[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 15, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8324-H8338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 289 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1655.
The Chair designates the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Quinn) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1356
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1655) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
for the civilian energy and scientific research, development, and
demonstration and related commercial application of energy technology
programs, projects, and activities of the Department of Energy, and
[[Page H8325]]
for other purposes, with Mr. Sununu (Chairman pro tempore) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999, is the first
stand-alone R&D energy bill to be considered on the floor of the House
since 1988.
This bill authorizes $3.878 billion for fiscal year 2000 and $4.099
billion for fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Energy's Supply,
Science, and Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation R&D programs.
Highlights of the bill's authorization for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
include the following: First, it boosts spending for solar and
renewable energy technologies. Including the already authorized
Hydrogen Research Program and related Office of Science Programs, the
bill recommends $401.9 million in fiscal year 2000 for these programs,
an increase of $26.8 million, or 6.7 percent above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1999; and recommends $418.1 million for
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $16.8 million, or 4.0 percent above
the amount recommended for fiscal year 2000.
Second, the bill revitalizes the DOE's moribund Nuclear Energy
Program and recommends $115.7 million in fiscal year 2000 for nuclear
energy, an increase of $24.3 million, or 26.6 percent above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and $3.4 million above the
administration's request; and recommends $127.3 million for fiscal year
2001, an increase of $11.5 million, or 9.9 percent above the amount
recommended for fiscal year 2000.
Third, the bill preserves and strengthens the Nation's High Energy
Physics program, fully funds U.S. participation on the Large Hadron
Collider at CERN and prevents layoffs at the two premier U.S. High
Energy Physics facilities, Firmi National Accelerator Laboratory,
Fermilab, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, SLAC.
{time} 1400
Fourth, the bill also preserves and strengthens the Nation's nuclear
physics program, prevents the closure of MIT/Bates Accelerator Center,
and increases operations at the two premier nuclear physics facilities,
the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Lab in New York.
Fifth, the bill fully funds important biological and environmental
research on the human genome and global climate change, as well as
basic environmental research.
Sixth, the bill provides robust funding for basic energy sciences,
including significant increases to the operating funds for the Nation's
existing premier synchroton and neutron sources, and $100 million to
initiate construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Seventh, the bill reinvigorates DOE's fusion energy sciences, and
recommends $250 million in fiscal year 2000 and $275 million in fiscal
year 2001 to allow increased operations at the Nation's three premier
fusion energy facilities, the DIII-D at General Atomics, the Alcator-C
Mod at MIT, and the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, as well as
accelerated exploration of advanced magnetic and inertial fusion energy
concepts.
Eighth, the bill makes a strong commitment to ensuring the clean and
efficient use of the Nation's plentiful supply of fossil fuels, and
includes $25 million in fiscal year 2000 and $50 million in fiscal year
2001 for a fossil energy science initiative for grants to be
competitively awarded and subject to peer review for research relating
to energy efficiency.
And, ninth, the bill also maintains a strong commitment to energy
efficiency, and also includes $25 million in fiscal year 2000 and $50
million in fiscal year 2001 for an energy efficiency science initiative
for grants to be competitively awarded and subject to peer review for
research relating to energy efficiency.
The bill also contains a number of funding limitations and
prohibitions that address amounts of funds that may be reprogrammed;
demonstration projects; general plant and construction projects;
obligation of funds for the construction of the Spallation Neutron
Source; U.S. participation in the international thermonuclear
experimental reactor engineering design activities; travel costs for
DOE and its contractors or subcontractors; noncompetitive financial
assistance awards to trade associations and awards of management and
operating contract for DOE civilian energy labs; awards, amendments, or
modifications of contracts that deviate from the Federal acquisition
regulation; and preparation or initiation of requests for proposals for
unauthorized programs, projects or activities.
In addition, the bill also prohibits the Secretary of Energy from
admitting to any classified area of any DOE-owned or -operated
nonmilitary energy laboratory, except for specific laboratories, an
individual who is a citizen of a nation that is named on the DOE list
of sensitive countries, unless the Secretary waives the prohibition on
a case-by-case basis if it is determined that such access is necessary
for the furtherance of U.S. civilian science.
I commend the bill to the House for its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the chairman and the ranking
Democrat of the full committee, as well as the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the subcommittee, for
bringing this bill to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Department of Energy Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act. We have been able to
agree on many of the issues before coming to the floor today, and I
appreciate the time all of those involved have taken to discuss our
concerns and to make the necessary changes. However, I still have some
concerns with this bill and hope to be able to address them on the
floor today and in conference.
Unfortunately, too many of our science programs, good programs,
necessary programs, are being underfunded. On one hand, we have the
nuclear energy R&D, fossil energy R&D, and a number of the Office of
Science programs which have fared well in this bill. On the other hand,
we have the solar, renewables and conservation accounts, and the
Spallation Neutron Source, which have been cut well below the
President's request. Solar and renewable energy is down $84.4 million,
energy conservation R&D is down $67.8 million and the Spallation
Neutron Source is down $96.1 million. In total, H.R. 1655 is $200
million below the President's request.
This bill also contains draconian restrictions on foreign visitors to
civilian laboratories that go far beyond the ones Congress has agreed
to for the nuclear weapons laboratories. An amendment that I offered
during the Committee on Science markup of another bill, as well as the
language adopted in the DOD conference report, calls for a temporary
moratorium on foreign visitors pending DOE and FBI certification. I
believe this approach makes much more sense and I hope we can continue
to work on this in conference. There have been small victories in the
effort to put the bill on a more solid footing. In committee, there was
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) to
add $100 million to the Spallation Neutron Source which passed with the
support of the chairman of the committee and the entire committee
unanimously. However, the $100 million had to be offset within an
underfunded bill. It is my hope that we can get the project on track
for the funding it needs for the future.
The Spallation project is one project I worked with the gentleman
from Wisconsin and the administration to move forward during the
committee's consideration. I very much appreciate all of
[[Page H8326]]
the efforts on behalf of the gentleman from Wisconsin and the
contributions that he has made to that project. I was pleased with the
ultimate cooperation that was exhibited on both sides of the Committee
on Science and the Department on provisions to make sure that the
project addresses some of its major problems while still moving
forward. I agree that the Secretary should certify in writing to the
Committee on Science in the House and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources in the other body that qualified individuals have
filled senior project manager positions for the project. I also agree
that the Secretary should provide Congress a cost baseline and plans
for revised project management structure. It is my hope that with
continued progress, we can get the Spallation project back on track to
fulfill its important scientific mission.
I am pleased as well that this bill includes the methane hydrates
provision that I supported in the committee as well as increases in the
fossil fuel research and development program which is especially
important to my congressional district in southwestern and southern
Illinois. The solar, renewable and conservation programs are important
to ensuring that this country has a broad, clean, affordable and
sustainable domestic energy portfolio as we enter the 21st century.
For example, DOE-funded research into the use of biomass to produce
ethanol could one day enable us to turn agricultural waste into a
cheap, clean and sustainable source of energy. The gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall) will be offering an amendment to make sure these
important programs are fully authorized. I urge my colleagues to
support the Udall amendment.
While this bill is not a perfect piece of legislation, I look forward
to working on its improvement during the conference with the Senate and
ask my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The
leadership has informed me that unless we get this bill done by 2:45,
we will rise and we might not come back. So I would implore the Members
that we keep the chatter down to a minimum and have this bill on a fast
track if it is at all humanly possible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, for yielding me
this time.
I would like to recognize also the efforts of my close friend,
colleague and neighbor in California George Brown, who recently passed
away, for all of his efforts on the Committee on Science and we
certainly miss him.
Mr. Chairman, as the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the Committee on Science and the author of this
legislation, I am proud to speak in support of H.R. 1655.
My bill, H.R. 1655, authorizes civilian energy and scientific
research, development, demonstration and related commercial
applications of energy technology at the Department of Energy for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
But before I go on, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin for his hard work and leadership in bringing this important
bill to the floor and certainly congratulate the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall) taking over as the ranking member and also thank the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment for his leadership on his side
of the aisle. While we do not always agree on the issues at hand, we
certainly agree it is very important to pass H.R. 1655 before 2:45 this
afternoon.
Without getting into the statistics of this, we increase outlays for
various renewable energy and other types of technology, certainly
nuclear which is necessary, core scientific research, including high-
energy physics and fusion energy. The budget funds these areas of big
science that legitimately are in need of basic government support. It
breathes new life into the fusion energy sciences program which has
been struggling to stay afloat for a long, long time.
I believe that H.R. 1655 promotes the committee's priorities for the
future. The bill provides strong support for solar and renewable energy
and nuclear power R&D that is critical to the United States. I am happy
to support this. This is a tremendous display of how much can be
accomplished when we work in a bipartisan fashion.
I ask my colleagues for their support on this important authorization
bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, although this bill has many
admirable qualities, I am hopeful that we will amend this bill and
extend its reach to areas of science and energy that deserve greater
funding.
As a member of the House Science Committee, I am very interested in
providing sufficient monies for the civilian research and development
programs of the Department of Energy. This bill authorizes a total of
$3.9 billion in FY 2000, and $4.1 billion in 2001, for certain Energy
Department (DOE) civilian research and development programs including:
energy supply, science, fossil energy research and development, and
energy conservation research and development programs. Although most of
these funds are well-placed, the bill in its current form does have a
number of inadequacies.
While there are sufficient (i.e., at or above the President's
request) funds for nuclear energy R&D, fossil energy R&D, and most
basic energy science programs, I am concerned about the other vital
programs in this authorization bill that are of particular importance
to the administration (solar and renewable energy, energy conservation,
and the Spallation Neutron Source).
