[House Report 106-243]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-243

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



 
     DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

 July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Science, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                           SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1655]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred 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, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill............................................11
 III. Background and Need for Legislation............................11
  IV. Summary of Hearings............................................13
   V. Committee Actions..............................................19
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................21
 VII. Section-By-Section Analysis and Committee Views................37
VIII. Cost Estimate..................................................48
  IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................49
   X. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................51
  XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............51
 XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform..............................................51
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................52
 XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................52
  XV. Congressional Accountability Act...............................52
 XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........52
XVII. Committee Recommendations......................................52
XVIII.Committee Correspondence.......................................52

 XIX. Supplemental Views.............................................54
  XX. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup.....................56

                              I. Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Energy Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purposes of this Act, the term--
          (1) ``Department'' means the Department of Energy; and
          (2) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Energy Supply.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary for Energy Supply civilian energy and scientific research, 
development, and demonstration and related commercial application of 
energy technology operation and maintenance and construction programs, 
projects, and activities for which specific sums are not authorized 
under other authority of law $432,366,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$452,577,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available through the end 
of fiscal year 2002, of which--
          (1) $316,624,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $325,321,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Solar and Renewable Resources 
        Technologies, including--
                  (A) $3,708,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,819,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Solar Building Technology 
                Research;
                  (B) $83,345,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $85,845,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Photovoltaic Energy Systems;
                  (C) $17,510,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $18,035,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Concentrating Solar Power, of 
                which $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,000,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 shall be for experimental beamed 
                power technology demonstrations;
                  (D) $75,396,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $77,658,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Biopower/Biofuels Energy 
                Systems;
                  (E) $35,814,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $36,889,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Wind Energy Systems;
                  (F) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,500,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for the Renewable Energy 
                Production Incentive Program;
                  (G) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $6,000,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for the International Solar Energy 
                Program;
                  (H) $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,100,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for the National Renewable Energy 
                Laboratory;
                  (I) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $35,000,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Geothermal, of which 
                $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $4,615,000 for 
                fiscal year 2001 shall be derived from amounts 
                otherwise authorized under this subsection, from 
                savings resulting from reductions in contractor travel 
                pursuant to section 10(d);
                  (J) $3,348,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,448,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Hydropower;
                  (K) $41,303,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $42,542,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Electric Energy Systems and 
                Storage; and
                  (L) $18,100,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $18,100,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Program Direction; and
          (2) $115,742,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $127,256,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Nuclear Energy, including--
                  (A) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $37,000,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Advanced Radioisotope Power 
                Systems;
                  (B) $6,070,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $6,070,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Test Reactor Area Landlord 
                operation and maintenance;
                  (C) $1,430,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,944,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 99-E-
                200, Test Reactor Area Electric Utility Upgrade, Idaho 
                National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory;
                  (D) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,500,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 95-E-
                201, Test Reactor Area Fire and Life Safety 
                Improvements, Idaho National Engineering and 
                Environmental Laboratory;
                  (E) $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $16,000,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for University Reactor Fuel 
                Assistance and Support;
                  (F) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,500,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Nuclear Energy Plant 
                Optimization;
                  (G) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $35,000,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for the Nuclear Energy Research 
                Initiative; and
                  (H) $21,242,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $21,242,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Program Direction.
  (b) Science.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary for Science scientific and civilian energy research, 
development, and demonstration operation and maintenance and 
construction programs, projects, and activities for which specific sums 
are not authorized under other authority of law $2,657,761,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 and $2,691,465,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain 
available until expended, of which--
          (1) $715,090,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $753,110,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for High Energy Physics, including--
                  (A) $235,190,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
                $246,950,000 for fiscal year 2001 for High Energy 
                Physics Research and Technology;
                  (B) $451,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
                $473,760,000 for fiscal year 2001 for High Energy 
                Physics Facility Operations;
                  (C) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $5,200,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 00-G-
                307, Research Office Building, Stanford Linear 
                Accelerator Center;
                  (D) $4,700,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $4,200,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 99-G-
                306, Wilson Hall Safety Improvements Project, Fermi 
                National Accelerator Laboratory; and
                  (E) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $23,000,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for construction of Project 98-G-
                304, Neutrinos at the Main Injector, Fermi National 
                Accelerator Laboratory;
          (2) $357,714,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $375,600,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Nuclear Physics;
          (3) $413,674,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $434,357,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Biological and Environmental 
        Research;
          (4) $698,800,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $733,740,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Basic Energy Sciences, 
        including--
                  (A) $405,390,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
                $425,660,000 for fiscal year 2001 for Materials 
                Sciences Research and Facilities Operations;
                  (B) $217,179,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
                $228,038,000 for fiscal year 2001 for Chemical Sciences 
                Research and Facilities Operations;
                  (C) $18,820,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,761,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Engineering Research;
                  (D) $26,056,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $27,359,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Geosciences Research; and
                  (E) $31,355,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $32,923,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Energy Biosciences;
          (5) $31,474,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $32,333,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Computational and Technology 
        Research, including--
                  (A) $17,174,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $18,033,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Mathematical, Information, and 
                Computational Sciences; and
                  (B) $14,300,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,300,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Laboratory Technology 
                Research;
          (6) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Energy Research Analysis;
          (7) $22,309,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $23,425,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Multiprogram Energy 
        Laboratories--Facility Support;
          (8) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $275,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Fusion Energy Sciences, including 
        $13,600,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,400,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 for Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor Decontamination and 
        Decommissioning;
          (9) $49,800,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $49,800,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Science Program Direction;
          (10) $17,900,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,100,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Spallation Neutron Source 
        research and development; and
          (11) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be for 
        construction of Project 99-E-334, Spallation Neutron Source, 
        Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
  (c) Fossil Energy Research and Development.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary for Fossil Energy Research and 
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 authorityof law 
$490,212,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $527,626,000 for fiscal year 
2001, to remain available through the end of fiscal year 2002, of 
which--
          (1) $204,935,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $210,845,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Transportation Sector, 
        including--
                  (A) $129,714,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
                $133,606,000 for fiscal year 2001 for Vehicle 
                Technology Research and Development;
                  (B) $23,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $24,205,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Fuels Utilization Research and 
                Development, of which $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 
                and $2,750,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for 
                biodiesel fuel research and development;
                  (C) $5,196,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $5,352,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Technology Deployment;
                  (D) $38,599,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $39,757,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Materials Technology; and
                  (E) $7,925,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,925,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Management and Planning;
          (2) $155,131,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $159,534,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Industry Sector, including--
                  (A) $59,180,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $60,955,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Industries of the Future 
                (Specific);
                  (B) $87,600,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $90,228,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Industries of the Future 
                (Crosscutting); and
                  (C) $8,351,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $8,351,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Management and Planning;
          (3) $70,014,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $72,115,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Building Technology, State 
        and Community Sector (nongrants), including--
                  (A) $55,870,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $57,546,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Building Research; and
                  (B) $14,144,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,568,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Building Technology Assistance 
                (nongrants);
          (4) $35,132,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $35,132,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Policy and Management; and
          (5) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $50,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for an Energy Efficiency Science 
        Initiative to be managed by the Assistant Secretary for Energy 
        Efficiency and Renewable Energy in consultation with the 
        Director of the Office of Science, for grants to be 
        competitively awarded and subject to peer review for research 
        relating to energy efficiency. The Secretary shall submit to 
        the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of 
        the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy 
        and Natural Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of 
        the Senate, an annual report on the activities of the Energy 
        Efficiency Science Initiative, including a description of the 
        process used to award the funds and an explanation of how the 
        research relates to energy efficiency.

