interior
    and Related Agencies Bill.
        Specifically, BERA recommends that $127 million be appropriated for
    biomass RD&D under the Energy and Water Bill in fiscal year 2002 as
    follows:
      --$30 million to continue the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative and
            $7.5 million to continue the RBEP, equally divided between
            Power Systems and Transportation.
      --$27 million for research and $15 million for industry cost-shared
            scale-up projects for the core programs of Power Systems.
      --$29.5 million for research and $12 million for industry cost-shared
            scale-up projects for the core programs of Transportation.
      --$6 million for biomass-based hydrogen research.
               program integration, coordination, and management
        For several years, BERA has urged that all 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.
        BERA strongly recommends that the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative
    be continued and incorporated into the overall federal biomass RD&D
    program. The USDA has a long history of developing advanced biomass
    production technologies, which are essential to meet the objective of
    tripling biomass energy consumption by 2010. It is especially important
    that the biomass research of DOE and USDA be closely coordinated so
    that each agency is fully aware and apprised of the research that the
    other is conducting.
        Implementation of the Initiative should include identification of
    each federal agency that provides funding related to biomass energy
    development, each agency's programs, and the expenditures by each
    agency. This will enable the coordination of all federally funded
    biomass energy programs through the National Bioenergy and Bioproducts
    Board. This will also avoid duplication of efforts, unnecessary
    expenditures, and continuation of projects that have been completed or
    that are not focused on the program goal, and instead will facilitate
    new starts that target the program goal. If the Initiative is fully
    implemented, the value of the federal expenditures on biomass research
    to the country will be enhanced in many different ways.
       bera recommends $94.5 million for research and $32.5 million for
          industry cost-shared, scale-up projects for fiscal year 2002
        BERA's recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-
    oriented RD&D on feedstock production, conversion research, and
    technology transfer to the private sector. Advanced feedstock
    production methods, conversion processes, and power generation
    technologies; alternative liquid transportation fuels; and hydrogen-
    from-biomass processes are emphasized.
        BERA strongly recommends that at least 50 percent of the federal
    funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-
    up projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and
    technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. 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 researchers
    committed to the advancement of biomass technologies.
        BERA's specific dollar allocations are listed in the accompanying
    table. Additional commentary on each program area is presented in the
    same order as listed in the table.
    Allocation of Appropriations Recommended by BERA
        BERA recommends that the appropriations for fiscal year 2002 be
    allocated as shown in the accompanying table. BERA's recommendations
    are generally listed in the same order as DOE's request for funding,
    except we have included 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. Note also that the
    funding recommended for the Bioenergy/Bioproduct Initiative is shown in
    the research category. It is expected that DOE will allocate a large
    portion of these funds to scale-up projects after evaluating the
    projected contribution of each technology to the goal of the
    Initiative.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                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              $0
        Advanced Combustion........                2,000,000               0
        Advanced Gasification......                2,000,000               0
        Advanced Pyrolysis.........                3,000,000               0
        Advanced Stationary Fuel                   2,000,000               0
         Cells.....................
        Advanced Process Fuels.....                3,000,000               0
        Improved Emissions Control.                3,000,000               0
        Wastewater Treatment.......                2,000,000               0
        Hot Gas Clean-Up...........                2,000,000               0
    Microbial Conversion:
        Advanced Anaerobic                         1,000,000               0
         Digestion.................
    Systems Development:
        Biomass/Coal Cofiring......                        0       2,000,000
        Integrated Field Scale-Up..                        0       4,000,000
        Vermont Gasifier...........                        0       4,000,000
        Small Modular Systems......                2,000,000       2,000,000
        Feedstock Production.......                2,000,000       3,000,000
        Regional Biomass Energy                    1,000,000       2,750,000
         Program \2\...............
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Core Programs, Subtotal..               28,000,000      17,750,000
        Bioenergy/Bioproducts                     15,000,000               0
         Initiative................
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Subtotal.................               43,000,000      17,750,000
                                    ========================================
             Transportation

    Fermentation Ethanol:
        Advanced Organisms.........                2,000,000               0
        Advanced Cellulase.........                9,000,000               0
        Advanced Pretreatment......                3,000,000               0
        NREL Pretreatment Pilot                            0       1,000,000
         Reactor...................
        NREL Fermentation Pilot                            0       3,000,000
         Plant.....................
    Commercial Ethanol Plants by
     Company and Location:
        Arkenol, Rio Linda, CA 3,4.                        0               0
        BCI International,                                 0               0
         Jennings, LA 3,5..........
        BCI International, Gridley,                        0       1,000,000
         Ca \6\....................
        Masada Resources, Orange                           0               0
         County, NY 3,7............
        Sealaska Corp., Southeast                          0       1,000,000
         AK \8\....................
        Corn Stalk Feedstock \9\...                        0       3,000,000
        Advanced Mobile Fuel Cells.                3,000,000               0
        Renewable Diesel...........                1,000,000               0
        Feedstock Production.......                2,000,000       3,000,000
    Thermochemical Oxygenates:
        Ethanol....................                3,500,000               0
        Mixed Alcohols.............                3,000,000               0
        Other Oxygenates from                      3,000,000               0
         Biomass...................
        Regional Biomass Energy                    1,000,000       2,750,000
         Program \2\...............
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Core Programs, Subtotal..               30,500,000      14,750,000
        Bioenergy/Bioproducts                     15,000,000               0
         Initiative................
                                    ----------------------------------------

          Subtotal.................               45,500,000      14,750,000
         Hydrogen Research \1\

    Thermal Processes (Reforming)..                3,000,000               0
        Photolytic Processes                       3,000,000               0
         (Algae)...................
          Subtotal.................                6,000,000               0
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Total....................               94,500,000      32,500,000
                                    ========================================
          Grand Total..............                127,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ BERA's recommendations pertain only to the biomass-based portion of
      Hydrogen Research;
    \2\ BERA strongly recommends that for future funding requests, the
      Regional Biomass Energy Program be treated as a line item;
    \3\ DOE contribution to plant costs completed;
    \4\ Rice straw, concentrated acid;
    \5\ Bagasse, dilute acid;
    \6\ Rice straw, dilute acid;
    \7\ Refuse-derived fuel, concentrated acid;
    \8\ Waste softwoods;
    \9\ For plant located in Midwest.

                                 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 them. Examples are pelletized
    wood wastes and densified solid waste biomass-coal fines that are
    easily handled and fed to existing combustion devices. In addition to
    this research, 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. Gasification by anaerobic digestion is unique
    in that it produces methane directly, the major component in natural
    gas, from a full range of virgin and waste biomass. DOE has terminated
    most of the microbiological 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 was successfully continued in
    fiscal year 2001. This project should be funded in fiscal year 2002 to
    test an advanced turbine system for the generation of 8-12 MW from
    wood, and to enable modification of the facility by converting it to a
    multi-purpose development site for biomass gasification and related
    technologies. The facility will then provide benefits to a broad range
    of researchers. The development of hot gas clean-up technology, which
    was terminated before completion at another gasification 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 for cogeneration.
        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.--The Regional Biomass Energy
    Program (RBEP) established by Congress is the information and outreach
    arm of DOE's biomass energy RD&D program. Within the national goals of
    DOE and regional constraints, the RBEP develops regional goals and
    strategies with stakeholder participants, and then conducts activities
    to create awareness and a positive image of biobased resources,
    technologies, and applications; develops and provides information and
    technical assistance; develops educational materials and conducts
    training programs; and assists in the planning of the infrastucture and
    facilities needed to produce, store, transport, and distribute biomass
    energy and fuels. The RBEP also identifies barriers to the development
    and deployment of energy crops and facilitates the development of state
    programs to promote biomass energy and fuel production and consumption.
    Thus, the RBEP develops and disseminates information and provides
    technical and financial assistance to biomass project developers and
    entrepreneurs. The RBEP also gathers information in the field to keep
    DOE informed of current situations and opportunities. There is no other
    DOE program that is assigned the information transfer roll, nor that
    has the capability, level of experience, local-level presence, or
    widespread networks of the RBEP. During its history, the RBEP has
    established working relationships with virtually all stake holder
    groups in every state. These linkages, which take considerable time to
    develop, provide efficiency through expertise and resource-sharing
    arrangements, including sharing of project costs. Historically, RBEP
    activities have been conducted with partners providing $2-$4 of non-
    federal funds for each federal dollar. 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.
                                 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 produce cellulase to breakdown cellulosics to sugars
    and ferment all the C5/C6 sugars in biomass at the same time, and low-
    cost cellulase production for simultaneous saccharification-
    fermentation of cellulosics. 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 that was 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 the
    fermentation ethanol plants have either been completed or are winding
    down as shown in the table on page 3. Another plant using corn stalk
    feedstocks is planned for the Midwest. 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
    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 or fuels for on-board 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. BERA recommends that
    most of this effort focus on increasing natural triglyceride yields,
    which are the main barrier to improved biodiesel economics, and to the
    evaluation of other potential biomass feedstocks such as tall oils that
    can be directly transformed into high-quality diesel fuels having high
    cetane numbers.
        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 estimates indicate that the
    production costs of thermochemical fuel ethanol from waste biomass are
    in the same range as the cost of gasolines. Each of these areas should
    be added to DOE's program.
        Regional Biomass Energy Program.--See Power Systems.
                               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 Geothermal Resources Council

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Ted Clutter.
    I am Executive Director of the Geothermal Resources Council (GRC), a
    non-profit professional education association located in Davis,
    California. I am here before you, today, to request $34 million for the
    Geothermal R&D Program of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for
    fiscal year 2002.
        Geothermal energy is heat derived from the natural geologic forces
    of the Earth. It is of utmost importance to both the environmental
    health of the nation and our energy security, providing highly
    reliable, domestically produced electricity and geothermal heat to
    homes, communities and industry across the American West. Though
    geothermal energy has been used to varying small degrees in the United
    States for centuries, industrial development of this unique, indigenous
    energy resource began only 40 years ago. During that time--and with DOE
    assistance--the U.S. geothermal industry has installed power plants in
    California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii that now produce approximately
    2,800 megawatts of clean electricity--or enough power to serve 2.8
    million homes.
        Geothermal energy is our most valuable renewable energy option.
    Electricity generated from all non-hydro renewal energy sources
    accounts for approximately 0.8 percent of total U.S. energy needs, with
    geothermal contributing over half (60 percent) of that figure. Not only
    is geothermal the largest contributor of renewable electricity in the
    nation, it is not subject to skyrocketing fuel costs or the whims of
    wind and sunlight. These attributes are especially important today,
    with our continuing concern for the environment, a tripling of natural
    gas prices during the past year, and a crisis of power supply centered
    in California reaching out its tentacles to engulf the entire West.
        Geothermal energy development is part of the answer to solving
    these problems for the future as well. According to a 1999 joint study
    by DOE and the Geothermal Energy Association, U.S. geothermal power
    generation capacity could be realistically quadrupled to 10,000
    megawatts with enhanced technologies. Development of geothermal
    resources for conversion to electricity or useful heat, however,
    requires costly and risky exploration of potential geothermal areas,
    costly drilling of wells, and development of power plants or direct-use
    facilities.
        Because of these high up-front costs and risks, continuing well-
    funded assistance by DOE in partnership with the U.S. geothermal
    industry--through cost-shared initiatives and development of new
    technologies--is of paramount importance to future, economical
    installation of geothermal energy facilities in the West.
                           doe geothermal r&d program
        DOE has promoted geothermal energy development through its R&D
    Program since the early days of the OPEC oil crisis of the 1970s. With
    that assistance, the U.S. geothermal industry developed a sixfold
    increase in clean power online, and roughly a threefold increase in
    direct-use facilities. Another key factor in fostering this development
    was favorable energy markets and legislation that rewarded geothermal
    power developers with firm long-term power sales contracts. But all
    that changed in the 1990s when utility deregulation and low natural gas
    prices effectively killed those incentives. The result? Without assured
    contracts available to help geothermal energy investors face
    exploration, drilling and development risk, no new geothermal resources
    have come online in the past decade.
        At the same time, DOE's financial resources for its Geothermal R&D
    Program have dwindled to less than $30 million annually. And even that
    marginal amount is now threatened with proposed cuts to DOE's entire
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. During this time of
    change and economic uncertainty, the GRC understands the need for
    fiscal restraint, but also believes that geothermal energy's potential
    contributions to our environment and national energy security far
    outweigh our request of $34 million for DOE's Geothermal R&D Program in
    fiscal year 2002.
        If DOE is to meet the goals of its Geothermal Strategic Plan to
    provide geothermal electricity and heat to over 10 million homes in the
    coming decade, a number of regulatory, legislative and technological
    barriers to development must be overcome. DOE's role is vital in
    assisting the industry in its efforts to solve technological problems
    and spur geothermal energy production to new highs for the benefit of
    the nation. The following highlights important areas of R&D that the
    GRC believes DOE must pursue through industry partnerships to enhance
    geothermal development in the United States:
                        doe geothermal focus on the west
        To meet the present energy crisis in the western states--and
    recognizing our continuing need for environmental improvement--we must
    quickly and significantly increase electricity capacity from all forms
    of renewable energy, especially geothermal. In the past year, the DOE
    Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has provided new and dynamic
    leadership for its Geothermal R&D Program, instituting an initiative
    with the assistance of its National Laboratories that has served as an
    effective catalyst for geothermal development in the western United
    States.
        The program, though marginally funded, has succeeded in drawing 21
    industry R&D proposals intended by DOE to put geothermal ``projects on
    the ground'' as rapidly as possible, and to increase the number of
    states with geothermal electric and heat production from 4 to 8.
    Projects initiated by this program have already fostered a successful
    exploratory drilling effort in Nevada that will likely result in
    construction of a 30-megawatt power plant. We recommend that this
    initiative be further funded to continue the momentum already achieved
    for geothermal development in the West.
                        geothermal resource exploration
        To help accomplish DOE goals for geothermal development, a campaign
    of exploration must begin at once across the West. Many obvious
    geothermal areas--hot springs, fumaroles and other surface
    manifestations--have already been explored, and where environmentally
    appropriate, many have been developed for their energy potential.
    However, physical and geologic characteristics of many unexploited
    areas in the western United States strongly suggest that many more
    geothermal systems exist where no signs of them are found on the
    surface--and no exploration has been undertaken or completed.
        A critical key to success is DOE incentives to encourage
    exploration for new geothermal resources throughout the West. This
    effort should include development of new geothermal exploration
    technologies, DOE contingent grants and loans to help offset high risk
    of initial geothermal exploration costs, and additional funding for
    federal and state land agencies to provide geologic databases that will
    effectively assist an industry revival of geothermal exploration
    activity.
        With needed improvements in federal agency land-use policies and
    renewed emphasis on geothermal exploration backed by a solid, well-
    financed Geothermal R&D Program at DOE, the U.S. geothermal industry
    can develop needed increases in geothermal power generation at existing
    sites--and begin to tap the West's vast potential for new geothermal
    sources of clean, renewable and reliable energy supplies. Geothermal
    Drilling
        The cost of drilling geothermal steam wells presents the largest
    risk to potential power plant developers. A geothermal well costs
    between $200 and $300 per foot-40 percent more than drilling an oil or
    gas well. That makes the cost of a typical 8,000-foot deep geothermal
    well from $1.6 million to $2.4 million! Success rates for geothermal
    exploration wells are only 20 percent in newly explored, untested areas
    (and rising to only 80 percent for wells in proven geothermal fields).
    Given these figures, it's easy to see the up-front risk involved in
    geothermal development--long before power production can begin.
        Reasons for the high cost of geothermal well completions are many.
    First, high temperatures demand the use of costly unconventional
    drilling tools. Second, the hard and abrasive geologic environment
    typical of geothermal formations significantly slow drill penetration
    rates. Third, low reservoir pressures create ``loss circulation'' zones
    that drain away expensive drilling muds and pose costly problems in
    cementing of well casings. And finally, steam from certain reservoirs
    contains minerals that cause corrosion and scale deposition inside well
    casings that are expensive to deal with.
        Sandia National Laboratories is DOE's lead organization in the
    development of much needed geothermal drilling equipment, materials and
    technologies. With its industry partners, Sandia is developing high-
    temperature instrumentation for use in geothermal wells, and high-
    temperature logging tools for geothermal reservoir monitoring and
    evaluation. Bit design is an ongoing area of research, with development
    and testing that has resulted in a marked increase in both bit life and
    penetration rates. Loss circulation control has been addressed with
    development of new cements, cement placement tools and equipment,
    fracture plugging agents, and lightweight drilling and cement
    additives.
        To reach its targeted goal of reducing geothermal drilling costs by
    50 percent, Sandia periodically surveys the geothermal industry for
    needed areas of research, and works through a Request for Proposal
    process to bring these products and technologies to the industry. This
    ongoing effort by Sandia, DOE and its private-sector partners offers
    unparalleled value in reducing the cost of drilling for geothermal
    steam resources for producing electricity.
        A number of projects in this arena are ongoing--to lose these
    partnerships and this momentum at a critical time for western energy
    supply would deal a terrible blow to U.S. geothermal development To
    successfully proceed in development of geothermal resources in the
    West, this vital research to lower drilling cost by DOE must continue.
    An increase in DOE's Geothermal R&D Program budget will augment this
    valuable potential contribution to our national energy security.
                          enhanced geothermal systems
        Currently, all commercial power production of geothermal energy in
    the United States is derived from relatively shallow (less than 2 miles
    deep) hydrothermal zones. Water flows freely through highly fractured
    rock in these geothermal reservoirs, heated by magmatic intrusions
    lying far below. In many cases however, a high degree of geothermal
    development potential lies just beneath these free-flowing reservoirs
    in geologic formations with fewer fractures (low permeability) and
    limited fluid flows.
        Only about 20 percent of total heat is contained in the relatively
    shallow, commercially available hydrothermal zones of currently
    developed geothermal resources, while the remainder (80 percent)
    resides in underlying, low-permeability zones that have yet remained
    untapped for their energy potential. Currently, our ability to produce
    energy from these resources is limited, dictated by available
    technology and cost.
        In concert with other geothermal development promotion initiatives,
    DOE's Office of Wind and Geothermal Technologies has undertaken a major
    program to develop technologies for the creation and development of
    ``Enhanced Geothermal Systems,'' or EGS. Assistance by DOE in
    development of such technologies is critical if the U.S. geothermal
    industry is to successfully engineer commercially viable power
    production from deep heat reservoirs that offer only limited
    permeability and/or fluid content.
        Cost-effective EGS technologies to ``mine'' heat from beneath areas
    of hydrothermal circulation will have a profound impact on the
    geothermal industry. The life of currently commercial geothermal
    systems will be greatly expanded, making better use of existing power
    plants. And new EGS technologies will also applicable to other
    potential geothermal resource production areas, including those
    previously considered as candidates for Hot Dry Rock (HDR) development.
        Development of EGS technology is critical to the long-term
    viability of the U.S. geothermal industry after all of our high-grade
    hydrothermal resources have been developed. With assistance by DOE's
    current and future EGS technology program, the geothermal industry can
    continue its contribution of environmentally benign electricity to the
    U.S. power generation mix well into the future.
                            geothermal co-production
        Recent developments with the assistance of DOE incentive funding
    have resulted in construction of the world's first geothermal minerals
    recovery facility, using spent geothermal fluids from power plants on
    the shore of southern California's Salton Sea. Potential exists for
    commercial recovery of manganese at the Salton Sea, and high-grade
    silica and other minerals at other geothermal developments in the West.
    A DOE investment in further development of these ``co-production''
    technologies holds the promise to add another revenue stream to certain
    geothermal operations, making them more competitive with fossil-fuel
    power generation while reducing treatment and disposal costs.
                             geothermal direct use
        Direct-use employs low-to intermediate-temperature geothermal
    resources (100 deg. to 300 deg. F) in systems for industrial processes,
    space heating, and agricultural production (greenhouses and
    aquaculture). Currently, there are over 1,000 geothermal direct-use
    projects in 26 states, and geothermal central heating projects in 18
    communities. Recent surveys have shown that this is only a fraction of
    direct-use potential in the United States, which DOE estimates could
    potentially serve as many as 7 million households by the year 2010.
        Unfortunately, interest in and development of direct-uses of
    geothermal energy is limited, largely because of reliable information
    and financial assistance to ``jump-start'' projects is lacking. This is
    especially true in rural areas where the necessary technical
    infrastructure is not available.
        The DOE Geothermal R&D Program can play a vital role in promoting
    and assisting the development of direct-use projects across the West.
    It is already doing so by providing information and technical
    assistance, but can do more with increased funding to assist in the
    critical areas of direct-use resource identification and drilling
    confirmation. Funding to provide this information and expanded
    technical assistance can do much to help develop this extensive
    geothermal energy resource.
        DOE funding is also needed to develop improvements in direct-use
    equipment, reduce the cost of project capital, and lower project
    operations and maintenance costs. The DOE budget should also provide
    funds for promotion of economic and efficient cascaded use of
    geothermal fluids from power production to direct-use developers. In
    addition, direct-use geothermal funding can help foster public-private
    partnerships to help ``buy down'' the up-front risk and financial
    burdens that often discourage potential geothermal direct-use
    developers during the initial drilling and resource confirmation stages
    of potential projects. Once these concerns are satisfied, direct-use
    geothermal resource development can more easily occur with private
    project financing, while accruing additional benefits of economic
    development and employment in rural areas of the West.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Geothermal Resources
    Council urges your attention to these facts, and hopes you will agree
    that given current need, the modest $34 million in funding that we
    request for the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal R&D Program in
    fiscal year 2002 is money well invested in our environment and our
    national energy security. Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Low Impact Hydropower Institute

                                  introduction
        With energy issues at the forefront of public concern, the Energy
    and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee has the challenge of
    providing support for domestic energy supplies that are sustainable,
    environmentally sound, and low cost. In aid of those goals, we urge you
    to provide $100,000 to the Department of Energy to fund the Low Impact
    Hydropower Certification Program, administered by the Low Impact
    Hydropower Institute. This voluntary program certifies hydropower
    facilities with low environmental impacts based on eight objective
    criteria. With the program, hydropower dam owners generating low impact
    power (from any size facility) can gain market rewards, and consumers
    gain a credible standard to evaluate hydropower. Funding from the
    Department of Energy will help build on the program's early success,
    and help the Institute explore expansion of the certification program
    to address ``incremental'' hydro, and other emerging efforts to develop
    hydropower capacity at existing dams.
                       why certify low impact hydropower?
        Hydroelectric generation presents a dilemma for sustainable energy
    strategies in this country. On the one hand, hydropower can provide
    nearly emission-free, sustainable energy generation, with large
    available capacity (80 percent of the nation's renewable energy), and
    ancillary services for supporting system reliability. Hydropower dams
    can also provide additional public benefits, such as flood control and
    recreation opportunities.
        On the other hand, hydropower dam construction and operations have
    been devastating to the nation's freshwater ecosystems, and the fish
    and wildlife dependent on them. Hydropower dams degrade water quality,
    block fish passage, disrupt river cycles and key water habitats, and
    inundate hundreds of thousands of acres of irreplaceable riverine
    habitats. If a dam is well sited and well operated, these environmental
    impacts can be reduced (though not eliminated). Consumers need a
    credible means to determine which hydropower facilities are well sited
    and well operated, such that the benefits of the hydropower generation
    are attained, while minimizing the environmental impacts.
        Unfortunately, generation capacity is the most commonly used
    criterion for identifying environmentally preferable hydropower (if one
    is used at all). A typical standard is 30 megawatts (MW) of generation
    capacity. Under a ``small hydro'' standard, if the hydropower facility
    generates less than the identified amount of power, it is deemed
    environmentally preferable. But the size of a facility's generation
    capacity reveals nothing about its particular site-specific
    environmental impacts. Under a size criterion, a small dam can be
    operated in a way that is harmful to the environment and still be
    labeled environmentally preferable, and a large dam can undergo major
    changes to reduce the environmental impacts of its operation, and still
    not be considered environmentally acceptable.
        In addition, a small hydro criterion automatically certifies the
    majority of hydropower dams in the country, but eliminates from
    consideration the majority of the country's hydropower capacity. Of the
    over 2,000 hydropower dams in the U.S. owned by entities other than the
    federal government, approximately 89 percent of the dams are ``small''
    (less than 30 megawatts capacity), but together they provide only 8
    percent of the hydropower capacity. The remaining 11 percent of the
    dams produce 92 percent of the hydropower capacity. Thus, under the
    small hydro approach, we are classifying as environmentally preferable
    a large number of dams but not a large amount of power, and we are
    granting that preferred status without any examination of the
    particular impacts of those dams.
        The Low Impact Hydropower Certification Program resolves these
    problems by providing an impact-based, site-specific evaluation of
    hydropower facilities of any size. The program provides a voluntary
    certification that evaluates existing hydropower dams in the United
    States against objective environmental criteria in eight key areas--
    river flows, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed
    protection, threatened and endangered species protection, cultural
    resources, recreation use and access, and whether the facility has been
    recommended for removal. Interested dam owners apply for certification,
    and facilities that meet the environmental criteria are certified as
    ``Low Impact.'' The dam owner can then market this Low Impact
    hydropower to consumers, or to third party power marketers who bundle
    ``green'' power products.
       a brief history of the low impact hydropower certification program
        The Low Impact Hydropower Certification Program grew out of efforts
    initiated in 1998 by the river conservation organization American
    Rivers, and the ``clean'' power marketer Green Mountain Energy, to
    identify environmentally preferable hydropower for the emerging
    ``green'' power markets nationwide. With the help of an Implementation
    Task Force comprised of representatives from environmental
    organizations, the hydropower industry, power marketers, government,
    and other interested parties, the certification program was refined
    over many months.
        In order to ensure the independence of the program, the Institute
    was established in 1999 as a non-profit public benefit corporation,
    governed by a fourteen-member Governing Board comprised primarily of
    representatives from environmental organizations interested in low
    impact hydropower. In addition, two advisory panels, a Hydropower
    Industry Advisory Panel, and a Renewables Advisory Panel, participate
    in Board discussions and provide advice and recommendations. A list of
    Governing Board and Advisory Panel members is available on our website
    at www.lowimpacthydro.org. The Institute finalized the certification
    criteria, and began accepting applications for certification in 2000.
                             accomplishments so far
        Although only in its infancy, and despite the uncertainties in
    energy markets, the certification program is already producing results.
    The Institute certified its first facility in March, and a second
    certification decision is expected shortly. The first certified
    facility, the Stagecoach Dam and Reservoir, located on the Yampa River
    in Colorado, is owned and operated by the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy
    District. The second facility under consideration is the Island Park
    Hydroelectric Project, owned by the Fall River Rural Electric
    Cooperative, which utilizes water from the Island Park Dam and
    Reservoir, owned by the United States and operated by the U.S. Bureau
    of Reclamation, on the Henry's Fork of the Snake River, in Idaho.
    Several other applications are expected in the coming months. All
    applications received are posted to the Institute's web site for public
    review and comment, and all certification decisions are posted as well.
    Certification decisions are subject to appeal from any commenters in
    order to ensure a fair and transparent process.
        Since Low Impact certification applies to the individual hydropower
    facility, the Institute does not certify power products. However, other
    ``green'' power certifiers have already selected LIHI certification for
    the hydropower components of their programs, demonstrating its
    credibility and value. For example, the Green-E Renewable Electricity
    certification program has adopted LIHI certification for the hydropower
    components of its program (effective in California in 2001, and
    elsewhere in 2002)(see www.resource-solutions.org). The Power
    Scorecard, a rating program for all types of generation, gives LIHI-
    certified hydropower facilities its highest environmental rating in the
    hydropower sector (see www.powerscorecard.org). Renew 2000, a ``green''
    power certification program in the Pacific Northwest allows only LIHI-
    certified hydropower for the hydropower component of its program (see
    www.cleanenergyguide.com.) The Salmon Friendly Power program, a
    ``green'' pricing program developed by For the Sake of the Salmon and
    Portland General Electric in Oregon uses LIHI-certified power as the
    only hydropower qualified for its program (see www.4sos.org, click on
    Salmon Friendly Power).
                            goals and funding needs
        The Institute has multiple goals for the program for fiscal year
    2002, including recruitment of additional applications, expanding
    interest in the program and ``green'' markets generally, helping to
    develop the market for Low Impact hydropower, and improving and
    expanding the certification program itself. In terms of expanding the
    program, the Governing Board is currently evaluating how to best
    address ``incremental'' hydro and other incentives emerging for
    expansion of hydropower generation at existing dams.
        The program is currently funded through grants from charitable
    foundations, supplemented by application fees. However, foundations are
    not expected to maintain their grants indefinitely, and though the
    application fees help to offset processing expenses (including the
    hiring of independent technical consultants to verify applications),
    any application fee received in excess of expenses is reimbursed to the
    applicant. As a result, funding from the Department of Energy is
    critically important in ensuring the Institute can maintain a quality
    program.
                                   conclusion
        The Institute's Low Impact Hydropower Certification Program, if
    properly funded, will
      --promote sustainable, domestic energy supplies
      --help maximize the benefits of hydropower generation while
            minimizing its environmental impacts
      --expand consumer energy options
      --support market rewards and incentives for hydropower dam owners
            interested in producing low impact power
        We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to these important goals
    by providing $100,000 to the Department of Energy to fund the
    certification program.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association

      a strong commitment to r&d necessary to capture wind energy's full
                                   potential
        Utility-scale wind energy capacity in the U.S. expected to nearly
    double by mid-2002
        Public Demand for Small Wind systems used to power homes, farms and
    small businesses on the rise
        Proposed Administration budget would severely hamper technological
    advances made through DOE-industry partnerships
        The crisis in California has put energy issues back on the radar
    screen. The upcoming summer could bring the problems in California to
    other parts of the country, particularly the Northeast and Midwest.
    With energy prices expected to remain high, particularly natural gas,
    the importance of investing in domestic, stable-cost, clean energy
    resources is vital for the nation's energy security.
        Wind energy is positioned to be an important part of the solution.
    In California and other western states, wind energy potential is there
    to meet the electricity needs. Moreover, wind can help protect against
    volatile electricity rates. The costs of a wind plant are primarily
    upfront capital costs, thus the price for electricity is stable over
    the life of the plant because the fuel, the wind, is free.
        Moreover, wind projects can be built quickly, often within six
    months, not including wind resource assessment and permitting. As we
    speak, there are new wind energy projects expected to go on line by the
    end of the year in the west and southwest that will eventually provide
    electricity for 750,000 people. By comparison, most new fossil-fueled
    facilities can take up to three years to come online.
        Continued investment in domestic energy alternatives like wind
    power will allow the industry to keep driving down costs and by
    improving the efficiency of new wind turbines. Wind energy holds the
    greatest potential of all non-hydro renewables to contribute to our
    energy needs over the next decade.
        Investing in domestic, inexhaustible renewable energy technologies
    strengthens our national security, spurs new high-tech jobs, and helps
    protect the environment. There are no downsides to investing in wind
    and other renewables.
        However, the Administration has proposed cutting the wind energy
    budget by approximately 48 percent in fiscal year 2002. This makes no
    sense. With the current energy crisis and a call for an increase in
    energy supply, cutting R&D funding for clean, domestic alternatives is
    not part of a sound energy strategy. The American Wind Energy
    Association \1\ (AWEA) appreciates this opportunity to provide
    testimony for the record on the Department of Energy's Fiscal 2002 wind
    energy program budget before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development. AWEA's testimony addresses the following:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, was formed in
    1974. The organization represents virtually every facet of the wind
    industry, including turbine and component manufacturers, project
    develops, utilities, academicians, and interested individuals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Request for DOE's Wind Energy Program: $55 million
        AWEA requests a funding level of $55 million for the wind energy
    program to continue DOE's support of wind energy development at the
    national, state, and local levels. Working in conjunction with the U.S.
    wind industry, power producers, suppliers, industrial consumers and
    residential users, DOE provides important technical support, guidance,
    information, and limited, cost-shared funding for efforts to explore
    and develop wind energy resources.
    Utility-Scale Wind Development: $45 million
        There is a continued and necessary need for increased
    appropriations for cost-shared DOE/industry R&D partnerships. The
    program is aimed at further driving down the cost of wind power to a
    level fully competitive with fossil fuel technologies. Additional
    support is necessary for developing wind turbines capable of operating
    in areas with lower wind speeds. This would expand wind development
    potential by 20 times as well as allow the placement of turbines closer
    to existing transmission lines. In addition to lowering the cost of
    wind power, R&D support is necessary for enhanced wind site forecasting
    and power systems integration.
    Small Wind Systems: $10 million
        A significant boost of DOE's small wind turbine program (machines
    rated at 75 kilowatts or below) will help achieve greater cost
    reductions and to increase the availability of this energy option for
    homes, schools, and businesses.
    Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI): $8 million
        This program provides financial incentives to municipal utilities
    to encourage use of renewables. In addition, AWEA suggests that
    Congress work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop long-range
    alternatives to unpredictable annual funding for REPI.
                  utility-scale wind development: $55 million
        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 (442 MW) in the U.S.
    market. 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, or
    enough power to serve about 600,000 average U.S. households or 1.5
    million people.
        By mid-2002, installed wind energy capacity in the U.S. is expected
    to nearly double, to upward of 5,000 MW. The states of Texas,
    Minnesota, Oregon, Wyoming and Iowa account for most of the new wind
    energy development. Texas in particular is expected to account for a
    large portion of new development over the next five years due to state
    incentives.
        In addition, a number of new, large wind developments have been
    announced. In Nevada, a 260 MW project is underway at the Nuclear
    Weapons Test Site. In Washington, the ``Stateline'' project is being
    developed on the Oregon-Washington border. When completed, the 300 MW
    wind farm will be the largest wind in the world. In February, the
    Bonneville Power Administration announced it's intention to purchase
    1,000 MW of wind energy and has signed up as one of the purchasers of
    power from the Stateline project. All of these developments will help
    alleviate stress on the western power grid, stabilize energy prices and
    offset pollution associated with conventional power sources.
        The impressive growth of the wind industry exhibits a significant
    change from the three year period (1995-1997) when U.S. markets for
    wind energy had slowed to only 41 MW installed in 1995, 10 MW installed
    in 1996, and 11 MW of new capacity installed in 1997. This surge in
    U.S. utility-scale wind energy capacity is due to two main factors:
        Cost-shared DOE/industry R&D partnerships which have helped reduce
    the cost of wind energy by more than 80 percent since the early 1980's.
    Today's wind energy costs are 4-6 cents per kilowatt-hour for the
    largest projects at the best wind sites (based on wind speed and size
    of project).
        Extension of the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), which
    provides a 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour credit of electricity produced
    (the credit is currently 1.7 cents adjusted for inflation). A 2 percent
    2-year extension was approved with bipartisan support at the end of
    1999, but will expire on December 31, 2001. Legislation to extend the
    credit for five years has been introduced in both the House (H.R. 876)
    and Senate (S. 530) by members of the Ways & Means and Finance
    Committees respectively.
        On the international front, wind power is the fastest growing
    energy source in the world with global installed generating capacity
    estimated to have increased by nearly 30 percent annually since 1996.
    Current installed capacity worldwide is over 17,000 megawatts, or as
    much energy as 5 million California households use.
               small wind systems (75 kw and below): $10 million
        More Emphasis 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 75 kW).
        DOE has significant programs for technology development and
    deployment of solar technologies, but not for small wind systems.
    However, small wind systems arguably have the greatest market potential
    in the next several decades. Small wind systems are currently much less
    expensive than solar technologies. For example, a home system sized to
    provide $150 month worth of electricity would cost $32,000 with a small
    wind turbine and $80,000 with a photovoltaic solar system. We believe
    that small wind technology has the potential to cut its costs in half
    within ten years.
        With the exception of California, low electricity prices and the
    high up-front costs of small wind systems make it very difficult for
    this technology to gain wide acceptance in the domestic market. This
    would change if DOE were given the resources to work with America's
    small wind manufacturers to achieve cost reductions similar to those
    already achieved by the large, utility-scale wind industry. In the
    special case of California, small wind turbine manufacturers are
    experiencing a surge in sales, which demonstrates that the public
    really wants cost-effective small wind turbines. Inquiries from around
    the country have ballooned due to the run up in natural gas and propane
    costs this winter.
        AWEA appreciates that in the fiscal year 2001 Energy & Water
    Development Conference Report, small wind systems received a $5 million
    earmark. Doubling that total to $10 million for the program in fiscal
    year 2002 will continue to ensure that small wind systems receive
    adequate attention at DOE. We are pleased that the US-DOE Wind Program
    has taken last year's Congressional direction to heart and that they
    are working very cooperatively with our small turbine industry.
        A Small Wind Turbine Initiative (SWTI) would 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 over the next twenty years. This potential market, up
    to 60,000 MW, could be a major contributor to our nation's domestic
    energy supply.
            renewable energy production incentive (repi): $8 million
        Year-to-year uncertainty regarding funding levels for the Renewable
    Energy Production Incentive (REPI) plays havoc with the long-term
    planning needs of running a municipally owned utility. Due to
    insufficient funds for the program, full payments for eligible projects
    have not been made for a number of years. For this reason, AWEA
    suggests the Congress work with the Department of Energy (DOE) to
    develop long-range alternatives to annual funding of this program. The
    REPI program, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, encourages
    municipally owned utilities to invest in renewable energy technologies
    including wind energy systems. REPI permits DOE to make direct payments
    to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities for electricity generated
    from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects.
                                   conclusion
        Continued investments in wind energy R&D are delivering value for
    taxpayers by developing another domestic energy source that strengthens
    our national security, spurs new high-tech jobs, and helps protect the
    environment.
        Now is not the time to abandon the important advancements that have
    been made through DOE-industry partnerships. With the California energy
    crisis threatening to spread across the rest of the country, wind,
    along with other renewable energy technologies, must continue to play
    an important role in our nation's energy strategy.
        By the same token, utility-scale wind energy--which is right now
    becoming costcompetitive with other sources of electricity--and small
    wind energy systems are equally deserving of continued R&D. Just as
    coal and nuclear energy R&D does not stand still, neither does wind
    energy R&D.
        AWEA appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    Subcommittee. We would be pleased to answer any questions that may
    arise. Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Southeastern Universities Research
                                  Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Jerry
    Draayer and I am President of the Southeastern Universities Research
    Association (SURA). SURA, a consortium of 53 research universities in
    the South, manages the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
    (Jefferson Lab) in Newport News, Virginia. Jefferson Lab, as the
    Committee knows, is home to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
    Facility (CEBAF), a new $600 million nuclear physics research facility
    funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
        Mr. Chairman, our purpose in providing the Subcommittee with
    testimony is three fold. First, we want to thank you and the
    Subcommittee members for your support of the Science programs funded by
    the Department of Energy, including Nuclear Physics and to urge your
    continued support. We are convinced that generous Federal support for
    basic research is an important investment leading to continued economic
    growth, employment and prosperity. Secondly, we urge the Subcommittee
    to favorably consider increasing the fiscal year 2002 funding level for
    the DOE's Office of Science to $3.68 billion, a fifteen percent
    increase over last year's funding. Finally, within the Office of
    Science, we request that the Nuclear Physics budget be increased to
    $425 million (15 percent above fiscal year 2001) to better address the
    backlog of important scientific opportunities that exist in this field.
    This level of funding would provide support for increased scientific
    output of Jefferson Lab, and will help build the intellectual
    infrastructure in our research universities to prepare for and mount
    experiments.
        An expanded Office of Science budget will allow for more complete
    utilization of these world-class facilities, thus returning more on the
    investments made for their construction and maximizing their scientific
    contributions and their tremendous educational value.
              contributions of doe-supported science to the nation
        Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
    increased level of funding provided in fiscal year 2001 for the DOE's
    Science programs. For fiscal year 2001, the Congress provided $3.16
    billion for the Office of Science, representing a growth of 12.9
    percent over fiscal year 2000. The National Academy of Sciences has
    noted that much of the U.S. economic growth, quality of life, and
    security derive from the nation's investment and leadership in science
    and technology. Therefore, as these investments are the underpinning of
    our nation's economic growth, we wish to thank the Subcommittee for its
    leadership in providing increased funding for DOE's science programs.
        A commitment to basic research investments has been recognized on
    both sides of the aisle. Yet despite this broad agreement, from 1987 to
    1995 the federal investment in basic research shrank by 2.6 percent a
    year and as a fraction of gross domestic product, the federal
    investment in research and development is about half of what it was 30
    years ago. In the field of nuclear physics, investments in forefront
    facilities have made the United States a world leader. Over the last
    several decades the nation's leadership has been threatened as the
    funding levels provided have resulted in significantly reduced
    purchasing power for the field.
        As the driver of our Nation's economic success is scientific
    innovation, we are concerned that the Administration has proposed for
    fiscal year 2002 to cut the three primary sources of ideas and
    personnel in the high-tech economy:
      --The National Science Foundation is cut by 2.6 percent;
      --NASA is cut by 3.6 percent; and
      --The Department of Energy is cut by an alarming 7.1 percent.
        It is our hope that the Congress will reverse these reductions and
    continue its strong support for basic science.
        Mr. Chairman, the return on investment includes continued economic
    prosperity, national security, and an improved quality of life. DOE's
    Office of Science is the primary supporter of science and research in
    the physical sciences. It is also active across many scientific
    disciplines, including Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and
    Environmental Sciences, Nuclear and High Energy Physics, and Fusion
    Energy Science. And, it has stayed on the cutting edge by introducing
    new initiatives like the human genome, nanoscience and technology, and
    advanced scientific computing research. As a consequence, DOE is
    responsible for a significant portion of federal R&D funding to
    scientists and students at our colleges and universities.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks to the leadership of this Subcommittee, the
    nation has made a significant investment in the Office of Science
    programs and the national user facilities, which provide a unique
    large-scale scientific effort across several scientific disciplines. As
    the Subcommittee begins its decision making process on the allocation
    of fiscal year 2002 resources, it is our hope that the members of the
    Subcommittee would choose to continue to reverse the downward trend in
    our nation's investment in the physical sciences. Specifically, an
    increase in funding for Nuclear Physics in fiscal year 2002 will allow
    us to reverse these trends in our subfield and to help maintain our
    world leadership position in the physical sciences.
       the thomas jefferson national accelerator facility (jefferson lab)
        Jefferson Lab, completed in 1994, offers research capabilities and
    opportunities for the scientific community that are unique in the
    world. Research at Jefferson Lab is intended to help answer fundamental
    questions about the structure of matter. Generally, nuclear physics
    helps answer questions about how matter is formed, how it is held
    together, and how its constituents parts interact with one another. The
    Jefferson Lab was built to increase our understanding of a very
    specific piece of the overall puzzle, to learn more about quarks, the
    sub-atomic particles that make up each proton and neutron. The major
    scientific tool at the Jefferson Lab is its accelerator facility which
    emits a billion times each second a million electrons into a human-
    hair-width continuous electron beam that is accelerated to almost the
    speed of light. The experiments at the Jefferson Lab record and analyze
    the results of the collision of this continuous electron beam with the
    nucleus of an atom, probing the protons and neutrons of the nucleus to
    learn about its constituent parts, the quarks and gluons.
        The Federal investment in the Jefferson Lab has already resulted in
    important spin off developments in the fields of medicine, industry and
    national defense. For example, the Jefferson Lab is pioneering the
    development of a Free Electron Laser (FEL) facility that is made
    possible by the Lab's expertise in superconducting radio frequency
    (SRF) technology. There is significant interest in the Defense
    community for application of the FEL technology and by industry for use
    of the FEL technology for materials processing. Additionally, the
    technology and expertise at the Jefferson Lab has resulted in the
    development of a new non-invasive medical imaging technology to help in
    the early detection of breast cancer.
                    upgrade of the jefferson lab accelerator
        The Jefferson Lab has made remarkable progress in understanding the
    behavior of strongly interacting matter during the almost two decades
    that have passed since the parameters of the Continuous Electron Beam
    Facility (CEBAF) at the Lab was defined. These advances have revealed
    important new experimental questions best addressed by upgrading CEBAF
    to a higher energy.
        When CEBAF was first created, the capabilities of the technology
    behind the machine and the energies necessary to answer the fundamental
    questions were not fully understood. Fortunately, however, the design
    of the CEBAF accelerator and the unique capabilities afforded by the
    advances in superconducting radio frequency (SRF) technology allow a
    straightforward upgrade from the original 4-GeV design energy to a 12-
    GeV design that is necessary to expand our reach within our current
    program and address new and compelling physics questions. The energy
    upgrade is facilitated because of favorable technical developments and
    the foresight in the original facility design which make it feasible to
    triple CEBAF's beam energy from the initial design value in a very
    cost-effective manner. The upgrade can be realized for about 15 percent
    of the cost of the initial facility, enabling CEBAF's world-wide user
    community to greatly expand its research horizons and maintain our
    international leadership in this critical field in the physical
    sciences.
        Mr. Chairman, the Jefferson Lab seeks $3 million of fiscal year
    2002 funding to begin preliminary design work for the 12-GeV energy
    upgrade to put the lab on the path to begin construction in 2004.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, in conclusion we would urge the Subcommittee to
    favorably consider increasing the fiscal year 2002 DOE Office of
    Science budget to $3.68 billion, a fifteen percent increase over last
    year's funding. This is the same amount that has been recommended by
    the Energy Sciences Coalition. Furthermore, within the Office of
    Science, we request that the Nuclear Physics budget be increased to
    $425 million, 15 percent above fiscal year 2001. This will allow the
    nation to take advantage of important scientific opportunities that
    exist in this field and reap the benefits of our nation's investments
    in these facilities.
        Within the $425 million recommended for Nuclear Physics, we would
    anticipate and request an allocation of $91.43 million for the
    Jefferson Lab. At this level of funding, the Lab could deliver the most
    science that the facility capabilities allow. It would permit the Lab
    to substantially eliminate the six-year backlog of approved and highly
    meritorious projects. It would permit the hiring of key critical and
    scientific and technical staff. And it would allow the lab to begin to
    plan for the energy upgrade. All of these are needed to remain at the
    forefront of core competencies benefiting the lab complex and the
    nation.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for
    your consideration.
                                     ______

                                 WATER PROGRAMS

      Prepared Statement of the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

        Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
    Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the Federal multi-
    agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is being
    requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
    standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
    going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
    base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
    in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
    drainage from metal mines and related materials.
        The ADTI is a nationwide technology development program with a
    guiding principle of building a consensus among Federal and State
    regulatory agencies, universities and consulting firms to predict and
    find remedies for acid drainage from active and inactive metal and coal
    mines. It is not a regulatory or policy development program. The Acid
    Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) is an
    organization of volunteers committed to the development of the best
    science and technology-based solutions to mine water quality issues at
    metal mines. The Review Committee is responsible for developing and
    implementing the consensus review process for documents, editorial
    services, international networking and membership coordination. The
    consensus review process is developed by this Committee is available on
    the world wide web at: http://www.bucknam.com/chb/
    consensu.txt and several draft documents are also being reviewed on the
    ADTI-MMS web site at: http://www.mackqy.unr.edu/adti.
        As you may be aware, it has been estimated that correcting the mine
    drainage and abandoned mined land problems will cost up to $70 billion.
    As this figure suggests, it will be necessary to lead off on this
    effort with an adequate foundation of current technology-based
    solutions. The ADTI-MMS organization is in the process of preparing and
    maintaining handbooks to provide that foundation and is prepared to
    launch the necessary research programs to develop the best science and
    technologies.
        ADTI-MMS is backed through participation from members of numerous
    mining companies, environmental consulting firms, Federal and State
    research, land management and regulatory agencies, academic researchers
    committed to the ADTI mission, and the Western Governors Association.
    The Western University Consortium, consisting of University of Nevada--
    Reno, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, University of
    Idaho, University of Utah and University of Alaska, Fairbanks and other
    members of the ADTI-MMS University Network (Colorado School of Mines,
    Montana Tech at the University of Montana, South Dakota School of Mines
    and Technology, University of Colorado, Berkeley, Northern Arizona
    University, Montana State University-Bozeman, and the University of New
    Mexico) provide part of our research foundation under direction of the
    Mining Life Cycle Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. In
    addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Restoration of Abandoned
    Mined Sites (RAMS) program and the headquarter-based Research Programs
    are actively pursuing research coupled with on ground cleanups.
    Coordination with sister organizations in other countries, including
    Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND)--Canada, Mitigation of
    Environmental Impact From Mining Waste (MiMi)--Sweden, (other),
    signifies our position in the international realm.
        The ADTI-MMS Review Committee needs funding for technical-
    professional review and illustrations for ADTI-MMS Workbooks on
    prediction, sampling and monitoring, modeling, mitigation and pit
    lakes. We feel that minimal funding (10 percent of ADTI-MMS
    annual budget) can provide needed training documentation for what
    proves to be an expensive multi-decade effort.
        The National Mining Association (NMA), the Interstate Mining
    Compact Commission (IMCC) and several Federal agencies [OSM, BLM,
    Department of Energy (DOE), and Geological Survey (USGS)] have actively
    participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) since
    1995. This collaborative effort receives funding and other support from
    industry and several Federal agencies for specific projects. For
    example, the OSM has provided the ADTI $200,000 for the last three
    fiscal years which has been a consistent source of funding for
    activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mining and has been
    instrumental in accomplishing the ADTI's short-term goals. In addition,
    the EPA has provided $10,000 for travel and administration, and is
    currently providing funding for prediction workbook preparation. If
    each of the Federal agencies, OSM, Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), DOE, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), BLM, USGS, and other
    agencies as appropriate [i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), National
    Park Service (NPS) and Forest Service (USFS)], were provided funds to
    commit $200,000 toward ADTI, more than $1 million would be available to
    support the work of this vital initiative.
        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 several workshops 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 to participate along with the Corps, we respectfully request
    that the USACE be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually (with
    other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, EPA, DOE, BLM, USGS,
    USBR, NPS and USFS) to further the Corp's goals of ecosystem
    restoration.
        Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
    continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
    improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
    issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District

        The possibility exists that within weeks the people of Louisiana
    will have the unfortunate opportunity to see the integrity of the
    Mainline Mississippi River Levee System tested beyond its capabilities.
    Melting snow will begin to merge with excessive rainfall in the upper
    tributaries feeding into the Mississippi, and combined with recent
    heavy rains within the lower reaches of the River, we may be witnesses
    to the inevitable. ``Project flood,'' that once-in-a-hundred-years
    flood that is imminent.
        If not this year, then maybe next year. But eventually, it will
    happen. Funding for adequate flood control in the Mississippi Valley
    now will be minimum compared to the potential that exists if flood
    control projects are not completed as currently planned.
        The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association has requested a
    total appropriation of $395,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 for Mississippi
    River and Tributaries (MR&T), to be divided among the seven states
    covered by the Project.
        To guarantee that the Vicksburg District, Corp of Engineers is able
    to maintain the level of progress needed to ensure that MR&T
    construction schedules are met, it is imperative that the $51,968,000
    requested in the Budget and allocated for construction of Mississippi
    River Levees within the Division, be funded.
        Funding provided in recent years has allowed the U.S. Army, Corp of
    Engineers to proceed with construction of Levee enlargement projects on
    the West Bank of the River, starting at the Louisiana-Arkansas State
    line and extending southward. It is essential that this section of
    Levee continue to be raised to prevent overtopping of the Levee in
    areas deficient in height.
        The Mississippi River Levee System in Louisiana and Mississippi
    must be brought to heights and capabilities equal to that of the levees
    stretching northward; otherwise, upper reaches of the Mississippi River
    Levee System will become a funnel, protecting states to the north while
    directing destruction southward. Increased funding for MR&T levee
    improvement projects in Louisiana and Mississippi is the only means to
    eliminate this possibility.
                                     ______

            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 (7) 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 3,500 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 for maintenance.
    Our last 5 year average has been $9.9 million. That baseline funding
    level does not need to be diminished. We hereby respectively request
    funds for fiscal year 2001 for this project of not less than
    $17,200,000 for maintenance and $5,500,000 for construction. 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: (1) Many miles of all weather
    roads have been constructed and are usable almost daily each year. (2)
    Improved flood control and drainage. (3) Development of one of the most
    fertile and diversified valleys in the world. (4) Growth of towns,
    schools, churches, industry, commerce, and etc. (5) Improvement of our
    environment: malaria, typhoid and other such diseases are no longer the
    norm but seldom occur. (6) A future for our young people to have a
    desire to remain in the area. (7) 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 70 years and we believe it
    is now time to complete a wise investment for our nation.
        Our requests to you today is to approve funding for the St. Francis
    Basin Project of $5,500,000. for construction for the fiscal year 2002
    and with funding of not less than $17,120,000 to preform the required
    and needed annual maintenance of items within that project which have
    been completed and which are the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers.
        The Corps of Engineers has the capability of more than $395,000,000
    for fiscal year 2002. We ask you to give consideration to provide
    funding levels at $395,000,000 for this project for fiscal year 2002.
    This will provide some new construction but it will also provide the
    necessary maintenance monies needed each year.
        Our great Mississippi River and the other navigable tributaries are
    valuable assets to our great nation. As far back as 1845 we find
    records indicating our forefathers and leaders of this nation
    recognized the Mississippi River as a national problem, a national
    asset, and a problem local interests could not and should not be
    responsible for controlling, namely, flood control and navigation. The
    river has always been a viable asset to our nation and important to the
    development of our towns along its banks such as New Orleans,
    Louisiana, Memphis, Tennessee, St. Louis, Missouri, and of course many
    others along it and its tributaries.
        We have locks and dams which are more than 50 years old. They need
    to be improved and enlarged to meet the needs for our navigation
    interest to perform in the 21st century. Our competing nations are
    modernizing and building navigation systems in order to compete with
    our export of commodities and we need to at least keep pace. We must
    upgrade our waterways infrastructure in order to compete with the
    foreign markets and we must improve our aging waterway facilities. No
    successful private industry does not improve and modernize its internal
    and external features in order to keep pace with the competition and to
    meet current demands. Our nation needs to do the same.
        It has been proven over and over our waterway transportation system
    is the safest, the most environmentally acceptable, and the most fuel
    efficient in moving commodities and materials throughout our nation. It
    would be totally unacceptable and very unwise to diminish that mode of
    moving products throughout our nation and expect them to be moved
    either by rail or by highways. Our highway systems already are in dire
    need of repair and to add additional demands on them would be extremely
    costly, very unsafe, and would expend much more fuel which we currently
    do not have but must import. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and
    Congress will make the choice to invest into one of the greatest assets
    we have in our nation. The many locks and dams on our rivers are
    needed. They were designed to accommodate traffic 50 years ago and it
    is now time to upgrade, enlarge, and construct them to accommodate the
    industry as we have it today. We have done the same thing with our
    vehicler traffic on our roads by upgrading, enlarging, and constructing
    to meet the modern day demands. It is now time and past time to do the
    same for our water industry. Former President Eisenhower saw an
    increase in our car and truck traffic on the horizon and thus we
    implemented an extensive interstate system. Let's do something in a
    similar way on our rivers.
        We have only a few oil producing fields, therefore, we must look
    for as many means as possible to conserve our fuel. Utilizing and
    increasing our waterway transportation industry is one way to do that.
    We need an energy plan and we encourage Congress to incorporate
    increased use of water to move products throughout our nation as one
    way to conserve fuel. Every little bit will help when our oil resources
    are so small domestically.
        In the past few months there has been much unfair criticism of the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their study procedures and related
    work. This organization should have their hands held up high and not
    with accusing fingers pointed toward them. No other organization, to my
    knowledge, must stand before Congress each year and justify by a
    favorable cost/benefit ratio of why they need the funding to do the
    work Congress has authorized them to do. The Mississippi and
    Tributaries Project currently returns back to the Federal Treasury more
    than $25 dollars for each dollar spent. In any society and to any
    investor that is a good return on your investment.
        The Corps of Engineers does not do anything beyond what Congress
    has authorized them to do. They can and they will improve our great
    nation if Congress will only let them and if those groups who oppose
    them are not given the never ending ability to interfere. Those groups
    and individuals who oppose the Corps seem to only have to point a
    finger and we see an investigation occur. They should be required to
    provide scientific facts and supporting evidence not ``innuendos'',
    ``perhaps'', ``maybes'', and ``could have'' type charges before any
    consideration is given to their allegations. Simply to delay a project
    or to cast doubt in the citizens eyes through their good use of our
    news media means they have been successful. Local interests and those
    who benefit from the Corps projects are fully aware of the results of
    their tactics. We are sure Congress in their wisdom will do the same.
    Your assistance in this matter is extremely important. Congressman
    Barry from Arkansas understands the problem, perhaps, many more of the
    other 434 will be likewise enlightened.
        Recently we have learned six members of Congress have attempted to
    create a Corp reform caucus whereby the Corps of Engineers projects
    would be placed under another additional financial and scientific
    review board. This is absurd and is nothing more than another effort of
    those who oppose the Corps of Engineers and the work they do to stop
    any work under the guidelines the Corps of Engineers must operate. It
    is our hope none of you participate in such a caucus and the efforts
    being pushed by those who desire same will come to naught.
        I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
    for taking the time to review the above discourse. We would be very
    appreciative of anything this committee can do to help us improve our
    environment, improve our livelihood, and improve the area in which we
    live and work which ultimately is good for America. We are also very
    appreciative of all this Committee has done for us in the past. We
    trust you will hear our pleas and act accordingly.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County,
                                   California

                      a turning basin at avon, california
    Request
        Contra Costa County requests a $2 million add to the Construction
    General (CG-continuing construction) Federal Fiscal Year 2002 Civil
    Works Budget to complete a General Reevaluation Report (GRR) and
    construct a Turning Basin to -35 feet MLLW at Avon, California.
    Background
        The Avon Turning Basin will provide necessary modification to the
    Suisun Bay Channel, increasing the distance between vessels traveling
    within the channel, and those berthed at terminals in the vicinity.
    Second, a Turning Basin will be constructed to allow oil tankers to
    turn vessels within (regularly surveyed and expanded) navigational
    boundaries, with a uniform depth of -35 feet of water (rather than
    attempting to turn in shallower areas). Finally, the Turning Basin will
    provide an emergency anchorage for vessels traveling westward when the
    railroad bridge (adjacent to HWY 680 between Martinez and Benicia)
    fails to open.
        The recent grounding of the oil tanker CHESAPEAKE TRADER during
    turning operations in the Suisun Bay Channel has brought attention to
    and created some urgency for construction of a turning basin at -35
    feet MLLW. The potential for an oil spill during a grounding event is
    significant. The Bar Pilot in question was cited (and suspended in
    part) for having the vessel outside channel boundaries, creating a
    liability issue for the Pilots as well. The Bar Pilots have no choice
    but to turn large vessels outside the narrow (linear) channel. This
    project is supported by the Bar Pilots, the U.S. Coast Guard,
    industries using the channels, the Port of Stockton, and the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers.
        Avon, California is located at the mouth of the Sacramento San
    Joaquin Delta, as it flows into San Francisco Bay. The Bar Pilots and
    local industry have approached the County, concerned that a turning
    basin was no longer being considered at Avon, Suisun Bay Channel, as
    part of the JF Baldwin deepening project. Funding was successfully
    obtained in fiscal year 2001, allowing the Corps to begin reevaluation
    of the Turning Basin to -35 feet, the existing channel depth. The
    fiscal year 2002 appropriation would enable the Reevaluation Report to
    be completed, and construction to occur as part of the San Francisco to
    Stockton (J.F. Baldwin), authorized project.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Southeastern Federal Power Customers, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Southeastern Federal Power Customers' (``SeFPC'') Operation and
    Maintenance Committee, I am pleased to provide testimony in support of
    the Administration's fiscal year 2002 (``fiscal year 2002'') budget
    request for the Army Corps of Engineers' (``Corps'') South Atlantic
    Division (``SAD'') and the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
    (``LRD'').
        The SeFPC has enjoyed a long and successful relationship with the
    Corps' SAD and LRD offices that has greatly benefited the approximately
    5.8 million customers that are SeFPC members. As the Subcommittee is
    aware, the Corps is responsible for operating and maintaining federal
    hydropower generating facilities. The Southeastern Power Administration
    (``SEPA'') then markets the energy and capacity that is generated from
    the federal projects in the Southeast. The SeFPC represents some 238
    rural cooperatives and municipally owned electric systems in the states
    of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South
    Carolina, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, and Illinois, which
    purchase power from SEPA. In some cases, SEPA supplies as much as 25
    percent of the power and 10 percent of the energy needs of SeFPC
    customers. The SeFPC therefore greatly relies on the power generated at
    Corps' projects in the SAD and LRD.
        It is important to note that the relationship of the Corps, SEPA,
    and the SeFPC, forged pursuant to the Federal Power Marketing Program,
    is separate and distinct from other Corps' activities. The Federal
    Power Marketing Program is designed to pay for itself--consumers are
    responsible for repaying the federal taxpayer investment in the Corps'
    multi-purpose hydroelectric facilities. In the rates charged by SEPA to
    preference customers, a portion of each rate is devoted to future
    operation and maintenance (``O&M'') and renewals and replacement
    (``R&R'') activities at these facilities. In turn, these revenues are
    deposited in the Treasury and used to reimburse Congressionally
    appropriated funds for O&M and R&R expenses at the Corps' hydropower
    facilities. Funds collected from consumers may also be used for the
    joint costs of dam activities such as recreation, navigation and flood
    control.
        The SeFPC is dedicated to providing reliable and economic power for
    its consumers. We therefore are concerned that the President has
    proposed a 14 percent reduction in the Corps' overall O&M account for
    the upcoming fiscal year. With these reductions in funding, the Corps
    will not be able to undertake the O&M and R&R work necessary to ensure
    the long-term reliability of the Southeastern federal hydropower
    facilities.
        We are particularly concerned about the effects of the proposed
    budget cuts on ongoing O&M work on hydropower infrastructure within the
    SEPA system of projects. The proposed reductions will impede the Corps'
    work in the following SEPA projects:
      --the $1 million purchase of SF6 Switchyard breakers for the Hartwell
            hydropower project.
      --$750,000 for head cover repairs of Unit 1 at the Carters hydropower
            project.
      --$1.3 million for the excitation replacement of Unit 1 at the
            Carters project.
      --$1.5 million for purchase and installation of SF6 switchyard
            breakers at the Carters project.
        We also are concerned about the President has proposed no new
    starts for fiscal year 2002 from the Corps' General Construction
    account. If enacted, the prohibition on new starts would delay the
    badly needed rehabilitation of the Allatoona hydropower project.
        When a generating unit becomes inoperable, SEPA may be forced to
    purchase expensive replacement power. If this occurs frequently, SEPA
    must then recover these costs through future rate increases. Such a
    result is inappropriate because preference customers already have
    contributed to the Corps' O&M and R&R expenses, thus effectively
    double-charging the customers and their consumers. In fact, revenue
    from the rates paid by the preference customers has enabled SEPA to
    repay, on schedule, the original investment incurred to construct these
    projects. However, when generating units deteriorate, the operation and
    maintenance expenses greatly increase. The failure to provide adequate
    resources for maintenance and rehabilitations impairs the preference
    customers' ability to repay the federal investment and everyone loses.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the American Rivers

        American Rivers is joined by over 500 local, regional and national
    conservation organizations \1\ from all 50 states in calling for $25
    million in funding for the Upper Mississippi River Environmental
    Management Program in fiscal year 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These groups have endorsed ``The River Budget 2002'', a report
    of national funding priorities for local river conservation. A list of
    groups endorsing the River Budget can be viewed at
    www.americanrivers.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Environmental Management Program (EMP) is the primary habitat
    restoration and long term resource monitoring program on the Upper
    Mississippi, and is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
    cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey and the five Upper
    Mississippi River Basin states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa,
    and Missouri.
                overview of the environmental management program
        Dams and levees that support navigation and flood control have
    robbed the Mississippi River of its ability to create and sustain
    habitat for waterfowl and wildlife. Side channels and backwaters fill
    in with silt and sediment and are no longer replaced during floods.
    Instead, they are replaced by state and federal programs.
        More than half the river's backwaters and side channels will be
    lost by the year 2035, likely leading to a catastrophic collapse of the
    nation's most productive and diverse inland fishery. Loss of river
    habitat also threatens a $1.2 billion river-recreation industry, which
    supports 18,000 jobs. As the Corps recently concluded, the Upper
    Mississippi River is in a ``recognized state of decline.'' Corps
    scientists predict that the river will experience a shift to less
    desirable fish species, poorer water quality, and fewer areas that are
    able to support migratory waterfowl unless restoration efforts are
    improved and accelerated.
        One of the most successful and promising federal efforts to reverse
    the degradation of the Mississippi River is the Environmental
    Management Program (EMP). The primary habitat restoration and
    monitoring program on the Upper Mississippi River, EMP has restored or
    created 28,000 acres of habitat to date. When the projects currently
    under construction are completed, it will have protected more than
    96,000 acres of habitat.
        Habitat restoration projects constructed by the Corps with funding
    from the EMP include backwater dredging, water level management, island
    restoration, shoreline stabilization, and side channel improvements.
    These activities allow the Corps and its project partners (e.g., U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service and/or basin states) to restore habitat
    degraded by management of the river system for navigation and flood
    control benefits by restoring natural river processes. Managing water
    levels to more closely mimic natural high and low water periods in the
    hydrologic cycle provides key ecological triggers for the growth of
    marsh plants, which in turn support fish and wildlife populations
    popular with hunters and anglers. Backwater dredging opens areas of
    aquatic habitat previously unavailable to aquatic organisms due to
    excessive sedimentation. In all, these restoration activities are a
    critical factor in improving the ecological health of the Upper
    Mississippi River.
        Long term resource monitoring provides river managers with
    critical, systemic scientific analyses of the river ecosystem, which
    identifies key threats to river health and helps guide management
    decisions to protect and restore this national resource. These
    monitoring efforts provide critical information needed to maintain the
    Upper Mississippi River as a sustainable large river ecosystem
    supporting multiple uses, including recreation, navigation and
    commercial fishing.
                    the value of the upper mississippi river
        Few rivers have had as great an impact on the nation as the
    Mississippi River.
        Generations of explorers, engineers, Native Americans, fur traders,
    steamboat pilots, writers, painters and musicians have contributed to
    its legend. The river is a life sustaining force whose presence has
    contributed to a rich fabric of social, economic, cultural and natural
    resources.
        As the river courses through the nation's heartland, the
    Mississippi winds through hundreds of communities and thousands of
    years of human history. Millions make their homes along the river's
    shores, and millions more use the waterway every year for recreation,
    to move goods, supply water, and generate power. From the moment it
    trickles out of Minnesota's Lake Itasca, the Mississippi River shapes
    the lives of the communities along its banks. The river that inspired
    Mark Twain continues to inspire millions of people today.
        People of virtually every ethnic and racial background have claimed
    homes along the river, and the river's many different names--the Father
    of Waters, Big Muddy, Old Devil River--underscore the diversity of the
    people who have lived along its shores. The Mississippi is a confluence
    of literally hundreds of different cultures.
        More than 400 different species of wildlife call the river home as
    well--one of the world's most diverse ecological systems--including the
    nation's most ancient lineage of fish and 40 percent of North America's
    migratory waterfowl. The river's floodplain includes dense forests of
    maples, cottonwoods, and willows, which support bald eagles, herons,
    egrets, and double-crested cormorants, rare orchids and many other
    species.
        The heritage resources of the river valley include traces of North
    America's earliest inhabitants. The river's banks are dotted with
    remnants of the past, ranging from 10,000 year-old Native American
    effigy mounds to the remains of Zebulon Pike's expedition to the paddle
    wheelers that inspired Mark Twain. Attractions like Mark Twain's
    birthplace in Hannibal, Missouri, historic steamboats and bridges, and
    river museums link visitors to the river's past.
        The river's natural resources, scenic beauty, and heritage are
    powerful economic engines. Recreation on and along the Upper
    Mississippi River attracts 12 million annual visitors--four times more
    than Yellowstone National Park--who spend $1.2 billion annually,
    supporting more than 18,000 recreation-related jobs. Commercial
    fishermen continue to harvest carp, buffalo, catfish and freshwater
    drum, supporting hundreds of jobs and preserving an important link to
    the river's past. Tourism in counties along the entire Mississippi
    generates more than $15 billion in annual economic benefits.
        Unfortunately, these important economic resources are threatened by
    land use practices which contribute too much sediment and nutrients,
    the loss of floodplain forests and wetlands, the loss of side channels
    and sloughs, outdated methods of channel maintenance, and introduced
    species like the zebra mussel. Sadly, that ``artery of a continent'' is
    becoming clogged with excess sediment and nutrients while critical
    habitat continues to degrade under a system highly managed to support
    economic benefits. Scientists tell us that these threats may have
    serious consequences if left unattended.
                  threats to the upper mississippi river basin
        The Mississippi was once characterized by ``dynamic equilibrium''--
    sediment and silt may have filled a side channel, but a new side
    channel was created by the erosive power of flood waters; particular
    islands and sandbars may have washed away, but new ones were built
    elsewhere by the river. The overall mosaic of floodplain forest and
    wetlands, side channels and sloughs, islands and sandbars stayed more
    or less the same. Periods of both high and low flow were critically
    important--during floods, powerful currents would build new habitat and
    fish could migrate onto the river's floodplain to spawn; during periods
    of low flow, exposed sediments would consolidate and river water would
    become clearer, aiding the production of marsh plants, a major food
    source for fish and waterfowl.
        Today, the dams that make the river reliably navigable and the
    levees that temporarily protect floodplain farms have reduced the
    frequency, extent and magnitude of high flows, robbing the river of the
    ability to build new side channels and islands, replenish forests and
    marshes--to sustain itself. Because dams and channel training
    structures have confined the river's erosive power to a central
    channel, side channels, which fill with silt and sediment, are no
    longer replaced during floods. Current land use practices accelerate
    the loss of side channels by increasing the rate at which sediment is
    washed off the land into feeder streams. The river's bottom is becoming
    increasingly uniform, replacing the variety of water depths that
    contribute to the Mississippi's remarkable diversity of aquatic
    species. The absence of low flows has sharply reduced the amount and
    diversity of marsh plants, and elevated water tables have undermined
    the health of the river's floodplain forest. Marsh plant seeds, buried
    under layers of accumulating sediment, lay dormant.
       the environmental management program: one solution to restore the
                                  mississippi
        the value of the Environmental Management Program to the ecological
    health of the Upper Mississippi River cannot be understated. Continued
    increases in funding for this important restoration program will
    translate into more effective restoration projects. With sound science
    and effective use of restoration funding, the degraded Upper
    Mississippi has some hope of turning around, and becoming the
    outstanding, world-class natural resource it once was. Without
    increased funding, the Upper Mississippi River is at risk of continued
    declining ecological health, putting at risk the $1.2 billion in
    recreation-based economy in the basin, 18,000 or more recreation-based
    jobs, 400 different species of fish and wildlife, and a natural
    resource beyond compare.
        We strongly urge you to appropriate $25 million to the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers' Upper Mississippi River System Environmental
    Management Program.
                                     ______

      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 key programs
    of the Army Corps of Engineers. These programs can significantly expand
    the Corps' ability to assist communities in the nation reduce losses
    due to flooding. We have found that the Flood Plain Management Services
    (FPMS) and Planning Assistance to States (Section 22) programs provide
    for important elements of effective floodplain management. The Riverine
    Flood Hazard Mitigation and Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, and
    Section 1135 and 206 programs offer 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 4,000 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 fully support
    these strategies for the Corps.
        Under General Investigations, Flood Plain Management Services, $8.2
    million is requested for fiscal year 2002. The funding level for fiscal
    year 2001 was that $8.2 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. There is a growing need to increase the funds in this critical
    program to help reduce flood losses in the nation, which we hope the
    Congress mill consider for fiscal year 2002.
        The General Investigations, ``Coordination Studies With Other
    Agencies'' budget includes $6.5 million for Planning Assistance to
    States in the budget request for fiscal year 2002, the same as last
    year's funding. The growing need of localities and local and regional
    governmental entitles for technical assistance from the Corps has been
    helped by the Congressional effort. 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.
        The Riverine Flood Mitigation and Ecosystem Restoration program was
    authorized by Congress last year. 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 and are eager to cost share in this effort. We hope that the
    Committee will provide the nation's communities with the valuable tools
    of this program.
        Two other important programs need full funding--namely the Section
    1135 and 206 programs. Both programs are helping communities restore
    much of the habitat lost when Corps projects were constructed. Both
    programs are authorized for $25 Million.
        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.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. Please contact
    ASFPM Executive Director, Larry Larson, at (608) 274-0123 if further
    information is needed.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Butte County, CA

          rock creek-keefer slough flood control project, section 205
        Butte County in cooperation with the California Reclamation Board
    and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is currently completing the
    Feasibility Study Phase of the project review with several important
    milestones to occur in the near future. The Working Group has
    established two project construction alternatives. 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 October we expect development of the PED Phase (Project
    Engineering and Design) to start. The NED Plan (National Economic
    Development Plan is slated to be completed near that date. This will be
    a General Inquiry Project.
        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 of $2,100,000, for the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers, to proceed with the PED, in fiscal year 2002,
    for construction of this critical Flood Control Project in their fiscal
    year 2003 recommended flood control projects.
        If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact:
    Stuart Edell, P.E., at Butte County Public Works, 7 County Center
    Drive, Oroville, CA 95965-3397, Telephone (530) 538-7266, FAX (530)
    538-7683, Email sedell@buttecounty.net
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Southern Nevada Water Authority

                                  introduction
        It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
    the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
    resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
    Nevada.
        Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
    power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
    designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
    Colorado River Basin.
        In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
    Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
    along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
    lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
    a first-of-its-kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
    protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
    wildlife and their habitat.
        The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
    been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
    Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the federal
    Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
    services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
    help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
    is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
                              program description
        The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
    recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
    conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
    under the federal and California Endangered Species Act.
        The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
    lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
    to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
    restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
    following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
    desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
    cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
    non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
        The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
    program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
    power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
    development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
    environmental compliance for participating federal agencies, pursuant
    to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, and non-federal
    agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
    programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
    Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
        Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
    been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
    for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
    razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
    initiated.
                            program development cost
        Current, program development costs are projected at about $6.7
    million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
    A federal/non-federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
    development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
    measures. The federal and non-federal participants shared program
    development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-federal
    participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
    non-federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
    the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
                             program implementation
        The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
    in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
    series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
    habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
    planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
    with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
    the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
              colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
        The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
    in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
    1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
    of riparian, wetland, and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado
    River. In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as
    a model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
    States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and various other public and private
    agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
    River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
        Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
    the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
    on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
    Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
    opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
    restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
    receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
    pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
    enhancement of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and continued
    collaboration with ongoing Native American, federal, and state
    environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
                         pilot project area description
        The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
    to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
    restore native riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats modified through
    development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
    resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
    restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
    water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex, and 200 acres of fallowed
    agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
    fish species, 20 species of reptiles, and 9 amphibian species utilize
    the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
    expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
    endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, and
    razorback sucker.
                             pilot project actions
        In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
    restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
    This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
    measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
    be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
    channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
    of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
    following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
      --Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
            flow in existing wetlands;
      --Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
      --Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees
            in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
      --Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
            and aid in the development of future maintenance and
            restoration activity recommendations; and
      --Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
            recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
                             pilot project funding
        It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
    Project of $2.5 million be funded through the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
    (LCROP) budget line item.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
                                    (MCWRA)

                     castroville seawater intrusion project
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
    for inclusion in the hearing record of the fiscal year 2002 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 our behalf 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 2000.
        As in the past seven years, the Monterey County Water Resources
    Agency has worked diligently to present the Subcommittee with an fiscal
    year 2002 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 (Bureau) and
    other Program participants, we have developed the funding plans that we
    hope will be included in the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for
    the Public Law 84-984 Small Reclamation Loan Program. I therefore
    respectively request that the Subcommittee provide the full request for
    the project of $1.12 million.
        This is the eighth 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 seven years this Subcommittee
    provided $13.164 million for our project. The current appropriation
    amount of $1.12 million, when combined with other federal funding which
    is available from the U.S. Treasury in the amount of approximately
    $2.174 million pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990,
    should yield a total loan amount of $3.294 million for fiscal year 2002
    allowing 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 its 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 2002 when combined with the
    additional Treasury portion is intended to fulfill the Bureau's eighth
    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 minimum 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 2001
    funding provided monies for the fourth 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, 2000, and 2001 as shown in the table below and must
    continue for the last year 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]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Received 1995-2000                              Requested 2002
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Requested
                                                                       1995       1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001      2002       Total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CSIP.........................................................        1.064      1.5      2.0      2.1      2.6      2.6      1.3       1.12       14.284
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $15.992 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.
                                     ______

                    small reclamation projects loan program
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to provide this
    testimony for inclusion in the hearing record on the fiscal year 2002
    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
    seven years, this subcommittee provided $9.0 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 2000, the plant produced
    about 10,000 acre-feet (AF) of recycled water.
        As in the past, we have been in close consultation with the Bureau
    of Reclamation (Bureau) 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, we are
    hopeful that the Administration will request, with our support and
    endorsement, $0.557 million 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, 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
    2002. 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.
        The project will ultimately provide 19,500 AF 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 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, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001 through
    February 12, 2001, as follows:

                                                                   FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS \1\
                                                                    [In millions of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Received 1995-2001
                                                                      -------------------------------------------------------------  Requested      Total
                                                                        1995    1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001       2002
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SVRP.............................................................  .....      2.0      1.5      1.3      1.7      1.7      0.8        0.557        9.557
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Does not include Treasury portion of $10.375 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 $14.4 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 of this critical project
    is greatly appreciated.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc.

        On behalf of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System (LCRWS), 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 2002 funding. First, I would like to thank you
    for all your efforts on behalf of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water
    System (LCRWS) last year. Without your steadfast and diligent support,
    our hopes of providing safe, reliable drinking water to our communities
    would be impossible.
        Our need for the project is even greater today than when we
    embarked on our effort almost a decade ago. The shallow wells, aquifers
    prone to contamination, demands of compliance with new federal drinking
    water standards, and increasing population growth and economic
    expansion are stressing our existing systems beyond their capacity. The
    promise of a pure, dependable, Missouri River drinking water system for
    the nearly 200,000 residents in 22 communities in rural Iowa,
    Minnesota, and South Dakota can only be realized with your continued
    support and efforts. In order to meet the fundamental need for clean
    dependable water in this area, we must once again request your support
    for funding this vital project in fiscal year 2002.
                                   background
        The LCRWS is a bipartisan effort supported by all members of its
    Congressional delegation including Senators Grassley (R-IA), Daschle
    (D-SD), Wellstone (D-MN), Johnson (D-SD), Harkin (D-IA) and Dayton (D-
    MN), and Congressmen Kennedy (R-MN), Latham (R-IA), and Thune (R-SD).
    Additionally, in recent remarks in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, President
    Bush expressed his support for LCRWS.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``A priority is to work with states on important development
    projects. And Lewis and Clark rural Water Project is a project that
    will be in my budget, and something that we can work together on.''
    President George W. Bush, Remarks in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, March
    9, 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Senate unanimously passed S. 244, authorizing LCRWS on November
    19, 1999. Companion legislation, H.R. 297, passed the House by an
    overwhelming majority of 400-13 on May 23, 2000. The Lewis and Clark
    Rural Water System Act of 1999 was signed into law (Public Law 106-246)
    by President Clinton on July 13, 2000, as a part of the fiscal year
    2001 Military Construction Appropriations bills, where $600,000 was
    appropriated for this project. Further, funds totaling $1 million have
    been appropriated through the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD/Energy and Water
    Appropriations bill (H.R. 4635).
                        fiscal year 2002 funding request
        The LCRWS is requesting further funding for this project, through
    the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), in the amount of $2 million
    for fiscal year 2002. These funds will be used for final design
    engineering, environmental compliance, acquisition of easements and
    property, and associated legal and professional costs. Specific tasks
    to be accomplished with these funds include acquiring property for well
    sites, a water treatment plant, and for the raw water pipeline route;
    completing the Final Engineering Report that will include a Water
    Conservation Program; completing the Environmental Assessment report;
    completing final design and initiating construction of at least one
    radial collector well; initiating final design of the water treatment
    plant; and initiating final design of the raw water pipeline.
                              project description
        Water from an aquifer adjacent to the Missouri River near
    Vermillion, SD, will be treated in a water treatment facility and
    delivered to the project's membership through a regional distribution
    system. Each member utility will take water from the LCRWS at a point
    of connection and deliver it to the end user through their distribution
    system. Some members will receive all of their drinking water from
    LCRWS. Others will blend project water with their existing resources.
        Physical Attributes of the Project.--Nearly 412 miles of pipe will
    be needed to distribute treated drinking water to the project's
    membership. The largest pipe is expected to be 54 inches in diameter,
    with the smallest being 6 inches in diameter. One centralized treatment
    plant will be constructed. The LCRWS will build at least five
    reservoirs to assist in meeting storage needs. About one day's worth of
    storage will be included in the reservoirs and in the distribution
    system. A state of the art communication system will be utilized to
    allow plant operators to monitor and control the operation of the
    entire system from one location. A radial well system will be
    constructed to collect water for treatment and distribution. A series
    of four to six wells will be needed to give enough capacity for the
    system.
        As dictated by Public Law 106-246, the Bureau will be the federal
    oversight agency during project construction. A cooperative agreement
    between the Bureau and the LCRWS is currently being negotiated. Once an
    agreement is signed, the appropriated funds can be transferred to the
    project to assist with the pre-construction activities. All project
    activities are carried out in consultation with the Bureau.
                               project activities
        Summary of Current Activities.--The following summary of project
    activities over the past few months demonstrates the project's progress
    to date in developing the final engineering and environmental
    documentation. The listing includes both planning and engineering
    activities, consultations, and data gathering efforts associated with
    the preparation of documents necessary for compliance with the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
        1. Requests for additional capacity from LCRWS have come from
    existing members and potential new users along the proposed pipeline
    route. Costs associated with increasing system capacity to meet these
    requests will be accomplished through means other than the federal
    authorization for the project. These new requests would require an
    additional 11 million gallons per day of treated water. This is a
    fifty-percent increase in project capacity from the original project
    design.

    Authorized System Costs, Year 1993......................    $272,800,000
    Indexed System Costs, Year 2000.........................     343,831,200

        2. To ensure compliance with NEPA, the following tasks have been
    initiated:
      --preparation of detailed route maps showing a 2 mile wide corridor
            for the pipeline routes and project features;
      --initial consultation meetings with State Historic Preservation
            Offices in Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota;
      --initial consultation meetings with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
            South Dakota Game Fish and Parks, Iowa Department of Natural
            Resources, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources;
      --consultation and coordination meetings between the project team
            members and the project management team from the Bureau; and
      --class I file search of archaeological records for pipeline routes
            in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota.
        3. Hydro-geological studies to identify prospective sites for
    radial collector wells have begun. A preliminary report identifying
    recommended locations for exploratory drilling and production pump
    testing has been prepared. Project representatives have met with
    affected property owners who have given permission for site access for
    investigations. A categorical exclusion for the exploratory drilling
    has been approved and this drilling is scheduled to begin in early
    April.
        April 2002 is the target date for submittal of the final
    engineering report including a business plan, environmental assessment,
    and water conservation program. The documents will be submitted to the
    Bureau and the United States Congress marking the beginning of the
    mandated 90-day review period.
        Public Scoping.--Public meetings will be held throughout the
    project area to invite public comment on the project planning process.
    These meetings will be held in early May 2001. Notifications and a
    project scope statement will be distributed in late April 2001. These
    meetings will be prime opportunities to better inform the public about
    the LCRWS and its plans for the future. The Bureau will also be working
    with tribal organizations throughout the area to gain their input into
    this process.
                               project financing
        The projected total cost for the LCRWS project is $272.8 million,
    in 1993 dollars. A combination of local, state, and federal funding is
    being used for this project. Each of the three member states has
    already passed legislation authorizing the state governments to fund 10
    percent of the project. Project members will fund an additional 10
    percent of the project. The federal government will fund the remaining
    80 percent except in Sioux Falls, where the federal cost-share is 50
    percent. In addition, Sioux Falls will contribute significantly to the
    O&M costs of the project, lowering those costs for other project
    members.
        Throughout the past decade, as the LCRWS completed its Preliminary
    Engineering Report and Environmental Assessment Report, the three
    states and project members have contributed to financing the project.
    For every state dollar that has been contributed, the local members
    have matched those state funds dollar for dollar. To date, over $2
    million in state and local funds have been contributed to project
    activities related to development, administration, public education,
    and federal authorization.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District

        On behalf of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD), 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 2002 funding. We respectfully request your
    continued support of fiscal year 2002 funding for MSD projects to
    minimize the impact combined sewer overflows have on the Mississippi
    River in the heartland of our country. Authorization for such work, to
    be performed by the U.S. Army Corps' of Engineers, was contained in the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
        In fiscal year 2001, $3 million was appropriated to start a
    combined sewer project in an area of south St. Louis City. Additional
    funding for fiscal year 2002 totaling $5 million is being requested to
    continue the work on that project, known as Grand & Bates, and for two
    additional combined sewer projects, Mill Creek Sewer and Southern
    Arsenal Relief Sewer, in the city of St. Louis. This work has as its
    goal to reduce floatable materials that collect in combined sewers, and
    which unless removed, may be discharged into the Mississippi River
    during storm events. Such materials can be unsightly in the water, may
    jeopardize water supplies and pose a risk to the aquatic life thriving
    in the river.
        Depending upon weather conditions, the combined sewers serving the
    city of St. Louis may discharge untreated flows of sewage and
    stormwater runoff an average of 100 times per year. The cost to totally
    separate the sewers is too high, estimated at $6 billion, thus we are
    proposing other methods to reduce the impact these structures have upon
    the Mississippi River.
        Grand & Bates.--MSD is proposing to continue the work on the Grand
    & Bates project where separation of a small portion of the combined
    sewer is being recommended and a sewer is being built in a tunnel 100
    feet below the surface. The separation will reduce the likelihood of
    flooding in this neighborhood and, because the drainage is being
    removed from the combined sewers, will improve the discharges into the
    Mississippi River.
        Mill Creek Sewer, Vandeventer to Grand Avenues.--This sewer is a
    15-foot by 18-foot combined sewer system running through the north
    central portion of the city of St. Louis. Most of the sewer is carved
    in stone and is nearly 100 years old. The improvements proposed will
    help stabilize the sewer, thus, reducing the threat of failure and
    debris being carried downstream into the Mississippi River. Failure on
    a system this large can threaten public safety.
        Southern Arsenal Relief Sewer, Phase II.--This combined sewer
    system serves a southern portion of St. Louis City. It is an 8.5-foot
    by 8.5-foot carved in rock sewer. Numerous voids have been detected
    along this sewer causing concern for its structural stability.
        Due to the size of this system and the fact that it discharges into
    the Mississippi River, there are concerns about failure of the system,
    leading to more debris being carried into the river. The voids around
    the sewer could lead directly into the river, thus increasing the
    potential for pollution. A public safety concern exists due to the
    potential condition of this system.
        The Mississippi River is the backbone of our country. Its
    environmental integrity is critical now and in the future. We request
    that the Subcommittee give strong consideration to appropriating $5
    million for these projects.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
    year 2002 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 in the hundreds of million of dollars per
    year due to the river's salinity.
        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. 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 in which it has stated that the rate of
    implementation of the program beyond that requested by the past
    President is necessary.
        In 2000, Congress reviewed the salinity control program as
    authorized in 1995. Following hearings, and with the Administration's
    support, the Congress passed legislation that increased the ceiling
    authorization for this program by $100 million. Reclamation is now
    prepared to receive proposals to move the program ahead and the seven
    Basin States have funds available to cost-share up-front. The seven
    Basin States have agreed to cost sharing up-front on an annual basis,
    which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar appropriated.
        The President's request for funding the Bureau of Reclamation's
    Basinwide Salinity Control Program in fiscal year 2002 is unknown at
    this time. Based upon past appropriations, 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
    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 Henderson, Nevada, in October 2000, recommended a
    funding level of $17,500,000 for Reclamation's Basinwide Program to
    continue implementation of needed projects and begin 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 2002 and in future
    fiscal years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation
    for the continued operation of completed projects.
        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 Statements of the County of Tulare, California

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The County of Tulare,
    California requests your consideration of an appropriation of $400,000
    in the fiscal year 2002 Federal budget for the United States Army Corps
    of Engineers for continuation of the feasibility study for the White
    River flood control investigation.
        White River is an uncontrolled stream that continues to devastate
    agricultural lands in Tulare County, flood the community of Earlimart
    and disrupt commerce on a major California highway arterial, State
    Route 99.
        The Corps of Engineers completed a reconnaissance level study for
    White River in fiscal year 2000 and determined that there is a Federal
    interest in proceeding with a 50/50 Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement
    (FCSA). The FCSA and Project Study Plan (PSP) as prepared by the Corps
    are under review and negotiation with the non-federal sponsors.
        The Federal fiscal year 2001 budget included $150,000 for the
    Corps' General Investigation of White River, California.
        The local non-federal sponsors urge the subcommittee's
    appropriation of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the Corps of
    Engineers continuation of the White River flood control feasibility
    study.
                                     ______

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The County of Tulare,
    California requests your consideration of an appropriation of $400,000
    in the fiscal year 2002 Federal budget for the United States Army Corps
    of Engineers for a feasibility study for the Frazier & Strathmore
    Creeks flood control project.
        The Corps of Engineers has completed a reconnaissance level study
    of Frazier & Strathmore Creeks and determined that there is a Federal
    interest in proceeding with a feasibility study. The 50/50 Feasibility
    Cost Sharing Agreement is under negotiation between the Corps, the
    State Department of Water Resources and the local non-federal sponsors.
        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 estimate the feasibility study will require
    three years for preparation with a total cost of $2.4 million. Under
    the 50/50 cost sharing requirement the fiscal year 2002 appropriation
    bill for the Corps of Engineers general investigation needs $400,000
    for the first year of the feasibility study.
        The local non-federal sponsors urge the subcommittee's
    appropriation of $400,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the Frazier &
    Strathmore Creeks feasibility study by the Corps.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Poso Creek Improvement Joint Powers Agreement
                                    Agencies

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Poso Creek Joint
    Powers Agreement (JPA) Agencies composed of the Cawelo Water District,
    North Kern Water Storage District and Semitropic Water Storage District
    in Kern County, California request your consideration of an
    appropriation of $250,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Federal budget for
    the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the continuation of the
    feasibility study for the Poso Creek flood control project, a four year
    study.
        An Agreement Between the Department of the Army and the Poso Creek
    Improvement Joint Powers Agreement agencies for the Poso Creek Basin
    Investigation was entered into 25 October 2000. The local non-federal
    sponsors for the 50/50 cost sharing of the feasibility study with the
    Corps include the State Department of Water Resources, the County of
    Kern, the Kern County Water Agency, the Cawelo Water District, the
    North Kern Water Storage District and the Semitropic Water Storage
    District.
        Poso Creek, is an uncontrolled stream that continues to devastate
    agricultural lands in Kern County, floods the community of McFarland,
    and ravages 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 Poso Creek feasibility study, a 4-year study, has been
    estimated by the Corps of Engineers to cost $2.8 million. The
    feasibility study has been separated into a Phase 1 and a Phase 2
    program, with Phase 1 covering a determination of the feasibility of a
    flood control and water conservation dam and reservoir on Poso Creek
    above State Highway 65. Fiscal year 2002 will be the second (2nd) year
    of the feasibility study and will complete Phase 1 of the study.
        The local non-federal sponsors urge the subcommittee's
    appropriation of $250,000 in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    orderly continuation of the Poso Creek feasibility study by the Corps.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Tule River Improvement Joint Powers Agreement
                                    Agencies

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Tule River
    Improvement Joint Powers Agreement Agencies, comprised of the City of
    Porterville, the Tulare County Flood Control District, the Deer Creek
    and Tule River Authority, the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
    and the County of Kings all located in Tulare and Kings Counties,
    California, request your consideration of an appropriation of $725,000
    in the fiscal year 2002 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.
        In addition the Corps and the non-federal sponsors have agreed to
    proceed with construction of Public Health and Safety components of the
    project in the recreational areas of Success Reservoir during fiscal
    year 2002 and $400,000 of Federal funds are needed for cost sharing
    such construction costs.
        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 Tule River, California, Success Reservoir Enlargement Project
    (SREP) was authorized for construction by Section 101(b)(4) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (WRDA 1999), Public Law 106-53
    subject to completion of a favorable report of the Chief of Engineers
    which occurred 23 December 1999.
        The Corps of Engineers has commenced design of the SREP, conducted
    a Value Engineering Conference, and currently, in addition to
    determining the most economical design for raising the spillway, are
    preparing construction plans and specifications for public health and
    safety components of the enlargement project.
        The Tule River interests greatly appreciate your continued support
    for the SREP and request that the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and
    Water Development include in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill
    for the Corps of Engineers for the SREP $725,000 for PED and $400,000
    for construction of Public Health and Safety components of the project.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the City of Sacramento

        Gentlemen: 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 2002 funding for flood protection projects in
    Sacramento. I respectfully request that this letter be included in the
    formal hearing record. First, I would like 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. Flood control is City's number one
    Federal priority. In order to meet the fundamental need for flood
    protection in Sacramento, we must once again request your support for
    funding these vital flood control projects in fiscal year 2002.
        This year, the City of Sacramento is seeking $51.4 million in
    Federal funding to finance both ongoing and newly authorized projects.
    This figure represents the most recent estimate developed by the
    Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) and is derived from their
    discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A chart summarizing
    the projects and funding levels is enclosed.
        Most importantly, the City is seeking $10.0 million for a ``new
    start'' for the South Sacramento Streams Group Project and significant
    increases in construction funding for Folsom Dam modifications and
    continuing work on the American River Common Elements projects. These
    projects, authorized in WRDA 1996 and 1999, will form the backbone of a
    system of improvements that may someday remove the threat of
    catastrophic flooding from the streets of downtown Sacramento. The
    South Sacramento Streams Group Project is ready for construction and
    when completed will prevent flooding of portions of Sacramento from the
    south, where four creeks convey foothill runoff through urbanized areas
    into Beach Lake and the Delta.
        The Folsom dam modifications project received $4.0 million in
    construction funds in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, $12.0
    million will be necessary to keep this crucial project moving forward.
    When completed, the modifications to Folsom Dam will provide greater
    efficiency in managing flood storage in Folsom Reservoir and will
    greatly enhance Sacramento's flood control options.
        The American River Common Elements include 24 miles of levee
    improvements along the American River and 12 miles of improvements
    along the Sacramento River levees, flood gauges upstream of Folsom Dam,
    improvements to the flood warning system along the lower American
    River, and work on American River levee parity authorized in WRDA 1999.
    This work is well underway and we are seeking $17 million in fiscal
    year 2002. These projects represent the last line of defense against
    flooding in Sacramento and must be completed with all due haste.
        The City of Sacramento has been working in cooperation with the
    SAFCA on the construction of bank protection improvements which are
    essential to correct harmful erosion threatening the integrity of our
    existing levees along the banks of the American River. 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. We request that the Subcommittee support our
    request for $3.0 million for this vital project.
        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.
        In fiscal year 2001, $3.285 million was provided in PED funds for
    the American River Watershed plan, which continued previously
    authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood control projects.
    For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting your support to secure $1.0
    million in PED funds to aid the completion of this necessary project.
        Under the Corps' Section 205 Program, we are seeking $3.2 million
    in fiscal year 2002 for both the off-base and on-base portions of the
    Magpie Creek project. This project will provide a high degree of flood
    protection on Magpie Creek and provide for a feasibility study to
    evaluate alternatives for providing improved flood protection on
    McClellan Air Force Base in connection with the reuse of that base.
        Again, the City of Sacramento greatly appreciates the essential
    leadership role you have played in obtaining funding for these
    important flood control projects in previous years and asks for your
    continued support for funding this year.
        The safety of the citizens of Sacramento and the well being of the
    regional and state economy are dependent on adequate Federal funding
    for our flood control projects. We stand ready to assist you in
    whatever way we possibly can. Please contact me if I can provide you
    with any further information.