The measure authorizes $432 million in FY 2000 and $453 million in FY
2001, for certain energy supply department programs and activities. Of
this amount, the bill designates $317 million in FY 2000 and $325
million in FY 2001 for solar and renewable resources technologies,
including $83 million in FY 2000 and $86 million in FY 2001 for
photovoltaic energy systems; $75 million in FY 2000 and $78 million in
FY 2001 for biopower/biofuels energy systems; $36 million in FY 2000
and $37 million in FY 2001 for wind energy systems; and $34 million in
FY 2000 and $35 million in FY 2001 for geothermal programs.
The measure also provides that $116 million in FY 2000 and $127
million in FY 2001 of the energy supply studies authorization be used
for nuclear energy programs, including $37 million each year for
advanced radioisotope power systems.
I am hopeful that we will provide more funding for solar and
renewable energy and energy conservation. The authorization bill
woefully underfunds these programs, and they fall almost $85 million
below the President's request. These programs help to develop
environmentally friendly technologies for electricity generation using
solar, wind, biomass or geothermal energy, and energy conservation
technologies that save people money on their electricity bills, such as
coatings for windows that keep heat inside in the winter. It is
imperative that we continue to develop these technologies because we
know that our natural resources are severely limited. We do not want a
return to the dark ages because we lacked the foresight to fund
alternative fuel sources and energy conservation projects. I hope that
we will work together as a bipartisan body to ensure that we adequately
fund programs under this budget item.
I am also pleased that the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is
receiving funding. The SNS is a large research project involving 5 DOE
national laboratories that will be located at the Oak Ridge National
Lab in Tennessee. The SNS could lead to important developments in
materials characterization. It is clear that the SNS would provide many
practical advances in science that would be applicable in the ordinary
household. For instance, neutron science is necessary for materials
characterization, and this has important benefits to everything from
improved CD's and shatter-proof windshields to nuclear weapons
materials. The measure authorizes $100 million in FY 2000 for
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
However, it is clear that these funds will not be provided unless
proper management is provided. Before any SNS funds could be obligated,
however, the bill requires the department to provide Congress with
project information and guarantees, including certification that senior
project management officials have been filled by qualified individuals;
a cost baseline and project milestones for each major construction and
technical system activity; certification that any taxes and fees
associated with having the SNS in Tennessee are not greater than if the
project were located in another state containing a DOE lab. The measure
also requires the department to include in its annual budget submission
a report on the SNS project.
I also have reservations about the stringent moratorium on the
nonnuclear weapons labs at DOE. This portion of the bill is far
stricter than the Department of Defense bill that deals
[[Page H8327]]
with visits to the nuclear weapons labs. A permanent moratorium on all
visits by citizens of sensitive foreign countries to classified
facilities of nonnuclear labs seems far too harsh. The only way a
foreigner could visit such facilities is if the Secretary of Energy
issues a waiver after determining that the proposed visit is found to
be ``necessary for the furtherance of civilian science interests of the
United States.''
Perhaps the approach found in the defense bill is more prudent. The
defense bill simply states that all citizens of sensitive countries
need to have background checks conducted before they can visit the
nuclear weapons labs, and there is to be a temporary moratorium on such
visits until the Secretary and the FBI certify to Congress that these
visits do not pose a risk to national security.
In my mind, it makes no sense to require a permanent moratorium on
visits to nonnuclear weapons labs when the moratorium on visits to
nuclear weapons labs contained in the Defense Authorization bill is a
temporary one. I hope we can address this issue as this bill moves
forward, and change the language to reflect the less draconian approach
that is contained in the Defense Authorization bill.
History tells us that science requires collaboration and cooperation.
the Manhattan Project consisted of American and foreign scientists.
German engineers taught us how to launch our astronauts beyond our
horizon. By placing such a restrictive moratorium on foreign visits to
civilian facilities, this bill could make ti much harder for the United
States to maintain its lead in science, including the science that
supports our nuclear weapons programs. The amendment would also make it
much harder to recruit and retain high caliber personnel by cutting off
collaboration with foreign peers, both working overseas and the many
who work in U.S. academic institutions.
Foreign citizens make up a significant portion of the U.S. science
and engineering graduate student population. Forty-one percent of
graduate students in physics and 43 percent of graduate students in
computer science are non-U.S. citizens. (Source: National Science
Foundation) There are some areas in which foreign nationals by virtue
of their education and training have unique skills to contribute to the
Laboratories' programs.
Interactions between employees of Russian nuclear institutes and
United States weapons labs are a critical part of nonproliferation
efforts. If Congress no longer allows visitors from sensitive countries
to enter DOE labs, Lab employees could be prevented from traveling to
at-risk foreign nuclear facilities. Barring foreign nationals from DOE
Laboratories would also prevent demonstrations of U.S. technology to
handle nuclear materials more safely and more securely.
The National Laboratories are involved with two Federal programs, the
Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) and the Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP), that provide collaborative project opportunities for
nuclear weapons scientists from the newly independent states of the
Soviet Union. The objectives of the program is to strengthen
nonproliferation by keeping nuclear scientists employed in their
current institutions instead of working for countries or groups
interested in developing nuclear weapons. The language in this bill
could undermine these important nonproliferation programs.
It is my hope that we will improve upon this bill and will provide an
authorization bill that makes sense. I believe that we are close to a
viable piece of legislation, but I urge my colleagues to work together
to polish this measure.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of the
Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1999. This bill has a lot of good things in it and
reflects the hard work of Chairman Sensenbrenner at the full committee
level and Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member Costello of the
subcommittee.
My support is qualified because I realize the bill could have been
better. The committee did well in the traditional energy areas, but the
alternative energy sources of the future are short-changed. The Office
of Science accounts fared well, but the Spallation Neutron Source is
funded at half the level it needs.
Energy research may be out of style when energy prices are relatively
low, but we should not be caught up in short-term thinking. Developing
new energy sources and getting the most out of current ones takes time
and money well in advance of when the energy is needed. I just hope
that when the next energy crunch hits, we don't look foolish for not
having made the necessary energy investments in fiscal years 2000 and
2001.
On a positive note, I'm pleased that the funds for nuclear energy R&D
and fossil energy R&D are at or above the president's request. These
programs are essential to maintaining a balanced energy portfolio. Most
of our energy currently comes from fossil fuels and will continue to do
so for our lifetimes. The fossil energy R&D programs help us get more
oil and gas out of the ground, make our large coal resources more
environmentally acceptable, and otherwise stretch our fossil energy
resources further into the future.
Unfortunately, other programs authorized in this legislation did not
fare as well. Some of the most striking cuts are to Solar and Renewable
Energy, which is down $84.4 million, Energy Conservation R&D, down
$67.8 million, and the Spallation Neutron Source, down $96.1 million
from the President's request.
Even more distressing is how energy and other research programs have
been faring in the appropriations process this year. We have watched a
pattern of research cuts in one appropriations bill after another. How
can we expect to have a strong economy in the future when our
priorities are so misplaced in the present?
Last week in committee, we developed an important multiyear computing
and information technology bill (H.R. 2086) which gives a real boost to
understanding how to build bigger and faster computers and to use them
to solve even larger problems than we can dream of tackling today. Yet,
we have watched the Appropriations Committee make cuts in these
programs, agency by agency, to the point that the program we have
authorized can't be carried out as designed. We worked hard to make
NASA lean and mean only to have the appropriators decide to slash
another billion from NASA's hide.
Now today we are bringing forward a carefully thought-out budget for
energy research which, while not perfect, comes close to doing the job.
Unfortunately, our friends on the Appropriations Committee have cut
$580 million from the administration's budget for environmental and
energy research. When we reduce actual funding to these levels, how can
we expect to gain the understanding we need of how energy use affects
the environment we live in?
How will we reduce our dependence on foreign oil? What assurance do
we have, if we are unwilling to make the investments, that new energy
technologies will be there when we need them?
I hope that my colleagues support today's amendments. Even if you
don't, I hope you support the bill.
Voting for H.R. 1655 is the best way we have of sending a message to
our colleagues on the appropriations committees and the negotiators who
will finalize next year's budget that research in general and energy
R&D in particular are critical to maintaining a high-quality way of
life well into the next century.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by
Representative Stupak regarding the Department of Energy (DOE) shipment
of weapons grade plutonium from Los Alamos, NM, to Chalk River, Canada.
This proposed route passes directly through my district in Michigan,
and it could expose millions of citizens in Michigan and other parts of
the United States to dangerous health consequences.
I have serious concerns about the proposed route, and I am also
concern about the process used to choose it.
No public hearing was held regarding the proposed route, nor were
emergency officials alerted in order to ensure adequate response
capability in case of an accident. This is particularly troubling when
compared to the Canadian Government's effort to hold public meetings
and inform local officials.
The route itself is also troubling. It is the second longest route
based on the options considered by DOE, and it is the second riskiest
route in terms of dose risk to the American public and with respect to
potential cancer fatalities. In addition, the route crosses three of
the Great Lakes over two bridges. This exposes the largest fresh water
lake system in the world to potentially devastating contamination.
The department proposal includes no military or law enforcement
escort in the United States. This is particularly troubling when
compared to the Royal Mounted Police escort which is proposed in
Canada.
All of these issues prove that an agency hearing should be held,
because it is vital to ensuring the safety of American citizens. The
department should consider the matter in a thorough and open matter,
and this amendment will help ensure that process takes place.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stupak amendment
today and urge my colleagues to support it. Many of us in the Michigan
delegation are concerned about the process followed by the Department
of Energy (DOE) in choosing the route from Los Alamos, NM, to Chalk
River, Canada, for the transportation of Mixed Oxide Fuel. I received
notification of this route only 2 days before it was to be announced,
and the distribution of an environmental assessment by the DOE to the
citizens of Michigan was inadequate, totaling less than 60 families.