SEC. 4. GAS HYDRATE ENERGY AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 
                    AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary for 
Fossil Energy, shall commence a program of gas hydrate energy and 
scientific and environmental research and development.
  (b) Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, Interagency Funds 
Transfer Agreements, and Field Work Proposals.--
          (1) Assistance.--The Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
        Secretary for Fossil Energy, may award grants or contracts to, 
        or enter into cooperative agreements with, institutions of 
        higher education and industrial enterprises to conduct energy 
        and scientific and environmental research, development, and 
        demonstration programs on gas hydrate.
          (2) Peer review.--Funds made available under paragraph (1) 
        for initiating contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, 
        interagency funds transfer agreements, and field work proposals 
        shall be made available based on a competitive selection 
        process and a peer review of proposals. Exceptions shall be 
        considered on a case-by-case basis, and reported by the 
        Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
        Energy, to the Committee on Science of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
        Resources of the Senate 30 days prior to any such award.
  (c) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
Secretary for Fossil Energy, may establish an advisory panel consisting 
of experts from industry, institutions of higher education, and other 
entities as the Secretary considers appropriate, to assist in 
developing recommendations and priorities for the gas hydrate research 
and development program carried out under subsection (a).
  (d) Limitations.--
          (1) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
        amount made available to carry out this section for a fiscal 
        year may be used by the Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
        Secretary for Fossil Energy, for expenses associated with the 
        administration of the program carried out under subsection (a).
          (2) Construction costs.--None of the funds made available to 
        carry out this section may be used for the construction of a 
        new building or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or 
        alteration of an existing building (including site grading and 
        improvement and architect fees).
  (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
          (1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a procurement 
        contract within the meaning of section 6303 of title 31, United 
        States Code.
          (2) Cooperative agreement.--The term ``cooperative 
        agreement'' means a cooperative agreement within the meaning of 
        section 6305 of title 31, United States Code.
          (3) Grant.--The term ``grant'' means a grant awarded under a 
        grant agreement, within the meaning of section 6304 of title 
        31, United States Code.
          (4) Institution of higher education.--The term ``institution 
        of higher education'' means 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, andactivities only for technologies 
or processes that can be reasonably expected to yield new, measurable 
benefits to the cost, efficiency, or performance of the technology or 
process.