                                     ______

     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 2002 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 $32,000,000 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.
                         the chicagoland underflow plan
        The Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP) consists of three reservoirs:
    the O'Hare, McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. These reservoirs are a part
    of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). 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 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 (CSO) 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'' are
    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 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. Of
    this 8.1 miles of tunnel are currently under construction and 7.7 miles
    are in design, with construction scheduled to begin in 2001.
        The completed O'Hare Reservoir provides 343 million gallons of
    storage. This Reservoir has a service area of 13.7 miles and provides
    flood relief to 21,000 homes in Arlington Heights, Des Plaines and
    Mount Prospect. 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.
        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 and during major
    storms into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for the region.
    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.
        Since implementation of TARP, 621 billion gallons of CSOs have been
    captured by TARP, that otherwise would have reached waterways. Area
    waterways are once again abundant with many species of aquatic life and
    the riverfront has been reclaimed as a natural resource for recreation
    and development. Closure of Lake Michigan beaches due to pollution has
    become a rarity. After the completion of both phases of TARP, 99
    percent of the CSO pollution will be eliminated. The elimination of
    CSOs will reduce the quantity of discretionary dilution water needed to
    keep the area waterways fresh. This water can be used instead for
    increasing the drinking water allocation for communities in Cook, Lake,
    Will and DuPage counties that are now on a waiting list to receive such
    water. Specifically, since 1977, these counties received an additional
    162 million gallons of Lake Michigan water per day, partially as a
    result of the reduction in the District's discretionary diversion since
    1980. Additional allotments of Lake Michigan water will be made to
    these communities as more water becomes available from reduced
    discretionary diversion.
        With new allocations of lake water, more than 20 communities that
    previously did not get 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 million gallons per day of Lake Michigan water would be added to
    domestic consumption. This translates into approximately 2 million
    additional people that would be able to enjoy Lake Michigan water. 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 mc cook and thornton reservoirs
        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). These CUP
    reservoirs, as previously discussed, are a part of TARP, a flood
    protection plan that is designed to reduce basement flooding due to
    combined sewer back-ups and inadequate hydraulic capacity of the urban
    waterways.
        These reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15 billion
    gallons and will provide 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,
    has acquired the land necessary for these projects, and is 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 our
    past sponsorship for flood control projects, 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 $7,800,000 in construction funds
    included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
    fiscal year 2001. However, it is important that we receive a total of
    $32,000,000 in construction funds in fiscal year 2002 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 pumping
    facilities 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. Delaying this project results
    in lost benefits and additional inflation costs of $120 million per
    year. This is unacceptable. 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 sewage 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 TARP,
    including the CUP Reservoirs 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 $32,000,000 in
    construction funds be made available in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations Act to continue construction of the
    McCook and Thornton Reservoir Projects.
        Again, we thank the Subcommittee for its support of this important
    project over the years and we thank you in advance for your
    consideration of our request this year.
                                     ______

         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 2002 for $10,000,000 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. These damages even 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 have 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 damages was done (April 1996 price level) and six persons
    lost their lives.
        As you no doubt know, actual construction of the Project began in
    late 2000. This first construction involves the replacement of an old
    bridge over the Green Brook which connects East Main Street in the
    Borough of Bound Brook, Somerset County, New Jersey, with Lincoln
    Boulevard in the Borough of Middlesex, in Middlesex County, New Jersey.
        The protective levee along the bank of the Green Brook will be
    substantially higher than the old bridge, and the new higher bridge is
    necessary so as to pass over the levee.
        While this new bridge is being built, the Corps of Engineers
    expects to solicit bids for the second construction contract, known as
    Segment T. The final plans and specifications for this second segment
    are essentially complete, and the necessary permits are expected to be
    received very shortly.
        With the continued support of the Congress, this second Segment of
    the Project will be under construction as the first segment (the new
    and higher bridge), approaches completion.
        Final plans and specifications for the balance of the work to
    protect the Borough of Bound Brook are in progress. It is the
    Commission's hope that protection for all of the Borough of Bound Brook
    will proceed seamlessly during the next several years.
        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 about one-quarter of a million
    people.
        The Members of the Commission are all volunteers, and for 30 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.
        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 its share of the Project
    in 2002.
        We urgently request an appropriation for the Project in fiscal year
    2002 of $10,000,000.
        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 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 $19,397,000 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 one-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 inclusion of funds in the
    fiscal year 2002 budget 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 Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime
                                    Industry

        Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA.--Recommend
    the Corps be funded $1,221,000 (Construction General) 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 funding of $55,831,000 (O&M General).
        Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), LA., Maintenance Dredging.--
    Recommend that Corps be funded $13,111,000 (O&M, General).
        Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA.--Funding
    requirements include $25,000,000 (Construction General) to continue
    construction and mitigation for the IHNC New Lock. Recommend that Corps
    be funded to continue lock construction and mitigation.
        Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, LA.--Recommend funding of
    $2,943,000 (O&M General).
        Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend funding of $500,000
    (general Investigations) to continue the development of 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.--Recommend funding of
    $18,195,000 (O&M General). Recommend that Corps be funded increased
    capability to construct a spare set of miter gates for Leland Bowman
    Lock and 20 additional mooring buoys at various locations along the
    GIWW.
        Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Recommend funding of $900,000 (General
    Investigations) funds to continue the feasibility phase of the study to
    replace Calcasieu Lock on the GIWW.
        Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--Recommend funding of $12,773,000
    (O&M General) to continue dredging and operation and maintenance of the
    Saltwater Barrier.
        MRGO Reevaluation Study, LA.--fiscal year 2002 funding requirement
    is $500,000 (Construction General). Funds are needed to complete a
    study to determine the advisability of maintaining the 36ft. depth of
    the MRGO. Recommend that the Corps be funded to complete this study.
        J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport,
    LA.--Fiscal year 2002 funding requirement is $20,000,000 (Construction
    General) and $9,462,000 (O&M General). Recommend that the Corps be
    funded to complete work already underway.
        As Chairman of the Louisiana Governors 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
    2002.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that in 1999 a total of
    427.9 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 Americas foreign merchandise trade by volume (two-thirds by
    value) moves in ships, and 21 percent of the nation's foreign
    waterborne commerce passes through Louisianas 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 Americas 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 1999, 2,345 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: Latin
    America (33.5 percent); Asia (33.1 percent); Europe (23.5 percent);
    Africa (9.3 percent) and North America (1.1 percent). During the same
    year, more than 6,148 vessels called at Louisianas 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-Americas farms and industries to
    play a vital role in the international commerce of this nation. In
    1999, the regions ports and port facilities handled 229.5 million tons
    of foreign waterborne commerce. Valued at $35.1 billion, this cargo
    accounted for 18.4 percent of the nation's international waterborne
    trade and 27 percent of all U.S. exports. Bulk cargo, primarily
    consisting of tremendous grain and animal feed exports and petroleum
    imports, made up 82 percent of this volume. Approximately 53.3 million
    tons of grain from 17 states, representing 55.3 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 87.3 million short tons of petroleum and
    petroleum products, 15.5 percent of U.S. waterborne imports of
    petroleum products.
        In 1999, 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 87.5
    million tons of international and domestic cargo. International general
    cargo totaled 11.2 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).
    Mitigation features associated with the first phase of the channel
    deepening project in the vicinity of Southwest Pass of the river,
    accomplished in 1988, are nearing completion. We urge the continued
    funding for this work in fiscal year 2002 to complete construction of
    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 214.2 million tons of foreign and
    domestic cargo in 1999, and the Port of Baton Rouge, the nation's
    seventh largest port with 63.7 million tons of foreign and domestic
    cargo in 1999, 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 funding in the amount of $55,831,000 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 1999, 480 general cargo vessels calling on
    the MRGO Tidewater facilities accounted for 33 percent of the general
    cargo tonnage handled over public facilities at the Port of New Orleans
    and 80.8 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
    amount needed in fiscal year 2002 is $13,111,000 under O&M General. We,
    however, strongly recommend that the Corps be funded increased
    capability for bank stabilization projects.
        We recognize the need for the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of
    continuing the maintenance of a deep draft channel in the MRGO because
    of increased maintenance costs and environmental impacts. Any thoughts
    of not maintaining a deep draft channel in the MRGO must be preceded
    with the completion of another deep draft access (IHNC Lock) to the
    many businesses serviced by the MRGO, even though the Port of New
    Orleans is planning to relocate the container terminals to the
    Mississippi River. We recommend funding to the Corps' full capability
    to complete this study.
        The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock is a critical link in
    the U.S. Inland Waterway System as well as 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 2.2 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 $35 million Community
    Impact Mitigation Program. The fiscal year 2002 funding requirement of
    $25,000,000 for the IHNC New Lock for continued engineering and design
    work, construction, and partial funding of the mitigation program.
    Therefore, funding the Corps 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 1999, these channels accommodated cargo
    movements exceeding 2.8 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
    amount needed is $2,943,000 under O&M General.
        More than 75.9 million tons of cargo transverse the GIWW in the New
    Orleans District annually. The amount needed for fiscal year 2002 for
    Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Louisiana and Texas is $18,195,000 under
    O&M General. We recommend that the Corps be funded increased O&M
    capability to construct a spare set of 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 $500,000 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 $900,000
    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 1999, 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 1999, 1,056 ships and 7,305 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 for fiscal year 2002 of
    $12,773,000 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. Fiscal year 2002 requirements include $20,000,000 in
    Construction General and $9,462,000 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. Joseph Accardo, Jr., Executive Director of
    the Port of South Louisiana; Mr. Roger Richard, Executive Director of
    the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission; Mr. Terry T. Jordan, Executive
    Director of the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District; Mr. Channing
    Hayden, President of the Steamship Association of Louisiana; 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.
                                     ______

                        Letter From Joseph Accardo, Jr.

                                       Port of South Louisiana,
                                     LaPlace, Louisiana, April 4, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: The Port of South Louisiana very much
    appreciates being given the opportunity to submit this statement and
    supportive material to signify its endorsement of the statement of Mr.
    Donald T. Bollinger, Chairman of the Louisiana Governor's Task Force on
    Maritime Industry.
        The Port of South Louisiana is comprised of nearly 54 miles of
    Mississippi River north of New Orleans and south of Baton Rouge, with
    more than fifty private and public docks and wharves. The Port of South
    Louisiana is the largest tonnage port in the United States and third
    largest in the world, handling more than 245 million short tons of
    cargo during 1999. Of this total tonnage, more than 123 million tons
    are shipped in international trade by deep water vessel and 12-2
    million tons are shipped in domestic trade by vessels and barges. Each
    year more than 100,000 barges transport cargo at the Port of South
    Louisiana and more than 4,000 ships call at the public and private
    wharves of our Port.
        A recent study by Dr. Tim Ryan of the University of New Orleans
    indicates that nearly 20 per cent of the domestic gross product of the
    State of Louisiana is dependent upon the maritime industry and one of
    twelve jobs is created from the economic activity of the maritime
    industry. Attached you will find statistics which have been developed
    from the records of the Port of South Louisiana.
        The Port of South Louisiana strongly urges the Congress to fund all
    of the following projects.
        1. Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, LA
    (Construction General)
        2. Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Maintenance Dredging
    and GI Funds For Navigation Study
        3. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA, Maintenence Dredging
         4. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lock, LA 5. Mississippi
    River Outlets at Venice, LA
        6. Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA
        7. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA and TX
        8. Calcasieu Lock, LA
        9. Calcasieu River & Pass, LA
        10. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) Reevaluation Study, LA
        11. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport
        The Port of South Louisiana strongly believes that the finding and
    completion of the above maritime projects will enhance the ability of
    the ports in the region to be competitive in the global economy and
    will enhance the ability of domestic industry and agriculture to
    compete in the export of its products.
        If we can provide any further information, please feel free to call
    upon me.
                Your truly,
                                            Joseph Accardo, Jr.
                                                Executive Director/CEO.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Roger P. Richard

                                   Port of Greater Baton Rouge,
                                  Port Allen, Louisiana, April 5, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Energy & Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: Maintaining open navigable channels for the
    Mississippi River and its tributaries is vital to the nation's commerce
    and national interest. Therefore, the Port of Greater Baton Rouge
    respectfully requests that your committee give favorable consideration
    to the following projects:
        Mississippi River Ship Channel--Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    (Construction General).--We support full funding of $719,000 in fiscal
    year 2001 to the U.S. Corps of Engineers General Construction Budget.
    This will allow for the completion of the saltwater intrusion
    mitigation plan and the Phase III design studies for the fifty-five
    foot channel. Both projects are important to the future success of the
    Port of Greater Baton Rouge.
        Mississippi River--Baton Rouge to the Gulf--Maintenance Dredging.--
    We support maximum funding for maintenance dredging for the Mississippi
    River and recommend approval of the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget
    of $63,359,000.
        Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), LA., Maintenance.--We
    support the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget of $11,286,000 under O
    & M General to include increase funding to the U.S. Corps budget to
    increase capability for bank stabilization.
        Intracoastal Waterway Locks, LA.--Recommend approval of the
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget of $686,000 in GI Funds to complete
    the feasibility study and develop plans for replacement of Bayou Sorrel
    Lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Water Way (GIWW), Morgan City to Port
    Allen alternate route.
        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. We support full
    funding to the U.S. Corps budget to complete work already underway.
        As stated in previous correspondence, these projects are vital not
    only to the Port of Greater Baton Rouge but also to the entire nation.
    The great Mississippi River is the premier national waterway, providing
    accessibility to and from foreign countries for the transportation of
    goods and services used by countless numbers of U.S. companies and
    individual citizens. The channel must be properly designed and
    maintained for the benefit of all ports and commerce.
        We also earnestly request your support for funding of the other
    projects included in April 5, 2001 testimony prepared and submitted by
    Mr. Donald T. Bollinger. A summary of Mr. Bollinger's statement is
    attached. Our waterway infrastructure must be properly maintained if we
    are to increase trade and have the confidence of our trading partners
    around the world. Your cooperation and support of these important
    projects for the Mississippi River are greatly appreciated.
                Sincerely,
                                             Roger, P. Richard,
                                              Executive Director & CEO.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Terry T. Jordan

                       Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District,
                                Lake Charles, Louisiana, April 6, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Energy & Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: The Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal
    District respectfully requests favorable consideration from you and
    your committee for the following projects:
        Calcasieu Lock, LA.--Recommend approval of President's Fiscal Year
    2001 budget of $900,000 (GeneralInvestigations) funds to continue the
    feasibility phase of the study to replace Calcasieu Lock on the G1WW.
        Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.--Recommend approval of the Terminal
    Presidents fiscal year 2001 Budget of $12,773,000 (O&M General) to
    continue dredging and operation and maintenance District of the
    Saltwater Barrier.
        This project is vital not only to the Port of Lake Charles, but to
    many parts of the nation. The Calcasieu River provides a route for oil
    and gas to enter the country's 11th largest port and ultimately be
    distributed to the Midwest and Northeast areas. The Port also provides
    a route for exports such as bagged grains, wood and paper products, dry
    bulk materials and other commodities, which originate from as far as
    the Pacific Northwest.
        The District also requests support for funding of the other
    projects included in the testimony of Mr. Donald Bollinger. These
    projects are extremely important to Louisiana ports as well as the
    nation.
                Yours very truly,
                                                       Terry T. Jordan.
                                     ______

                       Letter From Michael R. Lorino, Jr.

                                      Associated Branch Pilots,
                                    Metairie, Louisiana, April 5, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Energy & Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Mr. Chairman: The Associated Branch Pilots is an Association of
    Pilots that have been guiding oceangoing vessels into the entrances of
    the Mississippi River system for over 125 years. We are called Bar
    Pilots because we guide the ships past the constantly shifting and
    shoaling sand bars in the area.
        Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River is the main entrance for
    deep draft oceangoing vessels entering the Lower Mississippi River
    System. It is the shallowest stretch of the Lower Mississippi River
    System and the area that requires the greatest effort by the Corps of
    Engineers to maintain project depth.
        In 2000, the Associated Branch Pilots made 11,987 transits on
    oceangoing vessels through Southwest Pass. Of these ships, 3,290 were
    of 50,000 dead weight tons or greater and 648 had a draft in excess of
    40 feet.
        This number of heavily laden vessels calling on the Lower
    Mississippi River System is a result of having a channel with a depth
    of 45 feet.
        This first phase has proven to be extremely well designed and well
    maintained by the fact that the maximum draft recommended by my
    Association for vessels using Southwest Pass has been 45 feet or
    greater, except for periods of extremely high water that caused
    shoaling that overwhelmed the dredging efforts. This is in stark
    contrast to the late 1970's and early 80's when we often had to
    recommend drafts less than the project depth due to shoaling.
        To the world shipping community, this means that calling at ports
    on the Mississippi River system will be more profitable because larger
    ships can enter and carry greater amounts of cargo.
        This is beneficial to the entire United States because it makes the
    large quantities of petroleum, agricultural, and manufactured products
    shipped from the Mississippi Valley more desirable due to increased
    profitability.
        I would also like to comment briefly on the East-West navigation
    channels near Venice, Louisiana. Tiger Pass and Baptiste Collette
    provide a shorter, more direct route to Breton Sound and the Gulf of
    Mexico for offshore supply boats and small tugs and barges. These
    channels not only represent a savings in time and money for these
    vessels, but reduce the traffic in the main shipping channel, the
    Mississippi River and its passes, which is one of the most congested
    waterways in the country.
        The dredging and maintaining of South Pass would contribute to the
    safety of the overall waterway.
        The Associated Branch Pilots also pilot vessels in the Mississippi
    River Gulf Outlet, a man-made tidewater channel 75 miles long,
    stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to an intersection of the
    Intercoastal Waterway in New Orleans.
        This channel leads to the Main Container Terminals for the Port of
    New Orleans, the Roll On, Roll Off Terminal, the Port of New Orleans
    Bulk Handling Plant, and additional General Cargo Docks. For the Port
    of New Orleans to remain competitive in the ever growing container
    trade, the continued maintenance of this channel is crucial. In 2000,
    497 ships called on the port using the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
        Much is being said pro and con concerning the Mississippi River
    Gulf Outlet. There is, admittedly, an erosion problem in the
    Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, but any curtailment of shipping traffic
    in the channel without regard to the long term effect upon the Port of
    New Orleans would be disastrous. I strongly support approval of funding
    for both the maintenance dredging/jetty repair project and the erosion/
    rip rap study for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
        Funding of the Corps of Engineers' projects in the Lower
    Mississippi River System has proven to be money well spent. It has
    increased exports and imports that have benefited the entire United
    States. I urge your support of the funding requested to enable the
    Corps to continue to maintain and improve the most efficient and
    productive waterway system in the country.
                Sincerely,
                                        Michael R. Lorino, Jr.,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                   Letter From Captain Mark Delesdernier, Jr.

                       Crescent River Port Pilots' Association,
                                Belle Chasse, Louisiana, April 6, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Chairman, Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Mr. Chairman: I have served as President of the largest pilot
    association in the United States for the past nineteen (19) years. The
    Crescent River Port Pilots furnish pilots for ships destined to the
    Port of Baton Rouge, Port of South Louisiana, Port of New Orleans, Port
    of St. Bernard, and the Port of Plaquemines.
        The Crescent River Port Pilots have piloted and shifted over
    sixteen thousand one hundred and eighty two (16,182) ships during 2000.
    We pilot deep draft vessels on more than one hundred (100) miles on the
    lower Mississippi River and thirty-five (35) miles on the Mississippi
    River Gulf Outlet.
        The lower end of our route on the Mississippi River has a shoaling
    problem starting with the high water season each year. The shoaling
    requires daily attention by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
    to maintain project depth.
        Heavy-laden vessel calls on the lower Mississippi River system as a
    direct result of the completion by the Corps of Engineers of the
    deepening of the channel from forty (40) feet to forty-five (45) feet.
        For several years now, we have had extraordinary success in keeping
    the river dredges to project depth. This success is a direct result of
    an experienced and vigilant Corps of Engineers that, through
    experience, is able to timely bid in dredges to avoid extra dredging
    cost by waiting too long to start maintenance dredging.
        Channel stability sends a positive message to the world's shipping
    community that schedule cargo for deep draft vessels months in advance
    is reliable. This makes the port call on the Mississippi River very
    profitable since the ships can lift greater tonnage.
        Keeping project depth is beneficial to twenty-seven (27) states
    that are directly tied to the Mississippi River Port Complex.
        Additionally, I would like to commend on the east and west
    navigation channels near Venice, Louisiana. Baptiste Collette and Tiger
    Pass provide a shorter and more direct route to Breton Sound and West
    Delta in the Gulf of Mexico for oil field support vessels.
        The Crescent River Port Pilots also pilot ships in the Mississippi
    River Gulf Outlet. A man-made channel approximately 75 miles long
    starting in Breton Sound in the Gulf of Mexico and ending in New
    Orleans where it intersects with the Intercoastal Waterway.
        The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet feeds the main container
    terminals in the Port of New Orleans. Additional docks, such as Bulk
    Terminal and general cargo facilities depend on this channel, which
    handled approximately 980 ship calls last year.
        The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been a controversial channel
    since its inception, but being an integral part of the Port of New
    Orleans, it would be a disaster if it is not kept at project width and
    depth. The Crescent River Pilots strongly support approval of funding
    for both the maintenance dredging, and jetty repair projects.
        Funding of the United States Army Corps of Engineers projects in
    the lower Mississippi River system which includes the Mississippi River
    Gulf Outlet, Tiger Pass, Baptiste Collette, and Southwest Pass has
    proven to be money well spent.
        I urge your support of the funding requested to allow the Corps of
    Engineers to continue to maintain and improve the most productive
    waterway system in the world.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to submit my
    comments to your subcommittee.
                Sincerely,
                                Captain Mark Delesdernier, Jr.,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association,
                                      Inc.

                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman & distinguished Committee members: This statement
    includes the following:
        (A) A plea to recognize and maintain our Nation's inland waterways
    system as a vital part of the national transportation infrastructure;
        (B) A request for support in the following areas:
      --Sufficient funding to maintain and improve our nation's inland
            waterway system;
      --O&M funding for federal projects in the Coosa-Alabama Basin and
            Mobile Harbor;
      --Funding to complete a study to improve the navigation channel on
            the Alabama River
      --Funding to remove major obstacles to efficient operation of the
            Millers Ferry power generation plant
      --Funding to commence construction of Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on the
            Coosa River;
                               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 association is concerned about the deteriorating waterway
    infrastructure throughout the nation. The waterways are vital to our
    export and import capability, linking our producers with consumers
    around the world. Barges annually transport 15 percent of the nation's
    commodities, one out of every eight tons. 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. To maintain the inland waterways facilities
    and to accommodate vitally needed growth will require approximately $6
    billion. The Federal government must commit to improve the waterways
    infrastructure or risk serious economic consequences and jeopardizing
    large public benefits.
        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 are especially concerned about the President's
    direction to direct funding away from those waterways suffering
    temporary downturns in barge transportation. 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 must be the O&M funding
    appropriated to the Corps of Engineers to maintain those projects.
    Since, as of the submission of this statement, the President's Budget
    Proposal for fiscal year 2002 has not been made available, we request
    the following projects be funded on a level at least equal to that of
    fiscal year 2001, with exceptions as indicated:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Association's
                                                Fiscal year     fiscal year
                     Project                       2001         2002 budget
                                               appropriation      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       6,999,000
    Robert F. Henry L&D.....................       4,962,000       4,962,000
    Lake Allatoona, GA......................       6,000,000       6,000,000
    Carters Lake, GA........................       7,489,000       7,489,000
    Lower Alabama River Study (South of              150,000         250,000
     Claiborne) feasibility study...........
    Mayo's Bar..............................  ..............       1,500,000
                                             -------------------------------
        Totals..............................      27,525,000      32,555,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 $20,500,000. We
    cannot allow Mobile Harbor infrastructure to deteriorate because not
    enough funds are appropriated.
        The Corps of Engineers has not dredged the Alabama River since
    1999. During the drought months last year, water depths below Claiborne
    were less than six feet, not enough to sustain barge traffic. That
    traffic, however, was severely curtailed in 1999 when Kimberly-Clark
    Corporation ceased its logging operation on the Alabama. In effect, the
    Corps reprogrammed fiscal year 2000 O&M funds from maintenance of the
    Alabama River navigation channel to the Port of Pascagoula, Mississippi
    because of low commercial usage. From all indications, that money will
    be reprogrammed again this year. We must, however, maintain the
    navigation channel to preserve the channel's potential of attracting
    new business into the Alabama River Basin. We request Congress to
    appropriate funding for the Alabama-Coosa, Miller's Ferry, and Robert
    F. Henry projects at least equal to that appropriated in fiscal year
    2001.
        In addition, we ask that $2 million be appropriated to the Miller's
    Ferry project to purchase a capability to remove river debris that
    clogs the inlet structure of the power generating plant at the dam.
    Debris causes the generating plant to lose its efficiency, which in
    turn drives up the cost of producing electricity. These costs are, of
    course, passed on to the purchasers of the electricity. An additional
    benefit is that the debris removing system would obviate the need, thus
    the manpower and time, to physically remove the debris.
        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
    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 $250,000 to
    complete the feasibility study already underway.
        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. One of the
    projects in the Upper Coosa River Basin needs federal funding to assist
    in greatly enhancing recreational opportunities in the northwest
    Georgia and northeast Alabama.
        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. We request Congress authorize the
    Corps of Engineers to assist Floyd County in the construction phase of
    the lock and in the modification of the dam to accommodate planned
    water levels. Construction costs for modifying both the lock and the
    dam is $3 million. We request Congress appropriate the federal share of
    $1.5 million in fiscal year 2002 to allow the Mobile District to assist
    Floyd County in the construction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam. We
    strongly urge the Committee provide funding to benefit northwest
    Georgia and northeast Alabama.
        In summary, we request your support in the following areas:
      --Sufficient O&M funding of the US Army Corps of Engineers Civil
            Works budget to maintain and enhance the US inland waterways
            system, including the Coosa-Alabama River Basins and Mobile
            Harbor;
      --Funding to purchase a system to remove debris from the intake of
            the power generating plant at Millers Ferry Dam on the Alabama
            River;
      --Funding for completing the feasibility study of improving the
            reliability of the navigation channel below Claiborne Dam on
            the Lower Alabama River;
      --Funding federal share for the construction phase of rehabilitating
            Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam on the Coosa River near Rome, Georgia.
        Thank you for allowing us to submit this testimony and for your
    strong support of the Nation's waterways.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Clyde Chambliss

                                     Autauga County Commission,
                                    Prattville, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Energy and Water
            Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: The Autauga County Commission would like to
    take this opportunity to ask for your help in funding requests for
    Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association for fiscal year 2002.
        We are particularly interested in the operations and maintenance
    funding that keeps the navigation channel open. We feel that top
    priority should be given in order to attract new river-using industry
    into the Alabama River Basin. Improvements needed to enhance industry
    interest into the river basin include extending the Coosa-Alabama
    Waterway and improving navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam by
    maintaining and improving training works and dredging. Commercial river
    transportation development between Mobile and Montgomery is dependent
    on these improvements. Funding of $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002 and
    $1.0 million in fiscal year 2003 is needed to install a system to
    remove debris at the intake gates of Miller's Ferry hydropower
    generation plant near Camden, Alabama.
        We also support efforts to reach an agreement on a water allocation
    formula between Alabama and Georgia, but cannot support an agreement
    that could negatively affect the ability of Mobile District Corps of
    Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation channel on the Alabama
    River or that seriously hinders the economic development of the State
    of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
        It is our hope that you will consider the importance of maintaining
    the Alabama River projects arid provide the funding needed.
                Sincerely,
                                          Clyde Chambliss, Jr.,
                                                              Chairman.
                                     ______

                       Letter From Phillip A. Sanguinetti

                                             The Anniston Star,
                                     Anniston, Alabama, March 26, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Energy and Water
            Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Sen. Domenici: 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 2002.
        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 $300,000 to improve the
    training works below Claiborne Dam.
        In addition, these are other points to consider: (a.) The state
    should maintain and improve the training works and dredging so the
    commercial river transportation between Mobile and Montgomery may
    continue. (b.) The state should continue efforts to agree on a water
    allocation formula between the states of Alabama and Georgia, but not a
    formula that negatively affects the ability of the Mobile District
    Corps of Engineers to maintain a ninefoot navigation channel on the
    Alabama River or impedes Alabama's developing of economic potential.
        Increased fees and taxes prohibit the development of the waterway.
    Lowering the freight rates provide a better opportunity to help the
    trade business.
        Thank you for considering these suggestions.
                Very truly yours,
                                        Phillip A. Sanguinetti,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                            Letter From Phil Powell

                                                City of Centre,
                                        Centre, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Energy and Water
            Development, U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
        Dear Senator Doemenici: As Mayor of the City of Centre I am writing
    to express my support for the funding request by the Coosa-Alabama
    River Improvement Association, Inc. As you are aware this Association
    is very active in promoting the use of the Alabama River Basin as a
    functional navigational waterway for the benefit of the entire State of
    Alabama. As the Association submits its funding request for fiscal year
    2002 please keep in mind the importance of keeping the navigational
    channels open and in operation. Without funds for operations and
    maintenance of the channel it would be impossible to keep it in
    operation and functional.
        The channel is essential on our efforts to attract new river-using
    industry and to expend those already in place. Without funds to keep
    the channel open and accessible for navigation the economies of all
    communities along the channel will be adversely affected. As you are
    aware, millions of dollars have been. spent in recent years toward
    making the Alabama River Basin a functional waterway for barge traffic:
    Failure to maintain such a facility will be harmful to all concerned.
        As Mayor I certainly support the regional efforts to improve and
    expand the channel. Top priority must be given to the operational and
    maintenance funding that keeps the channel open. This is the only way
    new river using industry can be attracted to the Basin area. I also
    support the regional effort in the following areas:
      --To improve and extend the Coos-Alabama Waterway. It is imperative
            that we improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne
            Dam.
      --To maintain and improve training works and dredging
      --The development of commercial river transportation between--Mobile
            and Montgomery.
        It is vital that all affected cities support the Association's
    request for funding--to install a system to remove debris from in front
    of the intake gates at Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near
    Camden, Alabama. The funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002
    and $1.0 million in fiscal year 2003.
        Finally, I applaud the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a
    water allocation formula between the two states, but I cannot support
    an agreement that would negatively affect the ability of the Mobile
    District Corp of Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigational channel
    on the Alabama River or that seriously impedes the economic development
    of the State of Alabama and Northwest Georgia. I do however support the
    efforts of Floyd County and the City of Rome, Georgia to modernize and
    make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam to allow recreational boat
    traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake, Alabama.
        On behalf of the entire community of Centre I encourage you to
    consider these matters carefully as each one, directly or indirectly,
    affects the economic viability of all cities and towns affected by the
    waterways.
        I appreciate your concern and know you will support the Improvement
    Association in their efforts to improve our states waterways.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Phil Powell,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                           Letter From Anne H. Farish

                                           City of Monroeville,
                                  Monroeville, Alabama, March 22, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: It has come to my attention that the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water will be considering
    budget requests for operations and maintenance funding for the Alabama
    River projects. I understand that this funding is at risk due to the
    continuing low level of tonnage on the navigation channel. I cannot
    stress the importance of maintaining the navigation channel in the
    Alabama River to attracting new industry and maintaining our current
    industries.
        I support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's funding
    request for fiscal year 2002. Top priority must be the operations and
    maintenance funding that keeps the navigation channel open. I support
    the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway.
    Funding is needed to improve the navigational reliability below the
    Claiborne Dam and to maintain and improve training works and dredging
    in order to develop commercial river transportation between Mobile and
    Montgomery.
        I support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water
    allocation formula between the two states, but could not support an
    agreement 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 economic development of the State
    of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
        Thank you for supporting this request.
                Sincerely,
                                                Anne H. Farish,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                           Letter From Jim Byard, Jr.

                                            City of Prattville,
                                     Pratville, Alabama, April 4, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: I am a member of the Board of Directors for
    the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. These are some
    priority items for your consideration:
      --I support the Association's funding request for fiscal year 2002.
            Top priority must be the operations and maintenance funding
            that keeps the navigation channel open. We must maintain the
            channel in order to attract new river-using industry into the
            Alabama River Basin.
      --I support the regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-
            Alabama Waterway, including
        --Need to improve the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam.
        --Need to maintain and improve training works and dredging.
                Development of commercial river transportation between
                Mobile and Montgomery depends on these improvements.
      --I support the Association's request for funding to install a system
            to remove debris from in front of the gates at the Millers
            Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden, Alabama. The
            funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002 and $1.0
            million in fiscal year 2003.
      --I support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water
            allocation formula between the two states, but could not
            support an agreement 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 economic development of the State of Alabama and
            Northwest Georgia.
      --I support the efforts of Floyd County and the City of Rome,
            Georgia, to modernize and make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and
            Dam to allow recreational boat traffic between Rome and Weiss
            Lake, Alabama.
        Your support of CARIA's request for funding will be greatly
    appreciated.
                Sincerely,
                                                Jim Byard, Jr.,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Sue L. Glidewell

                                          City of Rainbow City,
                                 Rainbow City, Alabama, March 19, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: As you know, I am a member of the Board of
    Directors of Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. I am
    listing below some priority items for your consideration:
        (1) You support the Association's funding request for fiscal year
    2002. Top priority must be the operations and maintenance funding that
    keeps the navigation channel open. We must maintain the channel in
    order to attract new river-using industry into the Alabama River Basin.
        (2) 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.
            Development of commercial river transportation between Mobile
            and Montgomery depends on these improvements.
      --You support the Association's request for funding to install a
            system to remove debris from in front of the gates at the
            Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden,
            Alabama. The funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002
            and $1.0 million in fiscal year 2003.
        (3) You support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a
    water allocation formula between the two states, but could not support
    an agreement 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 economic development of the
    State of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
        (4) You support the efforts of Floyd County and the City of Rome,
    Georgia to modernize and make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam to
    allow recreational boat traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake, Alabama.
        Your support concerning this will be greatly appreciated.
                Sincerely,
                                              Sue L. Glidewell,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                          Letter From James T. Jordan

                                       J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc.
                                        Centre, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: This letter is to let you know that I
    support the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's funding
    request for fiscal year 2002. I think the top priority must be the
    operations and maintenance funding that keeps the navigation channel
    open. We need to maintain the channel in order to attract new river-
    using industry into the Alabama River Basin. I also support the
    regional effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama Waterway.
        Some other points that are crucial are: we need to improve the
    navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam; to maintain and improve
    training works and dredging; development of commercial river
    transportation between Mobile and Montgomery which depends on these
    improvements; support of the Association's request for funding to
    install to remove debris from in front of the intake gates at the
    Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden, Alabama.
        We also need to support the efforts of Floyd County and the City of
    Rome, Georgia to modernize and make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam
    to allow recreational boat traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake,
    Alabama.
        We appreciate what you can do and are doing to help us in these
    endeavors.
                Sincerely,
                                               James T. Jordan,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                            Letter From Sandy Smith

                          Monroeville Area Chamber of Commerce,
                                  Monroeville, Alabama, March 28, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcomittee on Appropriations for Energy & Water Development,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: On behalf of the Monroeville Area Chamber of
    Commerce, I am writing in support of the Coosa-Alabama River
    Improvement Association's funding request for fiscal year 2002. The
    waterway is a major transportation artery for an economically depressed
    area. We must maintain a nine-foot navigation channel on the Alabama
    River to attract new, river utilizing, additional industry to this part
    of Alabama. We support the regional effort to improve and extend the
    Coosa-Alabama waterway, and the need to improve the navigational
    reliability below Claiborne Dam.
        We also support the Association's request for funding to install a
    system to remove debris from in front of the intake gates at the
    Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant near Camden, Alabama. The
    funding needed is $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002 and $1.0 million in
    fiscal year 2003.
        In addition, we support the efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree
    on a water allocation formula between the two states, but cannot
    support an agreement that negatively impacts the ability of Mobile
    District Corps of Engineers to maintain a nine-foot navigation channel
    on the Alabama River, or that seriously impedes the economic
    development efforts of the State of Alabama and Northwest Georgia.
        Please support our request for funding to improve and maintain our
    waterways, vital to our continued economic development.
                Respectfully submitted,
                                                   Sandy Smith,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                           Letter From Otha Lee Biggs

                                      Monroe County Commission,
                                  Monroeville, Alabama, March 29, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy & Water Development,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: The Monroe County Commission supports the
    Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association's funding request for
    fiscal year 2002. The Coosa-Alabama waterway system is a major
    transportation artery for an economically depressed area. In order for
    this region to receive maximum economical benefits, a nine-foot
    navigation channel on the Alabama River is needed to attract new
    industries and to accommodate existing industries. We support the
    efforts to improve and extend the Alabama waterway to Rome Georgia and
    the need to improve the navigational reliability below the Claiborne
    Lock and Dam to Mobile.
        We also support the Association's request for funding of $2.0
    million for fiscal year 2002 and $1.0 million for fiscal year 2003 to
    install a system to remove debris in front of the intake gates at the
    Miller's Ferry hydropower generation plant in Camden, Alabama.
        The Monroe County Commission supports the efforts of Alabama and
    Georgia to agree on a water allocation formula between the two states;
    however, we cannot support an agreement that negatively impacts the
    ability of the Mobile District Corps of' Engineers to maintain a nine-
    foot navigational channel on the Alabama River, or that seriously
    impedes the economic development efforts of the State of Alabama and
    Northwest Georgia along the Coosa-Alabama River systems.
        We respectfully request your support of the fiscal year 2002 Budget
    as submitted by the US Corps of Engineers for this most important
    waterway system.
                Respectfully submitted,
                                                Otha Lee Biggs,
            President of Monroe County Commission and Judge of Probate.
                                     ______

                           Letter From Lynn A. Gowan

                                  Montgomery County Commission,
                                    Montgomery, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: The Montgomery County Commission has a vital
    interest in the development of the Coosa-Alabama River project which
    was originally authorized by Congress in 1945. The benefits which
    accrue to the citizens of this region, and to the nation, fully justify
    the operation of this economical waterway.
        Previously, industry users of this river basin have seen the river
    as undependable and needing more internal dock facilities before they
    would consider barge transportation. The value of cargo is important,
    but much emphasis must be placed on increasing tonnage by attracting
    new river-using industries into the Alabama River Basin. Therefore, the
    top priority must be the operations and maintenance funding that keeps
    the navigation channel dredged and the locks operational.
        Also, improvements are needed to enhance the navigational
    reliability below Claiborne Dam and improve training works and
    dredging. Assurance is needed that there will be sufficient releases of
    water from upstream reservoirs.
        The Mobile District is in its second year of a three-year
    feasibility study and the District cities need a positive benefit-cost
    ratio. This could be achieved through a $300,000 Federal Budget in
    fiscal year 2002.
        Adequate funding is necessary to ensure that progress is made for
    further development of the River project and to properly operate and
    maintain the existing portion. We fully support the testimony provided
    by the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association and urge your
    favorable consideration of the recommended appropriations for fiscal
    year 2002.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Lynn Gowan,
                                                       Acting Chairman.
                                     ______

                         Letter From Richard T. Dozier

                                             Montgomery Marina,
                                    Montgomery, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: A great event took place here in Central
    Alabama in 1972 when the Coosa-Alabama River Navigation System came on-
    stream.
        We, as a region, have failed to pursue commercial users for the
    system with the vigor required. While there have been some low-water
    problems, I believe that a bigger user demand would have helped correct
    those physical problems.
        As your committee meets this month, we are in the process of a
    region-wide assessment of what the system offers this large inland
    area. A joint 5-county, long-term development study is underway and
    will assess new facilities and programs to attract users for the system
    and improve the interface with both rail and truck terminals.
        Continuing maintenance and operations funding is critically
    important to maintain the readiness of this valuable system.
        In the meantime, the recreational and residential use of the system
    has had great growth and created jobs and rising tax base values that
    have been very beneficial to this river basin region. These activities
    will only increase in the future. The reliability of the channel is a
    key ingredient in our planning.
                Sincerely,
                                             Richard T. Dozier,
                                     President, Montgomery Marina, Inc.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Joseph F. Mathis

                           Prattville Area Chamber of Commerce,
                                    Prattville, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing to request your support for the
    Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Associations funding request for fiscal
    year 2002. Priority must be given to keeping the navigational channel
    open and the operational maintenance budget in tact.
        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 River system for the benefit of the State of Alabama. The
    Association is the only organization that annually works for the
    funding of the federally funded projects on these rivers.
        Major points to consider: maintain and improve the dredging of the
    channel for commercial traffic between Mobile and Montgomery; continue
    efforts to agree on a water allocation formula between Alabama and
    Georgia but not at the expense of negatively impeding the navigation of
    the rivers; additional funds for the removal of debris for the intakes
    at Millers Ferry hydropower plant.
        Navigational Rivers are a key to the future Economic Development of
    the State of Alabama. Your support of this request will greatly benefit
    our state.
                Sincerely,
                                              Joseph F. Mathis,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                         Letter From Stanley D. Batemon

                                   St. Clair County Commission,
                                      Ashville, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator: This is to acknowledge support of continued funding
    for the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc. and their
    efforts to maintain the navigation channel in order to attract new
    river-using industry into the Alabama River basin.
        Your support of their efforts will be greatly appreciated.
                Yours truly,
                                            Stanley D. Batemon,
                                                              Chairman.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Jamie D. Wallace

                   Selma and Dallas County Chamber of Commerce,
                                        Selma, Alabama, March 19, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: Deep in Alabama there runs a river system
    that has the potential to be an economic catalyst for one of the
    poorest regions in the U.S., that is the Coosa-Alabama River System.
        Here in our area of Selma and Dallas County our concern is with the
    Historic Alabama River. Our unemployment currently fluctuates between
    9-12 percent. We leave no four-lane connector roads on which to ferry
    our products to market and we are deeply concerned about a river system
    that will not be able to carry barge traffic unless the integrity of a
    channel can be maintained. Currently funding is not adequate to do so.
        As a strong supporter of the Coosa-Alabama System for many years,
    the 148 year old Selma-Dallas County Chamber of Commerce encourages you
    and your committee to take a close look at the points being raised that
    are necessary to keep this river open for traffic. Currently tonnage is
    down, but in the South we say its like ``which came first the chicken
    or the egg.'' Without an adequate channel it is no reliable vehicle to
    transport goods.
        Thank you very much for your consideration and support.
                Sincerely,
                                              Jamie D. Wallace,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                          Letter From J. Craig Stepan

                             Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company,
                                     Chickasaw, Alabama, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate Washington DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: I am J. Craig Stepan, General Manager of
    Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company. Our company is an active member of
    the Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association. I wish to take this
    opportunity to solicit your support on behalf of the Association and
    the river system and enterprises it serves.
        Primarily, please support the Coosa-Alabama Association's funding
    request for fiscal year 2002. This funding is imperative to protect the
    Alabama River as a safe and efficient transportation waterway. Further,
    your additional support of a regional initiative to improve the
    waterway below Claiborne Dam and install a debris removal system at
    Miller's Ferry generating plant near Camden will also be appreciated.
        As you know, the states of Georgia and Alabama are working on a
    plan to equitably allocate the water resources common to the two
    states. It is important that this project move ahead without
    compromising the nine foot navigation channel on the Alabama River.
    Your efforts to secure that protection and to help Floyd County and the
    City of Rome, Georgia successfully modernize Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam
    would be appreciated.
        Our company and its 200+ employees respectfully request your
    support for these important projects, and we pledge our best efforts to
    provide reliable cost efficient transportation services to the Alabama
    business community.
                Very truly yours,
                                               J. Craig Stepan,
                                                       General Manager.
                                     ______

                         Letter From William M. Fricks

                                          Rome City Commission,
                                          Rome, Georgia, April 9, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
    Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water Development,
            U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: As a member of the Coosa Alabama River
    Improvement Association, I am requesting that you please support the
    following:
      --The Coosa/Alabama River Improvement Association's funding request
            for fiscal year 2002.
      --The regional's effort to improve and extend the Coosa-Alabama
            waterway.
      --Improvements of the navigational reliability below Claiborne Dam.
      --Maintain and improve training works and dredging. Development of
            commercial river transportation between Mobile and Montgomery
            depends on these improvements.
      --Floyd County and the City of Rome Georgia's effort to modernize and
            make operational Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam to allow recreational
            boat traffic between Rome and Weiss Lake in Alabama.
      --The efforts of Alabama and Georgia to agree on a water allocation
            formula between the two states, but not a formula that
            negatively affects the ability of the 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.
        You are aware, I am sure, that increased fees and taxes stifle
    waterway commercial development. Lowered freight rates provide a better
    export market, thus helping the trade business. Waterways provide
    efficient transportation that tends to lower inflation.
        Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
                Sincerely,
                                             William M. Fricks,
                                                              Chairman.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation
                                    District

        On behalf of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation district
    and the users of the Cedar Bayou Channel, Texas, we extend gratitude to
    Chairman Domenici, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
    to submit testimony in support of the improvement project for the Cedar
    Bayou Channel, Texas.
        We express full support of the inclusion in the fiscal year 2002
    budget for:
        Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (O&M) For Cedar Bayou,
    Texas $750,000
                             history and background
        The River and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation
    improvements to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to
    provide a 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide channel from the Houston Ship
    Channel to a point on Cedar Bayou 11 miles above the mouth of the
    bayou. In 1931, a portion of the channel was constructed from the
    Houston Ship Channel to a point about 0.8 miles above the mouth of
    Cedar Bayou, approximately 3.5 miles in length. A study of the project
    in 1971 determined that an extension of the channel to project Mile 3
    would have a favorable benefit to cost ratio. This portion of the
    channel was realigned from Mile 0.1 to Mile 0.8 and extended from mile
    0.8 to Mile 3 in 1975. In October 1985, the portion of the original
    navigation project from project Mile 3 to 11 was deauthorized due to
    the lack of a local sponsor. In 1989, the Corps of Engineers, Galveston
    District completed a Reconnaissance Report dated June 1989, which
    recommended a 12 feet by 125 feet channel from the Houston Ship Channel
    Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge. The
    Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District was created by the
    Texas Legislature in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of
    Cedar Bayou. The district was created to accomplish the purpose of
    Section 59, Article 2 XVI, of the Texas Constitution and has all the
    rights, powers, privileges and authority applicable to Districts
    created under Chapters 60, 62, and 63 of the Water Code--Public Entity.
    The Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District then became the
    local sponsor for the Cedar Bayou Channel.
                    project description and reauthorization
        Cedar Bayou is a small coastal stream, which originates in Liberty
    County, Texas, and meanders through the urban area near the eastern
    portion of the City of Baytown, Texas, before entering Galveston Bay.
    The bayou forms the boundary between Harris County on the west and
    Chambers County on the east. The project was authorized in Section 349
    of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, which authorized a
    navigation improvement of 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile 2.5
    to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou.
                       justification and industry support
        First and foremost, the channel must be improved for safety. The
    channel is the home to a busy barge industry. The most cost-efficient
    and safe method of conveyance is barge transportation. Water
    transportation offers considerable cost savings compared to other
    freight modes (rail is nearly twice as costly and truck nearly four
    times higher). In addition, the movement of cargo by barge is
    environmentally friendly. Barges have enormous carrying capacity while
    consuming less energy, due to the fact that a large number of barges
    can move together in a single tow, controlled by only one power unit.
    The result takes a significant number of trucks off of Texas highways.
    The reduction of air emissions by the movement of cargo on barges is a
    significant factor as communities struggle with compliance with the
    Clean Air Act.
        Several navigation-dependent industries and commercial enterprises
    have been established along the commercially navigable portions of
    Cedar Bayou. Several industries have docks on at the mile markers that
    would be affected by this much-needed improvement. These industries
    include: Reliant Energy, Bayer Corporation, Koppel Steel, CEMEX, US
    Filter Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, to name a few.
                           project costs and benefits
        The Corps of Engineers has indicated a benefit to cost ratio of the
    project of 2.8 to 1. The estimated total cost of the project is $16.8 M
    with a Federal share estimated at $11.9 M and the non-Federal sponsor
    share of approximately $4.9 M. Total annual benefits are estimated to
    be $4.8 M, with a net benefit of $3 M. This project is environmentally
    sound and economically justified. We would appreciate the
    subcommittee's support of the required $750,000 appropriation to
    complete the plans and specifications of the project so that it can
    move forward at an optimum construction schedule. The users of the
    channel deserve to have the benefits of a safer, most cost-effective
    Federal waterway.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the City of Phoenix

        Dear 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 have been 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 salao phase ii
        We have been working for nearly seven years with the Corps of
    Engineers in a cost-shared partnership to study a project to improve
    the water carrying capacity of the river and restore riparian habitat
    along the Salt River in downtown Phoenix and Tempe. The habitat was
    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 improve the low flow
    channel, restore about seven miles of the lost riparian wetlands and
    provide incidental recreational benefits. 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). Last year, the
    House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved a credit agreement
    between the city and Corps, allowing us to proceed using local funding
    in anticipation of Federal funding. Later in the year, the Congress
    approved ``new start'' construction funding for the project as part of
    the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
        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.
    While we were delighted at receiving a $2 million new start designation
    in fiscal year 2001, for fiscal year 2002 we are seeking a
    substantially higher level of funding (a total of $30 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.
        The Rio Salado Phase II portion (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 Rio Oeste portion
    of the project. Rio Oeste would essentially be a continuation of the
    Rio Salado project and would connect the project west to our 91st
    Avenue Treatment Plant at the Tres Rios project (discussed below. We
    are seeking $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study for
    Phase II (Rio Oeste). The Feasibility funding will be matched 50
    percent by the local sponsor. We strongly urge your support for this
    appropriation.
                                   tres rios
        Ten years ago, the City of Phoenix and its partners undertook an
    effort to restore the natural environment of the area encompassing the
    Salt, Gila, and Agua Fria rivers now known as Tres Rios. The purpose of
    the project is to restore lost sonoran habitat in the arid southwest
    and to provide important flood protection and modest recreation
    opportunities for the community in an attempt to bring about economic
    revitalization to the area.
        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 that 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 $500,000 in the Bureau's budget to
    continue the Tres Rios research and demonstration project.
        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 City and the Corps have worked with both the
    neighboring Gila River Indian River Community and the Holly Acres
    neighborhood throughout the planning process. The feasibility study is
    nearing completion and Congress provided an initial $50,000 in fiscal
    year 2000 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 to initiate planning,
    engineering and design. The City is asking for the continued support of
    Congress and the Administration in funding this valuable project in the
    fiscal year 2002 Corps budget at $2.5 million for preliminary
    engineering and design.
        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.
    This is an important element of the wastewater management strategy. It
    would reuse the water from the Tres Rios Project for groundwater
    recharge. 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.
                                    summary
        All of these projects, the Rio Salado and Phase II of the Rio
    Salado project (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 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
                                  Reservation

        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
    Indian Reservation, thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Confederated Tribes' request for appropriations in the fiscal year 2002
    budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Confederated Tribes of
    the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Confederated Tribes) respectfully
    request an appropriation of $1.2 million for the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) for a crucial stream restoration project in the Walla
    Walla River Basin in Oregon and Washington.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, has been
    authorized under the Water Resources Development Act to conduct a
    Feasibility Study to restore instream flows to the Walla Walla River in
    Oregon and Washington. The Walla Walla River Basin is within the
    homeland of the Umatilla Tribes. Mill Creek, located in the basin, is
    where the Tribes' Treaty of 1855 was signed, which ceded to the United
    States 6.4 million acres of the Tribes' lands, but also reserved, among
    others, the Tribes' right to fish at all usual and accustomed areas.
        Historically, the Walla Walla River supported significant runs of
    spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead, as well as runs of fall
    chinook, chum and coho salmon. Those runs have been seriously impacted
    by dewatering of the mainstem Walla Walla River between June through
    October. The Tribes and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
    annually conduct a fish salvage operation just below the Nursery Bridge
    Dam in Milton-Freewater, Oregon, relocating stranded fish to other
    parts of the river system. Both Middle Columbia River summer steelhead
    and Columbia River Basin bull trout are listed species under the
    Endangered Species Act. As such, the Tribes consider the restoration of
    instrearn flows and the fisheries in the Walla Walla Basin a high
    priority.
        The Tribes have chosen to co-sponsor the Walla Walla Basin Project
    with the Corps. Together, we are in the process of finalizing the
    Project Study Plan, which will be used to direct the scope of the
    Feasibility Study. Both the Corps and the Tribes believe that the
    Feasibility Study is the first step in assuring a long-term solution to
    providing permanent instream flows that will benefit treaty resources
    and Indian and non-Indian fisheries, while enhancing flows for fish
    species protected under the Endangered Species Act and maintaining
    existing agricultural water uses.
        The Corps and the Tribes have targeted the end of May 2001 for
    signing the Project Management Plan and the end of June 2001 for
    signing the Feasibility Study Cost Agreement. As such, work on the
    Feasibility Study is expected to begin July 1, 2001, using existing
    fiscal year 2001 Corps Funds.
        In order to ensure the work on the Feasibility Study continues past
    October 2001, the Corps must have an appropriation for fiscal year
    2002. The Feasibility Study is expected to take 18-24 months to
    complete. However, without funding in fiscal year 2002, the work on the
    Feasibility Study would be unnecessarily delayed at least a year.
        The study will provide a complete analysis that evaluates the
    feasibility of comprehensive restoration of instream flows, key
    riparian habitat, addresses fish passage, and restoration of habitat
    for spring chinook, steelhead, bull trout and pacific lamprey in the
    Basin, while maintaining agricultural productivity in the Basin
        The Corps is authorized to conduct the Feasibility Study under the
    following project authorization: Reconnaissance Report for the Walla
    Walla River Watershed (1997) under General Investigation authorized in
    Senate Committee on Public Works July 27, 1962 (Columbia River and
    Tributaries).
        Currently, there are four alternatives being considered for study.
    The Corps will be writing an Environmental Impact Statement, under the
    requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and as
    such, these alternatives may be modified or dismissed, and other
    alternatives added through the EIS process. The four alternatives for
    restoring instream flow, currently under consideration, are (1)
    Irrigation Ditch Efficiency, (2) Water Storage; (3) Water Exchange, and
    (4) Conservation through purchase of Water Rights
        Other actions, such as habitat enhancement and fish passage will be
    considered as part of the overall proposal.
        The Confederated Tribes will model its fisheries restoration off
    the successful Umatilla River Basin Project, which restored instream
    flows for the lifecycle of fish and agricultural needs. During 2000,
    Indian and non-Indian people shared in return runs of about 5,000
    reintroduced chinook salmon in the Umatilla River.
        Since the early 1990's, the Confederated Tribes began working to
    restore the Walla Walla River. To date, the Confederated Tribes have
    implemented approximately $10 million worth of restoration projects in
    the Walla Walla River Basin. The Walla Walla Basin Feasibility Study
    will provide feasibility analysis and planning necessary to restore
    essential instream flows for salmon, summer steelhead, bull trout and
    pacific lamprey to the Walla Walla River.
        The instream flow project would complement the millions of dollars
    worth of Confederated Tribes' sponsored habitat restoration, fish
    passage improvements, fish production and monitoring and evaluation
    projects in the Basin. The projects have been implemented in
    cooperation with Bonneville Power Administration, Oregon and Washington
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, Walla Walla and Columbia County, Walla
    Walla Irrigation District, Walla Walla Watershed Council, and the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers.
        Many benefits will be accrued by completing the Feasibility Study
    within 18 months. For agricultural interests, this means a long-term
    solution to relieve the impacts of agricultural water diversion that
    presently de-water the Walla Walla River and compete with ESA listed
    fish instream flow needs. The Study is the next step in a Corps project
    designed to provide a stable water source that restores instream flows
    for fish and agricultural needs in the Basin. Consistent funding for
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct the study will ensure that
    the project goes forward and these benefits are realized in a timely
    manner.
        Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) contends that
    water diversion by local irrigation districts de-water the Walla Walla
    River, causing take of ESA-protected bull trout. These irrigation
    districts are: Gardena Farms Irrigation District #13 of Touchet,
    Washington; Walla Walla Irrigation District of Milton-Freewater,
    Oregon;, and the Hudson Bay District Improvement Company, also of
    Milton-Freewater, Oregon.
        In June 2000, the Districts and the FWS reached a one year
    settlement agreement to forgo instituting formal civil ESA penalty
    proceedings against the Districts in exchange for interim District
    measures that include development of a long term basin wide
    conservation plan. The National Marine Fisheries Service plans similar
    enforcement for take of ESA-protected steelhead in the Walla Walla
    River.
        Choosing to step up to the plate rather than wait for an
    enforcement action, the Districts chose to commit to improving
    conditions for the endangered fish. For the year 2000, the settlement
    agreement included District commitments to monitoring flows, leaving
    enough water in the River for proper operation of the fish ladders,
    assisting the Confederated Tribes and Oregon Department of Fish and
    Wildlife salvage fish stranded due to irrigation diversions, and other
    measures beneficial to ESA listed fish. Pursuant to agreement
    requirements, the Districts cooperated with the implementation of the
    2000 and 2001 Confederated Tribes' Annual Operations Plan (AOP) that
    coordinates fisheries restoration projects for each year in the Walla
    Walla Basin. The settlement conditions are based on District
    commitments to cooperatively work with other entities in the Walla
    Walla Basin toward an instream flow conservation plan that protects
    bull trout, steelhead, and other species dependent on instream flows.
        After the 1997 Reconnaissance Report, the Corps set aside
    approximately $250,000-$275,000 to complete the Feasibility Study. They
    carried over that funding each year until a non-Federal sponsor was
    found. The Confederated Tribes and Corps began to negotiate the Project
    Management Plan in late 1999. At that time, the Corps estimated non-
    Federal 50 percent cost share to be around $600,000 (with up to half of
    the non-Federal share, $300,000 required as cash, to the Corps). Since
    that time the Corps have diverted the set aside funding to other
    projects.
        In 2000, the Water Resources Development Act was amended to allow
    non-Federal partners to contribute all of their cost share requirements
    as in-kind services towards the Feasibility Study. As of March 20,
    2001, negotiations on the scope and budget have led to a desire to
    maintain a total project cost of approximately $4.4 million. Both the
    Confederated Tribes and the Corps would be responsible for
    approximately $2.2 million. The Confederated Tribes will contribute
    it's cost share entirely with in-kind services.
        The restoration of instream flows to the Walla Walla River benefits
    all the people of this Basin across Northeast Oregon and Southeast
    Washington. As a community, we see that restoration of instream flows
    to the Walla Walla River is good for us now, good for our children, and
    good for the region.
        The Confederated Tribes and the Walla Walla Basin community have
    worked together on many projects both in planning and implementation.
    The Confederated Tribes actively coordinates and works with many
    resource managers to implement a cohesive watershed restoration of the
    Basin, including, the Walla Walla Watershed Council, the WRIA 32, Walla
    Walla 2514 Watershed Planning Unit, the Northwest Power Planning
    Council, Umatilla and Walla Walla Conservation Districts, Hudson Bay
    Irrigation District, Gardena Farms Irrigation District #13, Walla Walla
    Irrigation District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Water Resources,
    Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
        We view the success of the Confederated Tribes' Umatilla Basin
    Project (http://umatilla.nsn.us/basin.html) as a demonstration that
    there can be a win-win partnership for restoring instream flow for fish
    and agriculture.
        In anticipation of the benefits that the Confederated Tribes
    instream flow restoration project could bring to the Walla Walla Basin,
    ``Senator Gordon Smith urged local farmers to work together with the
    CTUIR [Confederated Tribes] to find solutions on water issues.'' (East
    Oregonian, March 12, 2000). The Districts and the Confederated Tribes
    are demonstrating a commitment to work together to achieve long-term
    solutions for community needs in the Walla Walla Basin. We urge the
    U.S. Congress to support these solutions and continue to make the Walla
    Walla River Basin Restoration Project a priority project for the Basin.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman, without the requested appropriation, the
    Walla Walla Basin Feasibility Study will most likely be delayed at
    least until fiscal year 2003. The Subcommittee's assistance will
    prevent delay of long-term solutions for restoring instream flows to
    the Walla Walla River while protecting endangered fish, restoring
    salmon, improving water quality and protecting vital agricultural
    economies. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District

                            guadalupe river project
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $4 million and an appropriation add-on of $8 million,
    for a total of $12 million to continue construction of the final phase
    of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
        Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
    through a highly developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County,
    California. A major flood would damage homes and businesses in the
    heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded downtown
    San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental
    Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1
    percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $575 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
    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 dependent on
    timely Federal funding and continuing successful mitigation issue
    resolution.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$7 million was authorized in fiscal year
    2001 to continue Guadalupe River Project construction.
        Fiscal Year 2002 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 $8 million,
    in addition to the $4 million in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
    budget, for a total of $12 million to continue construction of the
    final phase of the Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
                         upper penitencia creek project
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $300,000 and an appropriation add-on of $240,000, for
    a total of $540,000 to continue with the feasibility study for the
    Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection 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 (Public Law 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 2003.
        Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
    District submitted a Section 104 application to the Corps for advance
    approval to construct a portion of the project. Approval of the Section
    104 application was awarded in December 2000. The advance construction
    is for a 2,500 foot long section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek
    and King Road. The District plans to begin construction on this portion
    of the project in 2002.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$300,000 was authorized in fiscal year
    2001 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection Project for
    project investigation.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
    of flood damage from Upper Penitencia Creek and the need to proceed
    with the feasibility study, it is requested that the Congressional
    Committee support an appropriation add-on of $240,000, in addition to
    the $300,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget, for a
    total of $540,000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek Flood Protection
    Project.
                              llagas creek project
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $250,000 and an appropriation add-on of $750,000, for
    a total of $1 million for planning and environmental updates for the
    Llagas Creek Flood Protection 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 (Public Law 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 U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) 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 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
    traditional Public Law 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 the steady
    decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 566 construction
    program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project has not received adequate
    funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete the Public Law
    566 project. To remedy this situation, the District worked with
    congressional representatives to transfer the construction authority
    from the Department of Agriculture to the Corps under the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section 501). An initial budget of
    $235,000 was appropriated and another $215,000 was reprogrammed for the
    Corps' planning and design.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$700,000 was authorized in fiscal year
    2001 for the Llagas Creek Flood Protection Project for planning and
    design.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
    of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $750,000, in
    addition to the $250,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
    budget, for a total of $1 million for planning and environmental
    updates for the Llagas Creek Project.
         coyote/berryessa creek project berryessa creek project element
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $600,000 and an appropriation add-on of $400,000, for
    a total of $1 million to continue with the General Reevaluation Report
    for the Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/
    Berryessa Creek Project.
        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.
    The Berryessa Watershed is 22 square miles.
        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 U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers (Corps) 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), appropriate aquatic and riparian
    habitat restoration and fish passage, 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 $3.6 million to
    be completed in 2003.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$1 million was authorized in fiscal year
    2001 for the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project to
    continue the General Reevaluation Report and environmental documents
    update.
        Fiscal Year 2002 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 $400,000, in
    addition to the $600,000 in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
    budget, for a total of $1 million for the Berryessa Creek Flood
    Protection Project element of the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Project.
                      coyote creek at rock springs project
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee to support an earmark of
    $113,000 within the Section 205 Small Flood Protection Projects Program
    to continue the Coyote Creek at Rock Springs Feasibility Study.
        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. The neighborhood was almost flooded again in February 1998, when
    Coyote Creek in the vicinity of the neighborhood was within a foot of
    overtopping its banks.
        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. Preliminary alternatives consist of a levee or floodwall.
    Project Timeline
      --District requested Federal assistance from Corps under Section
            205--Feb 1999
      --Feasibility cost sharing agreement signed--Jan 2000
      --Public Workshop--Feb 2000
      --Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--Nov
            2001
      --Final Detailed Project Report/EIS--Mar 2002
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$203,000 was earmarked in the fiscal
    year 2001 Section 205 appropriation.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the need to
    continue the feasibility study to provide critical flood protection for
    the Rock Springs Neighborhood, it is requested that the Congressional
    Committee support an earmark of $113,000 within the Section 205 Small
    Flood Protection Projects Program.
                    san francisquito creek watershed project
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an appropriation
    add-on of $100,000 to conduct a Reconnaissance Study of the San
    Francisquito Creek Watershed.
        Background.--San Francisquito Creek forms the boundary between
    Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities
    of Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. San Francisquito Creek
    is one of the last continuous riparian corridors on the San Francisco
    Peninsula and home to one of the last remaining viable steelhead trout
    runs. The creek flows through five cities and two counties, from
    Searsville Lake above Stanford University to the San Francisco Bay near
    Palo Alto Airport. It is a highly valued resource by these communities.
    Area between El Camino Real and the bay is subject to flooding during a
    1 percent flood and has a flooding frequency of approximately once in
    15 years. Over $155 million in damages could occur in Santa Clara and
    San Mateo counties from a 1 percent flood, affecting 4,850 home and
    businesses, according to the 1998 Reconnaissance Investigation Report
    done by San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource Management and
    Planning Organization, a local stakeholder group.
        Flooding History.--Overflowed seven times since 1910 with record
    flooding in February 1998. Flooded significant areas of Palo Alto in
    December 1955, inundating about 1,200 acres of commercial and
    residential property and about 70 acres of agricultural land. April
    1958 storms caused a levee failure downstream of Highway 101, flooding
    Palo Alto Airport, the city landfill, and the golf course up to four
    feet deep. Overflowed in 1982 near Alpine Road, at University Avenue,
    and downstream of Highway 101, causing extensive damage to private and
    public property. Overflowed at numerous locations on February 3, 1998,
    causing severe, record consequences with more than $28 million in
    damages, based on a March 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
    Survey Report. More than 1,100 homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500
    people were evacuated in East Palo Alto, and the major commute and
    transportation artery, Highway 101, was closed.
        Status.--Active citizenry anxious to avoid a repeat of February
    1998 flood. Since 1955, numerous floodplain management studies have
    been commissioned by the Corps, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
    (District), Stanford University, and the San Mateo County Flood Control
    District. Grassroots, consensus-based Coordinated Resource Management
    and Planning Organization has productively united local and state
    agencies with citizens, flood victims, developers, and environmental
    activists. The cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San
    Mateo County and the District have established a Joint Powers Authority
    to coordinate creek maintenance issues, to develop a solution to
    flooding and to address other creek-related issues. The Joint Powers
    Authority Board has initiated Congressional involvement to authorize a
    Corps reconnaissance study. Should Federal interest be demonstrated by
    the reconnaissance study, the next step would be a cost-shared
    feasibility study. The feasibility study would require six to seven
    years work and cost $5-6 million. Study elements will include an
    investigation to define flooding, erosion and other stream needs within
    the project area; an analysis of alternative solutions; a public
    participation program followed by preparation of an Engineer's Report;
    and an Environmental Impact Report. Flood protection alternatives for
    the San Francisquito Creek project might include raising the levees
    downstream of Highway 101, storage of flows upstream, channel
    diversions such as detention basins or auxiliary channels, or instream
    improvements that increase the capacity of the channel through the
    urban area. The feasibility study would also include a ``no project''
    alternative. The riparian habitat and urban setting offer unique
    opportunities for a multiobjective project which could enhance habitat,
    improve water quality, and provide for recreational use.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--No Federal funding was requested in
    fiscal year 2001.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
    conduct a Reconnaissance Study of the San Francisquito Creek Watershed.
                          pajaro river watershed study
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $50,000 for the Pajaro River Watershed Study. It is
    also urged that the Committee support an Administration budget request
    of $750,000 to continue the General Reevaluation Report of the
    completed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pajaro River Project in the City
    of Watsonville.
        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 been initiated by the
    San Francisco District of the Corps and will be complete in May 2001.
    Watershed Stakeholders are working 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.
        Local Flood Prevention Authority.--Legislation passed by the State
    of California (Assembly Bill 807) in 1999 titled ``The Pajaro River
    Watershed Flood Prevention Authority Act'' mandated that a Flood
    Prevention Authority be formed by June 30, 2000. The purpose of the
    Flood Prevention 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 Flood Prevention Authority was
    formed in July 2000 and consists 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. At
    this time, the Flood Prevention Authority is in the initial stages of
    formulation. The Flood Prevention Authority would be the logical local
    sponsor should the Corps reconnaissance study result in a
    recommendation for a cost-shared feasibility study.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$50,000 was authorized in fiscal year
    2001 for the Pajaro Watershed Reconnaissance Study. In addition, $1.2
    million was authorized for continuation of the General Revaluation
    Report.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support the Administration's fiscal year 2002
    budget of $50,000 for the Pajaro River Watershed Study. It is also
    requested that the committee support $750,000 for continuation of the
    General Revaluation Report.
                          coyote creek watershed study
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an appropriation
    add-on of $100,000 to initiate a Reconnaissance Study of the Coyote
    Creek Watershed.
        Background.--Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County's largest
    watershed, an area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of
    the eastern foothills, the City of Milpitas, and portions of the Cities
    of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows northward from Anderson Reservoir
    through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and
    empties into south San Francisco Bay.
        Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding
    occurred in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930
    and 1931. Since 1950, the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the
    magnitude of flooding, although flooding is still a threat and did
    cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Significant areas of
    older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation
    corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The Federally
    supported lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague
    Expressway) which was completed in 1996 did protect homes and
    businesses from storms which generated of record runoff in the northern
    parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
        The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches
    upstream of the completed Federal flood protection works on lower
    Coyote Creek.
        Objective of Study.--The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are
    to investigate flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to
    identify potential alternatives for alleviating those damages which
    also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife resources, provide
    opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
    opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to
    proceed into the Feasibility Study Phase.
        Study Authorization.--The existing study authority is the 1941
    Guadalupe River and Adjacent Streams authorization. This authorization
    is limited in scope to flood protection issues only. Congressional
    representatives are currently pursuing an updated study resolution to
    authorize a multipurpose study of the watershed.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
    initiate a multipurpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
    Watershed.
               santa clara basin watershed management initiative
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee to support an earmark of
    $240,000 within the Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program
    to cost-share Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative work.
        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 (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 multi-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 was the
    Watershed Characteristics Report, which provided 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 Report was completed in April 2000.
    The Watershed Assessment Report is scheduled to be completed in
    December 2001. In the mean time, several important technical memos were
    generated through the stakeholder work process, which allowed the
    Initiative to move forward with the planning and development of the
    Watershed Action Plan, which is scheduled to be completed in December
    2002. The Watershed Action Plan is the final product of this consensus-
    based stakeholder process. This will be a comprehensive plan,
    incorporating stakeholder input and extensive public outreach, and is
    intended to guide watershed activities as the Initiative moves into its
    implementation phase.
        Section 503(d)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
    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 requested the Corps to be included in the Section 206 Aquatic
    Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal year 2001 and received an
    appropriation.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$100,000 was authorized in fiscal year
    2001 to initiate an ecosystem restoration report to address aquatic
    restoration including control of non-native weeds in the Santa Clara
    Basin.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--In order to continue the
    Initiative's progress to date, it is requested that the Congressional
    Committee support an earmark of $240,000 in the Section 206 Aquatic
    Ecosystem Restoration Program to cost-share Initiative work and the
    development and implementation of the Watershed Action Plan.
      san francisco bay shoreline project (silicon valley tidal flooding
                                  protection)
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an appropriation
    add-on of $100,000 to conduct a Reconnaissance Investigation to
    reassess the Federal interest in the protection of the San Francisco
    Bay Shoreline due to a change in circumstances that may affect the
    Federal interest.
        Background.--After much effort from local agencies and legislators,
    Congress authorized a tidal flooding study for the Silicon Valley Tidal
    Flooding Project in its passage of Public Law 94-587, the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1976. The Santa Clara Valley Water
    District is one of the project sponsors.
        Santa Clara County was originally included in the first phase of
    the study, which proposed that facilities in Santa Clara County protect
    portions of the cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. In 1990,
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) concluded that the potential
    incidence of levee failure in the project area was low and suspended
    the project until adequate economic benefits can be proven under
    Federal criteria. However, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is
    concerned that the continued maintenance of historical non-Federal
    levees may not be able to continue at the same level due to restricted
    funding and regulatory issues. Additionally, the potential of tidal
    flooding in Santa Clara County has been aggravated by a significant
    land subsidence of as much as 6 feet near Alviso. And when high tides
    coincide with wind generated waves, levee overtopping occurs.
        Project Synopsis.--In 1984, the Corps' study identified $15 million
    to $20 million needed in flood control construction in three areas:
    Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Alviso. The Corps determined the most likely
    mode of tidal flooding was overtopping, not erosion or levee failure.
    The Corps attributed significantly fewer potential benefits in making
    levee improvements because existing non-Federal and non-engineered
    levees have historically withstood overtopping without stability or
    erosion failures. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's belief is
    that the low incidence of levee failure is due to luck and diligent
    private and public maintenance programs--programs that may not continue
    under the present regulatory environment and restricted funding. The
    trend toward tougher regulatory controls restricts levee maintenance,
    potentially making it economically unfeasible to continue historic
    levels of maintenance activities. In addition, the potential sale of
    over 13,000 acres of shoreline salt producing ponds may result in a
    change in maintenance practices. Lower maintenance levels will leave
    these levees and surrounding communities vulnerable to significant
    damages.
        The project was temporarily suspended by the Corps until evidence
    of adequate economic benefits under Federal criteria is provided. Corps
    staff in Washington D.C. have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the
    differences in their standards for freeboard and stability of levees
    with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Similar levee failures
    and floods in California's Central Valley in the winter of 1997
    heightened concern regarding the integrity and protection provided by
    Bay Area levees. Agreeing with the increased concern, the Corps
    recognized the potential Federal interest and requested reconnaissance
    funding to reopen the study in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
    No funds were included in the final congressional authorization.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--No Federal appropriation was authorized
    in fiscal year 2001 for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Request.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 for
    the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study to conduct a Reconnaissance
    Investigation.
                            calfed bay-delta program
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $20 million and an appropriation add-on of $40
    million, for a total of $60 million for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
    It also urges the Committee's support for the CALFED authorization
    legislation now being developed in Congress to implement the CALFED
    program and to resolve California's water supply problems.
        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.
        The June 2000 Framework for Action and the August 2000 Record of
    Decision/Certification contain a balanced package of actions to restore
    ecosystem health, improve water supply reliability and water quality.
    It is critical that Federal funding be provided to implement these
    actions in the coming years.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--No funding was authorized for CALFED
    Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration and non-ecosystem improvements in the
    final fiscal year 2001 appropriations legislation.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Committee support an appropriation add-on of $40 million, in addition
    to the $20 million included in the Administration's fiscal year 2002
    Budget, for a total of $60 million for the CALFED Program. It is also
    requested that the Committee support the CALFED authorization
    legislation now being developed in Congress to implement the CALFED
    program and to resolve California's water supply problems.
      central valley project: operations and maintenance of san luis unit
                              joint use facilities
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $5.5 million to continue operations and maintenance
    of the 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 2001 Funding.--$4.551 million was authorized in fiscal
    year 2001 for operations and maintenance of the San Luis Joint Use
    Facilities.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support the $5.5 million in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2002 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)
                                    summary
        This statement urges the Committee's support for an Administration
    budget request of $2.5 million and an appropriation add-on of $7.5
    million, for a total of $10 million to fund the program's phase 2 study
    and work.
        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) collaborated with
    the City of San Jose to build the first phase of the recycled water
    system by providing financial support and technical assistance, as well
    as coordination with local water retailers. The design, construction,
    construction administration, and inspection of the program's
    transmission pipeline and Milpitas IA Pipeline was performed by the
    District under contract to the City of San Jose.
        Status.--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 began partial operation in October 1997. Peak
    operation occurred in August 2000 with actual deliveries of 10 million
    gallons per day of recycled water. The system now serves over 300
    customers and delivers over 6,000 acre-feet of recycled water per year.
        Phase 2 planning is now underway. A study, to be completed in 2001
    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.
        Funding.--In 1992, Public Law 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 $19 million of the $35 million
    authorization.
        Fiscal Year 2001 Funding.--$3.5 million was authorized in fiscal
    year 2001 for project construction.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
    Congressional Committee support an appropriation add-on of $7.5
    million, in addition to the $2.5 million in the Administration's fiscal
    year 2002 budget, for a total of $10 million to fund the Phase 2 study
    and work.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the State of Illinois

        The State of Illinois supports the following projects in the
    Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal:

    SURVEYS:
        Alexander and Pulaski Counties............................  $130,000
        Des Plaines River (Phase II)..............................   400,000
        Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration......................   825,000
        Kankakee River............................................   177,000
        Peoria Riverfront Development.............................   311,000
        Rock River................................................   300,000
        Upper Mississippi & Illinois Navigation Study............. 3,724,000
        Upper Mississippi System Flow Frequency Study............. 1,200,000
    PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & DESIGN:
        Peoria Riverfront Development.............................   415,000
        St. Louis Harbor..........................................   284,000
        Waukegan Harbor...........................................   160,000
        Wood River Levee..........................................   341,000
    CONSTRUCTION:
        Chain of Rocks Canal...................................... 3,617,000
        Chicago Shoreline.........................................24,000,000
        East St. Louis Rehabilitation............................. 1,000,000
        Loves Park................................................ 1,600,000
        McCook & Thornton Reservoirs..............................10,000,000
        Melvin Price Lock & Dam...................................   500,000
        Mississippi River Major Rehab:
            Lock & Dam 12......................................... 4,906,000
            Lock & Dam 24......................................... 8,038,000
        Olmsted Lock & Dam........................................34,000,000
        Upper Mississippi River EMP...............................21,000,000
                           operation and maintenance
        Illinois supports the Corps' budget for continued satisfactory
    maintenance and operation of navigation, flood control and multipurpose
    projects, as well as adequate manpower for public service activities
    related to the water resources in and bordering the state. Although,
    the administration's budget request contains nearly $120 million for
    operation and maintenance for the Corps Districts in Illinois, the
    Districts anticipate a flat level of funding over the next five years.
    With inflation, their operations and maintenance activities will be
    reduced by 15 percent or more. There are concerns that significant cuts
    to operations and maintenance can severely impact the Corps' future
    viability and commitment to maintain the inland waterway system, water
    supply and recreational reservoirs, and to perform harbor maintenance.
    As an example, there is a need for an additional $4.0 million to
    satisfy dredging needs and the backlog of maintenance for the Illinois
    River Waterway. Backlog of maintenance items for the Mississippi River
    in Rock Island and St. Louis Corps Districts is an additional $17.0
    million.
                         additional funding priorities
        The State of Illinois recommends that additional funding be
    provided for the following projects in the fiscal year 2002 Corps of
    Engineers' budget:
    Illinois River Basin Restoration
        Section 519 of Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized
    the Illinois River Basin Restoration Program, known as Illinois River
    2020, to address the serious threats to the Illinois River and its 55
    county watershed. Authorized funding for this program totals $100
    million. It is a voluntary, incentive-based public-private partnership
    that utilizes existing Federal programs to restore and preserve the
    Illinois River and its tributaries. Currently, no funding is included
    in the fiscal year 2002 budget for this program. To initiate the
    program in fiscal year 2002, Illinois requests $21,250,000 in the Corps
    of Engineers' budget as the first part of a 3-year appropriation
    totaling $100 million.
    Chicagoland Underflow Plan
        McCook and Thornton Reservoirs--The 1988 Water Resources
    Development Act authorized the construction of McCook and Thornton
    reservoirs as components of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan for flood
    control. The completion of these projects, with their related
    improvements to water quality, will have a significant impact on
    reducing the amount of Lake Michigan diversion water required for
    dilution purposes. The reduction in dilution water will improve
    Illinois' ability to meet the limits of Lake Michigan diversions and
    provide for future water supply needs. While $10.0 million is in this
    year's budget request, we are requesting an additional $22 million in
    the fiscal year 2002 budget to continue this work at its optimum level
    of funding.
    The Chicago River Lock Rehabilitation
        The Chicago River Lock Rehabilitation is an important project for
    the State of Illinois. It will reduce leakage of Lake Michigan water
    into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and thus will reduce Illinois'
    Lake Michigan diversion. Reducing leakage at the Chicago River Lock is
    specifically mentioned in the list of activities in the 1996 Memorandum
    of Understanding that Illinois, the other Great Lakes states and the
    U.S. Department of Justice signed to resolve the dispute over Illinois'
    alleged over diversion of Lake Michigan water. As part of the move to
    lakefront diversion accounting, improved control of Lake Michigan water
    used at the Chicago River Lock is essential. This project is also
    needed to ensure the safe operation of the lock itself. This lock is
    the second busiest lock in the country, and while almost all of the
    traffic is recreational, its value and importance to Chicago and the
    state is enormous. Currently, no funding is included in the fiscal year
    2002 budget for this purpose. To initiate the rehabilitation of the
    lock in fiscal year 2002, Illinois requests $4.0 million, which would
    primarily be used to fund the fabrication of two new gates for the west
    end of the lock.
    Chicago Shoreline
        Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains $24 million for
    this project. There is a need for an additional $2,000,000 of
    construction general funds to allow the Corps to advance this crucial
    erosion control project into Lake Michigan Shoreline Reach 5.
    Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier
        Section 1202 of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
    authorized the Corps to study, design and construct a barrier in the
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the exchange of nuisance
    species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi/Illinois River
    systems. The Corps is authorized to expend up to $750,000/year to
    conduct the study. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $400,000
    provided construction general funds to advance and complete the
    construction of the project. For fiscal year 2002, Illinois requests
    that $150,000 be appropriated for monitoring the Invasive Species
    Barrier. Currently, no funding is included in the fiscal year 2002
    budget for this purpose.
    Des Plaines River--Phase One
        Section 101(b-10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
    authorized Phase I of the Upper Des Plaines River Flood Control Project
    at a total cost of $49 million for the implementation of the six
    recommended projects. The Federal share is approximately $31.8 million
    (65 percent) and the estimated non-Federal cost is $17.1 million. The
    fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill provided $400,000 to start
    preconstruction engineering and design for Phase I of the project.
    Illinois requests $4.4 million for a Phase I construction start in
    fiscal year 2002. Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains no
    funding for this purpose.
    Des Plaines River Feasibility Study--Phase Two
        Inasmuch as Phase I of the Upper Des Plaines River Flood Control
    Project will only reduce flood damages by approximately 25 percent, an
    expansion of the Phase I Upper Des Plaines River study was authorized
    in Section 419 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The
    projected $18,000,000 average annual damages, which will remain in the
    tributary floodplains of the Des Plaines River after the completion of
    Phase I project construction, is the basis for the expanded study of
    Phase II. State funds have already been appropriated for cost sharing
    in the Phase II study effort. Federal funding is needed to continue
    cost sharing (50/50) with non-Federal entities in studying additional
    alternatives to reduce expected damages from future floods. The Federal
    fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill provided $750,000 to start the
    Phase II study effort. Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget contains
    $400,000 to continue the Phase II study effort. Illinois requests an
    additional $450,000 of general investigation funds for the continuation
    of Phase II of the Upper Des Plaines River feasibility study.
    Chain of Rocks Canal Levee
        The levee lying along the east bank of the Chain of Rocks Canal has
    documented design deficiencies, which must be corrected in order to
    adequately protect the thousands of residents living behind it.
    Currently, the fiscal year 2002 budget includes $3,617,000 for this
    purpose. We are requesting additional funding of $500,000 of
    construction general funds to advance the construction of the remedial
    work.
    Carlyle Lake Conveyance Analysis
        The State of Illinois is concerned about the surface drainage flow
    levels, channel depths, sedimentation trends and their effects on the
    Kaskaskia River from Vandalia, Illinois to Carlyle Lake and the
    surrounding vicinity. Therefore, for fiscal year 2002, we are
    requesting that $475,000 be provided in the Corps of Engineers general
    investigation funding to initiate the conveyance analyses. Currently,
    the fiscal year 2002 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
    East ST. Louis & Vicinity (Ecosystem Restoration & Flood Damage
            Protection)
        In fiscal year 2001, the Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District,
    will complete a re-evaluation study of the project for flood protection
    at East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois (East Side Levee and Sanitary
    District), authorized by Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 27
    October 1965 (Public Law 89-298) The project is focusing on the
    continued problem of flooding within the American Bottoms area. The
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000 modified Section 204 of the
    Flood Control Act of 1965, to make ecosystem restoration a project
    purpose. Accordingly, ecosystem restoration will be included with the
    flood control project. Illinois requests an appropriation of $700,000
    for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the Pre-Engineering and Design
    of the East St. Louis and Vicinity Project. Currently, the fiscal year
    2002 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
    Melvin Price Lock and Dam
        Illinois also urges that the Corps support the continuation of the
    recreational features of the Melvin Price Lock and Dam with an
    additional $600,000 appropriation in fiscal year 2002. The additional
    funding is needed to initiate the contract award for the recreational
    facilities and to continue with the visitor center exhibits. Currently,
    the fiscal year 2002 budget contains only $500,000 for this purpose.
    Sections 204, 206, & 1135 Enhancement Projects
        Section 204 and 1135 programs offer a wide range of opportunities
    to address fish and wildlife habitat needs which exist due to past
    Corps projects and ongoing ecosystem and dredging activities. The
    Section 206 program provides a proactive tool for Federal participation
    in aquatic ecosystem restoration initiatives where the need for the
    aquatic restoration activity does not have to directly relate to a
    prior Corps sponsored project. The State of Illinois strongly urges
    full funding of these continuing authorities.
    Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Plan
        Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 re-
    authorized the Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management
    Program (EMP) in response to the need for restoring habitat and
    improving the scientific understanding of the river system. While $21.0
    million is in this year's budget request, we believe this program
    should be pursued at the re-authorized level of $33.17 million as
    described in Section 509 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1999.
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Levees and Streambanks Protection
            Study
        Section 458 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
    authorized the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and
    streambanks protection study in response to erosion damages to levees
    and other flood control structures on these rivers. We request $250,000
    for the initiation of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees
    and streambanks protection study in fiscal year 2002. The funding will
    expedite impact studies of navigation traffic on deterioration of the
    levees and other flood control structures. Currently, the fiscal year
    2002 budget contains no funding for this purpose.
    Illinois River Dredged Disposal Sites
        Section 102 (g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    directed the Secretary to acquire dredged material disposal areas for
    the inland navigation project on the Illinois River, at a total Federal
    cost not to exceed $7,000,000. For fiscal year 2002, we request
    $1,100,000 of construction general funds to continue acquisition and/or
    construction of these sites.
    Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan
        Section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
    authorized the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan for the Corps
    to develop a three-year study to address water resource and related
    land resource problems and opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and
    Illinois River Basins. We request $2,000,000 for the initiation of the
    Upper Mississippi Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the fiscal year 2002
    budget contains no funding for this purpose.
    East Cape Girardeau & Clear Creek Drainage & Levee District
        The Flood Control Act of June 1936 authorized the raising and
    enlargement of 10.9 miles of levee, construction of gravity drains,
    closure structures, and seepage control measures in the East Cape
    Girardeau and Clear Creek Drainage & Levee District. The project was
    completed except for seepage control measures. Recently, the Clear
    Creek Drainage and Levee District along with the Preston and Miller
    Pond Drainage and Levee Districts have requested the St. Louis District
    Corps to reevaluate the modifications for the interior flooding problem
    and recommend rehabilitation for the deteriorating hardware of the
    existing levee. A House Resolution that was adopted in May of 1997 is
    the authorization vehicle for the Office of the Chief of Engineers to
    restart the project. However, funds have to be made available for the
    Corps to initiate the process. Illinois requests an appropriation of
    $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to restart the East Cape Girardeau
    and Clear Creek Flood Control Project. Currently, the fiscal year 2002
    budget contains no funding for this purpose.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the California Reclamation Board

        The Reclamation Board is the State agency that furnishes required
    nonfederal assurances for a majority of the Federal flood control
    projects in California's Central Valley. The Reclamation Board has been
    cooperating with the US Army Corps of Engineers in providing flood
    damage reduction projects since 1917.
        The Reclamation Board in general supports the President's fiscal
    year 2002 budget for the Corps of Engineers for their flood control
    activities in the Central Valley. The Board recommends modification to
    the Corps budget as shown below:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                   Board
                                                                                 Estimated      Actual cost   Allocation for    President's     recommends
                                                                               project costs   thru 9/30/00     fiscal year    budget fiscal    fiscal year
                                                                                                                   2001          year 2002         2002
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration (CALFED--    Corps......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............      $1,350,000
     Staffing and Regulatory).

           GENERAL INVESTIGATION--SURVEYS

    Lower Sacramento River Riparian              Corps......................      $1,970,000        $842,000        $180,000        $100,000        $200,000
     Revegetation (Solano, Yolo).
                                                 NonFed.....................       1,350,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       3,320,000
                                                                             ================
    Dry Creek (Middletown).....................  Corps......................         400,000         122,000          25,000         150,000         253,000
                                                 NonFed.....................         300,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................         700,000
                                                                             ================
    Middle Creek...............................  Corps......................       1,971,000         904,000         381,500               0         350,000
                                                 NonFed.....................       1,285,500
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       3,256,500
                                                                             ================
    San Joaquin River Basin Corral Hollow Creek  Corps......................       1,100,000          63,000          49,000               0         140,000
                                                 NonFed.....................       1,000,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       2,100,000
                                                                             ================
    San Joaquin River Basin Tuolumne River and   Corps......................       1,600,000         100,000          25,000         200,000         250,000
     Tributaries.
                                                 NonFed.....................       1,500,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       3,100,000
                                                                             ================
    San Joaquin River Basin West Stanislaus      Corps......................         847,000         480,000         207,000         160,000         250,000
     County.
                                                 NonFed.....................         750,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       1,597,000
                                                                             ================
    San Joaquin River Basin, Frazier Creek.....  Corps......................       1,600,000          50,000          50,000          25,000         100,000
                                                 NonFed.....................       1,500,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       3,100,000
                                                                             ================

       PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

    San Joaquin River Basin Stockton             Corps......................         700,000               0               0         100,000         130,000
     Metropolitan Area.
                                                 NonFed.....................         233,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................         933,000
                                                                             ================
    Stockton Metropolitan Area (Farmington Dam)  Corps......................         750,000               0               0         200,000         300,000
                                                 NonFed.....................         250,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       1,000,000
                                                                             ================
    San Joaquin River Basin West Stanislaus      Corps......................         750,000               0               0               0          50,000
     County.
                                                 NonFed.....................         250,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       1,000,000
    Middle Creek...............................  Corps......................         750,000               0               0         300,000         400,000
                                                 NonFed.....................         250,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       1,000,000
                                                                             ================
    American River Watershed...................  Corps......................      28,600,000      19,186,000       2,464,000       2,000,000       3,000,000
                                                 NonFed.....................               0
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................      28,600,000
                                                                             ================
    Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (Sacramento)  Corps......................         250,000               0               0               0         125,000
                                                 NonFed.....................         750,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................       1,000,000
                                                                             ================

               CONSTRUCTION--GENERAL

    Sacramento River Bank Protection...........  Corps......................     179,900,000     110,411,000       4,200,000       2,326,000       5,000,000
                                                 NonFed.....................      69,500,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................     249,400,000
                                                                             ================
    American River Watershed (Levee              Corps......................      87,000,000      27,888,000      10,400,000      13,000,000      15,000,000
     Improvements on American and Sacramento
     Rivers).
                                                 NonFed.....................      28,600,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................     115,600,000
                                                                             ================
    American River Watershed (Natomas)           Corps......................      26,089,000      16,860,000               0               0       5,000,000
     (Reimbursement).
                                                 NonFed.....................      12,591,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................      38,680,000
                                                                             ================
    American River Watershed (Folsom Dam         Corps......................      97,500,000       2,400,000       3,360,000       4,500,000       8,000,000
     Modifications).
                                                 NonFed.....................      52,500,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................     150,000,000
                                                                             ================
    South Sacramento County Streams (New         Corps......................      41,200,000               0               0               0      10,000,000
     Construction Start).
                                                 NonFed.....................      24,300,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................      65,500,000
                                                                             ================
    San Joaquin River Basin--Stockton            Corps......................      35,700,000               0       3,360,000       1,000,000      10,000,000
     Metropolitan Area (Section 211
     Reimbursement).
                                                 NonFed.....................      12,000,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................      47,700,000
                                                                             ================
    Kaweah River (Tulare)......................  Corps......................      23,500,000       4,146,000       2,520,000       3,000,000       9,000,000
                                                 NonFed.....................      16,986,000
                                                                             ----------------
                                                 Total......................      40,486,000
                                                                             ================
           CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROGRAMS

    Flood Control Act of 1948, Section 205,      ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............      30,000,000      50,000,000
     Flood Damage Prevention.
    Water Resources Dev. Act, 1996, Section      ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............      15,000,000         ( \1\ )
     206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.
    Program Water Resources Dev. Act, 1986,      ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............      21,000,000      50,000,000
     Section 1135, Project Modification for
     Improvement of the Environment Program..

             OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

    Inspection of Completed Works Chico Landing  ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         100,000
     to Red Bluff.

                    NEW PROJECTS

    Hamilton City Levee Modification and         ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000
     Ecosystem Restoration (Comprehensive
     Study) (PED).
    West Bear Creek Floodplain Storage Project   ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000
     (Comprehensive Study) (PED).
    San Joaquin River South Delta Flood          ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         400,000
     Conveyance Improvement and Habitat
     Restoration Program (Comprehensive Study)
     (FEAS).
    Yolo Bypass Flood Conveyance and Habitat     ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000
     Restoration Program (Comprehensive Study)
     (FEAS).
    San Joaquin River Public Lands Floodplain    ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000
     Storage and Ecosystem Restoration
     (Comprehensive Study) (FEAS).
    Upper San Joaquin River Flood Conveyance     ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000
     Improvement and Habitat Restoration
     Program Comprehensive Study) (FEAS).
    Woodson Bridge Ecosystem Restoration         ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       2,000,000
     (Comprehensive Study Section 1135).
    Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials        ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,900,000
     Project (Section 204).
    Delta Levee Rehabilitation and Ecosystem     ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       4,875,000
     Restoration Project (Section 1135).
    Pacific Flyway Center--Yolo Bypass (Section  ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         180,000
     1135).
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Support Program.

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    members of this Commission regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget of the
    Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation. For the
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project (CRFMP), a series of separate
    construction activities at the Federal Columbia River Power System
    (FCRPS), the tribes recommend a funding level of $91 million for fiscal
    year 2002. In addition to CRFMP funding, $1.2 million should be
    provided so that the Corps can continue the Walla Walla River
    Feasibility Study, in Washington and Oregon. You should examine the
    relationship between the capital construction budget and the Corps'
    operations and maintenance budget. Shortfalls in the operations and
    maintenance budget are jeopardizing the ability to maintain dam fish
    passage facilities. The Corps should have the flexibility to transfer,
    with regional approval, capital construction funds to the O & M
    category. Further, the capital construction budget should be modified
    to include all Corps dams on the Columbia and Snake River that impact
    anadromous fish passage. Currently the budget is limited to run-of-
    river dams. We also ask that you give the Corps' sufficient
    authorization to undertake necessary construction and/or reconstruction
    of salmon production facilities, such as the Mitchell Act facilities,
    in the Columbia River basin so as to ensure in-place/in-kind mitigation
    for salmon losses caused by the hydroelectric power system. The Corps
    should be prohibited from using limited capital construction funds,
    sorely needed for dam passage improvements, for estuary research.
    Instead, under WRDA, provide the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program
    and the Tillamook Estuary Program with $7,377,405 for the coming fiscal
    year for estuary programs. Finally, the Corps should undertake a
    system-wide review of Columbia Basin flood control as required under
    the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
    The Bureau of Reclamation should be provided with $5 million to
    undertake a fast-track feasibility study and to initiate construction
    of fish passage facilities during reconstruction of the irrigation dam
    on Keecheelus Reservoir in the Yakima River basin in Washington. In
    addition, provide sufficient funding to the Bureau of Reclamation to
    undertake work to provide fish passage at Wallowa Lake Dam, as well as
    fish production facilities to mitigate for the loss of past natural
    production caused by the construction of the dam.
        Mission Statement.--The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
    (CRITFC) was formed by resolution of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm
    Springs and Yakama Tribes for the purpose of coordinating fishery
    management policy and providing technical expertise essential for the
    protection of the tribes' treaty-protected fish resources. The CRITFC's
    primary mission is to provide coordination and technical assistance to
    the member tribes to ensure that outstanding treaty fishing rights
    issues are resolved in a way that guarantees the continuation and
    restoration of our tribal fisheries into perpetuity. The tribes' Wy-
    Kan-Ish-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon), is a framework plan for
    Columbia Basin salmon restoration that documents threats to fisheries,
    identifies hypotheses based upon adaptive management principles for
    addressing these threats, and provides specific recommendations and
    practices that must be adopted by natural resource managers to meet
    their treaty obligations and restore the resource. The tribes' plan
    calls for significantly increasing the survival of salmon during their
    juvenile and adult migrations through the FCRPS.
        Walla Walla River Feasibility Study, in Washington and Oregon.--The
    tribes believe that $1.2 million should be provided so that the Corps
    of Engineers can continue the Walla Walla River Feasibility Study, in
    Washington and Oregon. The Corps is authorized under the Water
    Resources Development Act to conduct a Feasibility Study to restore
    instream flows to the Walla Walla River. The Walla Walla River
    supported significant runs of spring chinook salmon and summer
    steelhead, as well as runs of fall chinook, chum and coho salmon.
    Dewatering of the mainstem Walla Walla River between June and October
    has seriously impacted those runs. Both Middle Columbia River summer
    steelhead and Columbia River Basin bull trout are listed species under
    the Endangered Species Act. The tribes consider restoration of instream
    flows and the fisheries in the Walla Walla Basin a high priority. The
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation co-sponsor the
    Walla Walla Basin Project with the Corps. The Feasibility Study is the
    first step in assuring permanent instream flows that will benefit
    Indian and non-Indian fisheries, while enhancing flows for fish species
    protected under the Endangered Species Act and maintaining existing
    agricultural water uses.
        Keecheelus Reservoir in the Yakima River basin.--Provide the Bureau
    of Reclamation with $5 million to undertake a fast-track feasibility
    study and to initiate construction of fish passage facilities during
    reconstruction of the irrigation dam on Keecheelus Reservoir in the
    Yakima River basin in Washington. The irrigation dam was constructed
    early in the last century without fish passage facilities. The
    structure, now of extremely limited usefulness for irrigation in its
    current state, must be rebuilt for safety reasons; the structure should
    be upgraded at the same time to provide passage for juvenile and adult
    salmon, as well as for bull trout. The area above the dam would provide
    habitat for stocks of steelhead, sockeye, spring Chinook and bull
    trout.
        Wallowa Lake Dam fish passage and mitigation.--Sufficient funding
    should also be provided to the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake work
    to provide fish passage at Wallowa Lake Dam, as well as fish production
    facilities to mitigate for the loss of past natural production caused
    by the construction of the dam. The Nez Perce Tribe can provide
    additional information on this project to the Committee.
        Lower Columbia River Estuary Program and the Tillamook Estuary
    Program.--The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized
    $30,000,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the Lower
    Columbia River Estuary Program and the Tillamook Estuary Program. The
    Commission now supports a request for $7,377,405 for 2002
    appropriations. This funding is critical to achieving the habitat
    restoration goals of the two programs. In addition, the Commission
    supports Senate Bill 835, which last year provided for re-authorization
    of the National Estuary Program.
        Corps' CRFM Project Proposal Undermines Long Term Goals and
    Objectives.--The Corps' proposed fiscal year 2002 capital construction
    budget prioritizes projects on a path that runs counter to undertaking
    critical projects that are necessary to meet recovery goals and
    performance standards. The fiscal year 2002 Corps' capital construction
    budget should ascribe to the following tribal priorities:
      --Meet juvenile passage performance standards of 80 percent fish
            passage efficiency and 95 percent survival per project by 2001
            and to reduce adult salmon delays and interdam mortality by 50
            percent by 2001.
      --Meet adult passage; spill efficiency and meeting dissolved gas and
            temperature water quality standards. The Corps fails to
            allocate adequate funds to these critical mainstem passage
            measures. We ask that the Congress direct the Corps to conform
            to these standards.
        Capital Construction Priorities.--For the CRFMP, the tribes
    prioritize spending for fiscal year 2002 as follows: $24 million for
    surface flow bypass measures at Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and
    Lower Granite Dams; $34.4 million on necessary adult passage measures
    (including temperature control and high head passage); $15.7 million
    for stilling basins and spillway deflectors as dissolved gas abatement
    measures; and, $16.9 million for optimization of turbine efficiencies,
    juvenile and adult passage monitoring, Dworshak Dam structural changes
    to promote temperature control, water quality and spill efficiency
    monitoring. These actions are geared towards meeting the tribal
    objectives of achieving 80 percent juvenile fish passage efficiency, 95
    percent juvenile survival per project, and a 50 percent reduction in
    adult mortality by 2001. These actions represent major steps in
    bringing the FCRPS into compliance with Clean Water Act standards for
    temperature and dissolved gas.
        Specific Project Concerns with the Corps' Fiscal Year 2002 Capital
    Construction Budget.--Two major areas in that budget are representative
    of seriously misplaced capital construction priorities:
      --$44.2 million for fish guidance projects, including Bonneville
            Powerhouse 1 Juvenile Bypass Outfall ($36 million), Bonneville
            Screen Bypass Modifications ($4.8), and John Day Screen
            Modifications ($3.4). These projects represent 38.1 percent of
            the Corps' proposed budget for fiscal year 2002. These systems
            rely on mechanically guiding fish away from turbines and
            dewatering the remaining flow so that the juvenile salmon can
            be transported by pipe systems as long as 2 miles to deposit
            the juvenile in areas deemed safe from predation. Recent
            studies indicate smolt-to-adult returns are much greater for
            juveniles that pass the dams via spill instead of via turbines
            and screen bypass systems.
      --$10.3 million for non-supported studies. Several studies proposed
            by the Corps do not have the support of the regional salmon
            managers. These studies include work in the estuary and on
            delayed mortality of fish held in saltwater tanks at Bonneville
            dam. Other studies include mortality of fish passing through
            turbines. Much of this work is long term and has questionable
            methods that will not address key questions the region has
            agreed require additional study. These studies will not aid the
            regional managers in making informed decisions.
        In addition, the Corps' proposed budget has not been expanded to
    include other important projects that can have a positive impact on
    salmon recovery. High head dam passage studies can be used to access
    previously blocked habitat for salmon. There are no projects to
    investigate and construct modifications to hydropower projects that
    would allow them to operate in a manner that can aid in temperature
    controls, such as deep-water selective withdrawals, nor are there
    projects on long-term gas abatement solutions that would allow
    hydropower projects to better meet the Clean Water Act and improve
    downstream passage for juveniles.
        Operational and Maintenance (O&M) Budget Issues.--Currently the
    Corp of Engineers allocates approximately $22.5 million for maintenance
    of its projects in the Columbia Basin. This allocation does not provide
    the funding necessary to maintain many of the key components of these
    projects. For example, at Dworshak Dam cool water releases are altered
    to insure they do not affect the downstream hatchery. Minor
    modifications, at a cost of approximately $1.5 million, would allow the
    region to use these cool water releases from Dworshak Dam in the most
    efficient manner. Erosion in the Lower Monumental Dam spillway and in
    the stilling basin is severe enough to impact the spill program called
    for in the Biological Opinion. However, there are no funds in the O & M
    budget to make the necessary repairs that would eliminate this problem.
    The Corps could reallocate funds from the capital construction budget
    to address such critical maintenance issues, based upon the consensus
    of the regional fish managers. The Corps requires your direction to
    make this effective use of available funding possible.
        In conclusion, the tribes are advising a course of action and a
    level of funding for salmon recovery projects designed to allow salmon
    to migrate in rivers in the most natural way possible within the
    current hydropower system configuration. This philosophy moves away
    from the current dependence on mechanical bypass systems and manual
    transportation of salmon. The tribes' approach promotes a more a
    normative approach to salmon management and helps to achieve a ``spread
    the risk'' policy in order to minimize the negative impacts for salmon
    migrants. Please contact us if you have any questions; we can provide
    additional information at your request.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida

        The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
    regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
    (COE). The Tribe asks that Congress provide $20 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
    $44 million project. Design and planning efforts continue, and the
    first phase of construction is expected to commence this summer.
        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.
                         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, a part of the water
    conservation plan, 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. Congress has
    acknowledged this need through the passage of the last three Water
    Resource Development Acts. This Committee has consistently shown its
    support through appropriating requested amounts over the last three
    fiscal years. By continuing to grant this appropriation request for
    critical project funding, the Federal government will take another
    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 and the Tribe's stewardship of its land.
        Completion of the critical project requires a substantial
    commitment from the Tribe, including the dedication of over 2,400 acres
    of land for water management improvements and meeting a 50/50 cost
    share. This summer, the Tribe will initiate the first phase of
    construction with the main conveyance canal. As the Tribe moves forward
    with its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida
    ecosystem, increasing 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.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District

              whitewater river basin thousand palms flood control
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the Coachella Valley Water
    District as the local sponsor, has completed the feasibility study for
    the Whitewater River Basin flood control project. This project received
    a favorable Chief of Engineers Report from Lieutenant General Robert B.
    Flowers and it was fully authorized in the Water Resources Development
    Act of 2000.
    Project Description
        The preferred alternative for a flood protection project in the
    community of Thousand Palms consists of four levees and the purchase of
    a 700-acre floodway. The levees total just less than eight miles in
    length and range in height from 7 to 18 feet. The first three levees
    collect runoff and sediment flowing from the Little San Bernardino
    Mountains and the Indio Hills, and they outlet the flow onto the 700-
    acre floodway. The sediment in the floodway is then available for
    windblown transport onto the adjacent Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
    Lizard Preserve. This preservation of the sand transport system is
    necessary for the long-term viability of the sand dunes ecosystem of
    the fringe-toed lizard, a Federally endangered species. A fourth levee
    also conveys flow along the southern boundary of the preserve to
    existing flood control structures downstream of the project. The U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that it supports this preferred
    alternative. The proposed project would protect 2800 acres of land from
    flooding. This accounts for the majority of the existing development in
    the area. The benefit/cost ratio is over 1.3 with a total cost of
    $28,900,000. The estimated Federal share is 65 percent of the total
    cost or $18,800,000. The estimated non-Federal share is 35 percent of
    the total cost or $10,100,000.
    Funding Requirements
        In the Energy and Water Development Act of 2000, $500,000 was
    budgeted for Project Engineering and Design (PED). The estimated cost
    of the PED phase is $2 million. Twenty-five percent or $500,000 is
    local share. Thus an addition $1 million needs to be appropriated for
    the PED phase of this project in the Energy and Water Development Act
    of 2001. In addition the Federal share of $18.8 million needs to be
    appropriated in future versions of the Energy and Water Development
    Act.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the County of Sonoma, California

        Bodega Bay, located in Sonoma County, California, has been dredged
    by the Army Corps of Engineers since the mid-1940's. The Federal
    channel has been dredged on an average of every 11 years by the Corps.
    See Figure 1--Location map of Bodega Bay.
        Historically, Bodega Bay has been the home of a commercial fishing
    fleet. Salmon, herring, dungeness crab and rock cod are among the
    species of seafood that are caught in the waters outside of the Bay. In
    the 1980s, millions of pounds of salmon were caught by a commercial
    fishing fleet of over 600 vessels berthed at Bodega Bay. Today, even
    with the commercial fishing limitations that have reduced the number of
    active commercial fishing vessels in the Bay, the Bay remains popular
    for commercial and recreational fishing. Bodega Bay is home to a U.S.
    Coast Guard installation, and serves as a Harbor of Refuge for vessels
    traveling along the California Coast.
        Without periodic dredging, Bodega Bay cannot continue as a viable
    fishing and recreation harbor. The shoaling rate at Bodega Bay is
    estimated at 10,000 cubic yards per year. The Corps is responsible for
    financing the dredging of the Federal channel in Bodega Bay, while
    Sonoma County has historically had the responsibility to provide a site
    for the dredged material. The existing dredge materials site at Bodega
    Bay does not have the capacity to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to
    conduct its scheduled dredging of the Federal channel in 2002. See
    Figure 2--location of Federal Channel and Dredge Material site.
                            appropriation requested
      --Total of $3.7 million in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
            Operation and Maintenance Budget, fiscal year 2002. It is
            important that this funding be specifically designated for use
            at Bodega Bay to complete dredging in 2002.
      --$1.8 Million for preparation of the Bodega Bay dredge materials
                site through implementation of the Corps' Dredge Material
                Management Plan (DMMP).
      --$1.9 million for dredging the Federal channel.
        Sonoma County needs congressional funding for the implementation of
    the DMMP, estimated at $1.8 million, to prepare the existing dredge
    material site. Without this funding, dredging the Federal channel will
    not be possible. A delay of the Federally scheduled dredging cycle into
    future years may jeopardize the entire project given the current trend
    to cut funding for civil works projects at the Federal level. Smaller
    ports are particularly under attack. The risk to the entire project
    will increase if the project is deferred beyond 2002.
                                    purpose
        The existing Dredge Materials Site (located at County's Bird Walk
    Coastal Access) is at approximately 70 percent capacity (remaining
    capacity is 58,500 cubic yards). Therefore, the appropriation will be
    used to remove 73,300 cubic yards of material from the existing dredge
    material site before the next maintenance dredging of the Federal
    channel by the Army Corps of Engineers can begin, which is scheduled
    for 2002.
        The most cost-effective site to place the excavated dredge
    materials is a proposed community park for Bodega Bay approximately 2
    miles away. (See Figure 1) This beneficial use of clean fill material
    would be used to provide play fields, picnic sites, and children's play
    area for the community.
        During the 1991 Federal Bodega Bay Dredging program, dredging of
    the County marine facilities, and private marinas and wharfs were
    allowed to piggyback on the Federal program. Each entity was
    responsible for their incremental dredging costs. We anticipate that
    most of the agencies will, once again, want to be included in the
    Federal dredging program. See Figure 2 for location of County, Private
    Marinas, and Wharfs.
                army corps of engineers--san francisco district
        The Corps is responsible for dredging the Bodega Bay Federal
    channel approximately every 11 years. Sonoma County Regional Parks
    Department has shared information regarding history and concerns about
    the proposed 2002 dredging for Bodega Bay, including: dredge site
    preparation, excavation and moving material to the proposed community
    park site, anticipated costs, environmental concerns, and economic
    impacts.
        The County and Corps have continued to work together on a Dredge
    Materials Management Plan (DMMP), which could expand the Corps' project
    scope at Bodega Bay. The San Francisco Corps Office has been supportive
    in including our request for financial support for Bodega Bay dredging
    and for the dredge site preparation in legislation.
                              environmental issues
        This project does not include any controversial environmental
    issues.
    Studies
        All environmental issues relating to the preparation of the dredge
    material site, moving dredge material to the proposed community park
    site and dredging of the Bay will be completed by either the Corps, as
    part of the DMMP, or the County prior to the maintenance dredging of
    the Bay. The major studies, in addition to the DMMP studies include:
      --Hydrographic Analysis and Refinement--allows for accurate
            measurement of dredge volumes needs.
      --Eel Grass Identification--This species needs to be plotted and
            assessed to predict and avoid serious impact due to the
            dredging of the channel and marinas.
      --Other Endangered Species--Several native plants, animals, and other
            organisms are native to Doran Marsh and its environs. Project
            impacts will need to be assessed.
                                  local effort
        Private wharfs, marinas and U.S. Coast Guard will be encouraged to
    participate with the County to include their dredging needs in the 2002
    program. If Congress funds this project in its entirety, the County has
    enough funding set aside to meet the local match requirements of the
    DMMP (80 percent Federal/20 percent local).
                                  conclusions
        Without financial assistance, the Bodega Bay dredging project on
    line for 2002 will have to be delayed. Any delays places the dredging
    of Bodega Bay at risk as Federal public works budgets continue to be
    cut.
        Any delay in dredging the Federal Channel will impact the ability
    to safely navigate within the Bay and will pose a serious health and
    safety hazard. Some larger vessels are already running aground in the
    harbor.
        Any delay in dredging the Federal Channel could impede its ability
    to service commercial and sport fishing and its availability as a
    Harbor of Refuge. Lastly, a delay would cause a significant economic
    impact on the region.
                                     ______

      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 US
    Army Corps of Engineers, we in the Ohio Valley are beginning to see the
    results of 20 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 Lock, 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 US Army Corps of Engineers to
    advance these projects, in order to complete construction by 2008 or
    earlier:
                      recommendations for fiscal year 2002
        1. For the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam modification project,
    formerly the Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, OH/WV, about
    $4,000,000 to complete rehabilitation of the dam.
        2. For the Winfield Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
    $3,000,000 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, $75,000,000 for continued
    construction of the approach lock walls related to the twin
    1101,200 locks and design and initial construction activities
    for the new gated dam.
        4. For improvements to Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3 & 4,
    PA, $75,00,000 to complete construction of the Braddock Dam, for
    relocations related to the construction project, and continued design
    of Lock 4.
        5. For the McAlpine Lock Project on the Ohio River, IN/KY,
    $25,000,000 to complete construction of the cofferdam related to the
    new 110 feet  1,200 feet lock addition.
        6. For the Marmet Lock Replacement on the Kanawha River, WV,
    $30,000,000 for real estate acquisition and for initial systems for
    mitigation of the construction project.
        7. For the Kentucky Lock Addition on the Tennessee River, KY,
    $55,000,000 to continue construction of the new highway and bridge work
    and to begin construction of the upstream cofferdam.
        8. For continuing major rehabilitation of London Locks and Dam,
    Kanawha River, $8,000,000.
        9. For the Ohio River Mainstem Study, including studies related to
    completing Interim Feasibility Reports for Newburgh, Cannelton, and
    Meldahl, and for Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Locks and Dams,
    approximately $30,000,000 to be expended over the next five years. This
    level of funding is needed to complete the work leading to construction
    authorization documents for additional capacity at these six lock and
    dam locations.
        10. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the John T.
    Myers Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IN/KY, $3,500,000-$4,000,000. A new
    construction start for this project will be required soon, since this
    project was authorized for construction in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000.
        11. For Pre-Construction Engineering and Design for the Greenup
    Locks and Dam, Ohio River, OH/KY, $3,500,000-$4,000,000. A new
    construction start for this project will be required soon, since this
    project was authorized for construction in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000.
        For these lock and dam modernization projects the President has not
    released specific allocations for the fiscal year 2002 Civil Works
    Budget of the US Army Corps of Engineers. It is expected that these
    allocations will be woefully inadequate. The ``efficient'' construction
    level for fiscal year 2002 and for each and every year into the future
    has been discussed with Corps officials over a number of years, and
    DINAMO is confident that the projected funding levels identified above
    represent the amount of money the Corps can efficiently use.
    Additionally experience has shown that the Corps could execute
    completion of these projects by 2008 if adequate funding were provided,
    i.e. efficient funding levels.
        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 $400 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.
        The construction schedules for Ohio River Navigation System
    projects have slipped from one to six years, depending on the project.
    Delaying the construction of these vitally needed infrastructure
    investments is a terribly inefficient practice. Inefficient
    construction schedules cost people a lot of money. A March 2000 study
    by the Institute for Water Resources concluded that $1.34 billion of
    cumulative benefits (transportation savings) for Olmsted, Lower
    Monongahela River 2, 3 & 4, McAlpine, Marmet, and Kentucky lock and dam
    modernization projects, in addition to the London Lock rehabilitation,
    all on the Ohio River Navigation 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 $534 million of future benefits are at risk but
    will be foregone (based on fiscal year 2001 schedules) if funding is
    not 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 President's $3.9
    billion Corps of Engineers Civil Works Budget for fiscal year 2002 will
    fall at least $1 billion short of what will be needed to meet the
    nation's water resources needs. 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
    $300 million annually. Last year Congress provided about $4.54 billion
    for the Corps of Engineers program and more than $200 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 $5 billion and about $350 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.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statements of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
                                  Development

                   mississippi river and tributaries project
        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 its twenty levee boards. It
    contains recommendations for fiscal year 2002 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 many 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 hopes that Congress and the Administration will honor
    their prior commitments to infrastructure development and fund our
    requests.
        Since the timing of this meeting is before a detailed budget has
    been released, the figures presented herein are only approximate and
    will be revised when more information becomes available. The following
    projects are of particular concern to us. See the attached ``Summary of
    Recommended Appropriations'' for a complete listing of projects in
    Louisiana.
    Operation and Maintenance
        Request: Full Capability.
        Atchafalaya Basin; Old River Lower Red River, South Bank Levees,
    (Bayou Rapides Drainage Structure and Pumping Plant); Mississippi River
    Levees (total MR&T); Channel Improvement (total MR&T).
        The operation and maintenance of completed works are essential to
    achieving the full benefits of projects. In times of budget constraints
    it is essential that operation and maintenance of projects continue as
    scheduled in order to maintain their effectiveness, otherwise more
    expensive maintenance and rehabilitation would be required at a later
    date.
        The above listed projects have reached a point where delayed
    maintenance is now essential and we urge you to fund these projects to
    the full capability of the Corps.
    Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)
        Request: Full Capability.
        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, most is needed for Louisiana projects. In the Vicksburg
    District 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: Full Capability.
        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 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
        Request: Full Capability.
        (Sicily Island Area Levee Project).
        The construction of this project must not be delayed by budget
    constraints.
    Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico
        Request: Full Capability.
        Funds are requested for preconstruction engineering and design.
    This hurricane protection project is vital for coastal Louisiana and
    should be constructed as soon as possible.
               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
    Board of State 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 present day dollars represents expenditures in
    excess of $5.5 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 past budget
    requests for the total MR&T Project have not been adequate. We endorse
    the recommendation of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
    in their request for $395 million for the MR&T project 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 2002--STATE OF LOUISIANA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Budget         Louisiana
               Louisiana projects                schedule         request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Operation and Maintenance

    Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)...      $8,500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Atchafalaya Basin.......................      10,400,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Channel Improvement (total MR&T)........      43,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Old River Control Structure.............       6,100,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Bonnet Carre Spillway...................       1,900,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Lower Red River, SBL--Bayou Rapides            6,000,000            Full
     Drainage Structure & Pumping Plant.....                      Capability
    Tensas Basin:...........................
        Boeuf & Tensas Rivers...............       2,600,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Red River Backwater Area............       3,500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System, LA..       2,100,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Baton Rouge Harbor--Devil Swamp, LA.....         200,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries..........         100,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Mississippi Delta Region, Caernarvon, LA         916,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Inspection of Completed Works (MR&T)....       1,500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Mapping (MR&T)..........................       1,100,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Dredging (MR&T).........................      18,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability

                  Construction

    Mississippi River Levees (total MR&T)...      54,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee......       3,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Atchafalaya Basin.......................      30,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Channel Improvements (total MR&T).......      48,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater Area..       3,882,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System......      10,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Mississippi Delta Region, Davis Pond....       4,600,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Mississippi & Louisiana Estuarine Area           100,000            Full
     (Bonnet Carre).........................                      Capability

      Preconstruction Engineering & Design

    Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico..........       6,500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability

             General Investigations

    Donaldsonville to the Gulf of Mexico....       1,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico........         700,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Spring Bayou............................         500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    West Baton Rouge Parish, LA (recon).....         350,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    Collection & Study of Basic Data (MR&T).         600,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

      food control, navigation, hurricane protection and water resources
                             projects in louisiana
        The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office
    of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation, is the agency designated
    to represent the State of Louisiana for the coordinated planning and
    development of water resources, including flood control, navigation,
    drainage, water conservation and irrigation projects; therefore, this
    statement is presented on behalf of the State of Louisiana and its
    twenty levee boards. We are pleased to present the recommendations for
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations for Louisiana projects. The projects
    listed herein are in addition to those covered in the statement by the
    Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation for the
    Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
        Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, which has
    the third largest drainage basin in the world. The Mississippi drains
    41 percent, or 1 1/4 million square miles, of the contiguous United
    States and parts of two Canadian provinces. In addition to the
    Mississippi River system, Louisiana contends with other interstate
    waters--the Sabine River, the Red River, the Ouachita River, the Amite
    River, and the Pearl River. All of these river systems converge toward
    Louisiana, passing on to the Gulf of Mexico, draining a figure
    approaching 50 percent of these contiguous 48 states.
        Louisiana also plays a strategic part in providing the country with
    access to world markets through an inland navigation system.
    Approximately 75 percent of all soybeans, animal feed, and corn grown
    in the U.S. are shipped through Louisiana. And almost 50 percent of all
    rice and cereals. Louisiana has the highest waterborne traffic by
    state. The river flood control systems work in conjunction with the
    hurricane and coastal protection systems to form a total integrated
    protection system to protect us from floods of all types. This
    integrated system protects the inland navigation system. It also
    protects the petrochemical industry in Louisiana which has the second
    largest refining capacity in the country producing approximately 15
    billion gallons of gasoline at 19 refineries. Louisiana ranks second in
    produced natural gas and third for oil production. The pipeline system
    which supplies much of the country with natural gas and petroleum
    originates in Louisiana. The petrochemical and oil and gas industries
    depend almost totally on Federally constructed levee systems to protect
    them from floods and hurricanes, and depend on the Federally maintained
    navigation system for transportation. This infrastructure development
    which benefits the entire country has contributed to the destruction of
    our marshes and wetlands which still produce a commercial fish and
    shellfish harvest worth more than $600 million and 40 percent of the
    Nation's wild fur and hides harvest worth more than $15 million. This
    wealth of natural resources cannot survive and propagate for the
    economic benefit of our State and Nation without onshore facilities
    that require protection from major storms and hurricanes. It would be a
    national loss if these facilities and infrastructures were not
    protected. But Louisiana alone cannot support the infrastructure on
    which the country depends. All these facilities in Louisiana that
    support and contribute to the economic well-being of the country are
    protected by flood control measures; flood control measures that the
    Federal Government has appropriately committed itself to provide.
        In making the following recommendations regarding construction,
    studies, and 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. We
    feel that water resources projects are probably the most worthwhile and
    cost-effective projects in the Federal budget, having to meet stringent
    economic justification criteria not required of other programs. We ask
    that this be taken into consideration in the final decision to
    appropriate the available funds.
        Since the timing of this meeting is before a detailed budget has
    been released, the figures presented herein are only approximate and
    will be revised when more information becomes available. The following
    projects are of particular concern to us. See the attached ``Summary of
    Recommended Appropriations'' for a complete listing of projects in
    Louisiana.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock
        Request: Full Capability.
        The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) lock has long been
    considered dimensionally obsolete and is a key to the viability of the
    Port of New Orleans, the nation's 4th largest.
    West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans, LA
        Request: Full Capability.
        We urge Congress to provide for an accelerated construction
    schedule for this project to provide hurricane protection to the
    metropolitan area of New Orleans.
    Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control
        Request: Full Capability.
        We urge that the approved five-year construction schedule be
    maintained by authorizing funds to the full capability of the Corps.
    Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Hurricane Protection
        Request: Full Capability.
        Funding to the full capability of the Corps will allow for the
    completion of existing construction contracts and to continue with
    other required work.
    Mississippi River Ship Channel, Baton Rouge to Gulf
        Request: Full Capability.
        The funds will be used to complete existing construction contracts
    for saltwater intrusion mitigation to the water supply of Plaquemines
    Parish.
    New Orleans to Venice
        Request: Full Capability.
        This is a hurricane protection project for Plaquemines Parish. The
    funds requested are needed to continue construction of this important
    hurricane protection project.
    Larose to Golden Meadow
        Request: Full Capability.
        This is a hurricane protection project which will protect the
    developed areas along Bayou Lafourche. Funds are needed to complete
    this project.
    Ouachita River Levees
        Request: Full Capability.
        The Ouachita River Levees are deficient and need to be brought up
    to Federal standards. We request that specific language be added to the
    appropriations bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to accomplish
    this task.
    J. Bennett Johnston (Red River) Waterway
        Request: Full Capability.
        Remaining work consists of additional channel training works,
    purchase of mitigation lands and construction of recreation features.
    We urge the approval of funds for fiscal year 2002 based on the
    previously approved schedule.
    Grand Isle and Vicinity
        Request: Full Capability.
        Funds are requested to address WRDA 99 language to determine any
    environmental benefits to the mainland coast.
    East Baton Rouge Parish, LA
        Request: Full Capability.
        We are requesting new start language and language to rectify an
    oversight in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, authorizing
    this project to be constructed at the 75/25 cost share in effect at the
    time of study completion.
    Lake Pontchartrain Westshore
        Request: Full Capability.
        Funds would be used to advance construction. Authorization is
    expected in the next WRDA.
    MR-GO Reevaluation Study
        Request: Full Capability.
         The Environmental Protection Agency, at the request of local
    officials, has formed a task force to re-examine the navigation project
    based on the amount of economic benefits and the safety issues of
    possible storm damage.
    Orleans Parish, LA
        Request: Full Capability.
        This project is in addition to the Southeast Urban Flood Control
    projects already under construction in Orleans Parish. The funds
    requested would be used to advance preconstruction engineering and
    design.
    Jefferson Parish, LA
        Request: Full Capability.
        This project is in addition to the Southeast Urban Flood Control
    projects already under construction in Jefferson Parish. The funds
    requested would be used to advance preconstruction engineering and
    design.
    Calcasieu Lock, LA
        Request: Full Capability.
        The Calcasieu Lock is becoming congested due to an increase in
    traffic. The funds will be used to advance the feasibility study.
    ST. Bernard Parish, Urban Flood Control
        Request: Full Capability.
        Flood control improvements are needed to reduce the repetitive
    damages to residential development, which is consistent with
    Administration policy. The funds will be used to advance the
    feasibility study.
    Calcasieu River Basin, LA
        Request: Full Capability.
        This study will address the feasibility of measures to reduce
    flooding and restore fish and wildlife habitat in the study area. The
    funds will advance the feasibility study.
    Ascension Parish Flood Control Study
        Request: Full Capability.
        The Ascension Parish Flood Control Study was recommended in the
    Amite River and Tributaries Reconnaissance Report. The parish has
    decided to proceed to the feasibility phase and funds are required in
    fiscal year 2002 to start the study.
    New Study Requests
        Request: Full Capability.
        Several new study requests will address a comprehensive look at the
    hurricane protection system, urban flood control, ecosystem restoration
    and beneficial use of dredged material. See attached Summary Sheet for
    individual projects.
    Continuing Authorities Projects
        We urge you to discontinue the practice of earmarking funds and to
    raise the program limits for Section 205 projects to $60 million.
    Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
        The passage of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
    Restoration Act has been a positive force for Louisiana. We support the
    continued funding for this program.
    Baton Rouge Infrastructure
        Request: $10,000,000.
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized $10,000,000
    for water resources related infrastructure for the parishes of East
    Baton Rouge, Ascension and Livingston. This request is for the
    appropriation these funds.
    Red River Basin Chloride Control Project
        Request: Full Capability.
        The construction of the Red River Chloride Control Project will
    enhance further economic development in the Red River Valley and make
    the Navigation Project prove even more economically beneficial than
    previously anticipated.
    Operation and Maintenance
        Request: Full Capability.
        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. We urge you to continue funding O&M to the
    Corps' full capability.
                                   conclusion
        We wish to express our thanks to the Appropriations Subcommittees
    on Energy and Water Development of the House and Senate for allowing us
    to present this brief on the needs of Louisiana. Without reservation,
    practically every single project in Louisiana which has been made
    possible through actions of these committees has shown a return in
    benefits many times in excess of that contemplated by the authorizing
    legislation. The projects which you fund affect the economy of not only
    Louisiana, but the nation as a whole. The State of Louisiana
    appreciates the accomplishments of the past and solicits your
    consideration of the appropriations requested for fiscal year 2002.

       FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION AND WATER RESOURCES
                              PROJECTS IN LOUISIANA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Budget         Louisiana
               Louisiana projects                schedule         request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Construction:

        Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock..     $15,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        West Bank Vicinity of New Orleans,        31,000,000            Full
         LA.................................                      Capability
        Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood          100,000,000            Full
         Control............................                      Capability
        Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity,          19,700,000            Full
         Hurricane Prot.....................                      Capability
        Mississippi River Ship Channel, LA..       1,200,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        New Orleans to Venice, Hurricane           2,000,000            Full
         Protection.........................                      Capability
        Larose to Golden Meadow, Hurricane         4,700,000            Full
         Protection.........................                      Capability
        Ouachita River Levees...............       5,300,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        J. Bennet Johnston (Red River)            28,000,000            Full
         Waterway, LA.......................                      Capability
        Grand Isle and Vicinity.............         200,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Comite River Diversion..............      15,400,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        MR-GO Reevaluation Study............       1,080,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Baton Rouge Infrastructure..........               0      10,000,000
        Red River Chloride Control..........               0            Full
                                                                  Capability

    Preconstruction Engineering and Design:

        Lafayette Parish, LA................         500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Orleans Parish, LA..................         300,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Jefferson Parish, LA................         500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, LA..         300,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        East Baton Rouge Parish, LA \1\.....       1,000,000            Full
                                                                  Capability

    Authorized Studies:

        Intracoastal Waterway Locks (Bayou           500,000            Full
         Sorrel), LA........................                      Capability
        Calcasieu Lock......................         900,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Louisiana Coastal Area-Ecosystem           1,750,000            Full
         RestorationFeasibility Study (COAST                      Capability
         2050)..............................
        St. Bernard Parish, Urban Flood              600,000            Full
         Control............................                      Capability
        Calcasieu River Basin, LA...........         500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Ascension Parish, LA (Amite River &          425,000            Full
         Tribs).............................                      Capability
        Amite River Ecosystem Restoration...         600,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Atchafalaya, Chene, Boeuf and Black.         300,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        Hurricane Protection Improvements...         500,000            Full
                                                                  Capability
        St. Charles Parish, Urban Flood              400,000            Full
         Control............................                      Capability
        Plaquemines Parish, Urban Flood              450,000            Full
         Control............................                      Capability

    New Study Requests:

        Louisiana Coastwide Dredging........               0         100,000
        Lake Pontchartrain Basin                           0         500,000
         Comprehensive Study................
        Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Bank                    0         100,000
         Stabilization......................
        Southern LA Floodproofing Evacuation               0         100,000
         Routes.............................
        Acadiana Navigation Channel, LA.....               0         100,000
    Operation and Maintenance \2\...........  ..............             \2\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ New start language is needed to initiate construction in fiscal year
      2002.
    \2\ Full Capability of Corps.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am James E. Wanamaker,
    Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners,
    Greenville, Mississippi, and I have the privilege of presenting this
    statement on behalf of this Board and the citizens of the Levee
    District. The Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is comprised of
    7 elected commissioners representing the counties of Bolivar,
    Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren
    counties in the Lower Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Board of
    Mississippi Levee Commissioners is charged with the responsibility of
    providing protection to the Mississippi Delta from flooding of the
    Mississippi River and maintaining major drainage outlets for removing
    the flood waters from the area. These responsibilities are carried out
    by providing the local sponsor requirements for the Congressionally
    authorized projects in the levee district.
        The funding of the flood control projects also provide assistance
    to the overall economics of the Mississippi Delta through the
    employment of individuals by contractors completing these necessary
    projects. The region encompassed by the Mississippi River & Tributaries
    Project is included in the recently authorized Delta Regional
    Authority. The employment of the local work force and purchases from
    local vendors by the contractors on these projects provides income to
    the most impoverished counties included in the Delta Regional
    Authority.
        The foresight used by the Congress in their authorization of the
    many features of the Mississippi River & Tributaries Projects is
    exemplary. This project has proven to be one of the most cost effective
    projects ever undertaken by the United States. The Board remains aware
    that budget constraints, along with the again extremely low
    administration budget, is making it very difficult to fund projects at
    levels deemed necessary to maintain timely construction to provide the
    much needed flood protection to the Mississippi Delta. Without the
    Congressional adds to the budget over the last several years,
    construction would be lagging far behind throughout the entire Lower
    Mississippi Valley. The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
    will be submitting a general statement to support an appropriation of
    $395 million for fiscal year 2002 for surveys, advanced engineering,
    construction, and the operation and maintenance of the Mississippi
    River & Tributaries Project. We must always remember that the Lower
    Mississippi River receives flood waters from 41 percent of the
    Continental United States.
        The Mainline Mississippi River Levee throughout the Valley is the
    backbone for providing flood protection to the Delta areas. Following
    the 1973 flood, it was determined that 69.1 miles of Mainline
    Mississippi River Levees in Mississippi were deficient in grade and
    section. The Corps of Engineers currently has 18 miles of our levee
    under construction. The administration budget for Mississippi River
    Levees of $42.1 million will not allow any new construction starts on
    this vital project. We are asking that the Congress appropriate $54.1
    million for construction of Mainline Mississippi River Levees to allow
    construction to proceed in an orderly manner. Until such time all of
    our levees are completed to grade and section, the Mississippi Delta
    will remain exposed to severe flooding from the Project Design Flood on
    the Mississippi River. It is estimated that the State of Mississippi
    alone would suffer damage in excess of $1.8 billion with over 20,000
    homes flooded, displacing more than 56,000 people by an overtopping of
    the levee system in Mississippi.
        As the Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers proceeded with the
    development of a draft report for the remaining features of the Yazoo
    Backwater Project, the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
    initiated a consensus process involving State and Federal resource
    agencies and major private environmental groups. After the initial
    meeting the National Wildlife Federation, the Mississippi Wildlife
    Federation, the Audubon Society, the Gulf Restoration Network, and the
    Sierra Club elected to withdraw from this consensus building process.
    The only private environmental group to remain in the process was Ducks
    Unlimited. The consensus process involved over 50 hours of meetings of
    these agencies, organizations, and local citizens over an 18 month
    period. We remain very disappointed in the attitude taken by the U.S.
    Fish & Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency during this
    process. These agencies did not participate as resource agencies as
    anticipated, but as advocates of their own plan for the area. The
    consensus process resulted in a modification of alternatives being
    considered by the Corps of Engineers for this project. At this time,
    the Vicksburg District has completed the draft report which includes a
    recommended plan that is supported officially by the Board of
    Mississippi Levee Commissioners, County Boards of Supervisors of
    Issaquena, Sharkey, Washington, Warren, Humphreys, and Yazoo. The Board
    of Mississippi Levee Commissioners and the Corps of Engineers have each
    hosted public meetings in the project area and found the vast majority
    of individuals living in the project area support the recommended plan.
    This support is given by these local individuals living in the project
    area even though water levels will be 7 feet deeper with the
    recommended plan than the 1982 plan before the pumps are operated, and
    62,500 acres of developed land will be taken out of production and
    reforested as part of this project. We are currently requesting an
    appropriation of $6 million for this project, which will allow the
    Vicksburg District to initiate the design of this project, initiate
    real estate activities and right-of-way acquisition for this project.
        As with all infrastructure, the need for maintenance is required to
    keep the projects functioning as designed. The Big Sunflower River
    Maintenance Project is a case where the local sponsors have provided
    the necessary minor maintenance for over 50 years. It has been
    identified that major maintenance is required to restore the capacity
    of this project to move flood waters through the Mississippi Delta. We
    are requesting an appropriation of $6.4 million to allow work to
    continue on this project. Construction on Item 3 has been completed and
    right-of-way for Item 2 is being acquired. This appropriation will
    allow the work on Item 2 to continue and to purchase rights-of-way for
    future items.
        Work on the Upper Yazoo Project is continuing with the completion
    of Items 4-A and 4-B bringing protection in the Delta to the City of
    Greenwood. We are requesting an appropriation of $15 million for the
    Upper Yazoo Project which will allow contracts to be awarded on Items
    5-A, 5-B, and Item 7 structures. It is imperative that work on this
    project be continued to provide an adequate outlet for the flood
    control reservoirs that hold back flood waters from the Mississippi
    Delta. Without an adequate outlet for these reservoirs, stages inside
    the reservoirs will continue to rise threatening an overtopping of the
    emergency spillway, whereby, we lose all control of flood waters in the
    basin.
        Maintenance of our Mainline Mississippi River Levee System
    continues as a major feature carried out by the basins' Levee Boards.
    The Flood Control Act of 1928 clearly delineates Federal and local
    responsibilities in the maintenance activities required for this
    project. We are requesting $9.5 million for the maintenance of
    Mississippi River Levees to allow the Corps of Engineers to carry out
    the Federal responsibilities for major maintenance along the Mainline
    Mississippi River Levee System.
        As we pointed out earlier, all projects need to be maintained to
    keep them functioning as designed. Work on our 4 flood control
    reservoirs are no exception to this need. We are asking for an
    appropriation for maintenance of Arkabutla Lake of $11.5 million; Enid
    Lake $7.5 million; Grenada Lake $7.8 million; and Sardis Lake of $18
    million. The increased funds requested for this project will be
    utilized to complete the bank protection along these dams, repair water
    wells, treatment storage facilities and other maintenance needs. We are
    also requesting an appropriation of $1.2 million for the tributaries
    features of the Yazoo Basin which will allow for continued bank
    stabilization and shore line protection work.
        In closing, I must take a minute to reflect on the criticism being
    focused on the Corps of Engineers' study process utilized in reviewing
    projects. I must point out that the focus of the criticism primarily on
    the Upper Mississippi Navigation Study relies on activities taking
    place prior to the publication of a draft report. No one knows what
    that draft report would have contained had the process been allowed to
    continue. Even after a draft report is published, the current process
    allows thorough review of the report and the recommended plan by
    government agencies, private organizations and individuals throughout
    the project area and the Nation. All of the comments received by the
    Corps through that draft report must be addressed prior to a final
    report being made before construction of any project proceeds. Far more
    studies performed by the Corps of Engineers throughout the Nation fall
    by the wayside than results in actual construction taking place. We
    feel that the current process provides a thorough review and an
    adequate opportunity for proponents and opponents to review and express
    their thoughts.
        We are grateful to the Committee for providing us the opportunity
    each year to present our requests.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas

        My name is Jake Rice, III and my home is in Marion, Arkansas,
    located on the West side of the Mississippi River in the St. Francis
    River Basin. I am the Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District
    of Arkansas. Our District is the local cooperation organization for the
    Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis Basin
    Project in Northeast Arkansas. Our District is responsible for the
    operation and maintenance of 160 miles of Mississippi River Levee and
    75 miles of St. Francis River Tributary Levee in Northeast Arkansas.
        The St. Francis Basin is comprised of an area of approximately
    7,550 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 is bordered on the east
    by the Mississippi River and on the West by the uplands of Bloomfield
    and Crowley's Ridge, having a maximum width of 53 miles.
        The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and the St. Francis
    Basin Project provide critical flood protection to over 2,500 square
    miles in Northeast Arkansas alone. This basin's flood control system is
    the very lifeblood of our existence. Our resources and infrastructure
    are allowing the St. Francis Basin and the Lower Mississippi Valley to
    develop into a major commercial and industrial area for this great
    nation. The basin is quickly becoming a major steel and energy
    production area. The agriculture industry in Northeast Arkansas and the
    Lower Mississippi Valley continues to play an integral role in
    providing affordable food and clothing for this nation. This has all
    been made possible because Congress has long recognized that flood
    control in the Lower Mississippi Valley is a matter of national
    interest and has authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
    implement a flood control system in the Lower Mississippi Valley that
    is the envy of the civilized world. With the support of Congress over
    the years, we have continued to develop our flood control system in the
    Lower Mississippi Valley through the Mississippi River and Tributaries
    Project and for that we are extremely grateful.
        Although, at the current level of project completion, there are
    areas in the Lower Mississippi Valley that are subject to major
    flooding on the Mississippi River. The level of funding that has been
    included in the President's Budget for the overall Mississippi River
    and Tributaries Project is not sufficient to adequately fund and
    maintain this project. This level of funding will require the citizens
    of the Lower Mississippi Valley to live needlessly in the threat of
    major flood devastation for the next 30 years. Timely completion of
    this project is of paramount importance to the citizens of the Lower
    Mississippi Valley.
        Therefore, we support the amount of $395,000,000 requested by the
    Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association for use in the overall
    Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. 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 that have
    been included in the President's Budget for the St. Francis Basin
    Project; construction, operation and maintenance have not been
    sufficient to fund critical projects. These declined amounts have
    resulted in a significant backlog of work within the St. Francis Basin.
    Therefore, our District is requesting $4,502,000 for St. Francis Basin
    Project construction funds and $6,978,000 for St. Francis Basin
    operation and maintenance funds. The amounts requested for the St.
    Francis Basin Project are a part of the total amounts requested for the
    Mississippi River and Tributary Appropriations of the Civil Works
    Budget.
        As your subcommittee reviews the Civil Works Budget of fiscal year
    2002 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. As always, I feel the Subcommittee will give due regard
    to the needs of the Lower Mississippi River Valley as it considers
    appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. I
    would like to sincerely thank the Subcommittee for its' past and
    continued support of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
        Also, I would like to express our continued support for the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers and the fine water resource projects that they
    perform. However, we find the Corps under constant attack from a
    variety of organizations and special interest groups. A few members of
    Congress are even proposing to reform the Corps. In our opinion,
    leadership at the Corps is of the highest level of professional
    integrity, and the processes in place result in projects that are
    essential to the well being of this great nation. I can think of no
    other agency that provides such a vital service to the citizens of this
    country. The Corps of Engineers is the worlds' premiere engineering and
    construction agency. They have the expertise and technical ability to
    perform any task or solve any problem that this nation could possibly
    face. We depend on their services daily. I would like to respectfully
    request that you and your Subcommittee help us defend the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers from these unjustified attacks and accusations and
    to promote them as the fine agency that they are and have been for the
    past 225 years.
                                     ______

      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.
        First, we wish to 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.
        Your efforts are especially important today due to our nations
    growing dependence on others for energy and the need to protect and
    improve our environment. Greater use and development of one of our
    nation's treasures--our navigable inland waterways--will help remedy
    these problems. At the same time, these fuel-efficient and cost-
    effective waterways keep us competitive in international markets.
        As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, 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 Interstate Committee continues to identify
    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam as our top priority. This urgently needed
    project at the confluence of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
    Navigation System and the Mississippi River is vital to the five-state
    area and beyond. 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.
        Continuing problems caused by the lowering of the Mississippi River
    continue to plague McClellan-Kerr entrance channel users. 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.
        Use of the temporary by-pass channel increases navigation hazards
    and existing dredge disposal areas are virtually full. Ongoing dredging
    and disposal of material can mean environmental damage. Construction
    needs to continue as rapidly as possible before limited dredge disposal
    areas become inadequate.
        The good news is that you, your associates and the Congress have
    all recognized the importance of constructing Montgomery Point!
        The Corps of Engineers awarded a $186 million construction contract
    on July 19, 1997. Last year Congress appropriated $40 million to
    continue construction of the lock and dam. Work is progressing well and
    the project is 50 percent complete.
        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:
        $2,000,000 is needed to continue the most important Arkansas River
    Navigation Study, AR & OK. In addition to your past support, WRDA 2000
    directed the Corps to ``expedite completion of the Arkansas River
    Navigation Study, including the feasibility of increasing the
    authorized channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.''
        Approximately 95 percent of the lower Arkansas already enjoys a 12-
    foot or greater channel depth. A 12-foot channel can mean one-third or
    more cargo in each barge with resultant energy savings, reduction in
    greenhouse gases and other environmental advantages. Lock chambers on
    the McClellan-Kerr were built to accommodate a 12-foot channel.
        While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr,
    navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic high
    flows and channel restrictions result in decreased navigation traffic,
    as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of Fort Smith, Arkansas,
    and reduced recreational use.
        This study addresses the navigation System Operating Plan and
    navigable depths to improve navigation conditions on the river, as well
    as the performance of flood control measures and the impacts of high/
    low flows on environmental quality and recreation uses.
        The Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee urges the Committee
    to fund the Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program to the
    programmatic limit of $25 million, so that funds will be available to
    match the committed $2 million from the State of Colorado's Great
    Outdoors Colorado Trust Board. The Colorado funds are contingent upon
    receiving the Federal funds. These funds are for the Arkansas River
    Fisheries Restoration Project.
        Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Project--Wichita, Kansas.
    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. Almost one billion
    gallons of water have already been recharged. 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 $6,840,000 for fiscal year 2002.
        Again this year we 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.
        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.
                               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 2002 to continue
    construction and insure that this urgently needed lock and dam is in
    operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost.
        We also urge you to provide $2,000,000 for the most important
    Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK. This study addresses the
    Navigation System Operating Plan to improve navigation conditions
    during high flows on the river, as well as the performance of flood
    control measures, and the feasibility of increasing the authorized
    channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.
        Other projects are also vital to the environment, social and
    economic well-being of our region and the nation. We request your
    support and urge you to favorably consider the following:
      --Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
            Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr including an additional
            $800,000 to complete bank stabilization work on the right bank
            to stabilize the navigation channel in the vicinity of the
            Little Rock Port.
      --Continue construction authority for the McClellan-Kerr. It is
            vitally important that the Corps develop a permanent solution
            to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower reaches of the
            system and 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.
      --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).
      --Provide $7 million to initiate 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 $1,175,000 to complete 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 2002 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 2002
        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 of Morrilton, President of the Conway County
    Economic Development Corporation; and N. M. ``Buck'' Shell,
    transportation specialist of Fort Smith and Van Buren, Arkansas.
        2000 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 $40 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 placement of
    concrete 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.
        Montgomery Point Lock and Dam is a time sensitive project as
    economic growth along the entire McClellan-Kerr River is being deterred
    awaiting completion! As the Mississippi River 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.
        We are very grateful that you, your associates, the Congress, and
    the Administration have all recognized the urgency of constructing
    Montgomery Point. Appropriations of $156.2 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 2002 to continue construction.
    Adequate funding will insure that the urgently needed facility is in
    operation as soon as possible at the lowest possible cost. (This
    amount, and other dollar amounts requested herein, were obtained from
    the Corps in response to our questions about what could be efficiently
    expended for each project if directed to do so and funded by the
    Congress.)
        On another crucial matter, $2,000,000 is needed for the most
    important Arkansas River Navigation Study, AR & OK. We want to
    especially express thanks Mr. Chairman for the Committee's past
    support. In addition to your action, taking into account the need to
    realize the total economic potential of the McClellan-Kerr System, WRDA
    2000 directed the Corps to ``expedite completion of the Arkansas River
    Navigation Study, including the feasibility of increasing the
    authorized channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.''
        Approximately 95 percent of the lower Arkansas already enjoys a 12-
    foot or greater channel depth. A 12-foot channel can mean one-third or
    more cargo in each barge with resultant energy savings, reduction in
    greenhouse gases and other environmental advantages. Lock chambers on
    the McClellan-Kerr were built to accommodate a 12-foot channel.
        While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
    System, navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic
    high-water flows and channel restrictions result in decreased
    navigation traffic, as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of
    Fort Smith, Arkansas, and reduced recreational use.
        This study addresses the navigation System Operating Plan and
    navigable depths to improve navigation conditions on the river as well
    as the performance of flood control measures and the impacts of high/
    low flows on environmental quality and recreation uses.
        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:
      --Support continued funding for the construction, and Operation and
            Maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
            System including an additional $800,000 to complete bank
            stabilization work on the right bank to stabilize the
            navigation channel in the vicinity of the Little Rock Port.
      --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 in fiscal year 2002 to continue 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).
      --Provide $7 million to initiate 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.
            Having reliable power production facilities is vital to the
            economic well being of this region of the country.
      --Provide funding in the amount of $1,175,000 to complete 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. 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 2002 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, 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 Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
                                   (Colorado)

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we greatly appreciate
    the opportunity to present testimony before this committee. My name is
    Steve Arveschoug. I am General Manager of the Southeastern Colorado
    Water Conservancy District and serve as Colorado Chairman for the
    Interstate Committee.
        The City of Pueblo and 21 other project partners request that
    funding be committed in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
    Appropriations Bill for the Arkansas River Fisheries Restoration
    Project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are completing the final
    stages of the Ecological Restoration Report and Environmental Analysis
    for the project and have scheduled the plans and specification for
    construction to be completed between August 2001 and January 2002. The
    City of Pueblo has secured a funding commitment of $2 million from the
    State of Colorado is Great Outdoors Colorado Board that is contingent
    upon the Federal government committing Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
    Restoration funds to complete design and start construction in fiscal
    year 2002.
        Congress annually appropriates funds within the Energy and Water
    Appropriations Bill for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers general
    construction projects that includes funding for Section 206 Aquatic
    Ecosystem Restoration projects. The commitment of project funds within
    this appropriations bill is needed to have the Great Outdoors Colorado
    Trust Board enter into a contract with the City of Pueblo to commit
    their funds to the project.
        The City Council and the project partners thank you for your
    previous support for this project and request your continued support of
    legislation to provide funding in fiscal year 2002. This request is the
    top priority of the Pueblo City Council in the upcoming Federal budget.
    The City Council requests the following wording be included in the
    Energy and Water Appropriations Bill or other Appropriations Bills that
    would commit funding in fiscal year 2002 for the Arkansas River
    Fisheries Restoration Project:
        The Committee approves the expenditure of up to $1.75 million in
    fiscal year 2002 on the Arkansas River Corridor Legacy Project from the
    Section 206 provision of this bill. The Committee is particularly
    cognizant of the State of Colorado is designation of funds to comply
    with non-Federal cost-sharing requirements of Section 206, and the
    State's need for a Federal commitment to the project, which is
    currently ranked as a priority for the Corps.
        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 Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
                                    (Kansas)

                               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 2002 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. Almost one
            billion gallons of water have already been recharged. 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 $6,840,000 for fiscal year 2002.
      --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 2002.
        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 million for fiscal year 2002, the level needed by
            the Corps of Engineers.
      --Walnut River Basin, Kansas.--Feasibility study is needed to fully
            understand and recommended ecosystem restoration strategies to
            protect and extend the useful life of public water supply.
            Funding is requested in the minimum amount of $200,000.
      --Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--Follow-on flood control study to
            determine the most cost-effective solution to real estate
            inadequacies of Federal flood control easements around Grand
            Lake. Funding request in the amount of $1.7 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, including the metropolitan area of Wichita, 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.
      --National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP).--Funding at the
            level needed by the USGS for a vital national baseline network
            of stream gages needed to meet national interests.
        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 join with our colleagues from the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas
    and Colorado to form the multi-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, continued
    construction to completion of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam Project
    is essential 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 2002 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 has
    successfully recharged almost one billion gallons of water from the
    Little Arkansas River. The recharge project is also helping to protect
    the aquifer from on-going degradation caused by the migration of saline
    water.
        The demonstration project has confirmed earlier engineering models
    that the full scale aquifer storage and recovery 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.
    The project is also an essential environmental protection strategy,
    which 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 for the aquifer storage and recovery
    project calls for a multi-year construction program. Phase One is
    estimated to cost $17.1 million. Construction is planned to begin in
    early 2002. The total project involving the capture and recharge of
    more than 100 million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost
    $110 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. The aquifer storage
    and recovery project is a vital component of Wichita's comprehensive
    and integrated water supply strategy estimated to cost $350 million at
    completion.
        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 aquifer storage and recovery project in the amount of
    $6,840,000 for fiscal year 2002.
        heney 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. Lansat 7 imaging and
    digital elevation modeling have been employed to identify high priority
    areas. To date, over 1,900 environmental projects have been completed
    within the 543,000-acre watershed. This partnership must continue
    indefinitely to protect the reservoir and to extend the life of the
    Wichita regional water supply. The City of Wichita is providing funding
    for this critical, nationally acclaimed model nonpoint source pollution
    project. We request continued Federal funding in the amount of $125,000
    for fiscal year 2002. With funding from Section 319 of the Clean Water
    Act being phased out, we request another funding source 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. Major losses also took place in the Wichita
    metropolitan area. 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
            million for fiscal year 2002, 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 due to excessive deposits within the
            conservation pool. The flood pool remains above its design
            capacity. Funding provided in fiscal year 2001 should be
            sufficient for the Corps of Engineers to complete a study which
            will ascertain the equitable distribution of sediment storage
            between conservation and flood control storages and also
            evaluate the environmental impact of the appropriate
            reallocation. No additional funding is requested in fiscal year
            2002. However, funding may be requested in fiscal year 2003.
      --Walnut River Basin, Kansas.--The concern for the protection and
            restoration of wetland and riparian areas has increased in
            response to greater public understanding of ecological and
            economic value. Riparian corridor and wetland preservation and
            protection practices are increasingly more important as
            corrective measures for nonpoint source pollution thereby
            extending the useful life of public water supply lakes in the
            basin. An initial Corps reconnaissance report has been
            certified yet a feasibility study is needed to fully understand
            and recommend solutions to ecosystem restoration. Funding is
            requested in the minimum amount of $200,000 for fiscal year
            2002.
      --Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--A need exists to complete evaluation
            of 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. We request funding in the amount of $1.7 million
            in fiscal year 2002.
      --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 needed to improve the
            quality of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the basin and
            to assist communities, landowners, and other interests in
            southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma in the
            development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages.
            The study could also address the land losses due to streambank
            erosion which the basin experiences on an annual basis and
            which contributes to the degradation of the habitat in the
            basin. We request funding in the amount of $100,000 in fiscal
            year 2002 to conduct the study.
      --Continuing Authorities Programs.--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 (Pittsburgh, McPherson and Medicine Lodge) have
            previously requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers
            under these programs. Section 205 Feasibility studies are
            underway to address flooding problems in Wichita, Augusta and
            Coffeyville. We urge you to support these programs to the $50
            million programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects
            Program and $15 million for the Emergency Streambank
            Stabilization Program.
        The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides Federal
    funding to assist the states in water resource planning. The state of
    Kansas is grateful for previous funding under this program which has
    assisted small Kansas communities in cost sharing needed resource
    planning as called for and approved in the Kansas State Water Plan. We
    request continued funding of this program at the level which will allow
    the state of Kansas to receive the $500,000 limit.
        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. Preliminary
    Restoration Plan studies are underway at Newton, Garden City and Neosho
    County. 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.
      --National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP).--For more than 100
            years, the USGS has operated a multipurpose streamgaging
            network supported primarily by other Federal, State and Local
            agencies. Streamflow data from those stations is used for
            planning and decisions related to agriculture, industry, urban
            water supplies, riverine and riparian habitat, navigation and
            flood hazard verification. The loss of about 22 percent of the
            streamgaging stations since 1971 has resulted in a commensurate
            loss in valuable streamflow information. In 1998, the USGS
            completed a study on the ability of the streamgaging network to
            meet Federal needs. A NSIP program was recommended to produce
            information for multiple current and future uses. We recommend
            funding the NSIP program to cover the entire cost of a baseline
            network of stream gages needed to meet national interests in
            order to ensure the long-term stability of this vital network.
        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 Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee
                                   (Oklahoma)

                               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. WRDA 2000 also directs the Corps of Engineers to expedite the
    study including the feasibility of increasing the authorized channel
    depth from 9' to 12'. We request funding in the amount of $2 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, $1.7 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, $50 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 appreciate 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 have been seriously impacted by
    droughts in the past, and last 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 2002 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
    have 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 hopeful 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, and for the
    Cimarron River Basin in Kansas and Oklahoma.
        Arkansas River System Operations Feasibility Study, Arkansas and
    Oklahoma.--We are requesting funds to continue the Arkansas River
    Navigation Study, a feasibility study which is examining opportunities
    to optimize the Arkansas River system. We want to express our
    appreciation for the Committee's past support for this important study.
    In addition to your action, taking into account the need to realize the
    total economic potential of the McClellan-Kerr System, WRDA 2000
    directed the Corps of Engineers to ``expedite completion of the
    Arkansas River Navigation Study, including the feasibility of
    increasing the authorized channel depth from 9 feet to 12 feet.''
        Lock chambers on the McClellan-Kerr were built to accommodate a 12
    foot channel. Approximately 95 percent of the lower Arkansas already
    enjoys a 12 foot or greater channel depth. A 12 foot channel can mean
    one-third or more cargo in each barge with resultant energy savings,
    reduction in greenhouse gases and other environmental advantages.
        While navigation is the primary purpose of the McClellan-Kerr
    System, navigation needs and flood control are closely related. Chronic
    high-water flows and channel restrictions result in decreased
    navigation traffic, as well as continued flooding in the vicinity of
    Fort Smith, Arkansas, and reduced recreational use.
        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 wind through the states of Oklahoma and
    Arkansas. This study would optimize the operation of 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 navigation.
        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 $2 million, which is the amount the Corps can
    efficiently spend in fiscal year 2002 should the Congress approve and
    appropriate the funds.
        Illinois River Watershed Reconnaissance Study.--The Tulsa District
    has the capability to utilize $100,000 to conduct a reconnaissance
    study of the water resource problems of the Illinois River Basin in
    fiscal year 2002. 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 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. We are requesting funding in the
    amount of $100,000 for this study.
        Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.--The Tulsa District has
    the capability to utilize $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 to improve the quality of the
    aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the basin and to assist communities,
    landowners, and other interests in southeastern Kansas and northeastern
    Oklahoma and in the development of structural and non-structural
    measures to reduce flood damages. The study could also address the land
    losses due to streambank erosion which the basin experiences on an
    annual basis and which contributes to the degradation of the habitat in
    the basin. We therefore request funding in the amount of $100,000 in
    fiscal year 2002 to conduct the study.
        Grand Lake Feasibility Study.--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. The Tulsa
    District has capability to utilize and this committee strongly urges
    the Congress to appropriate $1.7 million for this study in fiscal year
    2002.
        Lake Tenkiller Reallocation Study.--The Tulsa District can execute
    this study in fiscal year 2002 if funding in the amount of $500,000 is
    appropriated 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.--Tulsa District can utilize
    $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
    therefore urge this Committee to provide funding in the amount of
    $515,000 to move this study forward.
        Continuing Authorities Program.--We also 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, McPherson, 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 $50 million
    programmatic limit for the Small Flood Control Projects Program and $15
    million for the Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program.
        Ecosystem Restoration Programs.--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 the $25 million programmatic limits.
        Challenge 21 Program.--The Challenge 21 Program has the possibility
    of providing great assistance to communities which have experienced
    disastrous flood events like those that took place in Kansas with the
    flood of 1998. The Challenge 21 Program will focus on opportunities to
    move homes and businesses from harm's way through structural and non-
    structural measures and through comprehensive watershed planning
    efforts. We support funding of this important initiative.
        Planning Assistance to States.--We also support the full funding of
    the Planning Assistance to States (PAS) Program to the full
    programmatic amount of $10 million. The PAS program (Section 22 of the
    1974 Water Resources Development Act) 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.
        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 that there be no new starts undertaken so
    funds will be available to complete projects already underway, may only
    delay those much needed projects until there are serious safety
    concerns or, worse yet, complete failure of some existing
    infrastructure. While this strategy may look good on paper, it may
    actually cause more expense in the long run if/when there is a major
    failure of significant infrastructure. We encourage the Congress to
    appropriate sufficient construction funds to spend down the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund. We further urge the Congress to continue to fund
    construction and major rehabilitation at a level to keep the fund spent
    down in the future. We would respectfully remind the Congress that cost
    sharing was your idea and as the industry has stepped up to meet that
    challenge the Congress seems to be backing away from it's
    responsibility of matching much needed funds. Moving the completion
    dates out is an unacceptable exercise since 50 percent of the funds
    comes 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' appropriation to $5 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.
        As an example of deferred maintenance in the Tulsa District we
    offer the following for your consideration. The 10 most critical,
    deferred items in the district are: Waurika Project Office, replace
    inflatable fabric dam (chloride control project) $340,000; Robert S.
    Kerr Project Office (navigation), repair downstream weir and tainter
    gate, Lock and Dam 14, $290,000; Canton Project Office, repair tainter
    gates, replace chains w/cables and seals, $3,540,000; Texoma Project
    Office, replace service gate roller chains, $540,000; Fall River
    Project Office, repair stilling basin, $355.000; Fall River Project
    Office, repair Elk City stilling basin, $200,000; Eufaula Project
    Office, rehabilitate area office roof, heating, ventilation and air
    conditioning, and electric, $415,000; Fall River Project Office, repair
    sluice gates and liners, $320,000; Fall River Project Office, repair
    sluice gates and liners, $305,000; Fort Gibson Project Office, repair
    roller chains emergency closure gate,$200,000. This brings the total
    just for these 10 most needed, deferred projects to $6,505,000.
        An example of the 10 most critical deferred projects on the
    McClellan-Kerr Navigation System in Oklahoma are (all are Robert S.
    Kerr Project Office): the second item above, which is number 2 in the
    District; repair tainter gates at Chouteau Lock & Dam (number 11 in the
    District), $685,000; streambank stabilization at Marine Terminal and
    downstream dike repair (number 29 in the District), $470,000; construct
    navigation signs (number 30 in the District), $685.000; retrofit ss
    switchgear with solid state trip units (number 33 in the District),
    $100,000; refurbish governors (number 35 in the District), $800,000;
    replace acb's with vacuum units, (number 59 in the District), $475.000;
    replace bridge bearing pad Lock and Dam 17 (number 64 in the District),
    $270,000; repair support cells, Lock 15 us/rw (number 71 in the
    District), $415,000; miscellaneous repairs to miter gates Lock & Dam 15
    (number 75 in the District), $200,000. This brings the total for the 10
    most critical navigation maintenance projects to $4,390,000.
        Within the Tulsa District there are a total of 331 deferred
    maintenance projects, for a total deferred cost of $114,191,000. We
    would respectfully remind this Committee that this is only one district
    of the Corps of Engineers. The total deferred operation and maintenance
    for the Corps of Engineers is $450,000,000. This is a ``scrubbed list''
    that contains only the most critical deferred projects. Delayed
    preventive maintenance is risky business at best. One failure of a
    major structure could have catastrophic consequences in loss of
    services, infrastructure and possibly life.
        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. This Interstate Committee would recommend that funding be
    withheld for this program until reforms are enacted and the bill
    reauthorized.
        Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on
    these subjects.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo
                               Mississippi Delta

        This statement, made today on behalf of the citizens represented by
    the Yazoo Mississippi Delta Levee Board, is not only in support of the
    funding request contained herein, but also for the general funding
    testimony for fiscal year 2002 as submitted by the Mississippi Valley
    Flood Control Association. The Association is requesting funding in the
    amount of $395 million for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
    Project (MR&T), a figure based on the Association's professional
    assessment of the capabilities of the Corps of Engineers, Mississippi
    Valley Division.
        In the aftermath of the devastating 1927 Mississippi River Flood,
    the Flood Control Act of 1928 established a national priority on the
    development of a comprehensive flood control plan to reduce the
    likelihood of such a devastating event happening again in the lower
    Mississippi valley. As we look back today, some 73 years later, that
    plan, the MR&T, has returned $23 in benefits for each dollar expended
    and represents a true American public works success story.
        Unfortunately, a substantial amount of uncompleted work on the
    project remains, necessarily exposing many areas to the risks of flood.
    Consequently, the YMD Levee Board urges Congress to provide funding at
    a level which will allow the MR&T to continue at a pace commensurate
    with the national priority to protect people and property from the
    ravages of flooding. To avoid potentially hazardous work stoppages and
    delays in award of needed new projects; we again must depend upon the
    men and women of Congress to add the necessary funding to the
    Administration's budget, which will allow the Corps of Engineers to
    proceed with their work, at full capacity.
        What follows is a brief overview of the projects within our
    district with merit special mention:
               mississippi river levees and channels maintenance
        Within our Levee District, the U.S. Army Memphis Engineer District
    is continuing its studies and design efforts to address the problems of
    significant under-seepage and bolls which occur during high river
    stages at the Hillhouse area in Coahoma County, Miss. We urgently hope
    that a solution for this potentially levee threatening situation can be
    devised in the months ahead.
                           upper yazoo projects (uyp)
        This plan, originally released in 1936, includes a system of flood
    control reservoirs that would discharge into a system of channels and
    levees, which could safely convey headwater from the hills to the Miss.
    River. While considerable construction progress has been made on the
    UYP, the YMD Levee Board is requesting assistance from Congress to
    secure supplemental funding for fiscal year 2002 so that ongoing
    construction and contract awards can proceed beyond the city of
    Greenwood.
                    yazoo headwater flood control reservoirs
        Four major flood control reservoirs exist in Mississippi to control
    the release of headwater into the Yazoo River system--Arkabutla,
    Sardis, Enid and Grenada reservoirs. These have prevented significant
    flood damages by allowing drainage from the hills to be released into
    the Delta at the proper rate. The proper maintenance and operation of
    these reservoirs is critical to all persons residing downstream and
    hence, the YMD Levee Board is requesting funding which will allow the
    Corps to make necessary operational repairs and improvements.
                  sunflower river channel maintenance project
        The Sunflower River System, the primary drainage outlet for 10
    counties, is subject to the same siltation factors as all Delta
    streams, and has been determined by the Corps to have a 40 percent
    reduced flow capacity. Following the completion of studies, the first
    item of work on the project has been completed and right-of-way
    acquisition is being completed for the disposal sites on the second
    item of work. Additional funding is critically needed for the second
    construction contract and additional right-of-way acquisition below the
    Holly Bluff area and we join our sister Mississippi Levee Board in
    urging Congress to provide these badly needed additional funds.
                  demonstration erosion control project (dec)
        While these measures to control erosion and sedimentation in
    streams are primarily located outside our district, we support the
    continued funding of the DEC due to the substantial amounts of the
    sediments controlled by these projects would eventually end up within
    the Coldwater-Tallahatchie-Yazoo River System. Such sedimentation would
    necessarily result in significant additional maintenance on the system
    to prevent loss of system capacity.
                            yazoo tributaries study
        The last phase of the MR&T project in the Yazoo Basin, this study
    will identify work necessary for proper drainage and flood control on
    the major tributaries in the Yazoo River System. We urge adequate
    funding for the timely completion of this study so that construction
    improvements might begin as the UYP progresses upstream.
                                yazoo backwater
        The Yazoo Backwater Project, under the jurisdiction of the
    Mississippi Levee Board, is designed to reduce the effects of backwater
    flooding incidents in the South Delta and is very important to the
    people of that region. Consequently, we support the position of our
    sister Levee Board in requesting additional funding so that this
    project might proceed in a timely manner.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Los Osos Community Services District

        Honorable Subcommittee Members: The Los Osos Community Services
    District (LOCSD) respectfully submits this testimony in support of
    Representative Lois Capps' Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
    request to appropriate $7.8 million in Federal fiscal year 01-02 to pay
    for design of the Los Osos Wastewater Project, Los Osos, California.
    WRDA Design funding for the Los Osos Wastewater Project was authorized
    in Section 219(a)27 of HR4577 of 2000.
        The Los Osos Community Services District serves a population of
    14,600 people within a 3,500-acre territory adjacent to the Morro Bay
    National Estuary in San Luis Obispo County. The regulatory agency
    responsible for protecting ground water quality for Los Osos, the
    Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), has
    determined that discharge from private septic systems is the principle
    source of nitrate contamination of the shallow portion of the Los Osos
    Groundwater Basin. The RWQCB has issued twenty four separate Cease and
    Desist Orders and a Time Schedule Order requiring LOCSD to replace the
    septic systems in a 2,500 acre ``Zone of Prohibition'' with a community
    sewer. The RWQCB has also ordered a moratorium on new construction and
    intensification of existing uses within the Zone of Prohibition.
        In addition to the outstanding RWQCB orders, The Morro Bay National
    Estuary Program (MBNEP) has determined that construction of a Los Osos
    Community Sewer is a high priority for protecting the Morro Bay
    National Estuary. In EPA's approved plan for protecting Morro Bay,
    ``Turning the Tide for Morro Bay'', the MBNEP states that, ``Another
    important source of nutrients to Morro Bay is generated from leaking
    and failing septic tanks in Los Osos. The Community of Los Osos/Baywood
    Park, with a population of 14,600, is located directly on the edge of
    Morro Bay and is still served by onsite septic systems. It is possible
    that some of the degraded groundwater is entering the bay--A wastewater
    system needs to be developed, funds need to be obtained, incentives
    need to be developed, and education activities need to be undertaken to
    resolve this long term problem.''
        The Health Officer for the County of San Luis Obispo has issued
    health warnings regarding the high level of bacteria and pathogens in
    surface water. According to Dr. Richard Lichtenfels of County Health,
    ``the Department agrees that the standing pools do represent a health
    threat. Until a public sewer and comprehensive surface water drainage
    system is built, this office will continue to monitor the standing
    pools and appraise the community of the potential for disease
    transmission.''
        Finally, nitrate contamination of the shallow groundwater basin
    from septic discharge has forced the three Los Osos water purveyors to
    abandon production from the unconfined layer and to substitute
    groundwater from the lower confined aquifer. As a result the community
    has started to experience salt-water intrusion in portions of the deep
    groundwater layer.
        To address these problems, LOCSD has selected a community
    wastewater system that the RWQCB has described as viable and
    technically sound. Following is a summary of the collection, treatment,
    and disposal components of the proposed system:
        Collection System.--A gravity collection system would be designed
    to transport raw wastewater from approximately 4750 sites to the
    treatment facility in 204,000 linear feet of PVC pipe with ten lift
    stations in low spots around the perimeter of the collected area.
        Treatment Facility.--A treatment facility at the TriW site would be
    designed to produce tertiary treated wastewater with a quality suitable
    for public contact (Ca. Health Code Title 22) using the extended
    aeration process followed by filtration and ultra violet light
    disinfection. Since the proposed site is downtown, the proposed
    treatment facility would be covered and odor-scrubbed to avoid use
    conflicts. As a side benefit, the surface of the covered portion of the
    facility would be used for an off-leash dog park, sports fields and
    trails.
        Disposal System.--The disposal system would be designed to recharge
    the groundwater basin with the low nitrate level tertiary treated
    wastewater using subsurface leachfields in areas with adequate
    separation to groundwater on both sides of the Los Osos fault trace.
    This disposed tertiary water is recharged into the groundwater table so
    that the District can harvest additional well water down gradient to
    augment the community's sustainable water supply.
        LOCSD has performed the environmental review required by the State
    of California and has certified a Final Environmental Impact Report on
    this proposed project. In the environmental review process, LOCSD has
    coordinated with both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USF&WS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
    LOCSD has submitted formal consultation requests with USF&WS and USEPA
    for mitigation of Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Mitigation and
    for preparation of a watershed wide all species Habitat Conservation
    Plan. LOCSD expects the USF&WS to issue a positive biological opinion
    on LOCSD's proposed project this fall.
        LOCSD has also prepared a preliminary design engineering report to
    evaluate alternative solutions and to provide cost estimates for the
    proposed solution. LOCSD adopted the Los Osos Wastewater Facilities
    Project Report on March 15, 2001. The Project Report estimates that the
    proposed project will cost $84.6 Million for the project described
    above including all design, construction, land acquisition and habitat
    mitigation. Without grant funding, the proposed project would cost the
    average single family property owner approximately $107 per month
    including approximately $80 per month in debt service charges and $27
    per month in operating user fees. This monthly cost is over five times
    the cost paid by the average wastewater customer in California
    according to the State Water Resources Control Board.
        According to the 1990 U.S. Census, over a third of Los Osos
    residents are classified as low to very low income. LOCSD is concerned
    that construction of the project without significant grant funding
    would displace these residents and dramatically change the social
    fabric of our community. If Federal funding is available to pay for 75
    percent of the project capital cost ($64,000,000), the average monthly
    cost per residence drops from $107 per month to approximately $45 per
    month per residence. Although the $45 per month is still twice the
    average cost paid by residences in other parts of California, it would
    likely displace fewer residents and cause less hardship.
        LOCSD believes that its proposed project warrants Federal
    participation because it addresses a Federal problem in regards to
    preservation of the Morro Bay National Estuary. As documented earlier,
    the EPA approved recovery plan for Morro Bay identifies LOCSD's project
    as a ``priority action'' for preserving the National Estuary. In
    addition, the District believes that this project should be viewed as a
    Federal demonstration project for how other communities can address
    water supply concerns at the same time they respond to Federal water
    quality mandates and how communities can locate a treatment facility in
    a downtown area by taking advantage of innovative technology such as
    odor-scrubbing. Additionally, the downtown location results in energy
    savings as compared to pumping the raw waste to and from a site at the
    perimeter of town.
        LOCSD respectfully requests that the Subcommittee approve the
    funding request submitted by Representative Lois Capps for this
    project.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Santa Cruz Port District

    For Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of the Arana Gulch
            Watershed which adversely affects the Navigation of Santa Cruz
            Harbor--$100,000
        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 fifteen
    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
    Niho 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
    2002.
    For Corps of Engineers Reconnaissance study of memorandum of agreement
            on Dredging between Santa Cruz Port District and Corps of
            Engineers as authorized by 1998 Water Resources Development
            Act, Section 526--$100,000
        In 1986, the United States Congress and the Santa Cruz Port
    District signed a Memorandum of Agreement (joint-venture L.C.A.) on the
    acquisition of a sand bypass system for Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor.
    This $2.7 million agreement, authorized under WRDA 1984, provided that,
    once in place, the system would be operated and maintained by the Port
    District.
        The bypass project has been extraordinarily successful. The harbor,
    once the scene of long closures and countless accidents because of
    shoals and breaking surf, is now 100 percent open to navigation all
    year round. The federal government no longer has to appropriate yearly
    O&M funds as it did from 1964 to 1986. The savings over the past ten
    years is estimated at $9+ million. The savings over the life of the
    project (2014) is estimated to be well in excess of $28 million in 1986
    dollars.
        The Port District is quite satisfied with the operational project
    and will carry out its responsibilities through 2014. However, an
    inequity exists in the original cost-share formula, which the Port
    District asked Congress to redress. Congress responded by including
    Section 526 in the Water Resources Development Act of 1998:

    ``SECTION 526. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

        The Secretary may--
                (1) modify the cooperative agreement with the Santa Cruz
            Port District, California, to reflect unanticipated additional
            dredging effort, and
                (2) extend the agreement for 10 years.''