The Stupak amendment merely requests that a hearing is held for public
information purposes before the route is finalized. The purpose of our
efforts is not to suggest the route is inherently unsafe, but to ensure
that citizens near the
[[Page H8328]]
route are given enough information about the project. Our constituents
have a right to know the details, and a hearing would facilitate this
process. Given that the Canadian Government balked at other proposed
routes through key Canadian industrial areas, and that this route would
pass over three of the Great Lakes, the largest supply of fresh water
in the world, it seems only appropriate that the DOE provide a wider
forum for information on this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to
address this matter, and thank Congressman Stupak for bringing this
amendment to the floor today. I again urge my colleagues to vote yes on
the Stupak amendment.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by section as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each section is
considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Energy
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act, the term--
(1) ``Department'' means the Department of Energy; and
(2) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Energy Supply.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary for Energy Supply civilian energy and
scientific research, development, and demonstration and
related commercial application of energy technology operation
and maintenance and construction programs, projects, and
activities for which specific sums are not authorized under
other authority of law $432,366,000 for fiscal year 2000 and
$452,577,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available
through the end of fiscal year 2002, of which--
(1) $316,624,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $325,321,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Solar and Renewable Resources
Technologies, including--
(A) $3,708,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,819,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Solar Building Technology Research;
(B) $83,345,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $85,845,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Photovoltaic Energy Systems;
(C) $17,510,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $18,035,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Concentrating Solar Power, of which
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001 shall be for experimental beamed power technology
demonstrations;
(D) $75,396,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $77,658,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Biopower/Biofuels Energy Systems;
(E) $35,814,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $36,889,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Wind Energy Systems;
(F) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,500,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for the Renewable Energy Production
Incentive Program;
(G) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $6,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for the International Solar Energy Program;
(H) $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,100,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory;
(I) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $35,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Geothermal, of which $4,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000 and $4,615,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be
derived from amounts otherwise authorized under this
subsection, from savings resulting from reductions in
contractor travel pursuant to section 10(d);
(J) $3,348,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,448,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Hydropower;
(K) $41,303,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $42,542,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Electric Energy Systems and Storage; and
(L) $18,100,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $18,100,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Program Direction; and
(2) $115,742,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $127,256,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Nuclear Energy, including--
(A) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $37,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems;
(B) $6,070,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $6,070,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Test Reactor Area Landlord operation and
maintenance;
(C) $1,430,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,944,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 99-E-200, Test
Reactor Area Electric Utility Upgrade, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory;
(D) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,500,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 95-E-201, Test
Reactor Area Fire and Life Safety Improvements, Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory;
(E) $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $16,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for University Reactor Fuel Assistance and
Support;
(F) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,500,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization;
(G) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $35,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative;
and
(H) $21,242,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $21,242,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Program Direction.
(b) Science.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary for Science scientific and civilian energy
research, development, and demonstration operation and
maintenance and construction programs, projects, and
activities for which specific sums are not authorized under
other authority of law $2,657,761,000 for fiscal year 2000
and $2,691,465,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available
until expended, of which--
(1) $715,090,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $753,110,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for High Energy Physics,
including--
(A) $235,190,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $246,950,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for High Energy Physics Research and
Technology;
(B) $451,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $473,760,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for High Energy Physics Facility Operations;
(C) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $5,200,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 00-G-307,
Research Office Building, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center;
(D) $4,700,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $4,200,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 99-G-306, Wilson
Hall Safety Improvements Project, Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory; and
(E) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $23,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 98-G-304,
Neutrinos at the Main Injector, Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory;
(2) $357,714,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $375,600,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Nuclear Physics;
(3) $413,674,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $434,357,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Biological and Environmental
Research;
(4) $698,800,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $733,740,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Basic Energy Sciences,
including--
(A) $405,390,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $425,660,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Materials Sciences Research and
Facilities Operations;
(B) $217,179,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $228,038,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Chemical Sciences Research and
Facilities Operations;
(C) $18,820,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,761,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Engineering Research;
(D) $26,056,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $27,359,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Geosciences Research; and
(E) $31,355,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $32,923,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Energy Biosciences;
(5) $31,474,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $32,333,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Computational and Technology
Research, including--
(A) $17,174,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $18,033,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Mathematical, Information, and
Computational Sciences; and
(B) $14,300,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,300,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Laboratory Technology Research;
(6) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Energy Research Analysis;
(7) $22,309,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $23,425,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Multiprogram Energy
Laboratories--Facility Support;
(8) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $275,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Fusion Energy Sciences,
including $13,600,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,400,000
for fiscal year 2001 for Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
Decontamination and Decommissioning;
(9) $49,800,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $49,800,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Science Program Direction;
(10) $17,900,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,100,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Spallation Neutron Source
research and development; and
(11) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be for
construction of Project 99-E-334, Spallation Neutron Source,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
(c) Fossil Energy Research and Development.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for Fossil
Energy Research and
[[Page H8329]]
Development civilian energy and scientific research,
development, and demonstration and related commercial
application of energy technology operation and maintenance
programs, projects, and activities for which specific sums
are not authorized under other authority of law $397,564,000
for fiscal year 2000 and $427,102,000 for fiscal year 2001,
to remain available through the end of fiscal year 2002, of
which--
(1) $126,609,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $126,614,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Coal, including--
(A) $5,250,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $5,407,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Coal Preparation;
(B) $1,641,000 for fiscal year 2000 for Direct
Liquefaction;
(C) $6,659,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $6,859,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Indirect Liquefaction;
(D) $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,310,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Advanced Clean Fuels Research Advanced
Research and Environmental Technology;
(E) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for Advanced Pulverized
Coal-Fired Powerplant;
(F) $7,010,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,220,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Indirect Fired Cycle;
(G) $38,661,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $39,821,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for High-Efficiency-Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle;
(H) $15,077,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $15,529,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for High-Efficiency Pressurized Fluidized
Bed;
(I) $23,864,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $25,057,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems
Advanced Research and Environmental Technology; and
(J) $23,247,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $24,410,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Advanced Research and Technology
Development;
(2) $50,574,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $52,091,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Oil Technology, including--
(A) $31,720,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $32,671,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Exploration and Production Supporting
Research;
(B) $8,034,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $8,275,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Recovery Field Demonstrations; and
(C) $10,820,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $11,145,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Oil Technology Effective Environmental
Protection;
(3) $107,916,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $108,831,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Gas, including--
(A) $14,932,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $15,380,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Natural Gas Research Exploration and
Production;
(B) $1,030,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,061,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Natural Gas Research Delivery and
Storage;
(C) $41,808,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $41,808,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Natural Gas Research Advanced Turbine
Systems;
(D) $9,330,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $9,610,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Natural Gas Research Emerging Processing
Technology Applications;
(E) $3,108,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,201,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Natural Gas Effective Environmental
Protection;
(F) $1,260,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,323,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Fuel Cells Advanced Research; and
(G) $36,449,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $36,449,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Fuel Cells Systems;
(4) $71,114,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $72,796,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Program Direction and
Management Support, including--
(A) $15,049,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $15,049,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Headquarters Program Direction; and
(B) $56,065,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $57,747,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Energy Technology Center Program
Direction;
(5) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,060,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for GP-F-100, Plant and Capital
Equipment, at Energy Technology Center sites;
(6) $7,148,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,537,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Cooperative Research and
Development;
(7) $2,173,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,173,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Fuels Conversion, Natural Gas,
and Electricity;
(8) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Advanced Metallurgical
Processes; and
(9) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for a Fossil Energy Science
Initiative to be managed by the Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy in consultation with the Director of the Office
of Science, for grants to be competitively awarded and
subject to peer review for research relating to fossil
energy. The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
an annual report on the activities of the Fossil Energy
Science Initiative, including a description of the process
used to award the funds and an explanation of how the
research relates to fossil energy.
(d) Energy Conservation Research and Development.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for Energy
Conservation Research and Development civilian energy and
scientific research, development, and demonstration and
related application of energy technology operation and
maintenance programs, projects, and activities for which
specific sums are not authorized under other authority of law
$490,212,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $527,626,000 for fiscal
year 2001, to remain available through the end of fiscal year
2002, of which--
(1) $204,935,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $210,845,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Transportation Sector,
including--
(A) $129,714,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $133,606,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Vehicle Technology Research and
Development;
(B) $23,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $24,205,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Fuels Utilization Research and
Development, of which $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and
$2,750,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for biodiesel fuel
research and development;
(C) $5,196,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $5,352,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Technology Deployment;
(D) $38,599,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $39,757,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Materials Technology; and
(E) $7,925,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,925,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Management and Planning;
(2) $155,131,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $159,534,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Industry Sector,
including--
(A) $59,180,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $60,955,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Industries of the Future (Specific);
(B) $87,600,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $90,228,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Industries of the Future (Crosscutting);
and
(C) $8,351,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $8,351,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Management and Planning;
(3) $70,014,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $72,115,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Building Technology, State
and Community Sector (nongrants), including--
(A) $55,870,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $57,546,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Building Research; and
(B) $14,144,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,568,000 for
fiscal year 2001 for Building Technology Assistance
(nongrants);
(4) $35,132,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $35,132,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Policy and Management; and
(5) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $50,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for an Energy Efficiency Science
Initiative to be managed by the Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in consultation with
the Director of the Office of Science, for grants to be
competitively awarded and subject to peer review for research
relating to energy efficiency. The Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, an annual report on the
activities of the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative,
including a description of the process used to award the
funds and an explanation of how the research relates to
energy efficiency.
SEC. 4. GAS HYDRATE ENERGY AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, shall commence a
program of gas hydrate energy and scientific and
environmental research and development.
(b) Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, Interagency
Funds Transfer Agreements, and Field Work Proposals.--
(1) Assistance.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, may award grants or
contracts to, or enter into cooperative agreements with,
institutions of higher education and industrial enterprises
to conduct energy and scientific and environmental research,
development, and demonstration programs on gas hydrate.
(2) Peer review.--Funds made available under paragraph (1)
for initiating contracts, grants, cooperative agreements,
interagency funds transfer agreements, and field work
proposals shall be made available based on a competitive
selection process and a peer review of proposals. Exceptions
shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and reported by
the Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy, to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate 30 days prior to any such award.
