[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21698-21712]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 21699]]

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 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

[[Page 21700]]

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 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

[[Page 21701]]

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 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

[[Page 21702]]

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.

[[Page 21703]]

       (c) Fossil Energy Research and Development.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for Fossil 
     Energy Research and 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

[[Page 21704]]

     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 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

[[Page 21705]]

     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--
       (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:


[[Page 21706]]

       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 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 21707]]

       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 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

[[Page 21708]]

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 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. 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. 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:

[[Page 21709]]

       (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 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

[[Page 21710]]

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.
  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. 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

[[Page 21711]]

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 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.

[[Page 21712]]

  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.
  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.

                          ____________________