        The San Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
    advised that in order to study the equities the 1986 Memorandum of
    Agreement. A reconnaissance study should be performed.
        Accordingly, the Port District requests a $100,000 appropriation
    for such study.
        The benefit to the federal government in this redress of past
    inequities is that the Port District is willing to extend the
    successful joint-venture from its current termination date of 2014, to
    2024.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the NAPA County Flood Control and Water
                             Conservation District

                                   background
        The Napa River is the main waterway into which all tributaries on
    the Napa Valley flow. The river reaches its highest flow and the main
    point of concentration of storm water in the heart of the downtown city
    of Napa. The original town of Napa was established at the head of the
    navigable Napa River channel in 1848 as its only port for
    transportation and commerce until the railroad extended from Benicia to
    Napa in 1902.
        The project is located in the city and county of Napa, California.
    The population in the city of Napa, approximately, 67,000 in 1994, is
    expected to exceed 77,000 this year. Excluding public facilities, the
    present value of damageable property within the project flood plain is
    well over $500 million. The Napa River Basin, comprising 426 square
    miles, ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain, is subject to
    severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reaches of the
    river, flood conditions are aggravated by high tides and local runoff.
    Floods in the Napa area have occurred in 1955, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1986
    (flood of record), 1995, and 1997. In 1998, the river rose just above
    flood stage on three occasions, but subsided before major property
    damage occurred.
        Over the years, the community has expressed a strong desire for
    increased flood management. Since 1962, twenty-seven major floods have
    struck the Valley region, exacting a heavy toll in loss of life and
    property. The flood on 1986, for example, killed three people and
    caused more than $100 million in damage. The town of Napa is
    particularly vulnerable to floods: during a typical 100-year flood,
    more than 325,000 gallons of water flow through the downtown river area
    per second, with the potential of inundating 2 million square feet of
    businesses and offices and nearly 3,000 homes.
        Flood damage in downtown Napa has recurred in January 1993, January
    and March 1995, January 1997, and February 1998, resulting in disaster
    declarations and Damage Survey Reports filed with FEMA, reaffirming the
    urgent need to implement the cost-effective project. In March 1995 and
    January of 1997, additional flood disasters occurred.
        Damages throughout Napa County totaled about $85 million from the
    January and March 1995 floods. The floods resulted in 27 businesses and
    843 residences damaged countrywide. Almost all of the damages from the
    1986, 1995, and 1997 floods were within the project area.
        Locally developed flood measures currently in place provide minimal
    protection and include levees, floodwalls, pump stations, upstream
    reservoirs, restrictive flood plain management ordinances, and
    designated flood evacuation zones. Vast areas of flood plain are
    restricted to agricultural and open space uses, precluding development
    that would be damaged by flooding. These local measures still leave
    most of the city of Napa vulnerable to frequent damaging floods.
    Congress has authorized a flood control project since 1944, but due to
    expense, lack of public consensus on the design and concern about
    environment impacts, a project had never been realized. The most recent
    Corps of Engineers project plan consisted of a deepening and
    channelization project. In mid-1995, Federal and state resource
    agencies reviewed the plan and gave notice to the Corps that this plan
    had significant regulatory hurdles to face.
                        approved plan--project overview
        In an effort to identify a meaningful and successful plan, a new
    approach emerged that looked at flood control from a broader, more
    comprehensive perspective. Citizens for Napa River Flood Management was
    formed, bringing together a diverse group of local engineers,
    architects, aquatic ecologists, business and agricultural leasers,
    environmentalists, government officials, homeowners and renters and
    numerous community organizations.
        Through a series of public meetings and intensive debate over every
    aspect of Napa's flooding problems, the Citizens for Napa River Flood
    Management crafted a flood management plan offering a range of benefits
    for the entire Napa region. The Corps of Engineers served as a partner
    and a resource for the group, helping to evaluate their approach to
    flood management. The final plan produced by the Citizens for Napa
    River Flood Management was successfully evaluated through the research,
    experience and state-of-the-art simulation tools developed by the Corps
    and numerous international experts in the field of hydrology and other
    related disciplines. The success of this collaboration serves as a
    model for the nation.
        Acknowledging the river's natural state, the project utilizes a set
    of living river strategies that minimize the disruption and alteration
    of the river habitat, and maximizes the opportunities for environmental
    restoration and enhancement throughout the watershed. This strategy
    replaces the former project and now entails flood plain acquisition and
    restoration of a geomorphically stable river channel, replacement of
    bridges and environmentally sensitive stream bank treatment in the
    urban reaches of the city of Napa.
        The Corps has developed the revised plan, which provides 100-year
    protection, with the assistance of the community and its consultants
    into the Supplemental General Design Memorandum (SGDM) and its
    accompanying draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
    Report (SEIS/EIR). These reports were released for public comment in
    December of 1997 and underwent final review by Corps Headquarters.
    Construction of the project began last summer. The coalition plan now
    memorialized in the Corps final documents includes the following
    engineered components: lowering of old dikes, marsh plain and flood
    plain terraces, oxbow dry bypass, Napa Creek flood plain terrace,
    upstream and downstream dry culverts along Napa Creek, new dikes,
    levees and flood walls, bank stabilization, pump stations and detention
    facilities, and bridge replacements. The benefits of the plan include
    reducing or elimination of loss of life, property damage, cleanup
    costs, community disruption due to unemployment and lost business
    revenue, and the need for flood insurance. The plan will protect access
    to businesses, public services, and create opportunities for recreation
    and downtown development, boosting year-round tourism. In fact, the
    project has created an economic renaissance in Napa with new
    investment, schools and housing coming into a livable community on a
    living river. As a key feature, the plan will improve water quality,
    create urban wetlands and enhance wildlife habitats.
        The plan will protect over 7,000 people and over 3,000 residential/
    commercial units from the 100-year flood event on the Napa River and
    its main tributary, the Napa Creek, and the project has a positive
    benefit-to-cost ratio under the Corps calculation. One billion in
    damages will be saved over the useful life of the project. The Napa
    County Flood Control District is meeting its local cost-sharing
    responsibilities for the project. A countywide sales tax, along with a
    number of other funding options, was approved three years ago by a two-
    thirds majority of the county's voters for the local share. Napa is
    California's highest repetitive loss community. This plan is
    demonstrative of the disaster resistant community initiative, as well,
    as the sustainable development initiatives of FEMA and EPA.
                                project synopsis
        Fiscal year 2001 Funding.--The 2001 appropriations bill included
    $4,000,000 to continue construction of the project. These funds were
    utilized to create 450 acres of marsh and flood plain terraces in the
    most southern reach of the project.
        Necessary fiscal year 2002 Funding.--Funding for the Napa River
    Project during 2002 in the amount of $12,000,000 is needed to continue
    construction of the project. The funding is sought for demolition of
    buildings and fixtures on 24 parcels that have been acquired by the
    non-Federal sponsor, relocation of the Napa Valley Wine Train rail line
    for an approximate 3 mile distance, as well as relocation of the
    attenuate buildings serving this public utility, construction of marsh
    and flood plain terraces for an approximate 3 mile distance. Included
    in this amount is the reimbursement to the non-Federal sponsor for
    expenditures in excess of 45 percent of the total project costs to
    date. By the end of June, 2001 the non-Federal sponsor will have
    expended $42,000,000.00.
                        napa valley watershed management
                                   background
        Napa Valley watershed faces many challenges and stresses to its
    environmental health and flood management abilities. From a healthy
    river point of view, the Napa River has been on a recovery path since
    its low point in the 1960's, when the last of the native salmon were
    taken from the system by severe water pollution and habitat
    destruction. Steelhead trout have survived as a remnant population of
    two hundred that is presently in need of higher quality and more
    extensive spawning areas for recovery to a significant population.
    Beginning populations of fall run Chinook salmon have taken up
    residence in the watershed in those few areas available for spawning.
    While the chemical and wastewater pollution of earlier years has been
    effectively dealt with, excess sediment is still a critical stress on
    the salmon population, as it is to the spawning and rearing areas of
    the river in the estuarine zone upstream of San Pablo Bay, populated by
    delta smelt, splittail, green sturgeon and striped bass.
        The U.S. EPA and Region II Water Quality Control Board have
    prioritized the River as an impaired water body because of the sediment
    production. The excess sediment generated in the watershed suffocates
    spawning areas, reduces the stream's flood-carrying ability, fills deep
    pools, increases turbidity in the stream and estuary, carries with it
    nutrients that bring significant algae blooms during the summer and
    fall, and changes the morphological balance of the streams and river
    toward more unstable conditions.
        Over time, both private and public diversions and levees have been
    constructed in a chaotic way. The accumulated encroachment has
    constrained the river and its riparian corridor to approximately one
    third of its optimum morphological width for much of its length. The
    Napa Valley has also been extensively drained in the last century,
    eliminating nearly all of the sloughs and extensive wetlands that once
    covered the valley floor. Combined with increasing agricultural and
    urban development, the narrowed channel and loss of wetlands has
    greatly changed the river and its major tributaries, limiting its flood
    management capabilities. The river now regularly scours extensively on
    both bed and banks generating large amounts of sediment that settle in
    the lower river and estuary, only to be stirred and moved by the tides
    during the dry season. Loss of tidal wetlands in the lower river due to
    70 years of dike construction has resulted in a much smaller area to
    disperse sediment, exacerbating losses in all types of riverine and
    estuarine-related complex habitats in the system.
        In an effort to address these conditions and to develop local tools
    for improving natural resource management, the Corps and the Napa
    County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is currently
    developing a Napa Valley Watershed Management Plan (WMP) which would
    identify problems and opportunities for implementing environmentally
    and economically beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley watershed
    providing ecosystem benefits, such as flood reduction, erosion control,
    sedimentation management, and pollution abatement. The plan, which is
    the feasibility study the District is requesting funds for, would
    include the identification, review, refinement, and prioritization of
    restoration and flood protection opportunities with an emphasis on
    restoration of the watershed's ecosystem (e.g.: important plant
    communities, healthy fish and wildlife populations, rare and endangered
    habitats and species and wildlife and riparian habitats). The
    development of the plan would be an iterative process, providing
    technical planning, and design assistance to local entities to foster
    restoration of watershed ecosystem.
        The purpose would be to complete the WMP by providing technical,
    planning, and design assistance to the non-Federal interests for
    carrying out watershed management, restoration and development on the
    Napa River and its tributaries from Soscol Ridge, located approximately
    5 miles south of the city of Napa, to Mt. St. Helena, the northern most
    reach of the Napa River watershed, California. The watershed plan would
    look at the upper Napa Valley watershed including Napa, Yountville, St.
    Helena, Calistoga, and the unincorporated areas of Napa County north of
    Soscol Ridge. A management program incorporating flood protection and
    environmental restoration would be developed as a result of the
    watershed plan.
        To address the above mentioned and other local, regional, and
    national watershed concerns, the Napa County Board of Supervisors
    appointed a Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF) to identify
    community based and supported solutions. The WTF submitted their
    recommendation for further action to the Napa County Board of
    Supervisors. Preliminary watershed analysis is being completed with an
    understanding that additional scientific and technical decisions and
    solutions would be incorporated into the Napa Valley watershed plan.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District (Corps)
    and the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
    (NCFCD) developed the Napa Valley Watershed Project Management Plan
    with input from the Napa County Planning Department (NCPD), Napa County
    Up-Valley Cities, Napa County Watershed Task Force (WTF), Napa County
    Resource Conservation District (RCD), Regional Water Quality Control
    Board (RWQCB), the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), and other
    regional and local stakeholders. Coordination of a local and regional
    restoration programs would be critical in the planning process to
    provide a watershed management plan that identifies the best management
    practices for the watershed and supports potential spin off projects to
    be implemented independently of the WMP. The regional monitoring and
    assessment strategy being developed by regional interests would be a
    component in the development of the feasibility report. The monitoring
    and assessment strategy incorporates different indicators,
    classifications, and potential pilot projects to provide benchmarks for
    future restoration activities.
        In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for
    implementing beneficial restoration in the Napa Valley Watershed, the
    Napa County Flood Control District is seeking that the Napa Valley
    Watershed Management Study be continued by the Corps of Engineers. The
    authority for this study is the Northern California Streams Study
    Authority stemming from the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, Public Law
    87-874. Specifically, the Napa County Flood Control District is working
    closely with the Corps in the feasibility report in examining the
    watershed management needs, including flood control, environmental
    restoration, erosion control, storm water retention, storm water runoff
    management, water conservation and supply, wetlands restoration,
    sediment management and pollution abatement in the Napa Valley,
    including the communities of Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, Calistoga
    and the incorporated areas of Napa County.
                                project synopsis
        Fiscal year 2001 Budget Funding.--The fiscal year 2001
    appropriations bill included $50,000 to continue the Napa Valley
    Watershed Management Study.
        Necessary fiscal year 2002 Funding.--Funding for the Napa Valley
    Watershed Management Study during fiscal year 2002 in the amount of
    $600,000 is needed to have the Corps of Engineers continue the
    feasibility study to examine watershed management needs.
             milliken-sarco-tulocay creeks groundwater basin study
                                   background
        The groundwater basin underlying the unincorporated area east of
    the City of Napa is in overdraft. This area is referred to as the
    Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay groundwater basin, or MST. The Board of
    Supervisors enacted a Groundwater Conservation Ordinance in an effort
    to limit all new and permitted users in the MST area to a very
    restrictive amount of groundwater until such time as a recharge project
    can be implemented to reverse the declining water table. The Napa
    County Flood Control District also took action by contracting with the
    United States Geological Survey (USGS) to perform an update to their
    1977 study of the MST groundwater basin. This study will determine the
    extent of the problem, the recharge characteristics, the inter-basin
    communication capabilities, the solutions that are likely to succeed
    and the groundwater budget for the area. The three year USGS study has
    been underway for a year and early results confirm that the groundwater
    basin is in decline and is in need of serious recharge efforts.
        There is a sense of urgency in establishing a recharge program to
    address this decline in water inventory available to the residents and
    businesses within the basin. A number of potential solutions have been
    identified and must be further assessed to ascertain their viability in
    solving the groundwater problems existent in the basin.
        Possible solutions include the following:
      --Recharge enhancement at the infiltration galleries: The 1977 USGS
            study revealed that 95 percent of the recharge of the
            groundwater basin occurred at 23 isolated locations along the
            creeks and tributaries, generally where the arable soils meet
            the foothills. Enhancing recharge in these areas may have a
            dramatic impact on the overall water balance equation for the
            basin. The USGS work will give a general analysis of this
            possible solution, but a reconnaissance level evaluation must
            be done to evaluate cost effectiveness.
      --Importing recycled water: Recycled water will soon be available at
            the south end of this basin. Great opportunities exist for
            recycled water usage within the south and middle sections of
            the basin, especially at an existing golf course located in the
            middle section. Benefit would be gained by substituting
            recycled water for pumped groundwater, thereby leaving
            groundwater for others in the area. Substituted water could be
            used by this golf course and nearby agriculture.
      --Importing surplus groundwater from another basin: A unique
            opportunity exists to import surplus groundwater from a
            construction project into the north basin. The project at hand
            is a depressed underpass, that gets into the local groundwater
            table (not the MST basin), results in year round pumping, and
            creates a year round surplus that would be available for
            substitution for groundwater within the MST basin (which is
            located about 3 miles east of the project site.) The most
            likely user is a golf course located in the north basin.
      --Other possible solutions include: Construction of very small local
            reservoirs to enhance recharge; Construction of small
            reservoirs to provide water for agriculture; and, Importing
            treated water, which, in addition to political problems, would
            involve finding other imported water to make the treating and
            delivering agency whole.
        Additionally, there are likely many more possibilities, all of
    which need to be identified, developed, and evaluated. All of these
    possibilities need to be studied at the reconnaissance level to
    determine their feasibility.
        At the heart of this reconnaissance level evaluation must be the
    environmental analysis. As an example, the property owners constructing
    reservoirs have impacted the ecology of the area, which results in
    lessening the sustaining flows to the Napa River. Another example is
    the continuous decline in the groundwater table, which results not only
    in the one time expenditure of effort, materials and energy to drill
    deeper wells, but more tragically, in the ongoing expenditure of energy
    associated with pumping from deeper depths.
        Following directly on the environmental benefits within the
    groundwater basin itself are the other benefits flowing from bringing
    the basin into balance. USGS staff believes that the basin, if in
    balance and in its naturally recovered condition, will actually return
    to its original state of flowing to the Napa River. This would provide
    tremendous benefit, not only to Milliken, Sarco, and Tulocay Creeks, in
    the local setting, but also to the Napa River, both by stream flow and
    by underground flow. Additional water into the Napa River system during
    protracted portions of the year would greatly restore and enhance the
    local watershed ecosystem.
        Action is needed. The sooner steps are taken to identify and
    address the problem, the smaller the cost of implementing solution
    measures.
    Request
        In an effort to identify problems and opportunities for
    implementing solutions in the MST groundwater basin, Napa County Flood
    Control District is seeking to have the Corps initiate a reconnaissance
    study to evaluate all prospective water sources that could alleviate
    the widespread water quantity problems and identify and implement
    engineering measures to restore ecological recovery of the MST
    groundwater basin and associated groundwater infiltration and recharge
    in the Napa River watershed. Such measures could include conjunctive
    use; recharge enhancement and importing recycled and potable water.
        Necessary fiscal year 2002 Funding.--Funding for the Napa
    Groundwater Recharge Study during fiscal year 2002 in the amount of
    $100,000 is needed to have the Corps initiate the reconnaissance study
    to examine groundwater needs in the basin.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District

        Presented herewith is testimony in support of $20,000,000 for the
    construction appropriation necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers to continue the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes flood control
    project. Also, testimony in support of $5,000,000 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 20 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
    exceeds 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 a non-Federal element of the entire plan, it is
    being funded locally because 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. The President 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 $121,645,000,
    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 shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood
    Insurance Rate Maps.
        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.
        The non-Federal sponsors request $20,000,000 for the continued
    construction of this project. Funding at this level will allow the
    Corps of Engineers to:
        Complete construction of the following:
      --Lower Flamingo Diversion Channel
      --R-4 Debris Basin and Channel
      --Red Rock Outlet and Scour Protection
        Start construction of the following:
      --Upper Flamingo Diversion Channel
      --F-1 Debris Basin and Channel
      --F-2 Debris Basin and Channel
        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 $24,604,855 and includes features that were designed by
    the non-Federal sponsors and constructed by either the Federal
    government or the non-Federal sponsors. These features are 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 & Red Rock Channels--  Design, Construction      23,552,950
     Las Vegas Beltway (Segment 7B, 8    & Construction
     & 9).                               Management.
    Red Rock Channel--Las Vegas         Design (Project              359,157
     Beltway (Segment 10A).              element constructed
                                         by Corps).
          Total Sponsors' Costs.......  ....................      24,604,855
          Estimated Federal Share.....  ....................      18,453,641
          Fiscal year 2001              ....................       1,600,000
           Appropriations.
          Remaining Federal Share.....  ....................      16,853,641
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The non-federal sponsors are grateful for the $1,600,000 in the
    fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill. For
    fiscal year 2002, we are asking the committee to appropriate funding of
    $5,000,000 of the remaining $16,853,641 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.
    This amount is requested in light of the language in contained in the
    fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Bill, Senate Report 106-
    58, which states in part, ``The Committee expects--every effort to even
    out reimbursement payments to lessen future budgetary impacts.'' The
    non-federal sponsors contributions to the project are for the primary
    purpose of providing flood protection as quickly as possible.
        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 $20,000,000, in
    fiscal year 2002, 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 $5,000,000 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.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of San Bernardino County Administrative Office

                        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,
    8 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.--Construction completed.
        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. CEQA was
    approved on December 19, 2000 and NEPA is scheduled for approval in
    March 2001.
        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
        Requested Action.--Support of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project.
                               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 2000/2001 fiscal
    year with completion of construction anticipated in May 2003.
    Completed Reaches
        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 (Phase 1):
      --900 feet of channel.
      --Plans and Specifications--December 2000--February 2001
      --Construction Start--April 2001
      --Construction Completion--December 2001
        Reach 3B (Phase 2):
      --0.2 mile of channel and 18 sedimentation basins along 2.2 miles of
            channel.
      --Right-of-Way Acquisition--December 2000--July 2001
      --Plans and Specifications--January 2001--July 2001
      --Construction Start--September 2001
      --Construction Completion--May 2003
    Estimated Project Cost
        The total estimated project cost is approximately $71,000,000 with
    the Federal participating cost at 75 percent or $53,250,000 and the
    local participating cost at 25 percent or $17,750,000. The cost of the
    remainder of the project (Reach 3B) is estimated to be $41,000,000,
    with the Federal share at $30,750,000 and the local share at
    $10,250,000.
        Requested Action.--Approval of continued funding for the San
    Timoteo Creek Project.
                        san sevaine creek water project
    Project Description
        The San Sevaine Creek Water Project will provide environmental
    enhancements, water conservation and flood control facilities in the
    western portion of the San Bernardino Valley. A 137-acre area is being
    set aside to protect a sensitive plant community, wetlands and wildlife
    enhancement. In addition, several water conservation basins will
    percolate an estimated 25,000 acre-feet of storm water runoff per year
    into the Chino Groundwater Basin benefiting agricultural, municipal and
    industrial water users in the Valley. The increased water conservation
    will occur as the result of an additional 5,400 acre-feet of water
    storage which will reduce the need to purchase imported water.
    Project Status
        The loan application was signed by the Bureau of Reclamation on
    April 11, 1996 and approved by the Secretary of Interior on May 9,
    1996, starting the 60-day congressional approval process. As of July
    25, 1996 the San Sevaine project completed the 60-day calendar for
    review by congress as required under the Small Reclamation Loan Act. On
    December 17, 1996, the project Repayment Agreement was approved by the
    Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino and approved on
    January 8, 1997, by the Bureau of Reclamation. Initial Federal funding
    began in the 1997/1998 fiscal year and has continued on until the
    present fiscal year. The Bureau is attempting to complete the funding
    of this project by year 2002.
        Although considerable levee, channel and interim basin work has
    already been completed at various locations on this major water
    project, continued Federal assistance in the form of a Small Project
    Loan is urgently needed to allow for the construction of major
    improvements that will provide a fully integrated and functional
    project. Without these funds, it will be decades before local interests
    can accrue sufficient funds to construct this vital project.
        The California Water Commission has consistently since the late
    1980's supported the construction of this project.
        Federal Authority.--Public Law 84-984, as amended 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.--$33.7 million
        1997/98 fiscal year Federal budget.--$1.333 million (received
    $10.525 million)
        1998/99 fiscal year Federal budget.--$1.177 million (received
    $1.637 million)
        1999/00 fiscal year Federal budget.--$10.18 million ($3.94 million
    received to date, another $4.5 million has been requested)
        2000/2001 fiscal year President's Budget.--$11.21 million
    (approved)
        2001/2002 fiscal year Proposed.--$11.223 million
         The District and County have coordinated with the Bureau of
    Reclamation and the National Water Resources Agency (NWRA) 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 for this project.
        Requested Action.--Support proposed fiscal year 2001/2002 budget in
    the amount of $11.223 million.
                    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 $250,000 for Mojave River Forks Dam
    Study.
                    san bernardino county feasibility study
        Wilson Creek originates in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows
    in a 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 this Creek is threatening to damage residential
    and commercial development and infrastructure facilities.
        The San Bernardino County Flood Control District supports this
    feasibility study to evaluate the system and determine appropriate
    methods of protection through new facilities and management of the
    existing floodplain.
        Requested Action.--Approval of $500,000 for San Bernardino County
    Study.
               upper santa ana river watershed feasibility 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 this
    feasibility study. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority is the local
    sponsor of the study.
        Requested Action.--Support of Upper Santa Ana River Watershed
    Study.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers

        American Rivers and more than 530 local, regional, and national
    conservation and community groups \1\ from throughout the country urge
    you to appropriate full funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
    Challenge 21, Section 1135, and Section 206 programs in fiscal year
    2002. Specifically, we urge you to appropriate $30 million for the
    Challenge 21 program, $25 million for the Section 1135 program, and $25
    million for the Section 206 program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Each of these organizations has signed on to the River Budget:
    National Priorities for Local River Conservation in fiscal year 2002.
    The River Budget is a consensus report that summarizes where the people
    who work to save the nation's rivers believe we can make the best
    investments of tax dollars to benefit our communities, wildlife, and
    water quality. A complete list of these organizations is included at
    the end of this testimony.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although many Army Corps projects have produced benefits, including
    flood protection and cost-effective transportation, Army Corps projects
    also have altered natural hydrologic regimes, disturbed riverine
    ecosystems, destroyed wetlands, and encouraged development in high
    hazard floodplains. These activities have had a severe and adverse
    consequence on the nation's environmental and economic health.
        The loss of important riverine, wetland, and floodplain habitat as
    a result of Army Corps projects and other activities, have harmed
    wildlife, water quality, and recreational opportunities. Army Corps
    projects and project operations are among the leading reasons North
    America's freshwater species are disappearing as quickly as tropical
    rainforest species and five times faster than land-based species. As
    importantly, by reducing the natural flood attenuation capacity of the
    nation's rivers and wetlands these losses also have severely aggravated
    flooding and flood damages.
        During the past 25 years, the Federal government has spent more
    than $140 billion for traditional flood control works and flood damage
    recovery. Despite these expenditures, however, billions of public and
    private dollars are spent each year on costly repairs and
    reconstruction of floodplain property and associated infrastructure
    damaged by floods. Average annual flood losses continue to rise and now
    exceed $4 billion. Nearly 10 million homes are located in flood prone
    areas, placing $390 billion in property at risk.
        The Challenge 21, Section 1135, and Section 206 programs are
    designed to help restore our nation's damaged rivers and floodplains,
    and to implement environmentally and fiscally sound flood control
    projects. These programs have proven successful and popular.
    Appropriations must be increased to meet the high demand for these
    initiatives.
        The Challenge 21 Program.--(Or the Flood Mitigation and Riverine
    Restoration Program, Sec 212 WRDA 1999): Increasingly, flooded
    communities are implementing non-structural solutions to reduce
    flooding. These solutions include moving frequently flooded homes and
    business out of the floodplain, and working to return the floodplains
    of rivers and creeks to a condition where they can naturally moderate
    floods. In addition to reducing flood losses, non-structural projects
    help meet many other goals of riverside communities, including
    improving water quality, increasing opportunities for recreation, and
    improving and restoring wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, however, most
    Federal spending does little to support non-structural solutions to
    flood damage reduction.
        Challenge 21, a non-structural flood damage reduction program
    authorized in 1999, is explicitly designed to help support such
    community-driven efforts. Challenge 21 allows the Army Corps to
    relocate vulnerable homes and businesses in smaller communities,
    restore floodplain wetlands, increase opportunities for riverside
    recreation, and improve quality of life in riverside communities.
    Challenge 21 also authorizes the Army Corps to work with other Federal
    agencies to more efficiently and effectively help local governments
    both reduce flood damages and conserve, restore, and manage riverine
    and floodplain resources. Individual Challenge 21 projects cannot
    exceed $25 million, and local communities must provide 35 percent of
    the cost.
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 requires the Army Corps
    to study appropriate locations for Challenge 21 projects in 23 separate
    locations. Five additional Challenge 21 projects were authorized in the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
        Challenge 21 currently is authorized for only five years. In April
    2003, the Army Corps must report to Congress the results of an
    independent review to evaluate the efficacy of the program in achieving
    the dual goals of flood hazard mitigation and riverine restoration, and
    make recommendations concerning continuation of the Challenge 21
    program. But before the Army Corps can make a meaningful assessment, it
    must have the funding to implement the program.
        Unfortunately, though $20 million was authorized to be appropriated
    for fiscal year 2001, the program has received no funding. Failure to
    appropriate adequate funds to implement the environmentally
    appropriate, common sense, and community supported flood control
    projects authorized by this program will doom both specific projects,
    and the entire program to failure. This is a failure that our nation
    can ill afford.
        The Section 1135 And 206 Programs.--The Section 1135 Program
    (Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment), allows the
    Army Corps to modify the structures and operations of existing Army
    Corps projects to improve the quality of the environment where those
    projects have contributed to the degradation of the environment. The
    program also authorizes the restoration of areas harmed by Army Corps
    projects. Non-Federal interests must provide 35 percent of the cost,
    and modifications may not interfere with a project's original purpose.
        The environmental impacts of existing Army Corps projects, many
    constructed before Federal laws requiring mitigation, are enormous. The
    impacts to the Everglades are perhaps the most highly publicized
    example. However, many other Army Corps projects also have caused
    significant environmental harm. For example, the Army Corps' operation
    and maintenance of the navigation channel in the Missouri River has
    caused the loss of more than 90 percent of the river's critical side
    channels, sandbars and wetlands, and is jeopardizing the continued
    existence of three Federally listed endangered species. The Army Corps'
    operations and maintenance of the navigation channel in the Upper
    Mississippi and Illinois Rivers has contributed to the severe
    degradation of those rivers, and is jeopardizing the continued
    existence of two Federally listed endangered species. The Army Corps'
    operation and maintenance of the navigation channel in the Apalachicola
    River in Florida has resulted in the smothering of over one-quarter of
    the Apalachicola River's banks with spoil dredged from the River. The
    Army Corps' construction and maintenance of the Mississippi River Gulf
    Outlet in Louisiana has caused the destruction of thousands of acres of
    valuable Louisiana marsh, and those losses continue at an alarming
    rate.
        Despite the significant adverse impacts of Army Corps projects
    throughout the nation, the Section 1135 program has never been fully
    funded. As a consequence, even though this program has been authorized
    since 1986, only 45 Section 1135 projects had been completed or were
    under construction as of 1999. It is clear that the interest in this
    program is far more intense than these project numbers indicate. In
    fiscal year 2001, 355 Section 1135 projects had to compete for funding
    totaling only $21 million.
        The Section 206 Program (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration), allows the
    Army Corps to undertake small-scale projects to restore the aquatic
    environment, regardless of the existence or impact of Army Corps'
    projects in the area. Projects carried out under this program must
    improve the quality of the environment, be in the public interest, and
    be cost-effective. Individual projects under this program may not
    exceed $5 million, and non-Federal interests must provide 35 percent of
    the cost.
        The Army Corps reports that between 1996 (when Section 206 was
    enacted into law) and 1999, six projects had reached the planning and/
    or design phase under this program. The interest in this program far
    exceeds the level of funds being appropriated, however, and many
    communities are unable to participate in this program due to inadequate
    funding. In fiscal year 2001, 185 projects under the Section 206
    program had to compete for funding totaling only $19 million.
        Many communities are working with Army Corps districts to restore
    lost wetlands, side channels, and other riverine habitat. Many of these
    restoration projects are designed to offset the habitat losses and
    other environmental impacts of Army Corps levee, dam, and dredging
    projects that were constructed before Federal laws required mitigation.
    Unfortunately, however, far more community-driven projects are being
    rejected due to inadequate funding. Without adequate funding,
    increasing numbers of critical projects will either be rejected
    outright or will languish for years before being completed. Both the
    Section 1135 and 206 programs should be fully funded so that
    communities can work with the Army Corps to reverse damage done, and to
    ameliorate the environmental and economic impacts caused by altering
    our nation's rivers, floodplains, and wetlands.
        Again, we strongly urge you to appropriate full funding for the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Challenge 21, Section 206, and Section
    1135 programs in fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Water Replenishment District of Southern
                                   California

                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, the Water Replenishment
    District of Southern California respectfully submits the following
    testimony requesting federal assistance for the Alamitos Barrier
    Recycled Water Project.
                              district background
        The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD),
    governed by an elected five member Board of Directors, was formed in
    1959 to manage the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins located in
    southern Los Angeles County. The District's service area encompasses
    420 square miles with nearly 4 million people in 43 cities. WRD's
    primary objectives are to replenish the groundwater basin, halt
    seawater intrusion and ensure quality groundwater for area residents.
    Groundwater is an important source of water in southern Los Angeles
    County, comprising approximately 40 percent of total water needs in our
    District and in some of our cities, 100 percent. Groundwater reserves
    also provide an emergency supply of water if imported supplies are lost
    during earthquakes, drought or other natural disasters. It is essential
    that this valuable resource be protected.
        replenishing groundwater basins with imported and recycled water
        The WRD now purchases approximately 75,000 acre-feet annually of
    imported water from the Colorado River and Northern California to
    artificially replenish the groundwater basins. Replenishment from
    percolation of storm water simply is not enough. The District also
    purchases about 60,000 acre feet per year of recycled water to
    replenish the groundwater basins.
        As a result of years of overpurnping prior to the formation of the
    District, seawater was drawn into the basins, contaminating and forcing
    the shutdown of numerous wells. Wells were constructed along the coast
    to halt the intrusion of seawater, which also replenished the basin.
    Approximately 30,000 acre-feet per year of the District's expensive
    imported water purchases are used for injection into these wells.
        Southern California's gradual loss of entitlements to both Colorado
    River and Northern California water and its drought history has
    convinced us that a more reliable supply of water for these seawater
    barrier wells must be developed to protect our critical groundwater
    resource.
        The District's goal is to minimize the use of imported water and
    replace whenever possible with recycled water and local storm water
    runoff. The District has an aggressive program to increase the use of
    recycled water and storm water.
                    alamitos barrier recycled water project
        Working together with the Orange County Water District and the City
    of Long Beach, the District is proceeding with plans to build a 3000
    acre-feet per year reclamation plant to replace, initially, 50 percent
    of the imported water now being injected into the Alamitos Seawater
    Barrier, one of three widespread barrier systems for which the District
    provides water. The second stage will expand the treatment plant to
    provide 100 percent (6000 to 8000 acre-feet per year) substitution of
    imported water. Orange County Water District is involved because this
    particular barrier system extends into Orange County. The City of Long
    Beach has title to the recycled water that is to be fed to the new
    plant. The proposed plant is consistent with the Metropolitan Water
    District's Integrated Resources Plan, which anticipates 800,000 acre-
    feet per year of additional water reclamation by the year 2020.
        Construction of the first phase to deliver 3000 acre-feet per year
    is in progress and is scheduled for completion June 2002. The second
    phase bringing the project up to at least 6000 acre-feet would commence
    in the future upon approval by regulatory authorities.
        Feedwater for the project will be recycled water that would
    otherwise be discharged into the San Gabriel River. Advanced treatment
    equipment, including microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultra violet
    light will be put in 2 place to purify the water and meet the stringent
    requirements of the State Department of Health Services and the
    Regional Water Quality Control Board.
        Amortizing the construction cost, adding operation and maintenance
    costs and backing out anticipated reimbursements from the Metropolitan
    Water District's Local Resources Program, the cost of water produced
    from the plant will initially be about $600 per acre-foot, which is
    more that the current cost for imported water, although well within the
    range of costs typically experienced.
        We, therefore, are requesting federal funds to ease the burden on
    our local ratepayers. The California Water Commission has recommended
    this project for your consideration during your funding deliberations.
    The total cost of the project is estimated at $16 million with the
    federal portion totaling $4 million. $3.4 million has already been
    appropriated for Long Beach area projects, of which $1.7 million has
    been allocated to this project. We currently are seeking a total of
    $2.3 million for fiscal year 2002 for this protect. To date, we have
    been reimbursed $0.9 million.
        Federal assistance with this project will enhance project economics
    and ensure the viability of our precious groundwater basins into the
    next century. We appreciate your consideration in the appropriation
    process.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the State of South Carolina

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee; on behalf
    of the citizens of the Palmetto State, thank you for this opportunity
    to submit for the record comments regarding the fiscal year 2002 Water
    and Energy Appropriations Bill.
        I can not emphasize too strongly the social and economic benefits
    of the capital investments of the federal government in a wide variety
    of projects throughout South Carolina. Whether making our ports more
    accessible for global trade or enhancing the interior waterways and
    beaches of South Carolina, your interest and commitment to my state has
    had a long lasting and positive impact. It is my hope that proven
    cooperation and collaboration between state and federal agencies
    regarding ongoing and future projects will continue to enhance the
    quality of life for all South Carolinians. Thank you for your
    committee's interest and investments in the Palmetto State.
        My comments reflect input from my staff and also from principal
    state agencies that work most closely with the USACE Charleston and
    Savannah District Offices. These agencies include the State Ports
    Authority, the S. C. Department of Natural Resources, the S. C.
    Department of Health and Environmental Control, S. C. Energy Office and
    the S. C. Department of Commerce. Attached to my testimony, as
    ``Supporting Documents'' are all letters received from state agency
    directors as well as individual descriptions of the on-going and
    planned, USACE projects throughout South Carolina. All of the projects
    listed and described in the ``Supporting Documents'' are critical for
    South Carolina. All of the projects recommended for full financing in
    the President's budget have my full support. I also request, however,
    that your committee finance as many additional projects not recommended
    in the President's budget as possible. My comments below are not
    intended to emphasize one project more than another but to highlight
    comments made by state agency directors regarding the importance of
    several of these projects to the state. Please review the letters from
    S. C. agency directors for their input on projects of importance to
    them.
        South Carolina has made great strides in expanding economic
    opportunities for its citizens both in terms of expansion of the
    capital base and creation of jobs. We are, however, a small state and
    our relative prosperity is reliant to a significant degree upon
    financing such as that available through your Appropriations Committee.
    I want to emphasize to you and your colleagues the importance I place
    on the value of the partnership between the state and federal
    governments in making life more fulfilling for all of my fellow
    citizens.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity for input into the
    challenging decision making process you face in apportioning limited
    funds among many needs across the United Stated. I do want to re-
    emphasize that all of the projects listed in the ``Supporting
    Documents'' are of importance to South Carolina.
                             general investigations
        A total of $1.185 million is needed for fiscal year 2002 to keep
    the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Feasibility Analysis proceeding in a
    phased approach. This study will investigate existing and future
    commercial shallow draft navigation needs and will review ways to
    improve safety and navigation efficiency and reduce operations and
    maintenance costs. Additional financing of $530,000 is needed for this
    critical analysis. I request that your committee add this amount so the
    study can proceed.
        The Port of Charleston is rapidly expanding and continues to
    fulfill its role as a major port for the eastern United States. The S.
    C. Ports Authority is believes that to keep the port fully competitive
    in global movement of goods it may be necessary to deepen the ship
    channel more than its current 45 feet. The Authority requests $100,000
    for the Charleston Harbor (Deepening Analysis) to be undertaken. I
    concur that it is necessary before any further investment is made to
    deepen the channel and enlarge the Wando River Turning Basin.
        In the Upstate of South Carolina, the Reconnaissance Study for the
    Reedy River for aquatic ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction,
    and streambank restoration needs pursuing. The S. C. Department of
    Natural Resources has conducted a watershed management report and all
    information generated by that effort can be used in the production of
    this report necessary for the environmental rebuilding of this
    watercourse. $100,000 is needed for this general investigation.
                                  construction
        The President's recommended full financing of the Charleston Harbor
    (Deepening & Widening) at a level of $6,365,000 is truly welcome so
    that this national asset can continue to function competitively for
    world markets. Continuing capital allocation for this project has
    sizable benefits not only for South Carolina but also for the nation.
        Construction of the Lake Marion Regional Water Project is vital for
    the economic rebirth of one of the poorest areas of the state. Most
    Corps of Engineer's financing is directed toward the coastal counties
    of South Carolina. However, there are needs of an economic and
    infrastructure nature inland. This project conforms to economic
    development planning by two councils of government within the state.
    Moreover, it will also rely on surface water and not ground water
    sources. This project should be financed at the full level of $11.648
    million.
        The J. Strom Thurmond Dam & Lake Construction shows potential for
    increased efficiency and a reduction in operation and maintenance
    costs. The President has recommended $6.5 million in his budget but a
    further $3.0 million is needed to complete the generator rewind of
    units 3 and 4. Moreover, the project will increase dissolved oxygen in
    tail water and improve water quality in the Savannah River downstream
    to Augusta, Georgia and beyond. The need for heightened hydroelectric
    output at this station as well as the project at the Hartwell Dam and
    Lake are critical in this time of high electricity demand. The required
    $3.0 million should be added to this project.
                         operation & maintenance (o&m)
        The Operations and Maintenance Program as it relates to Harbor
    Maintenance at Charleston, Georgetown, and Port Royal is critical for
    the continued full functioning of these facilities. A further $2.26
    million is needed for dredging of the Lower Winyah Bay and continued
    effort toward a dredged materials management plan is needed at
    Georgetown. At Port Royal a further $2.21 million is required for
    dredging of the entrance channel. These additional funds are necessary
    for optimal operations of the important S. C. ports.
        Dredging of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from Charleston to
    Port Royal, Dike Maintenance, and Bank Stabilization will require a
    further $2.823 million for this important project to be completed.
    Funding in the President's budget is for only partial completion of
    identified work elements. This project should be fully funded for the
    AIWW to operate at peak design capacity.
        Operation and Maintenance of Facilities at Dams along the Savannah
    River North of Augusta, Georgia. At the Hartwell Dam and Lake, an
    additional $5.3 million is needed to repair the powerhouse and
    switchyard equipment. At the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, a further
    $215,000 is needed to install waterview performance monitoring. At the
    J. Strom Thurmond Dam and Lake a further $2.182 million is needed for
    additional maintenance of recreation areas and to replace asbestos
    cable trays in the powerhouse. Full federal financing relating to all
    three facilities would ensure their continuing vital participation in
    the economic life of the two affected states, guarantee that water
    quality is at highest levels, and offer improved recreational
    opportunities for the citizens of S. C. and Georgia.
        Mr. Chairman, in closing, we in South Carolina are mindful of the
    impact that the economic downturn is having on the ability of the
    federal government to continue sizable budget surpluses. Moreover, we
    are aware that resources are not unlimited and priorities must be
    established. However, South Carolina contributes uniquely to the
    national welfare. Healthy military installations, coastal geography,
    interstate trade routes and key ports are all contributors to a growing
    economy and individual prosperity within South Carolina and the
    Southeast. However, not all areas share equally and that is why
    projects like the Lake Marion Water Distribution Project are so
    critical. In order to keep South Carolina moving forward, I beseech you
    to look favorably on projects relating to my state and to our sister
    state of Georgia. We have made giant strides forward in South Carolina
    in part because of your investment of federal dollars in a wide variety
    of projects. I look forward to continuing cooperation with you and your
    committee.
        Please let me know if you need further information and, again,
    thank you for this opportunity to give input into your decision making
    process.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
                                 Commissioners

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are John
    Wentworth, President of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
    Commissioners, and Larry A. Keller, Executive Director of the Port of
    Los Angeles. Together, we oversee the activities of the Port of Los
    Angeles, the largest container seaport in the United States. Our
    testimony speaks in support of continuing the Federal role in carrying
    out the major navigation improvements underway at the Port which
    underpin our country's decisive role in global trade.
        We thank this Subcommittee for its unwavering support of the Pier
    400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project completed last April
    ahead of schedule and under budget. The Maersk Sealand shipping
    company, now the world's largest shipping line, has entered a long-term
    lease agreement with the Port for a state-of-the-art container terminal
    on Pier 400 scheduled to open for business in 2002. Last year, you
    helped us begin the Preconstruction Engineering Design stage of the
    Main Channel Deepening Project, the second phase of the navigation
    improvements under the 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan at the Port
    of Los Angeles.
        Today, we present testimony evidencing the need for Federal funding
    that will help start the Main Channel Deepening Project in 2002. While
    President Bush's fiscal year 2002 Budget Blueprint discourages
    Congressional funding of new construction starts and ordinary operation
    and maintenance projects, it does give priority to projects that,
    ``provide significant national benefits in the Corps' principle mission
    areas--commercial navigation . . .'' and ``gives priority to funding
    port and harbor . . . activities that support significant commercial
    navigation.'' \1\ By all objective standards, the Main Channel
    Deepening Project squarely meets the President's tests as do the Port's
    operation and maintenance projects that support our commercial
    navigation initiatives. Therefore, we respectfully ask the Subcommittee
    to fund our appropriations requests fully.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A Blueprint for New Beginnings: A Responsible Budget for
    America's Priorities'', Chapter 30, ``Corps of Engineers'', Page 147.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       the importance of the 2020 infrastructure development plan to the
                             united states economy
        In the early 1980s, the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long
    Beach, and the Army Corps of Engineers, acknowledged that both ports
    would experience a dramatic increase in Pacific Rim and Latin American
    trade volumes over the next several decades. The forecast has proved
    true, far exceeding our expectations! Consequently, infrastructure
    development at the Port of Los Angeles is now more critical than ever,
    with more than 31.5 percent of U.S. containerized trade entering the
    United States through the San Pedro Bay port complex. Pacific Rim and
    Mexican trade with the United States are at an all-time high. These
    increased trade volumes have solidified the Port of Los Angeles as a
    pivotal player in the global trading network.
        With a more robust Asian economy, we can best describe the
    potential for increased two-way trade with just the Pacific Rim as
    colossal. To illustrate, in the last year, nine start-up shipping lines
    have entered the trans-Pacific trading network and are calling at the
    San Pedro Bay ports. Seven of these shipping lines call at the Port of
    Los Angeles. In 2000 alone, the Port and its customers recorded an
    unprecedented 27 percent increase in containerized cargo from the
    Pacific Rim valued at more than $235 billion. These goods went on to
    stores and manufacturing plants across the United States supporting
    jobs and local economies.
        In 2000, China accounted for 55 percent of the overall Pacific Rim
    trade with the United States and is the primary importer of American
    goods. Changes in China's trade policies and investment practices make
    it a favorable market for American businesses and would boost the
    continued buoyance of the United States economy and the strong
    purchasing power of American consumers seeking competitively priced
    retail merchandise. If the Bush Administration is successful in
    reaching trade agreements with China, Singapore and Latin America,
    trade volumes through the Port of Los Angeles will increase even more
    dramatically. We have forecast 2001 as the year of continued burgeoning
    trade opportunities with Latin America. Trade between Mexico and
    Southern California, for instance, has increased 152 percent since
    1994. These increases in 2000 resulted in the Port handling 4.9 million
    containers contributing to the industry's recognition of our facility
    as the busiest container port in the United States.
        In the late 1970s, the Port of Los Angeles quite accurately
    forecast the current surge in the international trade needs of the
    Southern California region, and the Nation. In the early 1980s, the
    Port entered a long-term cooperative planning effort with the Corps,
    known as the 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan. The 2020 Plan
    acknowledges the phenomenal growth of trade through the Port of Los
    Angeles and the San Pedro Bay ports as a whole. It is a blueprint for
    the Port's infrastructure development and its adaptation to changes in
    maritime technology and to the projected growth in trade volumes well
    into this century. The Main Channel Deepening Project marks the second
    phase of the 2020 Plan begun with the Pier 400 Deep-Draft Navigation
    and Landfill Project. The Port of Los Angeles is aggressively moving
    forward with the 2020 Plan to meet its infrastructure needs in the face
    of these extraordinary prospects in global trade.
        The Main Channel Deepening Project began in February 1999 when the
    Port and the Los Angeles District Corps executed a Memorandum of
    Agreement that would expedite the preliminary study phase required to
    engage the Corps in a Federal navigation project. Under the authority
    provided by Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
    Public Law 99-662, the Port undertook the Feasibility Study in
    cooperation with the Corps. In anticipation of a favorable Chief of
    Engineer's Report, Congress authorized the Main Channel Deepening
    Project in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and on December
    29, 2000, the Feasibility Study was approved enabling the Port to
    proceed with the Main Channel Project.
                         main channel deepening project
        The Port of Los Angeles requests that your Subcommittee include the
    final appropriation of the Federal share of $2,650,000 for the
    Preconstruction Engineering Design (PED) phase of the project to deepen
    the Main Channel and also earmark $5,000,000 to begin the two-year
    channel dredging phase immediately following completion of the PED in
    August 2002. The total cost for the Main Channel Project is
    approximately $153,000,000. The Corps estimates the Federal share at
    approximately $42,000,000, and a local share of about $11,000,000,000.
        Deepening the Main Channel in calendar year 2002 is critically
    important. The Main Channel's current depth of -45 feet Mean Lower Low
    Water (MLLW) is inadequate to accommodate the new state-of-the-art
    container vessels designed to hold more than 6,000 TEU's. These ships
    draft as much as -48 feet in depth. The recent Chief of Engineers
    Report concurred with the Feasibility Study recommending that the Corps
    dredge the Main Channel to at least -53 feet, including a modest
    allowance for varied tidal conditions and under-keel clearance. The
    project also includes dredging approximately 6.6 million cubic yards of
    sediment from the Turning Basin, the West and East Basins, and the East
    Basin Channel. Presently, five of the major container shipping lines
    calling at the San Pedro Bay have vessels that draft -46 feet fully
    loaded. Yet to call at the Port, these vessels must come in partially
    loaded to navigate the main harbor channel safely. While unavoidable,
    this makes for an inefficient shipping system.
        One of the Port's clients, the China Shipping Company, recently
    ordered six 9,000 TEU container ships and its partner, CMA-CGM
    (Compagnie Maritime d'Affretement-Compagnie Generale Maritime)--also
    known as ``The French Line''--ordered three 6,600 TEU container ships,
    all of which draft at -48 feet. They will call exclusively at the Port
    of Los Angeles from the Pacific Rim beginning in 2004. Without this
    construction, the Port would be unable to service its clients'
    infrastructure needs and provide a state-of-the-art functional gateway
    for imports consumer goods and manufacturing parts into the American
    stream of commerce. Simply, Mr. Chairman, there are no other ports on
    the west coast of the United States with the current infrastructure
    capacity to serve these container ships or absorb the volume of
    container throughputs even now. These state-of-the-art container ships
    represent the new competitive requirements for international shipping
    efficiencies in this century. Consequently, it is imperative that
    Congress appropriate the requested funding that will enable the Main
    Channel construction to begin in August 2002 with completion scheduled
    for early 2004, in time to receive these deeper draft container
    vessels.
          ongoing maintenance of the los angeles harbor and breakwater
        For the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance Program,
    the Port of Los Angeles seeks $5,700,000 to continue the hydrographic
    surveys, and the ongoing maintenance dredging of the Federal channels
    and turning basins, and to continue engineering studies and
    rehabilitation of the Federal breakwater at the Los Angeles Harbor. The
    efficient operation of the completed Pier 400 Project relies on the
    ongoing maintenance of the existing Federal navigation channels and the
    hydrographic surveys.
               continued funding of the los angeles harbor models
        Furthermore, the Port of Los Angeles also requests a total
    appropriation of $3,165,000 for the San Pedro Bay Models at the Corps
    of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station (WES) at Vicksburg,
    Mississippi. This funding is critical for the Corps' maintenance of the
    Los Angeles Harbor Model studies and the Wave Gauge Program. Our
    request includes $165,000 for the maintenance of the physical model of
    the San Pedro Bay to maintain operational readiness for the continued
    study of navigation improvements at the Port, and $3,000,000 to upgrade
    the wave gauges, wave generators, and computer systems that are now
    outdated. We expect this rehabilitation program to take five years to
    complete at a cost of $11,000,000.
        The information derived from these tools is critical to the
    validation of the numerical and physical models used for the design of
    ongoing projects under the Port's 2020 Plan. For example, during the
    state-of-the-art design of the Pier 400 Project, the scientists and
    engineers at WES, the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps' Los Angeles
    District used eight separate, but related models, to site the land
    reclamation element of the project and its effect on tidal resonance.
    As a result, maintenance of the hydraulic and physical models at WES,
    and their prototype data acquisition facilities, continue to be an
    essential resource for the Corps' Los Angeles District and for the Port
    of Los Angeles.
        the economic impact of the 2020 infrastructure development plan
        Cargo throughput for the San Pedro Bay, and the Port of Los Angeles
    in particular, has a tremendous impact on the United State's economy;
    this fact cannot be over emphasized. The ability of the Port to meet
    the continued demand of this phenomenal growth in global trade is
    dependent upon the construction of sufficiently deep water channels
    that will accommodate the largest state-of-the-art deep-draft cargo
    container vessels that are already in service. These new vessels
    provide greater efficiencies in cargo transportation, thereby offering
    American consumers lower prices on imported goods and more competitive
    exports from the United States to foreign markets. However, for
    American seaports to keep up, they must, without delay, make the
    necessary infrastructure improvements that will enable them to
    participate in the new global trading arena.
        The Main Channel Deepening Project--as part of the overall 2020
    Plan--is clearly a commercial navigation project of national
    significance, from which the United States derives great economic
    benefit. The by-product of this project is the creation and sustaining
    of more than one million permanent well-paying jobs; more than $1
    billion in wages and salaries; and, sales and income tax revenues,
    including increased U.S. Customs Service revenues going to the Federal
    treasury. The return on the Federal investment is real and
    quantifiable, and we expect it to surpass the cost-benefit ratio as
    determined by the Corps of Engineers' project Feasibility Study many
    times over. The Federal investment in the Main Channel Deepening
    Project will ensure that the Nation's largest container port, the Port
    of Los Angeles, remains at the forefront of the new global trade
    network well into the 21st century.
                                   in summary
        Mr. Chairman, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your
    Subcommittee to include the following earmarks from the fiscal year
    2002 budget, the following funds to support the Corps of Engineers'
    projects on behalf of the Port of Los Angeles:
      --$2,650,000 to fund the final Preconstruction Engineering Design
            phase of the Main Channel Deepening Project;
      --$5,000,000 to begin construction of the Main Channel Deepening
            Project;
      --$5,700,000 for maintenance dredging and rehabilitation of the
            Federal breakwater;
      --$3,165,000 for ongoing maintenance of the Los Angeles Harbor Model
            and Wave Gauge Programs at WES;
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
    testimony in support of continued Congressional support of the Main
    Channel Deepening Project and other important Federal navigation
    projects at the Port of Los Angeles. The Port has long valued your
    Subcommittee's support for and understanding of the importance of the
    port industry to the economic vitality of the United States, and, in
    particular, the role of the Port of Los Angeles in contributing to this
    country's economic vigor.
               port of los angeles--los angeles harbor department
           operations and maintenance fiscal year 2002 appropriations
        Critical to the efficient operation of the Port of Los Angeles'
    navigation system are the required ongoing maintenance of existing
    federal navigation channels and breakwaters. Essential to such
    maintenance are the hydraulic and physical models of the San Pedro Bay,
    used by the Corps of Engineers at their Waterways Experiment Station
    (WES) at Vicksburg, Mississippi, to study oceanic conditions. These are
    essential resources for the Port and the Corps.
        Ongoing Maintenance of Federal Channels.--$5,700,000 is needed in
    fiscal year 2002 to continue hydrographic surveys; ongoing maintenance
    dredging of the Federal channels and turning basins; and, ongoing
    engineering studies for rehabilitation of the Federal breakwater. This
    work is essential to protect the Los Angeles Harbor complex from damage
    by deep ocean waves and to provide an optimal wave climate for safe and
    efficient terminal operations.
        San Pedro Bay Models.--A total of $3,165,000 is needed in fiscal
    year 2002 to modify and maintain the San Pedro Bay Models at WES:
      --$165,000 for the maintenance of the physical model to maintain
            operational readiness for the continued study of navigation
            improvements at the Port;
      --$3,000,000 to begin a model enhancement program that would provide
            state-of-the-art wave generators, wave gauges, and computer
            systems to replace the current outdated and aged systems; the
            development of state-of-the-art numerical models for the
            analysis of tidal currents, and the development of prototype
            measurement instruments to calibrate the upgraded models. This
            program is expected to take five years to complete at a cost.
            of $11,000,000.
                 port of los angeles channel deepening project
        The Port of Los Angeles and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    acknowledged, more than fifteen years ago, that a dramatic increase in
    Pacific Rim trade volumes would occur over the next several decades. As
    such, the Port and the Corps started a long-range infrastructure
    development plan that would enable the Port to meet the forecast
    demands of increased trade and provide its customers with first-rate
    facilities and services. The forecast has proved true, and
    infrastructure development is critical. Pacific Rim trade with the
    United States is at an all-time high, and the Pacific Rim is the
    primary importer of American goods. In addition, trade between Mexico
    and Southern California's five-county area has increased 152 percent in
    the past seven years. As a result, the Port handled 4.9 million
    containers in 2000--a 27 percent increase over 1999--making it the
    busiest container port in the United States. This burgeoning trade has
    resulted in the manufacture of larger state-of-the-art container ships
    that draft as much as -48 feet. Consequently, the Port must deepen its
    federal channels from their present depth of -45 feet to -53 Mean Lower
    Low Water (MLLW) to accommodate the industry's shift to the larger
    container vessels. In addition to greater navigability, deepening the
    Main Channel would improve navigation safety and shipping efficiencies
    and provide a ready resource of dredged material to create new land for
    future terminal development. Furthermore, the economic benefits include
    nearly 1,300 Port-related jobs locally, during the two years of
    construction, along with increased U.S. Customs Service collections and
    other federal tax revenues.
        Congress authorized the Main Channel Deepening Project in Section
    1010(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. The
    Port and Corps have estimated the total project cost at $153,000,000,
    of which the federal share is $42,000,000 and the local share is
    $111,000,000.
        Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED).--$2,650,000 is needed
    in fiscal year 2002 to continue the PED phase and to complete the
    construction plans and project specifications.
        New Construction Start.--$5,000,000 is needed to start construction
    in calendar year 2002. With an estimated one-year PED phase, project
    plans and specifications will be completed in April 2002. Assuming a
    three-month bid solicitation period, the Port expects construction to
    begin in August 2002.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the City of Norwalk

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of the City of Norwalk, California. The City of Norwalk
    respectfully requests your favorable consideration of two U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers projects that are critically important to our
    community.
        First, the City of Norwalk, CA requests $450,000 from the Army
    Corps of Engineers' Small Flood Control Account (Sec. 205) for the
    preparation of a comprehensive Drainage System Master Plan and citywide
    Urban Runoff Plan.
        The City of Norwalk lies on the coastal plain tributary to the San
    Gabriel River System. The City manages in collaboration with the Los
    Angeles County Flood Control District several miles of storm drain
    system elements. There exists a need to prepare a Drainage System
    Master Plan to identity system deficiencies in both the City and County
    facilities serving the City. Also of concern are recent regulatory
    requirements from EPA and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
    Control Board in relation to non-point source control of contaminated
    urban runoff emanating from City streets and discharging into local
    river systems through the city and county storm drain systems.
    Preparation of a citywide Urban Runoff Plan is proposed to address that
    issue.
        This project includes the following program elements that address
    both the drainage master planning and urban runoff issues:
      --Drainage System Master Plan.--This program would provide for the
            preparation of a comprehensive drainage system master plan for
            the City. It would cover both City and County controlled system
            and would identify updated hydrology and determine hydraulic
            deficiencies, which may exist in this sub-regional system,
            which is tributary to the San Gabriel River.
      --Urban Runoff Plan.--This work effort would provide for the
            development of a citywide Urban Runoff Plan to assure
            compliance with all federal EPA regulations--National Pollutant
            Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Total Maximum Daily
            Load (TMDL), as well as State Water Quality Control Board
            regulations. Specific programs aimed at identifying potential
            non-point source locations for floatable and dissolved
            pollutants on the city's street system and entering its storm
            drain system would be identified. This Water quality management
            plan would identify potential Best Management Practices and
            would assess programmatic cost estimates for their development
            and implementation over the programs planning horizon.
        The identification of projects and a program for improved flood
    control facilities will diminish the likelihood of flooding, thereby,
    increasing public safety and health for the City's constituents and
    reducing the risk of property loss and expenditure of future local,
    regional, state and federal funds for post disaster mitigation.
    Development of an Urban Runoff Plan will help to assure the city's
    public health and the development and implementation of programs to
    eliminate contaminated urban runoff from reaching regional flood
    control and river systems, which eventually drain into the Pacific
    Ocean.
        Second, the City of Norwalk requests $300,000 from the Army Corps
    of Engineers' General Investigations (GI) Account for technical
    assistance in planning and design for water infrastructure projects in
    the City. The City was authorized for environmental infrastructure
    planning and design assistance in the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2000.
        The City's water facilities need to be upgraded to provide a safe
    and more reliable water supply, particularly in the event of an
    emergency such as a major earthquake. The increased system reliability
    will also significantly increase the City's fire fighting capabilities,
    thus greatly enhancing water quality, public health and safety.
        The projects for which funding for technical assistance is
    requested are outlined below.
      --Fire Hydrant Upgrading.--This project would provide for technical
            assistance to prepare a design for the upgrading of undersized
            fire hydrants and devices throughout the City. A Water System
            Seismic Reliability Study prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
            Engineers identified severe system deficiencies in this area
            and recommended upgrading and replacement of these hydrant
            assemblies.
      --Citywide Groundwater Study.--This element of the request would
            provide for technical assistance to conduct a citywide
            Groundwater Quality Study. This study would inventory and
            assess the threat from groundwater contamination from a variety
            of potential sources within the community. Assuring water
            quality for its primary water supply source is a key element in
            the city's water system infrastructure reliability program. A
            comprehensive inventory and determination of potential threats
            to the water supply from underground contaminants will be
            conducted and a mitigation plan encompassing local, regional,
            state and federal resources prepared.
      --Central Norwalk Transmission Main.--This request is for technical
            assistance to provide for the design of a water supply
            transmission main as identified in the City's Water System
            Seismic Reliability Study prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
            Engineers. This pipeline will interconnect two separate city
            water systems and provide an opportunity for an upgraded
            interconnection with an adjacent water purveyor to provide
            additional system backup in the event of a major earthquake.
        Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Norwalk, I request
    the Committee's support for these critically important projects.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the City of Inglewood, California

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of the City of Inglewood, California. The City of Inglewood
    respectfully requests your favorable consideration of an environmental
    infrastructure project that is critically important to our community.
        The City of Inglewood, CA requests $750,000 from the Army Corps of
    Engineers' General Investigations (GI) Account for studies, plans,
    specifications and estimates for the design and construction of
    transmission pipelines. The City was authorized for environmental
    infrastructure planning and design assistance in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000.
        The City has approximately 16 miles (83,200 liner feet) of
    transmission pipeline ranging in diameter from 18 inches to 36 inches.
    These pipes vary in age from 30 to 50 years old. Due to the age, soil
    conditions and pipe materials, a majority of the pipes are susceptible
    to rupture. Therefore, it is highly recommended to replace a majority
    of these pipes to insure continued water supply to the residence of
    Inglewood.
        The City of Inglewood's Capital Improvement Plan for 1999-2002
    outlines the City's need to enhance the City's water, sewer and storm
    drainage infrastructure. The Plan includes numerous projects to affect
    a better overall quality of life and an improved state-of-readiness in
    the event of natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes).
        The projects include improvements of the water, sewer, and storm
    drain systems, street construction, traffic modification to improve
    traffic flow and reduce traffic accidents, redevelopment projects, and
    park facilities programs. Many of these projects are necessary to
    enhance public safety and provide the citizenry with much needed
    additional sources of water, particularly in time of emergency events.
    The City will upgrade its infrastructure through the use of City
    generated revenue, and state and federal assistance where possible.
        Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Inglewood, I request
    the Committee's support for this critically important project.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the City of Huntington Beach

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, California. The City of
    Huntington Beach respectfully requests your favorable consideration of
    four U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects that are critically
    important to our community.
        First, the City of Huntington Beach requests $1.75 million from the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' General Investigations Account for
    technical assistance to provide plans, specifications and estimates for
    the design of the Coastal Bluff Erosion project. The City received
    $211,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill
    for the Reconnaissance Level study for the project.
        The coastal bluff, which is adjacent to Pacific Cast Highway (SR1)
    above several thousand feet of the City's beach, has eroded over time.
    The cause is drainage from inland sources and wave and wind action on
    the beach emanating from the Pacific Ocean. This erosion has become a
    serious safety concern. The erosion has affected existing bike,
    pedestrian coastline trails and park facilities located on the bluff
    and could eventually threaten Pacific Coast Highway, which runs
    parallel to the bluff.
        The proposed solution entails stabilization of the bluff,
    mitigating sources of erosion and reconstruction of public facilities,
    including lighting, fencing, and trails. These improvements would also
    be constructed to provide access in compliance with current Americans
    with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Stabilization of the bluff
    and reconstruction of park facilities on the bluff top would mitigate
    an unsafe condition and provide greater public access to the beach.
        The coastal beach bike and pedestrian trail, park facilities and
    access roads are key elements adding to the economic viability of the
    beach as a tourist attraction. If the bluff area is left in its present
    condition, access to and enjoyment of the beach in that area will be
    limited. This limitation places serious constraints on the beach
    facilities as an economic resource to the City, region and State. The
    Bluff Top Park and the adjacent bike trails are regional coastal
    facilities used by over 750,000 visitors per year.
        Second, the City of Huntington Beach requests $1 million from the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Small Flood Control Account (Sec. 205)
    for the replacement of deficient facilities and equipment in drainage
    pump stations and new pumping units in existing empty pump bays
    throughout the City.
        Huntington Beach is a ninety-year-old coastal community. Some
    portions of the City are actually below sea level. Because of this fact
    many residents depend upon County and City storm drain channels and
    pump stations to keep storm water moving off their streets during heavy
    rainfall. In recent years several areas within the City have
    experienced flooding on public and private property to differing
    levels. Several of the City's pump stations are at the end of their
    statistical design life. Mechanical equipment including pumps and
    motors are in need of replacement. Additionally they are undersized
    given the level of development both within Huntington Beach and in
    upstream communities, which drain into the City. In order to alleviate
    the problem, the City needs to replace, upgrade or augment the flood
    control pump stations.
        Replacement and repair of the City's flood control facilities will
    reduce the risk of damage to both public and private property.
    Additionally this program will assist the City in helping to remove
    areas from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain
    designations.
        This flood control project does have regional impacts and goals.
    Huntington Beach is situated at a major outfall for the Santa Ana River
    and its tributaries. This means that runoff from upstream cities ends
    up in our flood control facilities. A residual impact from this run-off
    has been that it brings with it non-point source pollution from other
    areas outside the City. In recent years, the City has conducted studies
    of its storm drain pumping system comprised of several large capacity
    facilities. Construction of recommended improvements to these
    facilities could alleviate potential flooding affecting upstream
    tributary areas, some of which are outside the City.
        It is anticipated that at least $6 million (Current $) in
    additional funding including federal and local dollars will be needed
    in future appropriations to complete this program. Two of the City's
    Pump Stations have recently been improved utilizing FEMA Hazard
    Mitigation grants.
        Third, the City of Huntington Beach requests $1 million from the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' General Investigations Account for
    technical assistance to provide for studies, plans, specifications and
    estimates for the design and construction of sewer and drainage
    projects. The City received an authorization for planning and design
    assistance under the Environmental Infrastructure Program in the Water
    Resources Development Act of 2000.
        During the past several years the City has experienced increasing
    problems with the integrity of its sewer and drainage system
    infrastructure. Surface and ocean water quality is directly affected by
    the physical integrity of the respective systems. Studies conducted
    through the Corps of Engineers Seismic Reliability Program completed in
    1999 identified several key projects to rehabilitate and/or replace
    physical facilities including storm drain pump stations, sewer lift
    stations and pipelines. The need exists for funding for the planning,
    design and construction of various sewer and drainage systems
    improvements to provide off stream surface water diversion or treatment
    and the avoidance of sewage spills of exfiltration from pipelines.
        Environmental infrastructure improvements are needed to insure that
    surface and ocean water quality standards are met through the control
    of storm water flooding and runoff contamination, and sewer system
    integrity through facility rehabilitation and main relining projects.
    Failure to stem sewage spills, exfiltration, flooding and runoff
    contamination not only represents a significant public health and
    safety issue for the community, but would also have significant adverse
    economic impact on the City, Region and State. Huntington Beach has
    over eight miles of City and State beaches within its boundaries. Each
    year Huntington Beach attracts approximately 9,000,000 State, National
    and International visitors. Tourism is a major industry in Orange
    County and the State of California. Visitors to the City rely upon
    clean, safe beaches. This represents an economic resource not only to
    Huntington Beach but to the State and Nation as well.
        Finally, the City of Huntington Beach requests $650,000 from the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Restoration Program (Sec. 206)
    for technical assistance for the City's Aquatic Restoration Program.
        During the past several years, the City has experienced increasing
    problems with urban runoff emanating both within the City and from
    upstream of the City through both local and County operated flood
    control facilities. Surface and ocean water quality are directly
    affected by inorganic and organic and floatable contaminants, which
    discharge to the Pacific Ocean from these facilities. A site adjacent
    to the City flood control channel would be an ideal location for
    creation of an artificial maintainable vegetative filter area project
    for the combined benefit of watershed cleanup and aquatic restoration.
        In 1999 City beaches were closed or posted with warnings of
    bacterial contamination in the surf zone. Extensive investigations
    indicated that the potential source of the contamination might be urban
    runoff. Such runoff originates from numerous unknown sources and
    travels through the regional flood control systems. A short-term
    strategy for alleviating this problem has been the utilization of City
    storm water pumping stations to divert runoff to the sewer system for
    treatment prior to discharging to the ocean. Failure to stem urban
    runoff contamination not only represents a significant public health
    and safety issue for the community, but would also have significant
    adverse economic impact on the City, Region and State.
        Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach, I
    request the Committee's support for these four critically important
    projects.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Port of Garibaldi

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Don Bacon.
    I am Port Manager of the Port of Garibaldi, Oregon, located on
    Tillamook Bay on the Oregon Coast. We appreciate the opportunity to
    present our views on appropriations issues to the Committee.
                             appropriations request
        The Port of Garibaldi requests a $550,000 appropriation for
    operations and maintenance (O & M) of Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
    The funding will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
    Portland District to prepare a Major Maintenance Report ($300,000) and
    Plans and Specifications ($250,000) for the Tillamook Bay North and
    South Jetties. I also recommend that the Committee include legislative
    language directing the Corps to prepare and complete the Major
    Maintenance Report and Plans and Specifications in fiscal year 2002,
    given the threats to navigation, public safety and public property
    should the jetty system fail. Earlier this month the Port and Tillamook
    County declared an emergency because of the development of sinkholes in
    the North Jetty.
                    report on the tillamook bay jetty system
        In December 2000, The Board of Commissioners of the Port of
    Garibaldi and Tillamook County prepared a report on the Tillamook Bay
    jetty system and bar to inform legislators and other concerned parties
    of the need to restore the jetties and their bar to safe, acceptable
    engineering standards. Excerpts of that report are included below. We
    will provide the committee with a copy of the full report.
        There are three major issues currently associated with the
    deterioration of the system.
        (1) There is a clearly documented increasing hazard to navigation
    from erosion around the ocean ends of both jetties and resultant damage
    to the bar which is causing an escalating loss of life in boating
    accidents every year.
        (2) There is a potentially significant loss of land mass containing
    recreational facilities and permanent structures in one area where the
    north jetty has already breached near its root.
        (3) There is data currently being collected (but incomplete at this
    time) which suggests a possible relationship between the deteriorated
    condition of the jetties and bar and the degree of flooding in some
    land areas surrounding Tillamook Bay.
        The report contains a history of construction and repair of the
    jetties by the Corps, an overview of construction and repair results, a
    summary of an independent engineering report solicited by the Port and
    the Corps' own evaluations of the jetties' present condition, reasons
    for restoration of the jetties and bar, and the Commissioners'
    endorsement of repair of the jetty system and bar as both an urgent
    public safety measure and possible contribution to mitigation of
    flooding in the estuary. It also includes a letter from U.S. Coast
    Guard Station Tillamook Bay which explains several problems with the
    jetty system, and their support for restoration and repair of the
    system.
                                   background
        Since settlement in the 1800s, Tillamook County's primary
    industries have been dairy, water and timber oriented. Tillamook Bay
    and the five rivers which feed it have historically furnished an
    abundance of shellfish, salmon and other species of fresh-water and
    ocean food fish. Over the past century the area has become renowned as
    one of the West's premier sport fishing locations.
        Tillamook County's economy has always depended on prime conditions
    in Tillamook Bay, its estuary and watershed for cultivation and use of
    these natural resources. However, human activities including forestry,
    agriculture and urban development have adversely impacted the entire
    Bay area by increasing erosion rates and landslide potential in the
    forest slopes and significantly reducing wetland and riparian habitat.
    All five rivers entering Tillamook Bay now exceed temperature and/or
    bacteria standards established by the Oregon Department of
    Environmental Quality. The installation of a north jetty on Tillamook
    Bay begun in 1912 caused increased erosion of the Bay's westerly land
    border, Bayocean Spit, on the ocean side. The Spit breached in 1950.
    This allowed the Bay to fill with ocean sands on its southern and
    western perimeters and caused a major reduction in shellfish habitat,
    sport-fishing area, and an increase in the cross-section of the bar. A
    south jetty begun in 1969 helped stabilize the Spit and created the
    navigation channel presently in use.
        Increasingly poor water quality in the Bay's feeder rivers and a
    substantial loss of marine life over the past twenty-five years enabled
    Tillamook Bay to become part of the National Estuary Program in 1992.
    The Project's scope of study included the estuary and watershed. One of
    the stated goals in the Project's final Comprehensive Conservation and
    Management Plan is ``the reduction of magnitude, frequency and impact
    of flood events.'' This goal was found to be consistent with the scope
    of study of the Corps' Feasibility Study for Water Resources in
    Tillamook County now being conducted, and was incorporated into this
    new project.
        Previous Corps' evaluations of jetty systems clearly state the
    adverse effects of jetty deterioration and infilling of channels and
    bars on tidal prism (the rate at which water flows into and out of the
    Bay) and indicate that they may influence flooding in a bay's estuary.
    During the past thirty-six months measurements have been taken of
    differential water levels in Tillamook Bay and its estuary and speeds
    of tidal flows during normal and high water events. This data suggests
    an increase in the cross-section of the Tillamook Bay bar and some
    channel infilling which may be affecting esturine flooding. These
    measurements are of stated interest to the Corps. The Port of
    Garibaldi, many Tillamook County businesses which have been victims of
    flooding, and some governmental agencies concerned with various aspects
    of the flooding issue are supporting continuing gathering of these
    measurements of water levels and tidal flow speeds.
        While the conditions of jetties and their resultant bars invariably
    and continually affect the bay on which they are constructed, their
    basic function is the creation of a safe channel between ocean and
    harbor for the transit of maritime traffic. As originally designed and
    constructed, the Tillamook Bay jetties accomplished this. Due to their
    present state of deterioration, that initial effectiveness has been
    substantially reduced.
                                results in brief
        Tillamook County has suffered a series of devastating floods since
    the winter of 1996. The storms caused by El Nino/La Nina events have
    increased the rate of deterioration of Tillamook Bay's jetties and bar.
    Their present condition is raising increasing navigational safety
    issues. The north jetty is now breached in an especially sensitive
    location near its root where the wall protects inhabited land, and the
    eroded area is increasing in size. A significant quantity of water
    flowing through this area would result in loss of the existing land
    mass adjacent to it and the structures on it. A second area of
    deterioration on the north jetty at the beach line is threatening to
    breach. But in either location, an infill of the channel with sands
    would reduce the navigability of the channel, further slow the rate of
    tidal flow and impact the cross-section of the bar. An even greater
    degree of danger to boaters than that which presently exists would
    surely be created.
        The Bayocean Spit breach in 1950 buried one-third the Bay's
    shellfish habitat under ocean sands and did extensive damage to
    esturine lands. The lost shellfish habitat has never been recovered.
    The direction of tidal flow in the Bay is such that a breach in the
    north jetty would cause additional buildup of ocean sands to the inside
    edge of the Spit. This infill would eventually deposit toward the south
    end of the Bay and demolish even more shellfish habitat and sport
    fishing area, adversely impacting Tillamook County's already reduced
    economy. The harbor area would certainly suffer some degree of damage,
    resulting in increased commercial hardship.
        But the most serious impact of jetty and bar deterioration has been
    on navigational safety. The United States Coast Guard Tillamook Bay
    Station has publicly commented on the transit danger to sport,
    commercial and their own vessels due to erosion effects which now
    constitute a maritime hazard. Many local sport and most commercial
    fishermen have abandoned Garibaldi as a permanent berth and sought
    harbor facilities where channel navigation is easier and transit of the
    bar less treacherous. The Coast Guard has formally requested that the
    Corps ``restore the north and south jetties to their original
    dimensions, and remove materials from the original construction that
    may now pose a maritime hazard.''
                               principal findings
        Since the last repair to the south jetty, approximately 302 feet
    have been lost to erosion, 215 feet of that amount since 1998. The
    north jetty was designed and authorized by the USACOE to be 5,700 feet
    in length. As of December, 2000, approximately 275 feet of the ocean
    end of the north jetty is eroded and remains below mean lower low water
    level--submerged, in other words. In 1990 the USACOE capped the head of
    the north jetty from its above-water point going landward for a
    distance of 161 feet in an unsuccessful attempt at erosion control. The
    north jetty remains at least 300 feet short of its engineering-approved
    and authorized length.
        Because of the increased magnitude of storms since 1996, both
    jetties have suffered far more damage than that normally expected to
    occur to such structures. Erosion and displacement of large support
    stones at the ocean ends of both jetties is particularly severe, and
    the submerged ends of both structures are being pushed southward. These
    two areas, adjacent to popular sport fishing locations, are now
    identified by the Coast Guard as extremely dangerous locations. Water
    swirls around the displaced boulders causing eddies sometimes strong
    enough to suck small boats into them. Even in calm, flat seas, water
    breaks over these boulders into waves powerful enough to throw smaller
    vessels onto the jetties. (This was the case on September 22, 2000,
    when a sport fishing boat inadvertently drifted inside the 200 foot
    exclusion zone and was dashed onto the end of the south jetty. Two
    people were killed and a third injured, this incident being the most
    recent loss of life this year in the accident record of the Tillamook
    Bay jetties and bar.)
        Conclusion. On behalf of the Port of Garibaldi and Tillamook
    County, I thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity to provide
    testimony on the Tillamook Bay Jetty System.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the City of Santa Barbara, California

                      operations and maintenance dredging
        As your distinguished Subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2002
    Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Bill, I would like to bring a
    very important Corps of Engineers project to your attention.
        About 400,000 cubic yards of sand piles up every winter at Santa
    Barbara Harbor, and in years of severe storms, the accumulated sand can
    close the channel bringing local fishing and other businesses in the
    Harbor to a standstill.
        There is an important Federal interest in maintaining dredging at
    the Harbor. It provides slips and moorings for over 1,150 commercial,
    emergency and recreational boats. It is also an important part of Coast
    Guard operations on California's central coast.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes $2,020,000
    for operations and maintenance dredging for Santa Barbara Harbor. I
    respectfully request that the U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee,
    maintain that level of funding included in the President's Budget
    Request.
                  new construction project--dredge acquisition
        The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget recommendation also
    includes project funding for a potential new construction project in
    Santa Barbara. The City of Santa Barbara and the Corps of Engineers
    have pursued a proposal to design and construct a dredge for annual
    operation and maintenance dredging of our harbor.
        Federal funding for this project has been previously appropriated.
    However, the City of Santa Barbara at this time is unable to contribute
    the required 20 percent local sponsor funding. The City remains
    interested to the dredge acquisition project and together with the U.S.
    Corps of Engineers requests an additional $100,000 in order to prepare
    the necessary plans and specifications for the project.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes $100,000
    for the dredge acquisition project for the Santa Barbara Harbor. I
    respectfully request that the U.S. Senate, through your Subcommittee,
    maintain that level of funding included in the President's Budget
    Request.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey

        Chairman Domenici and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    giving me the opportunity to submit testimony about two projects under
    your jurisdiction which are 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. And the implementation of our proposal for a Regional
    Hydroelectric Power Generation demonstration project will help the City
    of Newark to become more energy efficient and self-reliant, through the
    generation of power at an existing water treatment facility.
        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. This encompasses the eastern boundary of
    Newark's Central Business District, as well as the edge of the City's
    densely populated Ironbound neighborhood.
        The project is divided into three phases. Phase I consists of 6,000
    feet of bulkhead replacement (Bridge Street to Jackson Street) and
    3,200 feet of wetlands restoration (Jackson Street to Brill Street).
    The second of three sections of this phase will begin construction
    within the next few months, and the objective is to conclude this phase
    as soon as possible. The Army Corps of Engineers will expend the $15
    million which is still available to apply toward Phase I elements. The
    State of New Jersey has been the primary cost-sharing sponsor of Phase
    I, with significant City investment and support. Some additional
    funding will be needed for Phase I, according to the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers February 28, 2001 project fact sheet, and City Engineering
    professionals are coordinating with the Corps to complete all elements
    of the bulkheading and its integration with significant Combined Sewer
    Overflow facilities and related Phase I costs.
        Phases II and III consist of the construction of a 40 foot-wide
    promenade along the river's edge, on top of the completed bulkhead
    work, and includes the construction of parkland on the inland side of
    the promenade, between the river and Newark's downtown. This
    restoration will provide a new focal point for downtown development
    activities, reconnect Newark to its riverfront and maritime history,
    and allow neighborhood residents direct access to the riverfront as
    part of a much-needed recreation complex.
        An appropriation of $15 million for the continuation of
    construction on the Newark Riverfront 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 2002. It will enable the City, State and Corps to complete all
    critical Phase I elements, and to proceed with a Phase II City/Corps
    cooperative program agreement on the next set of essential Phase II and
    Phase III elements. This will include the walkway/greenway component
    above and behind the bulkheading, and the critical connective
    infrastructure that will be needed to insure access and maximum
    effectiveness and utilization of this project for the community and key
    stakeholders and project partners.
        This 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. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation has been used for
    the initial section of bulkhead construction, which is now complete.
    The fiscal year 2001 allocation allowed for continued construction of
    the bulkhead down to Penn Station, funded design of the walkway and
    park area, and could allow walkway construction to begin. 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 $15 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 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 are coordinating
    redevelopment plans with private developers, public agencies, and non-
    profit partners. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to coordinate
    several major development activities into a virtually seamless
    development plan. The appropriation of $15 million which Newark
    requests 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, and help us
    to continue Newark's revitalization.
        The second project presented for your consideration concerns the
    generation of power through the City of Newark's own water system.
    Although not yet faced with the severe challenges faced in other parts
    of the country, Newark is seeking to proactively address the need for
    alternative energy sources. The City of Newark is also confronted with
    a series of challenges to its water and power supply resources.
        Accordingly, the City is seeking to develop the ability for the
    generation of hydroelectric power through the addition of in-line
    turbines at existing water transmission facilities. Newark has an
    extensive water collection and treatment system, spread over a large
    area in northern New Jersey. It feeds approximately 100 MGD to the City
    and it's out of town customers. The City maintains and operates five
    storage reservoirs, nine dams, six outlet structures and 64 square
    miles of woodland. It operates 80 miles of transmission aqueducts,
    structures, right-of-way and pump stations, interconnected with other
    major water purveyors. Distribution reservoirs are operated, along with
    their inlet and outlet gates, a rechlorination plant, and a water
    testing laboratory. Newark's extensive local water system includes 500
    miles of distribution mains and pipelines, 5,000 hydrants, and 10,000
    control valves. Although viewed primarily as a water supply system, the
    potential for power generation is present, and the time is right to
    begin its utilization.
        The City's Pequannock Water Treatment facilities and aqueduct
    downstream of the Charlotteburg Dam and Reservoir present a unique
    opportunity to recover energy that is currently dissipated in the
    diversion of water through various dam gatehouse and intake structures,
    pipeline, and downstream screen chambers. Further, the potential
    hydroelectric power and energy represented in the conveyance could,
    most of the time, offset the existing power and energy requirements of
    the water treatment facilities themselves, including the loads present
    at dams and treatment facilities.
        With this potential in mind, the City performed an evaluation of
    the power production and energy generation potential of its system. An
    extensive technical study of the power generation potential of Newark's
    entire collection, treatment and transmission facilities has been
    prepared, showing the possibilities of surplus energy generation, and
    is available for review. It explores the potential generation and
    disposition of power from several of Newark's operations. As a pilot
    project, the least complex element of the system can stand alone, and
    is submitted and described herein.
        This project proposes to construct a Water Turbine Hydroelectric
    Facility at the City's Cedar Grove balancing reservoir. Utilizing the
    existing infrastructure, this proposed facility would take advantage of
    the hydrostatic head on the transmission aqueduct between the West
    Milford Treatment plant (elev. 700 feet) and the Cedar Grove Reservoir
    (elev. 380 feet). The proposed site lies alongside a power company
    easement, which would make connection to the grid quite simple. The
    fairly static flow provided by the interceptor makes this a logical
    location for a turbine regulator set up. This method of energy recovery
    would be the least invasive as it could be implemented without
    significant disruption of our present system. It represents the clean
    and renewable production and use of energy ``on-site'', which is
    currently wasted. The project may also alleviate the relatively
    frequent interruptions and curtailments of power delivery that are
    currently experienced at the Pequannock Water Treatment facilities.
        This proposed facility would be capable of offsetting the City's
    electrical operating expenses in additional to the needs of its Water &
    Sewer Utility, and could potentially offset the cost to construct
    concrete storage tanks at the Cedar Grove site in order to meet Federal
    compliance for the elimination of open potable drinking water
    reservoirs. It provides Newark with a unique energy recovery and use
    opportunity.
        An appropriation of a total of $12 million is sought, with $2
    million for planning and design, and $10 million for construction of
    the project. It is anticipated that the energy generated through the
    facility would offset this initial investment within the current
    decade. Your support for innovative hydroelectric energy generation
    will enable the City of Newark to impact on its own environmental and
    economic concerns.
        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 Newark's critical
    projects. The time and attention of this subcommittee are deeply
    appreciated.
                                     ______

             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-2001.
        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 $2,300,000 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 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. Three 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 2001 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 2002 request for 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 Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Inc.

        Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: The Association
    of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) is pleased to offer this
    testimony on the President's proposed budget for the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (USACE) for fiscal Year 2002.
        The Association of State Dam Safety Officials is a national
    organization of more than 2,000 state, federal and local dam safety
    officials and private sector individuals dedicated to improving dam
    safety through research, education and communications. Our goal is to
    save lives, prevent damage to property and maintain the benefits of
    dams by preventing dam failures. Several devastating dam failures
    occurring in the 1970s focused attention on the potential catastrophic
    results of dam failures. These dramatic failures demonstrate that dams
    should always be properly constructed, operated and maintained to
    continue to provide important benefits and prevent failures.
                 united states army corps of engineers (usace)
    National Dam Safety Program Act
        The National Dam Safety Program Act, enacted as part of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996, is set to expire in fiscal year
    2002. The reauthorization of the Act will be a priority for ASDSO in
    the 107th Congress.
        Total authorized program funds for fiscal year 2002 are $6.4
    million, including $4 million for grants to participating states, $1
    million for research, $500,000 for the dam inventory, $500,000 for
    training, and $400,000 for additional Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA) staff. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has only a small
    part of this important program--the National Inventory of Dams. ASDSO
    supports funding for all National Dam Safety Program Act activities at
    the authorized levels for fiscal year 2002.
        The current National Inventory of Dams (NID) is the result of an
    evolutionary process. The USACE continues to work closely with ASDSO,
    FEMA, and other state and federal agencies to update and publish the
    NID. The success of the NID maintenance and publication program can be
    attributed to the cooperative participation of the 50 states and Puerto
    Rico (as facilitated by ASDSO), and 17 federal agencies, who provide
    information on approximately 77,000 dams currently in the NID.
        The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) created a
    subcommittee to advise the USACE on the update of the NID. The NID
    Subcommittee provides guidance and recommendations concerning the data
    elements, format, and publication media for the NID. Its membership
    consists of representatives of non-federal and federal agencies who
    participate in the NID.
        A web-enabled version of the 1998-1999 NID update was posted to the
    Internet in January 1999. Updated data received by USACE is posted
    quarterly to the on-line database.
        The USACE and ASDSO are continuously improving the process of
    inventory data collection and transmission by the states and federal
    agencies to take advantage of current PC computers, software and the
    Internet. Software tools have been recently developed to improve the
    process of managing, inputting, and transmitting NID data. User
    training for the states and federal agencies on these software tools is
    starting in March 2001.
        This modest, yet vital, funding through the USACE will enable the
    states to continue to update the inventory providing valuable
    information to dam safety officials, city, county and state officials,
    and many others who are affected by dams and the watersheds they
    create.
        Additionally, funding of $7 million was authorized in the Water
    Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), Public Law 106-541, Section
    524, to allow for an inventory of dams constructed in Minnesota using
    funds from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian
    Conservation Corps (CCC). While ASDSO supports the overall intent of
    this language, we have serious concerns that the geographic limitation
    to Minnesota will leave out a significant number of WPA and CCC dams.
        ASDSO has identified more than 1,800 dams in 14 states that had
    been constructed with WPA and CCC funds. Of these, only 450 were in
    Minnesota. The requirement in WRDA 2000 to limit the entire $7 million
    inventory fund to Minnesota will result in unequal treatment for these
    states.
        Additionally, it has been noted that there are 2,100 unsafe dams in
    the United States, which have deficiencies that leave them highly
    susceptible to failure. Previous funding of this program has given the
    USACE, through state dam safety officials, the ability to maintain the
    inventory of dams, and determine which are unsafe.
        An alarming number of dams across the country are showing signs of
    age and lack proper maintenance. Downstream development is increasing,
    which exacerbates the problem. Most older dams were built without
    adequate spillways to release water in heavy rains, which causes water
    to run over the top. Inadequate spillway capacities are the most common
    deficiency and a major cause of dam failures. Dam safety officials
    estimate that thousands of dams are at risk of failing or are disasters
    waiting to happen. One-fourth of all U.S. dams are more than 50 years
    old, and by the year 2020, that figure is expected to increase to 85
    percent. ASDSO estimates that it would cost $2 billion over the next
    five years to begin to rehabilitate all the documented unsafe dams in
    the United States.
        ASDSO respectfully requests that the national dam inventory be
    fully funded at the authorized amount of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002.
    Additionally, ASDSO requests that the Minnesota Dam Safety provision of
    Public Law 106-541, Section 524 be fully funded at $7 million, and that
    the use of the funds be allowed to encompass all dams constructed under
    the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps
    regardless of their location in the United States.

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers

        Chairman Domenici and Members of the Subcommittee: The American
    Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer this testimony on
    the President's proposed budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    (USACE) for fiscal Year 2002.
        ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil
    engineering organization. It represents more than 125,000 civil
    engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia who
    are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
    engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and
    professional society.
                 united states army corps of engineers (usace)
    National Dam Safety Program Act
        The National Dam Safety Program Act, enacted as part of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996, is set to expire in fiscal year
    2002. The reauthorization of the Act will be a priority for ASCE in the
    107th Congress.
        Total authorized program funds for fiscal year 2002 are $6.4
    million, including $4 million for grants to participating states, $1
    million for research, $500,000 for the dam inventory, $500,000 for
    training, and $400,000 for additional Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA) staff. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has only a small
    part of this important program--the National Inventory of Dams. ASCE
    supports funding for all National Dam Safety Program Act activities at
    the authorized levels for fiscal year 2002.
        The current National Inventory of Dams (NID) is the result of an
    evolutionary process. The USACE continues to work closely with the
    Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other state and federal
    agencies to update and publish the NID. The success of the NID
    maintenance and publication program can be attributed to the
    cooperative participation of the 50 states and Puerto Rico (as
    facilitated by ASDSO), and 17 federal agencies, who provide information
    on approximately 77,000 dams currently in the NID.
        The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) created a
    subcommittee to advise the USACE on the update of the NID. The NID
    Subcommittee provides guidance and recommendations concerning the data
    elements, format, and publication media for the NID. Its membership
    consists of representatives of non-federal and federal agencies who
    participate in the NID.
        A web-enabled version of the 1998-1999 NID update was posted to the
    Internet in January 1999. Updated data received by USACE is posted
    quarterly to the on-line database.
        The USACE and ASDSO are continuously improving the process of
    inventory data collection and transmission by the states and federal
    agencies to take advantage of current PC computers, software and the
    Internet. Software tools have been recently developed to improve the
    process of managing, inputting, and transmitting NID data. User
    training for the states and federal agencies on these software tools is
    starting in March 2001.
        This modest, yet vital, funding through the USACE will enable the
    states to continue to update the inventory providing valuable
    information to dam safety officials, city, county and state officials,
    and many others who are affected by dams and the watersheds they
    create.
        Additionally, funding of $7 million was authorized in the Water
    Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), Public Law 106-541, Section
    524, to allow for an inventory of dams constructed in Minnesota using
    funds from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian
    Conservation Corps (CCC). While ASCE supports the overall intent of
    this language, we have serious concerns that the geographic limitation
    to Minnesota will leave out a significant number of WPA and CCC dams.
        ASDSO has identified more than 1,800 dams in 14 states that had
    been constructed with WPA and CCC funds. Of these, only 450 were in
    Minnesota. The requirement in WRDA 2000 to limit the entire $7 million
    inventory fund to Minnesota will result in unequal treatment for these
    states.
        In the recently released ASCE 2001 Report Card for America's
    Infrastructure Dams received a grade of D. Additionally, it has been
    noted that there are 2,100 unsafe dams in the United States, which have
    deficiencies that leave them highly susceptible to failure. Previous
    funding of this program has given the USACE, through state dam safety
    officials, the ability to maintain the inventory of dams, and determine
    which are unsafe.
        An alarming number of dams across the country are showing signs of
    age and lack proper maintenance. Downstream development is increasing,
    which exacerbates the problem. Most older dams were built without
    adequate spillways to release water in heavy rains, which causes water
    to run over the top. Inadequate spillway capacities are the most common
    deficiency and a major cause of dam failures. Dam safety officials
    estimate that thousands of dams are at risk of failing or are disasters
    waiting to happen. One-fourth of all U.S. dams are more than 50 years
    old, and by the year 2020, that figure is expected to increase to 85
    percent. ASCE estimates that it would cost $2 billion over the next
    five years to begin to rehabilitate all the documented unsafe dams in
    the United States.
        ASCE respectfully requests that the national dam inventory be fully
    funded at the authorized amount of $500,000 in fiscal year 2002.
    Additionally, ASCE requests that the Minnesota Dam Safety provision of
    Public Law 106-541, Section 524 be fully funded at $7 million, and that
    the use of the funds be allowed to encompass all dams constructed under
    the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps
    regardless of their location in the United States.
    Navigable Waterways
        This navigable waterway system has improved our quality of life and
    has provided a foundation for the economic growth and development of
    the United States. Our flood control works, water transportation
    systems, and multi-purpose projects all contribute to our national
    prosperity. The benefits are realized as flood damages prevented,
    reduced transportation costs, and increased trade.
        Unfortunately, in recent years, national investment in water
    resources projects has not kept pace with our level of economic and
    social expansion. Over the last 30 years the U.S. population has
    increased more than 40 percent while the GDP has grown from $2.5 to
    $7.5 trillion. Meanwhile, capital investment in public water resources
    infrastructure decreased by 70 percent. For example in the 1970s, the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works construction appropriations
    were in the $4 billion range. However, in the 1990s the funding dropped
    to an average of $1.6 billion a year. The combination of a decline in
    investment coupled, with an expanding population and economy, has
    created an ``investment gap.''
        The ASCE 2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave
    navigable waterways, which includes ports, harbor, inland waterways,
    and flood damage reduction infrastructure, grade of D+.
        Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports a backlog of
    over 500 active projects, with a Federal cost to complete these
    projects of about $38 billion. At the current levels of funding it
    would take 25 years to complete the active projects in the backlog
    without making allowances for considering additional project
    authorizations.
        More than 44 percent of lock chambers are over 50 years of age.
    Many locks are undersized for modern commercial barge movements. Many
    deep-draft channels are undersized for the wider and deeper mega-
    container ships that are becoming standard for international cargo
    movements. There is currently a backlog of $9 billion of needed
    waterway improvements. In addition, a maintenance backlog of $238
    million will be experienced in fiscal year 2001, resulting in further
    unrepaired wear and tear on lock chambers and channels.
        Nationwide, queuing delays at locks total some 550,000 hours
    annually, representing an estimated $385 million in increased operating
    costs borne by shippers, carriers, and, ultimately, consumers.
    Construction of new locks with additional capacity and major
    rehabilitation of older locks is essential to maintain the efficiency
    of the system.
        According to the American Association of Port Authorities, more
    than 90 percent of the nation's top 50 ports in foreign waterborne
    commerce require regular maintenance dredging. These ports move
    approximately 93 percent of all U.S. waterborne commerce each year. If
    these ports are not dredged many port facilities and navigation
    channels will be non-navigable in less than a year.
        According to a U.S. Department of Transportation report on
    intermodal freight connectors, connectors to ports, as opposed to other
    freight terminals, received the smallest level of funding and were
    found to be in the worst condition, having twice the percentage of
    mileage with pavement deficiencies when compared to non-interstate
    National Highway System routes.
        Serious problems are likely if current levels of investment
    continue. Demands on the waterway system are expected to double by
    2020, while the current system can barely accommodate current traffic
    levels. In the short term, service will be sustained; however, the
    aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance created by insufficient
    investment levels will result in degraded system performance, safety
    concerns, increased delays, higher transportation costs for goods and
    services, and negative impacts on GDP and employment.
        ASCE respectfully requests that the Operation and Maintenance,
    General, and Construction General be fully funded at the requested
    amounts of $1.745 billion, and $1.324 billion respectively in fiscal
    year 2002.
    Flood Damage Reduction Infrastructure
        The nation's flood control infrastructure consists of more than 400
    major Federal dams and reservoirs, 8,500 miles of levees and dikes, and
    hundreds of smaller local flood protection projects. Since 1950, this
    infrastructure has prevented nearly $500 billion in riverine and
    coastal flood damage, returning nearly $6 in flood protection for every
    $1 invested, and preventing, on average, $22 billion in flood damages
    annually.
        The existing stock of Federal infrastructure is generally well-
    maintained; however, unfunded, critical maintenance amounted to $82
    million in fiscal year 2001. In addition, over $15 billion of flood
    damage reduction infrastructure is awaiting construction, but has been
    postponed because of insufficient funding. This represents investments
    for needed major rehabilitations to existing projects, as well as new
    projects to service current needs.
        The significant portion of the 100,000-panel flood map inventory
    maintained by FEMA is outdated and may not accurately reflect flood
    prone conditions in the country. This is especially true in areas of
    rapid population growth where the flood plain can change with
    alterations to the original landscape resulting from new development.
    On average, $5 billion in flood damages occur each year, and the new
    construction of homes and infrastructure in the floodplains continues
    to increase.
        The need exists for continued investment in flood prevention,
    including both structural and nonstructural approaches. It should be
    noted that flood control structures once designed to protect
    agricultural land now must also protect homes and industrial
    structures. Additionally, there is an urgent need to update flood
    hazard boundary maps and to identify flood hazards in unmapped areas.
        Urban development in flood prone areas continues to increase by 1.5
    percent-2.5 percent per year. In addition, at-risk coastal areas are
    growing much more rapidly than other locations. In contrast to the
    increasing development in flood prone areas, investments in Flood
    Damage Reduction infrastructure have decreased by almost 70 percent in
    real terms over the past three decades. The combination of these two
    trends makes it likely that residual flood damages could increase
    substantially in the years ahead. For example, in the Highland Lakes
    area of central Texas, the number of structures located in the
    floodplain has increased over 180 percent during the last 10 years.
    Over $18 million in federal and local funding is estimated to be needed
    to provide engineering and mapping to accurately identify flood prone
    areas in this basin alone.
        ASCE respectfully requests that the Operation and Maintenance,
    General, and Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries be fully
    funded at the requested amounts of $1.745 billion, and $280 million
    respectively in fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Louis J. Hector, Vice President, Transportation
        and Infrastructure, State of New York, Empire State Development
     Corporation; Richard Gimello, Executive Director, New Jersey Maritime
     Resources, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation; Richard
    M. Larrabee, Director, Port Commerce Department, The Port Authority of
                            New York and New Jersey

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
    opportunity to share with you our collective request for navigation
    channel funding.
        The flow of international and domestic commerce through the bistate
    gateway has increased dramatically in recent years, evidence of a
    thriving international trade environment and the importance of Federal
    and non-Federal investments in water and landside facilities. Without
    adequate channels and intermodal connectors linking the terminals to
    the highways and rail lines, the nation's business cannot be
    accomplished in an efficient way. We see our role--the role of the
    governmental agencies charged with responsibility for the port--as
    helping make commerce work for our country through the infrastructure.
                                   background
        To demonstrate why Federal funds for navigation projects in our
    region are monies well spent, we quickly recite some statistics from
    the year 2000. Last year $82 billion in cargo flowed through our marine
    terminals, an increase of 13-percent increase over 1999. For the first
    time, total container volumes surpassed the 3 million TEU (20-foot
    equivalent units) mark in 2000, a 7-percent increase over 1999. Loaded
    TEUs were 2,246,194 in 2000, a 10.8-percent increase. For the first
    time in 20 years, ship calls topped the 5,000 mark with 5,124
    commercial vessels, representing a 7.3-percent increase. Overall vessel
    traffic in the port has increased more than 12 percent since 1991.
    Total cargo volumes (bulk and general cargo combined) grew by 9.7
    percent in 2000.
        While the Port of New York and New Jersey serves a huge local
    market it is also the major gateway to the United States. The port
    handles 11 percent of all oceanborne general cargo imported into the
    nation. It also serves a significant market in the Midwestern United
    States. In fact, 40 percent of the Midwest bound cargo that flows
    through North Atlantic ports comes through the Port of New York and New
    Jersey. As you might imagine, and as our senators know very well, the
    working port serves not only the national interest but also our bistate
    region where the Port supports more than 166,000 jobs and contributes
    $21 billion to the regional economy.
        We are grateful for the funding that this Subcommittee has provided
    to projects in our port. In addition to the required non-Federal match
    there also will be significant, related investments in a wide range of
    port-related infrastructure. The public and private investments are in
    response to market demands. Those demands clearly indicate that
    commerce will flow strongly through our port at rates that will test
    the capacity of our infrastructure in the channels, at the terminals
    and on access facilities even as construction is underway. Our
    conservative analysis of a few years ago projected annual growth at 4
    percent and a doubling of cargo in our region by the end of the decade.
    However, as you can see in the 2000 statistics, real growth actually
    has exceeded that pace. Given the above, we think that funding the
    projects at our recommended levels is well justified and consistent
    with the best interests of this country as it works to meet the demands
    of world commerce. The navigation channels that are under construction,
    or soon will be, serve the major terminal areas of the Port. The
    improvement work by the Corps of Engineers will ensure that essential
    navigation infrastructure will be in place to accommodate post-Panamax
    ships currently deployed in international commerce.
        Mr. Chairman, the Federal government and we, your partners, should
    undertake major capital projects in timeframes that provide project
    benefits when they are needed and not long after they are required.
    That is why we are investing $4 billion over the next several years on
    an ambitious construction schedule to increase the capacity and
    efficiency of the land and water infrastructure that is required to
    serve the nation's business.
        The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, alone, is committing
    $1.8 billion in port redevelopment projects over the next five years
    while some of our private partners have committed spending over $500
    million in marine terminal investments. As we already noted, trade
    volumes have skyrocketed, placing ``future'' demands on the port
    facilities today and portending even more to come. Steamships, planned
    and under construction, are only getting larger, promising greater
    volumes of cargo on each call and requiring deeper channels to allow
    the vessels safe and efficient operation. And with greater efficiency
    in all aspects of our transportation system, the nation benefits by
    becoming more competitive. In fact the Army Corps of Engineers
    estimates that the nation will enjoy $270 million in annual
    transportation cost savings due to larger vessels calling on the Port
    of New York and New Jersey.
        Discussed below are select projects and appropriation amounts that
    we seek for fiscal year 2002. Please know that these are in addition to
    other, continuing projects, currently under study or requiring
    maintenance that are in the Corps of Engineers budget.
                                   discussion
    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 would serve Port Newark and the Elizabeth Port Authority
    Marine Terminal, the busiest and largest container facilities on the
    East Coast, as well as terminals on the Arthur Kill. 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, on schedule and under
    budget. Of nine planned construction contracts, one is complete and two
    are nearing completion. A fourth contract was awarded in March and bids
    were received for a fifth contract. In April, bids for a sixth contract
    will be received. 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 seek $44 million, the
    amount budgeted by the President, to keep the project on track.
    NY & NJ Channels: Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ
        The Arthur Kill Channel, NY & NJ, Howland Hook Marine Terminal
    (HHMT) project authorization was initiated in 1986 and most recently
    revised in the 1999 WRDA. 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 and (2)
    deepening to 40 feet below MLW from the HHMT to the Petroport and Tosco
    facilities in New Jersey. The Army Corps estimates that the project
    will result in an annual public benefit of $70 million The Port
    Authority has already invested nearly $52 million in 2000 including the
    purchase of land to expand the terminal at HHMT. Another $475 million
    has been committed in the Port Authority's five-year capital plan to
    further expand capacity and improve the productivity of the terminal.
        The Port Authority Board of Commissioners has approved an amount
    representing the full local share and we are eager to get the project
    underway. The HHMT currently serves 18 shipping lines and employs 800
    people--an increase of 200 over 1999--on peak days and is expected to
    increase to a range of 1000 to 1200 employees in 2001. Howland Hook is
    the fastest growing marine terminal in the harbor, handling
    approximately 20 percent of the Port of New York and New Jersey's
    cargo. In the last year alone, the terminal's volumes grew an amazing
    72 percent. Lastly, we note 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. Yet vessels serving national security interests will
    not be able to fully load at the terminal until the project is
    completed.
        The Port of New York and New Jersey is the number one refined
    petroleum port in the nation and ranks with the Port of Houston, Texas,
    in terms of total volume. Many of the petroleum facilities are located
    along the Arthur Kill, including the Tosco Bayway Refinery. Deepening
    the Arthur Kill to the Tosco Refinery will reduce the need to lighter
    the large tankers at the anchorages in New York Harbor. If lightering
    were no longer necessary, the potential for an environmental accident
    as a result of the double handling of this sensitive cargo would be
    eliminated. Last year, the President's budget request included this
    project for the start of construction and Congress approved $4 million.
    The President's budget requests $15 million. We are aware of
    recommendations that include as much $50 million for the Arthur Kill
    project. We would welcome funding at a level as high as that. However,
    we also understand that the capability of the Corps of Engineers in
    fiscal year 2002 is approximately $20 million. We respectfully request
    that the Subcommittee provide at least that amount in order to keep
    pressure on the Corps of Engineers to complete this important project
    on an expedited basis.
    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 would serve a new terminal that is
    contemplated for a portion of the former Military Ocean Terminal at
    Bayonne. As the only privately owned container terminal in the port,
    Global pays approximately $12,000,000 in Federal, state, and local
    taxes annually. More than 300 vessels, carrying more than 325,000
    twenty-foot equivalent units, call annually at the terminal. Well over
    600 terminal employees, with an annual payroll of $28 million, and
    3,000 indirect jobs depend on this facility for their livelihood. In
    addition, Global Terminal has recently invested over $50 million in new
    container cranes and other handling equipment. They also plan to invest
    another $40 to $50 million in facility improvements to efficiently
    handle the growth of cargo projected for this area of the Port.
    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 anticipate that the project will be done over
    two years and that with an appropriation $22 million for fiscal year
    2002, the amount requested in the President's budget, we will be able
    to make the level of progress needed at that location and ensure the
    timely initiation of the second of the two planned contracts.
    New York & New Jersey Harbor Project
        Congress last year authorized the New York & New Jersey Harbor
    navigation project that builds on the improvement projects described
    earlier in this statement. This is a comprehensive deepening of the
    entrance channels (to 53 feet) and those serving the major terminal
    areas of the bistate port (to 50 feet). This harbor-wide project will
    take the Port's navigation infrastructure into the 21st century. It
    will ensure that the United States will have world class channel
    dimensions at its principal Atlantic gateway to meet the demands of
    international shipping. The Corps of Engineers has made good progress
    in the project thus far. The Port Authority and New York District
    Engineer signed the PED agreement at the end of 2000. This pre-
    construction and engineering design phase is expected to last 2 to 3
    years. The Port Authority is currently investigating ways to shorten
    construction schedules to bring 50' channels to the Port meet the
    demands of our customers sooner. Therefore we request that the
    Subcommittee support the continued engineering and design work on the
    project with an appropriation of $8 million, which is greater than the
    budgeted figure.
    NY & NJ Estuary Restoration Project
        The implementation of a restoration and remediation plan for the
    Hudson-Raritan Estuary is a significant part of any future improvement
    strategy for the harbor. The Corps of Engineers' feasibility study on
    harbor restoration is an important step in determining potential
    Federal and non-Federal projects to improve the quality of the natural
    resource. To that end, we respectfully request that funds in the amount
    of $3 million be appropriated for the second year of this valuable
    effort.
    Ambrose Shoal
        Last year, the conferees of the Energy & Water Development bill for
    fiscal year 2001 directed the Corps of Engineers to remove dangerous,
    high elevation areas near the entrance to the Ambrose Channel. It was
    an urgent matter, prompted by incidents that were evidence that what
    markings are in place at that location are insufficient to protect
    vessels from the hazard. Thanks to you, and prompt work by the Corps of
    Engineers, it appears that the work will be completed in the current
    fiscal year.
    Section 102 Restrictions
        The conferees last year again adopted a limitation on Corps of
    Engineers agreements entailing credits and reimbursements for advances
    by non-Federal sponsors. Such a provision effectively preempts
    initiative on the part of non-Federal sponsors to bring about a
    completed project at a lower cost. We strongly urge the Subcommittee
    not to renew that restriction or to at least provide the Secretary with
    some flexibility in that regard. As partners with Congress and the
    Corps of Engineers in pursuit of beneficial projects, we think that if
    a project can be expedited through the advancement of funds, it is in
    the long term interest of all parties, most especially the public.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, the Port of New York and New Jersey directly serves a
    substantial portion of the United States, reaching into the Midwest and
    beyond. As the evolution of the shipping industry has continued the
    port sector has witnessed the shift to a smaller number of major
    intermodal gateways that require the deeper channels. We have seen that
    shift occurring in our region. Major steamship lines that are adding
    large ships to their fleets have committed to new and expanded
    facilities in our harbor. We are responding by making investments in
    channels, berths, terminal infrastructure and rail and road
    improvements. We are also implementing a new rail and barge feeder
    service program to speed containerized cargo to their destinations with
    less impact on the environmental and greater efficiency. This program
    will entail even greater expenditures by the public and private sectors
    at the state and local level. The Federal role in meeting the
    requirements of world commerce is even more crucial because the
    navigation channels are the essential first step.
        Thank you for this opportunity to advise you on the Corps of
    Engineers projects of concern to our States and region.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           President's           UMRBA
                                             request         recommendation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction General:
        Upper Miss. River System                   21.000             33.170
         Environmental Mgt. Program...
        Major Rehabilitation of Locks              13.744             16.954
         and Dams.....................
    Operation and Maintenance: O&M of             138.216            177.216
     the UMR Navigation System........
    General Investigations:
        Upper Mississippi and Illinois              3.724                \1\
         Waterway Navigation Study....
        Upper Mississippi River System              1.200              1.200
         Flow Frequency Study.........
        Upper Mississippi River                     0.000              2.000
         Comprehensive Plan...........
        Upper MS & IL Rivers Levees &               0.000               .250
         Streambank Prot. Study.......
        Research & Development........             24.000             29.000
        Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological               .700               .700
         Survey)......................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Sums as necessary.