(c) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, may establish an
advisory panel consisting of experts from industry,
institutions of higher education, and other entities as the
Secretary considers appropriate, to assist in developing
recommendations and priorities for the gas hydrate research
and development program carried out under subsection (a).
(d) Limitations.--
(1) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of
the amount made available to carry out this section for a
fiscal year may be used by the Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, for expenses
associated with the administration of the program carried out
under subsection (a).
(2) Construction costs.--None of the funds made available
to carry out this section may be used for the construction of
a new building or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or
alteration of an existing building (including site grading
and improvement and architect fees).
(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a procurement
contract within the meaning of section 6303 of title 31,
United States Code.
(2) Cooperative agreement.--The term ``cooperative
agreement'' means a cooperative agreement within the meaning
of section 6305 of title 31, United States Code.
(3) Grant.--The term ``grant'' means a grant awarded under
a grant agreement, within the meaning of section 6304 of
title 31, United States Code.
(4) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' means
[[Page H8330]]
an institution of higher education, within the meaning of
section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1141(a)).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized under section 3(c)(3), $5,000,000 for fiscal year
2000 and $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be available
for carrying out this section.
SEC. 5. NOTICE.
(a) Reprogramming.--The Secretary may use for any
authorized activities of the Department under this Act--
(1) up to the lesser of $250,000 or 5 percent of the total
funding for a fiscal year of a civilian energy or scientific
research, development, or demonstration or related commercial
application of energy technology program, project, or
activity of the Department; or
(2) after the expiration of 60 days after transmitting to
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, a report described in
subsection (b), up to 25 percent of the total funding for a
fiscal year of a civilian energy or scientific research,
development, or demonstration or related commercial
application of energy technology program, project, or
activity of the Department.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection
(a)(2) is a report containing a full and complete statement
of the action proposed to be taken and the facts and
circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 60-day period under
subsection (a)(2), there shall be excluded any day on which
either House of Congress is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain.
(c) Limitations.--In no event may funds be used pursuant to
subsection (a) for a program, project, or activity for which
funding has been requested to the Congress but which has not
been funded by the Congress.
(d) Notice of Reorganization.--The Secretary shall provide
notice to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate, not later than 15 days
before any major reorganization of any civilian energy or
scientific research, development, or demonstration or related
commercial application of energy technology program, project,
or activity of the Department.
(e) Copy of Reports.--The Secretary shall provide copies to
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, of any report relating to the
civilian energy or scientific research, development, or
demonstration or related commercial application of energy
technology programs, projects, and activities of the
Department prepared at the direction of any committee of
Congress.
SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.
The Department shall provide funding for civilian energy or
scientific or related commercial application of energy
technology demonstration programs, projects, and activities
only for technologies or processes that can be reasonably
expected to yield new, measurable benefits to the cost,
efficiency, or performance of the technology or process.
SEC. 7. LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS.
If, at any time during the construction of a civilian
energy or scientific research, development, or demonstration
or related commercial application of energy technology
project of the Department for which no specific funding level
is provided by law, the estimated cost (including any
revision thereof) of the project exceeds $2,000,000, the
Secretary may not continue such construction unless the
Secretary has furnished a complete report to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
explaining the project and the reasons for the estimate or
revision.
SEC. 8. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
construction on a civilian energy or scientific research,
development, or demonstration or related commercial
application of energy technology project of the Department
for which funding has been specifically provided by law may
not be started, and additional obligations may not be
incurred in connection with the project above the authorized
funding amount, whenever the current estimated cost of the
construction project exceeds by more than 10 percent the
higher of--
(1) the amount authorized for the project, if the entire
project has been funded by the Congress; or
(2) the amount of the total estimated cost for the project
as shown in the most recent budget justification data
submitted to Congress.
(b) Notice.--An action described in subsection (a) may be
taken if--
(1) the Secretary has submitted to the Committee on Science
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
a report on the proposed actions and the circumstances making
such actions necessary; and
(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which
the report is received by the committees.
(c) Exclusion.--In the computation of the 30-day period
described in subsection (b)(2), there shall be excluded any
day on which either House of Congress is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain.
(d) Exception.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to
any construction project which has a current estimated cost
of less than $2,000,000.
SEC. 9. AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN.
(a) Requirement for Conceptual Design.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2) and except as provided in paragraph (3), before
submitting to Congress a request for funds for a construction
project that is in support of a civilian energy or scientific
research, development, or demonstration or related commercial
application of energy technology program, project, or
activity of the Department, the Secretary shall complete a
conceptual design for that project.
(2) If the estimated cost of completing a conceptual design
for a construction project exceeds $750,000, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a request for funds for the
conceptual design before submitting a request for funds for
the construction project.
(3) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to a
request for funds for a construction project, the total
estimated cost of which is less than $2,000,000.
(b) Authority for Construction Design.--(1) The Secretary
may carry out construction design (including architectural
and engineering services) in connection with any proposed
construction project that is in support of a civilian energy
or scientific research, development, and demonstration or
related commercial application of energy technology program,
project, or activity of the Department if the total estimated
cost for such design does not exceed $250,000.
(2) If the total estimated cost for construction design in
connection with any construction project described in
paragraph (1) exceeds $250,000, funds for such design must be
specifically authorized by law.
SEC. 10. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Construction of Spallation Neutron Source Project.--
None of the funds authorized by section 3(b)(11) may be
obligated until--
(1) the Secretary certifies in writing to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate that senior
project management positions for the project have been filled
by qualified individuals; and
(2) the Secretary provides the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives,
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, with--
(A) a cost baseline and project milestones for each major
construction and technical system activity, consistent with
the overall cost and schedule submitted with the Department's
fiscal year 2000 budget, that have been reviewed and
certified by an independent entity, outside the Department
and having no financial interest in the project, as the most
cost-effective way to complete the project;
(B) binding legal agreements that specify the duties and
obligations of each laboratory of the Department in carrying
out the project;
(C) a revised project management structure that integrates
the staff of the collaborating laboratories working on the
project under a single project director, who shall have
direct supervisory responsibility over the carrying out of
the duties and obligations described in subparagraph (B); and
(D) official delegation by the Secretary of primary
authority with respect to the project to the project
director; and
(3) the Comptroller General certifies to the Congress that
the total taxes and fees in any manner or form paid by the
Federal Government on the Spallation Neutron Source and the
property, activities, and income of the Department relating
to the Spallation Neutron Source to the State of Tennessee or
its counties, municipalities, or any other subdivision
thereof, does not exceed the aggregate taxes and fees for
which the Federal Government would be liable if the project
were located in any other State that contains a national
laboratory of the Department.
The Secretary shall report on the Spallation Neutron Source
Project 99-E-334 annually, as part of the Department's annual
budget submission, including a description of the achievement
of milestones, a comparison of actual costs to estimated
costs, and any changes in estimated project costs or
schedule.
(b) International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
Engineering Design Activities (EDA).--None of the funds
authorized by this Act may be used either directly or
indirectly for United States participation in International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Engineering Design
Activities (EDA).
(c) Office of Science.--None of the funds authorized by
this Act may be used either directly or indirectly to fund
the salary of an individual holding the position of Director
or Deputy Director of the Office of Science, or Associate
Director (except for the Office of Laboratory Policy and the
Office of Resource Management), or Director, Office of
Planning and Analysis within the Department's Office of
Science unless such individual holds a postgraduate degree in
science or engineering.
(d) Travel.--Not more than 1 percent of the funds
authorized by this Act may be used either directly or
indirectly to fund travel costs of the Department or travel
costs for persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the
Department. As part of the Department's annual budget request
submission to the Congress, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate, that identifies--
[[Page H8331]]
(1) the estimated amount of travel costs by the Department
and for persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the
Department for the fiscal year of such budget submission, as
well as for the 2 previous fiscal years;
(2) the major purposes for such travel; and
(3) the sources of funds for such travel.
(e) Trade Associations.--No funds authorized by this Act
may be used either directly or indirectly to fund a grant,
contract, subcontract, or any other form of financial
assistance awarded by the Department to a trade association
on a noncompetitive basis. As part of the Department's annual
budget request submission to the Congress, the Secretary
shall submit a report to the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives,
and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, that identifies--
(1) the estimated amount of funds provided by the
Department to trade associations, by trade association, for
the fiscal year of such budget submission, as well as for the
2 previous fiscal years;
(2) the services either provided or to be provided by each
such trade association; and
(3) the sources of funds for services provided by each such
trade association.
(f) Reductions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act--
(1) each of the amounts authorized by this Act for fiscal
year 2000 shall be reduced by 1 percent;
(2) each of the amounts authorized by this Act for fiscal
year 2000, as reduced pursuant to paragraph (1), shall be
further reduced by .7674 percent, with such reduction
representing a reduction in travel costs; and
(3) each of the amounts authorized by this Act for fiscal
year 2000 for administrative expenses, including program
management, shall be further reduced proportionately to
achieve additional savings of $30,000,000.
SEC. 11. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS.
(a) Competitive Procedure Requirement.--None of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for civilian energy
or scientific research, development, and demonstration or
related commercial application of energy technology programs,
projects, and activities may be used to award a management
and operating contract for a federally owned or operated
civilian energy laboratory of the Department unless such
contract is awarded using competitive procedures or the
Secretary grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow
for such a deviation. The Secretary may not delegate the
authority to grant such a waiver.
(b) Congressional Notice.--At least 60 days before a
contract award, amendment, or modification for which the
Secretary intends to grant such a waiver, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate, a report notifying the
committees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for
the waiver.
SEC. 12. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION.
(a) Requirement.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act for civilian energy or scientific
research, development, and demonstration or related
commercial application of energy technology programs,
projects, and activities may be used to award, amend, or
modify a contract of the Department in a manner that deviates
from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary
grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a
deviation. The Secretary may not delegate the authority to
grant such a waiver.
(b) Congressional Notice.--At least 60 days before a
contract award, amendment, or modification for which the
Secretary intends to grant such a waiver, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate, a report notifying the
committees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for
the waiver.
SEC. 13. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
may be used by the Department to prepare or initiate Requests
for Proposals (RFPs) for a civilian energy or scientific
research, development, and demonstration or related
commercial application of energy technology program, project,
or activity if the program, project, or activity has not been
specifically authorized by Congress.
SEC. 14. PRODUCTION OR PROVISION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
may be used by any civilian energy or scientific research,
development, and demonstration or related commercial
application of energy technology program, project, or
activity of the Department to produce or provide articles or
services for the purpose of selling the articles or services
to a person outside the Federal Government, unless the
Secretary determines that comparable articles or services are
not available from a commercial source in the United States.
SEC. 15. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall exclude from
consideration for grant agreements for civilian energy and
scientific research, development, and demonstration or
related commercial application of energy technology programs,
projects, and activities made by the Department after fiscal
year 1999 any person who received funds, other than those
described in subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year
after fiscal year 1999, under a grant agreement from any
Federal funding source for a program, project, or activity
that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award
process, except as specifically authorized by this Act. Any
exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall
be effective for a period of 5 years after the person
receives such Federal funds.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
receipt of Federal funds by a person due to the membership of
that person in a class specified by law for which assistance
is awarded to members of the class according to a formula
provided by law or under circumstances permitting other than
full and open competition under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``grant agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal
purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to
carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation
authorized by a law of the United States, and does not
include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or barter) of
property or services for the direct benefit or use of the
United States Government. Such term does not include a
cooperative agreement (as such term is used in section 6305
of title 31, United States Code) or a cooperative research
and development agreement (as such term is defined in section
12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).
SEC. 16. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.
The Secretary shall make available through the Internet
home page of the Department the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by this
Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or
permit the release of any information prohibited by law or
regulation from being released to the public.
SEC. 17. FOREIGN VISITORS PROGRAM.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b) or
(c), the Secretary may not admit to any classified area of
any federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory
any individual who is a citizen of a nation that is named on
the Department of Energy List of Sensitive Countries.
(b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary may waive the
prohibition in subsection (a) on a case-by-case basis with
respect to individuals whose admission to a federally owned
or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory is determined by
the Secretary to be necessary for the furtherance of civilian
science interests of the United States.
(2) Not later than 30 days after granting a waiver under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee
on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report in
writing providing notice of the waiver. The report shall
identify each individual for whom a waiver is granted and,
with respect to each such individual, provide a detailed
justification for the waiver and the Secretary's
certification that the admission of that individual to a
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory is
necessary for the furtherance of civilian science interests
of the United States.
(3) The authority of the Secretary under paragraph (1) may
not be delegated.
(c) Application.--This section shall not apply to the Ames
Laboratory, the Environmental Measurement Laboratory, the
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the
Federal Energy Technology Center, the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the
Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory, the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, or the Thomas Jefferson
National Accelerator Facility.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner: Page 27,
lines 9 through 19, amend paragraph (3) to read as
follows:
(3) The Comptroller General reports on the Congress, on the
basis of available information, that the tax reimbursements
that the Comptroller General estimates the Department would
pay to its contractors as a cost of constructing the
Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee would be no more than the tax reimbursements it
would pay if the same project were constructed at the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, the
Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, the Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico, or the Brookhaven National
Laboratory in New York.
Page 36, line 5, insert ``the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory,'' after
``Accelerator Laboratory.''
Page 36, lines 8 and 9, strike ``Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center, or the Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility'' and insert ``Sandia National
Laboratories, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, the
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, or the Y-12
Plant''.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment. It
does two things. One, it clarifies the provisions for a GAO report on
sales or use taxes for the Spallation Neutron Source, and, secondly, at
the request of the Committee on Armed Services, the
[[Page H8332]]
amendment adds Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs
and the Y-12 Plant to the list of labs in the bill excluded from the
provision that prohibits citizens of a nation on the DOE's list of
sensitive countries from entering any classified area of a federally-
owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory. This provision was
included in the defense authorization bill that was approved earlier
today. I know of no controversy on this amendment.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 18. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.
No funds authorized pursuant to this Act may be expended by
an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the
assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4
of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly
known as the ``Buy American Act'').
SEC. 19. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.
(a) Purchase of American-made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this
Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving
such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase
only American-made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary shall
provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
SEC. 20. PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.
If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal
agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with
the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the
United States that is not made in the United States, such
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, before I offer the amendment, let me say
to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I think it is very important under his
leadership, I would like to make this statement briefly. It has been
reported that the Department of Energy labs have been selling
technologies developed by our lab scientists using American taxpayer
dollars to companies in Japan and Germany and those companies then
compete against American companies in the United States. I want to cite
a couple of examples briefly. The Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory supposedly sold 10 of 30 licenses, I would like to have an
answer to that, for micropower impulse radar technology to Japan and
Germany; and the Idaho National Environment Engineering Lab just
announced it was going to give away, no less, American technology
funded by American dollars to an Italian agriculture equipment company.
Not only should the Department be buying American, if they are they
should stop selling out American companies.
This is a ``Buy American'' amendment that I have offered to every
other bill.
{time} 1415
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Andrews:
Page 17, after line 10, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Additional Authorization.--The Secretary shall
designate $2,000,000 of the amounts authorized by this
section for each fiscal year for biometric technology
security, including Iris Recognition Technology.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their cooperation in bringing this amendment
forward. It calls for the Secretary of Energy to designate $2 million
for the development of iris and other biometric technology for
identification. The amendment, I believe, has three virtues:
First, it will significantly enhance security at our labs and other
facilities in the short run; second, it will have the results of that
successful technology shared with our military, with our other federal
agencies such as aviation; and third, it is a further investment in the
new economy of this country that is generating new products, new jobs
and new opportunities.
I very much appreciate the cooperation we have received, and I would
urge the amendment's adoption.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me say I support the amendment and will note that
it is not an add on, but merely designates $2 million of the amounts in
the account for this purpose. I think it is a constructive amendment
and would urge the House to support it.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
Page 2, line 19, strike ``$432,366,000'' and insert
``$482,266,000''.
Page 2, line 20, strike ``$452,577,000'' and insert
``$504,595,630''.
Page 2, line 23, strike ``$316,624,000'' and insert
``$366,524,000''.
Page 2, line 24, strike ``$325,321,000'' and insert
``$377,339,630''.
Page 3, line 1, strike ``$3,708,000'' and insert
``$5,500,000''.
Page 3, line 2, strike ``$3,819,000'' and insert
``$5,665,000''.
Page 3, line 4, strike ``$83,345,000'' and insert
``$93,309,000''.
Page 3, line 5, strike ``$85,845,000'' and insert
``$96,108,270''.
Page 3, line 7, strike ``$17,510,000'' and insert
``$18,850,000''.
Page 3, line 8, strike ``$18,035,000'' and insert
``$19,415,500''.
Page 3, line 13, strike ``$75,396,000'' and insert
``$92,391,000''.
Page 3, line 14, strike ``$77,658,000'' and insert
``$95,162,730''.
Page 3, line 16, strike ``$35,814,000'' and insert
``$45,600,000''.
Page 3, line 17, strike ``$36,889,000'' and insert
``$46,968,000''.
Page 3, line 19, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert
``$4,000,000''.
Page 3, line 20, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert
``$4,120,000''.
Page 4, line 1, strike ``$1,100,000'' and insert
``$3,900,000''.
Page 4, line 2, strike ``$1,100,000'' and insert
``$4,017,000''.
Page 4, line 12, strike ``$3,348,000'' and insert
``$7,000,000''.
Page 4, line 13, strike ``$3,448,000'' and insert
``$7,210,000''.
Page 4, line 17, strike ``$18,100,000'' and insert
``$19,171,000''.
Page 4, line 18, strike ``$18,100,000'' and insert
``$19,746,130''.
Page 14, line 18, strike ``$490,212,000'' and insert
``$577,915,000''.
Page 14, line 19, strike ``$527,626,000'' and insert
``$619,502,480''.
Page 14, line 21, strike ``$204,935,000'' and insert
``$246,999,000''.
[[Page H8333]]
Page 14, line 22, strike ``$210,845,000'' and insert
``$254,409,000''.
Page 15, line 1, strike ``$129,714,000'' and insert
``$168,080,000''.
Page 15, line 2, strike ``$133,606,000'' and insert
``$173,122,400''.
Page 15, line 10, strike ``$5,196,000'' and insert
``$7,000,000''.
Page 15, line 11, strike ``$5,352,000'' and insert
``$7,210,000''.
Page 15, line 16, strike ``$7,925,000'' and insert
``$9,820,000''.
Page 15, line 17, strike ``$7,925,000'' and insert
``$10,114,600''.
Page 15, line 19, strike ``$155,131,000'' and insert
``$171,000,000''.
Page 15, line 20, strike ``$159,534,000'' and insert
``$176,130,000''.
Page 15, line 22, strike ``$59,180,000'' and insert
``$74,000,000''.
Page 15, line 23, strike ``$60,955,000'' and insert
``$76,220,000''.
Page 16, line 4, strike ``$8,351,000'' and insert
``$9,400,000''.
Page 16, line 5, strike ``$8,351,000'' and insert
``$9,682,000''.
Page 16, line 7, strike ``$70,014,000'' and insert
``$92,116,000''.
Page 16, line 8, strike ``$72,115,000'' and insert
``$94,879,480''.
Page 16, line 11, strike ``$55,870,000'' and insert
``$62,018,000''.
Page 16, line 12, strike ``$57,546,000'' and insert
``$63,878,540''.