    Introduction
        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created in 1981 by the Governors 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 concerns about the Corps' planning
    process, proposals for management reform, and controversies surrounding
    the Upper Mississippi River Navigation study are serious matters.
    However, these issues do not obviate the fundamental need for a wide
    variety of on-going Corps water resource 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 river system. The habitat projects, which vary in size and range in
    cost from about $500,000 to $14 million, employ different 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 supports six field
    stations throughout the river system that routinely collect
    standardized data on water quality, sediment, fish, invertebrates, and
    vegetation at over 150 sites. In addition, scientists conduct applied
    research, assessing habitat conditions and historic landscape changes,
    and use modeling and statistical analysis to help characterize and
    understand ecological processes.
        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 2002 budget request for the EMP is
    only $21 million, well below the authorized funding level. In four of
    the past five years, Congress has chosen 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 the full authorized amount of $33.17 million for the EMP in
    fiscal year 2002.
        The fiscal year 2002 budgeted amount of $21 million will be used to
    initiate construction on 8 habitat projects, continue construction of 3
    projects, and complete construction of 2 projects. The design of 3
    projects will be completed, while design work continues on 5 others. In
    addition, approximately $6.3 million will be used to support the on-
    going long-term resource monitoring, research, and analysis. Funding
    will be used to support the work of the state field stations and
    continue analyzing the data collected at those stations to guide
    habitat restoration efforts.
        If an additional $12.17 million is provided in fiscal year 2002,
    significant additional habitat restoration work can proceed, including
    completion of design work on 2 projects, initiation of construction of
    2 projects, and advancing construction of 7 projects. In addition,
    critical bathymetric surveys can be completed. Bathymetry, which is the
    topography of the river bottom, is used to predict habitat impacts from
    flood events, define essential habitats for large river species, and
    identify opportunities for habitat restoration. In addition, enhanced
    funding would insure that land cover/land use data coverage for the
    entire river system could be rapidly completed. Such information is
    needed for a wide variety of management activities, including best
    management practices to address nutrient loss and impacts.
    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 15 years, the Corps has been
    undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout
    the navigation 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 2002 budget request of
    $13.744 million for major rehabilitation work at three locks and dams
    on the Upper Mississippi River. Half of this amount is to be provided
    by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Funding for Lock and Dam 12 ($4.906
    million) and Lock and Dam 24 ($8.038 million) will support continuing
    work, including rehabilitation of lock machinery and concrete
    resurfacing. Funding to address the Lock and Dam 3 outdraft problem
    ($800,000) will support continuing work on the reevaluation report and
    draft Environmental Impact Statement. The funds that the Corps has
    requested are expected to be sufficient to accomplish the work
    scheduled at these three sites. However, an additional $3.21 million
    could be used to initiate major rehabilitation work at Lock and Dam 11
    as well.
    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 2002 budget includes approximately $138 million
    for O&M of this river system, including $101.657 million for the
    Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the Missouri River, $13.068
    million for the Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Ohio
    River, and $23.491 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 region. 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 2002
    are expected to be adequate to meet basic O&M requirements, the UMRBA
    supports additional funding of $39 million, which could be effectively
    utilized in fiscal year 2002 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 dams.
    Navigation Study
        The Corps is currently reviewing the findings and recommendations
    of the March 2001 report of the National Research Council (NRC) to
    determine what changes need to be made to the Upper Mississippi--
    Illinois Waterway System Navigation feasibility study. In particular,
    the NRC panel that reviewed the study found problems with the Corps'
    economic model, its assumptions, and input data. Due to these problems,
    the panel recommended that the Corps' forecasts of barge traffic and
    waterway congestion not be used. They also recommended that the Corps
    obtain more data and more fully explore inexpensive nonstructural
    alternatives. In addition, the NRC recommended a more comprehensive
    assessment of environmental impacts and better integration of the
    results of the environmental studies in the decision process.
        In response to these findings the Corps is revising its Project
    Study Plan (PSP), which is expected to be done by June 2001. In
    addition, a National Federal Senior Principals Task Force and a
    Regional Interagency Work Group have recently been formed to provide
    guidance on the economic and environmental issues and assist in
    bringing this study to completion. The UMRBA supports the fiscal year
    2002 funding necessary to modify the study as needed so that it can be
    brought to a timely conclusion with credible analysis upon which to
    base future investment decisions.
    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
    2002 budget request of $1.2 million for the Upper Mississippi River
    Flow Frequency Study. These funds will be used to develop the new flood
    profiles and complete risk and uncertainty and sensitivity analyses.
    Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan
        Section 459 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
    authorized the Corps to develop what is termed an ``Upper Mississippi
    River Comprehensive Plan.'' The primary focus of the plan is systemic
    flood damage reduction. The current devastating floods on the Upper
    Mississippi River once again demonstrate the need to take a
    comprehensive look at flood control and floodplain management needs on
    the upper river. The UMRBA supports funding of $2 million in fiscal
    year 2002 to initiate coordination with other Federal and state
    agencies to appropriately scope the study and identify data and
    information needs, including how the plan will build upon the results
    of the Flow Frequency Study.
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Levees and Streambank Protection
            Study
        Section 458 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
    authorized the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and
    streambanks protection study in response to erosion damages to levees
    and other flood control structures on these rivers. The UMRBA supports
    funding of $250,000 to initiate this study in fiscal year 2002.
    Research and Development
        The $24 million requested in the President's budget for Research
    and Development does not include funding for a proposed System-Wide
    Modeling Assessment & Restoration Technologies' (SMART) program. The
    SMART program would provide significant new tools needed to address
    environmental restoration at watershed and basin scales. Hydrologic,
    hydrodynamic, and sediment transport models would be linked with
    biological models and socio-economic modules to provide an integrated
    technology for evaluating improvements in land and water management at
    the basin scale. It is proposed that this work focus initially on the
    Upper Mississippi River Basin. SMART would improve prediction
    capabilities regarding sediment and nutrient transport under different
    conditions of land use. This foundational research could then be
    applied to the sediment and nutrient modeling authorized for the Upper
    Mississippi River Basin under Section 403 of WRDA 2000.
        The estimated five-year cost of the SMART program is $25 million,
    with $5 million requested in fiscal year 2002. The UMRBA supports
    funding for the SMART program as the research investment required prior
    to implementation of the Section 403 study.
    Stream Gaging
        The Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the USGS operates
    approximately 150 stream gages in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. In
    fiscal year 2001, the estimated Corps share of the cost of these gages
    is $1.1 million. Most stream gages are funded as part of the cost of
    the project to which they are related. However, there are a number of
    gages that are not associated with a particular project. Thus, UMRBA
    supports the $700,000 requested in the General Investigations to
    support the Corps' share of non-project USGS stream gages, many of
    which are located in the five states of the Upper Mississippi River
    Basin.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

        The Energy Committee of the Council on Engineering (COE), American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International) is pleased to
    provide testimony on the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request
    for the Department of Energy (DOE). Our testimony is directed to the
    Administration's proposed budget for the Department of Energy's R&D
    programs in the areas of nuclear energy research, renewable energy
    research, and basic energy sciences.
                introduction to the coe energy committee of asme
        The 125,000-member ASME International is a worldwide society
    dedicated to the advancement of the art and science of Mechanical
    Engineering. We focus our efforts on technical, education, and research
    in Mechanical Engineering and conduct one of the world's largest
    technical publishing operations. The COE Energy Committee consists
    primarily of members representing eight technical divisions and three
    ASME Boards (approximately 40,000 members) that address energy
    technologies, resources, and utilization.
                                   background
        This past year has been a pivotal one for energy supply and
    utilization in the United States. The first results of restructuring of
    the electric power industry in California manifested themselves
    dramatically, with spiking electrical power prices, rolling blackouts,
    and bankruptcy filings by major utilities. The California experience
    has caused many states that had been contemplating restructuring to
    delay their plans pending resolution of the situation. Nationwide, we
    have experienced some of the highest gasoline prices in a decade with
    predictions that prices could exceed $3/gallon in some parts of the
    country this summer. Some have referred to our situation as an emerging
    ``energy crisis,'' while we recognize that these events are symptoms of
    the fact that we have no consistent, well-integrated national energy
    policy to carry us into the 21st Century.
        The COE Energy Committee fully supports the Administration's
    actions to establish a National Energy Strategy to meet our current and
    future energy needs. We firmly believe that success in implementing a
    National Energy Strategy will, in part, depend on developing new and
    continuing current Federal energy R&D programs, while motivating
    industrial and consumer adoption of current state-of-the-art energy
    technologies. Energy R&D funding levels are at all time lows at a time
    when energy issues are on the front pages of American life. This trend
    must be reversed to stoke the (emission-free) fires of America's
    innovative spirit.
        The current situation is placing higher demands on the performance
    of our energy systems and, in some cases, is pushing the limits of
    scientific understanding and technology. As mechanical engineers, we
    feel strongly that investments in scientific research and technology
    development are essential to enable our country to meet its near- and
    long-term energy needs in an environmentally appropriate manner. Fossil
    fuels, which presently are the predominant energy source worldwide,
    will remain the primary fuel for years to come. In the United States,
    coal currently produces more than half our electrical power and,
    because its supply is plentiful, will be the fuel of choice for this
    purpose in the future. In the long term, we need to establish a
    diversity of energy resources to meet our energy needs that include
    expanding our nuclear, hydropower, solar, and other renewable energy
    resources. It is crucial, as we expand and diversify our energy
    resources, that we also use them wisely and effectively, setting
    standards for utilization and improving conservation and efficiency. In
    our view, one example of an ineffective use of an energy resource is
    the proliferation of gas-turbine power plants that use natural gas as a
    fuel when natural gas has more value as a chemical feedstock and home-
    heating fuel.
        Even with increased energy shortages, the U. S. public continues to
    demonstrate concern for the preservation of the environment and for
    continued improvement of air and water quality. The ability to meet our
    future energy needs in a manner consistent with our environmental well
    being requires that we continue into the 21st Century the innovation
    and entrepreneurial development in that made us the world leader in
    technology in the 20th Century. To do this, we need strong leadership
    from the Federal government to develop a national energy policy that:
      --ensures a diversity of U. S. energy sources and a transmission and
            distribution infrastructure to enable adequate future supplies
            and competition in the market place;
      --utilizes energy resources in those applications where they are
            unique, efficient, and provide the most value;
      --balances supply-side (resource availability and distribution) and
            demand-side (conservation, utilization, and efficiency)
            considerations; and
      --maintains consideration for the environmental impacts of energy-
            related decisions.
        The COE Energy Committee strongly supports increased funding for
    energy research and development that is directed at increasing energy
    conservation, developing advanced forms of energy and improving
    utilization of our resources.
        Our testimony is based on an analysis of the Administration's
    proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 for the Department of Energy's R&D
    programs in nuclear energy research, renewable energy research, and
    basic energy sciences. While the administration clearly recognizes the
    importance of developing a national energy policy as indicated by the
    appointment of the Vice President to lead its development, our analysis
    shows a reduction of funding in the three topic areas of nearly $140
    million dollars over fiscal year 2001 levels. These reductions are
    proposed at a time when we should be expanding, not reducing, R&D, and
    they critically threaten very important energy R&D programs.
                            office of nuclear energy
        The U.S. pioneered the safe utilization of atomic energy for
    commercial power production and today 23 percent of the U. S.
    electrical energy is supplied by nuclear power. Technology developed in
    the U.S. is now employed worldwide for nuclear power generation. For
    over two decades, no new nuclear power plants have been approved for
    construction in the U.S. while abroad many countries are taking
    advantage of this clean, safe, and relatively inexpensive power source.
    The U.S. has the opportunity to renew its option on the effective use
    of nuclear power, which many believe will be a vital part of a future
    where carbon emissions may be severely curtailed. However, this will
    not be possible without a significant, sustained, national investment,
    coupled with the re-licensing of existing U.S. nuclear plants.
        To meet the challenges associated with ensuring a continued supply
    of nuclear power in our country, we have identified the following
    research needs and policy priorities: completion of the high-level
    waste repository and demonstration of long-term technologies for
    monitoring and managing repository safety; R&D to improve on-site and
    off-site interim storage; and incentives for students to enter careers
    for nuclear design, construction, and operation.
    Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO)
        The COE Energy Committee strongly supports the NEPO to address
    extending the life and improving the efficiency of conventional nuclear
    power plants. The NEPO program marks the beginning of efforts to enable
    maximum use of our existing nuclear generation capacity. Major advances
    in science and technology offer the potential to substantially increase
    the productive life of nuclear plants with improved safety and economic
    performance. Given the current industry trend toward nuclear plant life
    extension and the potential benefits offered by the NEPO program, the
    COE Energy Committee encourages the Subcommittee to increase the amount
    requested by the administration to $10 million, with appropriate and
    justified increases in future years.
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI)
        The COE Energy Committee continues to support the NERI efforts to
    develop fundamental technologies for future nuclear power. Increased
    understanding of nuclear power technology, advances in materials
    science, and improvements in many related sciences and technology offer
    the potential to reduce plant construction and operation costs and
    waste management requirements, and improve plant operability,
    reliability, life span, and safety. A substantial fraction of this
    initiative will go toward nurturing university research and education
    in nuclear science and engineering, through direct funding and
    reinforcing linkages between the nuclear technical community in
    industry and our national laboratories. It will help ensure the
    availability of an improved nuclear power option for the future and
    increase the dwindling base of nuclear professionals. This will benefit
    the U.S. by enhancing power production in this country and enabling
    U.S. industry to compete effectively in the global energy markets. We
    recommend funding NERI at least equal to last year's level of $35
    million, with serious consideration given to steadily increasing
    funding to the level of $100 million recommended by the 1997 report by
    the Presidents Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
    Nuclear Engineering Technologies
        The Energy Committee supports the development of next-generation
    nuclear technologies for advanced light water reactors and robust,
    modular designs. We believe that it is critical to identify and develop
    modular reactor designs with high utilization, lower toxicity, and less
    proliferation potential for process heat, desalination, and hydrogen
    production. We also support the development of designs for advanced
    gas-cooled plant designs. The Committee supports increasing funding for
    Nuclear Technologies to $12 million.
    Other Nuclear Programs
        The COE Energy Committee supports continued investment in the
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support (URFAS). It is
    reasonable to believe that increased investment in NERI and NEPO will
    require greater utilization of our university reactors; therefore, the
    COE Energy Committee recommends an increase to $15 million for fiscal
    year 2002.
                           renewable energy resources
        The COE Energy Committee supports increasing the proposed budget
    for solar and renewable energy development as an investment in
    diversity of our energy future. Various studies by the National Science
    Foundation and others have shown that it takes from 20 to 25 years from
    the time of inception for a new technology to start to penetrate
    commercial markets. Some solar and renewable energy resources, e.g.,
    wind, hydropower, geothermal, and some biomass technologies, are
    nearing the completion of this development cycle. Other renewable
    technologies (photovoltaics, concentrating solar, and hydrogen) are at
    the mid-point of the cycle and are, realistically, years from reaching
    technological maturity. Because some technologies are more developed
    now does not necessarily mean that they are either the ``best'' or the
    ``only'' technologies that will be needed in the future. It is clear
    there will not likely be one winner, but rather a suite of technologies
    that will be deployed to meet the broad range of needs within the U.S.
    and for export. Now is the time to explore and expand all of our
    options to the fullest extent practicable as we prepare to meet power
    generation needs of the 21st Century.
    Hydrogen Research
        The COE Energy Committee supports increased funding for Hydrogen
    research to $30 million to accelerate the development of reformer
    technology, membranes, and high-density storage for application to fuel
    cells.
    Hydro Power
        THE COE Energy Committee supports increasing funding for hydropower
    to the fiscal year 2001 level of $5 million for continuing development
    of advanced turbines and for studies to evaluate re-powering of
    existing hydroelectric dams, which will increase efficiency and
    capacity and mitigate environmental impacts.
    Solar Energy
        The COE Energy Committee supports increases in funding for solar
    energy research by $60 million to support systems integration for
    photovoltaic (increase to $80.1 million) and concentrating solar power
    (CSP) systems (increase to $18.7 million), and for the solar buildings
    program to bring it back to the $3.9 million dollar level of fiscal
    year 2001. The Committee believes that the proposed close out of the
    CSP Program on the grounds that solar trough technology is commercial,
    is ill conceived and does not take into consideration the additional
    development needs of power tower and dish/engine systems.
    Renewable Support and Implementation
        The COE Energy Committee strongly favors increased funding for
    renewable energy support and implementation programs by $21.5 million
    as a continuation of support for the coordination of Federal, Native
    American, and state energy programs and to encourage and enhance the
    application of renewable energy projects.
                                 other programs
        The COE Energy Committee supports the proposed funding for Biomass
    Power/Biofuels at $80.5 million with primary focuses on alternative
    fuels development and power production. We also recommend: increasing
    the geothermal budget to $27 million to support cross-cutting drilling
    research; increasing the wind energy budget to $45 million in support
    of advance light weight turbine designs and active controls; and an
    increase in energy storage and distributed energy systems to $60
    million for cross-cutting systems and storage development.
        The COE Energy Committee supports enhancing the formation of
    coalitions among industry, universities, and the national laboratories
    to fully explore research and development potential of solar/renewable
    energy resources. We believe that it is government's role to perform
    the basic, fundamental R&D and that, once the concepts have been fully
    developed, it is industry's responsibility to penetrate the global
    marketplace. The development of competitive renewable options provides
    insurance for U. S. energy security and environmental impacts on our
    energy future. They will enable the U.S. to achieve a more sustainable
    energy economy.
                             basic energy sciences
        The COE Energy Committee recognizes the importance of fundamental
    scientific research for the long-term well being of the nation and we
    support the proposed, nearly level funding for Office of Science
    Programs. We cannot help but be concerned about reductions in funding
    for biological research and we recommend a modest increase in the
    advanced scientific computing initiatives to $170 million. We also want
    to support the increases in funding for Basic Energy Sciences and high
    energy physics, and level funding for fusion research and nuclear
    physics.
        The COE Energy Committee joins our President and Vice President in
    facing the challenges of ensuring that energy resources are available
    to meet the needs of all our citizens; and assuring that adequate
    supplies of energy for the safety and security of our families, our
    communities, and our Nation. We believe that dependable, affordable,
    and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy is
    critical for the future of the United States.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the
    renewable, nuclear, and science budgets proposed for the Department of
    Energy. ASME's COE Energy Committee will be pleased to respond to
    requests for additional information or perspectives on other aspects of
    our nation's energy programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County,
                                   California

                       lower walnut creek channel project
                                    request
        Contra Costa County requests a $250,000 add-on of Construction
    General (CG) Funding to the Federal Fiscal Year 2002 Budget to allow
    the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to prepare a General Reevaluation
    Report (GRR) to evaluate new alternatives allowing flood control
    improvements and environmental restoration of this major tributary.
    Army Corps of Engineers review of pertinent information and preparation
    of additional studies are necessary in order to recommend appropriate
    action and funding requirements to provide critical drainage
    improvements and habitat restoration in the Lower Walnut Creek Channel.
                                   background
        The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
    District (District) has been unable to operate and maintain portions of
    the Walnut Creek Channel in a traditional manner due to new listings of
    endangered species and regulatory agency policies. As a result the
    channel has silted in over the last several years reducing its flood
    protection capacity. The importance of this project has resulted in
    broad-based support from many agencies and organizations throughout a
    large portion of this major metropolitan area. Through work with our
    Contra Costa Watershed Forum and establishing broad based support, the
    District is proposing new alternatives that will move the channel
    levees back to establish a floodplain and additional habitat. This
    project will also evaluate feasibility to build step pools for fish to
    migrate past a concrete drop structure. The project will enhance the
    flood control aspects of the channel, develop trails for access by the
    public and provide restoration and re-vegetation of portions of Lower
    Walnut Creek Channel. The Army Corps of Engineers needs a budget
    allocation in the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget to enable them to
    evaluate potential changes to the functioning characteristics of Lower
    Walnut Creek Channel, to allow all parties to move ahead with this
    project.
                                     ______

                            Letter From Robert Doyle

                               East Bay Regional Park District,
                                   Oakland, California, March 15, 2001.
    Congressman George Miller,
    7th Congressional District, 1333 Willow Pass Road, Suite 203, Concord,
            CA 94520.
        Dear Congressman Miller: On behalf of the East Bay Regional Park
    District, I am writing to express our support of the Contra Costa
    County Flood Control District's efforts to obtain Federal funding for
    environmental restoration and flood control efforts on the lower Walnut
    Creek Channel. We understand the County is requesting $250,000 in
    fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding as a congressional add-on
    for a General Reevaluation Study by the Army Corps of Engineers. This
    Study would update existing studies and include new information and
    technology, and to complete environmental review as well as engineering
    and design for the project.
        Restoration efforts and flood control improvements on the Walnut
    Creek Channel will incorporate the Iron Horse Regional Trail's Walnut
    Creek Channel extension which will link Martinez and Concord and
    continue southward on existing trail which runs through the communities
    of Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Alamo, Danville, San Ramon, and most
    recently Dublin. The trail links parks, schools, employment centers,
    residential areas, and three BART Stations along its 23 miles of
    length. Development of the trail in conjunction with a future flood
    control project will provide opportunities for the public to view
    restoration and flood control improvements, creating a unique
    interpretive opportunity of this important watershed.
        We look forward to working cooperatively with the local
    organizations and agencies identified as a part of this project.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Robert Doyle,
                                 Assist General Manager, Land Division.
                                     ______

                        Letter From Laura M. Hoffmeister

                                               City of Concord,
                                    Concord, California, March 16, 2001
    Honorable Ellen Tauscher,
    Congresswoman, 10th District, 1801 North California Boulevard, Suite
            103, Walnut Creek, CA 94595.
        Dear Congresswoman Tauscher: We are writing to express our support
    of the Contra Costa County Flood Control District's efforts to obtain
    Federal funding for environmental restoration and flood control efforts
    on the lower Walnut Creek Channel. We understand the County is
    requesting $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding as
    a congressional add for a General Re-evaluation Study by the Army Corps
    of Engineers. This Reevaluation Study would update existing studies and
    include new information and technology, and to complete environmental
    review as well as engineering and design for the project.
        We feel that restoration of the Walnut Creek Channel is vitally
    important to our community because restoration of the creek takes many
    forms; we have an opportunity now to improve our creek for flood
    control purposes while adding a vital component which hasn't been
    addressed as part of flood control efforts in the past ecosystem
    restoration. We will now be able to significantly improve riparian
    habitat along the creek for the number of Endangered Species which
    inhabit it, and improve a very decimated yet persistent fishery
    component. In addition, creek improvements will include vital regional
    trail linkages, significantly enhancing recreational opportunities.
        We are working with a large contingent of agencies and
    organizations which are all quite excited to be part of this project.
    We feel very fortunate to have been part of an effort in the past few
    years whereby flood control and ecosystem improvements are being
    implemented hand-in-hand. We stand ready to improve the quality of life
    for human as well as a great number of other species; all we need is
    funding to enable planning work to proceed on this very important
    project. Thanks for your attention and support of our request. If you
    have questions about this project, please do not hesitate to contact
    either Kevin Emigh at (925) 313-2233 or Mitch Avalon (925) 313-2203 at
    the County Floor Control District.
                Sincerely,
                                          Laura M. Hoffmeister,
                                                Mayor, City of Concord.
                                     ______

                            Letter From Kathy Hicks

                                          City of Walnut Creek,
                              Walnut Creek, California, March 16, 2001.
    Ellen Tauscher,
    1239 Longworth House Office Bldg, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: I would first like to thank you
    for your help on the City's South Broadway Grate Repair project with
    the Corps. It appears construction on that project will be completed
    before this summer. We now need your help on another issue.
        I am are writing to express our support of Contra Costa County
    Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and the City
    of Walnut Creek's efforts to obtain funding for environmental
    restoration, flood control, and recreational improvements on Grayson
    and Murderer's Creeks. We understand that the District is requesting
    $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding as a
    congressional add-on for a reconnaissance and study of the two creeks.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency has published preliminary
    maps showing approximately 1,800 homes and many businesses to be within
    the 100-year flood plain. The District and City believe that the
    construction of a multi-use basin along Grayson Creek can be utilized
    to protect lives (human and wildlife) and property by temporarily
    storing rainwater during severe storm events. The basin and drainage
    improvements would be constructed to allow the normal flow of water
    through the creeks. In addition to the construction of the basin, clean
    water, fish and wildlife, riparian, recreational, and educational
    enhancements would be incorporated into the project.
        We are one of the many Citizens, business, environmental, wildlife
    and recreational groups participating in the development of this vital
    project. Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution
    for this endeavor. If you have questions regarding this project, please
    call Mitch Avalon, County Flood Control District at (925) 313-2203 or
    Tim Tucker, City of Walnut Creek at (925) 943-5841.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Kathy Hicks,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

    murderer's creek and grayson creek project (cities of pleasant hill and
                                 walnut creek)
                                    request
        Contra Costa County requests a $100,000 add-on from General
    Investigation (GI) Funding for a Reconnaissance Study and a $100,000
    add-on from General Investigation (GI) Funding for a Feasibility Study,
    to the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget, for the Murderer's/Grayson
    Creek Project. This would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to review
    pertinent information and to do additional studies as necessary in
    order to recommend appropriate action and funding requirements to
    (potentially) conduct future drainage improvements in the Murderer's
    and Grayson Creek watershed.
                                   background
        This last summer, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
    released preliminary updated floodplain maps for areas throughout
    Contra Costa County. There are significant changes to the flood zones
    in the City of Pleasant Hill with approximately 1800 properties added
    to the 100-year floodplain. The flood zone changes are in the
    Murderer's Creek and Grayson Creek areas of Pleasant Hill. Both of
    these creeks are in the larger Walnut Creek drainage basin.
        The City of Pleasant Hill has made it a priority to address this
    drainage issue and requested assistance from the Flood Control District
    on their behalf. The Flood Control District has asked the Army Corps of
    Engineers to update the last report they prepared for this watershed.
    Because this issue has arisen late in the Federal budgeting process, a
    request for funding to be added to the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget
    is necessary. The Army Corps of Engineers needs a budget allocation to
    enable them to update the 1992 Feasibility Report for Grayson Creek and
    Murderers Creek (within the Walnut Creek Basin), in the Federal fiscal
    year 2002 Budget.
                                     ______

                         Letter From Robert B. Berggren

                      Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District,
                              Pleasant Hill California, March 13, 2001.
        Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: The Pleasant Hill Recreation &
    Park District is in support of the Contra Costa County Flood Control
    and Water Conservation District with the City of Pleasant Hill's
    efforts to obtain funding for a flood control basin. It is our
    understanding that the Water Conservation District is requesting
    $200,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works funding.
        The Recreation & Park District is in agreement with the Water
    Conservation District and City, that the construction of a mufti-use
    basin along Grayson Creek can be utilized to protect lives (human and
    wildlife) and property by temporarily storing rain water during severe
    storm events. The Recreation & Park District is, of course, very much
    interested in the construction of the basin for not only clean water,
    fish and wildlife, but also recreational enhancements that can be
    incorporated into this project.
        Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District and other groups that are
    sponsored by the District, include the Soccer Association and the
    Baseball Association, support the development of this vital project.
    Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution for this
    endeavor. We are hoping that this project will take place so we can
    have the much-needed soccer and baseball fields for the youth of this
    community.
                Sincerely,
                                            Robert B. Berggren,
                                                       General Manager.
                                     ______

                            Letter From David Smith

                            Pleasant Hill Baseball Association,
                             Pleasant Hill, California, March 14, 2001,
        Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: I am writing to express my
    support of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
    District (District) and the City of Pleasant Hill's efforts to obtain
    funding for environmental restoration, flood control, and recreational
    improvements on Grayson and Murderer's Creeks. I understand that the
    District is requesting $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works
    funding as a congressional add-on for a reconnaissance and study of the
    two creeks.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency has published preliminary
    maps showing approximately 1,800 homes and many businesses to be within
    the 100 year flood plain. The District and City believe that the
    construction of multi-use basin along Grason Creek can be utilized to
    protect lives (human and wildlife) and property by temporarily storing
    rain water during severe storm events. The basin and drainage
    improvements would be constructed to allow the normal flow of water
    through the creeks. As a child in the early 1960's I had to be picked
    up in a boat from my home on Elinora Drive, many homes were damaged in
    this event, so I have seen first hand the damage and trauma such a
    flood can cause. In additional to construction of the basin, clean
    water, fish and wildlife, riparian, recreational, and, educational
    enhancements would be incorporated into the project.
        I represent Pleasant Hill Baseball Association--just one of the
    many business, environmental, wildlife, and citizens groups
    participating in the development of this vital project.
        Pleasant Hill Baseball Association has nearly 1,500 children
    participating in its youth sports program. We need fields for this
    program, as does the Soccer Association, Football and various other
    groups dedicated to providing sports to the youth of the community.
    Studies show children who enjoy participation in organized sports lore
    much more likely to become productive citizens and much less likely to
    run afoul of the law.
        Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution for
    this endeavor. If you have questions regarding this project, please
    call Mitch Avalon, County Flood Control District at (925) 313-2203 or
    Leary Wong, City of Pleasant Hill at (925) 671-5264.
                Sincerely,
                                                   David Smith,
                         President, Pleasant Hill Baseball Association.
                                     ______

                           Letter From Paul Fernbach

                     Pleasant Hill-Martinez Soccer Association,
                                             Pleasant Hill, California.
        Dear Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher: We are writing to express our
    support of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation
    District (District) and the City of Pleasant Hill's efforts to obtain
    funding for environmental restoration, flood control, and recreational
    improvements on Grayson and Murderer's Creeks. We understand that the
    District is requesting $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 Federal Civil Works
    funding as a congressional add-on for a reconnaissance and study of the
    two creeks.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency has published preliminary
    maps showing approximately 1,800 homes and many businesses to be within
    the 100 year flood plain. The District and City believe that the
    construction of a multi-use basin along Grayson Creek can be utilized
    to protect lives (human and wildlife) and property by temporarily
    storing rain water during severe storm events. The basin and drainage
    improvements would be constructed to allow the normal flow of water
    through the creeks. In addition to the construction of the basin, clean
    water, fish and wildlife, riparian, recreational, and educational
    enhancements would be incorporated into the project.
        We are one of the many citizen, business, environmental, wildlife
    and recreational groups participating in the development of this vital
    project. Thank you for your support to acquire a Federal contribution
    for this endeavor. If you have questions regarding this project, please
    call Mitch Avalon, County Flood Control District at (925) 313-2203 or
    Leary Wong, City of Pleasant Hill at (925) 671-5264.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Paul Fernbach,
      Regional Commissioner Pleasant Hill--Martinez Soccer Association.
                                     ______

        san pablo and wildcat creek phase ii project (city of san pablo)
                                    request
        Contra Costa County requests a $100,000 add-on of Construction
    General (CG) funding to the Federal fiscal year 2002 Budget to allow
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare a General Reevaluation
    Report (GRR) of the 1985 Feasibility Report for the San Pablo and
    Wildcat Creek, Phase II Project. This would allow the Army Corps of
    Engineers to review pertinent information and to do additional studies
    as necessary to recommend appropriate action and funding requirements
    to (potentially) construct future drainage improvements in the San
    Pablo and Wildcat Creek watersheds. ALTERNATIVELY, add legislative
    language to extend the existing authorization for five years, which
    would postpone the pending deauthorization of the project. This would
    allow the City of San Pablo and the Flood Control District to work with
    the Army Corps of Engineers and request funding through the normal
    budget process.
                                   background
        In the early 1980's flood protection improvements were constructed
    to San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks from San Pablo Bay to the San Pablo
    City limits. This was Phase I of a two-phase project. The second phase
    would extend through the City of San Pablo. Last year, the Army Corps
    of Engineers informed the Flood Control District that the Phase II
    project would be de-authorized on April 16, 2002 unless some action was
    taken.
        In September, the City of San Pablo contacted the Flood Control
    District regarding the proposed de-authorization of the Wildcat and San
    Pablo Creeks Phase II Project. The City confirmed its interest in
    keeping the project active and asked for assistance in proceeding to
    the next step with the Army Corps of Engineers. The City would like the
    Corps to reevaluate the original design to provide a more environmental
    solution.
        FEMA is also updating the floodplain maps in the City of San Pablo
    and the City may potentially have 1,500-1,800 properties placed in the
    100-year floodplain. A budget allocation for the Federal fiscal year
    2002 Budget would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to reevaluate Phase
    II of the original plan.
                                     ______

                        Letter From Ronald L. Kiedrowski

                                             City of San Pablo,
                                 San Pablo, California, March 15, 2001.
    Mr. Mitch Avalon,
    Deputy Director, Public Works Department, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez,
            CA 94553.
        Dear Mr. Avalon: We are writing to express our support of Contra
    Costa County's efforts to obtain funding for environmental restoration,
    flood control and recreation efforts on our creeks. Historically, work
    on creeks within Contra Costa County was limited to flood control
    protection and vegetation was removed to maximize flows, particularly
    in flood-prone areas. As a result, many of our creeks are largely
    devoid of riparian vegetation which is critical to a number of
    endangered and other species which inhabit these areas. Today,
    additional flood control work must be done, allowing the opportunity
    for ecosystem restoration and recreational opportunities to go forward
    hand-in-hand with flood control planning efforts. We need your help to
    fund our creek restoration efforts.
        Restoration of the Walnut Creek Channel, and the other creeks in
    our vicinity is vitally important to our community, because restoration
    takes many forms. We will now be able to significantly improve riparian
    habitat along creeks and improve a very decimated yet persistent
    fishery, in addition to the flood control component. In addition, creek
    improvements will include vital regional trail linkages, significantly
    enhancing recreational opportunities for the immediate area as well as
    the larger, region.
        We are working with a large and very broad-based contingent of
    agencies and organizations within our community which are all quite
    excited to be part of this significant effort. Because of recent
    changes in how flood control work is contemplated, a more collaborative
    effort to improve creeks is now possible. We stand ready to improve the
    quality of life for all; funding to enable planning work to proceed is
    critical. Thanks for your attention and support of our request.
                Sincerely,
                                          Ronald L. Kiedrowski,
                                                  Interim City Manager.
                                     ______

                        Letter From Ronald L. Kiedrowski

                                             City of San Pablo,
                                 San Pablo, California, March 15, 2001.
    Michael J. Walsh,
    Colonel Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 1325 ``j'', Street
            Sacramento, CA 95814-2922.
        Dear Col. Walsh: The City of San Pablo requests that the Wildcat/
    San Pablo Creeks project be reauthorized, and that an add-on to the
    fiscal year 2002 budget be sought for the project. Reach 1 of the
    project has been completed just downstream of our City. Reach 2, which
    traverses the City of San Pablo, has not yet been done and it is this
    reach that we request be studied. The City of San Pablo experiences a
    significant amount of flooding during heavy rain events, and the
    impacts to our residents are great. Furthermore, the recent proposed
    revision by FEMA to the Flood Insurance Rate Map puts approximately
    1,500 properties in the 100 year flood zone. The requirement to carry
    flood insurance will be a heavy burden on our primarily low-income
    community.
        Thank you for your consideration. Please contact our Public Works
    Division Manager, Ms. Adele Ho, at 510-215-3068, if you have any
    questions or require additional information.
                Sincerely,
                                          Ronald L. Kiedrowski,
                                                  Interim City Manager.
                                     ______

       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 2002
    budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
        The District respectfully requests that the Subcommittee support an
    appropriation of $9 million 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.
        The Corps of Engineers studied and planned this modest project for
    more than 10 years. Last year, Congress appropriated $3 million to
    continue construction in fiscal year 2001. 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.
                                   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. The bulk of the
    construction work on the project is scheduled for fiscal year 2002.
        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 City of Roseville, California

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this
    opportunity to testify before you. My name is Claudia Gamar and I am
    the mayor of the City of Roseville, California. On behalf of the
    citizens of Roseville, I request your support for one of the City's
    highest priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
        The City of Roseville requests your support of a $200,000 earmark
    for the reconnaissance and feasibility studies associated with the WRDA
    1999 water conservation program targeted for Placer County, El Dorado
    County, and the service area of the San Juan Water District.
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized $25 million
    for regional water conservation and recycling projects within Placer
    County, El Dorado County, and the service area of the San Juan Water
    District. During the drafting of WRDA 99, specific agencies and cities
    within those areas identified potential water conservation and
    recycling projects. Roseville specifically identified a portion of its
    conservation plan--meter retrofits--as a prime candidate for Federal
    assistance.
        Meter retrofits provide mitigation for water supply impacts above
    Folsom Dam resulting from flood control operations on the American
    River. In addition, several of the agencies and cities participated in
    the Water Forum, a regional effort to manage water supplies and provide
    a safe and reliable water supply while preserving the fishery,
    wildlife, and recreational values of the Lower American River. The
    agencies and cities agreed to additional water conservation measures as
    part of the Water Forum effort.
        Before the $25 million authorized under WRDA 99 can be
    appropriated, the Army Corps of Engineers must complete a
    reconnaissance study and a feasibility study. The City requests that
    Congress direct the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance
    study addressing the water conservation and recycling projects
    referenced above.
        Key elements of the study would include: (1) identification of the
    problems the water conservation and recycling projects would address;
    (2) formulation, to a conceptual level, of specific projects; (3)
    definition of the Federal interest in implementation of those projects;
    and (4) identification of local support for implementation of those
    projects.
        The City also requests that Congress direct the Corps of Engineers
    to complete both the reconnaissance and feasibility studies in fiscal
    year 2002.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
    committee.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the City of Folsom, California

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this
    opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Steve Miklos
    and I am the mayor of the City of Folsom, California. On behalf of the
    citizens of Folsom, I request your support of one of the City's highest
    priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
        The City of Folsom requests your support of a $3.5 million under
    the Bureau of Reclamation Water & Related Resources Account for
    engineering, construction and inspection to upgrade and replace the
    remaining portion of the Natoma Pipeline System.
        The Natoma Pipeline System is owned and operated by the Bureau of
    Reclamation (USBR) and is the single water supply source for the
    rapidly growing City of Folsom, California. The Natoma Pipeline System
    begins at the Folsom Dam/Reservoir and delivers raw water to the City's
    water treatment facility.
        The pipeline appeared to be in poor condition, and inspections
    confirmed the aging system suffered from weak pipe joints and walls,
    increasing the probability of a pipe failure. Given the critical nature
    of this facility, the City decided to pursue replacement of the
    pipeline using City funds. Because of the significant cost of the
    project, the City found it necessary to fund the project in two phases.
    The first phase has been completed and the second phase is expected to
    be completed by June 2001.
        Recognizing the need to partner with USBR, Folsom undertook
    engineering, construction and inspection for the entire project at a
    cost of $8.6 million. The cost was an unplanned expenditure by the City
    and has significantly reduced funds available for other needed water
    system improvements. Therefore, $3.5 million in Federal funding is
    requested as a reimbursement to the City.
        The City has requested funding for this project in the past two
    Federal funding cycles.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
    committee.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the City of Salem, Oregon

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for this
    opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Mike Swaim and
    I am the mayor of the City of Salem, Oregon. On behalf of the citizens
    of Salem, I request your support of one of the City's highest
    priorities for the fiscal year 2002.
        The City of Salem, Oregon requests a $300,000 earmark in the fiscal
    year 2002 Energy & Water Appropriations bill (Corps of Engineers
    General Investigations Account) for the Salem Area Willamette River
    Study.
        The City of Salem requests Federal assistance in studying the
    Willamette River. Specifically, the project would cover the reach of
    the Willamette River extending through Marion and Polk counties. The
    study would focus on the following points: the river's potential to
    migrate and interact with the floodplain; water quality; stream flow;
    and salmon presence and use.
        The study would focus on current issues including maintenance and
    construction of revetments, Willamette River Greenway development, as
    well as water quality and flow impacts from urban tributary streams,
    direct discharges, and water withdrawals. The study would facilitate
    the City's planning and projects which are now subject to compliance
    with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to the City of
    Salem, Marion and Polk Counties and the city of Keizer would
    significantly benefit from this study.
        While the Willamette River has been studied on several occasions
    over the last decade, those studies reviewed the entire river system
    and do not provide the detail needed for local, and in some cases
    regional, management decisions.
        The City expects both the Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
    Geological Survey to coordinate in this effort. The City is willing to
    undertake cost sharing on the project.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
    committee.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Coalition of EPSCoR States

        Mr. Chairman: I am Jane Nichols, Chancellor of the University and
    Community College System of Nevada. I submit this statement on behalf
    of the nineteen states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that are
    currently eligible to participate in the Experimental Program to
    Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).
        The Coalition of EPSCoR States supports the Energy Department's
    budget request for EPSCoR, but we respectfully urge the Subcommittee to
    consider appropriating $12,000,000 for this effective and productive
    program. This represents an increase of $4,315,000 over the
    Department's request of $7,685,000 for EPSCoR in the Basic Energy
    Sciences budget.
        The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
    is a research and development (R&D) program originally established by
    the National Science Foundation. Through a merit review process, EPSCoR
    is improving our Nation's science and technology capability by funding
    research activities by talented professionals at universities and non-
    profit organizations in states that historically have received little
    Federal R&D funding. EPSCoR is a partnership between the Federal
    government and the EPSCoR states and their universities. It helps
    improve research capabilities and quality in order for the states to
    compete more effectively for non-EPSCoR research funds. EPSCoR is a
    catalyst for change and is widely viewed as a model of Federal-state
    cooperation.
        In 1992, Congress authorized the Energy Department to conduct an
    EPSCoR Program in Section 2203 of the Energy Policy Act (Public Law
    102-486). The Department designed its EPSCoR program based upon the
    National Science Foundation's model developed with the overriding
    purpose of enhancing the capabilities of the eligible states to conduct
    nationally competitive energy-related research and to develop science
    and engineering manpower to meet current and future needs in energy-
    related areas.
        Nevada ranked 40th in the U.S. in overall R&D performance in NSF's
    most recent accounting. Our goal, as is the goal of every EPSCoR state,
    is to graduate from the EPSCoR classification. We are making great
    strides in this endeavor and are actively pursuing national and world-
    class research competitiveness through investments in research and
    infrastructure. Currently, Nevada has a world class research facility
    in its Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) site, an EPSCoR-funded, long-term
    ecological research experiment on the Nevada Test Site. This is a
    direct result of the first DOE EPSCoR work.
        An example of the State's investment includes the State funded
    Applied Research Initiative that will provide 1:1 matching with
    industry to develop a new technology or to enhance an existing
    technology. This program has proven to be very successful during the
    last three years. UCCSN has established research relationships with
    more than 60 industrial partners. The hallmark of these partnerships is
    collaborative research between the industrial partner, faculty and
    students directed toward the development of new products and processes.
    Dr. Ken Hunter, former Research Vice President at the University of
    Nevada, Reno, has reported that state-matching funds of $1.35 million
    leveraged more than $4.8 million in industrial R&D support to UCCSN
    during the past three years. This would not be possible if the
    University System had not placed a value on applied research,
    encouraging its faculty and students to engage in this research
    activity.
        In a broader context, the DOE EPSCoR program is a major element of
    the State of Nevada's overall EPSCoR effort. The NSF EPSCoR grants
    directly complemented the first DOE EPSCoR award, by expanding research
    activities significantly beyond what could be accomplished by a single
    award, and expanding the pool of K-16 and graduate students to form
    even more viable Science, Math, and Engineering talent sources for the
    future. The number of participants in these EPSCoR programs, as well as
    in the Cooperative Agreements between DOE-NV and University and
    Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) comprised of the University
    of Nevada, Reno (UNR), the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and
    the Desert Research Institute (DRI) provide a framework and synergism
    for additional collaborative and interdisciplinary undertakings. For
    example, Nevada researchers received approximately $2 million in 1998
    through the highly competitive NSF/DOE/USDA/NASA/NOAA Terrestrial
    Ecology and Global Change (TECO) program, the major U.S. grant program
    for research in global change biology. These researchers also received
    over $2 million in funding from the DOE Terrestrial Carbon Processes
    Program.
        Nevada, under the auspices of the Lieutenant Governor, is in the
    process of updating and evaluating the statewide goals and objectives
    for high technology in the state. A State Technology Plan for Nevada
    was prepared by the Technology Partnership Practice of the Battelle
    Memorial Institute in late 2000, and builds on the State becoming more
    active and adept in commercializing technology, fostering spin-offs,
    and functioning as an innovation center for Federal technology transfer
    and commercialization. The Rand Corporation is also working with the
    UCCSN to redesign the higher education system of Nevada.
        The Nevada DOE EPSCoR Program was established in 1994. It is one of
    the thirteen states awarded grants following a merit-based competition.
    Other states that have had or currently have Department of Energy
    EPSCoR awards are Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana,
    Nebraska, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia
    and Wyoming. Each state matches its grant with state, university or
    other non-Federal funds. A crucial aspect of these grants is their
    focus on multi-disciplinary R&D teams targeting selected topics of
    importance to institutions and the state rather than a focus on single-
    topic or single-investigator R&D.
        The funding for the Nevada DOE EPSCoR Program during fiscal year
    2001 is $600,000 of which the DOE share is $300,000. The remainder is
    from the State of Nevada.
        The goals of the Nevada DOE EPSCoR Program are to:
      --Achieve human resources critical mass via research team-building
            within UCCSN,
      --Develop research collaborations between UCCSN researchers and DOE
            National Laboratories, DOE Nevada Operations Office, and other
            DOE facilities,
      --Develop research collaborations with industry that result in new
            technologies and processes,
      --Increase the number of faculty, postdoctoral, and graduate-level
            students involved in energy-related research in Nevada, through
            both direct and indirect support from this grant, and
      --Increase the Science, Math, and Engineering undergraduate
            enrollment of under-represented minorities, women and disabled
            students.
        Nevada DOE EPSCoR supports the attainment of these goals through a
    statewide research and infrastructure-building program. The research
    focuses on advanced, high quality, multi-pulsed, X-ray radiographic
    diagnostics which are needed to study the dynamic properties of matter
    and energy close to those that occur in the detonation of nuclear
    weapons. Future pulse power and laser power facilities will simulate
    these conditions in a laboratory setting.
        These are the types of activities the Coalition believes the DOE
    should help to further strengthen and expand. This is why we believe
    additional funds should be made available for fiscal 2002. Increased
    funding would enable the DOE to expand the number of states
    participating in implementation grants during the next fiscal year.
        Given the success of the EPSCoR programs in Nevada, it is not
    surprising that we are enthusiastic about the future of the DOE EPSCoR
    program. It is Nevada's experience that EPSCoR funding yields a return
    far greater than the original investment. It stimulates collaboration,
    strategic thinking and broad-based planning.
        On behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States, I urge this
    Subcommittee to continue to support the DOE EPSCoR program. Recognizing
    the very tight fiscal constraints this Subcommittee faces, we request
    that the Subcommittee provide $12,000,000 to the Energy Department for
    its EPSCoR program in fiscal year 2002 as part of the Basic Energy
    Sciences budget. The Coalition recommends that $8,000,000 of this
    amount should be used to support meritorious research implementation
    awards. The remaining $4,000,000 should be used to support laboratory
    partnership grants.
        The Energy Department's Experimental Program to Stimulate
    Competitive Research is a wise and timely investment of scarce public
    resources. It will continue to help build the scientific and
    engineering research infrastructure necessary for the future of
    eligible states and the Nation.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota

        Chairman Domenici and Members of the Energy and Water Development
    Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony
    requesting the $3.3 million needed to complete Stage 3 of the
    Stillwater, Minnesota flood control project. As this testimony is being
    prepared, the City is once again in the midst, of yet another flood
    event this year. The St. Croix River has crested at 692.3 feet, only
    1.8 feet less than the record flood of 1965 (See attachment.)
        The St. Croix River is now above flood stage, and the water
    continues to rise. The levee wall system is under water, as is the
    Northern extension of the levee system. The river is not expected to
    crest until late next week. On Tuesday, April 3, 2001, the City Council
    approved an initial expenditure of $300,000 to begin the construction
    of dikes and other flood measures. As the Spring rains continue,
    another $300,000 will be necessary to extend, reinforce, increase the
    height of the dikes. It has required more than 30,000 tons of fill
    protect the City and its' residents. The emergency dikes are
    constructed precisely in the location where the Stage 3 flood wall is
    planned for construction.
        It is the third stage of the project that provides the protection
    for the community from flood events. The first two stages were
    essential to halt the erosion that had destroyed a third of the old
    levee system. Stage 3 is designed to provide up to 100-year flood
    protection.
               the impact of lock and dam #3 on floods stillwater
        The Lock and Dam #3 was constructed in 1937-38 on the Mississippi
    River at Red Wing, Minnesota. The Lock and Dam construction raised the
    level of the St. Croix at Stillwater by 8 to 10 feet. It has made the
    City of Stillwater vulnerable during periods of high water and flooding
    of the St. Croix since that time. Records prove that the lock and dam
    construction, raising the water levels of both the Mississippi and the
    St. Croix River, has markedly increased the incidence of flooding at
    Stillwater. The culpability of the Corps is clearly evident.
        The Mississippi and the St. Croix Rivers merge about 14 miles South
    of Stillwater. When constructing the Lock and Dam at Red Wing in 1938,
    the Federal officials recognized that detaining the flow of the
    Mississippi would back up the water in the St. Croix at Stillwater. A
    1,000 foot levee wall system was constructed at Stillwater by the WPA
    under the supervision of the Corps to protect the fragile waterfront.
        From 1850 to 1938, the 88 years prior to the construction of Lock
    and Dam #3, only four floods were reported by historians. None were the
    result of Spring snow melts. The 1852 flood was the result of a
    cloudburst, the destruction of a dam built on McKusick Lake above the
    City, and was not the result of the flooding of the St. Croix River.
    The floods of June 14, 1885, and May 9, 1894, as well as the 1852
    flood, were all the result of cloudbursts in or above Stillwater. These
    floods resulted in both loss of life and significant property losses in
    the City.
        Since the completion of the Lock and Dam 60 years ago, the St.
    Croix has flooded on 17 occasions, and only four times in the 90 years
    preceding the construction of the Lock and Dam. Four floods were
    recorded in the 1940's, immediately after the completion of the lock
    and dam at Red Wing. The 1952, 1965, and 1969 floods were record-
    breaking floods, the result of a heavy snow fall, and early Spring
    rainfall, coupled with warm weather.
        Record flooding was avoided in 1997, by the early planning of City
    officials, the construction of a huge emergency levee requiring
    thousands of truck loads of clay and sand, the work of hundreds of
    volunteers, and luck in the avoidance of a severe rainstorm in or
    around the flood event.
        The planning and preparation of City officials, and adequate lead
    time have allowed the construction of levees high enough to avoid
    massive flooding in the historic section of the City during most of the
    floods, and to prevent further loss of life. However, a 4-5 inch
    rainfall during high water levels would be devastating to the City.
    Such rainfalls are not infrequent in the St. Croix Valley, and can not
    be anticipated.
        A wet Fall that saturates the soil, heavy snows during the Winter,
    extended warm spells in the Spring, coupled with persistent Spring
    rains, and cloudbursts as experienced in the past, will all come
    together in the same year at some point in time, and the City's
    emergency responses to flood control will not be sufficient to cope
    with the flood waters.
        History bears out the City's contention that the raising of the
    river levels by ten feet in 1938, when Lock and Dam #3 was constructed,
    greatly increases the flooding potential faced by the City during the
    past 60 years. On this basis alone, the Federal Government must share
    in the responsibility for providing a remedy. The construction of the
    Stage 3 flood wall at Stillwater will provide this safety.
                   environment threatened during flood events
        The St. Croix River was designated as one of the first Wild and
    Scenic Rivers by Congress and is protected under both Federal and State
    laws, as well as by local ordinances. The St. Croix River is carefully
    monitored by the Federal government, an Interstate Commission, and the
    DNR's by both the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
        The concern to the thousands of Minnesota and Wisconsin citizens
    who use the river each week is the trunk sanitary sewer line and
    pumping stations for the City of Stillwater. The sewer line runs
    adjacent to the riverfront and is frequently under water during major
    flood events. More than 2 million gallons of raw sewage is handled
    daily by the sewer line and pumping stations that follow the
    riverfront. Engineers have advised the City that extended flooding of
    the flood plain could result in the rupturing of the trunk line or the
    surcharging of the pumping stations.
        Either of these event would result in the direct flow of raw sewage
    into the St. Croix River. It would be impossible to repair the system
    during the high water of a flood event. During the 1997 floods, one
    pumping station and a portion of the trunk sewer line remained under
    water for 95 days, and required careful monitoring by the City workers.
        The protection of the river is not only the dominant theme of the
    State and Federal governments, but also by the counties and
    municipalities that line the riverbanks of the St. Croix. However, the
    greatest protectors of the river are the citizens themselves who take
    advantage of the crystal blue waters of the St. Croix for fishing,
    boating,swimming, and other recreational and scenic purposes.
        The topography of the City of Stillwater requires the location of
    the trunk sanitary sewer line and pumping stations at the base of the
    City's hub, adjacent to the riverfront. The City is built on two hills
    that slope toward the river, abruptly interrupted by sandstone bluffs
    extending 50-75 feet high above the river level. The sanitary sewer
    system serving the 16,000 Stillwater residents flows into the trunk
    sewer line that runs parallel to the riverfront. It can not be moved.
    The 2 million gallons of raw sewage handled by the system each day, is
    gathered in the trunk sewer line and pumped Southward to the water
    treatment plant. (2)
        According to engineering studies, the trunk line and the pumping
    stations are both susceptible to rupture or surcharging during periods
    of flooding. Little could be done to stop the flow of raw sewage into
    the St. Croix until the water receded. During recent floods, it is not
    unusual for high water levels to persist for as much as 2-4 months.
    Such an event could release 120 million gallons of raw sewage into one
    of America's most pristine rivers over that period of time. If for no
    other reason than the protection of the river, the City believes the
    Stage 3 flood wall must be constructed with no delay.
      stillwater levee and flood control project progress and description
        The project is divided into three stages. Stage 1 included the
    repair and reconstruction of the existing retaining wall which extends
    1,000 feet from Nelson Street on the South to the gazebo on the North
    end of the levee wall system. Stage 2 consists of the extension of the
    levee wall about 900 feet from the gazebo North around Mulberry Point.
        The completion of Stage 2 was delayed by floods of 1997, costing
    the City and the Federal government nearly a half million dollars.
    After the waters subsided, it was discovered that the soil beneath the
    planned levee extension was very unstable, requiring a revision of
    plans, and the addition of another stage in the construction process.
        The flood waters of the St. Croix River that arrived in April, did
    not recede until August of 1997. The construction area remained under
    water preventing construction work to proceed as scheduled. Lowell
    Park, which extends the full length of the levee wall system, several
    structures, and the emergency roadway which is used to provide
    emergency medical assistance for those using the recreational St. Croix
    River, and as a water source for local fire departments, were all
    either under water or inaccessible.
        Phase I, the repair and reconstruction of the original levee wall,
    was completed in the Summer of 1998. Work on Stage 1 was completed in
    late Summer of 1997, and additional soil borings were taken for Stage
    2. The soil was found to be very unstable, and unable to support the
    levee system designed for Stage 2 of the project. The construction of
    Stage 2 required remedial action, and was been designated as Stage 2S.
    A contract was awarded for Phase 2S in November, 1998, and was
    completed in 1999. Phase 2 was begun in the late Fall of 1999, and the
    major construction work was completed at the end of the year 2000. Only
    some landscaping, and finishing work on the levee wall system remains
    to be done. The Design Memorandum schedule calls for the construction
    of Stage 3 in fiscal year 2002.
        Stage 3 expands the flood protection system by constructing a 3
    foot flood wall, and driving sheet piling below the surface to reduce
    seepage and to provide a base for the wall. The flood wall will be
    constructed about 125 feet inland from the riverbank. Stages 1 and 2
    were critical to the protection of the fragile waterfront, and also, to
    prevent minor flooding on the North end of the riverfront.
        Stage 3 provides the flood protection for the City. The rising
    elevation of the terrain, the flood wall, and minimal emergency
    measures are designed to provide the City with up to 100 year flood
    protection.
        The Mayor, City Council Members, and Engineering staff all
    understand that Stage 3 of the flood control project is essential for
    the protection of life and property of the citizens, that the Stage 3
    flood wall is a critical phase of the project, and that the project
    must be completed at the earliest possible date. The Corps acknowledged
    the necessity for all three stages of the project when the Design
    Memorandum included plans for all three stages.
        This fact is born out by the support of the Minnesota Department of
    Natural Resources, the Governor of Minnesota, and the State
    Legislature. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources made funds
    available based on this premise. The State has appropriated half of the
    Non-Federal matching funds needed to complete Stage 3 of the project,
    as well as for Stages 1 and 2. The City has provided the remainder of
    the required matching funds, consequently, only the Federal share is
    missing from the partnership.
                      stillwater--a national historic site
        There are 66 historic sites in the City of Stillwater that are
    listed on the National Register of the U.S. Department of Interior, and
    many other historic structures as well. Many of these sites are located
    in the flood plain of the St. Croix River. Designated the ``Birthplace
    of Minnesota,'' the City of Stillwater was founded in 1843.
        When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, a portion of land West of
    the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers, including much of what is now the
    Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, was excluded. The prominent
    citizens of the excluded area convened in Stillwater on August 26,
    1848, passed a resolution to be presented to Congress asking that a
    ``new territory be formed,'' and that the territory be named
    ``Minnesota.'' Henry Sibley carried the petition to Washington, D.C.,
    and in March, 1849, Minnesota Territory was established. Stillwater
    then became the only city in the nation to become the county seat of
    two different territories, St. Croix County in Wisconsin, and
    Washington County, Minnesota. The Stillwater Convention firmly
    established Stillwater as the ``Birthplace of Minnesota.''
        Stillwater grew and prospered as the Lumber Capitol of the Midwest.
    Billions of feet of timber was cut, and floated down the St. Croix to
    the nine sawmills that were located on the riverbank of the St. Croix
    at Stillwater between 1848 and 1914. More logs were carried through the
    boom site North of Stillwater than any other place in the United
    States. Three billion feet of lumber was produced by the nine lumber
    mills in the 1880's alone. All nine lumber mills were located on the
    riverfront The lumber from the Stillwater mills were the primary source
    of wood-constructed buildings throughout the Midwest.
        Much of the lumber was carried down the St. Croix to the
    Mississippi River, and on to St. Louis, the ``jumping off'' point for
    the Westward movement. Sawdust and wood debris from these mills helped
    created the fragile riverbank that the levee wall system protects
    today. Later in the 19th Century, five railroads carried lumber from
    Stillwater Westward to Nebraska, North and South Dakota, and points
    West, as the Nation expanded beyond the Mississippi River into the
    plains states. Many of the Midwest's oldest buildings still carry the
    mark of the Stillwater mills.
        As a result of Stillwater's place in the history of the Midwest,
    the lumber industry, the unique homes built by Minnesota's first
    millionaires, and the birthplace of both Minnesota Territory and the
    State of Minnesota, sixty-six sites are included on the National
    Register of Historic Places. All of the downtown area, which is located
    in the 100-year flood plain, is included in this recognition.
        The Stillwater area is not only of historical importance to The
    cliffs that rise from the floodplain to shelter Battle Hollow is the
    location of the last major Native American battle between the Sioux and
    the Ojibwa Indians. It took place on July 4, 1839. The Sioux warriors
    ambushed the Ojibwa killing 20 of the Ojibwa, and wounding 30 others in
    retaliation for an incident that occurred several days in the lake area
    which is now Minneapolis.
        The site is revered by the Ojibwa, many of whom remain in Minnesota
    and Wisconsin. The Minnesota Historical Society has honored the
    importance site with historic markers, and the location is a popular
    site of tourists.
                       legislative history and background
        The Stillwater Flood Control and Retaining Wall project first was
    authorized in section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
    of 1992. An allocation of $2.4 million was made in the Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Act of 1994.
        The Committee Report described the project in three parts,--to
    repair, extend, and expand the levee wall system on the St. Croix River
    at Stillwater, Minnesota.
      --``To repair'' (Stage 1) the original existing levee wall system
            constructed in 1936.
      --``To extend'' (Stage 2) the original wall by approximately 900 feet
            to prevent the annual flooding that occurs at that location,
            and
      --``To expand'' (Stage 3) the system by constructing the flood wall
            about 125 feet inland from the levee wall system to protect the
            downtown and residential section in the flood plain.
        In 1995, the Design Memorandum confirmed the cost estimate for the
    project was much too low, and the project was reauthorized for $11.6
    million by Congress in the 1996 WRDA legislation.
        Since the reauthorization of the project five years ago, and the
    completion of the feasibility study, both Stage 1 and 2 have
    essentially been completed. Only Stage 3 will provide the City with the
    flood protection that is critically needed. The reconstruction of the
    existing levee wall system, the extension of the levee wall, and the
    construction of the flood wall are all critical to the safety of the
    citizens, the protection of property, and the preservation of historic
    sites that contributed to the growth and expansion of the Midwest in
    the last half of the 19th Century.
                                    summary
      --The Mayor and Council for the City of Stillwater, Washington County
            Officials, the Governor and Minnesota State Legislature, and
            bipartisan support of Minnesota Representatives and Senators in
            Congress, all recognize the significant importance of
            completing this project by constructing the Stage 3 flood wall
            on the St. Croix River at Stillwater. They are committed to the
            completion of the Flood Wall Project at Stillwater. It is
            critical to the protection of property, the preservation of our
            history, the respect of historic Indian sites, and the safety
            of our citizens and their homes and business.
        We respectfully urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
    for Appropriations to allocate $3.3 million needed to construct the
    Stage 3 flood wall in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Bill. If you
    have questions or would like additional information regarding this
    project, please call on us.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the City of Crookston, 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 Crookston, Minnesota. We are
    requesting $5.31 million in Federal funds for the construction of Stage
    2 of the flood control project authorized in the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999. This is the funding level that the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers has determined is necessary to complete the work on
    Stage 2 of the Crookston Flood Control Project. As a result of the
    history of flooding experienced by the citizens of Crookston, and the
    continuing threat of flood events we face, we are confident the
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works will ask Congress to
    provide the $5.31 million needed for the Crookston project in his
    Budget Request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
    2002.
        First, we would like to thank you and the Members of this Committee
    for the $1 million appropriation awarded for the Crookston Flood
    Control Project in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Conference
    Report. These funds have made it possible to begin the construction
    phase of Stage 1 of the project. These funds, and an additional
    $200,000 allocated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be
    expended by the end of fiscal year 2001. Plans and specifications for
    Stage 2 are now underway and they will be completed by the Fall of
    2001. Bids for construction of Stage 2 are scheduled to be advertised
    in January or February, 2002. This will allow construction to begin
    immediately after the Winter thaw in the Spring of next year.
        The City of Crookston is located in the Red River Valley of Western
    Minnesota, in Polk County, 25 miles East of Grand Forks, North Dakota.
    The Red Lake River winds its way through the City from its source at
    the Upper and Lower Red Lakes, and flows into the Red River at Grand
    Forks. The population of the City has remained constant over the past
    decade at about 8,200 citizens.
        The community was settled in 1872, when the first railroad route
    was announced crossing the Red Lake River where Crookston now stands,
    and later, extending to Canada. The economy of Crookston is based
    primarily on agriculture. It is the home of the University of Minnesota
    Crookston, a technology oriented school with a full academic program
    enrolling approximately 2,500 students.
                        flooding events and their causes
        Floods occurring over the past forty years have created significant
    damage to homes and businesses, and have resulted in the loss of lives
    as well. They include the flood events of 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1978,
    1979,1996, and 1997. Floods have been documented at Crookston as early
    as 1887. The 1950 flood, though not the maximum flood of record,
    created the most damage to the City and resulted in the deaths of two
    citizens from the community.
        Between 1950 and 1965, clay levees were constructed through local
    efforts in an attempt to ameliorate the damages from the flooding of
    the Red Lake River. The floods of 1965, however, demonstrated these
    efforts were not adequate to hold back the torrents of water during
    significant flood events. While certain areas of the City received some
    flood protection, severe damages occurred in the South Main Street
    area. This section of the City has since been totally cleared.
        The 1969 flood established new high water marks, and again, it was
    necessary to carry out extreme emergency measures. These efforts were
    successful in protecting the community from severe damages. Recognizing
    the need for more protection, another locally financed project was
    initiated, extending, enlarging, and raising the height of the levee
    wall system.
        The flood of 1997, was the ``grandaddy'' of all floods. It
    established the highest water mark in recorded history when the Red
    Lake River crested at 28. 6 feet above flood stage, the equivalent of a
    three story building. It is described as a 500-year flood event.
        Only the careful planning and preparation by City officials in
    cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, the State of Minnesota, FEMA,
    the National Guard, and many private citizens, were damages reduced,
    and fortunately, no lives were lost. Prior to the crest of the flood,
    the City of Crookston completed the work of adding two feet of clay and
    sandbags to the entire levee system throughout the town. The Corps of
    Engineers constructed clay dikes as a second line of defense,
    sacrificing a few homes for the good of many others. As a precautionary
    measure, 400 residents evacuated from their homes during the height of
    the flood.
        These efforts spared Crookston from the devastation experienced by
    neighboring towns, allowing the City to provide for 8,000 persons
    evacuated from their homes in nearby communities, But this disaster and
    the potential devastation that such floods can bring, emphasized the
    critical importance of replacing the temporary earthen and clay dikes
    with a well-planned, permanent flood control system.
        There are several causative factors that have created flood
    conditions for the Red River Valley and the City of Crookston. The Red
    River of the North did not carve out the valley, it merely meanders
    back and forth through the lowest parts of the floor of the ancient
    Glacial Lake Agassiz.
        With no definitive flood plain to channel flood torrents, the slow-
    moving flood waters quickly overrun the shallow river banks and spread
    out over the flat floor of the former glacial lake bed. The small
    river's gradient is on \1/2\ foot per mile, as opposed to areas in
    Southwestern Minnesota where in one instance, the gradient establishes
    a 19 foot drop in one mile. Both extremes have created problems.
        The Red Lake River flows into Crookston from the Northeast, winds
    it way through the City, and flows out of the City, turning in a
    Northwesterly direction toward its confluence with the Red River at
    Grand Forks, North Dakota. The merged rivers then flow due North into
    Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. As the snow melts in the Southern portion
    of the valley, ice often remains in the channel to the North. Ice and
    other debris flowing North pile up against the river ice creating ice
    dams. These barriers back up the water and increase the flood crest
    upstream.
        The extremely level terrain also creates a phenomenon during the
    Spring thaw which is called ''overland flooding.'' As the snow melts,
    the huge volume of water can overwhelm the network of shallow ditches
    and creeks. Unable to enter the choked stream channels, the water
    travels overland until it meets small terrain barriers such as railroad
    beds and road grades, creating huge bodies of water.
        In addition to the topography of the area, a combination of factors
    such as agricultural drainage, the loss of wetlands, the Federal
    governments work in the Red River Basin, and the construction of the
    county ditch systems, all these factors have contributed to the
    vulnerability of the area.
        City officials and the Corps of Engineers are evaluating the
    potential for flooding even this year, While the weather is permitting
    a more gradual snow melt with less water content, a substantial
    rainfall of several inches on the soil that is already saturated from
    the snow melt can greatly increase the predicted flood levels.
                         project description and status
        A Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the Corps of Engineers
    and the City was signed on October 19, 1992, and a feasibility study
    and environmental assessment was completed in 1997. Both partners
    shared costs equally in the $1.2 million study. The Red Lake Watershed
    District and the State of Minnesota provided part of the non-Federal
    funding required, and both join the City with their strong support.
        The Feasibility Report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    recommended that a local flood control project be constructed
    consisting of two down-stream cut off channels and levees built to the
    100-year level of protection for Thorndale, Woods, and the downtown/
    Riverside neighborhoods. While the two down-stream cut channels are
    planned to reduce the flooding somewhat for the entire City, and the
    levees protect the fore mentioned neighborhoods, other areas of the
    City remain at risk. The Corps of Engineers has completed a Section 22
    study of the City in which further recommendations will be made.
        The National Economic Development (NED) optimization analysis
    indicated that the 100-year and the 50-year levels of protection would
    have the approximately the same net benefits. The policy is that if two
    alternatives have the same benefits the lower cost plan is accepted.
    The District, after consultation, requested a waiver to recommend the
    100-year protection. Their rationale included the high potential for
    property damages, the increased risk of loss of life, and the benefits
    of providing a consistent level of protection throughout the City.
    Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) H. Martin Lancaster approved the
    waiver on January 15, 1997
      --1992--Feasibility Cost Share Agreement signed.
      --1997--Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment completed.
      --1997--National Economic Development optimizational analysis waived
            to provide the entire project with 100-year flood protection.
      --1998--Preconstruction engineering and design efforts begun.
      --1999--Project authorized for construction in the Water Resource
            Development Act of 1999.
      --2000--Plans, specifications, and design work for Stage 1 completed.
      --2000--Congress appropriates $1 million for Stage 1 construction.
      --2000--Plans and Specifications for Stage 2 commenced.
      --2001--Corps of Engineers total cost estimates for the project to be
            $10.8 million
      --2001--City requests $5.31 million from Congress for the
            construction of Stage 2 of the Crookston Flood Control Project.
                                  fiscal data
        The recommended plan has a fully funded baseline cost estimate of
    $9.5 million and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.6. The total cost of the
    project, as projected by the Army Corps of Engineers, is $10.8 million.
    The increase is due to newly refined design requirements.
        The following ``Cost-Sharing Schedule'' was information developed
    by the Corps of Engineers, and was made available to us on January 30,
    2001. Our request for $5.31 million for Stage 2 of the project is based
    on this information. Nearly all of Stage 2 expenditures will occur in
    2002 and 2003. The schedule provided by the Corps is as follows:

                            CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT--COST-SHARING SCHEDULE
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total                                        Total    Total
                       Fiscal year                     project   LEERDs  Non-fed    Fed    Percent    fed    non-fed
                                                        costs              ped     const.            costs    costs
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2000 and Prior...................................   $1,168       $0     $298     $870    $29.7     $870     $298
    2001.............................................    2,490    1,650        0      840      0.0      840    1,650
    2002.............................................    4,086    1,000        0    3,086     32.4    2,760    1,326
    2003.............................................    2,814      125        0    2,689     34.8    2,339      475
    2004.............................................      242        0        0      242      3.1      211       31
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Costs................................   10,800    2,775      298    7,727      100    7,020    3,780
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sponsor 35 percent Share = $3,780
    LERRDs = $2,775
    Cash Requirement = $1,005
    Five Percent Cash = $540

                    non-federal contributions to the project
        The citizens of Crookston have demonstrated their commitment to the
    project each year since 1997. Every year for since 1997, they have
    voted to assess themselves a flood control project fee, over and above
    their property taxes. This action by the community has resulted in
    raising about $1.4 million up to the present time. One third of these
    local funds were used to meet part of the 50 percent match for the $1.2
    million feasibility study, and and the remainder will be used as a part
    of the non-Federal match for the construction Stages of the flood
    control project.
        The State of Minnesota has also made a significant contribution to
    the project. They have appropriated $3.3 million for the dual purpose
    of providing funds to match the Federal contribution, and to buy out
    homes that have been lost in the construction of the flood control
    measures. Nineteen families were required to lose their homes to the
    project, including one farm. The State funds were used both for the
    purchase of the homesteads, and the relocation of the affected
    families.
        For these reasons, we respectfully request this Subcommittee to
    appropriate $5.31 million of Federal funds in the fiscal year 2002
    Appropriations Act to complete the Stage 2 work on the Crookston Flood
    Control Project. The Committee's favorable response to this request
    will prevent any delays affecting the completion of the project, and
    avoid cost overruns that inevitably occur when construction is delayed.
        In closing, I would like to say there is nothing more important to
    me as Mayor, and to each Member of the Crookston City Council, than the
    safety of our citizens, and the protection of their homes and property.
    We can not give them this assurance until we have completed this flood
    control project.
        May I also say that our association with the St. Paul District of
    the Army Corps of Engineers throughout this process has been
    outstanding. They are an extraordinary organization, working on the
    scene during flood conditions, and assisting us as we attempt to
    resolve this problem that threatens our citizens. We could not ask for
    a better partner in this project.
        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.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association

        summary request for approval of fiscal year 2002 appropriations
        National Mining Association (NMA) membership includes companies
    engaged in producing coal, metallic ores, and nonmetallic minerals, and
    in manufacturing mining machinery and equipment. Mine commodities
    frequently are distributed as bulk freight transported on inland
    waterways, Great Lakes, and coastal shipping lanes, and often require
    the use of harbors and shipping channels at shallow draft inland ports
    and deep draft Great Lakes and coastal ports. Deep draft ports also are
    involved in shipping mining machinery and equipment produced in the
    United States for export in world trade. NMA firmly supports
    appropriations needed to keep the U.S. marine transportation system
    safe, efficient, secure, and competitive through timely operation and
    maintenance activities and investments in marine infrastructure
    improvements justified to meet current and projected demand for marine
    transportation services. The table below presents a summary of NMA's
    request for approval of fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) in that regard.
                             appropriations request
    Operations and Maintenance
        Full funding of fiscal year 2002 operation and maintenance
    requirements for the inland and intracoastal waterways system, the
    Great Lakes, and coastal marine transportation including dredging of
    harbors and shipping channels, operation and maintenance of lockage and
    other navigation controls, and maintenance of dams, levees, revetments,
    mooring cells, and navigation aids within the total marine
    transportation system.
    Construction and Rehabilitation
        Fiscal year 2002 appropriations for annualized costs of planning,
    engineering, design, construction and rehabilitation projects at
    selected locations on the inland and intracoastal waterways system
    identified below:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Project                              Purpose
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ohio River:
        Olmsted L&D...........................  Construction--New Location
        McAlpine L&D..........................  Engineering & Design
        J.T. Myers L&D........................  Engineering & Design
        Greenup L&D...........................  Engineering & Design
        Newburgh L&D..........................  Feasibility Study
        Cannelton L&D.........................  Feasibility Study
        Mainstem Study........................  Systems Analysis/Improvement
                                                 Plan
    Monongahela River:
        Lock & Dam 2..........................  Construction--Replacement
        Lock & Dam 3..........................  Removal--Coordinate with L&D
                                                 2 & 4
        Lock & Dam 4..........................  Construction--Replacement
    Kanawha River:
        Marmet L&D............................  Construction--Replacement
        London L&D............................  Major Rehabilitation
    Tennessee River: Kentucky L&D.............  Construction--Add New
                                                 Chamber
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        inland waterways appropriations request--project cost estimates
        Guided by NMA's review of reports to the Inland Waterways Users
    Board by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) and the Users
    Board's 14th Annual Report to the Secretary of the Army and the United
    States Congress, August 2000, NMA's project cost estimates for our
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations request are presented below.

                              [Millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                  Project                    Description           2002
                                                              appropriations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ohio River:
        Olmsted L&D...................  New twin 1,200                  72
                                          110 lock
                                         chambers and dam
                                         replacing L&D 52 &
                                         53
        McAlpine L&D..................  Replace L&D and add             20
                                         a second 1,200
                                          110 lock
                                         chamber
        J.T. Myers L&D................  Add a second 1,200               3
                                          110 lock
                                         chamber.
        Greenup L&D...................  (same)..............             3
        Newburgh L&D..................  (same)..............             3
        Cannelton L&D.................  (same)..............             3
        Mainstem Study................  Systems analysis of              2
                                         needs on Ohio River
                                         Mainstem.
    Monongahela River:
        Lock and Dams 2, 3, 4.........  Replace L&Ds 2 and              75
                                         4, and remove L&D 3
                                         in concert with the
                                         dam replacements
    Kanawha River:
        Marmet L&D....................  Replace L&D and add             14
                                         a new 800
                                         110 lock chamber
        London L&D....................  Major rehabilitation             5
                                         of L&D.
    Tennessee River: Kentucky L&D.....  Add new 1,200 110               40
                                         lock chamber.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ohio river basin provides strategic routes for coal to fuel electricity
                                   generation
        Data provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Waterborne
    Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1999 underscore the
    importance of the marine transportation system in distribution of U.S.
    coal. In 1999, 219 million tons of coal were transported on the
    waterways in domestic commerce and 58.5 million tons were exported to
    other countries. Included in the domestic coal shipments were 166.8
    million tons carried on inland and intracoastal waterways and 20.5
    million tons on the Great Lakes, with the remainder moved in coastwise
    and intraport shipments. The Ohio River System was dominant in regard
    to coal shipments, carrying 150.8 million tons of coal in 1999,
    illustrating its key role in waterways coal distribution.
        Since passage of the pivotal Water Resources Development Act of
    1986, which established the inland waterways user cost sharing now in
    effect for construction and rehabilitation at lock and dam projects,
    the mining industry regularly has supported adequate funding of
    waterways operation and maintenance requirements and selected
    improvements needed to replace and upgrade obsolete lock and dam
    structures justified because of deterioration and lack of sufficient
    lockage capacity to accommodate barge traffic. Coal traffic on the Ohio
    River between its confluence with the Mississippi River at Cairo,
    Illinois and its headwaters at Pittsburgh, linking with movements on
    rivers connecting with the Ohio River, e.g. the Monongahela, Kanawha,
    and Tennessee Rivers, is heavy, especially in regard to shipments to
    coal-fueled power plants located on, or in the vicinity of, the Ohio
    River and connecting rivers in the Ohio River Basin.
        Several lock and dam projects in the Ohio River Basin have been
    improved, enhancing safety and reducing barge congestion where lock
    chambers were added and/or undersized chambers were replaced. The
    process of conducting planning and feasibility studies for individual
    lock and dam projects, followed by preconstruction engineering and
    design, and several years for construction of improvements is both
    lengthy and costly. Costs, of course, grow markedly when the timetable
    from project inception to completion of construction is stretched out
    resulting in inefficiencies and losses due to inflationary trends.
    However, today two reasons stand out in support of moving forward
    expeditiously with construction and rehabilitation appropriations for
    selected lock and dam projects, in particular on the Lower and Middle
    Ohio River, the connecting Tennessee River, and the Upper Ohio River
    Basin Tributaries, the Kanawha and Monongahela Rivers. These are:
      --The demand for electricity is increasing rapidly, placing even
            higher emphasis on the capability of coal-fueled power plants
            in the Ohio River Basin for generating electricity from
            locations served by barges on the Ohio, Monongahela, Kanawha,
            and Tennessee Rivers, and other Ohio River tributaries.
      --Planning and feasibility studies and engineering and design of
            construction and rehabilitation for several key lock and dam
            projects on the Ohio, Kanawha, and Tennessee Rivers are
            underway, in addition to construction in progress or completed
            earlier at other lock and dam projects on the Ohio,
            Monongahela, and Kanawha Rivers.
        Reports by the Edison Electric Institute show that electricity
    demand over 52 weeks through February 17, 2001, has increased 4.5
    percent. The trend is continuing as shown by a 3.6 percent increase in
    domestic electricity output on a year-to-date basis ending March 19,
    2001, ahead of a comparable period last year, looking at the EEI data.
    Coal is the fuel of choice for generating more than 50 percent of the
    electricity consumed in the U.S.; and according to the Energy
    Information Administration, coal consumption in the United States is
    forecast to grow from 1.045 billion tons in 1999 to 1.297 billion tons
    in 2020, an increase of more than 24 percent in consumption forecasted
    in 2020 versus the 1999 level. Those factors, i.e., growth in electric
    output and expected increases in coal consumption to fuel electricity
    generation, joined with effective access to power plants for coal
    traffic furnished by the rivers located in the Ohio River Basin,
    provide extraordinary impetus on granting priority for fiscal year 2002
    appropriations needed for lock and dam projects in the Basin.
       the ohio river system can serve eastern and western coal shipments
        Because the Ohio River System is located east of the Mississippi
    River, some may mistakenly consider that it is used only to ship coal
    produced in the Appalachian Region of the East or in the Midwest. While
    the System readily accommodates coal produced in Northeast, Northwest,
    and Central Appalachia by virtue of their proximity to the Ohio River
    and its tributaries, the Ohio River Mainstem also carries coal produced
    in the West and carried by coal trains to transfer and storage
    terminals located on the Lower Ohio River and on the Mississippi River
    above the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.
        In fact, each of the four principal coal-carrying railroads has
    access to barge connections on the Ohio River System, CSXT and NS in
    the East and BNSF and UP in the west. Another railroad, CN-IC, which
    accommodates midwest mine-originated coal and additional coal that it
    terminates after connections with other railroads, also has access to
    river terminals. Coal shippers often can be well served by intermodal
    rail/barge movements for three reasons:
      --Rail coal is moved in trains carrying 10 thousand to 15 thousand
            tons per train. Modern barge tows operating on the Ohio River
            carry up to 25 thousand tons per single tow. A high degree of
            automation is used for high speed loading and unloading at
            rail/barge coal terminals, with an advantage of either storing,
            or directly transferring, coal while in transit. The large
            capacities of each mode and the high efficiencies of the
            terminals offer economies of scale for intermodal rail/barge
            shipments.
      --Intermodal rail/barge coal routes for particular shipments may
            provide an alternate way to move coal thereby giving stimuli to
            carriers for raising the quality of service.
      --Similarly, while differing from (2) above in regard to connectivity
            of trains with barge tows, the availability of safe, efficient,
            and competitive barge transportation in some locations may make
            intermodal truck/barge movements possible, again providing
            stimuli for raising the quality of service.
        To the extent that ton-miles of coal transportation is obtained
    using barge tows, a spillover benefit can be attributed to the fact
    that barge tows operate separated from other surface traffic, thereby
    reducing traffic congestion in built-up areas, a matter of some
    importance to populous locations in the Ohio River Basin.
    Environmental Restoration Program
        NMA has participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative
    (ADTI) with government agencies and academic institutions 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. 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. The subcommittee directed
    the Corps to participate in this initiative with available funds and,
    since that time the Corps has participated in workshops with members of
    the ADTI to exchange information on mining and related environmental
    issues. In order for the Corps to continue its participation, we
    request that the Corps be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually
    with other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, BLM, DOE, EPA, and
    USGS) to further the Corps' goals of ecosystem restoration. NMA also
    urges continued support of the Corps' Abandoned and Inactive Noncoal
    Mine Restoration program as authorized by section 560 of Public Law
    106-53. We recommend the Corps be provided an additional $1,000,000 to
    conduct research necessary to support the restoration program.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers

     missouri river fish and wildlife mitigation project; us army corps of
                                   engineers
        American Rivers is joined by seventeen conservation groups from the
    Missouri River basin in calling for $12 million in fiscal year 2002
    funding for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project.
    [American Fisheries Society--Kansas Chapter; American Fisheries
    Society--Missouri Chapter; American Fisheries Society--Nebraska
    Chapter; Audubon Iowa Audubon Missouri; Audubon Society of Omaha;
    Burroughs Audubon Society (MO); Jayhawk Audubon Society (KS); Kansas
    Wildlife Federation; Sierra Club--Iowa Chapter; Sierra Club--Kansas
    Chapter; Sierra Club--Nebraska Chapter; Sierra Club--Northwest Iowa
    Group; Sierra Club--Osage Group (MO); Sierra Club--Thomas Hart Benton
    Group (MO); Wachiska Audubon Society (NE); Wolf River Environmental
    Society (KS)]
        The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is the
    primary habitat restoration program for the lower Missouri River
    between Sioux City, Iowa and St. Louis. It was established by Congress
    in 1986 to help reverse the long-term decline of the Missouri's fish
    and wildlife habitat due to the Federally sponsored channelization and
    stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. Congress approved $12
    million in fiscal year 2001 for the project, the highest appropriation
    yet received. It is imperative that at least this level of funding be
    maintained.
        The Missouri River remains a nationally significant resource,
    attracting tens of millions of visitors annually and supporting over
    150 species of fish and wildlife. However, severe loss of habitat such
    as side channels, wetlands, and sandbars threaten the river's long-term
    health. As the nation prepares to celebrate the 200th anniversary of
    Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery, we have an once-in-a-lifetime
    opportunity to restore the Missouri River and revitalize riverside
    communities.
        Today, nearly 200 years after their journey, Lewis and Clark would
    hardly recognize the Missouri River. However, while we cannot restore
    the river they knew, we can repair much of it. If we begin now, we can
    restore critical habitat, supporting river wildlife, boosting
    recreation, and improving quality of life in riverside communities in
    the lower Missouri River basin states of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and
    Missouri.
        Channelization and stabilization dramatically altered the lower
    Missouri River, eliminating natural features that once supported one of
    the world's most diverse fisheries. Engineering reduced the Missouri's
    average width below Sioux City by two-thirds and shortened it by 127
    miles, replacing its braided channels with a shorter, ``stabilized''
    barge canal. Nearly all of the Missouri's islands, sandbars, and side
    channels are gone.
        With nurseries for fish and wildlife destroyed, one-fifth of the
    species native to the Missouri is now on Federal and state watch lists.
    Many species have fallen to less than ten percent of their historic
    population levels.
        Supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project
    will help reverse the decline of river wildlife by restoring historic
    chutes, side channels, wetlands, backwaters, and other habitat fish and
    wildlife need to feed, conserve energy, and reproduce. For example, the
    restoration of Hamburg Bend, a side channel near Nebraska City,
    Nebraska, now provides temporary refuge from the river's swift currents
    for species like the channel catfish.
        While restored habitat areas are important for the Missouri's fish
    and wildlife, they are also important for people. Waterfowl hunting,
    fishing, birdwatching, and other recreational opportunities at Hamburg
    Bend augment the economy of neighboring communities like Nebraska City.
    In each case, improved recreation and tourism opportunities at restored
    habitat sites translate into real dollars for Missouri River
    communities, as recreation and tourism-dependent businesses support
    visitors to these areas.
        By supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
    Project, Congress can also help us properly commemorate the upcoming
    bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery. With your help,
    we can restore a string of natural places along the Missouri--places
    that Lewis and Clark might recognize and that attract recreation and
    tourism, support river wildlife, and improve the quality of life in
    riverside communities.
        Millions of people already visit the Missouri River each year to go
    sightseeing, hunting, fishing, boating, and camping--often in areas
    closely resembling the Missouri chronicled by Lewis and Clark--annually
    pumping more than $90 million into riverside communities. Through the
    mitigation project, these recreation dollars will increase and we will
    be able to more fully enjoy the Lewis and Clark bicentennial
    commemoration.
        We urge you to bolster critically important efforts to reverse the
    decline of the nation's longest river by supporting an appropriation of
    $12 million for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project
    in fiscal year 2002.
     lower columbia river and tillamook bay ecosystem restoration, oregon
                   and washington; us army corps of engineers
        American Rivers and more than 530 local, regional, and national
    conservation and community groups \1\ from throughout the country urge
    you to appropriate full funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
    Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration program in
    the Water Resources Development Act 2000 (WRDA) in fiscal year 2002.
    Specifically, we urge you to appropriate the full $30 million for the
    program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Each of these organizations has signed on to the River Budget:
    National Priorities for Local River Conservation in fiscal year 2002.
    The River Budget is a consensus report that summarizes where the people
    who work to save the nation's rivers believe we can make the best
    investments of tax dollars to benefit our communities, wildlife, and
    water quality. A complete list of these organizations is included at
    the end of this testimony.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Coastal estuaries in the Pacific Northwest play a vital role in
    supporting healthy stocks of wild salmon, steelhead and other species
    improving the quality of life of countless communities. The Lower
    Columbia River estuary and Oregon's Tillamook Bay are of particular
    importance to the region, benefiting people and wildlife in a myriad of
    ways. They provide critical habitat, offer abundant recreational
    opportunities, and improve water quality by filtering out toxic
    contaminants, sediments and other pollutants.
        The Columbia and Tillamook estuaries are of great importance to the
    region and the nation, offering critical habitat to endangered salmon
    and steelhead and more than 200,000 wintering waterfowl and shorebirds.
    But they also face significant threats. Since 1850, the two estuaries
    have lost more than 70 percent of their historical wetland and riparian
    habitat, primarily because of construction of agricultural levees and
    floodplain development. The Columbia River and its estuary have also
    been damaged by channelization and dredging for navigation.
        In addition, the health of these estuaries has been severely
    compromised over the past half century by conversion of river habitat,
    dams, mining, and logging, which have transformed the ecology and
    economy of the region. The huge price paid by the river's ecosystems is
    illustrated most clearly by severe declines in native salmon species.
    Wild fish have been reduced the only one percent of their pre-
    development abundance, and 12 salmon and steelhead species in the
    Columbia River Basin are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
        The Federal Caucus' Biological Opinion on the Reinitiation of
    Consultation on Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System
    issued December 21, 2000 specifically calls for the Corps to initiate
    the restoration called for in Section 536 of WRDA 2000. Action 160 in
    the biological opinion calls for the Corps ``to develop and implement
    an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting and enhancing
    10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats over 10 years,
    beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed populations in
    the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River.'' \2\ Appropriations
    dedicated to implementing Section 536 of WRDA 2000 would help fulfill
    the Federal government's commitment to the restoration and protection
    of the estuary referred to in this biological opinion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Biological
    Opinion, Reinitiation of Consultation on Operation of the Federal
    Columbia River Power System, Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation
    Program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin.
    Federal Caucus, Issued: December 21, 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration
    program, run by the Army Corps of Engineers, cuts across political
    boundaries and is supported by a diverse group of stakeholders
    including labor, environmental and citizen groups, as well as Federal,
    state, municipal and tribal governments. These stakeholders are
    dedicated to enhancing the fish and wildlife habitat in these
    estuaries. This program offers a cooperative solution to managing
    natural resources that will benefit all of the salmonids in the
    Columbia River system. Adequately funded, the program will restore more
    than 16,000 acres of critical fish and wildlife habitat, augment
    existing monitoring efforts, and help citizens protect and manage
    resources.
        Again, we strongly urge you to appropriate full funding of $30
    million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement Section 536
    of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, the Lower Columbia River
    and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration.
         atchafalaya basin floodway system; us army corps of engineers
        American Rivers, Sierra Club Delta Chapter, EarthJustice Legal
    Defense Fund, and Louisiana Audubon Council urges that the real estate
    acquisition component of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project
    be fully funded at $5 million, and that such funds be earmarked.
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a central role to play in the
    protection of the Atchafalaya Basin. The Corps' Atchafalaya Basin
    Floodway System project was authorized by the Supplemental
    Appropriations Act of 1985, Public Law 99-88. The Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, reauthorized the project.
    Funding for acquisition of the real estate features of the project was
    made available by the Energy and Water Resources Development
    Appropriations Act of 1988, Public Law 100-202.
        A key feature of this Corps project is real estate acquisitions
    (fee lands from willing sellers and environmental protection easements)
    to preserve the natural environment of the Atchafalaya Basin and allow
    public access to the Basin. Although at the Corps' earlier pace, it was
    estimated that the planned acquisitions would not be completed until
    the year 2017, during the past few years, the Corps has been making a
    concerted effort to honor its commitment to acquire the real estate
    interests in the Atchafalaya Basin. At the current pace, the Corps has
    indicated that it can complete the real estate acquisitions by 2004.
        A steady flow of adequate funding is necessary to keep these real
    estate acquisitions on track. When part of the real estate work
    necessary for the Basin acquisitions is done but the funds to complete
    the process are not made available, some of the initial work (such as
    appraisals and timber cruises) must be repeated--resulting not only in
    a significant waste of staff time and taxpayer dollars, but also
    leaving the Basin at risk for environmental degradation even longer.
        It is important to provide sufficient, ongoing funding for the real
    estate acquisitions. Approximately $5 million will be needed for the
    real estate acquisitions portion of the Atchafalaya Basin project in
    the 2002 budget. We urge that the real estate acquisition component of
    the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project be fully funded, and that
    such funds be earmarked.
           low impact hydropower certification; department of energy
        American Rivers urge the subcommittee to provide the Department of
    Energy with $100,000 to fund the Low Impact Hydropower Certification
    program to help promote environmentally sound, sustainable domestic
    energy supplies.
        American Rivers supports the work of the Low Impact Hydropower
    Institute, which manages a voluntary certification program for
    identifying those hydropower facilities that have low environmental
    impacts relative to other hydropower facilities. The Low Impact
    Hydropower Certification Program evaluates hydropower dams based on
    objective environmental criteria addressing key resources. If a
    facility is certified, the hydropower dam owner can sell the power into
    the ``green'' energy markets; this in turn, will create market
    incentives for other dam owners to follow suit. The program provides an
    important, market-based tool for addressing the environmental impacts
    of hydropower, while providing a boost to renewables and ``green''
    energy markets, expanding consumer options, and supporting economic
    incentives for hydropower generators to produce low impact power.
        We urge the subcommittee to provide the Department of Energy with
    $100,000 to fund the Low Impact Hydropower Certification program to
    help promote environmentally sound, sustainable domestic energy
    supplies.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Charles H. Bucknam

        Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
    Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the Federal multi-
    agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is being
    requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
    standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
    going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
    base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
    in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
    drainage from metal mines and related materials.
        The ADTI is a nationwide technology development program with a
    guiding principle of building a consensus among Federal and State
    regulatory agencies, universities and consulting firms to predict and
    find remedies for acid drainage from active and inactive metal and coal
    mines. It is not a regulatory or policy development program. The Acid
    Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) is an
    organization of volunteers committed to the development of the best
    science and technology-based solutions to mine water quality issues at
    metal mines. The Review Committee is responsible for developing and
    implementing the consensus review process for documents, editorial
    services, international networking and membership coordination. The
    consensus review process is developed by this Committee is available on
    the world wide web at: http://www.bucknam.com/rchb/consensu.txt and
    several draft documents are also being reviewed on the ADTI-MMS web
    site at: http://www.mackay.unr.edu/adti.
        As you may be aware, it has been estimated that correcting the mine
    drainage and abandoned mined land problems will cost up to $70 billion.
    As this figure suggests, it will be necessary to lead off on this
    effort with an adequate foundation of current technology-based
    solutions. The ADTI-MMS organization is in the process of preparing and
    maintaining handbooks to provide that foundation and is prepared to
    launch the necessary research programs to develop the best science and
    technologies.
        ADTI-MMS is backed through participation from members of numerous
    mining companies, environmental consulting firms, Federal and state
    research, land management and regulatory agencies, academic researchers
    committed to the ADTI mission, and the Western Governors Association.
    The Western University Consortium, consisting of University of Nevada--
    Reno, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, University of
    Idaho, University of Utah and University of Alaska, Fairbanks and other
    members of the ADTI-MMS University Network (Colorado School of Mines,
    Montana Tech at the University of Montana, South Dakota School of Mines
    and Technology, University of Colorado, Berkeley, Northern Arizona
    University, Montana State University-Bozeman, and the University of New
    Mexico) provide part of our research foundation under direction of the
    Mining Life Cycle Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. In
    addition, the US Army Corps of Engineers Restoration of Abandoned Mined
    Sites (RAMS) program and the headquarter-based Research Programs are
    actively pursuing research coupled with on ground cleanups.
    Coordination with sister organizations in other countries, including
    Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND)-Canada, Mitigation of
    Environmental Impact From Mining Waste (MiMi)-Sweden, (other),
    signifies our position in the international realm.
        The ADTI-MMS Review Committee needs funding for technical-
    professional review and illustrations for ADTI-MMS Workbooks on
    prediction, sampling and monitoring, modeling, mitigation and pit
    lakes. We feel that minimal funding (10 percent of ADTI-MMS annual
    budget) can provide needed training documentation for what proves to be
    an expensive multi-decade effort.
        The National Mining Association (NMA), the Interstate Mining
    Compact Commission (IMCC) and several Federal agencies [OSM, BLM,
    Department of Energy (DOE), and Geological Survey (USGS)] have actively
    participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) since
    1995. This collaborative effort receives funding and other support from
    industry and several Federal agencies for specific projects. For
    example, the OSM has provided the ADTI $200,000 for the last three
    fiscal years which has been a consistent source of funding for
    activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mining and has been
    instrumental in accomplishing the ADTI's short-term goals. In addition,
    the EPA has provided $10,000 for travel and administration, and is
    currently providing funding for prediction workbook preparation. If
    each of the Federal agencies, OSM, Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), DOE, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), BLM, USGS, and other
    agencies as appropriate [i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), National
    Park Service (NPS) and Forest Service (USFS)], were provided funds to
    commit $200,000 toward ADTI, more than $1 million would be available to
    support the work of this vital initiative.
        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 several workshops 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 to participate effectively, we respectfully request that the
    USACE be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually (with other Federal
    agencies involved, such as OSM, EPA, DOE, BLM, USGS, USBR, NPS and
    USFS) to further the Corp's goals of ecosystem restoration.
        Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
    continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
    improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
    issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Colorado School of Mines

        Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
    Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the Federal multi-
    agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is being
    requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
    standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
    going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
    base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
    in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
    drainage from metal mines and related materials.
        The ADTI is a nationwide technology development program with a
    guiding principle of building a consensus among Federal and State
    regulatory agencies, universities and consulting firms to predict and
    find remedies for acid drainage from active and inactive metal and coal
    mines. It is not a regulatory or policy development program. The Acid
    Drainage Technology Initiative Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) is an
    organization of volunteers committed to the development of the best
    science and technology-based solutions to mine water quality issues at
    metal mines. The Review Committee is responsible for developing and
    implementing the consensus review process for documents, editorial
    services, international networking and membership coordination. The
    consensus review process is developed by this Committee is available on
    the world wide web at: http://www.bucknam.com/rchb/consensu.txt and
    several draft documents are also being reviewed on the ADTI-MMS web
    site at: http://www.mackay.unr.edu/adti.
        As you may be aware, it has been estimated that correcting the mine
    drainage and abandoned mined land problems will cost up to $70 billion.
    As this figure suggests, it will be necessary to lead off on this
    effort with an adequate foundation of current technology-based
    solutions. The ADTI-MMS organization is in the process of preparing and
    maintaining handbooks to provide that foundation and is prepared to
    launch the necessary research programs to develop the best science and
    technologies.
        ADTI-MMS is backed through participation from members of numerous
    mining companies, environmental consulting firms, Federal and state
    research, land management and regulatory agencies, academic researchers
    committed to the ADTI mission, and the Western Governors Association.
    The Western University Consortium, consisting of University of Nevada--
    Reno, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, University of
    Idaho, University of Utah and University of Alaska, Fairbanks and other
    members of the ADTI-MMS University Network (Colorado School of Mines,
    Montana Tech at the University of Montana, South Dakota School of Mines
    and Technology, University of Colorado, Berkeley, Northern Arizona
    University, Montana State University-Bozeman, and the University of New
    Mexico) provide part of our research foundation under direction of the
    Mining Life Cycle Center at the University of Nevada, Reno. In
    addition, the US Army Corps of Engineers Restoration of Abandoned Mined
    Sites (RAMS) program and the headquarter-based Research Programs are
    actively pursuing research coupled with on ground cleanups.
    Coordination with sister organizations in other countries, including
    Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND)-Canada, Mitigation of
    Environmental Impact From Mining Waste (MiMi)-Sweden, (other),
    signifies our position in the international realm.
        The ADTI-MS Review Committee needs funding for technical-
    professional review and illustrations for ADTI-MMS Workbooks on
    prediction, sampling and monitoring, modeling, mitigation and pit
    lakes. We feel that minimal funding (10 percent of ADTI-MMS annual
    budget) can provide needed training documentation for what proves to be
    an expensive multi-decade effort.
        The National Mining Association (NMA), the Interstate Mining
    Compact Commission (IMCC) and several Federal agencies [OSM, BLM,
    Department of Energy (DOE), and Geological Survey (USGS)] have actively
    participated in the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) since
    1995. This collaborative effort receives funding and other support from
    industry and several Federal agencies for specific projects. For
    example, the OSM has provided the ADTI $200,000 for the last three
    fiscal years which has been a consistent source of funding for
    activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mining and has been
    instrumental in accomplishing the ADTI's short-term goals. In addition,
    the EPA has provided $10,000 for travel and administration, and is
    currently providing funding for prediction workbook preparation. If
    each of the Federal agencies, OSM, Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), DOE, Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), BLM, USGS, and other
    agencies as appropriate [i.e. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), National
    Park Service (NPS) and Forest Service (USFS)], were provided funds to
    commit $200,000 toward ADTI, more than $1 million would be available to
    support the work of this vital initiative.
        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 several workshops 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 to participate along with the Corps, we respectfully request
    that the USACE be provided funds to commit $200,000 annually (with
    other Federal agencies involved, such as OSM, EPA, DOE, BLM, USGS, BOR,
    NPS and USFS) to further the Corp's goals of ecosystem restoration.
        Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
    continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
    improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
    issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association

        My name is M.V. Williams and my home is in Friendship, Tennessee
    between the Middle and South Forks of the Forked Deer River. I am the
    President of the West Tennessee Tributaries Association. It is also my
    pleasure to serve as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the
    Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association with headquarters in
    Memphis, Tennessee. This statement on behalf of the Association
    presents their views on fiscal year 2002 Budget for the Mississippi
    River and Tributaries Project.
        To better inform the Sub-committee, I will briefly discuss the
    Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association which is an Agency
    composed almost entirely of public bodies having local responsibility
    for flood control, drainage, bank stabilization and navigation
    improvements in parts of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi,
    Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana. Our members are public
    officials who for the most part are elected by the people. The
    Association represents practically all of the levee and drainage
    districts, municipalities, port and harbor commissions and other state
    agencies in the Mississippi Valley, extending from Burlington, Iowa to
    the Gulf of Mexico. These organizations and agencies are political
    subdivisions of the various states in which they are organized and
    function. We provide an agency through which the people of the
    Mississippi Valley may speak and act jointly on all flood control,
    navigation, bank stabilization and major drainage problems. We have
    appeared before the Sub-Committee and served the people in the
    Mississippi Valley for well over sixty years.
        Our Association is comprised of a very large group of individuals
    who are businessmen, property owners, conservationists, farmers,
    attorneys, doctors, wildlife enthusiasts, engineers, accountants,
    environmentalists, civil servants and elected officials from all
    political parties.
        The value of flood control and economic reality of the need for
    navigation is well known by the Congress. Therefore I shall not go into
    details but for the sake of confirming what is already known. Let me
    tell you that for every Federal dollar invested in the Mississippi
    River and Tributaries Project twenty-four dollars have been returned in
    damages prevented. In addition river navigation has produced annual
    benefits of almost nine hundred million dollars. What a wonderful
    investment of taxpayer's dollars.
        Today we find ourself again faced with an inadequate budget from
    the Executive Department but fortunately for us and the other citizens
    of this great Nation, the Congress in its wisdom has always recognized
    the value of such an investment and has consequently, with only rare
    exceptions, appropriated more dollars for the Mississippi River and
    Tributaries Project that has been requested by the Executive Department
    We hope this happens again this year.
        We also find the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under fire from
    within the Executive Branch, some members of Congress and of course the
    so-called environmentalists. This is the same Corps of Engineers that
    has in peace time for over 225 years built the infrastructure that is
    the envy of the rest of the civilized world and that has also defended
    our Nation in times of conflict, from the war for independence to the
    Gulf War, from Bunker Hill to Baghdad.
        The Corps has faced similar allegations in the past but this time
    government agencies such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the
    Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
    others are attempting to change the Nation's public policy relating to
    water resources development and management from one of economic
    development balanced with environmental mitigation and restoration to
    one focused principally on environmental restoration.
        Even though the vast majority of the water resources infrastructure
    has passed its design age and badly needs to be replaced, these
    government agencies have, with help from others, made things so
    difficult and expensive that it becomes very arduous to find the
    economic justification for replacing the vitally needed structures. The
    Budget for fiscal year 2002 does not come close to meeting the needs
    for the maintenance of the work in place, work that was put in place by
    the direction of Congress which also decreed that the work was to be
    maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
        This statement is in support of the Mississippi River and
    Tributaries Appropriations and our request is being made only after
    careful and thoughtful considerations of the barest amount necessary to
    prevent the cancellation of on going contracts and to do the minimum
    amount of required maintenance work. The Mississippi River and
    Tributaries Project is unique in the fact that the appropriations
    allocated are used not only for construction but also for maintenance
    and not only for flood control but also for navigation and includes all
    environmental considerations including mitigation and restoration as
    well as irrigation and water supply.
        It is our conviction that to meet the barest minimums as outlined
    above, the appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries
    Project for fiscal year 2002 must be $395,000,000. In order to merely
    preserve the integrity of our flood control and navigation systems that
    represents a large investment of National assets and to preserve and
    enhance the natural environment of the Mississippi River Valley and to
    continue the authorized work that is under way, the appropriation
    request is justified and should be considered as a wise investment in
    the future well-being of this great Nation.
        With the help of the Congress over the years, we have made progress
    in the Mississippi River Valley and for that we are extremely grateful
    but there is much to be done before the job is completed and the people
    in the valley may live without fear and the entire Nation may reap the
    benefits of what has been done.
        We have attached a sheet to this statement that reflects the
    Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association's request for
    appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project for
    fiscal year 2002.

    Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association,Fiscal Year 2002 Civil
    Works Requested Budget, Mississippi River and Tributaries Appropriations

            Project and State                               Requested Budget
    Surveys, Continuation of Planning and Engineering &
        Advance Engineering & Design:
        Memphis Metro Area, TN & MS.........................        $535,000
        Memphis Harbor, TN..................................         700,000
        Wolf River, Memphis, TN.............................         205,000
        Bayou Meto Basin, AR................................       2,500,000
        Southeast Arkansas..................................       1,452,000
        Boydsville, AR......................................         100,000
        Olive Branch, MS....................................         500,000
        Coldwater Basin Below Arkabutla Lake, MS............         350,000
        Alexandria, LA to the Gulf of Mexico................         700,000
        Morganza, LA to the Gulf of Mexico..................       6,500,000
        Donaldsonville, LA To Gulf of Mexico................       1,000,000
        Spring Bayou, LA....................................         500,000
        Collection & Study of Basic Data....................         615,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal--Surveys, Continuation of Planning &
          Engineering
          ..................................................
            & Advance Engineering & Design..................      15,657,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Construction:
        St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway, MO............       8,000,000
        Eight Mile Creek, AR................................         915,000
        Helena & Vicinity, AR...............................       1,675,000
        Grand Prairie Region, AR............................      35,414,000
        West Tennessee Tributaries, TN......................         100,000
        Nonconnah Creek, TN.................................       1,500,000
        Reelfoot Lake, TN...................................       2,620,000
        St. Francis Basin, MO & AR..........................       4,502,000
        Yazoo Basin, MS.....................................      33,287,000
        Atchafalaya Basin, LA...............................      30,000,000
        Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System...................       7,858,000
        MS Delta Region, LA.................................       4,600,000
        MS & LA Estaurine, Area, MS & LA....................         100,000
        Louisiana State, Penitentiary, LA...................       3,022,000
        Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, LA...............       1,112,000
        Channel Improvements, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS & LA...      40,100,000
        Mississippi River Levees, IL, KY, MO, AR, TN, MS &
          LA................................................      51,968,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal--Construction............................     226,773,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
          Subtotal--Maintenance.............................     152,570,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total--Mississippi River & Tributaries............     395,000,000
                                     ______

            Prepared Statements of the Pontchartrain Levee District

     lake pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection, louisiana; st.
        charles and west shore--lake pontchartrain, st. john the baptist

               SUMMARY FISCAL YEAR 2002 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Project                       Budget            Recommended
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    St. Charles Parish Hurricane                  $3,000,000      $5,400,000
     Protection....................
    West Shore, St. John the                 \1\ 142,000,000  ..............
     Baptist Parish Hurricane
     Protection....................
    Lake Pontchartrain & Vicinity                 19,700,000     22,100,000
     Hurricane Protection..........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Estimated cost.

                                project overview
        Around Lake Pontchartrain, in the vicinity of New Orleans, there
    are several project segments under this major title. All segments are
    nearing completion except St. Charles Parish Hurricane Protection and
    West Shore, St. John the Baptist Parish Hurricane Protection. Both
    projects are located totally in the Pontchartrain Levee District (PLD)
    and the PLD is serving as local sponsor for both.
        The importance and critical necessity for these two parts of the
    overall project is defined by the fact the shoreline of Lake
    Pontchartrain is actually a part of and continuation of the Gulf of
    Mexico shoreline. Sound frightening? Think of the communities, people,
    businesses and improvements remaining unprotected. That expresses the
    urgent, indispensable need for protection from hurricane induced and
    other high tides. Both of these items--St. Charles Parish and West
    Shore--protect major designated evacuation routes for the New Orleans
    Metropolitan area (I-10 & US 190). The problem here is that as soon as
    the hurricane tide has hit New Orleans it has also attacked all the
    shoreline around Lake Pontchartrain. It's a package deal.
        The St. Charles Parish Project has 10 miles of levee, 5 major
    floodgate structures and a construction cost of $100 million. If
    Congress provides maximum funding capability for 2002 and 2003, then
    the first lift levee and structures can be completed in 1\1/2\ years
    from now. A closed system in time for most of the 2003 hurricane
    season! Very exciting! A time to rejoice! Let's do it!
        The West Shore Project includes 18 miles of levee and 3 pumping
    stations. The estimated construction cost is in the vicinity of $142
    million, as determined by the Feasibility Study now complete, and is
    just before submitting to higher authority from the New Orleans
    District, Corps of Engineers. No construction is scheduled for fiscal
    year 2002, but will have a broad start in 2003. Let's get ready to fund
    this project to the hilt. We must remember that portions of Interstates
    55 and 10 have already been flooded by hurricanes and shut down. And it
    will repeat without protection.
        The total appropriation required for all parts of Lake
    Pontchartrain & Vicinity Hurricane Protection is $19,700,000, with a
    budget inclusion of only $10,000,000. That part in St. Charles Parish
    must receive $5,400,000 in 2002 and only $3,000,000 has been requested
    by the Corps of Engineers.
        We believe the West Shore item does not require funding in 2002,
    but the funding must being in fiscal year 2003.
                                    comments
        The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the
    necessity of keeping these Subcommittees advised of current and future
    needs for Federal monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood
    Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the Subcommittees refused to give
    audience to our pleadings. This year no oral testimony will be heard.
    Again, this is a great travesty of justice. Such actions seriously
    erode the partnership that has been built between Congress, the Corps
    of Engineers and local sponsors.
        We trust that this pattern will revert back to the practice of
    hearing our delegation. Six representatives from the Pontchartrain
    Levee District are present today desiring to present views to the
    Subcommittees--they are:
        Commissioners: Joseph Gautreau, President, Herbert T. Thurber, Vice
    President, Jesse J. Bartley, LeVerne Brown, Steven Wilson.
        Staff: Mike Babin, Program Administrator.
                                   conclusion
        The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District,
    compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its
    keen understanding of real needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project
    along with Hurricane Protection and efficient, alert actions taken to
    appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. We endorse
    recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of
    Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi
    Valley Flood Control Association and Red River Valley Association.
            mississippi river and tributaries flood control project

               SUMMARY FISCAL YEAR 2002 RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Project                      Budget        Recommended
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mississippi River & Tributaries Flood       $370,000,000    $460,000,000
     Control Project........................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Pontchartrain Levee District (PLD) includes the east bank main
    line levee extending from Baton Rouge to Kenner, a length of 115 miles.
    Various segments of this levee require enlargement and construction of
    riverside slope pavement. One such item is currently under construction
    from Carville to Marchand. Additional funds are needed over the
    budgeted amount to allow substantial progress. In the northeast part of
    Louisiana the levee is several feet below grade where if overtopped
    will flood about one-third of the state. Very severe and critical
    conditions! It is recommended that a minimum of $51,067,000 be
    appropriated for Mississippi River Levees, where the budget contains
    only $40,621,000.
        The second item of indispensable importance to PLD and the State of
    Louisiana is Channel Improvements. Main line levees must be protected
    from caving banks throughout this lower river reach where extremely
    narrow battures are the last line of defense against levee crevasses
    and failures. If caving banks are not controlled the only answer is
    ``setback''. Simply stated there is no room remaining for levee
    setbacks in the Pontchartrain Levee District. Revetment construction
    must be annually funded to prevent levee failures, land losses and
    relocations. This item also benefits the 55-foot depth navigation
    channel. The Pontchartrain Levee District recommends at least
    $47,900,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2002. Budget amount is
    $40,100,000.
                                    comments
        The Pontchartrain Levee District has full realization of the
    necessity of keeping these Subcommittees advised of current and future
    needs for Federaly monetary support on vital items of the MR&T Flood
    Control Project. Beginning in 1995 the Subcommittees refused to give
    audience to the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association. This year
    no oral testimony will be heard. Again, this is a great travesty of
    justice. Such actions seriously erode the partnership that has been
    built between Congress, the Corps of Engineers and local sponsors.
        We trust that this pattern will revert back to the sixty-three year
    practice of hearing our delegation. Six representatives from the
    Pontchartrain Levee District are present today desiring to present
    views to the Subcommittees--they are:
        Commissioners: Joseph Gautreau, President, Herbert T. Thurber, Vice
    President, Jesse J. Bartley, LeVerne Brown, Steven Wilson.
        Staff: Mike Babin, Program Administrator.
                                   conclusion
        The Board of Commissioners, Pontchartrain Levee District,
    compliments the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development for its
    keen understanding of real needs for the MR&T Flood Control Project
    along with Hurricane Protection and efficient, alert actions taken to
    appropriate funds for the many complex requirements. We endorse
    recommendations presented by the Association of Levee Boards of
    Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, Mississippi
    Valley Flood Control Association and Red River Valley Association.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Moss Landing Harbor District

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    chairman and members of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, 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 2002 energy and
    water regular appropriations measure.
        The commission recognizes and expresses its gratitude to our senior
    Senator, the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, a valued member of the
    Appropriations Committee for her continued assistance and support on
    our behalf.
        The commission also expresses its sincere gratitude to our other
    distinguished Senator from the State of California, the Honorable
    Barbara Boxer, for her continued assistance and support on our behalf.
        We express our profound appreciation to the subcommittee and full
    committee for its inclusion of $700,000 in operations and maintenance
    funds in the fiscal year 2001 budget for the conduct of a first ever
    dredged material management plan for the harbor district in order to
    plan for orderly maintenance dredging of the Federal channel and local
    berths over the next twenty or more years.
        The coming year marks the first time in a decade that we have
    returned to a normal three year maintenance cycle of the Federal
    channel and we support inclusion of $2.0 million in fiscal year 2002
    budget for that purpose. Additionally, up to $500,000 may be required
    to complete the dredged material management plan that was funded for
    fiscal year 2001. The total request is therefore for $2.5 million in
    appropriations from the operations and maintenance general account.
        As part of that effort we have cooperatively undertaken a ground
    breaking ecological risk assessment under Corps of Engineers and EPA
    guidance including representatives of the Federal, State and local
    agencies with an interest in dredging activities. We hope this effort
    will:
      --Produce both a useful and practical multidisciplinary decision
            document for those agencies exercising regulatory or oversight
            jurisdiction over dredging; and
      --Serve as a model for collaborative efforts in dredged material
            disposal consensus decision making in unique situations such as
            for other corps districts and local sponsors seeking to balance
            required maintenance dredging to support navigation with the
            corresponding need to protect environmentally sensitive areas,
            in this instance the unique Monterey Submarine Canyon located
            at the heart of the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary.
        We plan to document this process and our experience for
    incorporation in corps planning guidance for national use and
    congressional oversight as a valuable tool for environmental regulatory
    process streamlining.
        The working group in support of this effort is comprised of every
    State, Federal and local agency with responsibility for the conduct and
    statutory oversight of dredging activities at the site 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 the marine research community
    based in the harbor district.
        For those of you who are more familiar with the world renowned
    Monterey peninsula and bay and our acclaimed aquarium, our 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. Without ongoing maintenance
    dredging both nationally significant research and commercial fishing
    activities would be threatened.
        As part of voluntary local cost sharing contribution to our dredged
    material management plan, as the local sponsor we have 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, over $16,000 for the
    collection of sediment samples (some of which need critical testing and
    evaluation before their expiration), over $12,000 for an extensive
    literature search, and over $25,000 in coordinating with, and
    sponsoring meetings of, the working group. USEPA Region IX has also
    contributed financially to this important endeavor by providing funds
    for the peer review process.
        The Ecological Risk Assessment (``ERA'') underway consists of three
    main phases: (1) problem formulation; (2) analysis; and (3) risk
    characterization.
        The first phase consists 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 includes 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 during Federal
    fiscal year 2002.
        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.
        As part of the effort we are compelled to benchmark suitable upland
    disposal sites for both ecological risk assessment and maintenance
    dredging purposes. We are bounded by the Elkhorn Slough National
    Estuarine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary, severely
    limiting available disposal options. The harbor district lies within
    the watershed of two rivers draining some of the richest agricultural
    land in the nation but which also serves as the upstream source of
    agricultural pesticides posing a permanent dilemma as to alternative
    disposal options. Compounding this is the high cost of acquisition of
    available upland disposal sites, approximately $35 million for the one
    remaining suitable long term disposal site.
        This brings us to our long term need for a fundamental change in
    Federal law that brings modern navigation project planning and cost-
    sharing in line with current practice that has evolved since the
    enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended.
    Under current law the definition of the general navigation features of
    the project includes inter alia the actual project dredging cost and
    any improvements to locally provided disposal sites for construction
    purposes. For maintenance purposes the cost of maintaining a dredged
    disposal site is apportioned between the Federal government and the
    local sponsor if the site is used for the deposit of both project and
    berth material. Oftentimes the local sponsor outlay for a suitable
    disposal site may represent the single biggest cost element for an
    overall navigation project. This is particularly onerous in the case of
    a small or medium size port.
        A private sector sponsor may develop a single or usually multi-user
    disposal site and charge both the government and the local sponsor for
    its use over time. In practice, environmental permit delays have all
    but consigned this option to the rare instance. Legislative relief in
    the next water resources bill is long overdue.
        We bring these matters to your attention early in the 107th
    Congress so that they may be considered in the public debate over
    future water resources policy and fiscal planning, just as we plan to
    share our experience in dredged material management planning to the
    same end.
        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 Ventura Port District

        The Ventura Port District respectfully requests that the Congress:
        Include $3,000,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    maintenance dredging of the Ventura Harbor Federal channel and sand
    traps.
        Include $1,500,000 to the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
    repair the serious structural damage to the south Beach Groin at
    Ventura Harbor.
        Include $400,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Bill 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
    Maintenance Dredging
        It is estimated that $3,000,000 will be required to perform routine
    maintenance dredging of the harbor's entrance channel and sand traps
    during fiscal year 2002. 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
    2002 for the Corps of Engineers to repair extensive storm damage to the
    South Beach Groin. 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 structure is not compromised. Delaying the necessary repairs will
    not only rapidly escalate the repair cost for the groin itself but will
    also result in increased maintenance dredging costs in subsequent
    years.
                                  study needs
        It is estimated that $400,000 will be required during fiscal year
    2002 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 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, Municipalities and other local
    governmental entities in developing the area along the Red River.
        The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
    during its 76th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
    22, 2001, 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.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Wayne Dowd, and
    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.
        Even though the details of the President's budget have not been
    published we know that the fiscal year 2002 Civil Works program is to
    be 14 percent less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
    This does not come close to the real needs of our nation. Six billion
    dollars is a more realistic funding level to meet the requirements for
    continuing the existing needs of the civil works programs. The
    traditional programs, inland waterways and flood protection remain at
    the low, unacceptable level as in past years. These projects are the
    backbone to our nation's infrastructure for waterways, flood control
    and water supply. We remind you that civil works 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 are the key to our dominance of world trade. This is a
    pivotal budget year where critical decisions must be made which will
    determine our future economic strength.
        The integrity of the Corps of Engineers and their study process has
    been questioned over this past year. We do not agree with the
    accusations made and our experience has always been one of the highest
    integrity, in Corps personnel and their processes. There appears to be
    a campaign against the Corps of Engineers in which the media is only
    relaying one side of the issue. There is no doubt that upon completion
    of the on going investigations the Corps will be fully vindicated.
        The Corps of Engineers has served our nation for over 225 years and
    has been instrumental in developing the infrastructure that makes us
    the economic power we are in the world today. In 1996 our ports
    generated over $146 billion in federal taxes, Corps flood control
    projects have prevented damages of $21 billion annually and Corps
    projects and lakes provide more recreation opportunities for Americans,
    in visitor days, than the National Park Service. We do not support
    radical reform to the Corps process or additional independent review of
    Corps projects.
        It is difficult to understand why the environmental extremists are
    so strong in their objection to the inland waterways. The facts are
    that one barge, 1,500 tons of commodities, is equivalent to 15 jumbo
    rail hoppers or 58 tractor-trailer trucks. According to EPA, towboats
    emit 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. So
    why would anyone want to take cargo off our waterways and increase
    highway congestion and air pollution? We do not believe opponents to
    civil work programs have the scientific justification to back their
    claims.
        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 region.
        Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
    expectations of the benefits projected. The tonnage moved in 1999 was
    3.6 million tons with the projected tonnage, to justify the project, at
    3.7 million tons. We are extremely proud of our public ports,
    municipalities and state agencies that have created this success. New
    opportunities were announced in 2000 including a ConAgra facility at
    the Natchitoches Parish Port. Liquid petroleum shipments increased in
    2000 as did commercial stone operations. You are reminded that the
    Waterway is not complete, nine percent remains, $180 million. We
    appreciate the Congress's appropriation level in fiscal year 2001;
    however, in order to keep the Waterway safe and reliable we must
    continue at a funding level closer to $25 million. 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 each year.
        The feasibility study to extend navigation from Shreveport-Bossier
    City, Louisiana into the State of Arkansas is on going. It is
    imperative that you continue funding this important study and
    appropriate the $797,000 required for fiscal year 2002. This region of
    SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer major unemployment, and
    the navigation project, although not the total solution, will help
    revitalize the economy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ``Planning
    Aid Report'' indicated minimal impact and most probably an enhancement
    to environmental value.
        This will be a multipurpose project addressing navigation,
    hydropower, bank stabilization and environmental restoration. As we
    experience serious shortages of electric power in parts of our nation
    this project will offer the potential for hydropower generation at each
    of the proposed lock and dams. This is the most efficient, safest and
    environmental friendly source of power generation.
        I want to stress that the local the sponsor, the Arkansas Red River
    Commission, has available their 50 percent cost share to complete this
    feasibility study. Few local sponsors have `funds in the bank' and are
    also willing to conduct additional studies to insure a complete and
    accurate analysis is made. Additionally, the interest rate currently
    being used in the study analysis is 6\3/8\ percent, higher than the
    current prime rate and significantly higher than the rate used for the
    Louisiana waterway, 3\1/4\ percent. We believe the extension of
    navigation into Arkansas should be analyzed at the same rate as used in
    Louisiana and request language in the Appropriations bill to direct
    this change.
        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
    the 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 bank stabilization 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 2001 and request you fund this project at a level of $10
    million.
        It is essential to protect the banks from caving and erosion along
    the Red River from 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. We ask that you support a Reconnaissance
    Study to investigate the restoration of wetlands, bottomland hardwoods
    and riparian habitat. Various types of bank stabilization would be
    incorporated to protect these environmental zones and corridors.
        There is a new technique for bank stabilization which should be
    tested as a demonstration project, under the existing authority `Red
    River Waterway'. 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.
        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 levee sections have been completed
    and brought to federal standards. Appropriations of $4.5 million will
    construct two more levee sections; 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 continue funding this project
    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 into 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
    problems. 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 $2,200,000 with the total
    project costing $6,433,000.
        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. In fiscal year 1995
    $16 million dollars was appropriated 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.
        The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in October 1998
    agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River Basin tributary
    of the project. Completion of this project will reclaim Lake Kemp as a
    usable water source for the City of Wichita Falls and the region. We
    request appropriations of $2,100,000 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, to include irrigation in Arkansas and Louisiana.
        Operation & Maintenance.--We appreciate the support of your
    subcommittee to support navigation to Shreveport/Bossier City which is
    now providing a catalyst 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 three years ago 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. In order to operate and maintain the
    existing infrastructure $14,750,000 is required just to address the
    most critical backlog maintenance concerns.
        Full O&M funding levels are not only important for our Waterway
    project but for all our Corps projects and flood control lakes. The
    backlog of critical maintenance only becomes worse and more expensive
    with time. We urge you to appropriate funding to address this serious
    issue at the expressed full Corps capability. Presently there is a $400
    million backlog of critical maintenance at Corps projects throughout
    the nation.
        The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) has never been fully
    funded to its authorized amount. This has been an outstanding program
    providing small, cost shared projects within our communities. We
    believe this program should be funded at its full authorized amount.
        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, municipalities 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.
                             iii. grant disclosure
        The Red River Valley Association has not received any federal
    grant, sub grant or contract during the current fiscal year or either
    of the two previous fiscal years.
                      summary of fiscal year 2002 requests
        NOTE.--Projects are NOT in any order of priority.
    I. 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 $1,932,000
    has been `reprogrammed' for this study from another Red River study. An
    additional $1,023,000 is required to complete the study by fiscal year
    2003. The study is cost shared 50 percent with the Arkansas Red River
    Commission, the local sponsor, who has their share on hand.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$797,000
        Red River Waterway, Index Arkansas to Denison Dam, TX.--Investigate
    the restoration of natural resources, such as wetlands, bottomland
    hardwoods and riparian habitat along approximately 245 river miles.
    Various types of bank stabilization would be considered to protect
    environmental zones and corridors.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request $100,000
        Washita River Basin, OK.--Under Public Law 534 NRCS constructed
    approximately 1,100 small Flood control structures in the Washita River
    basin above Lake Texoma. These structures have significantly reduced
    the sediment flow into Lake Texoma; however, they are reaching their 50
    year life expectancy. This study will assist NRCS in determing how to
    extend the life of the structures which have had a great positive
    impact to the water quality, flood storage capacity and ecosystem of
    Lake Texoma.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$100,000
        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 the
    feasibility study.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$100,000
        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.
    In fiscal year 2001 $200,000 was received to initiate this study. The
    total study cost will be $1,100,000.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$200,000
        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. In fiscal year 2001 $525,000 was
    received for this study.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$200,000
                                  construction
    Red River Waterway Project
        J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.--Eight projects will be awarded in
    fiscal year 2001 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.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$28,770,000
        Index, AR to Denison Dam, TX; Bendway Weir Demo Project.--This
    stretch of the 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 is great
    environmental enhancement potential with this project.
                Total fiscal year 2002 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 supported this and reprogrammed funds in
    fiscal year 2001. In addition to the reevaluation and NEPA process,
    environmental monitoring activities will continue.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$2,100,000
    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 fiscal year 2002 Request--$4,500,000
        Bowie County Levee, TX.--The local sponsor wants the `locally
    preferred option' authorized for construction. In fiscal year 2001
    $900,000 was appropriated to initiate this project. The local sponsor
    is willing to execute a PCA and initiate real estate activities in
    fiscal year 2002.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$100,000
        Upgrade Levees, LA.--Approximately 220 miles of levees in Louisiana
    do not have gravel surfaces on top of the levee, so do not meet federal
    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 fiscal year 2002 Request--$2,200,000
        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 Bois D'Arc
    Revetments and complete the design for Dickson Revetment.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$10,000,000
        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 Soil and Water Conservation
    Commission requests that the project proceed directly to PED, without a
    cost shared feasibility study. We request language and funding to
    accomplish this.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$200,000
        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 due to the
    extremely high cost of mitigation.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--0
        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. In fiscal year 2001 $120,000 was appropriated to
    initiate this project.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$110,000
        Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR (Section 1135).--An environmental
    restoration project of 15,000 acres of wetlands located downstream from
    Millwood Dam. The Dam interrupted the flow to these wetlands 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 fiscal year 2002 Request--$300,000
        East/West Burns Run Public Use Area, Park Modernization, Lake
    Texoma, OK.--Modernization of these facilities will bring them up to
    standards to serve the volume of users experienced each year. The Lake
    Texoma region economy depends mostly on recreation. This facility will
    ensure continued success, but also increase the economic potential for
    the area.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$4,600,000
                          iii. operation & maintenance
        Red River Waterway.--The President's budget is usually only
    sufficient to operate and perform preventive maintenance. There are
    major, unfunded backlog maintenance items that must be done. These
    items include inspection and certification of lock & dam stop logs,
    repairs to tainter gate diagonal bracing and revetment repairs.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$14,750,000
        Lake Texoma (Denison Dam), TX and OK Reallocation Study and NEPA
    Documentation.--The severe drought experienced these past 2 years has
    increased the need for additional water supply. Public Law 99-662,
    Section 838, granted authority to reallocate up to an additional
    300,000 acre feet of hydropower storage to water supply, 150,000 acre-
    feet for Texas and 150,000 acre feet for Oklahoma. This reallocation is
    needed and we request the impact study be funded. The total study cost
    is $750,000.
                Total fiscal year 2002 Request--$750,000
        We support that O&M at all projects be funded at the full Corps
    capability
                                     ______

            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 2002 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 has begun with important developments such as the Shreveport
    Riverview project, Teague Parkway Trails in Bossier City, Colfax
    Recreation Area and Natchitoches Recreation Area establishing an
    excellent recreation foundation with more projects in the preliminary
    design stages.
        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.

            Prepared Statement of the Caddo/Bossier Port Commission

        On behalf of the citizens of Northwest Louisiana, the Caddo-Bossier
    Parishes Port Commission respectfully urges the Congress of the United
    States to allocate in the fiscal year 2002 Budget the necessary funding
    to keep America's water resources infrastructure functioning as a major
    contributor to the nation's wealth and prosperity, including monies to
    ensure safe and reliable Red River navigation.
        Unfortunately, the proposed budget decreases funding for the Corps
    of Engineers' civil works program some 14 percent, a cutback more
    severe than for any other Federal agency. Compounded by the fact that
    the Corps of Engineers' budget over the last five years has not even
    kept pace with inflation, the nation's water resource needs are being
    postponed. Projects will cost more, realization of project benefits
    will be delayed, for a final result of costing the nation hundreds of
    million of dollars.
        Our commerce, international trade, environmental and national
    defense needs must not be shortchanged. Our water highways 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 Parishes Port Commission, as part of this waterways
    network links the Ark-La-Tex by way of the Red River with the vast
    midcontinent and coastal and Great Lakes ports.
        The Port of Shreveport-Bossier is one of the newest ports in this
    network, having been in regular operation only since 1997. 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. Last spring,
    in only three years, the One Millionth Ton of Cargo milestone was
    achieved, a timetable far ahead of many acknowledged successful inland
    ports. And just as importantly, the Port is prompting jobs and dollar
    investment. Omni Specialty Packaging and Omni Terminal Systems, the
    Port's newest tenants, began operation in 2000 and by year's end
    exceeded employment and production projections. These companies joined
    Oakley Louisiana, Red River Terminals, Arch Chemicals and U.S. Liquids
    at the 2,000 acre Port complex.
        Adequate Federal investment in civil works programs is crucial to
    America's economic and environmental well being. Such investment for
    the Red River must 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 Port of San Diego

        The following testimony is provided by the San Diego Unified Port
    District, which represents the California cities of Chula Vista,
    Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego, to obtain
    support from the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to
    include $4,000,000 of funds under Section 107 of the 1960 River and
    Harbor Act, as amended (continuing authority program) to complete plans
    and specifications and to construct the deepening project for San Diego
    Harbor.
        The Port District has previously entered into a 50/50 Cost Sharing
    Agreement with the Corps for a Feasibility Study to deepen San Diego
    Harbor and is willing and able to enter into a similar Cost Sharing
    Agreement for completion of plans and specifications and construction
    of the project.
        The San Diego Unified Port District operates and maintains two
    marine terminals and engages in other maritime related business and
    economic activities. These economic activities result in regionally
    significant fiscal impacts including: economic output, high value
    employment and associated payroll taxes, and federal revenue in the
    form of income taxes, as well as various duties and trust fund
    contributions.
        An independent economic and fiscal impact study of the Port of San
    Diego was conducted in 1999 by SourcePoint. The study revealed the
    following regional economic impacts:

    Maritime Commerce Regional Economic Impacts

                                                                 1998 Impact
    Employment:
        Direct Jobs \1\.....................................             917
        Total Jobs..........................................           1,818
    Employee Payroll:
        Direct Payroll......................................     $28,955,000
        Total Payroll.......................................      53,016,000
    Output (Business Sales):
        Direct Output.......................................     102,659,000
        Total Output........................................     182,019,000

        \1\ Includes 471 maritime jobs on the tidelands and 446
    construction related jobs.

        Source: SourcePoint, using IMPLAN, an input-output model for the
    San Diego region.

        A timely and unique opportunity has presented itself to the Port
    District. The U.S. Navy has completed a major channel deepening project
    to accommodate its nuclear aircraft carriers. The Navy's dredging
    project deepens the existing channel to about -50 feet, all the way
    from the ocean to the carrier turning basin, approximately seven miles.
    It is only an additional two miles to the Port District's 10th Avenue
    Marine Terminal. The Port District perceives this as a ``partnering''
    opportunity between the Navy, Corps of Engineers, Port District and
    private sector interests to lower maritime shipping costs at the Port
    of San Diego.
        The Port District is committed to working with the Corps of
    Engineers and the maritime industry to maintain and enhance our ability
    to contribute to the region's economic stability by providing the
    physical infrastructure needed to provide competitively priced maritime
    shipping opportunities. To that end, the Port District has commenced
    several strategic initiatives, including:
      --$16,000,000 to repair berths at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal
            (completed in 1997)
      --$30,000,000 landside and railroad improvements at the National City
            Marine Terminal, in partnership with the BNSF Railroad
            (completed in 1997)
      --$27,000,000 to extend and expand the wharf at the National City
            Marine Terminal (preliminary design completed in 1998), and
      --the commitment to cost share with the Corps of Engineers the cost
            of deepening the federal navigation channel to the 10th Avenue
            and National City Marine Terminals.
        The draft Feasibility Study, currently under review by the Corps of
    Engineers and Port District, indicates a positive federal interest in
    the deepening of San Diego Harbor. The Port is uniquely positioned to
    competitively serve new and existing maritime shipping needs between
    the Pacific Rim and the southwestern United States. However, the
    current channel depth prevents full realization of federal and regional
    benefits.
        In conclusion, the San Diego Unified Port District requests your
    support to include $4,000,000 in the Corps of Engineers continuing
    authority programs for the deepening of San Diego Harbor. The Port
    District and its maritime partners have made, and will continue to
    make, significant financial investments in the landside infrastructure.
    We request only that the Corps of Engineers be provided the financial
    resources to modify the federal navigation channel so that potential
    shipping cost reductions can be realized. With seven miles of the
    federal channel already deepened by the Navy, it only makes economic
    sense to extend the deepening to the marine terminal so that
    nonmilitary benefits can also be realized.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association

        The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association and its members
    thank you for the opportunity to present this statement, including a
    budget request, relative to the budget for fiscal year 2002.
        This statement concerns and is focused on the Missouri National
    Recreational River project which received Congressional authorization
    in 1978 per Section 707 of Public Law 95-625. The Association's budget
    request for fiscal year 2002 is $325,000.00, an amount to be used for
    these purposes:
      --The operation, maintenance and repair of streambank protection
            structures constructed prior to 1978 under the authority of
            Section 32 of the Streambank Erosion Control and Demonstration
            Act;
      --Repair or replace structures which fell victim to the record flows
            (about double normal) of 1997;
      --Improve user access to the river in the lower reaches of the
            project, particularly on the South Dakota side of the river;
      --The acquisition from landowners of shore line easements to protect
            existing (but disappearing) wildlife habitat and to increase or
            restore such habitat in areas where it has disappeared or needs
            augmentation;
      --Providing streambank protection, where needed, as needed, for the
            river's ``high banks'', i.e. at the meander line;
      --For the acquisition or protection of the river's scenic attributes
            as envisioned by this legislation;
      --Such other needs as may be required to achieve the congressional
            purposes relative to this reach of the Missouri.
        This project pertains to the some fifty-nine mile reach of the
    Missouri River extending downward from near the Gavins Point Dam, circa
    River Mile 811, near Yankton, South Dakota, to the Ponca State Park,
    circa River Mile 752, near Ponca, Nebraska. This reach of the Missouri
    is the only relatively natural reach of the river lying downstream of
    the ``main stem'' dams. Channelization was never extended upstream of
    Ponca. While some limited, isolated bank protection structures do exist
    along this reach, the river for the most part retains its natural
    characteristics. These include caving banks, shifting sandbars, some
    islands, a profusion of snags, frequent shifting of the channel, sudden
    changes in depth, timbered bluffs and limited access. Wildlife found
    here includes beavers, raccoons, coyotes, muskrats, deer and mink. A
    profusion of birds is found here; spring and fall bring a spectacular
    array of ducks, geese and other migratory birds. As we have noted
    before, the business of the Missouri River is to move the Rocky
    Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico. Erosion is a major tool the river
    employs in this process. Consequently, its shorelines are under
    endless, relentless assault. The mostly sandy soils which characterizes
    its bank in this reach are easily eroded, and erode they do.
        Intensive and extensive erosion, of course, has always been one of
    the Missouri's defining characteristics; it is a natural process.
    Unfortunately, this natural process has been significantly altered by
    the construction of the river's ``main stem'' dams. The principal
    purpose of these dams was flood-control. In this reach that aim has
    been achieved; the natural flooding, often over-the-banks flooding, has
    been eliminated. Termination of such flooding, however, has also
    terminated the natural process of land restoration. Thus, erosion
    continues but no longer is it offset by accretion. Exacerbating this
    problem is the fact that erosion has actually been increased because
    the now relatively clear water discharged through the dams has a
    greater sediment-carrying capacity. Thus, the river has an even more
    rapacious appetite for its shorelines. Where once riparian landowners
    had a fifty-fifty chance of regaining land lost to the river, they,
    instead, now have a one hundred percent chance of losing it. Protection
    from such losses is needed now.
        Congress authorized some $21,000,000.00 for this project; about
    $2,000,000.00 has been spent. The recently adopted management plan
    contains a variety of proposals aimed at facilitating public enjoyment
    of this treasured reach of the Missouri. Central among these proposals
    is preservation and protection of those attributes of this reach which
    prompted congressional designation as a recreational river. Indeed, the
    enabling legislation specifically provides for streambank protection.
    It is an inalterable fact that without such protection many of the very
    features of this river, which Congress sought to protect, will simply
    disappear. For example, the erosion of the timbered shoreline, circa
    River Mile 777.8R, is proceeding unchecked. Magnificent old cottonwoods
    litter the river there, and their denuded skeletons scattered
    downstream are grim evidence of the river's voracious appetite.
    Irreparable damage has occurred. . . and continues to occur. The
    current management plan is ominously vague with respect to protecting
    the core of characteristics the plan ostensibly was designed to
    protect.
        A further assault on the aim of this project and the riparian
    landowners is the proposal by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
    change drastically the flow regimen currently in effect. The proposed
    ``spring flood'' will inevitably further exacerbate the erosion
    problem. Indeed, the Fish and Wildlife proposal is intended to increase
    erosion! Those responsible for this ludicrous proposal exhibit not the
    least concern for those to be affected by their proposal. In short,
    that proposal is clearly an intentional destruction of property . . . a
    crime in both South Dakota and Nebraska.
        As the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition nears, public
    interest in the expedition continues to build. The reach of river we
    are here concerned with is already attracting considerable attention by
    a variety of Lewis and Clark fans and others interested in, or curious
    about the expedition. To accommodate those interested, public access
    should be increased, signage added, and some additional viewing sites
    (``overlooks'') provided. Obviously, such measures will be of little
    value unless the ``wild Missouri'' the visitors seek, is preserved and
    protected.
        The Congress from the start has favored this project. The
    Association surely appreciates that interest and support, and we thank
    the Congress for such. Likewise, appreciative are the hunters,
    fishermen, boatsmen, and a wide range of others who love this remnant
    of the ``wild Missouri'' of old.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
                             Conservation District

            Project                                                  Request
    Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project/Preconstruction
        Engineering & Design................................      $1,000,000
    Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project/Construction
        General.............................................       1,500,000
    Lake Elsinore-Gunnerson Pond/Section 1135, Environmental
        Restoration.........................................       1,745,000
    San Jacinto River/Feasibility Study--Flood Control......         300,000
    Santa Ana River--Mainstem/Construction General..........      40,000,000
    Prado Dam/Construction General..........................      16,000,000
    San Jacinto & Santa Margarita River Watersheds Special
        Area Management Plan (SAMP)/General Investigations..       2,000,000
                  murrieta creek channel flood control project
        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 were
    completed in September 2000. The Feasibility Study Report recommends
    the implementation of Alternative 6, the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP)
    for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation. The LPP
    is endorsed by the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, and by the
    community as a whole.
        H.R. 5483, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2000 includes
    specific language authorizing the Corps to construct ``the locally
    preferred plan for flood control, environmental restoration and
    recreation described as Alternative 6, based on the Murrieta Creek
    Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement dated September
    2000.'' The project is now set to move into the design phase.
        After finalizing the necessary cost sharing agreement in February
    2001, the Corps is now initiating the detailed engineering design
    necessary to develop construction plans and specifications for a
    Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project utilizing a fiscal year 2001
    appropriation of $750,000. The District, therefore, respectfully
    requests that the Committee support a fiscal year 2002 appropriation of
    $1,000,000 so that the Corps may continue with the Preconstruction
    Engineering and Design phase for the Murrieta Creek Flood Control
    Project.
        The Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project was authorized by Congress
    on October 27, 2000. Current schedules show the detailed engineering
    design phase of the project being completed in 18-24 months. The Corps
    anticipates that in fiscal year 2002, a significant portion of its
    design effort will be completed for the downstream reach of the project
    through Old Town Temecula, and that an element or feature of the
    project will be ready for construction. The District, therefore,
    respectfully requests the Committee's support of a $1,500,000
    appropriation in fiscal year 2002 so that the Corps may pursue
    construction start for the much awaited Murrieta Creek Flood Control,
    Environmental Restoration, and Recreation 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 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 the District sought a Federal appropriation
    for Gunnerson Pond from available Section 1135 funds to provide the
    funding necessary to complete final plans and specifications and to
    partially fund construction. In fiscal year 2001 the project received a
    Federal appropriation for $1,400,000, the balance estimated to fully
    fund the construction of the project. The Corps completed its design in
    June, advertised for construction bids in August, awarded a contract
    for construction in September, and initiated construction in October of
    2000. The Corps anticipates that construction of Gunnerson Pond, the
    Corps Los Angeles District's first Section 1135 project, will be
    completed in April 2001.
        The Gunnerson Pond project encountered higher than anticipated real
    estate and utility relocation costs, as well as costs resulting from
    project modifications made to accommodate various resource agencies.
    These cost increases drove the Corps share of the overall cost of the
    project up to the Section 1135 Program ``cap'' of $5 million. The
    District, therefore, respectfully requests the Committee's support of a
    fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $1,745,000 in order to fully fund the
    Federal government's share ($5 million) of the overall project.
                               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 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
    recreational 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 was initiated in March 2000 and completed
    in September. The Expedited Reconnaissance Study 905(b) Report
    identified a Federal interest in flood control on the San Jacinto
    River, and has tentatively recommended moving forward with a detailed
    Feasibility Study for a flood control project, but with some concern
    about the economic justification for the project.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget included an
    appropriation of $225,000 to move into a Feasibility Study for a flood
    control project along the San Jacinto River. The District respectfully
    requests the Committee's support of a $300,000 appropriation in fiscal
    year 2002 so that the Corps may continue its work effort on the San
    Jacinto River Feasibility Study.
                           santa ana river--mainstem
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
    authorized the Santa Ana River-All River project that 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 three local sponsors and the Corps signed the Local Cooperation
    Agreement (LCA) in December 1989. 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 2002, an appropriation of $10 million is necessary
    to complete all engineering design and to construct several features
    within ``Reach 9'' of the Santa Ana River immediately downstream of
    Prado Dam. This section of streambed would receive localized levee and
    slope revetment treatment to protect existing development along its
    southerly bank. The landscaping of Reaches 4 and 8 of the Santa Ana
    River Channel would require an $8 million appropriation. 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
    a fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $5 million. This dredging work is
    necessary before project turnover to the Local Sponsors for operation
    and maintenance. Phase 3 of San Timoteo Creek Channel, a Mainstem
    feature located within San Bernardino County, would see its final
    engineering effort, as well as a construction start with an additional
    $17 million appropriation.
        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 complete. Design contracts
    are underway for the balance of engineering work necessary before
    construction. A fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $16 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. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee
    support an overall $56 million appropriation of Federal funding for
    fiscal year 2002 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project including
    Prado Dam.
    san jacinto & santa margarita river watersheds special area management
                                     plans
        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. The $500,000 Federal appropriation received for fiscal year
    2001 allowed the Corps to initiate work on this three year, $6.5
    million project. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Committee
    support a combined $2,000,000 appropriation of Federal funding for
    fiscal year 2002 for the Corps to continue the work on the Special Area
    Management Plans for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita River
    Watersheds.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Eastern Municipal Water District

        The Eastern Municipal Water District respectfully requests your
    support for inclusion of $5 million in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
    Water Appropriations bill for the District's ``Water Supply
    Desalination Infrastructure South Perris Project'' as well as for
    inclusion in the same bill, $1 million for the District's ``Regional
    Water Related Infrastructure Project''.
        The South Perris project was authorized for design and construction
    as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Water Resources management
    Act projects, that were included in H.R. 4577, Section 108, Subsection
    (d), item number 52 for the amount of $25,000,000. The Regional Water
    Related Infrastructure project was authorized for preliminary
    engineering, feasibility studies and environmental documentation as
    part of H.R. 4577, Section 108, Subsection (a), item number 24.
        These two projects are important components to the overall plan of
    the District to address increasing needs as a result of concerns over
    the future availability of imported water supplies from Northern
    California and the Colorado River. I have attached fact sheets and maps
    for each of these projects.
        In addition, we would strongly request that you support efforts to
    increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau's
    Budget has been cut 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year
    2000. This is the primary Federal agency that we have relied upon in
    the past for funding our infrastructure needs and would like to use to
    fund future authorizations. We know the Bureau of Reclamation has a $5
    billion backlog of work. That work, as well as any new authorizations
    in this congress will not be addressed in a timely manner if the Bureau
    continues to be cut and underfunded. We support the western water
    industry's campaign to increase the Bureau's Water and Related
    Resources Budget over a five year period from its present $648 million
    to $1 billion.
        On behalf of the Board of Directors of Eastern Municipal Water
    District and the General Manager, I want to thank you for your
    consideration of our request for assistance.
                    water resources development act project
    Name of Project
        ``Regional Water Related Infrastructure Project,'' Eastern
    Municipal Water District, Perris California
    Authorization
        HR 4577, Section 108, Subsection (a), Item no. 24--Eastern
    Municipal Water District, California
    Location, Description, and Representation
        This project is located in Riverside County, California, north of
    the San Diego County line, east of the City of Riverside and west of
    the San Jacinto Mountains. The project will consist of preliminary
    engineering investigations, design, and environmental documentation for
    over 30 miles of nonreclaimable waste pipelines, and pumping plants
    required to manage high salinity wastes and brines resulting from
    industrial processes and water supply desalination. Representation for
    the State of California includes: CA-43--Rep. Ken Calvert (R); CA-44-
    Rep. Mary Bono (R); CA-48 Rep. Darrell Isa (R); and Senators Dianne
    Feinstein (D); Barbara Boxer (D).
    Project Purpose
        In response to increasing concerns over the future availability of
    imported water supplies from Northern California and the Colorado
    River, the Eastern Municipal Water District is aggressively
    implementing programs to recycle treated wastewater and desalinate
    local brackish groundwater supplies. These programs will require major
    investment in the pipelines and pump stations that will be necessary to
    manage the high-salinity wastes and brines resulting in desalination
    and industrial processes. The availability of non-reclaimable waste
    disposal facilities (brine lines) will ensure the quality of future
    recycled water supplies, advance the District's desalination program,
    and increase the District's ability to manage salinity in local
    groundwater basins. Additionally, these facilities will allow the
    communities served by the District to compete for industrial
    development which previously could not be accommodated because of the
    lack of cost-effective options for the disposal of high-salinity
    wastes.
        This project will reduce the District's demand on imported water,
    directly supporting the goals of the CalFed program while providing
    direct economic benefits to the communities served by the District.
        ``Regional Water Related Infrastructure Project,'' Eastern
    Municipal Water District, Perris California

    Total project cost............................................$5,000,000
        Federal share............................................. 4,000,000
        Local share............................................... 1,000,000
        Fiscal year 2002: Request................................. 1,000,000
    Name of Project
        ``Water Supply Desallnation Infrastructure South Perris Project,''
    Eastern Municipal Water District, Penis, California
    Authorization
        HR 4577, Section 108, Subsection (d), Item no. 52--South Penis,
    California
    Location, Description, and Representation
        This project is located in Riverside County, California, north of
    the San Diego County line, east of the City of Riverside and west of
    the San Jacinto Mountains. The project will design and construct a
    reverse osmosis desalination plant, wells, pipelines and brine
    management pipelines required for the phased implementation of the
    Perris Basins Desalination Program, providing a reliable potable water
    supply and preserving existing groundwater resources. Representation
    for the State of California includes: CA-43--Rep. Ken Calvert (R); CA-
    44-Rep. Mary Bono (R); CA-48--Rep. Darrell Isa (R); and Senators Dianne
    Feinstein (D); Barbara Boxer (D).
    Project Purpose
        Substantial portions of the Eastern Municipal Water District
    overlie groundwater basins (Penis Basins) where the salt content (TDS)
    of the groundwater is over 1,500 mg/L, making the water unusable for
    potable or agricultural uses. In these areas, groundwater levels are
    rising and saline water is spreading into adjacent high-quality basins,
    resulting in the loss of local water supplies.
        Over the last 7 years, the District has extensively studied local
    groundwater conditions and developed a conceptual desalination plan for
    the Penis basins. The first phase of this plan, construction of the
    Menifee Desalter, is currently underway. The District plan calls for
    the phased construction of 2 additional desalters plus associated
    extraction wells, feedwater pipelines and brine lines. When completed,
    the Perris Basin Desalination program will produce over 12,000 AF/YR of
    potable water from an otherwise unusable resource. Strategically
    located wells will pump salty groundwater to the desalter thereby
    controlling water levels and preventing the degradation of neighboring
    basins. The resulting brine waste will be disposed through a regional
    non-reclaimable waste disposal system (brine line network).
    Additionally, the desalter will provide the District with the ability
    to provide regulatory salinity offsets which will be required to
    maximize the use of recycled water within our service area.
        ``Water Supply Desalination Infrastructure South Perris Project,''
    Eastern Municipal Water District, Penis, California

    Total Estimate Project Cost.............................     $46,250,000
        Federal share.......................................      25,000,000
        Local share.........................................      21,250,000
        Fiscal year 2002: Request...........................       5,000,000
                        perris south desalination program
                                   background
        Brackish groundwater (TDS 1,000--3,000 mg/L) levels are rising in
    the Perris South and Menifee subbasins--Cause: changed land uses and
    decreased agricultural pumping.
        Brackish groundwater is flowing into the Lakeview subbasin (TDS 500
    mg/L) threatening agricultural and municipal supplies--Cause: over-
    pumping in Lakeview and rising groundwater in Perris South.
        Southern California agencies are being asked to develop local
    supplies as a means of decreasing demand on the Sacramento Bay Delta.
        EMWD extensive water recycling program requires long-term salinity
    management and control of salt discharged to sanitary sewers (no
    industrial wastewater).
                                  the program
        The Perris South Desalination Program will consist of the phased
    construction of 3 desalters (4,000 AF production each) and the wells
    and pipelines required for feedwater and brine management.
      --Menifee.--Currently under construction, the Menifee desalter and
            non-reclaimable waste pipeline provide the core facilities
            required for future expansion of the program.
      --Perris South Desalter--Phase I.--Provides an additional 4,000 AF/YR
            of product and will extend core brine management facilities
            towards Moreno Valley.
      --Perris South Desalter Phase II.--Will construct the final desalter
            and well fields.
      --Moreno Valley and Temecula Valley Brine Lines.--Will extend the
            core brine management facilities providing a network of brine
            lines allowing for full management of industrial and other non-
            reclaimable waste.
                                    benefits
        Provides 12,000 AF/YR of local water supply reducing demands on the
    Bay-Delta (CaIFed goal).
        Preserves the agricultural and municipal water of the Lakeview
    subbasin by controlling rising groundwater and reversing the hydraulic
    gradient into Lakeview.
        Protects the District's water recycling program from the impacts of
    high salinity wastes.
        Improves the ability of local communities to compete for high tech
    industries by providing cost-effective disposal of non-reclaimable
    waste.
        Creates a salinity offset which will allow recycled water to be
    used in subbasins where regulatory objectives limit water recycling.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                          u.s. army corps of engineers
        The fiscal year 2002 budget proposal for Civil Works Appropriations
    of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is $3.9 billion. In addition the
    program will include $315 million in non-federal contributions and
    trust fund receipts. The budget proposal reflects continued commitment
    to proper management of our natural resources, through dedication of
    $988 million to environmental programs (a $93 million increase over
    fiscal year 2001). The environmental portion of the Corps budget
    represents approximately 25 percent of the overall request. The
    Association applauds the fact that many of our recommendations from
    previous fiscal years have been maintained by the Corps in their
    succeeding year's budget request.
        A total of $479 million has been established to fund ongoing
    environmental restoration programs including Sections 204, 206, and
    1135 of Water Resources Development Acts. We urge the Corps to continue
    to take steps to expedite the approval process for those projects in
    order to rapidly realize benefits. The Association encourages the Corps
    to expedite design and grant administration associated with Section
    1135 projects. The 1135 projects provide an excellent opportunity to
    bring the Corps and State fish and wildlife agencies together on
    environmental projects but the current administrative burden may limit
    state participation.
        The Association encourages the Corps to cooperate, coordinate, and
    develop civil works and restoration activities with State fish and
    wildlife agencies. The State fish and wildlife agencies are generally
    aware of where Corps projects could most effectively enhance the status
    of fish and wildlife resources through improvements to habitat. We are
    pleased there continues to be funding which will result in development
    of partnerships to restore riverine ecosystems that address flood
    prevention through nonstructural alternatives.
        Our Association particularly appreciates the leadership of Congress
    in providing funding for mitigation projects. We are especially pleased
    that the Corps is requesting, and the Association supports,
    continuation of funding for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation in
    Washington. The Association also strongly encourages Congress to
    appropriate necessary funding within the Corps budget to facilitate the
    mitigation feature of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project, which is
    needed to satisfy legal constraints to enable initiation of river
    restoration work within this significant watershed.
        We recommend that the Congress explore the need for generic
    legislative direction to the Corps to ensure that the older projects
    include the authority for mitigation and enhancement of fish, wildlife,
    water quality, and sustained minimum flow and if legislation is
    necessary, to act on that need. Further, the Association recommends
    that mitigation funding for ongoing projects be listed as a separate
    line item within the Civil Works Appropriations. Also, the Association
    suggests that the Corps continue to look at actually transferring some
    project mitigation lands to the State fish and wildlife agencies. The
    Corps is currently in the process of transferring mitigation lands
    associated with the Richard B. Russell Project to the State of South
    Carolina, along with a trust account to manage these lands. The
    Association encourages Congress to support the transfer of mitigation
    lands to those States interested in receiving title to such lands.
        The Association is also generally supportive of the funding
    requested for some of the large river restoration projects. The
    Association supports the fiscal year 2002 request of $26 million for
    restoration of meanders and wildlife habitat on the Kissimmee River and
    continued funding of $139 million to restore water flows through the
    Everglades and other areas in Florida. It is in the best interest of
    the country to restore the habitat and hydrologic components of these
    rivers that have been significantly altered under previous Corps
    projects.
        With regard to the Corps' regulatory authority under the Clean
    Water Act of 1972, we strongly support the request of $128 million for
    conducting a streamlined program to process, review, issue permits and
    provide an appeals procedure for the permitting of activities in waters
    of the United States. Furthermore, the Association believes a strong
    partnership program with State agencies affords the best opportunity
    for balanced conservation of aquatic resources.
        The Association recommends that the Corps continue to initiate
    applicable restoration, mitigation and conservation projects in
    partnership with State fish and wildlife agencies. For example, we
    request the Corps continue to participate with State agencies and non-
    Federal interests in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
    through wetlands conservation and wetlands identification.
        The Association is excited by the potential for significant
    environmental accomplishments in restoration, conservation, and
    sustainable management of water, fish, and wildlife resources. The
    Association is especially pleased with Federal plans to partner with
    local, State and Tribal agencies and with the watershed management
    emphasis. The States are interested in forging a true partnership
    through sharing ideas, plans, design, implementation structure and
    enforcement in establishing a unified, cooperative approach to
    improving water quality.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

        As you deliberate on the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
    Appropriations Act, it is respectfully requested that you support four
    studies that are not only important to Los Angeles County, but the
    nation as a whole. Two of these studies, both related to shoreline
    protection and coastline management, received no funding in the
    President's recommended budget. The two studies related to dredging
    were significantly underfunded by the President.
        Following is a brief discussion of each of these studies:
    Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study--Los Angeles County
            Shoreline Protection Studies In Progress--$500,000
        Los Angeles County is host to over 50 million visitors annually at
    the 30 miles of public beaches that we own or manage. These beaches are
    not only among the nation's top recreational attractions; they generate
    jobs, income and revenue to all levels of government. The beaches are
    also an important element of the infrastructure, as they protect major
    highways, utilities, public facilities, businesses and homes from ocean
    storms.
        What is not well known is that these beaches are not all naturally
    sandy. Over 35 million cubic yards of sand have been placed on them
    since the 1930's, and they require ongoing maintenance. In 1998, Los
    Angeles formed a multi-agency Beach Replenishment Task Force. One of
    its goals is to develop a long-term management plan for the beaches.
    The Corps' Coast of California Study is critical to the achievement of
    this goal. The study will gather data and employ numeric models to
    assess long-term shoreline changes and coastal processes, which are
    needed to plan and design future shore protection and beach
    replenishment projects.
        Congress added $500,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget for the
    first year of this study. The President did not continue funding
    projects that were added by Congress in fiscal year 2001. The County is
    obtaining a $500,000 grant from the State of California to help fund
    the local share of this study. It is, therefore, very important that
    your Subcommittee support an appropriation of $500,000 to continue this
    study.
    California Coastal Master Plan Regional Coastal Watersheds Management
            Plans--$1,000,000
        California's coast is an invaluable resource. It produces millions
    of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue to the Federal Government.
    Yet, California ranked eighth out of eleven states receiving Federal
    appropriations for shoreline protection between 1995 and 1999.
    California received just $10 million, while New York got $111 million,
    New Jersey got $104 million, Florida got $90 million, and Illinois got
    $30 million. By comparison, California received $12,000 per mile of
    coastline against $800,000 per mile for New York and New Jersey.
        Protecting California's coastal resources, including ancient
    redwoods, flourishing and protected species, and very popular public
    beaches, can best be accomplished through informed decisions and
    planning. The Corps' proposed Coastal Master Plan will provide the
    technical, environmental, regulatory, economic, legal, and policy data
    needed to maintain and enhance the health of California's coastline.
        The Master Plan has the support of other coastal counties, as well
    as the State agencies responsible for coastal resources. It will make
    it possible to develop policies and to execute management sub-plans
    that will ensure the future vitality of California's beaches,
    shoreline, and coastal watersheds.
        There was no funding included in the President's recommended budget
    for this study. Therefore, your support for an appropriation of $1
    million to initiate this critical work is respectfully requested.
    Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek Feasibility Study Navigation Studies
            in Progress--$400,000
        This study was authorized by Congress to develop a dredged material
    management plan (DMMP) for contaminated sediments in Marina del Rey,
    and a sediment control plan for the Ballona Creek watershed. The DMMP
    has been incorporated into the development of a regional plan.
    Completion of the watershed portion requires an extension of the study
    to develop a trash and debris management plan (TDMP). Trash and debris
    from Ballona Creek create many environmental and economic problems in
    Marina del Rey and along the nearby beaches.
        Resolving the Marina's dredging problem depends on completion of
    this study. Without its completion, and the resultant TDMP, other
    mitigation measures and improvements will be ineffective.
    Implementation of plans resulting from the study will improve water
    quality in the Santa Monica Bay, boating safety in Marina del Rey, and
    the public's enjoyment of nearby beaches.
        This study has been fully funded for several years, including the
    County's cost share. A total of $400,000 in Federal funding is needed
    in fiscal year 2002. The President's budget only includes $169,000 for
    this study, leaving a need for $231,000 in additional funding. It is,
    therefore, respectfully requested that you support an increase in
    appropriation, to $400,000, for this study.
    Los Angeles County--Regional Dredged Material Management Plan
            Navigation Studies in Progress--$350,000
        Ensuring navigational safety in the Los Angeles region, as well as
    providing for much needed port expansion, depends on the ability to
    dredge and dispose of some contaminated sediments. Approved disposal
    sites are not available or economically feasible. The accumulation of
    contaminated sediments has raised concerns about their impact on the
    environment and human health.
        A multi-agency task force was formed in 1997 to develop a long-term
    management strategy for the dredging and disposal of contaminated
    sediments. The work of the task force has been funded by the California
    Coastal Commission, the State Regional Water Quality Control board, the
    County of Los Angeles, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The
    Corps' development of a regional dredged material management plan is
    critical to achievement of the task force's goals.
        Without completion of this plan, the region's contaminated sediment
    problem will be increasingly difficult and costly to solve. Safe
    navigation will be jeopardized and our nation's largest, most
    productive port complex will not be able to meet the ever-expanding
    demand.
        Congress appropriated $100,000 in fiscal year 2000, and $225,000 in
    fiscal year 2001 for this study. The President has included $200,000 in
    the recommended budget for fiscal year 2002, resulting in a need to add
    $150,000. Your support of a total appropriation of $350,000 is
    respectfully requested.
        With your Subcommittee's leadership and support, the Corps has
    performed its Congressionally mandated missions for Los Angeles County
    in an excellent manner. We appreciate your continued support of the
    Corps and its important mission.
        Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society

        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the one million members and supporters
    of Audubon, thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on the
    fiscal year 2002 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 2000 budget.
                             everglades restoration
        Thank you for your past support of the restoration of America's
    Everglades. The Everglades ecosystem, from the Mississippi River Valley
    in the north through Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Florida Bay, the
    Keys, and the coral reefs to the south, is a unique and world-renowned
    eco-region. Because of its unique biological wealth and beauty, the
    17,000 square mile area of Everglades National Park has been declared a
    World Heritage Site, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and Ramsar Wetland. The
    Everglades, America's premiere wetland, is also one of the nation's
    most endangered ecosystems.
        The Everglades has been abused for more than 100 years. Its
    restoration is the most ambitious environmental challenge our nation
    has ever undertaken. The outcome is uncertain. What happens depends on
    how much Americans recognize the need to balance the use and
    conservation of natural resources. If our effort is successful,
    restoration of the South Florida/Everglades ecosystem will serve as the
    hemispheric model for sustainability.
        Congress approved, and the State of Florida supports, the
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework for
    changes to the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project, which along
    with Modified Water Deliveries and the C-111 project, are needed to
    restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem, while
    providing for other water-related needs of the region.
        We urge the Subcommittee to consider the following points:
      --Everglades restoration is a long-term commitment, and it must be
            completed in its entirety. Each component depends on others
            therefore, all of the ``building blocks'' must be in place for
            the restoration to succeed.
      --The budget must continue adequate funding for previously authorized
            programs whose performance assumptions have been included in
            the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), including
            Kissimmee River Restoration and Critical Projects.
      --The budget must adequately fund CERP implementation at a level
            consistent with the implementation schedule as reflected in the
            plan.
      --We are concerned that CERP Pilot Projects will not be implemented
            in the most expeditious manner, if funding is not provided in
            fiscal year 2002 ($8 million). Additionally, the regional
            aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) study must be completed
            expeditiously, ahead of or concurrently with the ASR Pilot
            Projects.
      --With the passage of the Restoring the Everglades, an American
            Legacy Act last year, Congress began a long-term commitment
            (more than 20 years) to Everglades restoration. To be
            successful, Everglades restoration must remain a national
            priority.
         upper mississippi river environmental management program (emp)
        Cover 400 bald eagles and nearly 30,000 wild tundra swan use the
    Upper Mississippi River. We urge you to include $33.17 million in the
    President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Upper Mississippi
    River System Environmental Management Program (EMP) found in the Army
    Corps of Engineers' Construction General Budget. The Environmental
    Management Program is a cooperative and cost shared effort. Those
    participating include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the states of
    Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
        The mission of the EMP is to ``ensure the coordinated development
    and enhancement of the Upper Mississippi River System.'' The efforts of
    the EMP contribute to the management of navigation and flood control.
    The EMP enhances and rehabilitates riverine wetland areas up and down
    the river stimulating transportation uses, attracting visitors, adding
    recreational opportunities, and bolstering local economies. The EMP
    helps preserve this natural treasure by managing river navigation and
    flood control, and promoting recreation on the river. It helps folks
    enjoy the river now while ensuring its preservation for future
    generations.
        the challenge 21 program (or the flood mitigation and riverine
                    restoration program, sec 212 wrda 1999)
        Mr. Chairman, the need for the Challenge 21 program is demonstrated
    by the fact that today, many communities along the Mississippi River
    are experiencing severe flooding along with economic and environmental
    damage. The Challenge 21 program would greatly reduce the devastating
    effects of the flooding that these communities are facing. Indeed, this
    flooding is precisely the type of situation that Challenge 21 programs
    are intended to mitigate.
        Increasingly, flooded communities are implementing non-structural
    solutions to reduce flooding. These solutions include moving frequently
    flooded homes and business out of the floodplain, and working to return
    the floodplains of rivers and creeks to a condition where they can
    naturally moderate floods. In addition to reducing flood losses, non-
    structural projects help meet many other goals of riverside
    communities, including improving water quality, increasing
    opportunities for recreation, and improving and restoring wildlife
    habitat. Unfortunately, most federal spending does little to support
    non-structural solutions to flood damage reduction.
        Challenge 21, a non-structural flood damage reduction program
    authorized in 1999, is explicitly designed to help support such
    community-driven and environmentally beneficial efforts. Challenge 21
    allows the Army Corps to relocate vulnerable homes and businesses in
    smaller communities away from floodplains, restore floodplain wetlands,
    increase opportunities for riverside recreation, and improve quality of
    life in riverside communities. Challenge 21 also authorizes the Army
    Corps to work with other Federal agencies to more efficiently and
    effectively help local governments both reduce flood damages and
    conserve, restore, and manage riverine and floodplain resources.
    Individual Challenge 21 projects cannot exceed $25 million, and local
    communities must provide 35 percent of the cost.
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 requires the Army Corps
    to study appropriate locations for Challenge 21 projects in 23 separate
    locations. Five additional Challenge 21 projects were authorized in the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Challenge 21 currently is
    authorized for only five years. In April 2003, the Army Corps must
    report to Congress the results of an independent review to evaluate the
    efficacy of the program in achieving the dual goals of flood hazard
    mitigation and riverine restoration, and make recommendations
    concerning continuation of the Challenge 21 program. But before the
    Army Corps can make a meaningful assessment, it must have the funding
    to implement the program.
        Unfortunately, though $20 million is authorized for fiscal year
    2001, the program has received no funding. Consequently, none of the
    innovative and effective non-structural flood control projects that
    could have been implemented under Challenge 21 and might have benefited
    residents in Mississippi River communities during this year's flooding
    are in place. Residents of these communities and other flood-prone
    communities throughout the country deserve to see Challenge 21 fully
    funded and implemented.
        Failure to appropriate adequate funds to implement the
    environmentally appropriate, common sense, and community supported
    flood control projects authorized by this program will doom both
    specific projects and the entire program to failure. This deserving
    program should be fully funded so it can achieve both flood hazard
    mitigation and restoration of this nation's great rivers.
                       the section 1135 and 206 programs
        The Section 1135 Program (Project Modification for Improvement of
    the Environment) allows the Army Corps to modify the structures and
    operations of existing Army Corps projects to improve the quality of
    the environment where those projects have contributed to the
    degradation of the environment. The program also authorizes the
    restoration of areas harmed by Army Corps projects. Non-federal
    interests must provide 35 percent of the cost, and modifications may
    not interfere with a project's original purpose.
        The environmental damage caused by existing Army Corps projects,
    many constructed before federal laws requiring mitigation, are
    enormous. These projects have caused devastating environmental harm to
    the Everglades, and severely degrade such rivers as the Missouri, Upper
    Mississippi, Illinois, and Apalachicola Rivers. The harm includes the
    loss of rivers' critical side channels, sandbars and wetlands, and
    jeopardizes the continued existence of federally listed endangered
    species.
        Despite the significant adverse impacts of Army Corps projects
    throughout the nation, the Section 1135 program has never been fully
    funded. As a consequence, even though this program has been authorized
    since 1986, only 45 Section 1135 projects had been completed or were
    under construction as of 1999. It is clear that the interest in this
    program is far more intense than these project numbers indicate. In
    fiscal year 2001, 355 Section 1135 projects had to compete for funding
    totaling only $21 million.
        The Section 206 Program (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration), allows the
    Army Corps to undertake small-scale projects to restore the aquatic
    environment, regardless of the existence or impact of Army Corps'
    projects in the area. Projects carried out under this program must
    improve the quality of the environment, be in the public interest, and
    be cost-effective. Individual projects under this program may not
    exceed $5 million, and non-federal interests must provide 35 percent of
    the cost.
        The Army Corps reports that between 1996 (when Section 206 was
    enacted into law) and 1999, six projects had reached the planning and/
    or design phase under this program. The interest in this program far
    exceeds the level of funds being appropriated, however, and many
    communities are unable to participate in this program due to inadequate
    funding. In fiscal year 2001, 185 projects under the Section 206
    program had to compete for funding totaling only $19 million.
        Many communities are working with Army Corps districts to restore
    lost wetlands, side channels, and other riparian habitat. Many of these
    restoration projects are designed to offset the habitat losses and
    other environmental impacts of Army Corps levee, dam, and dredging
    projects that were constructed before federal laws required mitigation.
    Unfortunately, far more community-driven projects are being rejected
    due to inadequate funding. Both the Section 1135 and 206 programs
    should be fully funded so that communities can work with the Army Corps
    to reverse damage done, and to ameliorate the environmental and
    economic impacts caused by altering our nation's rivers, floodplains,
    and wetlands.
        We strongly urge you to appropriate full funding for the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers' Challenge 21, Section 206, and Section 1135
    programs in fiscal year 2002.
      lower columbia river and tillamook bay ecosystem restoration program
        The Columbia and Tillamook estuaries are of great importance to the
    region and the nation, offering critical habitat to endangered salmon
    and steelhead and more than 200,000 wintering waterfowl and shorebirds.
    But they also face significant threats. Since 1850, the two estuaries
    have lost more than 70 percent of their historical wetland and riparian
    habitat, primarily because of construction of agricultural levees and
    floodplain development. The Columbia River and its estuary have also
    been damaged by channelization and dredging for navigation.
        In addition, the health of these estuaries has been severely
    compromised over the past half century by conversion of river habitat,
    dams, mining, and logging, which have transformed the ecology and
    economy of the region. The huge price paid by the river's ecosystems is
    illustrated most clearly by severe declines in native salmon species.
    Wild fish have been reduced to only one percent of their pre-
    development abundance, and 12 salmon and steelhead species in the
    Columbia River Basin are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
        The Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration
    program, run by the Army Corps of Engineers, is supported by a diverse
    group of stakeholders including labor, environmental and citizen
    groups, as well as federal, state, municipal and tribal governments.
    These stakeholders are dedicated to enhancing the fish and wildlife
    habitat in these estuaries. This program offers a cooperative solution
    to managing natural resources that will benefit all of the salmonids in
    the Columbia River system. Adequately funded, the program will restore
    more than 16,000 acres of critical fish and wildlife habitat, augment
    existing monitoring efforts, and help citizens protect and manage
    resources.
        Again, we strongly urge you to appropriate full funding of $30
    million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement Section 536
    of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, the Lower Columbia River
    and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration.
                           missouri river restoration
        The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project is the
    primary habitat restoration program for the lower Missouri River
    between Sioux City, Iowa and St. Louis. Congress established it in 1986
    to help reverse the long-term decline of the Missouri's fish and
    wildlife habitat due to the federally sponsored channelization and
    stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. Congress approved $12
    million in fiscal year 2001 for the project, the highest appropriation
    yet received. It is imperative that at least this level of funding be
    maintained.
        The Missouri River remains a nationally significant resource,
    attracting tens of millions of visitors annually and supporting over
    150 species of fish and wildlife. However, severe loss of habitat such
    as side channels, wetlands, and sandbars threaten the river's long-term
    health. As the nation prepares to celebrate the 200th anniversary of
    Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery, we have a once-in-a-lifetime
    opportunity to restore the Missouri River and revitalize riverside
    communities.
        Supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project
    will help reverse the decline of river wildlife by restoring historic
    chutes, side channels, wetlands, backwaters, and other habitat fish and
    wildlife need to feed, conserve energy, and reproduce.
        While restored habitat areas are important for the Missouri's fish
    and wildlife, they are also important for people. Waterfowl hunting,
    fishing, birdwatching, and other recreational translate into real
    dollars for Missouri River communities, as recreation and tourism-
    dependent businesses support visitors to these areas.
        By supporting the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
    Project, Congress can also help us properly commemorate the upcoming
    bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery. With your help,
    we can restore a string of natural places along the Missouri--places
    that Lewis and Clark might recognize and that attract recreation and
    tourism, support river wildlife, and improve the quality of life in
    riverside communities.
        We urge you to bolster critically important efforts to reverse the
    decline of the nation's longest river by supporting an appropriation of
    at least $12 million for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
    Mitigation Project in fiscal year 2002.
                       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 $400,000 appropriation included in the President's
    budget for the Savannah Harbor Expansion, and urge 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 $1 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.
                   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 $1.7 million should be
    appropriated for this project.
        This Subcommittee has done an excellent job of opposing this
    project in the past, and we commend your 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 Alabama State Docks

                            alabama inland waterways
        Each year, with the annual appropriations cycle of the U.S.
    Congress for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) budget for Civil
    Works, the partnership between the Federal Government and the State of
    Alabama is revalidated. This partnership is critical to the Port of
    Mobile and the Alabama inland waterway systems that service the four
    state area of Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Georgia. Without the
    partnership our communities would be at a distinct disadvantage in
    their ability to compete at the regional, national and international
    level.
        The Port of Mobile, for which the Alabama State Port Authority
    (ASPA) serves as the local cost sharing partner, was ranked 12th
    nationwide in 1999 for total cargo tonnage. This tonnage generally is
    split equally between domestic and foreign cargoes. The high level of
    domestic waterborne traffic transiting the Port of Mobile is
    attributable to the Port's multimodal hub status. Not only are we
    serviced by two Interstate Highways (I-10 & I-65) and four Class I
    Railroads (CNIC, CSX, BNSF & NS), but the State is also blessed with a
    system of six navigatable inland waterways.
        The Alabama-Coosa, Appalachicola-Chatahochee-Flint, Black Warrior-
    Tombigbee, Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Tennessee and the Tennessee-
    Tombigbee form a network crisscrossing the heart of the South.
    Additionally, in the event of any navigational construction in the
    Lower Mississippi River, this system provides the only access for
    waterborne commerce on the Ohio, Illinois, Upper Mississippi and
    Missouri River Systems to deep water ports and international commerce.
        Just as with any other mode of transportation, maintenance of these
    systems is essential not only to their day-to-day operations, but also
    to the perception of their reliability. If they are not consistently
    maintained we achieve a self fulfilling prophecy that produces a
    spiraling downturn of cargo and could ultimately lead to their closure.
    At a time when the highways and railroads of the region are becoming
    ever more congested with freight traffic, this is not the time to
    further constrain the safest, most economical and least environmentally
    damaging mode of domestic transportation in the U.S.
        I therefore strongly request that these systems be provided with a
    level of funding for fiscal year 2002 at least equal to that
    appropriated for fiscal year 2001.
                                 port of mobile
        The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 authorized the
    deepening of the main channel serving the Port of Mobile to 55 feet by
    550 feet. Actual construction however was limited (45 feet by 400 feet)
    as a result of limited local cost sharing capability. The initial
    construction work was completed in 1990.
        Operations and maintenance cost, of the Mobile Harbor federal
    project in 1991 were approximately twenty-two million dollars
    ($22,000,000). Over the subsequent ten (10) years these maintenance
    costs have averaged approximately the same amount. It is the desire of
    the Port of Mobile to obtain twenty-two million, eight hundred thousand
    dollars ($22,800,000) for Operations and Maintenance funding for fiscal
    year 2002. Assuming that no catastrophic event impacts the Mobile Bay
    this should be sufficient to not only maintain the main channel, but
    also other channels which have not received maintenance over the last
    ten plus (10+) years (i.e., Arlington and Chickasaw). Additionally,
    significant growth in the Port of Mobile since the deepening has
    established a need to continue to lengthen the 45' channel as
    authorized. We therefore request two million, three hundred thousand
    dollars ($2,300,000) in Construction General funds. Our total request
    is twenty-five million, one hundred thousand dollars ($25,100,000).
        The Port of Mobile is the terminus of approximately fifteen hundred
    miles of inland waterway systems serving the State of Alabama. As such,
    the Port of Mobile supports testimony of the waterway systems serving
    the Port and requests steady state funding for them.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Gulf Intracostal Canal Association

    Operation and Maintenance.--$80,319
        Key projects here are the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway at
    strategic locations ($15.5 million), Houston Ship Channel ($12.2
    million), and Sabine Neches Waterway ($14.2 million).
       new orleans district (including mississippi river and tributaries)
    General Investigations.--$18,172
        Critical projects are the Calcasieu Lock Replacement and Bayou
    Sorrel Lock (total $1.4 million). Both of these structures represent
    traffic bottlenecks on the GIWW main stem. Also critical is the
    Morganza to the Gulf Study ($6.5 million).
    Construction General.--$266,680
        The single most important project here is the Inner Harbor
    Navigation Canal Lock ($30 million). This is a most critical project in
    terms of safety and efficiency of the entire Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
    traffic flow. It must continue on schedule. The present structure was
    completed in 1921, and it represents the most critical bottleneck on
    the waterway.
    Operation and Maintenance.--$169,150
        Critical to the continuing efficiency of the waterway is $18.7
    million for dredging and lock maintenance. A key initiative in
    maintaining all the waterway's efficiencies is reduction of downtime
    for maintenance. The building of spare lock gates prior to major lock
    maintenance has proven to be a major factor in reducing job duration
    and resulting delays. This process is proving very attractive in saving
    overall project costs as well. An additional $2.0 million is needed for
    spare gates at Old River Lock in anticipation of its major overhaul.
                                mobile district
    Operations and Maintenance
        We support the Corps efforts to install mooring buoys in Mobile Bay
    to provide Safe Haven for tows waiting weather ($375,000). The securing
    of additional dredge material disposal sites is critical to the long
    term future of the Intracoastal Waterway, and GICA strongly supports
    funding for these items.
        This testimony, April 16, 2001, is submitted by Raymond Butler,
    Executive Director of the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association, for the
    official record before the House and Senate Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Subcommittees. The Gulf Intracoastal Canal
    Association (GICA) is the oldest of the regional waterway associations,
    having been established in Victoria, Texas in 1905. The Gulf
    Intracoastal Waterway transports 110 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 port
    authorities, 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. Our system of Inland Waterways Barge Transportation
    provides this country with the safest, most environmentally friendly
    and fuel-efficient means of surface transportation. The values and
    efficiencies provided by barge transportation accrue to our country in
    almost every area of commerce. We should begin to view our waterways as
    the solution to many of our country's transportation related problems.
                 specific budget requests for fiscal year 2002
                               galveston district
        The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association (GICA) supports the
    approval of the following amounts for the Galveston District:
    General Investigations.--$4,555,000
        Included here are the Brazos River to Port O'Connor ($974
    thousand), High Island to Brazos River ($535 thousand), and Port
    O'Connor to Corpus Christi 216 Studies ($1 million). The Matagorda Bay
    Alternate Route ($910 thousand), which has the potential to reduce
    existing maintenance costs significantly and improve transit safety, is
    included. The Sabine-Neches Waterway Widening and Deepening Project
    ($1.1 million) is of major concern for barge/ship transit safety.
    Construction General.--$54,165,000
        It is most critical that these projects continue uninterrupted. The
    Houston Ship Channel Widening and Deepening is now well into completion
    stages and is most critical to barge/ship transit safety. Total fiscal
    year 2002 needs for this project are $46.8 million. The completion of
    the channel to Victoria ($6.6 million) and the mouth of the Colorado
    River ($1.8 million) are two additional projects that must continue to
    avoid additional costs and improve waterway efficiency.
                                  other areas
        The GICA 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 finding the ACF system at
    levels equal to last year's budget of $5.1 million.
        In other areas, the GICA strongly supports repeal of the 4.3 cent
    per gallon Deficit Reduction Tax placed on fuel. This tax has now
    outlived its original purpose and is contributing to the General Fund,
    which is well in excess of the needs it supplies.
        The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association respectfully enters these
    comments for the record. We appreciate the privilege of providing such
    critical input.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

        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 2002:

         SACRAMENTO'S 2002 FLOOD CONTROL FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed   SAFCA
                           Project                          Budget   Request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    South Sacramento Streams: Prevention of flooding of    ........  \1\ 10.
     portions of Sacramento from the south, where four                     0
     creeks convey foothill runoff through urbanized
     areas into Beach Lake and the Delta. NEW START......
    Folsom Modifications: Modifications to Folsom Dam to   ........  \1\ 12.
     provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage                  0
     in Folsom Reservoir.................................
    American River Common Elements: 24 miles of levee      ........  \1\ 17.
     improvements along the American River and 12 miles                    0
     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 $5.0 million
     to begin work on levee parity, authorized in WRDA
     1999................................................
    Sacramento River Bank Protection: Will correct         ........  \1\ 3.0
     harmful erosion along the banks of the American
     River that threatens the integrity of the existing
     levees..............................................
    Magpie Creek: Authorized under the Corps' Section 205  ........  \1\ 3.0
     program, this project will provide a high degree of
     flood protection on Magpie Creek....................
    American River Plan: Funds to continue previously      ........  \2\ 1.0
     authorized planning and design of Sacramento flood
     protection projects.................................
    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.............................................
    Lower Strong & Chicken Ranch Sloughs (D05 Pump         ........  \3\ 0.2
     Station): a feasibility study to restore 100-year
     level of flood protection to Chicken Ranch Slough
     drainage to the American River. This area has
     flooded four times since 1986.......................
    Magpie Creek on McClellan AFB: A feasibility study to  ........  \1\ 0.2
     evaluate alternatives for providing improved flood
     protection on McClellan Air Force Base in connection
     with the reuse of that base.........................
                                                          ------------------
          Total I........................................  ........    51.40
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Construction.
    \2\ Preconstruction Engineering and Design.
    \3\ General Investigation.