Page 16, line 14, strike ``$14,144,000'' and insert
``$30,098,000''.
Page 16, line 15, strike ``$14,568,000'' and insert
``$31,000,940''.
Page 16, line 17, strike ``$35,132,000'' and insert
``$42,800,000''.
Page 16, line 18, strike ``$35,132,000'' and insert
``$44,084,000''.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his
interest in working on my amendment. I also want to express my thanks
to my colleague from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for working with me as
well on the amendment.
I will be brief.
The amendment is quite simple. It restores authorization levels for
the Department of Energy solar and renewable energy and energy
efficiency research programs to the levels of the fiscal 2000 year
request.
Mr. Chairman, our colleagues have heard me speak about the reasons
why we need to invest more in renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs. They benefit our economy by stimulating private sector
activity and adding jobs, they reduce our reliance on imported oil, and
they have a positive impact on air and water quality.
I want to just provide a few examples for the record of what these
increased levels will accomplish:
$10 million will go into research on photovoltaic energy systems.
While sales of PVs are at a billion dollar level this year, these
systems cannot reach their true potential until we learn how to reduce
their cost and increase their efficiency.
Another $10 million will go to wind energy systems. These systems
again have dropped in price by about 80 percent, but we still have
another 40 to 50 percent to go before wind energy can compete
economically with other forms of energy. We forecast in the long run
over 100,000 megawatts created through this source alone.
$17 million of the increase goes to biopower and biofuels. The
additional research will permit restoration of projects dealing with
co-firing with coal and modular systems development.
And finally, almost $40 million will be put back into the program for
next-generation vehicles. This program is showing major potential in
increasing auto fuel efficiency while also meeting our stringent
environmental requirements.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, this is an area where federal investment can
really make an enormous difference. Renewable energy and energy
efficiency is all about an investment in our future, the future of our
security, protecting our environment and enhancing our competitiveness
internationally. The authorization levels in 1655 do not give us
sufficient flexibility to utilize the potential benefits these programs
can provide. This amendment would give us that flexibility, and I urge
its adoption.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment
with my colleague, and I would point out that this amendment is very
simple. We want to put the House on record clearly stating that solar
and renewable energy programs and energy efficient and conservation
programs are a priority. That is really one of the major reasons we
take up authorization bills, to state as a matter of policy what kinds
of programs and funding levels we should be striving to provide to meet
national needs.
So the question then is why, as a matter of policy, are these
programs a priority? Two reasons: national security, as my colleague
has mentioned, and environmental protection, as we both strongly
identify with. And, oh, a third: they have been proven to work.
I am proud to say that the chairman and the ranking member have
worked constructively with us on this, and it is my understanding that
the chairman and the ranking member are going to accept this amendment.
I applaud them on their good judgment and their reasoning abilities.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment I have introduced
with Mr. Udall. The point of this amendment is simple: We want to put
the House on record clearly stating that solar and renewable energy
programs, and energy efficiency and conservation programs, are a
priority.
That's really one of the major reasons we take up authorization
bills--to state, as a matter of policy, what kinds of programs and
funding levels we should be striving to provide to meet national needs.
We must not be careless or unrealistic in setting authorization levels,
but nor are we bound by the same strictures as we are in taking up
spending bills or the budget. This bill is a policy assessment
primarily, not a fiscal assessment.
So the question, then, is: Why, as a matter of policy, are these
programs a priority? Two reasons: national security and environmental
protection. Oh, and a third--they've been proven to work.
Let me talk about security first. As a member of the Intelligence
Committee, I am acutely aware of the potential threats faced by our
country. And one threat about which we have become far too complacent
is the susceptibility of our energy supplies to foreign manipulation.
Our nation is far more dependent on foreign oil than it was at the time
of the oil shocks of the 1970s. We need to find more ways to wean
ourselves from this supply.
Our long-term security will also be bolstered by making our economy
more energy efficient, both by improving our overall competitiveness
and by making us less vulnerable to changes in energy supply. Yet we
waste far more energy than do many of our economic competitors.
The second reason to support these programs is environmental. Despite
the progress that we have made over the past 30 years in cleaning our
air and water, we still have a lot of work to do, and indeed we are in
danger of backsliding. Electric generation is still a major source of
pollutants--particularly of pollutants that poison lakes in regions
like the Adirondacks in my area. Our long-term hope is to move to more
environmentally friendly forms of generation.
In addition, if we take the threat of global climate change
seriously--and I think we should--we need to redouble our efforts to
find economical alternatives to fossil fuels. Now let me emphasize that
these programs have nothing to do with the Kyoto Protocol and indeed
they predate any concern with climate change. They are a good idea in
and of themselves that also just happen to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions as well.
And these programs do work. Technologies that have been supported by
the Department of Energy have saved consumers billions of dollars
through advances in building design, solar and renewable energy,
lighting design and other areas.
But some will ask, ``If this research is such a good idea, how come
the private sector isn't doing more of it?'' The answer is pretty
obvious. At a time of low energy prices, there is little incentive for
the private sector to plow money into advances whose initial benefits
will be more societal than private. This is the classic, textbook case
economists make for public research funding.
And yet the sad history of federal energy program funding is that the
federal government--which is supposed to have the public interest at
heart--is just as short-sighted as the private sector.
Federal energy funding has tended to go up in times of energy crisis
and down once those crises have passed. It's time to break that absurd
pattern and to invest when times are
[[Page H8334]]
good, when funding is available, when there is still time to plan ahead
and perhaps to forestall or even avoid the crises that we know full
well lie ahead of us on our current path.
Now, the Committee has brought forward a reasonable bill, and I
imagine some will say, ``I agree with all your arguments, but the bill
already has taken them into account.'' But I think we can do better.
First, the funding levels in H.R. 1655 for energy conservation and
efficiency are actually below those the House passed last month as part
of the Interior appropriations bill. And the figures in H.R. 1655 are
below those in the Senate Interior appropriations bill as well.
In terms of solar and renewal energy programs, our amendment would
indeed authorize more than has been appropriated. But we believe that,
again, as a matter of policy, we ought to be making these programs a
higher priority. The shape of our energy future will determine our
future security, prosperity and environmental health.
All those Members concerned with our energy future--in particular,
the 150 member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, should vote for
this amendment. All those Members concerned with our environmental
future should vote for this amendment, which will be scored by the
League of Conservation Voters. All those Members from the Northeast who
are concerned with the power plant emissions that foul our air, should
vote for this amendment. And indeed every Member should vote for this
amendment because it makes clear that this House understands how
critical energy policy is to our future and how inadequate that policy
is today.
Let me close by quoting from a report issued by the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology--a report issued by a
panel that included significant corporate, as well as academic
representation.
The report concluded that DOE's program ``are not commensurate in
scope and scale with the energy challenges and opportunities the 21st
century will present.'' I think we need to respond to those challenges
and opportunities now--before there's an energy crisis, now--when times
are good. I urge support for the Udall-Boehlert amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, but I do not
think that it is fair to say that the Committee on Science has been
parsimonious relative to solar renewable energy. The base bill
recommends a 6.7 percent increase above appropriated 1999 levels to
401.9 million for fiscal 2000 and an additional 4 percent increase to
$418.1 million for fiscal 2001. This amendment pluses those numbers up
further at a time when we are operating under discretionary spending
caps and under some severe budget constraints.
During my early years on the Committee on Science we, on a bipartisan
basis, attempted to put some sense and some market forces into solar
and renewable energy research because frankly the programs were
overfunded following the 1979 oil crisis, and those efforts were
successful; and I think we were able to better focus the money on it so
that the taxpayers got more bang for the buck.
So I am going to tell my friends from Colorado and New York that
there is going to be a little quid pro quo to my good judgment in
support of this amendment, and that is going to be some vigorous
oversight over the solar and renewable energy programs over the next
year; and I hope that they will exercise equally good judgment to
support that so that we do not go back to the morass of merely throwing
money at the program like we did in the late 1970s and early 1980s,
over two administrations, one a Democratic administration and one a
Republican administration.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Udall of Colorado
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Udall amendment to H.R. 1655.
This is not an appropriations bill, it's an authorization bill. If
the appropriators do not have sufficient funds, then clearly all of
these programs may have to be cut. All this amendment does is restore
the authorization levels to the level of the President's request for
these programs. Almost every other program authorized in this bill is
at or above the President's request--why should these programs be any
different?
H.R. 1655 only provides $75.4 of the $92.4 million requested for
biopower and biofuels. These cuts will reduce R&D in areas that could
lower the costs of producing ethanol. The ethanol industry currently
provides 40,000 jobs, or $1 billion in household income. Displacing
gasoline with ethanol in automobiles reduces carbon emissions by 95%;
if you merely mix a 10% blend of ethanol with gasoline, you reduce
emissions by 25-30%. Voting for the Udall amendment will help to
continue the important R&D that could lead to the development of cheap,
sustainable and clean energy sources such as ethanol.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Udall amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) who is a member of the committee.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Costello) for accepting this amendment. I rise in
support of the Udall of Colorado amendment.
I rise today in support of the Udall amendment. It is so important
that we plan for our children's future, which includes making certain
they have a clean environment and a sustainable energy source in years
to come.
Our current dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels can not
continue indefinitely. Regrettably, this bill increases nuclear energy
by $3.4 million above the President's request, but does not fully fund
the Renewable Energy Program. This is an outrage.
How can we take care of our children and their future with such a
short-sighted approach? Renewable Energy is efficient, cost effective,
and unlimited in its capacity.
We need to capture these resources--wind, solar, biomass, and
geothermal--and put them to better use. Not only do we solve our energy
problem, but we save our environment as well so that our children and
their children can grow up in a clean, safe and healthy world.
As a member of the Science Committee, I fought for this funding
increase during our committee markup. It failed by a narrow margin. We
can not let that happen again. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on the Udall amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak:
Page 22, line 10, insert ``(a) In Gener-
al.--'' before ``The Department shall''.
Page 22, after line 15, insert the following new
subsection:
(b) Parallex Project.--The Secretary shall not, as part of
the test and demonstration Parallex Project, select a route
for the transportation of Mixed Oxide Fuel from Los Alamos,
New Mexico, to Chalk River, Canada, without issuing a rule
based on the record after an opportunity for agency hearing.
Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, as I begin, first let me thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Costello) for their help and understanding on this very important
amendment, to the residents of my district and to a number of other
congressional districts throughout the country.
It concerns the shipment of nuclear material containing weapons-grade
plutonium from Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Chalk River, Canada. The
Department of Energy has proposed to ship fuel rods manufactured from
plutonium, formerly used in nuclear weapons, across the West and the
Midwest including St. Louis, Chicago, and a number of other population
centers.
Behind me is a map of the route DOE has chosen.
At the outset let me say that it is, it is in the United States
strategic interests to decrease the oversupply of weapons-grade
plutonium in this country and Russia. Furthermore, I agree that it is
important to maintain a partnership with Russia to encourage the
destruction of their plutonium. However the process, the process that
has been used to determine a route which the MOX fuel will take has
been completely inappropriate and without
[[Page H8335]]
congressional or public input. The DOE prepared an environmental
assessment, an EA, on the project which was distributed to only 52
residents in the State of Michigan for comment, none of whom live near
the two bridges where the material will be transported.
Although DOE staff informed some congressional staff that more people
were notified of the EA, they could provide no records of such input.
The decision was made without a public hearing in Michigan. Even when
the Michigan governor sought public hearing, DOE denied this request.
None of the emergency response crews along the route have been notified
of the shipment. One emergency response coordinator in my district
stated there is no plutonium chapter in his disaster response manual.
Who has the responsibility, the jurisdiction, the liability and
evacuation authority in case there is a transportation accident? The EA
examined seven routes to Canada that would be appropriate for the
transportation of this material.
DOE staff explained that the Canadian Government objected to two of
the routes because they traveled through the golden triangle of heavily
industrialized area in Canada. Canada objected to a third route due to
concern that the police vehicle accompanying the fuel would not be
allowed to transit an Indian reservation along the route. Canadians and
the Canadian native tribes can object to the route, but U.S. citizens
and Native American Indians cannot.
I would point out that the proposed route will travel over three of
the five Great Lakes, the world's largest supply of fresh water and one
of our country's greatest natural resources. The proposed route would
pass along a minimum of four Native American tribes in my district. The
DOE's own environmental assessment ranks the Sault Ste. Marie route,
the one that is here on the map in the red, as both the second highest-
risk route, the second highest exposure level and the second longest in
distance of miles traveled.
Although the DOE argues that there is minimal amount of risk
associated with the transport of this material, the risk was obviously
high enough that the Canadian Government did not want it to go through
their golden triangle. If the route is the second riskiest, then why is
it chosen? Furthermore, the Mackinac Bridge where it will have to cross
Lake Huron and Lake Michigan is undergoing maintenance, the same reason
why the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, Michigan, was removed from
consideration. If one route is chosen because a bridge is under repair,
then why would DOE choose the Mackinac Bridge, the world's largest
suspension bridge, which is undergoing maintenance as a suitable route?
My amendment would just simply delay the decision to choose the
transportation route until there has been adequate opportunity for
public comment on a particular route and the citizens, Members of
Congress, governors and emergency response personnel have an
opportunity to ask questions. The Canadian Government is affording
their citizens the opportunity for comment, and we should demand our
citizens have the same rights.
I agree it is important to dispose of the excess U.S. and Russian
nuclear weapons material; however, I believe the process for
determining the route should be made after, only after, the public has
been notified of the proposed route and Department of Energy has
solicited comments about the selection and to answer our questions.
I urge my colleagues, and I urge the leadership on this floor here
today to support my amendment requiring, just requiring, a public
hearing before choosing the route for this plutonium shipment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for the opportunity to present
this amendment.
{time} 1430
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and others for allowing us to present this
amendment today. I want to commend my friend from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak). The gentleman's amendment, as he so articulately put it, would
protect something that is extremely important: the right of the public
to closely examine and respond to proposed shipments of radioactive
plutonium through our communities.
This nuclear waste is, as one can imagine, inherently dangerous and
proposals to ship it through our communities over the Great Lakes, the
largest bodies of freshwater in the world, 20 percent of all the
freshwater in the world, 95 percent of all the freshwater in our
country, this has sparked a widespread concern about health and safety.
People in our region, the Great Lakes region, have many legitimate
questions; and they have a right to know the risks to which their
communities could be subjected. Are there alternative routes that would
steer clear of major cities, towns, and avoid transporting this waste
over water? How will it be shipped? What precautions will be taken to
prevent an accident? Are such shipments vulnerable to theft and
hijacking? What are the potential hazards if something goes wrong?
We need to answer these questions before we even consider any
shipments that would put our families and our communities and our water
at risk. Remember something. As I said, the freshwater in this region
here represents 20 percent of the world's freshwater, which is in high
demand given the fact that we have 6 billion people on this Earth, and
it is exponentially increasing in demand, especially in Asia and other
countries.
It is a serious problem, and this is a very fine resource. We cannot
afford to put that resource at the risk of contamination.
Last year, I opposed a proposal to ship, as the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) pointed out, this weapons-grade plutonium through
my district and across the Blue Water Bridge from Port Huron to Sarnia
because the risks are too great.
I was just in my office now, and came down to the floor, talking to a
member of the parliament, my counterpart across the way, Roger
Gallaway, who expressed his dismay and his anger as well about these
shipments potentially through our district.
Now the Department of Energy has come back with another route, this
one passing through major cities like St. Louis, Chicago before
crossing three of five of the Great Lakes. Then the new route would
actually cross the Mackinac Bridge, the world's longest single-span
suspension bridge, which stretches 5 miles over open water.
To make matters worse, the Department of Energy did not even bother
to consult the emergency response team along the way. One would think
that would be one of the first things that would be done here. Nor was
there any public input that I have been able to ascertain. This
proposed route is wrong and the people deserve to have their voice
heard.
Here in this Congress we are accustomed to making laws, but there is
another law out there that often takes precedence over what we do here,
and it is called Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it probably
will. So let us not take a chance with a truckload of radioactive
plutonium spoiling our communities, poisoning our very precious
resource, our water, our fresh water, and endangering our families.
The Stupak amendment establishes an important safeguard against such
disasters by establishing an official public forum for exchange of
information and for a careful scrutiny of any proposed shipment. It is
necessary, it is a very necessary response, to a planning process that
has been flawed from the beginning. I urge my colleagues to support the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) in his amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to support this amendment, but I am
absolutely shocked that an administration that was committed to
preserving the environment would be planning such a thing. So perhaps
we Republicans can help wake an administration that has been
insensitive to environmental concerns such as those that the minority
whip of the House of Representatives has brought to our attention to
wake up. I urge support of the amendment.
[[Page H8336]]
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly support and commend the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his amendment and move its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Berkley
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Berkley:
Page 36, after line 9, insert the following new section:
SEC. 18. NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSMUTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall commence a program
of research and development on the technology necessary to
achieve onsite transmutation of nuclear waste into
nonradioactive substances.
(b) Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, Interagency
Funds Transfer Agreements, and Field Work Proposals.--
(1) Assistance.--The Secretary may award grants or
contracts to, or enter into cooperative agreements with,
institutions of higher education and industrial enterprises
to conduct a research, development, and demonstration program
on the technology necessary to achieve onsite transmutation
of nuclear waste into nonradioactive substances in a manner
consistent with United States environmental and
nonproliferation policy. The Secretary shall not support a
technology under this section that involves the isolation of
plutonium or uranium.
(2) Peer review.--Funds made available under paragraph (1)
for initiating contracts, grants, cooperative agreements,
interagency funds transfer agreements, and field work
proposals shall be made available based on a competitive
selection process and a peer review of proposals. Exemptions
shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and reported by
the Secretary to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate 30 days prior to any such award.
(c) Consultation.--The Secretary may establish an advisory
panel consisting of experts from indust4ry, institutions of
higher education, and other entities as the Secretary
considers appropriate, to assist in developing
recommendations and priorities for the research, development,
and demonstration program carried out under subsection (a).
(d) Limitations.--
(1) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of
the amount made available to carry out this section for a
fiscal year may be used by the Secretary for expenses
associated with the administration of the program carried out
under subsection (a).
(2) Construction costs.--None of the funds made available
to carry out this section may be used for the construction of
a new building or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or
alteration of an existing building (including site grading
and improvement and architect fees).
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a procurement
contract within the meaning of section 6303 of title 31,
United States Code.
(2) Cooperative agreement.--The term ``cooperative
agreement'' means a cooperative agreement within the meaning
of section 6305 of title 31, United States Code.
(3) Grant.--The term ``grant'' means a grant awarded under
a grant agreement, within the meaning of section 6304 of
title 31, United States Code.
(4) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' means an institution of
higher education, within the meaning of section 1201(a) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized under section 3(a)(2)(G), $2,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000 and $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be
available for carrying out this section.
(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1655.
This amendment is intended to help America harness the brain power of
top scientists in a quest to solve one of the great technological
challenges facing our Nation, neutralizing, not merely storing, high-
level nuclear waste.
I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Science and
the ranking member for their support of this amendment.
My colleagues in this chamber are well aware of my views on the
proposed plan to bury nuclear waste in my home State of Nevada. I am
adamantly opposed to it. I am not here today, however, to debate the
Yucca Mountain project. Rather, I offer an amendment that I hope will
capture the imagination of my colleagues, whether my colleagues oppose
or support the Yucca Mountain program.