        According to the Corps of Engineers, Sacramento has the highest
    risk of flooding of any major urban area in the country. Located at the
    confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers, the Sacramento
    floodplain is home to over 400,000 residents, 150,000 homes, 5,000
    businesses, the State Capitol, and 1,300 government facilities.
    Additionally, there are 200,000 jobs in the floodplain, as Sacramento
    is a regional employment hub for it neighbors in Placer, El Dorado, and
    Yolo counties. The Corps of Engineers estimates a major flood on the
    American River would cause between $7 and $16 billion in damage and
    likely result in lives being lost. Improved flood protection is our
    region's most critical infrastructure need.
        The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency is a joint powers agency
    formed in 1989 to provide the local response to the 1986 flood. Since
    its formation, SAFCA has raised over $140 million in local funds that
    have been expended on planning and construction of flood control
    facilities and on public education. Over the same period, approximately
    $130 million in State and Federal funds have been appropriated for the
    same purpose.
        As part of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act, Congress
    authorized the most significant set of flood control improvements since
    Folsom Dam was constructed in 1955. These improvements will raise the
    minimum level of protection from about 85-year to 140-year and provide
    a foundation for additional improvements to achieve the federal, state
    and local goal of at least 200-year flood protection. Additionally,
    because these projects will improve the ability of federal dam
    operators to control American River flows, they also benefit
    Sacramento's downstream neighbors in Yolo County. Property owners,
    flood control engineers, businesses and environmentalists all agree
    Sacramento needs to move forward with these improvements as rapidly as
    possible. Last year, the projects were authorized and funded by the
    State and, by an 82 percent margin, Sacramento property owners voted to
    tax themselves to provide the local share. These actions clearly
    demonstrate the strong state and local support for these projects. We
    hope you can understand our desire for appropriation levels that will
    allow these and other projects to proceed forward on an optimum
    schedule.
                     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. However, a misunderstanding resulted in Congress only
    appropriating funds to advance preliminary engineering and design in
    2002. This project is ready to start construction, and we are
    requesting a new start and a $10 million appropriation. Additionally,
    we are asking the committee to approve a 215 crediting agreement so
    that we can use the non-federal funds to initiate construction this
    summer.
                            folsom dam modifications
        When Folsom Dam, the only flood control structure along the
    American River was completed in 1955, Sacramento was thought to have a
    very high level of flood protection (500-year or greater) consistent
    with other urban areas in the nation. However, five recent large storms
    have demonstrated that the American River can produce far larger floods
    than anticipated at the time Folsom was designed. The Corps has
    concluded that Folsom can control only about an 85-year storm. This is
    far less protection than the project was authorized to provide and
    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 dam on the American River in 1992 and 1996, the Corps,
    the State and SAFCA shifted their focus to identifying improvements to
    Folsom Dam that will cost effectively increase flood protection. As a
    result of these efforts, Congress authorized improvements to the outlet
    works at Folsom dam in the 1999 WRDA, and approved a new start in 2001.
        This single project, the centerpiece of the Federal program in
    Sacramento, nearly doubles the level of flood protection for 150,000
    homes and 5,000 businesses in Sacramento and improves the level of
    protection for downstream communities in Yolo County. The project risks
    are extreme, the benefits of the project are significant, and an
    aggressive schedule is clearly justified. We are therefore requesting
    an appropriation of $12 million so that construction on this important
    project can continue.
                     american river common elements project
        In 1996, Congress did not approve a comprehensive flood control
    project for Sacramento, but did authorize levee-strengthening projects
    that were common to all the long-term alternative plans. 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,
    and an early warning system to protect recreational visitors along the
    American River. The purpose of these projects is to prevent the types
    of levee failures and resultant flooding that occurred in the Central
    Valley in 1986 and 1997. An appropriation of $17 million is requested
    so that the work authorized on American River Levees in 1996 and 1999
    can be completed.
           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 that otherwise
    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. An
    appropriation of $3 million is needed to complete projects already
    started.
           magpie creek (section 205 continuing authorities program)
        The Magpie Creek Diversion Project, constructed by the Corps in
    1955 as an element of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, is
    inadequate for even the 100-year flood event using the most up-to-date
    hydrologic data. The resulting floodplain encompasses downstream
    residential and commercial structures and would close Interstate 80,
    the major east-west transportation route through Sacramento. The Corps
    has completed a favorable report recommending the initiation of a
    Section 205 small flood control project in the area adjacent to the
    McClellan Air Force Base. In addition, Congress specifically directed a
    separate Section 205 study pursuant to Section 104 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999 for the on-base portion of Magpie
    Creek. The off-base improvements have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 to
    1. Both portions protect existing urban development and are essential
    to provide capacity for future improvements on McClellan Air Force Base
    to allow for orderly conversion of this closed base to a Sacramento
    employment center. Congress earmarked funds in last year's Energy and
    Water Appropriations bill to initiate work on the off-base portion of
    the project, but construction has been delayed. SAFCA seeks a $3.0
    million earmark as part of the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    Section 205 Program and requests the Corps be directed to initiate
    construction of the Magpie Creek Diversion Project with those funds.
    SAFCA also requests Congress direct the Corps to move forward with an
    investigation of alternatives for controlling flooding on base.
                              american river plan
        An appropriation of $1 million is needed so that the Corps can
    complete its evaluation of alternative projects for providing a minimum
    of 200-year flood protection for Sacramento. This evaluation, ordered
    by Congress in 1999, is focused on three measures. The first includes
    modifying levees so more water can safely be conveyed through
    Sacramento in a flood. The second option is enlarging Folsom Dam so
    that more water can be effectively stored during a flood, and the third
    incorporates improvement in long range weather forecasting into flood
    control operations. Combinations of these measures are also being
    evaluated, and the full feasibility study will be presented to Congress
    in 2002.
                  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 along lower Dry and Arcade Creeks. Congress did not
    authorize the recommended project in the 1992 WRDA, but in subsequent
    legislation that year Congress did authorize the levee improvements
    around the Natomas basin and North Sacramento. The authorizing
    legislation included provisions to reimburse the local agency for
    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 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 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
    Corp has agreed to reimburse SAFCA $21 million, their estimate of the
    costs of building levees to the heights described in their 1992 report
    and Congress has appropriated funds consistent with that agreement. The
    Corp has also agreed to consider reimbursement for higher levees, and
    SAFCA and the Corps are jointly working on an agreement for additional
    reimbursement. In anticipation of a formal agreement on this matter, we
    are requesting an appropriation of $5 million.
                     lower strong and chicken ranch sloughs
        SAFCA, in cooperation with Sacramento County, is seeking
    appropriations of $0.2 million to allow the Corp to complete it
    feasibility study for Lower Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs.
    Floodwaters from these urban streams are collected and pumped into the
    American 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 1950's 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.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Charles H. Bucknam

        Dear Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: Thank you for
    agreeing to consider this request for funding of the Acid Drainage
    Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the federal multi-agency
    mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is being requested to
    provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the standard set by the
    Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is going primarily to the
    Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable base of funding is also
    needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities, in order to identify the
    best science for controlling acid and metal drainage from metal mines
    and related materials.
        The Prediction Committee of the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative
    Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) has identified several needs to improve
    the scientific and technical foundation necessary for accurate
    prediction of mine waste drainage quality. More accurate prediction of
    mine waste drainage quality will lead to the management of mine wastes
    in a manner that will avoid adverse impacts to natural waters. ADTI-MMS
    Prediction Committee activities will benefit multiple federal agencies.
    Broad based funding from participating federal agencies (to augment the
    voluntary contributions from states, federal agencies, industry,
    universities and consulting companies), will greatly accelerate
    progress of the ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee.
        Federal and state land-managing agencies, as well as mining
    companies, are continually challenged with making environmentally-sound
    decisions on how to best manage millions of tons of mine waste from
    abandoned, existing, and future metal-mining activities without
    adversely impacting water quality. Mine-waste management decisions are
    largely based on the predicted quality of drainage from mine wastes.
    Several predictive tests to help forecast minewaste drainage quality
    are available to industry and reviewing agencies, yet no consensus
    exists regarding how well these tests predict future drainage quality
    in the field. What is critically needed is a systematic, unbiased,
    scientific assessment of the available tests, an organized compilation
    of existing predictive data to evaluate the accuracy of tests,
    modification of existing or development of new tests, and evaluation
    and development of mine waste dissolution models. These aspects are
    essential for making scientifically based decisions on mine waste
    management.
        The ADTI-MMS consists of volunteer representatives from government,
    academia, and the private sector who are involved in the
    environmentally sound management of metal-mine wastes. This group is
    focused on cost effective, environmentally sound methods and
    technologies to manage mine wastes and related metallurgical materials
    for abandoned, active and future mining and associated operations. The
    objective of the ADTI-MMS is to identify, evaluate, develop,
    disseminate information regarding, and promote understanding of these
    methods and technologies.
        The Prediction Committee is one of five technical committees formed
    by the ADTI-MMS. The focus of the Prediction Committee is prediction of
    drainage quality from mining wastes (i.e. tailings, waste rock) and
    related metallurgical materials (e.g. stockpiles). Based on the
    predicted drainage quality from a mine waste, appropriate mine waste
    management plans can be developed to avoid adverse impacts to natural
    waters. In order to improve the scientific and technical foundation
    necessary for accurate prediction of mine waste drainage quality, the
    ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee identified the following needs.
      --Survey, analyze and compile information from literature and active
            research regarding scientific and technical foundations and
            methods for mine waste drainage quality prediction.
      --Develop standard methods for prediction of drainage quality from
            mine wastes and associated metallurgical materials.
      --Develop reference standards for quality assurance of predictive
            test results.
      --Generate empirical data on the long-term dissolution behavior of
            mine wastes by conducting field and laboratory tests on
            individual mine waste rock types.
      --Conduct literature surveys and develop data bases for field
            validation of prediction methods.
      --Conduct regional workshops with government, industry and academia
            to arrive at consensus on scientific and technical foundations
            and methods for predicting drainage quality.
      --Disseminate the latest information on the best science for mine
            waste drainage quality prediction to those involved and
            interested in the sound prediction of drainage quality.
        The ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee has made progress in these areas
    through voluntary efforts and limited funding from the Office of
    Surface Mining and Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, we are
    committed to continue this work. With broader based funding from
    participating federal agencies to augment these contributions, we can
    address these needs more effectively and in a much shorter time frame.
    Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your continued
    funding of this Committee's activities will significantly improve our
    ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage issues with
    an organized and predictable schedule.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Rebecca A. Miller

        Thank you for agreeing to consider this request for funding of the
    Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) through the federal multi-
    agency mechanism. The Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is being
    requested to provide annual funding of up to $200K, to match the
    standard set by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). OSM funding is
    going primarily to the Coal Mining Sector of ADTI and a predictable
    base of funding is also needed for the Metal Mining Sector activities,
    in order to identify the best science for controlling acid and metal
    drainage from metal mines and related materials.
        The Prediction Committee of the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative
    Metal Mining Sector (ADTI-MMS) has identified several needs to improve
    the scientific and technical foundation necessary for accurate
    prediction of mine waste drainage quality. More accurate prediction of
    mine waste drainage quality will lead to the management of mine wastes
    in a manner that will avoid adverse impacts to natural waters. ADTI-MMS
    Prediction Committee activities will benefit multiple federal agencies.
    Broad based funding from participating federal agencies (to augment the
    voluntary contributions from states, federal agencies, industry,
    universities and consulting companies), will greatly accelerate
    progress of the ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee.
        Federal and state land-managing agencies, as well as mining
    companies, are continually challenged with making environmentally-sound
    decisions on how to best manage millions of tons of mine waste from
    abandoned, existing, and future metal-mining activities without
    adversely impacting water quality. Mine-waste management decisions are
    largely based on the predicted quality of drainage from mine wastes.
    Several predictive tests to help forecast minewaste drainage quality
    are available to industry and reviewing agencies, yet no consensus
    exists regarding how well these tests predict future drainage quality
    in the field. What is critically needed is a systematic, unbiased,
    scientific assessment of the available tests, an organized compilation
    of existing predictive data to evaluate the accuracy of tests,
    modification of existing or development of new tests, and evaluation
    and development of mine waste dissolution models. These aspects are
    essential for making scientifically based decisions on mine waste
    management.
        The ADTI-MMS consists of volunteer representatives from government,
    academia, and the private sector who are involved in the
    environmentally sound management of metal-mine wastes. This group is
    focused on cost effective, environmentally sound methods and
    technologies to manage mine wastes and related metallurgical materials
    for abandoned, active and future mining and associated operations. The
    objective of the ADTI-MMS is to identify, evaluate, develop,
    disseminate information regarding, and promote understanding of these
    methods and technologies.
        The Prediction Committee is one of five technical committees formed
    by the ADTI-MMS. The focus of the Prediction Committee is prediction of
    drainage quality from mining wastes (i.e. tailings, waste rock) and
    related metallurgical materials (e.g. stockpiles). Based on the
    predicted drainage quality from a mine waste, appropriate mine waste
    management plans can be developed to avoid adverse impacts to natural
    waters. In order to improve the scientific and technical foundation
    necessary for accurate prediction of mine waste drainage quality, the
    ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee identified the following needs.
      --Survey, analyze and compile information from literature and active
            research regarding scientific and technical foundations and
            methods for mine waste drainage quality prediction.
      --Develop standard methods for prediction of drainage quality from
            mine wastes and associated metallurgical materials.
      --Develop reference standards for quality assurance of predictive
            test results.
      --Generate empirical data on the long-term dissolution behavior of
            mine wastes by conducting field and laboratory tests on
            individual mine waste rock types.
      --Conduct literature surveys and develop data bases for field
            validation of prediction methods.
      --Conduct regional workshops with government, industry and academia
            to arrive at consensus on scientific and technical foundations
            and methods for predicting drainage quality.
      --Disseminate the latest information on the best science for mine
            waste drainage quality prediction to those involved and
            interested in the sound prediction of drainage quality.
        The ADTI-MMS Prediction Committee has made progress in these areas
    through voluntary efforts and limited funding from the Office of
    Surface Mining and Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, we are
    committed to continue this work. With broader based funding from
    participating federal agencies to augment these contributions, we can
    address these needs more effectively and in a much shorter time frame.
        Thank you for your time and interest in this vital area. Your
    continued funding of this Committee's activities will significantly
    improve our ability to develop the best science for addressing drainage
    issues with an organized and predictable schedule.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District; Imperial
         Irrigation District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                California; and San Diego County Water Authority

       fiscal year 2002 funding request for habitat and enhancement and
                           improved water management
        It is requested that $2 million be provided in the Bureau of
    Reclamation fiscal year 2002 budget for Salton Sea area habitat
    enhancement, budget line item--Salton Sea Project. It is also requested
    that $2.8 million be provided in the Bureau of Reclamation fiscal year
    2002 budget for water management reservoirs near the All-American
    Canal, budget line item--Colorado River Front Work and Levee System.
    This funding is needed to ensure the success and timely implementation
    of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan to bring California
    within its 4.4 million acre-feet per year normal apportionment of
    Colorado River water. In recent years, California has taken up to 5.2
    million acre-feet per year, relying on surplus and unused
    apportionments of other states that will not be available in the
    future.
        California's Colorado River Water Use Plan is a major undertaking
    by the State and its agencies that will enable California to reduce its
    reliance on Colorado River water by up to 800,000 acre-feet per year.
    Key components of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan include
    core voluntary cooperative water conservation/transfers from
    agricultural use to urban use which are needed for California to meet
    its water needs and maintain its urban and agricultural economies. At
    the same time, we must conserve and enhance critical wildlife habitats
    that could be affected by water conservation programs.
        California and its Colorado River water users will be making
    expenditures in the billions of dollars to implement California's
    Colorado River Water Use Plan. This funding request deals with federal
    aspects and responsibilities that are critical to the success of the
    Plan.
        The habitat enhancement measures in and around the Salton Sea and
    its national wildlife refuge are necessary to gain the environmental
    permits and approvals associated with implementing a key component of
    California's Colorado River Water Use Plan, cooperative water
    conservation/transfers of over 500,000 acre-feet of water per year from
    agriculture use to urban use. These actions are intended to conserve
    and enhance habitat that could be affected by agricultural water use
    efficiency improvements needed to provide water to meet urban water
    needs in southern California. The funds would be used to create lower
    salinity habitat in the Salton Sea deltas and surrounding areas,
    provide for wetland/upland restoration and conservation, and enhance
    piscivorous bird habitat.
        The water management reservoirs would improve Colorado River and
    supply management, water conservation, and energy generation; help
    facilitate water storage and conjunctive use programs; provide water
    for environmental purposes; and provide for cooperative improved water
    supply management opportunities with Mexico. Much of the identified
    benefits relate to federal responsibilities for Colorado River
    management and water deliveries.
        Successful implementation of California's Colorado River Water Use
    Plan is vital to the economy and water supply reliability of the State
    of California, and is critical to the Colorado River interests of the
    other Colorado River Basin states and Mexico. We respectively request
    that these items and funding levels be part of the Bureau of
    Reclamation's fiscal year 2002 budget.
                                     ______

     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 2002 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. For the first time, CAP delivered its normal year entitlement of
    1.5 million acre-feet in 2000, allowing Arizona to utilize its full
    Colorado River apportionment of 2.8 million acre-feet.
        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 2 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. In 2000, 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 on 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, and the stipulation was
    subsequently approved by the United States District Court on May 9,
    2000. The settlement stipulation provides a three-year timeframe in
    which to complete several other activities that are necessary for the
    settlement to become final.
        In its fiscal year 2002 budget request, Reclamation seeks
    $31,442,000 for the CAP. Of this amount, $24,420,000 is requested for
    the construction of Indian distribution systems. The balance,
    $7,022,000, is sought for other CAP activities, most of which would be
    at least partially reimbursable by CAWCD. Under the settlement
    stipulation, these costs would not affect CAWCD's repayment obligation.
    Of the total $31,442,000 requested, $1,418,000 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 for native fish activities on the
    Santa Cruz River.
        For the Gila River Basin, these funds are requested for payments to
    FWS for non-native fish eradication activities and native fish
    conservation ($500,000), and for the Santa Cruz River Basin, funds are
    requested for the construction of fish barriers ($708,000) and non-
    native fish eradication activities ($60,000). In addition, Reclamation
    is seeking $148,000 to cover its non-contract costs. Historically,
    CAWCD has objected to Reclamation's continued spending in these areas.
    Both environmentalists and CAWCD challenged the 1994 biological opinion
    in court. However, given its settlement with the United States over CAP
    costs, CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget request to allow it to
    complete Endangered Species Act compliance for CAP deliveries in the
    Gila River basin.
        CAWCD continues to support appropriations necessary to ensure
    timely completion of all CAP Indian distribution systems. We note that
    Reclamation's fiscal year 2002 budget request of $24,420,000 for CAP
    Indian distribution systems is $1,409,000 less than the fiscal year
    2001 budget request for this item. CAWCD supports full funding for this
    program.
        CAWCD also supports the continuation of funding for the Tucson
    Reliability Division. The requested $375,000 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.
        In its fiscal year 2002 budget request, Reclamation also seeks
    $13,103,00 for its Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This
    program is necessary for Reclamation to continue its activities as the
    ``water master'' on the lower Colorado River. In addition, this program
    provides Reclamation's share of funding to complete the lower Colorado
    River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Of the $13,103,000,
    $2,808,000 is requested for administration of the Colorado River,
    $2,695,000 is for water contract administration and decree accounting,
    and $7,600,000 is for fish and wildlife management and development. The
    fish and wildlife management and development program includes funding
    for the MSCP ($3,129,000) endangered species protection ($1,364,000)
    riparian and native fish habitat and ecological restoration
    ($2,907,000), and program administration ($200,000).
        CAWCD supports Reclamation's budget request for the Lower Colorado
    River Operations Program. The increased funding level is necessary to
    support the MSCP effort as well as environmental measures necessary to
    fully implement the interim surplus criteria for the lower Colorado
    River. These are both critical programs upon which lower Colorado River
    water and power users depend. CAWCE also supports increasing
    Reclamation's funding by $12,500,000 in 2002 to support MSCP pilot
    projects. The $12,500,000 includes $7,000,000 for the acquisition of
    private properties along the lower Virgin River through the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. $2,500,000 for the Colorado River Indian
    Tribes Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Project proposal to
    restore approximately 1,500 acres of native aquatic, wetland, and
    riparian habitat, and $3,000,000 to support habitat conservation
    planning and data acquisition by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
    behalf of the MSCP.
        The MSCP is a cost-shared program among federal and non-federal
    interests to develop a long-term plan to conserve endangered species
    and their habitat along the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to
    Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing partners. Development of this
    program will conserve hundreds of threatened and endangered species
    and, at the same time, allow current water and power operation to
    continue. The MSCP pilot projects are essential to begin the process of
    protecting and conserving species and habitat on the lower Colorado
    River. The interim surplus criteria allow the Secretary of the Interior
    to declare limited Colorado River surpluses for the next 15 years to
    assist California in gradually reducing its use of Colorado River to
    its annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet.
        Finally, in its fiscal year 2002 budget request, Reclamation seeks
    $685,000 for the South/Central Arizona Investigations Program. This
    program includes funding for the Central Arizona Salinity
    Investigations ($300,000), Southern Arizona Regional Water Management
    Study ($150,000), Verde River Basin Water Management Plan ($35,000),
    West Salt River Valley Water Management Study ($50,000), and the Upper
    Gila Watershed Restoration Program ($150,000). CAWCD again supports
    funding for Reclamation's investigations in south/central Arizona. The
    West Salt River Valley Water Management Study, in particular, will
    study the integration and management of water resources in the West
    Salt River Valley, including the use of CAP water. CAWCID supports
    continued funding for this effort. In addition, the Southern Arizona
    Regional Water Management Study will continue work with Pima County
    water providers to develop a plan for integrating CAP water,
    groundwater, and reclaimed effluent. CAWCD supports funding for this
    effort as well.
        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 Mid-Dakota Rural System, Inc.

                        fiscal year 2002 funding request
        First let me thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
    in support of fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the Mid-Dakota Rural
    Water Project and for the Subcommittee's support both past and present.
        The Mid-Dakota Project is requesting $30.684 million in Federal
    appropriations for fiscal year 2002. As with our past submissions to
    this Subcommittee, Mid-Dakota's fiscal year 2002 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.
        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 provide sufficient funds to fully fund our 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 H.W. Bush in October 1992. The Federal authorization
    for the project totaled $100 million (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
    (1989 dollars.) The total authorized indexed cost of the project now
    stands at approximately $144 million (fiscal year 2001). All Federal
    funding considered, the Government has provided 61 percent of its
    commitment ($81.8 million of $134 million) to provide construction
    funding for the Project. When considering the Federal and state
    combined awards, the project is approximately 63 percent complete, in
    terms of financial commitments.
        Mid-Dakota wishes to thank this committee for its support over the
    past eight 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]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Conf.        Bureau                  Total fed.
                    Fed. fiscal year                   Mid-Dakota     Pres.        House        Senate      enacted       award      Additional     funds
                                                        Request       budget                                 levels       levels       funds       provided
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1994............................................        7.991            0            0        2.000        2.000        1.500            0        1.500
    1995............................................       22.367            0            0        8.000        4.000        3.600            0        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
    2000............................................       28.800        5.000       15.000        7.000       14.000       12.859        1.000       13.859
    2001............................................       24.000        6.040       11.040        6.040       10.040        9.398            0        9.398
    2002............................................       30.684  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals......................................  ...........       36.040       72.040       79.040       79.540       73.980        7.823       81.803
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 $10.04 million funding provided by the Subcommittee in fiscal
    year 2001 provided Mid-Dakota with the opportunity to achieve
    significant 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 14 community
    systems and approximately 1,800 rural customers (farms and ranches).
    Mid-Dakota estimates that an additional 300 rural farm and ranch
    accounts along with two more community systems will be receiving
    project water at the close of contracts awarded in fiscal year 2000/
    2001. The generosity of the Subcommittee has already had a deep and
    favorable effect on the lives of over 12,000 South Dakotans.
                           impacts of previous awards
        As is evident by the previous table (``Summarization of Federal
    funding'') Mid-Dakota has typically received less than one-half of its
    funding requests as an enacted appropriation. As disturbing as the
    funding short-falls are, even more disturbing is the fact that the
    Federal government is not alone in absorbing negative impacts of
    insufficient funding. In addition to making the Mid-Dakota Project more
    expensive to the Federal government, the resulting delays also have had
    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 Federal Government's (through the Bureau of Reclamation) 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 Bureau
    of Reclamation's oversight costs.
                       impacts of fiscal year 2002 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 $30.684 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 2002 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 have 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 by the Project. However, failure to provide full funding has
    had profound consequences.
                            construction in progress
        Mid-Dakota began construction in September 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 17
    project components and are constructing on seven other major Project
    components. The following table provides a synopsis of each major
    construction contract:

                                                                  SUMMARIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION
                                                                    [In millions of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                Percent over
       Cont. No.                                  Description                                 Cont.      Cont. bid   Final cont.  Over (under)     (under)
                                                                                            budget \1\     award        price        budget        budget
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                1-1 Oahe Water Intake and Pump Station                                         4.662        3.959        3.945       (0.717)          (15)
                2-1 Oahe Water Treatment Plant                                                13.361        9.920       10.278       (3.083)          (23)
               3-1A Raw Water Pipeline                                                         1.352        1.738        1.719        0.367            27
               3-1B Main Pipeline--Blunt                                                       7.823        6.916        7.024       (0.799)          (10)
               3-1C Main Pipeline--Highmore                                                    5.439        4.791        4.798       (0.641)          (12)
               3-2A Main Pipeline--Ree Hights                                                  3.261        3.155        3.149       (0.112)           (3)
               3-2B Main Pipeline--St. Lawrence, SD                                            3.691        3.349        3.352       (0.339)           (9)
       4-1A/B (1-5) Distribution System--West                                                  9.345        9.983       10.731    \2\ 1.386            15
         4-1A/B (6) Distribution System--North West                                            8.333        8.329        9.028    \2\ 0.695             8
            4-2 (1) Distribution System--Central                                               4.727        4.717        4.700       (0.027)          (.5)
            4-2 (2) Distribution System--South Central                                         2.763        2.835        3.000    \2\ 0.237             9
          4-2 (4-5) Distribution System--Central                                               5.753        4.952     In Prog.          n/a           n/a
           4-2A (4) Distribution System--Central                                               1.042         .991     In Prog.          n/a           n/a
                5-1 Water Storage Tank--Highmore                                               1.545        1.434        1.433       (0.108)           (7)
           5-1A (1) Water Storage Tank--Onida                                                  0.471        0.395        0.400       (0.075)          (16)
           5-1A (2) Water Storage Tank--Okobojo                                                0.381        0.338        0.333       (0.048)          (13)
           5-1A (3) Water Storage Tank--Agar                                                   0.422        0.391        0.385       (0.037)           (9)
           5-1A (4) Water Storage Tank--Gettysburg                                             0.952        0.814        0.808       (0.144)          (15)
            5-2 (1) Water Storage Tank--Mac's Corner                                            .460         .573         .561        0.101            22
            5-2 (2) Water Storage Tank--Rezac Lake                                              .438         .493     In Prog.          n/a           n/a
            5-2 (3) Water Storage Tank--Collin's Slough                                         .254         .393     In Prog.          n/a           n/a
           5-2A (1) Water Storage Tank--Ames \3\                                                .300         .378     In Prog.          n/a           n/a
           5-2A (2) Water Storage Tank--Cottonwood Lake \3\                                     .800         .696     In Prog.          n/a           n/a
           5-2A (3) Water Storage Tank--Wessington Springs \3\                                  .515         .491     In Prog.          n/a           n/a
                                                                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Totals                                                              78.090       72.031       65.644       (3.344)           (5)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    \1\ Contract budget is determined by Mid-Dakota's estimate for the contract at the time of bidding.
                    \2\ A significant portion of cost increases are attributable to the placement of additional users as construction proceeds.
                    \3\ Contract bid and awarded in fiscal year 2001, only site and concrete work given authorization to proceed.

        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 5 percent under budget,
    providing an estimated saving of over $3.3 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.
                     response to related crisis situations
        Mid-Dakota also provided the solution to a number of crisis
    situations in the past. The following are some of the most notable
    examples:
      --Mid-Dakota was the catalyst of the ``rescue'' effort in the City of
            Gettysburg, SD, to provide 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.
      --Mid-Dakota constructed an advanced project feature in Virgil, South
            Dakota. The town of Virgil, SD now has a new distribution
            system, 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). The 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 to people along the pipeline route.
      --Mid-Dakota recently (January 2001) took over operational
            responsibility for the water system in the City of St.
            Lawrence, South Dakota. The community (pop. <300) was having
            trouble maintaining a qualified operator to maintain their
            systems as is mandated by EPA. An Administrative agreement
            between Mid-Dakota and the City provided a viable solution to
            their dilemma.
        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
    2002 and continuing thereon, Mid-Dakota can be in a position to connect
    to Huron in time to remedy the potential EPA non-compliance issue faced
    by Huron.
                tentative fiscal year 2002 construction schedule
        Mid-Dakota \3\ has developed an aggressive construction schedule
    for fiscal year 2002, with plans to install nearly 700 miles of rural
    pipeline and 45 miles of main transmission pipeline. The proposed
    construction would provide service to an estimated 17,000 more people
    than are currently receiving or scheduled to receive Project drinking
    water (estimate includes the City of Huron, SD). 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Project features listed in table are subject to rescheduling
    based upon funding provided, readiness to proceed, and other factors.
    Actual construction activities, therefore, may not coincide exactly
    with schedule presented here.

                                         CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2002
     [Schedule is based upon Mid-Dakota's ``Capability Statement'' provided to the Bureau of Reclamation in January
                                                          2001]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Percent         Cost of
                   PROJECT FEATURE \1\                 Construction    construction    construction    Total feature
                                                         estimates    phase services  phase services       cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Main Pipeline--Wolsey...........................      $5,777,000             5.5        $317,735      $6,094,735
    Main Pipeline--Huron............................       4,959,000             5.5         272,745       5,231,745
    Distribution System--Ames \2\...................       3,100,613            12.5         387,577       3,488,190
    Distribution System--Cottonwood Lake \2\........       4,801,077            12.5         600,135       5,401,212
    Distribution System--Wessington Springs \2\.....       2,824,714            12.5         353,089       3,177,803
    Storage Tank--Ames..............................        $225,000            14.0          31,500         256,500
    Storage Tank--Cottonwood Lake...................         675,000            14.0          94,500         769,500
    Storage Tank--Wessington Springs................         425,000            14.0          59,500         484,500
    Storage Tank--Redfield..........................         300,000            14.0          42,000         342,000
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal Construction.....................      23,087,404             9.4       2,158,781      25,246,185
                                                     ===============================================================
    Contingencies \3\...............................         ( \4\ )            10.0  ..............       2,308,740
    Engineering, Design and Consultants.............  ..............  ..............  ..............         975,000
    Administration and General......................         ( \4\ )             2.0  ..............         461,748
    Bureau of Reclamation Oversight.................         ( \4\ )             3.0  ..............         692,622
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total RWS fiscal year 2002................  ..............  ..............  ..............      29,684,295
                                                     ===============================================================
    Wetland Component...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,000,000
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Fiscal Year 2002 Request............  ..............  ..............  ..............     30,684,295
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Construction of Features not listed in any order of priority.
    \2\ Completion of a ``Distribution System'' must include the accompanying Water Storage Tank in order to be
      hydraulically operable.
    \3\ Contingencies include 5 percent (bidding) and 5 percent (Change Order).
    \4\ Percent of construction.

                                    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, both past
    and present.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and
                            Dry Prairie Rural Water

                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        The Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
    Water respectfully request fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the
    Bureau of Reclamation from your subcommittee on Energy and Water
    Development. Funds will be used to construct critical elements of the
    Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Montana, (Public Law 106-382,
    October 27, 2000). The amount requested is $7,553,000 as set out below:

    Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request

    Non-Contract Construction Activities:                             Budget
        Tribal Administration/Easements...........................  $115,160
        Dry Prairie Administration................................    61,020
        Intake Design/Oversight and Inspection....................   712,800
        WTP Design/Oversight...................................... 1,811,285
        Dane Valley Design/Oversight..............................   174,732
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................ 2,874,997
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    Design and Construction Activities
        Intake Construction (100 percent)......................... 2,880,000
        WTP Construction (<5 percent).............................   813,272
        Dane Valley Contruction...................................   984,408
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Subtotal................................................ 4,677,681
                        ==============================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total................................................... 7,552,678
                              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 Public Law 106-
    382, October 27, 2000. The budget request provides for final design of
    the intake and treatment plant for this regional drinking water
    project. Most important, the budget request provides for 100 percent of
    the construction costs of the intake on the Missouri River and 15
    percent of the construction costs of the treatment plant. A minor
    project would be undertaken in the Dry Prairie area to bring existing
    water supplies to Dane Valley residents and mitigate costs of hauling
    water so prevalent there. All other construction will be of common
    facilities on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The budget request is
    consistent with (but slightly lower than) the construction schedule in
    the Final Engineering Report. (See Table 3 for the construction
    schedule).
                           status of project planning
        The Final Engineering Report, incorporating the costs of facilities
    to serve both the Reservation and the Dry Prairie Rural Water System
    outside the Fort Peck Indian Reservation is scheduled for completion in
    June 2001. The draft FER was submitted for review by Reclamation on
    January 5, 2001. The FER includes a water conservation plan. Bureau of
    Reclamation concluded a value engineering session on the project on
    March 2, 2001.
        The Final Engineering Report shows that construction costs of the
    project total $192 million, October 1998$. 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 Western United States.
        Environmental baseline investigations have been concluded within
    the Reservation and the Dry Prairie areas of the project. The latter
    investigations are currently being incorporated into an environmental
    assessment to be completed in draft form by June 30, 2001, and in final
    form by September 30, 2001.
        By September 30, 2001, the project will have completed the FER,
    water conservation plan and NEPA compliance thereby fulfilling all
    statutory pre-requisites for start of construction in fiscal year 2002.
                             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 a 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. The Tribes did not seek financial compensation for the
    settlement of their water rights but contemplated water development for
    meaningful projects as now authorized.
        Dry Prairie support is demonstrated by a financial commitment of
    all 14 communities within the service area to participate in the
    project. Rural support is strong, with about 70 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 Fort Peck Indian Reservation is designated 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 enhanced with 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 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. More than 80 percent of
    rural households draw water from near-surface aquifers with nitrates
    exceeding primary contaminant levels for drinking water pursuant to
    regulations implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. 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 have
    successfully planned a regional water project, comparable to Garrison,
    WEB, Mni Wiconi and Mid-Dakota that relies 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
                Project                     Community            Dissolved
                                                               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
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Project                     Community          Sulfate (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
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                         TABLE 3.--CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FORT PECK ASSININBOINE SIOUX MRI SYSTEM/DRY PRAIRIE RWS
                                                                                          [Amounts in dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fort Peck/
                Segment              Total cost     Dry prair      2001        2002        2003        2004        2005        2006        2007        2008        2009        2010         Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Intake........................     2,880,000  Fort Peck...  ..........   2,880,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     2,880,000
    Treatment Plant...............    16,734,000  Fort Peck...  ..........     814,000  11,161,000   4,759,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........    16,734,000
    Poplar to Big Muddy...........    22,681,000  Fort Peck...  ..........  ..........  ..........   4,515,000   6,894,000  10,310,000     962,000  ..........  ..........  ..........    22,681,000
    Big Muddy to Plentywood.......    19,433,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........   4,023,000   6,104,000   9,306,000  ..........    19,433,000
    Highway 13 to FP Boundary.....     9,247,000  Fort Peck...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........   4,024,000   5,223,000  ..........  ..........     9,247,000
    FP Boundary to Scobey.........     4,025,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     860,000   3,165,000     4,025,000
    Scobey to Plentywood..........     9,838,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........   9,838,000     9,838,000
    Scobey to Opheim..............     7,945,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........   7,945,000     7,945,000
    Poplar to Wolf Point..........    14,889,000  Fort Peck...  ..........  ..........  ..........   4,515,000   6,895,000   3,479,000  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........    14,889,000
    Wolf Point to Porcupine Ck....    25,301,000  Fort Peck...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........   4,024,000   6,103,000  15,174,000           0    25,301,000
    Porcupine Creek to Glasgow....     3,874,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........   3,874,000     3,874,000
    Glasgow to Opheim.............     3,506,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........   3,506,000     3,506,000
    FP OM Buildings...............     1,000,000  Fort Peck...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     250,000     250,000     250,000     250,000     1,000,000
    DP OM Buildings...............       500,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........     125,000     125,000     125,000     125,000       500,000
    FP Electrical, Meters,             4,164,000  Fort Peck...  ..........  ..........  ..........     595,000     595,000     595,000     595,000     595,000     595,000     594,000     4,164,000
     Easements.
    DP Electrical, Meters,             3,521,000  Dry Prair...  ..........  ..........  ..........     503,000     503,000     503,000     503,000     503,000     503,000     503,000     3,521,000
     Easements.
    Planning, Design, Admin:
        Fort Peck.................    27,397,000  Fort Peck...   3,143,000   1,044,000   3,156,000   4,067,000   4,067,000   4,067,000   2,786,000   2,394,000   2,434,000     239,000    27,397,000
        Dry Prairie...............    14,626,000  Dry Prair...      50,000      51,000      50,000     202,000     202,000     202,000   1,864,000   2,648,000   4,276,000   5,081,000    14,626,000
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................   191,561,000  ............   3,193,000   4,789,000  14,367,000  19,156,000  19,156,000  19,156,000  19,156,000  23,945,000  33,523,000  35,120,000   191,561,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Prepared Statement of the National Urban Agriculture Council

        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.
        I would like to request that the Subcommittee support efforts to
    increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. As a result
    of a report by NUAC, ``Withering in the Desert: The Need to increase
    the Bureau of Reclamation's Budget'' we know the Bureau's budget was
    reduced by 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 2000.
    We are quite concerned about that trend given the fact that many
    communities in the West are concerned that the agency no longer has
    adequate resources to carry out its mission or to properly maintain its
    infrastructure. I urge the Subcommittee to increase the Bureau's core
    activities, including the operation and maintenance of facilities
    designed to provide reliable supplies of water and power to Western
    farmers and communities.
        It is for the above reason that the Western Water Industry has come
    together in an ``Invest In the West'' campaign to push for an increase
    the Bureau's Budget to $1 billion over the next five fiscal years. NUAC
    is proud to be a part of the West-wide coalition on this issue that
    includes the Western Coalition of Arid States, the WateReuse
    Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the national Water Resources
    Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Oregon
    Water Resources Congress, the Upper Missouri Water Association and the
    Water users Association.
                          drought emergency assistance
        NUAC has been an active participant in the efforts of the Interim
    National Drought Policy Commission's efforts to produce a report and
    plan for moving forward 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 2002.
    NUAC believes and would ask that Congress consider that given the
    drought problems in this country, that a budget of $5 million be
    included in this program for fiscal year 2002. 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 only $500,000 for
    the program for fiscal year 2002. 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 $7.507 million for this program for fiscal year 2002. 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 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 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 2002 request for the projects that are underway under the
    Title XVI program. The $19.5 million requested is substantially below
    the $30.5 million provided by Congress, for fiscal year 2001 and we
    would request that you consider increasing the funding at least up to
    that level this year. The funding provided 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 project. We believe there is a need
    for a serious discussion among water policy leaders on how to fundthe
    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. It is important that discussions continue how and for
    what type of research does need to take place and the role Reclamation
    should play in that agenda. We believe the results of those discussions
    would be beneficial in terms of laying the groundwork for any future
    legislative changes to the program and NUAC looks forward to continuing
    to be a part of that effort.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
    on these programs.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Elmer McDaniels

                                    Tumalo Irrigation District,
                                          Bend, Oregon, April 16, 2001.
    Senator Pete Domenici,
    Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water,
            U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Domenici: The Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) in
    Bend, Oregon respectfully requests your support for inclusion of
    $600,000 in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water appropriations bill
    for the District's Bend Feed Canal Project. The 106th Congress
    authorized the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the further
    construction associated with the project in the amount of $2.5 million.
        The TID is proposing to pipe a critical portion of our open canals,
    essentially eliminating water loss and enhancing public safety along
    the project's approximate 14,500 foot length. The conserved water would
    be used to deliver enhanced water to the TID irrigators even in drought
    years, as they currently receive inadequate water in 8 of 10 years. It
    will also increase stream flows in Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes
    River.
        The TID Board of Directors has expressed its willingness to pay
    their share of the estimated $5 million project cost of this important
    project which would benefit both the District and the general public.
    We appreciate the previous funding that we have received for work in
    this area and look forward to your favorable consideration of our
    request.
                 Sincerely,
                                               Elmer McDaniels,
                                                               Manager.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Beverly
    Bridgewater, President 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 2002 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, Umatilla Boundary
    Change Environmental Assessment projects and funding for implementation
    of herbicide monitoring programs.
        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 Interim 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.
        With a recent court ruling, irrigation districts are required to
    have an NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act for application of
    herbicides to canals. Monitoring of these systems will be crucial to
    maintaining the ability to deliver an uninterrupted supply of water to
    the irrigators. We are requesting funding in the Bureau of Reclamation
    program for assistance in this effort.
        OWRC also requests that the Subcommittee support efforts to
    increase the overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau's
    budget was reduced by 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal
    year 2000. Because of that trend, many communities in the West are
    concerned that the agency no longer has adequate resources to carry out
    its mission or to properly maintain its infrastructure. I urge the
    Subcommittee to increase funding for the Bureau's core activities,
    including the operation and maintenance of facilities designed to
    provide reliable supplies of water and power to Western farmers and
    communities.
        Thank you for considering our requests and we look forward to
    favorable action by the Subcommittee.

    Projects and Programs in fiscal year 2002 Bureau of Reclamation Budget
    that OWRC Supports

    Crooked River Project.........................................  $696,000
    Deschutes Ecosystem Restoraton Project.....................\1\ 2,000,000
    Deschutes Project.............................................   498,000
    Deschutes Project, Wickiup Dam................................12,000,000
    Eastern Oregon Projects.......................................   607,000
    Grand Ronde Water Optimization Study..........................   150,000
    Klamath Project...............................................13,010,000
    Oregon Investigations Program.................................   457,000
    Rogue River Basin Project, Talent Division....................   479,000
    Tualatin Project..............................................   256,000
    Tualatin Valley Water Supply Feasibility Study................   100,000
    Umatilla Basin Project (Phase III)............................    50,000
    Umatilla Project.............................................. 2,636,000
    Broader Programs:
        Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project..........11,000,000
        Endangered Species Recovery Implementation................ 1,971,000
        Requests for New Money....................................
        Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal...............   600,000
        Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment
          (Hermiston-West Extension)..............................   100,000
        Umatilla Boundary Change Environmental Assessment (West
          Extension)..............................................   100,000
        Herbicide Monitoring Program in Irrigation Canals.........   100,000

    \1\ Fiscal Year 2002 Budget request was $500,000.

       Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District

        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 a
    series of rural water projects to serve municipal, rural and industrial
    water needs 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. In addition,
    Garrison Diversion programs and funding are the key to future economic
    development, recreation, tourism and wildlife enhancement in our state.
        The President's budget request includes $25,900,000 for the
    Garrison Diversion Unit. An additional $14,100,000 is needed to
    continue the important work of the MR&I program to serve Indian and
    non-Indian needs on four North Dakota reservations, as well as a
    variety of projects across the state. Additional appropriations will
    continue a very successful effort to develop rural water supply systems
    across the state. This funding impacts the lives of families and
    business owners statewide who are working to provide a basic water
    infrastructure that will serve as a base for efforts to stop the
    devastating out migration of North Dakota's most valuable resource, her
    young people.
        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. 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. Additional funding is desperately needed to continue this
    important program. We concur that this need is of the highest priority.
        The Dakota Water Resources Act provides for a full evaluation and
    completion of an Environmental Impact Statement on the ways to meet the
    water quality and quantity needs in the Red River Valley. Funding is
    needed to continue this important work already underway.
        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.
        Of additional concern, Mr. Chairman, is the overall Bureau of
    Reclamation budget. Current trends show this budget number has been
    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 would strongly request that you support efforts to increase the
    overall budget of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau's budget has
    been cut 36 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 2000. This is
    the primary Federal agency that we rely upon for funding of our
    infrastructure needs. We know the Bureau of Reclamation has a $5
    billion backlog of work. That work, which includes our project, as well
    as any new authorizations in this Congress, will not be addressed in a
    timely manner if the Bureau continues to be cut and underfunded. We
    support the western water industry's campaign to increase the Bureau's
    Water and Related Resources budget over a five-year period from its
    present $719,000,000 to $1,000,000,000.
                                     ______

                         Letter From Gail L. Achterman

                         Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy,
                                          Bend, Oregon, April 16, 2001.
    Senator Pete Domenici,
    Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and
            Water, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
        Dear Chairman Domenici: The Deschutes Basin Resources Conservancy
    (DRC) in Bend, Oregon respectfully requests your support of inclusion
    of $2 million in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations
    bill for DRC's programs that were authorized for $2 million per year in
    Public Law 106-270. The Administration fiscal year 2002 request of
    $500,000 is woefully inadequate for DRC to carryout its mission as
    originally authorized by Congress in 1996.
        The DRC is a community-based cooperative endeavor that believes
    economic progress and natural resource conservation must both be
    accommodated to benefit the basin and its residents. Our goal is to
    improve water quantity and quality in the Deschutes Basin. Since 1998,
    when we first received funding, the DRC has supported 21 restoration
    projects. We have,been able to leverage the Federal money that we have
    received for work in the Basin on one to five basis $1 Federal to $5
    Non-Federal.
        The Federal money we receive allows DRC to bring together state,
    Federal, Tribal and local governmental entities with private interests
    in our area to carryout out basin wide ecosystem restoration. As part
    of our 2001 program we are establishing innovative programs such as the
    Deschutes Water Bank that will assist in efforts throughout the region
    to efficiently transfer water to meet the region's changing needs. We
    are on the cutting edge of new water quality approaches through our
    Carbon Sequestration program whereby farmers in the Basin are
    converting from traditional tillage to no-till methods so that soil
    erosion will decrease and carbon stored in the soils will increase.
        The DRC appreciates the past support of the Subcommittee and looks
    forward to your future support. Thank you for making this letter a part
    of your hearing record on the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water
    Appropriations Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
                Sincerely,
                                             Gail L. Achterman,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Washoe County, Nevada

        Washoe County, Nevada, submits the following testimony in support
    of the Spanish Springs Valley Wastewater Reclamation Project unit of
    the Truckee River Reclamation Project authorized in Public law 106-554
    as an amendment to the Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI program. The
    objectives of the Truckee River Reclamation Project are to treat and
    recycle existing wastewaters for multiple uses within the watershed to
    augment the local water supplies and to provide a high quality return
    flow to the Truckee River to meet the requirements of the Pyramid Lake
    settlement and the protection of the Paiute Indian Nation.
        The limited watershed of the Truckee River and the many demands
    upon it for environmental needs, protection of tribal uses, and
    domestic and commercial needs in the burgeoning communities of Reno and
    Sparks compels water recycling and reuse as the river continues its
    course to Pyramid Lake, an acknowledged national resource and a site of
    significance to the Paiute Nation. This region of northern Nevada
    relies upon the Truckee River as its major source of water. The Truckee
    River Reclamation Project has these various objectives as its goal.
        The Spanish Springs area is the fastest growing suburban area of
    Reno. While new subdivisions constructed after 1996 have connected to
    the community sewer system, there are approximately 2000 homes which
    rely on septic tanks for wastewater treatment. This is a lost
    opportunity to enhance the water supply to the region. Connection of
    these homes to the community sewer system would take some of the
    pressure off of Truckee River water supplies by creating additional
    wastewater effluent for non-potable water uses. The community
    represents a moderate income area and lacks the financial resources to
    accomplish this project on its own.
        Washoe County is working with the Spanish Springs community to
    develop a wastewater facilities plan, scheduled to be complete by
    February 2002. This plan will provide for the collection and treatment
    of septic tank flows which are otherwise lost to the groundwater
    aquifer. These flows will become part of the non-potable wastewater
    effluent supply which reduces demands on Truckee River water.
        The total cost of the Spanish Springs Reclamation Project was
    originally estimated at $30 million, $23 million for wastewater
    reclamation/water quality protection and $7 million for extension of
    the water reuse system to the Spanish Springs Valley. Current
    estimates, as a result of further facility planning and preliminary
    design work on the water reuse system are: $39 million for the
    wastewater reclamation project and $7.6 million for the extension of
    the water reuse system.
        The septic tank conversion project will be phased over a number of
    years to lessen the impact to the community of this large scale
    endeavor. The extension of the water reuse system will commence in
    fiscal year 2003. Following is an anticipated schedule of expenditures
    over the first three years of implementation of the project:
                                fiscal year 2002
        Budget.--$400,000 ($100,000 Federal Request)
        Wastewater Reclamation/Water Quality Protection: Activity.--
    Completion of Facility Plan and Final Design of Phase I.
                                fiscal year 2003
        Budget.--$13,100,000 ($3,275,000 Federal Request)
        Wastewater Reclamation/Water Quality Protection: Activity.--
    Construction of Phase I improvements, conversion of approximately 250
    on-site treatment systems. Design of Phase II improvements.
        Water Reuse System Extension: Activity.--Construct extension of
    water reuse system to Spanish Springs Valley unincorporated area.
                                fiscal year 2004
        Budget.--$5,500,000 ($1,375,000 Federal Request)
        Wastewater Reclamation/Water Quality Protection: Activity.--
    Construction of Phase II improvements, conversion of additional 250 on-
    site treatment systems. Design of Phase II improvements.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the MNI Wiconi Project

                  fiscal year 2002 construction budget request
        The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries (as listed below) respectfully
    request appropriations for construction in fiscal year 2002 for the
    project in the amount of $47,503,000 as follows:

    Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
        Core Facilities (Pipelines and Pumping Stations)....     $17,481,000
        Distribution System on Pine Ridge...................       7,868,000
    West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems..............       8,908,000
    Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System........................      11,892,000
    Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System....................       1,354,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total Mni Wiconi Project..........................      47,503,000

        Additionally, operation, maintenance and replacement funds in the
    amount of $6,500,000, an increase over last year's budget of $6,000,000
    and reflective of the growing operational capability of the project, is
    requested. This brings the total funds request to $54,003,000 for
    fiscal year 2002.
        The subcommittee is asked to note that the total budget requests of
    the Administration over the last several years have been relatively
    unchanged. Thus, as the OMR budget has increased to address increasing
    service to more people, there has been less funding available each year
    for construction. We are hopeful that the subcommittee can give
    attention to the fact that the project is now mid-way in construction
    and needs, at a minimum, a constant or increasing construction budget
    that can bring the project to conclusion in a reasonable time frame.
      need for osrwss to reach murdo in fiscal year 2002--major milestone
        The Oglala, Lower Brule and Rosebud Sioux Tribes have not yet been
    informed of the President's request for the fiscal year 2002
    construction budget for the Mni Wiconi Project as required by the
    Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638, as amended). The
    funding request presented above is reasonable and within the capability
    of the sponsors to utilize.
        The principle elements in the budget for fiscal year 2002, delayed
    by inadequate funding in fiscal year 2001, are $17.481 million for the
    Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core and funds for
    OSRWSS, Rosebud, Lower Brule and West River/Lyman-Jones to build
    distribution systems that will interconnect with the OSRWSS core
    facilities. The OSRWSS core system funds and most of the funds
    designated for distribution systems are needed to complete the project
    to Murdo in fiscal year 2002, 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 2002 is
    the most significant event in the project to date. The requested
    funding level is needed to achieve the objective and to permit
    interconnection to the OSRWSS core for delivery to approximately 50
    percent of the project water users.
        Important to note is the fact that the intake and treatment plant
    on the Missouri River will be fully operational in summer 2001 and will
    deliver water to Vivian where the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is building a
    core pipeline 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 2002 will permit completion of 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 2002, 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 2002.
        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 2002 funds are required
    to complete those projects.
        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, the Subcommittee is respectfully requested to take
    cognizant of the fact that fiscal year 2002 will conclude with
    construction of facilities that permit sponsors and the Subcommittee to
    bring the end of the project into sight. While amendment of the
    legislation is required to extend the completion date beyond fiscal
    year 2003 to as distant as fiscal year 2007, the Subcommittee has
    consistently supported the project, and the end can now be visualized.
    Key to the conclusion of the project in fiscal year 2003 and beyond is
    the completion of the OSRWSS core to the northeast corner on the Pine
    Ridge Indian Reservation were most on the remaining 50 percent of the
    design population resides. Toward this end, funds are included in the
    fiscal year 2002 budget to build the connecting pipelines between the
    northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the central
    portion of the Reservation near Kyle. Rosebud is similarly engaged in
    the construction of major connecting pipelines that will join the
    OSRWSS core near Murdo and deliver water southerly to the central
    portions of the Rosebud Indian Reservation and to service areas for
    West River/Wyman-Jones. Funds in fiscal year 2002 are necessary to
    ensure that when water reaches the northeast corner of the Pine Ridge
    Indian Reservation from the OSRWSS core, pipelines and related
    facilities are available to receive and deliver Missouri River water
    into the Reservation.
                          unique needs of this project
        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 need for creating jobs and improving the quality of life on
    the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations of the project area.
        Employment and earnings among the Indian people of the project area
    is expected to positively impact the high costs of health-care borne by
    the United States and the Tribes. Our data suggest clear relationships
    between income levels and Federal costs for heart disease, cancer and
    diabetes. During the life of the Mni Wiconi Project, mortality rates
    among the Indian people in the project area for the three diseases
    mentioned will cost the United States and the Tribes more than $1
    billion beyond the level incurred for these diseases among comparable
    populations in the non-Indian community within the project area. While
    this project alone will not raise income levels to a point where the
    excessive rates of heart disease, cancer and diabetes are significantly
    diminished and the projected $1 billion in costs due to excessive rates
    of incidence is not eliminated, the employment and earnings stemming
    from the project will, nevertheless, reduce mortality rates and costs
    of these diseases.

                                   TABLE 1.--1990 BUREAU OF CENSUS ECONOMIC STATISTICS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Per capita families below
                                                                     --------------------------------  Unemployment
                        Indian reservation/state                          Income       Poverty level     (percent)
                                                                         (dollars)       (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 the
    historical experience of broken commitments to the Indian people by the
    Federal Government is difficult to overcome. The argument was that
    there is no reason to trust and that the Sioux Tribes are being 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 2002.
        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. 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 2002 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. 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. With
    adequate funds, this critical segment of the project can be initiated
    in fiscal year 2002 and concluded to coincide with the westward
    construction of the OSRWSS core to the northeast corner of the
    Reservation. This component of the Oglala system has been deferred 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
        Mni Wiconi core pipeline construction makes it possible for WR/LJ
    to serve it's membership. Having the OSRWSS water treatment plant on
    line and completing the core pipeline to Murdo in fiscal year 2002 are
    major milestones in Mni Wiconi project development. Efforts undertaken
    over 30 years ago by the project originators are bearing fruit.
        Completion of projects under construction this year is our highest
    priority. The Ft Pierre West project serves WR/LJ users that are
    closest to the water source and have anxiously awaited operation of the
    treatment plant. The Mellette East and Kennebec North projects will
    benefit from the Rosebud core pipeline that is now in service and the
    Lower Brule core line that is under construction, thereby bringing
    quality water service to WR/LJ and Tribal members in these chronically
    short water areas.
        Completion of the core pipeline to Murdo will further the delivery
    of quality water to population centers along Interstate Hwy 90 and
    service to great numbers of America's traveling public. The realization
    of the health and economic benefits of quality water, which have long
    been a vision of the Mni Wiconi project sponsors, will began to take
    place. Bringing quality water to rural residents of the region will
    remove the burden of hauling their drinking water. Providing reliable
    water supplies to livestock producers in the region removes the
    economic threat of having to liquidate their herds in times of drought.
        Continuing appropriations for the Mni Wiconi project has provided
    hope to those not yet served. Those members that will be served last
    are developing faith that their needs will be addressed. WR/LJ with
    reach 34 percent completion with the requested fiscal year 2002
    appropriation. Those members see hope in continued progress of the Mni
    Wiconi project.
                           rosebud rural water system
        For the Rosebud Sioux Tribe the second year of new millennium may
    be the most challenging in the history of the Sicangu Mni Wiconi. The
    proposed work plan has two primary objectives; the connection with the
    OSRWSS Core at Murdo and additional distribution and service lines.
        The connection to the OSRWSS core will reduce the dependence on
    interim ground water supplies in Mellette County. It will provide a
    reliable source of high quality water for economic development, the
    residents in the rural areas near Corn Creek and the WR/LJ Mellette
    East Project. The Corn Creek area, located in western Mellette County,
    suffers from both a lack of water and low quality where it is
    available. This project expands on the work started in 2001 and will
    require additional funding in 2003. The Tribe recently completed an
    engineering review session the results of which should reduce the
    amount of funding required in 2003.
        Additional distribution and service lines are planned for the
    Spring Creek/Grass Mountain area. These connections will utilize
    improvements completed in 2000, 2001 and scheduled for completion to
    bring water to several rural homes in Crazy Horse Canyon. Many of the
    private wells in this area have concentrations of arsenic that exceed
    the recently revised primary drinking water standard. The final project
    proposed is additional distribution and service lines in eastern Todd
    County near Okreek. For water to be available for this area the interim
    supplies currently being utilized in portions of Mellette County will
    have to be replaced with water supplied from the OSRWSS Core pipeline.
                  lower brule rural water system--distribution
        The Lower Brule Rural Water System's (LBRWS) new microfiltration
    water treatment plant has been in operation for slightly more than a
    year and continues to provide high quality water to the communities of
    Lower Brule and West Brule and some scattered homesites on the
    Reservation. As well as providing high quality water for use on the
    Reservation, the new plant provides water to West River/Lyman Jones's
    (WR/LJ) Reliance service area including the Town of Reliance through
    the West Brule to Reliance core pipeline. WR/LJ is also utilizing the
    water to flush their newly constructed lines between Reliance and
    Vivian as well as filling and testing their Vivian elevated tank.
    Cooperation and communication between the sponsors on the timing and
    need of water for flushing and testing has developed into a very good
    working relationship.
        The Fort George Butte--County Line Road pipeline is complete and
    the Vivian to Presho pipeline is nearly complete, both of which will be
    tested and placed into operation as soon as water is available from the
    Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core pipeline. These
    pipelines will initially serve only WR/LJ users until the on-
    Reservation distribution system can be constructed.
        LBRWS has committed current funding for the construction of the
    Presho to Kennebec and Kennebec North pipelines during the 2001
    construction season. This will result in the core pipeline from Vivian
    to Kennebec serving WR/LJ service areas along the pipeline and the
    cities of Vivian, Presho and Kennebec. If adequate funds are available,
    the pipeline north of Kennebec will be extended from the Reservation
    boundary to State Highway 1806 on the Reservation.
        In order to include Lower Brule in the Mni Wiconi Project, a cost
    estimate was hurriedly put together and included in the Final
    Engineering Report without review. After the Project received funding
    and construction began, the LBRWS quickly realized that the original
    estimated cost was severely under estimated. The Bureau of Reclamation
    confirmed the error in the original estimate in their Cost Containment
    Report dated October 1999.
        Primarily, as a result of the severely under estimated cost in the
    Final Engineering Report, the LBRWS has reached its authorized ceiling
    with the receipt of the 2001 funds. However, an amendment to increase
    the ceiling for Lower Brule has been requested and LBRWS is proceeding
    with the optimism that the amendment will be approved in a time frame
    that will not impact the progress that is currently being made. To that
    extent, LBRWS is requesting $1,354,000 in fiscal year 2002 funds. This
    amount would provide adequate funds to construct the Kennebec to
    Reliance core pipeline and complete the core pipeline to be provided
    under the LBRWS. This will allow service to all of the cities and rural
    users in the WR/LJ system in Lyman County.
        The completion of the core pipeline will allow LBRWS to turn its
    focus to the on-Reservation distribution service areas, with current
    cost estimates totaling $6,886,000. The first of these to be
    constructed will be the Fort Hale Service Area, which was previously
    designed but not constructed due to lack of funding and a commitment to
    complete construction of the core pipeline prior to beginning the
    distribution lines. Again, completion of the core pipeline between
    Kennebec and Reliance and the distribution pipeline to serve our on-
    Reservation users will only be possible with an increase in its
    authorized cost ceiling of $8,240,000.
        On a related topic, the Mni Wiconi Act authorized in Public Law
    100-516 was amended by Public Law 103-434 to authorize and fund a
    wastewater needs assessment for the three Tribal Reservations within
    the Project. This assessment has been completed and costs have been
    identified, however, further analysis will be needed at the time
    funding is obtained to update the cost of the necessary improvements.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the City of Salem, Oregon

        The City of Salem requests your consideration in obtaining $200,000
    in additional funding from the United States Bureau of Reclamation for
    the continued development of a natural treatment system being built by
    the City of Salem, Oregon. Salem has been working since 1996 to develop
    a natural reclamation system (NRS) to complement Salem's existing
    secondary wastewater treatment plant. This natural system uses
    treatment wetlands composed of shallow marshes to treat wastewater
    prior to the water either being returned to the Willamette River or
    possibly being reused as a valuable source of irrigation water.
        The Salem Natural Reclamation System was originally authorized by
    Congress in 1998 as amendments to the Reclamation Wastewater and
    Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575). This
    law authorizes the United States Bureau of Reclamation to participate
    in the (1) planning, (2) design and (3) construction of the NRS with
    the Federal share of the project to not exceed 25 percent of the total
    cost of the project. The original cost estimate for the Natural
    Reclamation System was $35 million. The City of Salem wants to thank
    you again for this authorizing legislation.
        The process the City of Salem is following to develop the full
    scale Natural Reclamation System is to first build a demonstration
    project at Salem's Willow Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, operate and
    test the demonstration system over a four-year period, and finally,
    depending on the outcome, make a decision on the full-scale system by
    the year 2005. The 2005 date fits with the planned expansion of the
    Willow Lake Treatment Plant.
        Actual cost-share funding of the project is to be obtained from the
    Bureau of Reclamation for each phase of work through a Cost Sharing
    Agreement between the City and the Bureau. The planning study for the
    Natural Reclamation System was completed by the City's consultant,
    CH2M-Hill, in December 1999, and a cost sharing agreement with the
    Bureau of Reclamation was completed in June 2000. The City received
    $50,000 from the Bureau in July 2000 for 25 percent of the planning
    study and wants to again thank both you and the Bureau for this
    support.
        Next, the City had our consultant, CH2M-Hill, prepare design
    drawings and specifications for the Natural Reclamation System. Part of
    the design process has been the establishment of a citizens' advisory
    committee to learn about the NRS project and help make the project
    successful. The Bureau of Reclamation staff are involved with this
    committee. The cost of the design is slightly more than $800,000, and
    the 25 percent share would be $200,000. The City is interested in
    amending the cost sharing agreement with the Bureau in order to receive
    these funds.
        Finally, bid opening for the construction of the demonstration
    Natural Reclamation System was held April 4, 2001. The City received
    eight bids on the demonstration project and the low bid should be
    awarded within the next few weeks. Construction of the demonstration
    system should begin soon and should be completed by next spring 2002.
        In summary, the City of Salem has appreciated the support on this
    project from Congress and the Bureau of Reclamation and hopes you will
    be able to provide additional funding.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada

                                  introduction
        It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
    the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
    resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
    Nevada.
        Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
    power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
    designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
    Colorado River Basin.
        In response, representatives of the U.S. Department of the
    Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
    along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
    lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
    a first-of-its kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
    protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
    wildlife and their habitat.
        The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
    been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
    Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the Federal
    Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
    services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
    help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation plan
    is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
                              program description
        The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
    recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
    conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
    under the Federal and California Endangered Species Act.
        The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
    lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
    to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
    restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
    following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
    desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
    cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
    non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
        The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
    program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
    power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
    development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
    environmental compliance for participating Federal agencies, pursuant
    to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and non-Federal
    agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
    programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
    Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
        Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
    been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
    for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
    razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
    initiated.
                            program development cost
        Current, program development costs are projected at about $6.7
    million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
    A Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
    development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
    measures. The Federal and non-Federal participants shared program
    development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-Federal
    participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
    non-Federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
    the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
                             program implementation
        The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
    in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
    series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
    habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
    planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
    with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
    the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
              colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
        The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
    in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
    1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
    of riparian, wetland, and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado
    River. In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as
    a model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
    States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and various other public and private
    agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
    River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
        Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
    the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
    on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
    Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
    opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
    restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
    receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
    pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
    enhancement of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and continued
    collaboration with ongoing Native American, Federal, and state
    environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
                         pilot project area description
        The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
    to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
    restore native riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats modified through
    development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
    resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
    restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
    water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex, and 200 acres of fallowed
    agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
    fish species, 20 species of reptiles, and 9 amphibian species utilize
    the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
    expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
    endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, and
    razorback sucker.
                             pilot project actions
        In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
    restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
    This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
    measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
    be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
    channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
    of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
    following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
      --Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
            flow in existing wetlands;
      --Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
      --Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees
            in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
      --Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
            and aid in the development of future maintenance and
            restoration activity recommendations; and
      --Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
            recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
                             pilot project funding
        It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
    Project of $2.5 million be funded through the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
    (LCROP) budget line item.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

                                  introduction
        It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
    the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
    resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
    Nevada.
        Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
    power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
    designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
    Colorado River Basin.
        In response, representatives of the U. S. Department of the
    Interior, Arizona, California, and Nevada, Native American tribes,
    along with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the
    lower Colorado, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
    a first-of-its kind multi-species conservation program aimed at
    protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
    wildlife and their habitat.
        The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
    been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
    Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the
    federaly Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained
    the services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams
    to help develop a plan for the conservation program. The conservation
    plan is scheduled for completion in Fall 2002.
                              program description
        The multi-species conservation program will work toward the
    recovery of listed species through habitat restoration and species
    conservation, and reduce the likelihood of additional species listings
    under the Federal and California Endangered Species Act.
        The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
    lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
    to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
    restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
    following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
    desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to conserve, protect, and
    re-vegetate native cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the
    floodplain, and remove the non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has
    become established.
        The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
    program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
    power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
    development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
    environmental compliance for participating Federal agencies, pursuant
    to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and non-Federal
    agencies under Section 10. California Agencies will also pursue
    programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
    Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
        Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
    been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
    for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
    razorback sucker, bonytail, and southwestern willow flycatcher were
    initiated. LCR MSCP Interim conservation measures have been previously
    awarded to the CRIT for habitat restoration projects associated with
    the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve.
                            program development cost
        The cost to develop the long-term conservation plan is projected to
    be approximately $6.7 million over five years for planning needs and
    implementation of ICMs. A Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing agreement is
    in place for development of the program and implementation of interim
    conservation measures. The Federal and non-Federal participants shared
    program development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-Federal
    participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
    non-Federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
    the remaining 20 percent by the State of Nevada.
                             program implementation
        The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
    in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
    series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
    habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
    planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
    with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
    the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
              colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
        The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
    in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
    1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
    of riparian, wetland, and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado
    River. In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as
    a model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
    States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and various other public and private
    agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
    River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP).
        Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
    the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
    on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
    Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
    opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
    restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
    receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
    pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
    enhancement of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and continued
    collaboration with ongoing Native American, Federal, and state
    environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
                         pilot project area description
        The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
    to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
    restore native riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats modified through
    development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
    resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
    restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
    water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex, and 200 acres of fallowed
    agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
    fish species, 20 species of reptiles, and 9 amphibian species utilize
    the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
    expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
    endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, and
    razorback sucker.
                             pilot project actions
        In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
    restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
    This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
    measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
    be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
    channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
    of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
    following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
      --Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
            flow in existing wetlands;
      --Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
      --Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees
            in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
      --Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
            and aid in the development of future maintenance and
            restoration activity recommendations; and
      --Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
            recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
                             pilot project funding
        It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
    Project of $2.5 million be funded through the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
    (LCROP) budget line item, for which Federal, tribal, and state MSCP
    participants shall receive credit as part of their long-term
    conservation commitments.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Arizona Department of Water Resources

        Your support and leadership are requested in securing additional
    fiscal year 2002 funding for the Department of the Interior with
    respect to the Federal/State/tribal Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
    Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). The LCR MSCP is the multi-stakeholder
    process, organized in 1995, that is developing a long-term endangered
    species and habitat conservation program for the mainstream of the
    Lower Colorado River in the States of Arizona, California and Nevada.
    This comprehensive program, when completed and implemented in 2002, is
    intended to meet the needs of over 100 species and aquatic, wetland and
    riparian habitats along the Lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to the
    Southerly International Boundary with Mexico.
        The purpose of the LCR MSCP is to provide Federal, State and tribal
    managers and users of the Lower Colorado River's water and
    hydroelectric power resources with a 50-year environmental compliance
    program meeting the needs of the Federal and California Endangered
    Species Acts, California Environmental Quality Act, California Natural
    Communities Conservation Planning Act and National Environmental Policy
    Act. This long-term compliance program is required in order for the
    Lower Colorado River Basin States to continue current River operations
    and accommodate future water and power operations.
        The Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department) is the state
    agency charged with protecting Arizona's interests and rights in the
    water resources of the Colorado River System. In this capacity, the
    Department and approximately 35 other organizations and agencies,
    Federal, State and tribal, are members of the LCR MSCP Steering
    Committee, and have been designated as an ``Ecosystem Conservation
    Recovery Implementation Team'' (ECRIT) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service for the purpose of the preparing the LCR MSCP, pursuant to
    Section 4(f)(2) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
        The purpose of this request for additional funding for the Bureau
    of Reclamation's Lower Colorado Region Lower Colorado River Operations
    Program (LCROP) budget line item, is in support of a critically needed
    habitat restoration project on the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT)
    reservation near Parker, Arizona. The CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail
    Backwater Restoration Project proposal to restore approximately 1,500
    acres of native aquatic, wetland and riparian habitat will provide
    immediate benefits to many Federally listed threatened and endangered
    species, as well as many state-listed or sensitive species. Enclosed
    with this letter is written testimony which describes the LCR MSCP and
    restoration project in more detail in support of our request.
        The Colorado River Indian Tribes are an active participant in the
    LCR MSCP and are a recognized leader in the implementation of habitat
    restoration activities associated with the re-establishment of native
    riparian habitat along the Lower Colorado River. The CRIT habitat
    restoration is intended to kickoff implementation of the larger, more
    comprehensive species conservation and habitat restoration effort being
    developed through the consensus-based LCR MSCP.
        The State of Arizona's Water Protection Fund, a riparian
    restoration and enhancement program, funded two other complementary
    restoration projects on CRIT lands. Those projects were recently
    completed, and have resulted in the successful restoration of over 175
    acres of riparian and wetland habitat. The State of Arizona contributed
    more than $1.3 million towards the implementation of these
    complementary projects.
        The Department recognizes that the Bureau of Reclamation's LCROP
    budget line item is used for a variety of programs important to the
    Lower Colorado River Basin States. Specifically, Reclamation's
    continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1997 U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion for current River
    operations is critical to maintaining the status quo. For this reason,
    the Department respectfully requests that the LCROP line item budget be
    increased by $2.5 million in support of the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail
    Backwater Restoration Project, on behalf of the LCR MSCP process.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water and hydropower resource to the 17 million residents of southern
    California. Preservation and conservation of the Lower Colorado River's
    habitat and species is of major importance not only to the southwestern
    United States, but also to the Country as a whole.
        The Department greatly appreciates your support of the LCR MSCP's
    CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Project proposal, and
    again asks for your assistance and leadership in securing additional
    funding for this important project.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Lower Colorado River Basin States--Arizona,
                             California and Nevada

                                  introduction
        It has long been said that the Colorado River is the lifeblood of
    the West. Today, the Colorado River supplies vital water and power
    resources for more than 20 million people in Arizona, California and
    Nevada.
        Concerns have been raised about the reliability of these water and
    power resources following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994
    designation of critical habitat for four endangered fish species in the
    Colorado River Basin.
        In response, representatives of the U. S. Department of the
    Interior, Arizona, California, Nevada and Native American tribes, along
    with various stakeholders and water and power agencies along the Lower
    Colorado River, have formed a regional partnership, which is developing
    a first-of-its kind Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) aimed at
    protecting sensitive, threatened and endangered species of fish,
    wildlife and their habitat.
        The partnership formed a 35-member steering committee, which has
    been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an Ecosystem
    Conservation and Recovery Implementation Team (ECRIT) under the Federal
    Endangered Species Act. The steering committee has retained the
    services of professional facilitator and technical consultant teams to
    help develop a plan for the MSCP. The MSCP is scheduled for completion
    in Fall 2002.
                              program description
        The MSCP will work toward the recovery of listed species through
    habitat restoration and species conservation, and reduce the likelihood
    of additional species listings under the Federal and California
    Endangered Species Act.
        The MSCP planning area includes the historic floodplain of the
    Lower Colorado River and reservoir full-pool elevations from Lake Mead
    to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico. MSCP habitat
    restoration and preservation activities are intended to address the
    following habitat types: aquatic, wetland/marsh, riparian and upland
    desert fringe. It is the intent of the MSCP to re-vegetate native
    cottonwood-willow and mesquite trees in the floodplain, and remove the
    non-native salt cedar, or tamarisk, that has become established.
        The MSCP will be implemented over a 50-year period. The long-term
    program is also intended to accommodate current water diversions and
    power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power
    development. This comprehensive program will provide long-term
    environmental compliance for participating Federal agencies, pursuant
    to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, and non-Federal
    agencies under Section 10. California agencies will also pursue
    programs and actions to achieve compliance with California
    Environmental Quality and Endangered Species Acts.
        Over the past four years, interim conservation measures (ICMs) have
    been developed and implemented to address the immediate critical needs
    for certain endangered species. ICMs benefiting the endangered
    Razorback Sucker, Bonytail, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher were
    initiated.
        In addition, implementation of this pilot project will enhance two
    other restoration projects, a riparian restoration and enhancement
    program, recently completed on CRIT lands and funded by the State of
    Arizona's Water Protection Fund. Those projects have resulted in the
    successful restoration of over 175 acres of riparian and wetland
    habitat. The State of Arizona contributed more than $1.3 million
    towards the implementation of these complementary projects.
                            program development cost
        Current program development costs are projected at about $6.7
    million over five years for planning needs and implementation of ICMs.
    A Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing agreement is in place for
    development of the program and implementation of interim conservation
    measures. The Federal and non-Federal participants shared program
    development costs on a ``50/50'' basis. Among the non-Federal
    participants, the shares were distributed as follows: 50 percent of the
    non-Federal share was borne by California, 30 percent by Arizona, and
    the remaining 20 percent by Nevada.
                             program implementation
        The MSCP will be implemented over the fifty-year period beginning
    in late-2002. However, MSCP proponents are desirous of implementing a
    series of ``pilot projects'' in order to begin evaluating potential
    habitat restoration and species conservation technologies within the
    planning area. Additionally, the pilot projects would be supplemented
    with species and habitat monitoring and research programs, providing
    the basis for a comprehensive adaptive management approach.
              colorado river indian tribes pilot project proposal
        The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have played an active role
    in the restoration of critical habitats for the past eight years. Since
    1993, the tribe has restored, preserved and protected over 2,000 acres
    of riparian, wetland and aquatic resources on the Lower Colorado River.
    In particular, the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve project has served as a
    model for riparian habitat restoration in the southwestern United
    States for Native American Tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and various other public and private
    agencies. More importantly, it serves as a model for the Lower Colorado
    River MSCP.
        Located just south and west of Parker, Arizona, in La Paz County,
    the Ahakhav and Deertail Backwater Restoration Pilot Project is located
    on the Colorado River on the Colorado River Indian Reservation. The
    Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot Project provides numerous
    opportunities for MSCP covered species conservation and native habitat
    restoration. Many of the nearly 100 species proposed for coverage, or
    receiving benefits from MSCP conservation, occur on lands within the
    pilot project area. Anticipated actions for this pilot project include
    enhancement of riparian, wetland and aquatic habitats and continued
    collaboration with ongoing Native American, Federal and State
    environmental planning efforts, specifically the MSCP.
                         pilot project area description
        The Ahakhav and Deertail backwaters extend from Rivermile (RM) 169
    to 174 on the Colorado River. This restoration pilot project plans to
    restore native riparian, wetland and aquatic habitats modified through
    development of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power
    resources over the past century. This proposed pilot project would
    restore over 1,000 acres of native riparian habitat, 200 acres of open
    water, 250 acres of wetland/marsh complex and 200 acres of fallowed
    agricultural land. Over 300 species of birds, 32 species of mammals, 19
    fish species, 20 species of reptiles and 9 amphibian species utilize
    the sites. In addition, 29 threatened or endangered species are
    expected to benefit from the proposed pilot project, including the
    endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail and
    Razorback Sucker.
                             pilot project actions
        In keeping with the overarching intent of the MSCP, habitat
    restoration at these sites is the primary component of the project.
    This MSCP pilot project seeks to restore wildlife habitat and some
    measure of pre-development hydraulic conditions in this area. This will
    be accomplished through re-excavation and re-connection of historic
    channel features, installation of water control structures, conversion
    of agricultural land and riparian re-vegetation activities. The
    following is a list of pilot project goals and objectives:
      --Excavate historic channel features to improve water quality and
            flow in existing wetlands;
      --Convert fallowed agricultural lands into cottonwood-willow forests;
      --Re-vegetate stands of native cottonwood, willow and mesquite trees
            in areas where exotic plant species have invaded;
      --Implement pre- and post-restoration monitoring to measure success
            and aid in the development of future maintenance and
            restoration activity recommendations; and,
      --Provide environmental and cultural education and low-impact
            recreational opportunities for surrounding communities.
                             pilot project funding
        It is proposed that the CRIT Ahakhav and Deertail Restoration Pilot
    Project of $2.5 million be funded by increasing the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Lower Colorado River Operations
    (LCROP) budget line item.
                                     ______

                            Letter From Jim Geringer

                      State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor,
                                           Cheyenne, WY, April 4, 2001.
    Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
    Hon. Harry Reid, Ranking Minority Member,
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
            Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Domenici and Ranking Minority Member Reid: This
    letter is sent in support of fiscal year 2002 funding for the Bureau of
    Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. I request,
    inclusion of this letter into the formal hearing record concerning
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations.
        The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for more
    than 18 million people in seven states. It also provides irrigation
    water for about 2 million acres of land. The salinity of the river is
    high, in almost equal part, because of natural features such as
    underlying salt formations and saline springs and the use of water by
    man. Over-application of irrigation water by agriculture is also a
    large contributor of salt to the river, as irrigation water seeps
    through saline soils and returns to the river.
        The 1944 Mexico Treaty obligates the United States to provide 1.5
    million acre-feet of water to Mexico, but does not address quality.
    Mexico filed a formal protest in the 1960's when the salinity levels of
    water being delivered pursuant to the Treaty increased sharply. Several
    minutes to the Treaty were negotiated, including Minute 242, to address
    the water quality concerns voiced by Mexico. That minute requires that
    the average annual salinity of the Colorado delivered upstream from
    Morelos Dam (Mexico's principal diversion dam) does not exceed the
    average salinity of the water arriving at Imperial Dam by a specified
    amount.
        The Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the 1972
    amendments to the Clean Water Act required the seven Basin states to
    adopt water quality standards for salinity levels in the Colorado
    River. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum was created as
    an interstate coordination mechanism in 1973, consisting of
    gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. To address salinity problems, and ensure
    the United States could meet its obligation to Mexico, the Congress
    passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I
    addressed the United States' obligations to Mexico to control river
    salinity concentrations, while Title II of the Act authorized measures
    upstream of Imperial Dam and directed the Secretary of the Interior to
    construct several salinity control projects, most of which are located
    in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Title II of the Act, which was amended
    in 1984 and 1995, directed the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a $75
    million pilot program to award grants on a competitive-bid basis for
    salinity control projects. Cost savings under this pilot program have
    far exceeded expectations--down to about $30 per ton of salt control,
    from the previous average of about $80 per ton. The Forum was heavily
    involved in the development of the 1974 Act and has continued to have a
    very active role in overseeing the Federal agencies' salinity control
    program efforts.
        For the past 28 years, the seven-state Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the Federal agencies,
    including the Bureau of Reclamation, in implementing this unique,
    collaborative and important program. At its recent October 2000
    meeting, the Forum recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation should
    expend $17,500,000 in fiscal year 2002. This funding level is
    appropriate to reduce a growing ``backlog'' in meeting the pace of salt
    loading reductions necessary to control the salinity of Colorado River
    waters so as not to exceed the numeric salinity concentration criteria
    contained within the water quality standards for the Colorado River.
    Failure to maintain the standards' numeric criteria could result in the
    imposition of state-line water quality standards and impair the
    Colorado River Basin states' ability to develop their Compact-
    apportioned water supplies. ``Catch-up'' funding in the future will
    require expending greater sums of money, increasing the likelihood that
    the numeric salinity criteria 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.
        The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the Subcommittee's support
    of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
    respectfully suggest this important basin-wide water quality
    improvement program merits continued funding and support by your
    Subcommittee.
                Best regards,
                                                  Jim Geringer,
                                                              Governor.
                                     ______

       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.
    Public Law 104-20 reconfirmed the Bureau of Reclamation's role. A total
    of $17.5 million is requested for fiscal year 2002 to implement the
    authorized salinity control program of the Bureau of Reclamation. The
    President's request for funding is not known at this time. An
    appropriation of $17.5 million for Reclamation's salinity control
    program is necessary to protect water quality standards for salinity,
    to 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 salinity standards for 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 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. I am New Mexico's
    representative to the Forum. The Forum has become the primary means for
    the 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. Damages in the United States may soon be approaching $1 billion
    per year. Every salinity concentration increase of 30 milligrams per
    liter in the Colorado River causes salinity damages of approximately
    $100 million in the United States and threatens the quality of water
    delivered to Mexico that is protected by treaty under Minute No. 242 of
    the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), United States
    and Mexico.
        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 to protect the quality of the water that the United
    States is obligated to deliver to Mexico. The amount of appropriations
    requested in the previous President's budget request was inadequate to
    protect the quality of water in the Colorado River and prevent
    unnecessary salinity damages in the states of the Lower Colorado River
    Basin. Although the United States has always met the water quality
    standard for salinity of water delivered to Mexico under Minute No. 242
    of the IBWC, the United States through the U.S. Section of IBWC is
    currently addressing a request by Mexico for better quality water.
        Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
    July 1995 (Public Law 104-20). The salinity control program authorized
    by Congress by the amendment 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 2002. The Basin States
    cost sharing adds 43 cents for each Federal dollar appropriated.
        Public Law 106-459 of last year gives the Bureau of Reclamation
    additional spending authority for the salinity control program. 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.
        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 by the Forum's Executive Director, Jack
    Barnett, in request of this appropriation, and the recommendation of an
    appropriation of the same amount by the Federally chartered Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the California Society of Professional Engineers

        The California Society of Professional Engineers recommends your
    support of the fiscal year 2002, Federal Water Appropriations as
    recommended by the California Water Commission.
        We have tracked the screening processes of the Commission each year
    as the final recommendations are developed. The Commission's process
    includes several discussions with clients, proponents, opponents, and
    the agencies as to their capabilities. We can assure you that the
    projects and funding levels recommended are needed, are sound and will
    contribute to economic, health, environmental and social benefits for
    California's citizens.
        We call emphasis to the need to continue to support all projects
    associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta program, as this is the lynchpin
    necessary to complete in order to move on to other projects affecting
    conveyance and delivery of water to end use consumers.
        The California Society of Professional Engineers is a 50-year old,
    2500-member organization of professional engineers of all disciplines
    and areas of employment (construction, education, government, industry
    and private practice).
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the City of Oceanside

        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 a Bureau of
    Reclamation project and two Army Corps of Engineers projects that are
    critically important to our community.
        First, the City of Oceanside requests $407,675 from the Bureau of
    Reclamation, Title 16 Water Reuse, for the expansion of the City's
    Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development
    Project.
        The City of Oceanside has been authorized to design, plan and
    construct a 3 million gallon per day expansion of its Mission Basin
    Brackish Groundwater Desalting Research and Development Project. The
    additional funding will reduce the impact of the Mission Basin Brackish
    Groundwater Desalting Research and Development project expansion on the
    ratepayer, as well as reduce the amount of imported water purchased by
    the City to supply its residents. The project will lessen the demand
    for imported water from the Colorado River and environmentally
    sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Creating local, highly
    reliable water supplies is a goal of the Metropolitan Water District of
    Southern California, the San Diego Water Authority and the California
    State Legislature.
        The City has received $1,852,325 to date in federal appropriations
    for this project. The actual cost to expand the project's capacity by 3
    million gallons per day is $9.04 million. Therefore, a residual of
    $407,675 is allowed for the 3 million gallon per day expansion.
        Second, the City of Oceanside requests $1 million from the Army
    Corps of Engineers' General Investigations (GI) Account to continue a
    special Oceanside Shoreline Study to determine how to mitigate the
    erosion of Oceanside's beaches resulting from the construction of the
    Camp Pendleton Marine Base Harbor.
        Section 415 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
    authorizes the City's requested Shoreline Special Study at full federal
    expense. Total cost of the three-year project is approximately $2
    million. A total of $325,000 was included in the fiscal year 2001
    Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for this study. The
    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 1950-52. 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.
        Finally, the City of Oceanside requests $1.27 million from the Army
    Corps of Engineers' Operations and Maintenance (OM) Account for
    maintenance dredging for the entrance to Oceanside and Camp Pendleton
    Marine Corps Base Harbor. (This request for funding is for year two of
    a three-year contract. It has also been included in the fiscal year
    2002 Administration Budget).
        In 1960, Congress authorized (Public Law 85-500) full federal
    funding for maintenance of the Oceanside Harbor in recognition of the
    fact that the harbor entrance was constructed as an emergency wartime
    measure in 1942. To this day, the Oceanside Harbor entrance continues
    to serve the vital military installation of Camp Pendleton Harbor. In
    1992, the Harbor District partnered with the federal government in a
    local cost share agreement to modify the harbor entrance and the
    authorized channel depth to reduce storm damage, provide surge
    protection to the harbor's infrastructure, and provide significant
    reduction of navigational hazards that have produced 11 deaths, 49
    serious injuries, 134 boating accidents and $1.5 million of damage to
    vessels in the harbor entrance.
        Oceanside Harbor is the only harbor between San Diego and Dana
    Point in Orange County. The State of California and the Federal
    Government have designated it as a harbor of refuge. The Oceanside
    Harbor would experience severe negative impacts should the dredging
    project not be funded. Such action would prevent access to the Pacific
    Ocean to the United States Navy and Marine Corps as joint users of the
    entrance channel. The economic impact upon the local fishing fleet, the
    commercial sport fishing fleet and the 1,000 recreational vessels
    berthed here, as well as the businesses supported by the harbor, would
    be critically impacted.
        This maintenance program is essential for the safe navigation into
    Oceanside Harbor and the U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Harbor.
    The program also provides beach sand restoration, shoreline protection,
    recreational and commerce benefits. In fiscal year 2001 $2.035 million
    was budgeted for this project. Third year funding is estimated to be
    approximately $1 million.
        Mr. Chairman, again, on behalf of the City of Oceanside, I request
    the Committee's support for these three critically important projects.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Colusa Basin Drainage District--California

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2002 budget request of the
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
        The Colusa Basin Drainage District respectfully requests that the
    Subcommittee support an appropriation of $500,000 in the Bureau of
    Reclamation budget for planning and design of flood control and
    watershed enhancement elements of the Colusa Basin Integrated Resources
    Management Plan authorized by the 106th Congress.
        The cost-shared program is designed to address flooding problems
    and provide opportunities for future conjunctive use of water resources
    to meet the diverse needs of agricultural, urban and wildlife interests
    in the 650,000-acre Colusa Basin on the western side of the Sacramento
    Valley.
        The District has secured State cost share funding for the site
    specific feasibility study of addressing flooding through structural
    and non-structural methods in three watersheds in the northern portion
    of the District. Past hydrologic studies show storms in this area
    caused the most damage to homes, agricultural land and public
    infrastructure. In fact, damage to public infrastructure is estimated
    to be 65 percent of the losses.
        The program includes 10,000 acres of environmental restoration
    measures, small-scale detention reservoirs on intermittent streams that
    are prone to rapid flooding. The program will be implemented over a 20-
    to 25-year period on a willing-landowner basis. Any incidental water
    supplies created by the program will be devoted to environmental
    purposes.
        We thank the Subcommittee for its past support and request that
    Reclamation continue to play a significant role in this project that is
    a model for the State and nation.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northern California Water Association

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Guy,
    Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association. I
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
    water suppliers and individual farmer members of the Northern
    California Water Association (NCWA). We submit the following testimony
    in support of our request that an additional $9,000,000 (above the
    President's request) be earmarked in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations bill, under Bureau of Reclamation,
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, Anadromous Fish
    Screening Program, for fish screen projects on the Sacramento River.
    These screens represent classic ``win-win'' projects to benefit both
    the economy and the environment and are broadly supported in our
    communities.
          northern california water association mission and membership
        The NCWA mission is to promote the economic, social and
    environmental viability of Northern California by enhancing and
    preserving the water rights and supplies of our members. Our
    Association was formed in 1992 to provide agricultural water suppliers,
    farmers and landowners a united regional voice on California water
    policy. NCWA is committed to constructive leadership in the pursuit of
    real solutions to California's water problems. NCWA today represents
    nearly 70 agricultural water suppliers and individual farmers who
    irrigate over 850,000 acres of Northern California farmland.
        NCWA's membership is geographically diverse, extending from the
    Coast Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills, and from Redding to
    Sacramento. Our members rely on the waters of the Sacramento, Feather,
    Yuba and American Rivers, smaller tributaries and groundwater to
    produce nearly every type of food and fiber grown in the region. These
    waters provide equally important fish and wildlife habitat and
    recreational uses.
        The Sacramento Valley's initiative and effort to help protect
    salmon and other aquatic species is unprecedented and is now recognized
    as one of the most exciting and progressive voluntary salmon
    restoration efforts in the United States. Today, over a dozen NCWA
    members, representing over 500,000 acres of irrigable land, are in
    various stages of developing screens to prevent fish entrainment at
    their diversions. As a result, nearly 75 percent of all agricultural
    water use from the Sacramento River will soon flow through new, state-
    of-the-art, fish screens.
        Since 1994, many NCWA members have initiated far-reaching efforts
    to screen diversions, refurbish fish ladders, construct siphons, remove
    dams, create habitat conservation plans and implement other habitat
    improvement projects to enhance the environment. We submit this request
    for funding, and your support, for our member agencies' ongoing efforts
    to enhance fishery protection and water infrastructure efficiency in
    the Sacramento Valley.
                          statutory/program authority
        The Central Valley Improvement Act (CVPIA; Public Law 102-575,
    Title 34) and the CalFed Program both emphasize the importance of
    providing additional anadromous fish species protection on the
    Sacramento River. The primary objective of the CVPIA Anadromous Fish
    Screen Program (CVPIA Section 3406(b)(21)) is to protect juvenile
    salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, bass and shad from entrainment. The
    Secretary of the Interior is required by the CVPIA to assist the State
    of California in developing and implementing measures to avoid losses
    of juvenile anadromous fish resulting from unscreened or inadequately
    screened diversions.
                     sacramento river fish screen projects
        The Natomas Mutual Water Company, Reclamation District 108 and
    Sutter Mutual Water Company are at the forefront of efforts to provide
    anadromous fish species protection on the Sacramento River. By
    consolidating existing diversions, installing new screening technology
    and upgrading and integrating distribution facilities, Natomas, RD 108
    and Sutter are not only improving fishery protection, but also are
    simultaneously increasing water operation/management efficiencies.
        Natomas Mutual Water Company (Natomas) has completed the
    feasibility, preliminary design and environmental evaluation work
    associated with consolidation of five Sacramento River diversions into
    two screened facilities. The project will remove pumping from an area
    (``Natomas Cross Canal Channel'') that can be preserved for both fish
    passage as well as provide new protections for terrestrial species by
    preserving and enhancing important habitat.
        The consolidation of diversions and upgrading of associated
    infrastructure will allow the Natomas project to also assist
    neighboring communities in achieving regional water management
    improvements by connecting the Sacramento and American Rivers for the
    first time, thus making regional groundwater recharge and banking
    possible while reducing diversion impacts on the American River. Over
    fifty regional water, business, environmental and public interest
    groups support this project. Thus the consolidated diversion and new
    screen facility is an important component for future integrated water
    resources management and cooperation in the American River basin.
        Reclamation District 108 (RD 108) last year completed construction
    of a $12 million screen on the Sacramento River. The project, located
    at the district's Wilkins Slough diversion, protects migrating
    endangered winter-run Chinook salmon, as well as the spring-run Chinook
    and steelhead trout. The design for the new screen facility was chosen
    after several years were spent examining the performance of alternate
    screen technologies. The district held dedication ceremonies for the
    completed project on April 14, 2000.
        RD 108 is currently developing a new fish screen project that will
    consolidate its three largest unscreened river diversions into one
    pumping plant with a new fish protection screen facility. This project
    is under reconnaissance investigation, scheduled for completion in
    April 2001. Total preliminary cost for design and construction of these
    facilities is estimated at $12 million. Funding assistance for the
    reconnaissance investigation has been received from the California
    Department of Fish and Game.
        Sutter Mutual Water Company (Sutter Mutual) is proceeding with a
    fish screen feasibility study concerning its diversion on the
    Sacramento River at Tisdale Weir. This is the last major unscreened
    diversion on the Sacramento River, and thus a priority project for the
    California Department of Fish and Game, CalFed and the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation. A feasibility study, funded by the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation, is scheduled for completion in June 2001. Consolidation of
    one or two other Sutter Mutual diversions into an upgraded diversion at
    Tisdale is being investigated as part of the feasibility study.
    Feasibility, preconstruction engineering and design should be completed
    in the fall of 2002, with the project constructed and operational by
    the fall of 2003 or 2004. Early estimates indicate a total cost of $18-
    $30 million, depending on the results of the feasibility of
    consolidating the Sutter Mutual diversions.
        Individually and together, these projects to consolidate and screen
    diversions and improve water supply infrastructure and efficiencies
    represent the best efforts of local communities working with state and
    federal agencies to provide state-of-the-art fishery protection in
    conjunction with efficient water delivery to meet agricultural and
    human needs. We strongly urge and respectfully request your support for
    $9,000,000 in addition to the President's budget request for Sacramento
    River Fish Screen Projects, under the Bureau of Reclamation, Central
    Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, Anadromous Fish
    Screening Program.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Board of
                                   Directors

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Donald
    Bransford, President of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Board of
    Directors. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony on
    behalf of the water suppliers, individual farmer members, and farm
    families dependant on Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.
        The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (``GCID'') is located in the
    heart of the Sacramento Valley and is the largest and one of the oldest
    diverters of water from the Sacramento River. GCID diverts water from
    the Sacramento River through a 65-mile long irrigation canal into a
    complex system of over 430 miles of laterals. The water is delivered to
    more than 1,200 families who farm approximately 141,000 acres of
    valuable, productive, agricultural land. Farmers within GCID grow such
    diverse crops as rice, wheat, tomatoes, cotton, corn, walnuts, almonds
    and pistachios, which are shipped across the nation and the world. More
    than $270 million of agricultural products are produced annually on
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District farms, helping to sustain an estimated
    12,000 jobs in the region.
        GCID is also the sole source of surface water deliveries for three
    wildlife refuges--the Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa National Wildlife
    Refuges--that comprise some 20,000 acres of critical wildlife habitat.
    Winter water supplied by GCID to thousands of acres of rice land also
    provides a rich oasis for migrating waterfowl.
        Specifically, GCID has three requests of the Energy and Water
    Development Subcommittee in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill.
    First, GCID requests the Subcommittee's support for a an allocation of
    $6,600,000 in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,
    under Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Management and
    Development, to continue work on the GCID fish screen improvement
    project. The amount requested is $6,000,000 more than the budget
    request for the project. The additional funds are needed to begin to
    reimburse GCID for costs incurred by the District that have yet to be
    cost-shared by the Bureau of Reclamation.
        The GCID Fish Screen Improvement Project is critical to the
    protection of five runs of anadromous fish in the Sacramento River,
    including the winter-run Chinook salmon. It has consistently been among
    the highest priority fish protection projects in the Central Valley.
    The project is also critical to the restoration of full water
    deliveries to more than 1,200 families who farm approximately 141,000
    acres of valuable, productive, agricultural land.
        Pursuant to the authorization provided in the Central Valley
    Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    (Reclamation) is the lead Federal agency working in cooperation with
    GCID and the California Department of Fish and Game as co-lead state
    agencies, to implement long-term fish protection at GCID's Sacramento
    River diversion near Hamilton City.
        A final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
    was completed and reviewed extensively, resulting in the selection of
    the preferred fish screen alternative in early 1998. The preferred
    alternative for the Fish Screen Improvement Project consists of two
    important elements, the fish screen extension and the gradient
    facility. Construction of the fish screen extension and related channel
    improvements began in spring of 1998 and will continue into early 2001.
    An appropriation of $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 was granted to
    continue construction on the new fish screen facility at the site.
    These funds were appropriated as a non-reimbursable construction
    expense under the CVP, Sacramento River Division as set forth in the
    authorizing language of the CVPIA.
        Reclamation staff estimates a need for an appropriation of $2.6
    million for fiscal year 2002 for the fish screen extension portion of
    the Project. These funds will be necessary in fiscal year 2002 to cover
    the costs of the intensive hydraulic and biological testing during
    fiscal year 2001 that must be performed after completion of
    construction. The testing is necessary to confirm that the screen is
    functioning as designed and to ensure that off-site mitigation work
    stays on schedule.
        GCID urges support for a total of $6.6 million for the project, $4
    million above the budget request, to begin reimbursing the district for
    costs incurred by the District in excess of the District's required
    cost share. GCID's growers have contributed to GCID's share of the cost
    of the permanent fish facility. To date, GCID has expended more than
    $12 million on construction of the fish screen extension, biological
    monitoring, environmental review of the long-term solution, land
    acquisition, environmental mitigation and downstream channel
    improvements. This represents $4 million more than the District's
    authorized cost share.
        Second, GCID requests an appropriation of $4,000,000 in the Energy
    and Water Development Appropriations Bill, under Corps of Engineers,
    Construction General, to continue hydraulic and biological testing on
    the gradient restoration facility and initiate bank stabilization work
    in the vicinity of River Mile 208. This represents an increase of
    $1,716,000 above the budget request of $2,284,000 for the project. The
    project is critical to stabilizing the Sacramento River at GCID's
    diversion and ensuring the long-term viability of the new fish screen
    structure at the Hamilton City Pumping Plant under inevitable changing
    river conditions.
        Restoring the gradient on the Sacramento River near Hamilton City
    is an essential component of the Fish Screen Improvement Project
    (Project). When fully constructed, the Project will vastly improve the
    passage of fish in the reach of the River near GCID's diversion. The
    design of the
        Gradient Facility is based upon natural riffles observed in the
    Sacramento River. By mimicking a natural riffle, the Gradient Facility
    will provide for fish passage and recreational boating through the
    Facility. It will stabilize the river elevation and improve the
    effectiveness of the new fish screen built at GCID's pump station.
        In 1999, GCID urged support of a proposed post-authorization change
    under Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 from a
    total project cost for the Gradient Facility of $20.7 million to $26
    million. As a result, a post-authorization increase to $26 million was
    approved. In 1999, GCID also urged support of a post-authorization
    change to include bank protection work in the vicinity of River Mile
    208 as part of the Gradient Facility. As a result, for the protection
    of the Gradient Facility and Fish Screen Extension, a post-
    authorization change to include work at River Mile 208 was approved.
        For fiscal year 2001, GCID received support of appropriations in
    the amount of $4.1 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
    to complete design, plans and specifications, award construction
    contracts and construct the Gradient Facility. The construction
    contract for the Gradient Facility was awarded on February 24, 2000,
    and construction of the Gradient began in April 2000.
        Again, the optimum schedule indicates a need for $4 million in
    fiscal year 2002 to complete the Gradient Facility element of the
    project. GCID urges support for this amount to ensure that this portion
    of the Project proceeds as scheduled. Upon completion of construction
    in mid-2001, funds will be necessary to cover the intensive hydraulic
    and biological testing that must be performed. The testing is necessary
    to confirm that the screen is functioning as designed. Funds will also
    be necessary for planting of on-site vegetation, for off-site
    mitigation work required to compensate for the Project's impacts to
    habitat and for completion of design plans, specifications, award of
    contracts and construction of bank protection in the vicinity of River
    Mile 208.
        Third, GCID requests an additional $2 million in the Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations Bill, under Bureau of Reclamation,
    Water and Related Resources (CVP, Sacramento River Division) to carry
    out detailed, site-specific environmental assessment and permitting
    work on, as well as to facilitate non-Federal participation with
    respect to, a Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of the
    utilization of both the GCID Main Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as
    a means to convey water into that proposed reservoir.
        With a storage capacity of 1.6 million-acre feet of water, the
    proposed Sites Reservoir Project is an important part of the solution
    to California's water supply and water quality problems. Sites
    Reservoir has been identified within the Sacramento Valley in northern
    California as a potential element of an integrated water supply program
    involving state, local and Federal entities and agencies. The funds
    requested will be used to carry out detailed, site-specific
    environmental assessment and permitting work on, as well as to
    facilitate non-Federal participation with respect to a Sites Reservoir,
    including an evaluation of the utilization of both the GCID Main Canal
    and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to convey water into that
    proposed reservoir.
        Sites Reservoir is one of the two potential storage projects
    identified in the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) for further study.
    Sites Reservoir could enhance water management flexibility in the
    Sacramento Valley. The ROD further notes that the Sites Reservoir would
    increase reliability of supplies for a significant portion of the
    Sacramento Valley and also provide storage and operational benefits for
    other CALFED programs, including water quality and the Environmental
    Water Account (``EWA'').
        In a more recent development, Mr. Chairman, the State Water
    Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on April 26, 2001 issued an order to
    stay the contentious Phase 8 Bay-Delta water rights hearings. The
    decision initiates an integrated water management program designed to
    protect Northern California water rights by assuring that the
    Sacramento Valley will receive full water supplies--both now and into
    the future. Projects will be developed to provide water for farms,
    cities and fish and wildlife in the Sacramento Valley, while also
    helping to meet environmental needs and improve water supplies and
    quality in other parts of the state.
        The agreement, as part of this integrated program, contains a
    strong commitment to Sites reservoir and local water management
    projects in Northern California. Given that the Bureau of Reclamation
    was a principal signatory to this agreement, it is appropriate that the
    agency be provided additional resources to help Federal water users in
    the region to accelerate work on Sites Reservoir.
        Finally, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has the authority to study
    Sites (Public Law 89-561, 80 Stat. 707) and this is not a new study.
    The Bureau or Reclamation's last study on Sites was completed in 1981.
    Again, on behalf of GCID's Board of Directors and all of the farm
    families in our region, I strongly urge you to approve this request.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit these prepared remarks.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Central Montana Resource and Conservation
                                   area, Inc.

                    fiscal year 2002 appropriations request
        The Central Montana Resource and Conservation Area, Inc., in
    association with six (6) small communities and numerous ranchers, in
    four counties, in central Montana, respectfully request funds in the
    Bureau of Reclamation budget to investigate the engineering viability
    and costs of the Musselshell Valley Regional Water Project, in the
    amount of $375,000 as set out below:

    Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Request

            Item                                                      Amount
    Exploratory Water Wells.......................................  $195,000
    Technical Investigations......................................   160,000
    Reclamation Oversight.........................................    20,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   375,000
                                need for project
        Drought, inability to meet existing and future Safe Drinking Water
    Act requirements, exceedingly poor water quality of unregulated
    contaminants and inability of income levels within the regional project
    boundaries to support the development of individual projects are
    factors that underscore the need for this project, shown in location on
    Figure 1. Each community has expended their own funds in search of
    better water. Having found none, other than extensive individual
    treatment, this is the only alternative.
        The project would serve a current population of 4,330 summarized as
    follows:

    Musselshell Valley Regional Population

                                                                   Estimated
                                                                     Current
            Community                                             Population
    Judith Gap........................................................   138
    Harlowton......................................................... 1,075
    Ryegate...........................................................   302
    Lavina............................................................   178
    Roundup........................................................... 2,078
    Melstone..........................................................   121
    Musselshell.......................................................    40
    Spring Water Colony...............................................    96
    Rural Ranchers....................................................   304
                                                                      ______
        Total......................................................... 4,332

        Roundup.--Poor quality of water in the Roundup public water system
    demonstrates the need for improvement and, while different from other
    communities, draws attention to other problems in the region. The
    source of public water supply in Roundup is a well drilled into an
    abandoned coal mine. As shown in the table below, problems with this
    water supply include high concentrations of dissolved iron and
    manganese, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide and total dissolved solids.
        The relatively high concentrations of magnesium and sodium combine
    with the sulfate to form magnesium sulfate (Epson salt) and sodium
    sulfate (Glauber's salt) which make the water slightly bitter and which
    act as a laxative for people not accustomed to the water. There are
    additional concerns about treatment requirements when the proposed
    sulfate rule is put into effect. The waters in the developed parts of
    the mine exhibit the characteristics shown in the following table.