Billions of dollars are being spent studying how to store high-level
nuclear waste because it is deadly. No matter where it is put, it is
deadly, and the United States and the rest of the world have produced
hundreds of thousands of tons of it. Even if we build a repository
within a few years, it will be over capacity. We would have to build
another multibillion facility and another and another as the next
century unfolds.
There would still be thousands of tons of waste at the reactors sites
across the country. All of this waste is just as toxic as the day it
was generated. Even if it was generated 40 or 50 years ago, it is still
just as toxic. It takes 250,000 years to fully neutralize it. The
scientists who unlocked the power of the atom in the 1940s knew about
this problem and the Federal Government knew about it; but with no
solution immediately at hand they simply put their trust in science
itself, believing that a process would be invented to neutralize high
level nuclear waste.
I urge support of my amendment to H.R. 1655. The time is overdue to
accept responsibility of finding a technological solution to nuclear
waste, ridding the Nation of this threat.
My amendment would establish a nuclear waste transmutation research
and development program. The goal is to develop the technology we need
to transmute nuclear waste right at the reactor sites. Transmutation is
a process which turns radioactive waste into nonradioactive substances.
This amendment fully complies with environmental and nuclear
nonproliferation policies. It prohibits development of technology that
could isolate plutonium and uranium. This amendment instructs the
Secretary of Energy to commence a program of research and development,
and it authorizes the secretary to award grants or contracts to
industries and universities.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BERKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased to support this
amendment and hope we can have a vote on it promptly.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we are in strong support of the amendment.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Berkley
amendment. As most of you know, I have spoken at length to explain the
reasons why nuclear waste should not be sent to an interim or permanent
storage facility in Nevada.
I have been asked many times what the alternative is to permanent
burial of high level nuclear waste. The answer is transmutation.
The word transmutation originates from the goal of ancient alchemists
to transform, or transmute base metals into gold. Today scientists seek
ways, and have developed proven systems to transmute radioactive waste
into nonradioactive elements, thereby eliminating the radiological
hazards and waste disposal problems.
The first mistake this country made in regards to the problem of
spent nuclear fuel occurred in 1977, when President Carter halted all
U.S. efforts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
The concern was that when reprocessing occurs it could potentially
create a smaller, but refined fuel that could be stolen and used in
nuclear weapons. He argued that the United States should halt its
reprocessing program as an example to other countries in the hope that
they would follow suit.
As we can see today other countries did not follow our example and in
the end harmed our efforts to deal with spent nuclear fuel.
Senator Domenici understands this problem well and has presented a
solution, a solution that is supported by this amendment before you
today. He stated in regards to the transmutation of nuclear waste:
Let me highlight one attractive option. A group from
several of our largest companies, using technologies
developed at three of our national laboratories and from
Russian institutes and their nuclear navy, discussed with me
an approach to use that waste for electrical generation. They
use an accelerator, not a reactor, so there is never any
critical assembly.
There is minimal processing, but carefully done so that
weapons-grade materials are never separated out and so that
international verification can be used--but now
[[Page H8337]]
the half lives are changed so that it's a hazard for perhaps
300 years--a far cry from 100,000 years. This approach,
called Accelerator Transmutation of Waste, is an area I want
to see investigated aggressively.
We are realizing some of the benefits of nuclear
technologies today, but only a fraction of what we could
realize. [W]e aren't tapping the full potential of the
nucleus for additional benefits. In the process, we are
short-changing our citizens.
While some may continue to lament that the nuclear genie is
out of his proverbial bottle, I'm ready to focus on
harnessing that genie as effectively and fully as possible,
for the largest set of benefit for our citizens.
Senator Domenici is correct and we should not be shortchanging or
endangering our citizens. And that is exactly what will happen if we
fail to further the development and utilization of transmutation.
Let's not bury our hands in the sand, the same approach this country
is currently taking with the permanent burial of our nuclear waste.
The alternative that we face is disastrous because the nuclear power
industry has spent millions of dollars in their campaign to convince
members of Congress that storage of high level nuclear waste in Nevada
is sound science, fiscally responsible and poses no dangers to public
health and safety.
Unfortunately, none of this is true. In 1987, in political haste,
Congress arbitrarily selected Yucca Mountain, 95 miles northwest of Las
Vegas (the fastest growing metropolitan city in the country), to host a
permanent repository for high level nuclear waste.
Realizing that the Yucca Mountain project has become a failure and
has needlessly expended millions of taxpayer dollars, the nuclear
industry has now changed its focus to ``interim storage.''
This so-called interim storage lasts for over 100 years. Aside from
the fact that Nevada has never benefitted from nuclear generated power,
there are numerous reasons why this legislation is irresponsible,
indefensible and wrong.
First, transporting nuclear waste recklessly endangers the rights of
millions of private property owners across the United States and
ignores over 20 years of environmental statutes. The private property
implications could significantly add to the federal tab.
A precedent has already been set in New Mexico. In 1992, Mr. John
Komis was awarded over $800,000 for the devaluation of his property
because of the public's perceived fear of nuclear waste. The City of
Santa Fe condemned 43 acres for construction of a highway to transport
nuclear waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project site.
The District Court and the New Mexico Supreme Court both upheld a
decision to award Komis the money because there was a perceived
devaluation of land due to the transportation of nuclear waste adjacent
to that land.
As this high level nuclear waste travels from the 109 nuclear
reactors located primarily on the east coast to a facility in Nevada,
the transportation routes cross 43 states and run through thousands of
local communities across the country. Imagine the burden on the federal
Treasury if all the property owners adjacent to these proposed
transportation routes were awarded like Mr. Komis. The cost to the
federal government would be staggering.
Second, permanent disposal clearly does not go far enough to protect
our environmental and jurisdictional concerns. It still blatantly
ignores many environmental and public health statutes, such as the
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.
In addition, it completely ignores the public process that is
specifically outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
which requires federal agencies to consider alternatives, seek public
comment and consider any and all environmental ramifications before
proceeding with a major federal action.
Transportation of high level nuclear waste also warrants serious
concern, because the consequences would be devastating. A 1985 DOE
contractor report concluded that a severe, credible accident involving
a single, current-generation rail cask could result in release of
radioactive materials to the environment.
According to the study, release of only a small fraction of the
cask's contents would be sufficient to contaminate a 42 square-mile
area. The costs of cleanup after such an accident would exceed $620
million, and the cleanup effort would require 460 days, if it occurred
in a rural area. Now imagine the cost of a similar cleanup in an urban
area, realizing these costs cannot include the intangible cost of human
life and health.
The environment and the health and safety of millions of people will
be jeopardized because of political expediency.
With all the attention of the nuclear waste debate focusing on a
solution that does not consider good, sound science, economic or social
implications or health and safety or environmental issues it is easy to
lose sight of possible solutions.
We need to shift the focus from concentrating on an industry wish
list to a viable, realistic solution that considers these vitally
important issues.
In truth, while we were developing the technology to transport the
waste, we discovered and perfected the safest storage capability
available. It is known as dry cask storage. The scientific, economic
and safety arguments all result in dry-cask storage as the best
solution to store high level nuclear waste. Articles in the San
Francisco Chronicle and The Washington Post both aggressively support
this approach to solving this dilemma.
This coupled with the technology of transmutation is truly the best
long term solution for our country.
In the future, spent nuclear fuel could become a very valuable
resource. With technology using transmutators with accelerators, we
will be able to use spent nuclear fuel as an energy source and in the
process drastically reduce the volume from approximately 90% unused
nuclear fuel to less than 10% unused.
In addition, this substantially decreases the half-life of this
dangerous substance. By keeping this spent fuel on site, it is the best
environmental solution, and it is easily retrievable for the purpose of
transmutation.
When taking a close look at the details, it is easy to see a
realistic solution to the nuclear waste dilemma that the nation is
facing. It is time to abandon the track of political expediency and
look to sensible, responsible alternatives.
On-site, dry cask storage and transmutation does not bust the budget,
does not endanger private property rights, public health and safety,
nor does it roll back years of environmental statutes.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support a common
sense solution for our nations spent nuclear fuel.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 36, after line 9, insert the following new section:
SEC. 18. MINORITY RECRUITMENT AND EMPLOYMENT.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Department should
increase its efforts to recruit and employ qualified
minorities for carrying out the research and development
functions of the Department.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to particularly
thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello),
and thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), for allowing the dialogue on this amendment.
Let me emphasize that I am gratified that there has been some
improvement because of the work of our Committee on Science on the idea
of recruiting and employing qualified minorities, for carrying out the
research and development functions of the Department of Energy.
We have spoken, as we move into the 21st century, of the importance
of including and enforcing, or in emphasizing, diversity in our math
and science technical and research areas. This amendment would ask or
indicate that it was a sense of Congress that the Department of Energy
would increase its efforts to recruit and employ qualified minorities
for carrying out the research and development.
I would like to note in a visit that I had this past recess to Los
Alamos National Laboratory, in reviewing the security issues I also
asked questions about its diversity. Let me applaud them for the
percentages of Hispanics that they have working in a number of their
programs, but on the other hand they had very low numbers of American
Indians, Asian Americans and African Americans.
If we are to move into the 21st century, it is crucial that in areas
that produce income and research and advancement in science that it has
a well-diversified population of researchers from American Indians,
from African Americans, from Asians and Hispanics.
I could go on about the importance of this issue, but I would ask my
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to emphasize
diversity in research, one of the cutting stones of the 21st century,
and the work of the 21st century, which is science and technology.
[[Page H8338]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to support the
gentlewoman's amendment and hope that it will be promptly voted upon,
unanimously.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman for his support.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the amendment and
urge its adoption.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank both of my colleagues
for their support.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McHugh), having resumed the chair, Mr. Sununu, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1655) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the
civilian energy and scientific research, development, and demonstration
and related commercial application of energy technology programs,
projects, and activities of the Department of Energy, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 289, he reported the bill back
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________