                                            ROUNDUP WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        At current     At increased
                               Contaminant                              Recommended   pumping levels  pumping levels
                                                                       limits (mg/l)      (mg/l)          (mg/l)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Dissolved Solids..........................................             500           2,800           4,000
    Sodium..........................................................            n.a.             450             670
    Magnesium.......................................................            n.a.             120             150
    Sulfate.........................................................             250           1,400           1,400
    Iron............................................................            .300           4.100             N/A
    Manganese.......................................................            .050            .330            .368
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are additional concerns about the adequacy or longevity of
    the water supply from the underground coal mine. Tests conducted in
    1995 indicate that increased pumping from the mine will result in a
    decrease in water quality. Water quality in the undeveloped part of the
    mine will become a larger component of the pumped water if the pumping
    rate is increased.
        Judith Gap.--Judith Gap obtains its public water supply from a well
    completed in the basal Kootenai sandstone (Third Cat Creek sand).
    Problems include lack of backup pumping capacity and dissolved iron in
    the water.
        Harlowton.--Harlowton obtains public water supply from three wells
    (detailed below) completed in the Claggett Shale and Eagle Sandstone.
    The principal problem with the public water supply system is aging
    facilities, namely the water wells. Water quality problems contribute
    to the need to replace the aging water wells. Five wells have been
    drilled for public water supply at Harlowton over five decades;
    however, only three of the wells remain in service. Of those three
    wells, only two are used most of the time because water quality is poor
    and the casing is deteriorating at the other well. Gasoline product was
    recently discovered in the upper part of the Claggett Shale near the
    City reservoir site. Although a remediation program has been
    implemented, this raises concerns about contamination of the existing
    wells, particularly those with deteriorated casing.
        Thompson Well.--The Thompson well was completed in June 1949 with a
    reported yield of 716 gpm from a total depth of 390 feet. Over the
    years, the casing has deteriorated such that it is presently not
    possible to install a pump below about 120 feet and a restriction is
    present at 30 feet due to failing casing. Well yield has been reduced
    to 175 gpm, and it is only a matter of time before this well will fail
    completely. The well produces water high in iron. The iron
    concentration of 0.68 mg/l and the sulfate concentration of 393 mg/l
    exceed National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Recommended upper
    limits are 0.3 mg/l for iron and 250 mg/l for sulfate. The total
    dissolved solids concentration for 1,100 mg/l is more than twice the
    National Secondary Drinking Water recommendation of 500 mg/l.
        Prichard Well.--The Prichard well was completed in August 1961 at a
    total cased depth of 1,220 feet. The well is a flowing artesian well
    with an initial yield reported in 1961 of more than 1,000 gpm. The well
    was used at a flow rate of 400 to 500 gpm historically, however, the
    rate is presently reduced to about 375 gpm because the deteriorating
    well casing allows sand to enter the well in addition to small
    fragments of rusted casing and cement from behind the casing. Water
    from the well is corrosive due to a hydrogen sulfide content of 0.84
    mg/l, a factor contributing to the casing deterioration. The strong
    sulfur odor from the water is partly, but not completely, mitigated by
    strong chlorination to oxidize the sulfide and by a chemical treatment
    system. Total dissolved solids concentrations in the well water exceed
    the National Secondary Drinking Water recommended upper limit of 500
    mg/l. This well is the principal source of water at Harlowton.
        South Well.--The South well was completed in 1975 at a total depth
    of 921 feet and, although a flowing well, is equipped with a pump to
    increase the well yield to 280 gpm. The well is in good condition;
    however, it yields water with a hydrogen sulfide concentration of 0.26
    mg/l. Although the hydrogen sulfide concentration in this water does
    not pose as serious an odor problem as that from the Prichard well, the
    water is corrosive and O & M requirements for the pump house valves and
    plumbing and for pump column replacement are greater than normal.
        Ryegate.--Ryegate provides public water supply from shallow wells
    along the Musselshell River. The groundwater level in the wells
    fluctuates in response to changes in the river level, and the well
    yields fluctuate accordingly. The alluvial aquifer along the river is
    thin such that the alluvium does not provide significant groundwater
    storage and the well yields are therefor dependent upon local recharge
    from the surface flow in the river. This has two undesirable results:
    (1) the well yields become inadequate in years when surface flow in the
    river is low and (2) water from the wells has been determined to be
    Groundwater Under Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWUDISW) and
    therefore must be treated under the Surface Water Treatment Rule
    (SWTR). The Ryegate public water supply system presently does not have
    surface water treatment capabilities.
        Lavina.--Lavina does not have a public water supply system. Private
    wells provides water to individual homes. Similar to Ryegate, the wells
    are completed in the shallow alluvium along the Musselshell River with
    well depths ranging from 18-30 feet in depth. Such wells are subject to
    contamination by animal wastes and other pollutants on the land surface
    and, similar to Ryegate, the shallow groundwater may be under the
    influence of surface water and, while not regulated as a public water
    system subject to SDWA regulation, is potentially contaminated with
    pathogens and poses a significant health risk. The groundwater level
    here is also influenced by changes in river flow.
        Melstone.--The public water supply at Melstone is obtained from the
    surface flow of the Musselshell River and is treated in a surface water
    treatment plant. Wells filled at Melstone in the past have not been
    successful in providing an adequate water supply with acceptable water
    quality. The principal problem with the present water supply is that
    Melstone is far enough downstream on the Musselshell River that the
    surface water flow ceases unless it is supported by releases from the
    Deadman Basin Reservoir. In periods of drought, storage in the
    reservoir is not adequate to maintain surface flow to Melstone. The
    community residents must seek alternative sources of water supply.
        Finally, the regional water project is needed to combine local,
    Montana and Bureau of Reclamation funding into an affordable project.
    The ability of water users in the public water systems and in the rural
    areas to pay for the initial investment in a suitable water system,
    adequate in supply and capable of meeting present and future regulatory
    requirements, is limited by income levels averaging $16,725.00
    annually.
                     plan to address regional project needs
        Despite the inadequacies of year-round streamflow in the
    Musselshell River and the poor quality of water in groundwater
    resources relied upon by the regional communities, the area is blessed
    with high quality water in the Madison Aquifer on the northwestern
    flank of the Big Snowy Mountains. This regional water project proposes
    to develop a well field in the Madison Aquifer about seven miles
    southeast of Moore, Montana. An alternative would locate a well field
    about 1.5 miles west of Garneill, or 5 miles north of Judith Gap, on
    the northeastern flank of the Little Belt Mountains. These well fields
    are in favorable terrain to develop groundwater with wells less than
    2,000 feet deep. The proposed investigation would permit exploration of
    the Madison Aquifer in the area of the proposed well field near Moore.
    As many as two exploratory wells would be drilled.
        The ultimate plan for development will provide for as many as six
    high capacity wells and the treatment of raw water derived from the
    well field. Pipeline with diameters ranging from 2 to 16 inches would
    be constructed over distances totaling 342 miles to serve six
    communities as identified above and 152 rural connectors. Only three
    pumping stations and two reservoirs would be required. The plan would
    serve a population of 4.332 (given above) at an estimated cost
    (reconnaissance level) of $34 million. The funds sought through the
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations process would provide for significant
    improvement in the cost estimates and the status of knowledge
    respecting the Madison Aquifer, the latter based on exploratory
    drilling of the wells.
        Based on the ability to pay analysis to be concluded in the
    proposed investigation, a non-federal cost share of 20 percent may be a
    reasonable funding proposal. Assuming the reconnaissance level cost
    estimate is accurate, the project would seek approximately $27.2
    million in federal cost share through the Bureau of Reclamation budget,
    and the remaining costs ($6.8 million) would be divided equally between
    the local water users and the State of Montana, provided the Montana
    Legislature finds the project worthwhile and authorized funding from
    the regional water project fund.
                             local project support
        Attached to this testimony are a letter from the Governor of
    Montana, the Honorable Judy Martz, letters from the Montana House and
    Senate representatives from the project area, the Montana Department of
    Environmental Quality, and from participating communities. These
    letters demonstrate broad support for an investigation of the type
    described here.

                             Letter From Judy Martz

                      State Office of the Governor, of Montana,
                                       Helena, Montana, March 23, 2001.
    Hon. Pete Domenici,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations for Energy and Water
            Development, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20515.
        Dear Chairman Domenici: I would appreciate the support of your
    Subcommittee for the $375,000 requested by the Musselshell Valley
    Regional Water Project for fiscal year 2002 for planning of their
    project with local communities, farmers and ranchers.
        The federal appropriations requested will permit the project to
    progress, a project that will greatly improve the quality of life in
    Central Montana where water supplies and water quality are in need of
    significant improvement.
                Respectfully,
                                                    Judy Martz,
                                                              Governor.
                                     ______

                        Letter From Jerry C. Burns, P.E.

                   Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
                                          Billings, Mt, March 16, 2001.
    Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
    President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, Montana.
        Dear Mr. Erdie: Thank you for submitting a copy of the fiscal year
    2002 Appropriations Request for the above referenced project, and for
    the opportunity to comment. The following comments regarding the need
    for the project are based partly on first hand knowledge of the water
    systems and on records in the Department of Environmental Quality
    Public Water Supply Program. I have worked in this program for the past
    22 years. My comments regarding the proposed water supply source are
    based on recent conversations with the Montana Bureau of Mines and
    Geology.
    Need for Project:
        Roundup.--In addition to the stated needs, which are consistent
    with our records, the interference with disinfection and the
    infiltration gallery pose sanitary risks to health. Break point
    chlorination can not be practiced due to high levels of iron and
    manganese. Therefore, adequate chlorine residuals cannot be maintained
    throughout the distribution system. The secondary water supply source
    is an infiltration gallery that appears to be under the direct
    influence of surface water. Also, the present piping at the clearwell
    allows water from the well to recharge the infiltration gallery. This
    connection between sources needs to be corrected and the surface water
    influence needs to be addressed. Filtration or elimination of the
    gallery will likely be required.
        Ryegate.--The infiltration wells have been determined to be under
    the direct influence of surface water. The Department of Environmental
    Quality will be issuing a letter in the near future requiring
    compliance with the Surface Water Treatment rule within 18 months of
    receipt of the letter.
        Lavina.--The Town is not served by a public system. However, the
    school is classified as a public water supply system. The well is
    shallow and has a history of coliform violations. This well has also
    been threatened by an underground gasoline tank leak from a nearby
    service station.
        Melstone.--Raw water shortages and operational problems have
    plagued this system. Operational problems have resulted in treatment
    technique violations.
        Judith Gap.--Judith Gap has a history of intermittent bacterial
    problems. The wells in town have been abandoned due to a petroleum
    release. Leaving only one well to serve the town.
        Harlowton.--Our records agree with the stated problems, and also
    show that Harlowton has at times experienced severe water shortages as
    a result of the aging water supply wells.
    Plan to Address Regional Project Needs:
        The Madison Aquifer has a very good potential for providing the
    necessary quality and quantity. I recommend working closely with the
    Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology for locating test wells.
        I strongly support efforts to correct the deficiencies with systems
    included in this proposal and to develop a regional water system. With
    the new and upcoming regulations in the Safe Drinking Water Act, it is,
    and will continue to be, very difficult for small communities to
    provide the technical and financial resources to stay in compliance.
    Small communities with surface water systems will experience the most
    difficulty.
        Please feel free to use this letter as a letter of support for the
    project. If you or anyone reading this letter has any questions or
    would like information out our Public Water Supply files, please call
    me at 247-4445.
                Sincerely,
                                          Jerry C. Burns, P.E.,
                                              Billings Regional Office.
                                     ______

                           Letter From Alan J. Olson

                              Montana House of Representatives,
                                         Helena Montana, March 6, 2001.
    Mr. J. Jay Erdie, Inc.,
    President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Roundup, MT.
        Dear Mr. Erdie: I am very interested in the regional water project
    being proposed by the RC&D. The project would service most of the
    communities and surrounding areas in my House District.
        I know of the struggles these communities have faced with adequate
    water quantities and quality over the years. The City of Roundup has to
    get their municipal water from an abandoned coal mine. The water is
    nearly undrinkable. The water for the other communities up and down the
    river valley is also extremely poor, not to mention their dependence on
    the continued flow of the Musselshell River. Again, this year flows do
    not look promising.
        Knowing how low the income levels are for this area, I am happy to
    see this regional approach to finding a long term solution that may be
    affordable for the area citizens. I am totally in support of the
    project and would be glad to assist you where possible.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Alan J. Olson,
                                                      House District 8.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Almeda F. Moore

                                               City of Roundup,
                                        Roundup, Montana, March 6, 2001
    Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
    Chairman, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
        Dear Mr. Erdie: The City of Roundup is very supportive of the
    proposed Musselshell Valley Regional Water Project. We have spent
    nearly three years and $50,000 searching for an alternative water
    source near Roundup. There is no such thing.
        In addition we have spent several thousands of dollars
    investigating water treatment options and costs. The total capital cost
    is staggering, and added to the on-going projected operations and
    maintenance costs it is prohibitive. It is not clear how and at what
    additional cost we could handle the waste stream resulting from water
    treatment.
        We support the proposed regional water project because water was
    identified by the public as our number one priority in our Capital
    Improvement Plan. We believe that a regional approach, though quite
    expensive in front-end capital cost, would be financially manageable
    for continued operations and maintenance costs, and would result in the
    best and most stable water supply we could ever hope for.
                Sincerely,
                                               Almeda F. Moore,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                            Letter From John Peccia

                                             City of Harlowton,
                                    Harlowton, Montana, March 14, 2001.
    J. Jay Erdie,
    President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
        Dear Mr. Erdie: The Mayor and City Council of Harlowton whole
    heartedly support the collective effort to solve the regional water
    quality and quantity problems that have plagued the Musselshell Valley
    for years.
        Harlowton acquires its water from a series of wells in the
    vicinity. Even when fully operational, our water quality has been very
    poor, in many cases fax less than secondary national drinking water
    standards. Age and deterioration have left us with only three of the
    original five wells, and those remaining are producing at reduced
    levels.
        Hill water treatment for compliance with current and future
    standards is far beyond the financial means of this relatively poor
    community. This is especially true with the local debt our citizens
    have recently encumbered with our new wastewater treatment project.
        Please keep us informed as this proposal progresses. We offer our
    assistance wherever possible.
                Sincerely,
                                                   John Peccia,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                           Letter From Mark Solnosky

                                               Town of Ryegate,
                                      Ryegate, Montana, March 14, 2001.
    Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
    President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
        Dear Mr. Erdie: The Town of Ryegate gets its water from the
    alluvial gravels adjacent to the Musselshell River. As a result, we are
    dependent upon the flows of the river. Recently we were informed that
    our water was classified as groundwater, under the influence of surface
    water, by the Water Quality Bureau of the State of Montana. This will
    require treatment of some form that a community of our size cannot
    afford.
        The proposal put forth by our area RC&D for a regional water system
    is totally supported by the Mayor and City Council of Ryegate. This
    proposal appears to solve the individual potable water supply problems
    of the entire Musselshell Valley. We appreciate your efforts as this
    area of Montana is in dire straits when it comes to safe, clean
    drinking water.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Mark Solnosky,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                         Letter From James C. Pinkerton

                                              Town of Melstone,
                                     Melstone, Montana, March 14, 2001.
    Jay Erdie,
    Chairman of Central Montana, Roundup, MT.
        Dear Mr. Erdie: The Melstone City Council would just like to
    confirm the fact that we are in full support of the Musselshell Valley
    Water Project. We are very excited about being part of the project and
    are willing to help in any way.
        Thank you for including us.
                Sincerely,
                                            James C. Pinkerton,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                          Letter From Janet M. Summers

                                                Town of Lavina,
                                        Lavina, Montana, March 16, 2001
    Mr. J. Jay Erdie,
    President, Central Mt RC&D Area, Inc., Roundup, MT.
        Dear Mr. Erdie: The Town of Lavina has never had a potable water
    system. We do have a sanitary sewer collection and lagoon system that
    we are in the process of upgrading.
        We would like in the future to provide the community with a potable
    water system and increased fire protection, but we are faced with the
    same quality and quantity problems encountered up and down the
    Musselshell Valley. Presently, water is obtained from individual
    private shallow groundwater wells which depend on the flow in the
    Musselshell River. This flow varies from feast to famine, as the river
    is entirely unpredictable, The quality of this shallow water is
    marginal at best.
        The Mayor and Town Council would like to go on record as supporting
    the investigation of the feasibility of this project and request your
    assistance in providing the basic element of life to our citizens.
                Sincerely,
                                              Janet M. Summers,
                                                                 Mayor.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Crow Creek Sioux

    Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request
        The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe respectfully requests fiscal year 2002
    appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation from your subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development. Funds will be used to finalize all pre-
    authorization documents (Special Study and Environmental Assessment)
    underway and supported by the subcommittee since fiscal year 1995. The
    amount requested is $179,000 as set out below:

    Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request

    Tribal Administration and Coordination........................   $69,600
    Finalize Special Study and Conduct Value Engineering..........    37,560
    Finalize Environmental Assessment.............................    30,575
    Reclamation Oversight.........................................    41,265
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total...................................................   179,000

    Proposed Activities
        The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, in cooperation with the Bureau of
    Reclamation, has concluded draft documents: ``Special Study, Crow Creek
    Sioux Municipal Rural and Industrial Water Project'' and the
    environmental assessment for the referenced project. The Bureau of
    Reclamation has reviewed the draft documents and has made formal
    comments on the documents that will pen-nit the Tribe to finalize them.
    The request for funds is to provide the means to conclude the Special
    Study and the environmental assessment during this session of Congress
    when draft bills will be presented to the South Dakota delegation by
    the Tribe for consideration of a project authorization. This is not a
    new project concept but one that has been in development for more than
    five years with the support of the Bureau of Reclamation and periodic
    line-item appropriations by Congress. The request for this year will
    finalize the planning phase of the project and permit the Tribe to
    advance to the construction phase given an authority through enabling
    legislation.
        This has been a long process. Requirements for the planning phase
    of the project have evolved to meet requirements of Bureau of
    Reclamation oversight. Reclamation has advised us of the need for
    additional funds to complete the necessary work. Reclamation should be
    consulted for their concepts on the remaining requirements.
        In addition to the completion of the documents, it is expected that
    value engineering of the preferred project alternative will be
    conducted to determine if savings can be realized while meeting the
    objectives to develop a safe and dependable supply of water for the
    Crow Creek Indian Reservation.
    Exigent Conditions
        There is an immediate need to construct facilities to distribute
    Missouri River water and improve water quality throughout the Crow
    Creek Indian Reservation. This action will reduce health risks to the
    membership of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and other residents of the
    Reservation. With the exception of the community of Fort Thompson,
    water supplies and water quality are deplorable throughout the
    Reservation. There is an immediate need to extend pipelines from Fort
    Thompson to the community and day school at Stephan where water quality
    is extremely poor, and existing wells are limited in capacity.
        Inspired by efforts of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, including the
    planning for the Reservation municipal, rural and industrial water
    system, the water treatment facilities at Fort Thompson have been
    improved with microfilters that produce a high quality water for
    residents of the community. The new water treatment facilities are
    incorporated as a part of the Reservation-wide project and, with
    construction of necessary pipelines, will permit delivery of high-
    quality water north to Stephan.
        The need for the Reservation-wide project is underscored by the
    recent population releases from the 2000 census. Our planning had
    projected population increases on the Reservation from 1990 to 2000 at
    a rate of 14.3 percent. The actual rate of growth experienced in the
    last decade was 26.7 percent, significantly greater than the seemingly
    liberal projection made from the 1990 census.
        The subcommittee is respectfully requested to carefully consider
    our needs and provide the necessary funding to complete the planning
    stage of our project.
    Project Construction Costs and Recommended Project Alternative
        Costs of alternatives, including construction contracts and non-
    contract costs, range from $15,403,000 (Alternatives b, d and e) to
    $17,853,000 (Alternative a). After accounting for funding already
    authorized by Congress for the Mid-Dakota project that could be
    transferred to the reservation project by amended legislation
    (Alternatives a and b) or used within the reservation in general
    conformity to plans by Mid-Dakota, additional funding authorization
    from Congress ranging from $10,634,000 (Alternatives b, d and e) to
    $12,946,000 (Alternative a) is required.
        Based on the least cost scenario and self-determination, the Crow
    Creek Sioux Tribe's preferred project alternative is Alternative a
    ($12,946,000 in new funding authority; see description below): source
    of water on Lake Sharpe near Fort Thompson constructed, operated.,
    maintained and replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Environmental
    factors, such as cultural and historic resources, and identifiable
    impacts on physical and biological resources are not significantly
    different between alternatives and had least influence on the
    recommended alternative.
        Five alternatives for developing the project were:
      --A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
            Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030
            within the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source of water would
            be the Missouri River with modifications to the existing intake
            and water treatment plant at Fort Thompson.
      --A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
            Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and meeting all needs through year 2030
            within the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Source water would be
            the Missouri River from the intake and water treatment plant
            constructed by Mid-Dakota on Lake Oahe. The reservation system
            would be connected to the Mid-Dakota system along the northern
            and eastern borders of the reservation. Mid-Dakota would sell
            water to the Tribe as a bulk user.
      --A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced by the
            Crow Creek Sioux Tribe to service the Fort Thompson and Crow
            Creek community areas, and rural areas in between, from intake
            and water treatment plant at Fort Thompson. The balance of the
            project would be constructed, operated and maintained by Mid-
            Dakota with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
            treatment plant.
      --A project constructed, operated, maintained and replaced
            exclusively by Mid-Dakota to service the entire reservation
            with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
            treatment plant.
      --A project constructed by Mid-Dakota throughout the reservation and
            operated, maintained and replaced by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
            with water supply from the Mid-Dakota intake and water
            treatment plant.
      --Future Operation, Maintenance and Replacement (OMR) Costs.
        Future operation, maintenance and replacement costs, including
    staff, equipment. electricity, chemicals and all other materials
    necessary for repair and replacement, have an estimated range in cost
    from $597,195 (Alternative a) to $826,185 (Alternatives b, d and e).
    Present Value of Net Costs
        Net costs were estimated as the present value of the costs of
    construction and OMR less the off-setting value of construction and OMR
    earnings by members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, an under-employed
    labor force. Present value of net costs ranges from $15,348,180
    (Alternative a) to $22,673,000 (Alternatives d and e).
    Construction Schedule
        A construction schedule beginning in fiscal year 2003 and ending in
    fiscal year 2006 is proposed. Construction and non-contract employment
    would provide 131 full-time equivalent man years of employment. Annual
    levels of funding needs would range from $2,135,000 in fiscal year 2003
    to $6,736,000 in fiscal year 2005.
    Environmental Factors
        Pipelines proposed for the project range from 1.5 to 12 inches in
    diameter and have lengths ranging from 269.8 miles (Alternative c) to
    276.4 miles (Alternative a). From five to seven pump stations with
    horsepower ranging from 103.0 to 164.5 are representative of the
    alternatives. From six to eight reservoirs with up to 495,000 gallons
    of capacity are proposed. Future population growth will require
    approximately five acres of new wastewater lagoons by year 2030.
        Approximately 70 wetlands will be crossed by the project on the
    basis of the current layout, which will be modified in later designs to
    avoid wetlands. As many as 31 perennial stream crossings will be made.
    Nearly 43 miles of prime farmlands will be crossed by pipelines where
    most of the farmlands are defined as ``prime'' if irrigated in the
    future. Approximately 23 miles of unstable soils will be crossed. Up to
    134 miles of trust lands (slightly less than 50 percent of the total)
    will be crossed by pipelines.
        An Environmental Assessment and a class I cultural resource
    inventory and descriptive report have been prepared.
    Population
        The statistical summary below shows that population of the Crow
    Creek Indian Reservation in 1990 was 1,756 persons. 1,532 Indian
    persons and 224 non-Indian persons. Based on the rate of growth in the
    Indian and non-Indian population over the past several decades, year
    2030 population estimates were made resulting in a future population of
    3,417. These estimates recognize a relatively high growth rate within
    the Indian population and out-migration of non-Indians.
    Income and Employment
        Median household income in 1990 on the Crow Creek Indian
    Reservation averaged $12,763 as contrasted with averages for the state
    of South Dakota of $22,503. The Indian labor force on the reservation
    represented 55.7 percent of the population and 29 percent were
    unemployed. Across the state of South Dakota. 74.3 percent of the
    population was in the labor force, and 4. 1 percent were unemployed.
    Income levels on the reservation are extremely low, and unemployment is
    extremely high.
    Ability to Pay
        Consistent with the income levels described above, annual residual
    household income on the reservation is $8,924 after deducting the costs
    of housing and electricity from median household income. Results from
    the American Housing Survey of 1993, showed that 80 percent of those
    surveyed were paying $13.59 per month for water and sewer for
    comparable levels of residual income. Sewer costs on the reservation
    are $13 per month leaving $0.59 per month for water bill payments if
    residents of the reservation are expected to pay as much as 80 percent
    of the population with comparable income in the American Housing
    Survey.
    Existing Public Water Systerms and Water Quality of Sources
        Existing public water systems in the communities of Fort Thompson,
    Stephan, Big Bend and Crow Creek serve a population of 1,520. The
    maximum flow capacity of the systems is 53O gallons per minute, and
    reservoirs with 241,000 gallons of capacity are available.
        Fort Thompson receives water from the Missouri River, which has
    good-quality water (479 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids as
    contrasted with the suggested level for secondary contaminants of 500
    milligrams per liter). Crow Creek community receives its water from
    wells with total dissolved solids of 706 milligrams per liter. Stephan
    and Big Bend also receive water from wells with total dissolve solids
    ranging from 1,500 to 1.928 milligrams per liter. Wells serving the
    households in the rural areas have water quality ranging from an
    average 702 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids to a maximum of
    4,440.
    Future Water Sources
        The best available source of future water for the reservation is
    the Missouri River with water quality reflective of Fort Thompson. The
    annual flow of the Missouri River at Pierre is 15,873,000 acre-feet
    annually as contrasted with the largest stream on the reservation (Crow
    Creek) with an average annual flow of 13,749 acre feet. The Missouri
    River is dependable with minimum monthly flow of 192.000 acre-feet.
        Periods of no flow are experienced on all reservation streams.
    Groundwater sources are generally (but not universally) adequate for
    single households in the rural areas and water quality ranges from good
    to poor. Nitrates may be increasing in groundwater sources, and there
    is evidence of copper exceeding maximum contaminant levels in rural
    water, but the source of copper is unknown and can be naturally
    occurring or introduced through the plumbing.
        Note: the reporting is from the draft Special Study, which will
    change in detail. but not substance, in the final report to be
    concluded.)
                                     ______

     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 2002 to implement the needed and authorized program.
    Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant economic
    damage in the United States and Mexico. The President's request for
    funding is not known at this time. Studies have shown that
    implementation of the program has fallen behind the needed pace to
    control salinity concentrations. Water quality commitments to
    downstream U.S. and Mexican water users 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 water
    quality standard mandated levels 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 $75 million in additional
    damages in the United States. The Forum, therefore, believes
    implementation of the program needs to be accelerated to a level beyond
    that requested by the past President.
        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.
                                    overview
        In 2000, Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
    Following hearings, and with Administration support, the Congress
    passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized by this
    program by $100 million. Reclamation is now prepared to receive
    proposals to move the program ahead and the Basin states have funds
    available to cost-share up-front.
        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 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 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 in control.
        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 and to reduce downstream damages 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 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. 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. The result is that salt
    loading is being prevented at costs often less than half the cost under
    the previous program. Congress this last year recommitted its support
    to the revised program when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin
    states are, pursuant to Public Law 104-127 (FAIRA), cost sharing up-
    front on an annual basis, which adds 43 cents for every federal dollar
    appropriated. 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 funding identified above for the implementation
    of the newly authorized program, the Salinity Control Forum urges the
    Congress to appropriate necessary funds needed 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 this
    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 their
    Compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Tucson Regional Water Council

        The Tucson Regional Water Council (TRWC) thanks you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony concerning the Bureau of Reclamation's
    fiscal year 2002 budget request. TRWC is a non-profit organization in
    Tucson, Arizona, whose members are water providers, business and
    professional people, and concerned citizens dedicated to ensuring a
    long-term, stable quality water supply for southern Arizona. Our 260
    members appreciate the Committee's long support of the Central Arizona
    Project. We are grateful to you and your colleagues for your years of
    dedication to this project.
        The TRWC wishes to address the Bureau of Reclamation's budget that
    pertains to water resources in southern Arizona and, in particular, the
    Bureau's plans that continue to positively impact our Central Arizona
    Project water planning.
        Colorado River water delivered by the Central Arizona Project will
    be part of the City of Tucson's water supply starting in April. This
    new supply enables the City to turn off groundwater wells that are
    pumping water from underneath the metropolitan area, which should halt
    further subsidence. The other CAP contract holders in the metropolitan
    area, particularly those located north of the City of Tucson, are
    proceeding with their plans to develop the necessary infrastructure to
    receive and deliver Colorado River water. In August 2000, the Bureau of
    Reclamation's Phoenix Area Office published an appraisal study titled
    ``Alternatives for Using Central Arizona Project Water in the Northwest
    Tucson Area.'' It is vital for the well being of the residents of these
    areas to have access to a renewable water supply and to partner with
    the Bureau of Reclamation in developing delivery systems.
        In addition, in order to fully utilize CAP water, users must have
    reliability features as part of the Central Arizona Project. It is
    imperative for the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with their planning
    for Tucson Reliability and for the Northwest region. We respectfully
    request that the Bureau of Reclamation budget line item: Tucson
    Reliability Division be approved. This line item allows the Bureau to
    continue its planning process.
        In addition, work done by the Bureau of Reclamation in southern
    Arizona is necessary for this region to continue its water resources
    planning. We are experiencing great growth, which requires coordination
    with other agencies. Valuable services provided by the Bureau through
    its inter-regional budget items include environmental and interagency
    coordination, general planning activities, providing technical
    assistance, and planning investigations programs.
        Of particular importance is the on-going Bureau Investigations
    Defined Program for southern Arizona, the Southern Arizona Water
    Management Study. This study is assisting the State of Arizona, several
    municipalities in southern Arizona, and two Indian Nations in
    coordinating planning efforts and Central Arizona Project water
    exchanges. The study is instrumental in identifying long-range water
    needs, water supply and treatment management options, and developing
    efficient water management strategies.
        The Tucson Regional Water Council is closely associated with the
    Bureau under the Tucson Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, which
    is funded under Title XVI--Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The
    study, which is known locally as the Regional Effluent Planning
    Partnership, is in its fourth year. Regional participants meet monthly
    to cooperatively plan for use of reclaimed wastewater, this regions
    only water resource that will increase in the future. We are in the
    process of developing the Feasibility Study report, which includes
    projects from three municipalities.
        The Bureau of Reclamation is providing water management and
    resource planning services that are crucial for southern Arizona
    residents. We respectfully request that the Bureau receive its full
    funding requests for fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the State of South Dakota

        The Perkins County Rural Water System in South Dakota, which was
    authorized by Congress through passage of Public Law 106-136 during
    1999, has submitted a request to your subcommittee for federal fiscal
    year 2002 funding. I am writing in support of their request.
        Perkins County has a shortage of good quality water. During times
    of drought, conditions become desperate. Perkins County experienced
    drought conditions last summer. Dams dried up and people had to haul
    water for livestock and domestic use.
        Several years ago, local people in Perkins County had a vision to
    bring high quality Missouri River water to the county and proceeded to
    work out an innovative agreement to extend the North Dakota Southwest
    Pipeline to Perkins County. The North Dakota Southwest Pipeline is a
    federal project that draws water from the Missouri River and runs south
    through southwestern North Dakota. The significant federal investment
    in the Southwest Pipeline Project indicates the recognition of the
    severe water problems that exist in this area.
        The people of Perkins County and the rest of South Dakota have
    invested much time, effort, and funding to bring the Southwest Pipeline
    from North Dakota to the South Dakota border. In fact, South Dakota has
    already invested $1.1 million from the state Water and Environment Fund
    to reserve capacity in the Southwest Pipeline. I just authorized an
    additional $150,000 loan to help local sponsors complete the Final
    Engineering Report required by the federal project authorization. This
    report will be completed later this summer so that any federal funding
    obtained can be used immediately for final design and construction.
        This federal, state, and local partnership has worked hard and well
    to bring quality Missouri River water to the Perkins County border.
    However, now is the time to complete construction of the distribution
    system in Perkins County and get the people the water they so
    desperately need. By approving the funding request from Perkins County
    Rural Water System, you will be helping to make that happen.
        I make this request knowing that federal budget restraints and
    limited resources prevent many projects from being funded or receiving
    the full request. I also understand that tough decisions concerning the
    types of projects that are to receive federal assistance will have to
    be made as the appropriation process is completed. But, it would be
    very unfortunate if this needed project is delayed further.
        Thank you in advance for your consideration of the Perkins County
    Rural Water System budget request. If I can be of any assistance,
    please do not hesitate to contact me.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.

        The Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. respectfully submits
    this written testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
    Water Development for appropriations for fiscal year 2002.
        Perkins County is located in northwestern South Dakota on the North
    Dakota state line. We are the second largest county in South Dakota and
    have a total of 2,866 square miles. Perkins County has a population of
    3,542 people, of which 2,065 live in the two incorporated towns of
    Lemmon and Bison. Number one business in our county is agriculture and
    support services for the farmer and rancher. We have three
    manufacturing plants in Lemmon that employ approximately 130-140 full
    time jobs. Other large employers in Perkins County are federal
    government offices, state highway district offices, rural electric
    offices, county government, hospital and clinic and three school
    districts. Perkins County and the rest of northwestern South Dakota is
    a semi-arid climate with an annual precipitation of 14 inches, of which
    76 percent falls normally in April through September.
        History of this project goes back to 1982 when a group of farmers
    and ranchers in Perkins County were contacted by Southwest Pipeline
    Project in North Dakota if they would be interested in obtaining water
    to serve Perkins County. At that time, approximately 100 farms and
    ranches and the towns of Bison and Lemmon were interested, so Perkins
    County was included in their feasibility study. In November of 1992,
    Southwest Water Pipeline Project had grown to the point that Perkins
    County was contacted about receiving water from the project and to be
    included in the engineering design work. A committee of interested
    landowners and representatives from the two incorporated towns were
    organized through the Perkins County Conservation District/Natural
    Resources Conservation Service. From this committee, nine directors
    volunteered to serve on a board to study the feasibility of rural water
    for the county. In March of 1993, Perkins County Rural Water System,
    Inc. was organized as a non-profit organization. Two grants were
    obtained from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
    Resources for $50,000 each to do a feasibility study. At the same time,
    the Directors were able to acquire good intention fees from rural
    landowners, state land, federal land, and the two towns for a total of
    $28,250 to cost share the state money on an 80-20 share basis. A
    feasibility study was conducted for Perkins County Rural Water by KBM,
    Inc. of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and the Alliance of Rapid City,
    South Dakota in 1994. In the 1995-96 South Dakota legislature, we
    obtained state authorization and appropriation of one million dollars.
    This money was used to up-size the pipe in North Dakota for our
    capacity and for administration costs of Perkins County Rural Water. We
    have signed a contract with the North Dakota State Water Commission to
    deliver 400 gallons per minute to the border. We have also signed
    contracts with both towns to be the sole supplier for their water
    systems. We have had a very good response from the rural farmers and
    rancher in that 50 to 60 percent have signed and paid for water
    contracts delivered to their farmstead. The total for those contracts
    equals $81,500 plus obligations of another $72,000 when the project
    becomes a reality. To the ranchers and farmers of Northwestern South
    Dakota, that is a substantial investment for them to make. We also will
    be signing a contract with a grazing association that run livestock on
    US Forest Service land. In the fall of 1999, we received federal
    authorization with the 106th Congress for a 75 percent grant of twenty
    million dollars. We were unable to obtain appropriations in 2000 for
    the 2001 budget though we were able to obtain a loan from the State of
    South Dakota for $150,000 to operate till fiscal year 2002. The budget
    presented has been sent to the Bureau of Reclamation in Bismarck, North
    Dakota to be entered in their budget processing for 2002 thru 2003.
        During our feasibility study, conducted by the combination of two
    engineering firms of the Alliance of South Dakota and KBM, Inc. of
    North Dakota, several alternatives were looked at to provide Perkins
    County with quality water. These alternatives were pumping water from
    Shadehill Lake or from deep-water wells drilled into the Fox Hills
    formation. Due to the high salt content, both of these sources would
    have to use reverse osmosis treatment that is very costly to build and
    operate. Buying bulk water from a large rural water system turned out
    to be the most feasible. Water from Southwest Water Authority is
    already treated at a large treatment plant and distributed to the
    border of North Dakota and South Dakota.
        The quality of water in Northwestern South Dakota is the main
    concern for the health and well being of the people. Although the water
    in Perkins County typically meets the primary standards established by
    the US EPA, most of the chemicals in the water are exceedingly high by
    the State of South Dakota standards. Due to the fact that new standards
    by the EPA are set each year, it will be impossible for small water
    systems such as those in our towns to comply. Just across the line in
    North Dakota, two small towns have exceeded the fluoride levels from
    the same aquifer that water is pumped in South Dakota. At this time,
    fluoride in the Town of Lemmon is within one to two tenths of the MCL
    set by EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the deep wells of
    both Bison and Lemmon, the total dissolved solids, sulfates, and sodium
    consistently exceed the recommended levels set by EPA. Sodium is the
    major concern with the water in Perkins County. Running at 450 parts
    per million and above, the medical community has problems with people
    who have to be on a salt free diet. In the rural areas, bacteria
    contamination has been noted in wells that are dug into shallow
    aquifers. There are two letters in the appendix that relate to both the
    medical and the rural problems. Also, the rural population has noticed
    declining water levels in these same wells due to drought and over use.
    We are currently in a drought that has dried up any surface water
    supplies for livestock. If water had been available, some ranches would
    not have had to sell or ship livestock out of the county last fall.
        In Table 1, we show construction costs of our project, which
    includes approximately 375 miles of pipeline along the support
    appendages. A map of the total system is appendix one. We will have
    reservoirs strategically located within the county to use for both
    storage and pressure to be able to provide the quantity of water that
    the people of Perkins County needs. The connection to Southwest Water
    Pipeline is included at 5.5 million dollars. This money will cover the
    capitalization of the pipeline to provide PCRWS with the water needed
    to operate. Since we have paid and will pay for the construction on
    both sides of the border, we will be able to obtain water at the cost
    of operation and maintenance. With State money, we have been able to
    pay for our share of the up sizing of the pipe that has been
    constructed in the last 3-4 years to the border. Also included is 1.75
    million dollars for public water system's upgrading within the county
    that have deteriorated to the point that they could not afford to
    purchase our water.
        In Table 2, we have included the operation's cost of the system.
    This table includes total operation costs, debt service and reserve
    payments when the system is operating at peak capacity.
        Table 3 includes the request for fiscal year 2002. The request is
    1.25 million dollars higher than requested for 2002. Since we did not
    receive any money for 2001, our time line is moving up for completion
    of the project. We are able to do this much construction work in one
    year and hope to finish the project in 4-5 years with this size
    appropriation per year.
        At the end of the report, we have included letters representing
    people who have a problem with the water quality in Perkins County.
    They include the county extension educator, doctors in our local
    hospital and a letter from the Town of Lemmon stating the problems that
    they have with the current water status. Also there is a letter from
    our engineering firm showing how the system may save money because of
    the low pipe price at this time.
        One of the reasons given for not obtaining money for fiscal year
    2001 is that we are categorized as a new project. This is not totally
    true. Our start began in 1986 with the congressional approval of
    Southwest Water Authority (SWA) in North Dakota. We were going to
    attach an amendment increasing the ceiling level of SWA, but both the
    state and our congressional delegation believed it would be faster if
    we went with stand-alone legislation. Since the whole project costs $20
    million dollars, we could be built in four to five years. Other wise
    our contracts would be too small for the larger construction firms to
    bid.
        Water quality and quantity in Perkins County has been a plague for
    the county over many years. Droughts, both long and short term, are a
    fact of life for the people in this area. Being able to obtain quality
    water during these periods and having a backup system for other times
    would make the life in the county easier. Due to our isolation from
    major water supplies, this may be our only chance to obtain water at an
    affordable cost.
        At the present time, we are working on our final engineering
    report, environmental and cultural resources reports, and, with a 50-60
    percent signup rate, we are still signing up farmers and ranches. Upon
    obtaining the amount requested, we would be able to start construction
    in the spring of 2002 and have the system built in 3-4 years. We know
    that funds are hard to obtain, but finding quality water in our area is
    even harder. Thank you for reading our report and, on the behalf of the
    people of Perkins County South Dakota, we hope you can find the funds
    to build our system.

                                   TABLE 1.--PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION--SOUTHWEST PIPELINE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Item                             No. units      Units      Unit price    Extended price
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mobilization.........................................               1         LS      $50,000.00      $50,000.00
    Water Main:
        1.5" PVC.........................................         671,400         If            2.00    1,342,800.00
        2.0" PVC.........................................         228,500         If            2.10      479,850.00
        3.0" PVC.........................................         222,000         If            2.25      499,500.00
        4.0" PVC.........................................         283,800         If            2.50      709,500.00
        6.0" PVC.........................................         379,500         If            4.00    1,518,000.00
        8.0" PVC.........................................         204,500         If            6.75    1,380,375.00
        1.0" Poly........................................             300         If            4.50        1,350.00
        4.0" Poly........................................           4,500         If           12.25       55,125.00
    1.0" Curb Stop.......................................               6         ea          175.00        1,050.00
    1.5" Curb Stop.......................................             166         ea          275.00       45,650.00
    Water Meters:
        Residential Meters...............................             172         ea          275.00       47,300.00
        2" Water Meters..................................              17         ea          450.00        7,650.00
    4" Meter Station.....................................               1         ea       12,000.00       12,000.00
    8" Meter Station.....................................               1         ea       15,000.00       15,000.00
    Frost Proof Water Meter..............................              27         ea          950.00       25,650.00
    Water Service Installation...........................             184         ea          100.00       18,400.00
    River Crossings......................................              13         ea        5,000.00       65,000.00
    Non-cased Bore.......................................              94         ea          600.00       56,400.00
    Cased Bore...........................................           8,600         If           50.00      430,000.00
    Gate Valves:
        2"...............................................              85         ea          300.00       25,500.00
        3"...............................................              15         ea          375.00        5,625.00
        4"...............................................              36         ea          400.00       14,400.00
        6"...............................................              50         ea          475.00       23,750.00
        8"...............................................              40         ea          620.00       24,800.00
    Pressure Reducing Valves.............................              40         ea       11,000.00      440,000.00
    ARV Station..........................................             193         ea        1,200.00      231,600.00
    Reservoir Pumping Station............................               4         ea      175,000.00      700,000.00
    Booster Stations.....................................               4         ea      150,000.00      600,000.00
    Signs................................................             418         ea           21.00        8,778.00
    Seeding..............................................             225        Ac.          300.00       67,500.00
    Gravel...............................................          18,000        Ton           10.00      180,000.00
    Municipal Improvements...............................               1         LS    1,750,000.00    1,750,000.00
    Reservoir (2,000,000 Gal)............................               1         LS    1,200,000.00    1,200,000.00
    Connection to SW Pipeline............................               1         LS    5,500,000.00    5.500,000.00
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal--Construction.........................  ..............  .........  ..............   17,532,553.00
                                                          ==========================================================
    US Bureau of Rec. Admin..............................  ..............  .........  ..............      544,494.00
    Engineering:
        Design & Construction Admin......................  ..............  .........  ..............      496,107.00
        Construction Observation.........................  ..............  .........  ..............      340,000.00
        Additional Services..............................  ..............  .........  ..............      160,000.00
    Legal & Administration...............................  ..............  .........  ..............      100,000.00
    Contingencies & Construction Int.....................  ..............  .........  ..............      826,846.00
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
          Total project costs............................  ..............  .........  ..............   20,000,000.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table 2.--Cost of Perkins County Rural Water

    COST OF CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING......................  $14,500,000.00
    COST OF UPFRONT AND INCREMENTAL COSTS...................    5,500,000.00
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          TOTAL PROJECT COSTS...............................    20,000,00.00
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    PROJECTED FUNDING:
        GRANT FUNDS:
            FEDERAL 75 percent..............................   15,000,000.00
            STATE 10 percent................................    2,000,000.00
        LOAN FUNDS: LOCAL 15 percent........................    3,000,000.00
    YEARLY OPERATIONAL & MAINTENANCE (w/o water)............      161,000.00
    DEBT SERVICE (40 years @ 6 percent).....................      179,000.00
    ANNUAL RESERVE ($350,000 after 20 years)................       17,500.00
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          TOTAL.............................................      357,500.00
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    PROJECTED WATER USAGE:
        RURAL...............................................      48,600,000
        CITIES..............................................      85,800,000
        GRAZING ASSOC.......................................      75,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          TOTAL (gal/yr)....................................     209,400,000
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
    COST OF WATER:
        Minimum monthly charge ($40.00 per month)...........       84,000.00
        Pasture taps ($175 per year)........................       21,875.00
        Grazing Assoc. ($175 per year)......................        2,450.00
        O&M cost ($1.38/1000 gal)...........................      289,800.00
                        ========================================================
                        ____________________________________________________
          TOTAL.............................................      398,125.00

      Table 3.--Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. Budget fiscal year
                                      2002

            ITEM                                              EXTENDED PRICE
    FINAL ENGINEERING (COMPLETION) ADMIN. (INCLUDES BOR
        COST)...............................................     $380,000.00
    50 PERCENT LEMMON INFRASTRUCTURE........................      720,000.00
    50 PERCENT MAINLINE TO LEMMON...........................      550,000.00
    VAULT AND PIPE TO ND-SD BORDER..........................      100,000.00
    50 PERCENT MAINLINE TO BISON............................      900,000.00
    LODGEPOLE POCKET........................................      600,000.00
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          TOTAL.............................................    3,250,000.00
                                     ______

                          Letter From Clark B. Johnson
                                                City of Lemmon,
                                             Lemmon, SD, March 6, 2001.
    Perkins County Rural Water System Inc.
    Bison, SD.
        Dear Perkins County Rural Water: We write this letter in support of
    funding that can be obtained to expedite the construction of the
    Perkins County Rural Water System. The City of Lemmon is being held in
    a very ``crucial'' situation. Many blocks of the city water mains are
    in desperate need of replacement before pipeline water can be delivered
    to our system. Lemmon is experiencing many and increasing numbers of
    water main breaks. However, some existing wells are planned to be used
    in conjunction with pipeline water for fire protection and watering of
    city parks. This entire project needs to be designed with all factors
    considered so that precious tax dollars are not wasted in joining the
    two systems. Consequently, Lemmon cannot go forward with this critical
    project until significant dollars are appropriated so they are assured
    this project will become a reality. Meanwhile, the city continues to
    experience an increasing number of pipeline failures.
        Lemmon's existing water supply continues to be a public health
    hazard. The water source is high in flouride and sodium. High levels of
    flouride and sodium are health hazards that will be eliminated when
    pipeline water is delivered to the Lemmon area.
        One should also note, the tremendous support the system has
    received in the immediate rural area around the city. These rural
    residents have already paid at least $475 each in hopes of obtaining
    quality water sometime in the future. The rural signups are a testament
    to the poor quality of rural water. When people voluntarily part with
    their own money--there is a problem.
        We hope these concerns will help you to obtain funding for the
    Perkins County Rural Water System.
                Sincerely,
                                              Clark B. Johnson,
                              President of the Council, City of Lemmon.
                                     ______

                       Letter From Robert E. Grossman, MD

                                    West River Health Services,
                                      Hettinger, ND, February 28, 2001.
    Paul Adcock,
    Manager, Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.; Bison, SD.
        Dear Mr. Adcock: I would heartily endorse your water project. I do
    feel that the benefits from decreased sodium, specially in light of the
    high elderly population and the large number of patients with cardiac
    disease, the new water is a wonderful resource.
        As a physician who cares for many people in that area, I would
    definitely endorse the water project for Perkins County.
                Sincerely,
                                            Robert E. Grossman,
                                                             MD, FAAFP.
                                     ______

                            Letter From Vincent Gunn

                                 South Dakota State University,
                                Bison, South Dakota, February 28, 2001.
    Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.,
    Bison, South Dakota.
        Dear Sirs: As a SDSU County Educator for Agronomy, I am writing
    this letter to express the Great Need for improving the water quality
    in Perkins County located in northwestern South Dakota.
        I have personally collected water samples from many drinking water
    sources located throughout Perkins County. Almost all the human water
    samples are contaminated with excessive sodium (about 1600 to 2400
    ppm), total dissolved solids, non-sodium salts such as sulfates, and
    fluoride. These high levels of salts and solids present health hazards
    to the water consumer that need to be corrected.
        During the past six months I have been testing livestock water for
    total salts after reports were received of cattle, sheep and horses
    being killed in Perkins County, South Dakota. Excessive salts such as
    sodium and sulfates were found in the livestock drinking water. The
    water killed cattle at the 7800 parts per million level that is
    substantially lower than the supposedly 10,000 parts per million ``book
    value'' salt concentration level required to kill livestock.
        Likewise, many houseplants, trees, and shrubs cannot tolerate the
    high salt level found in our human drinking water. Many well-documented
    circumstances have been seen with the Perkins County human drinking
    water killing plants.
        Please find us a water source that is safe for human, livestock,
    and plant health.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Vincent Gunn,
                                                  SDSU County Educator.
                                     ______

                              Letter From Jim West

                                                     KBM, Inc.,
                          Grand Forks, North Dakota, February 28, 2001.
    Paul Adcock,
    Mgr., Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., Bison, SD.
        Dear Paul: Yesterday, a Mr. Roger Fjeldahl from Northern Pipe
    Products Inc. was in my office and indicated that PVC pipe was at very
    low price. Apparently, last fall PVC pipe prices fell, and they are
    very attractive from a funding point of view.
        If you or your funding institution is interested in low prices, it
    would be prudent to obtain money as soon as possible to began
    installation of pipe. The pipe prices will probably continue to
    escalate upward for the next seven years.
                Respectfully Submitted,
                                                      Jim West,
                                                        Vice President.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Tucson Regional Water Council

        The Tucson Regional Water Council (TRWC) thanks you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony concerning the Bureau of Reclamation's
    fiscal year 2002 budget request. TRWC is a non-profit organization in
    Tucson, Arizona, whose members are water providers, business and
    professional people, and concerned citizens dedicated to ensuring a
    long-term, stable quality water supply for southern Arizona. Our 260
    members appreciate the Committee's long support of the Central Arizona
    Project. We are grateful to you and your colleagues for your years of
    dedication to this project.
        The TRWC wishes to address the Bureau of Reclamation's budget that
    pertains to water resources in southern Arizona and, in particular, the
    Bureau's plans that continue to positively impact our Central Arizona
    Project water planning.
        Colorado River water delivered by the Central Arizona Project will
    be part of the City of Tucson's water supply starting in April. This
    new supply enables the City to turn off groundwater wells that are
    pumping water from underneath the metropolitan area, which should halt
    further subsidence. The other CAP contract holders in the metropolitan
    area, particularly those located north of the City of Tucson, are
    proceeding with their plans to develop the necessary infrastructure to
    receive and deliver Colorado River water. In August 2000, the Bureau of
    Reclamation's Phoenix Area Office published an appraisal study titled
    ``Alternatives for Using Central Arizona Project Water in the Northwest
    Tucson Area.'' It is vital for the well being of the residents of these
    areas to have access to a renewable water supply and to partner with
    the Bureau of Reclamation in developing delivery systems.
        In addition, in order to fully utilize CAP water, users must have
    reliability features as part of the Central Arizona Project. It is
    imperative for the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with their planning
    for Tucson Reliability and for the Northwest region. We respectfully
    request that the Bureau of Reclamation budget line item: Tucson
    Reliability Division be approved. This line item allows the Bureau to
    continue its planning process.
        In addition, work done by the Bureau of Reclamation in southern
    Arizona is necessary for this region to continue its water resources
    planning. We are experiencing great growth, which requires coordination
    with other agencies. Valuable services provided by the Bureau through
    its inter-regional budget items include environmental and interagency
    coordination, general planning activities, providing technical
    assistance, and planning investigations programs.
        Of particular importance is the on-going Bureau Investigations
    Defined Program for southern Arizona, the Southern Arizona Water
    Management Study. This study is assisting the State of Arizona, several
    municipalities in southern Arizona, and two Indian Nations in
    coordinating planning efforts and Central Arizona Project water
    exchanges. The study is instrumental in identifying long-range water
    needs, water supply and treatment management options, and developing
    efficient water management strategies.
        The Tucson Regional Water Council is closely associated with the
    Bureau under the Tucson Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, which
    is funded under Title XVI--Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The
    study, which is known locally as the Regional Effluent Planning
    Partnership, is in its fourth year. Regional participants meet monthly
    to cooperatively plan for use of reclaimed wastewater, this regions
    only water resource that will increase in the future. We are in the
    process of developing the Feasibility Study report, which includes
    projects from three municipalities.
        The Bureau of Reclamation is providing water management and
    resource planning services that are crucial for southern Arizona
    residents. We respectfully request that the Bureau receive its full
    funding requests for fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California

        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is
    pleased to submit the following testimony for the record, regarding
    programs contained in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's, the Department
    of Energy's and the Army Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 2002 budget
    for your Subcommittee's hearing record.
        MWD strongly recommends your approval of a Reclamation and Corps of
    Engineers fiscal year 2002 budget that includes $263.6 million in
    funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. We urge your support for
    reauthorization of the California Water Supply and Ecosystem
    Enhancement Act (California Bay-Delta Act). In addition, MWD urges your
    support for the San Joaquin Water Supply and Exchange Program, as part
    of the reauthorization of the California Bay-Delta Act. We ask for your
    support for additional federal funding for Reclamation's Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program. We request that Congress appropriate
    $17.5 million 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 Recovery Implementation effort that will provide for
    conservation of endangered and threatened species and habitat along the
    lower Colorado River, and requests an additional $2.5 million for the
    Lower Colorado River Operations Program, which provides mitigation for
    impacts associated with Reclamation's projects.
        California has developed a Colorado River Water Use Plan
    (California Plan) to provide a framework for the agencies which rely on
    river water to reduce diversions to within California's 4.4 million
    acre-foot per year normal apportionment. Successful implementation of
    the California Plan is vital to the water supply reliability of the
    State of California, and is critical to the Colorado River interests of
    the six other Colorado River Basin states and Mexico. MWD supports
    Reclamation funding of $2 million for Salton Sea Habitat Enhancement
    activities in support of environmental permits required to proceed with
    the California Plan. Two water management reservoirs near the All-
    American Canal, an 8,000 acre-foot reservoir to the east of the
    Imperial Valley, and a 3,000 acre-foot on the western side of the
    Valley would help facilitate the implementation of the California Plan
    and could be of significant benefit to the other Colorado River Basin
    states and Mexico. Reclamation funding of $2.8 million is needed in
    fiscal year 2002 in order to provide for environmental impact analysis,
    and if a decision is made to move forward, the initial stage of project
    design.
        MWD supports the recommendation by the National Drought Policy
    Commission that drought planning assistance funding needs to be
    increased at the national level and recommends the Bureau's drought
    planning program be increased to $5 million. Finally, MWD desires your
    support of funding necessary for work required to remove radioactive
    uranium mill 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.

     METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA--RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
                         FISCAL YEAR 2002 APPROPRIATIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Appropriations Bill                   MWD Recommendation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:
        California Bay-Delta       $210.9 million
         Ecosystem Restoration.
        Salton Sea Habitat         $2 million
         Enhancement Activities.
        Water Management           $2.8 million
         Reservoirs near the All-
         American Canal.
        Colorado River Basin       $17.5 million plus sufficient funds for
         Salinity Control           required operation and maintenance of
         Program--Title II.         constructed units and for plan
                                    formulation
        Endangered Species         $12.179 million
         Conservation/Recovery
         Projects.
        Lower Colorado River       $2.5 million above President's budgeted
         Operations Program.        amount (Support 3 state/federal/tribe
                                    effort)
        Land and Water             $7 million
         Conservation Fund.
        Water Conservation Field   $500,000 for MWD
         Services Program Earmark.
        National Fish and          $1.3 million for LCR MSCP (Support 3
         Wildlife Foundation.       state/federal/tribe effort)
        Office of Native American  $250,000 for LCR MSCP (Support for 3
         Affairs.                   state/federal/tribe effort)
        Drought Assistance         $5 million
         Program.
        Brackish Water             $3 million
         Desalination.
    Department of Energy: Removal  $10 million
     of Radioactive Tailings in
     Moab, Utah.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:  $52.7 million
     Bay-Delta Related Activities.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Accardo, Joseph Jr., Executive Director, Port of South Louisiana,
      letter from....................................................   477
    Achterman, Gail L., Executive Director, Deschutes Basin Resources
      Conservancy, letter from.......................................   669
    Alabama State Docks, prepared statement..........................   644
    Alachua County Board of County Commissioners, Alachua County,
      Florida, prepared statement....................................   416
    American:
        Chemical Society, prepared statement.........................   399
        Museum of Natural History, prepared statement................   413
        Public Power Association, prepared statements389, 400........
        Rivers, prepared statements452, 556, 610.....................
        Phytopathological Society, prepared statement................   428
        Society:
            For Microbiology, prepared statement.....................   392
            Of Civil Engineers, prepared statement...................   578
            Of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement..............   588
            Of Plant Physiologists...................................   428
        Wind Energy Association, prepared statement..................   442
    Anderson, Maj. Gen. Phillip R., Division Engineer, South Atlantic
      Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................    99
    Arizona Department of Water Resources, prepared statement........   679
    Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee:
        (Colorado), prepared statement...............................   534
        (Kansas), prepared statement.................................   535
        (Oklahoma), prepared statement...............................   538
        Prepared statement...........................................   530
    Arnold, Brig. Gen. Edwin J., Jr., Division Engineer, Mississippi
      Valley Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the
      Army, Department of Defense--Civil.............................    99
    Association:
        For the Development of Inland Navigation in America's Ohio
          Valley, prepared statement.................................   519
        Of State Dam Safety Officials, Inc., prepared statement......   576
        Of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., prepared statement.......   454

    Baker, Kenneth E., Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense
      Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
      Administration, Department of Energy...........................   141
        Statement of.................................................   195
    Barrett, Lake H., Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive
      Waste Management, Department of Energy.........................   351
        Prepared statement...........................................   353
    Batemon, Stanley D., Chairman, St. Clair County Commission,
      letter from....................................................   489
    Berggren, Robert B., General Manager, Pleasant Hill Recreation &
      Park District, letter from.....................................   594
    Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, question
      submitted by...................................................   364
    Biggs, Otha Lee, President, Monroe County Commission and Judge of
      Probate, letter from...........................................   487
    Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA), prepared statement...   431
    Board of:
        Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo Mississippi Delta, prepared
          statement..................................................   542
        Mississippi Levee Commissioners, prepared statement..........   527
        Supervisors, Contra Costa County, California, prepared
          statements450, 591.........................................
    Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., prepared statement..............   383
    Bowman, Admiral Frank L., Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion
      Program, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department
      of Energy......................................................   141
        Opening statement............................................   177
        Prepared statement...........................................   180
    Browne, John C., Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
      prepared statement.............................................    77
    Bucknam, Charles H., prepared statements613, 649.................
    Business Council for Sustainable Energy, prepared statement......   420
    Butte County, CA, prepared statement.............................   455
    Byard, Jim, Jr., Mayor, City of Prattville, letter from..........   485
    Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, question
      submitted by...................................................   368

    Caddo/Bossier Port Commission, prepared statement................   629
    California:
        Reclamation Board, prepared statement........................   508
        Society of Professional Engineers, prepared statement........   684
    Castro, Brig. Gen. Randal R., Division Engineer, Pacific Ocean
      Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................    99
    Central:
        Arizona Water Conservation District, prepared statement......   652
        Montana Resource and Conservation Area, Inc., prepared
          statement..................................................   690
    Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District, prepared
      statement......................................................   490
    Chambliss, Clyde, Chairman, Autauga County Commission, letter
      from...........................................................   483
    City of:
        Crookston, Minnesota, prepared statement.....................   604
        Folsom, California, prepared statement.......................   598
        Gridley, prepared statement..................................   404
        Huntington Beach, prepared statement.........................   566
        Inglewood, California, prepared statement....................   566
        Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners, prepared statement   561
        Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement.....................   574
        Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement.......................   571
        Norwalk, prepared statement..................................   565
        Oceanside, prepared statement................................   684
        Phoenix, prepared statement..................................   491
        Roseville, California, prepared statement....................   597
        Sacramento, prepared statement...............................   465
        Salem, Oregon, prepared statements598, 674...................
        Santa Barbara, California, prepared statement................   570
        Stillwater, Minnesota, prepared statement....................   601
    Clark County Regional Flood Control District, prepared statement.   551
    Coachella Valley Water:
        District, prepared statement.................................   517
        District; Imperial Irrigation District; Metropolitan Water
          District of Southern California; and San Diego County Water
          Authority, prepared statement..............................   652
    Coalition:
        Of EPSCoR States, prepared statement.........................   599
        Of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement................   403
    Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, statement of..   101
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.............   699
        Board of California, prepared statements463, 677.............
        Commission of Nevada, prepared statement.....................   675
    Colorado School of Mines, prepared statement.....................   615
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, prepared statement..   513
    Colusa Basin Drainage District--California, prepared statement...   686
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, prepared
      statement......................................................   493
    Coosa-Alabama River Improvement Association, Inc., prepared
      statement......................................................   480
    County of:
        Sonoma, California, prepared statement.......................   517
        Tulare, California, prepared statement.......................   464
    Crow Creek Sioux, prepared statement.............................   696
    Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:
        Question submitted by........................................   211
        Statement of.................................................   301
    Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Idaho, statement of..........   302

    Decker, Dr. James, Acting Director, Office of Science, Department
      of Energy......................................................   219
        Prepared statement...........................................   236
        Statement of.................................................   233
    Delesdernier, Captain Mark, Jr., President, Crescent River Port
      Pilots' Association, letter from...............................   480
    Dixon, Dr. Robert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Power
      Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
      Department of Energy...........................................   219
        Prepared statement...........................................   224
        Statement of.................................................   221
    DOE University Research Program in Robotics (URPR), prepared
      statement......................................................   393
    Domenici, Hon Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
        Opening statements of1, 23, 81, 99, 141......................
        Questions submitted by16, 45, 199, 280, 286, 293, 362........
        Statement of.................................................   299
    Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, statement
      of.............................................................   100
    Doyle, Robert, Assistant General Manager, Land Division, East Bay
      Regional Park District, letter from............................   592
    Dozier, Richard T., President, Montgomery Marina, Inc., letter
      from...........................................................   488

    Eastern Municipal Water District, prepared statement.............   635

    Farish, Anne H., Mayor, City of Monroeville, letter from.........   484
    Fifth Louisiana Levee District, prepared statement...............   448
    Fernbach, Paul, Regional Commissioner, Pleasant Hill--Martinez
      Soccer Association, letter from................................   595
    Flowers, Lt. General Robert B., Commander and Chief of Engineers,
      Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department
      of Defense--Civil1, 99.........................................
        Prepared statements7, 110....................................
        Statements of5, 108..........................................
    Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and Dry Prairie Rural
      Water, prepared statement......................................   660
    Fricks, William M., Chairman, Rome City Commission, letter from..   490

    Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, prepared statement......   668
    Geothermal:
        Energy Association, prepared statement.......................   381
        Resources Council, prepared statements.....................377, 436
    Geringer, Jim, Governor, Office of the Governor, State of
      Wyoming, letter from...........................................   682
    Gimello, Richard, Executive Director, New Jersey Maritime
      Resources, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation,
      prepared statement.............................................   581
    Gioconda, General Thomas F., Acting Deputy Administrator for
      Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration,
      Department of Energy...........................................   141
        Statement of.................................................   185
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Board of Directors, prepared
      statement......................................................   688
    Glidewell, Sue L., Mayor, City of Rainbow City, letter from......   485
    Gordon, General John, Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear
      Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security
      Administration, Department of Energy23, 141....................
        Prepared statements32, 149...................................
        Statements of23, 26, 143.....................................
    Gowan, Lynn A., Acting Chairman, Montgomery County Commission,
      letter from....................................................   487
    Graham, David, on behalf of the Institute for Defense Analysis...    53
    Green Brook Flood Control Commission, prepared statement.........   470
    Griffin, Brig. Gen. Robert H., Division Engineer, Great Lakes and
      Ohio River Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of
      the Army, Department of Defense--Civil.........................    99
    Gulf Intracostal Canal Association, prepared statement...........   645

    Hector, Louis J., Vice President, Transportation and
      Infrastructure, State of New York, Empire State Development
      Corporation, prepared statement................................   581
    Hicks, Kathy, Mayor, City of Walnut Creek, letter from...........   593
    Hoffmeister, Laura M., Mayor, City of Concord, letter from.......   592
    Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
      questions submitted by50, 373..................................
    Huntoon, Carolyn L., Ph.D., Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of
      Environmental Management, Department of Energy.................   299
        Prepared statement...........................................   307
        Statement of.................................................   305

    Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium, prepared statement   410
    International Association of:
        Fire Fighters, prepared statement..................   380
        Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statement...............   637

    Johnston, Ronald, Program Director, Cup Completion Act Office,
      Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior..............    81
        Prepared statement...........................................    89
    Jordan, James T., President, J.T. Jordan Cotton, Inc., letter
      from...........................................................   486
    Jordan, Terry T., Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, letter
      from...........................................................   478

    Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, prepared statement.....   596
    Kiedrowski, Ronald L., Interim City Manager, City of San Pablo,
      letters from...................................................   596

    Larrabee, Richard M., Director, Port Commerce Department, The
      Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, prepared statement..   581
    Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., prepared statement.....   460
    Little River Drainage District, prepared statement...............   448
    Lorino, Michael R., Jr., President, Associated Branch Pilots,
      letter from....................................................   479
    Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement......   638
    Los Osos Community Services District, prepared statement.........   544
    Louisiana Governor's Task Force on Maritime Industry, prepared
      statement......................................................   473
    Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI), prepared
      statement......................................................   415
    Lower Colorado River Basin States--Arizona, California and
      Nevada, prepared statement.....................................   680
    Low Impact Hydropower Institute, prepared statement..............   439

    Madsen, Brig. Gen. Peter T., Division Engineer, South Pacific
      Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................    99
    Magwood, William D. IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy,
      Science and Technology, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
      Technology:                                                       219
        Prepared statement...........................................   252
        Statement of.................................................   249
    Martz, Judy, Governor, Office of the Governor, State of Montana,
      letter
      from...........................................................   693
    Mathis, Joseph F., Executive Director, Prattville Area Chamber of
      Commerce, letter from..........................................   488
    McDaniels, Elmer, Manager, Tumalo Irrigation District, letter
      from...........................................................   666
    McDonald, J. William, Regional Director, Pacific Northwest
      Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior......    81
        Prepared statement...........................................    84
        Statement of.................................................    82
    Melcher, Brig. Gen. David F., Division Engineer, Southwestern
      Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................    99
    Merced Irrigation District, prepared statement...................   472
    Metropolitan:
        St. Louis Sewer District, prepared statement.................   462
        Water District of Southern California, prepared statement....   708
        Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, prepared
          statement..................................................   467
    Mid-Dakota Rural System, Inc., prepared statement................   654
    Miller, Rebecca A., prepared statement...........................   651
    Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association, prepared statement   631
    MNI Wiconi Project, prepared statement...........................   670
    Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), prepared
      statement......................................................   457
    Moss Landing Harbor District, prepared statement.................   620
    Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
        Questions submitted by280, 285, 374..........................
        Statement of.................................................   348

    NAPA River Flood Control Project, prepared statement.............   546
    National:
        Agriculture Water Council, prepared statement................   665
        Corn Growers Association, prepared statement.................   428
        Audubon Society, prepared statement..........................   640
        Hydrogen Association, prepared statement.....................   423
        Mining Association, prepared statement.......................   607
    New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement......   683
    New York University, prepared statement..........................   407
    Northern California Water Association, prepared statement........   686
    Nuclear:
        Energy Institute, prepared statement.........................   424
        Waste Strategy Coalition, prepared statement.................   396

    Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement..............   667

    Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., prepared statement......   702
    Pontchartrain Levee District, prepared statement.................   618
    Port:
        Of Garibaldi, prepared statement.............................   568
        Of San Diego, prepared statement.............................   630
    Poso Creek Improvement Joint Powers Agreement Agencies, prepared
      statement......................................................   464
    Powell, Phil, Mayor, City of Centre, letter from.................   484

    Red River:
        Valley Association, prepared statement.......................   623
        Waterway Commission, prepared statement......................   629
    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
        Opening statement of.........................................   219
        Prepared statements62, 344...................................
        Questions submitted by212, 272, 283, 292, 365................
        Statements of2, 101, 344.....................................
    Rhoades, Brig. Gen. M. Stephen, Division Engineer, North Atlantic
      Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................    99
    Richard, Roger P., Executive Director and CEO, Port of Greater
      Baton Rouge, letter from.......................................   477
    Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
      prepared statement.............................................   632
    Robinson, C. Paul, Director, Sandia National Laboratories,
      prepared statement.............................................    66

    Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, prepared statement.........   646
    San Bernardino County Administrative Office, prepared statement..   553
    Sanguinetti, Phillip A., President, The Anniston Star, letter
      from...........................................................   483
    Santa Clara Valley Water District, prepared statement............   495
    Santa Cruz Port District, prepared statement.....................   545
    Schlesinger, Dr. James, on behalf of the Panel to Assess the
      Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear
      Stockpile......................................................    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
    Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement....................   515
    Smith, David, President, Pleasant Hill Baseball Association,
      letter from....................................................   594
    Smith, Sandy, Executive Director, Monroeville Area Chamber of
      Commerce, letter from..........................................   486
    Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), prepared statement...   429
    South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, prepared statement....   446
    Southeastern:
        Federal Power Customers, Inc., prepared statement............   451
        Universities Research Association, prepared statement........   444
    Southern Nevada Water Authority, prepared statement..............   455
    St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas, prepared statement.......   529
    State of:
        Illinois, prepared statement.................................   505
        South Carolina, prepared statement...........................   559
        South Dakota, prepared statement.............................   701
    Steamship Association of Louisiana, prepared statement...........   387
    Stepan, J. Craig, General Manager, Warrior & Gulf Navigation
      Company, letter from...........................................   489
    Strock, Brig. Gen. Carol A., Division Engineer, Northwestern
      Division, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................    99

    Tarter, C. Bruce, Director, Lawrence Livermore National
      Laboratory, University of California, prepared statement.......    72
    Thompson, Hon. Fred, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, statement of...    25
    Tornblom, Claudia L., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
      (Management on Budget), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department
      of the Army, Department of Defense--Civil......................    99
        Prepared statement...........................................   104
        Statement of.................................................   102
    Tucson Regional Water Council, prepared statements701, 707.......
    Tule River Improvement Joint Powers Agreement Agencies, prepared
      statement......................................................   465

    University:
        Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared statement.....   405
        Of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared statement..   419
    Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement....   584

    Van Winkle, Major Gen. Hans A., Deputy Commanding General (Civil
      Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense--Civil...................................    99
    Ventura Port District, prepared statement........................   622
    Vining, Robert, Chief, Program Management Division, Corps of
      Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, Department of
      Defense--Civil.................................................    99

    Wallace, Jamie D., President, Selma and Dallas County Chamber of
      Commerce, letter from..........................................   489
    Water Replenishment District of Southern California, prepared
      statement......................................................   558
    West Tennessee Tributaries Association, prepared statement.......   616
    Wolf, Robert, Director, Program Budget and Liaison, Bureau of
      Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................    81
        Prepared statement...........................................   180

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

                                                                       Page
    Additional committee questions...................................    16
    Civil works program..............................................     7
    Corps officers involved in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
      navigation
      study..........................................................     4
    Federal role in addressing the nation's water resources needs....     4
    Other observations...............................................     9
    Proposed South Carolina Port on Savannah River...................    15
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois navigation study..................     8
    Water resources planning and the national interest...............     7
    What we are doing................................................     9

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    National Nuclear Security Administration

    Ability to meet military requirements48, 49......................
    Acceleration of decline in facilities............................    48
    Additional committee questions45, 199............................
    Adequacy of the fiscal year 2002 budget request..................   200
    Administration:..................................................
        Strategic review212, 213.....................................
        Support for nonproliferation programs........................   205
    Advanced hydrotest facility at LANL..............................   210
    APT and AAA......................................................   209
    Background.......................................................    77
    Backlog of maintenance...........................................    45
    BN-350 reactor...................................................   211
    Budget priorities................................................   147
    Butler-Cutler report.............................................    50
    Certifiable pits schedule........................................   192
    Certification of stockpile.......................................   193
    Challenges and advances of the stockpile stewardship program.....   187
    Condition of the nuclear weapons stockpile.......................   199
    Costs of infrastructure repair...................................    43
    Critical skills..................................................   203
    Cyber security...................................................   201
    Defense PA&E review of April 2000................................    47
    Environmental management funding.................................    50
    Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization initiative33, 69..
    Findings.........................................................    56
    Fiscal year 2002 Department of Energy budget request.............   182
    Five-year:
        Budgeting plan...............................................    47
        Plan for national ignition facility..........................   194
    Foster panel recommendations46, 202..............................
    Goal 1: Stockpile stewardship....................................   154
    Goal 2: Securing nuclear facilities, materials, information, and
      expertise worldwide............................................   161
    Goal 3: Detecting, deterring, and impeding proliferation.........   166
    Goal 4: Providing naval nuclear reactors.........................   170
    Goal 5: Vitality and readiness of the NNSA enterprise............   171
    Goal 6: Creating a well-managed organization.....................   172
    Hazardous activities.............................................   215
    Headquarters reorganization......................................    42
    Highly technical and specialized employees.......................   182
    How to use additional resources..................................   199
    Improvements are still needed....................................   153
    Industrial partnerships..........................................   204
    Infrastructure23, 212............................................
        As a morale and recruitment issue............................    49
        Funding......................................................   193
        Initiative...................................................    42
        Kansas City plant............................................    29
        Size/composition.............................................    26
        Status.......................................................   186
    International programs status....................................   197
    IPP program status...............................................   196
    Laboratory directed research & development204, 208...............
    LANL infrastructure..............................................    28
    Livermore lab building 132.......................................    29
    Management.......................................................    31
    Microsystems and engineering sciences applications (MESA) complex   201
    Mission accomplishments..........................................   151
    Modern pit production facility...................................    51
    Morale issues....................................................    40
    MOX:
        Facility status..............................................   197
        Program status...............................................   190
    MPC&A program status.............................................   196
    National ignition facility202, 215...............................
        Status.......................................................   191
    Naval:
        Reactor budget request summary...............................   178
        Reactor's accomplishments....................................   146
        Reactors Department of Energy budget detail..................   184
    Nevada:
        Operations facility..........................................    29
        Test site....................................................   213
            Infrastructure...........................................    28
    NNSA accomplishments.............................................   144
    Nuclear:
        Cities initiative............................................   207
            Status...................................................   196
        Non-proliferation area status................................   195
        Test readiness and long-term pit production..................   147
    Observations.....................................................   150
    Ongoing reviews and their effect on the budget request...........   146
    Overall cost to rebuild the infrastructure of the complex........    45
    Pantex infrastructure............................................    29
    Pit production...................................................   195
        And certification............................................   203
    Plutonium pits...................................................   214
    Polygraphs.......................................................   208
        And employee morale..........................................   209
    Program:
        Infrastructure and administrative requirements...............   185
        Technical requirements.......................................   184
    Progress on the accelerated strategic computing initiative.......   217
    Recapitalization:
        Funding......................................................    30
        Initiative30, 46.............................................
    Recommendations..................................................    56
    Recruitment......................................................    41
    Reinvestment rates compared to industry and Department of Defense    49
    Retirement systems...............................................   209
    Safety and security record.......................................   205
    Sandia infrastructure............................................    28
    Second line of defense program status............................   197
    Size of the future nuclear weapon stockpile......................   200
    Status of:
        Complex......................................................    27
        Defense nuclear non-proliferation program....................   148
        Of MOX facility program......................................   189
        NNSA.........................................................   143
        Stockpile stewardship program................................   185
    Stockpile requirements...........................................    44
    TA-55 at Los Alamos National Lab.................................    44
    Tritium..........................................................   216
        Extraction facility..........................................    30
        Modernization and consolidation..............................    51
    Upgrades to the advanced test reactor............................   211
    Value of nuclear power...........................................   181
    Weapons complex..................................................    31
    Y-12:
        Infrastructure...............................................    29
        Plant........................................................    30
            Chain of command.........................................    42
            Infrastructure...........................................    41

                Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

                       Office of Environmental Management

    Accomplishments and progress in fiscal year 2001.................   308
    Additional committee questions...................................   362
    Benefits of cooperation with foreign waste management programs...   365
    Budget priorities................................................   306
    Challenges to the Yucca Mountain site............................   352
    Clean up progress................................................   305
    Compliance agreements342, 359, 363...............................
    Continuing the investment in science and technology..............   314
    Contractor financial issues......................................   358
    Disposal of waste at the Nevada test site........................   366
    Efficiency goals.................................................   307
    Ensuring we use resources effectively............................   316
    Environmental management program373, 374.........................
    Excess facilities................................................   368
    Fiscal year 2002 activities......................................   354
    Funding for research and development.............................   361
    Giving priority to the highest risk materials and wastes.........   311
    Hanford:
        River corridor cleanup project...............................   376
        Tri-party agreement renegotiations...........................   375
        Worker layoffs...............................................   376
    Improving:
        Contract management..........................................   317
        Project management...........................................   316
    Industry and university program..................................   370
    INEL buried waste--Idaho.........................................   343
    Linking sites through integration................................   318
    Litigation.......................................................   356
    Local oversight funding..........................................   366
    Meeting:
        Commitments..................................................   374
        Long-term stewardship responsibilities.......................   315
        New responsibilities.........................................   313
        The challenge of the environmental legacy....................   308
    MOAB mill tailings site346, 348, 364.............................
        Remediation plan.............................................   347
        Surveillance at the..........................................   347
    National Energy Technology Laboratory............................   369
    Nuclear power plants.............................................   367
    Office of:
        Civilian Radioactive Waste Management........................   351
        River Protection:
            Funding349, 374..........................................
            Building new double-shell tanks..........................   376
            Future funding for the WTP...............................   375
            Renegotiation of Bechtel contract........................   375
    Performance:
        Based contracts..............................................   363
        Measures.....................................................   354
    Possible renegotiation of Bechtel Washington contract............   350
    Preparations for Yucca Mountain repository.......................   351
    Program management and integration...............................   356
    Providing effective Federal oversight............................   319
    Safety first.....................................................   311
    Savannah River Ecology Laboratory................................   373
    Summary of:
        Fiscal year 2002 appropriation request.......................   353
        The fiscal year 2002 budget..................................   319
    Supporting the closure of major sites............................   313
    The fiscal year 2002 request.....................................   310
    Total systems life cycle costs...................................   366
    Transportation of waste..........................................   365
    Vitrification technology.........................................   367
    Waivers for disposition of scrap metals from radiological areas..   368
    Waste:
        Acceptance, storage, and transportation......................   355
        Funding......................................................   359
        Isolation pilot plant........................................   362
        Management education and research consortium (WERC)361, 362,
          364........................................................
    Working with our regulators and other stakeholders...............   318
    Yucca Mountain:
        Radiation standards..........................................   357
        Site time table..............................................   357

      Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

                               Office of Science

                Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

    Additional committee questions...................................   272
    Advanced:
        Accelerator applications program251, 294.....................
        Radioisotope power systems...................................   258
        Scientific computing legislation.............................   265
    Attracting scientists............................................   285
    Basic energy sciences............................................   244
    Biological and environmental research............................   245
    Biomass..........................................................   273
    Biomass v. solar.................................................   282
    Budget:
        Development..................................................   296
        For Science..................................................   286
    Distributed energy resources.....................................   223
    Energy:
        Efficiency...................................................   278
        Policy report................................................   270
        Research analyses............................................   248
        Supply R&D programs--technical information management........   249
    Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory......................   285
    Facility operations..............................................   286
    Fiscal year 2002 budget request..................................   225
        For renewable energy.........................................   269
    Fusion energy sciences246, 283...................................
    Generation IV....................................................   250
        Nuclear energy systems initiative292, 293....................
        Technologies.................................................   263
    Genomes to life program235, 284, 286, 287........................
    Geothermal.......................................................   272
    High energy and nuclear physics234, 235..........................
    High energy physics..............................................   246
    High temperature superconductivity center........................   283
    Hydrogen.........................................................   273
    Infrastructure...................................................   264
        At the science labs..........................................   287
        Nuclear facilities management................................   261
    Looking to the future--fiscal year 2002..........................   238
    Low dose radiation effects program...............................   290
    Medical isotope program..........................................   259
    Million solar roofs..............................................   274
    Mining Industry of the Future Program............................   266
    Multiprogram energy laboratories--facilities support.............   247
    Nanotechnology research..........................................   289
    National:
        Energy problem...............................................   222
        Nuclear Security Administration labs.........................   296
    Nuclear:
        Energy research initiative...................................   264
        Energy technologies program..................................   250
        Physics......................................................   247
        Power plants249, 266.........................................
        Safety.......................................................   268
    Our accomplishments and recent successes.........................   237
    Performance measures.............................................   243
    Program direction/organizational issues..........................   262
    Project management environment...................................   285
    PubSCIENCE.......................................................   290
    Purex reprocessing technology....................................   268
    Questions submitted to the:
        Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.............   292
        Office of Power Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
          Energy.....................................................   272
        Office of Science............................................   283
    Recycling spent nuclear fuel.....................................   267
    Reliability274, 282..............................................
    Renewable energy:
        R&D..........................................................   223
        Resources....................................................   225
    Renewables.......................................................   275
    Report to Congress on thorium fueled reactor assemblies..........   295
    Research:
        And development..............................................   255
        On brain imaging.............................................   288
    Safeguards and security program support..........................   248
    Science:
        Program direction............................................   248
        Programs--advanced scientific computing research.............   244
    Solar............................................................   274
    Spallation neutron source234, 288................................
    Status of nuclear engineering programs...........................   294
    Superconductivity................................................   273
    The revitalization of the nuclear power option...................   252
    Underground science at the waste isolation pilot project.........   290
    University:
        Nuclear science and engineering program......................   264
        Reactor fuel assistance and support..........................   257
        Research reactors............................................   252
    Wind.............................................................   272
    Wind energy......................................................   271
    Working with NNSA labs280, 281...................................

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    Additional committee questions91, 125............................
    American River Watershed:
        (Common features), California................................   139
        (Folsom Dam modifications), California.......................   139
    Animas-La Plata..................................................    94
    Assessing the Nation's needs for water and related land resources
      management.....................................................   111
    Beach re-nourishment policy change...............................   126
    Bluestone Dam safety project.....................................   133
    Budget:
        Impacts......................................................    93
        Process......................................................    91
    California:
        Bay-delta restoration........................................    87
        Power........................................................    83
    Central Valley project restoration fund83, 87....................
    Challenges based on listening sessions...........................   112
    Corps backlog....................................................   127
    Dam safety and facilities operation..............................    91
    Devils Lake, North Dakota........................................   137
    Direct program...................................................   111
    Feasibility and reconnaissance studies...........................   137
    Fiscal year:
        2000 accomplishments highlights..............................    88
        2002 Army civil works program................................   104
            Highlights of the........................................   104
        2002 budget request..........................................    85
    Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries construction--
      Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.......................................   131
    Government Performance and Results Act...........................   107
    Grand Forks, North Dakota-East Grand Forks, Minnesota............   138
    Greenbrier basin flood control project...........................   133
    Impact of the President's budget request.........................   128
    Impacts to operations and maintenance budget cuts................   132
    Infrastructure129, 130...........................................
    Initial assessment of circumstances..............................   112
    Lower Mud River..................................................   136
    Middle Rio Grande project endangered species.....................    95
    Mission..........................................................    85
    New Mexico problems..............................................    90
    Operation and maintenance........................................   139
    Other accounts...................................................    88
    Policy and Administration and Loan Program.......................    83
    Project:
        Cost increases...............................................   131
        Planning and review..........................................   107
    Reclamation's commitment.........................................    84
    Redirecting congressional priorities.............................   131
    Reimbursed program...............................................   111
    Robert C. Byrd locks and dam, WV & Ohio..........................   132
    Rural water programs.............................................    91
    Safety of dams evaluation and modification program...............    92
    South Sacramento County streams, California......................   139
    Summary of civil works program budget............................   111
    Title XVI program................................................    93
    Total budget request.............................................    83
    Upper Mississippi and Illinois navigation study, Illinois, Iowa,
      Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin..............................   126
    Wahpeton, North Dakota and Breckenridge, Minnesota...............   138
    Water and related resources83, 86................................
        New FTE......................................................    93
    West Virginia Tug Fork flood protection projects.................   134
    Wheeling Creek channelization project............................   136
    Winfield locks and dam, WV.......................................   132
    Yazoo basin, backwater pump, Mississippi.........................   131
    Zero growth budget...............................................    90

                                       -