SEC. 7. LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS.

  If, at any time during the construction of a civilian energy or 
scientific research, development, or demonstration or related 
commercial application of energy technology project of the Department 
for which no specific funding level is provided by law, the estimated 
cost (including any revision thereof) of the project exceeds 
$2,000,000, the Secretary may not continue such construction unless the 
Secretary has furnished a complete report to the Committee on Science 
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 
and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee 
on Appropriations of the Senate, explaining the project and the reasons 
for the estimate or revision.

SEC. 8. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

  (a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b), construction 
on a civilian energy or scientific research, development, or 
demonstration or related commercial application of energy technology 
project of the Department for which funding has been specifically 
provided by law may not be started, and additional obligations may not 
be incurred in connection with the project above the authorized funding 
amount, whenever the current estimated cost of the construction project 
exceeds by more than 10 percent the higher of--
          (1) the amount authorized for the project, if the entire 
        project has been funded by the Congress; or
          (2) the amount of the total estimated cost for the project as 
        shown in the most recent budget justification data submitted to 
        Congress.
  (b) Notice.--An action described in subsection (a) may be taken if--
          (1) the Secretary has submitted to the Committee on Science 
        and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
        Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
        Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a 
        report on the proposed actions and the circumstances making 
        such actions necessary; and
          (2) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which 
        the report is received by the committees.
  (c) Exclusion.--In the computation of the 30-day period described in 
subsection (b)(2), there shall be excluded any day on which either 
House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more 
than 3 days to a day certain.
  (d) Exception.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to any 
construction project which has a current estimated cost of less than 
$2,000,000.

SEC. 9. AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN.

  (a) Requirement for Conceptual Design.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2) 
and except as provided in paragraph (3), before submitting to Congress 
a request for funds for a construction project that is in support of a 
civilian energy or scientific research, development, or demonstration 
or related commercial application of energy technology program, 
project, or activity of the Department, the Secretary shall complete a 
conceptual design for that project.
  (2) If the estimated cost of completing a conceptual design for a 
construction project exceeds $750,000, the Secretary shall submit to 
Congress a request for funds for the conceptual design before 
submitting a request for funds for the construction project.
  (3) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to a request for 
funds for a construction project, the total estimated cost of which is 
less than $2,000,000.
  (b) Authority for Construction Design.--(1) The Secretary may carry 
out construction design (including architectural and engineering 
services) in connection with any proposed construction project that is 
in support of a civilian energy or scientific research, development, 
and demonstration or related commercial application of energy 
technology program, project, or activity of the Department if the total 
estimated cost for such design does not exceed $250,000.
  (2) If the total estimated cost for construction design in connection 
with any construction project described in paragraph (1) exceeds 
$250,000, funds for such design must be specifically authorized by law.

SEC. 10. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

  (a) Construction of Spallation Neutron Source Project.--None of the 
funds authorized by section 3(b)(11) may be obligated until--
          (1) the Secretary certifies in writing to the Committee on 
        Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate that senior project 
        management positions for the project have been filled by 
        qualified individuals; and
          (2) the Secretary provides the Committee on Science and the 
        Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 
        and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the 
        Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, with--
                  (A) a cost baseline and project milestones for each 
                major construction and technical system activity, 
                consistent with the overall cost and schedule submitted 
                with the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget, that 
                have been reviewed and certified by an independent 
                entity, outside the Department and having no financial 
                interest in the project, as the most cost-effective way 
                to complete the project;
                  (B) binding legal agreements that specify the duties 
                and obligations of each laboratory of the Department in 
                carrying out the project;
                  (C) a revised project management structure that 
                integrates the staff of the collaborating laboratories 
                working on the project under a single project director, 
                who shall have direct supervisory responsibility over 
                the carrying out of the duties and obligations 
                described in subparagraph (B); and
                  (D) official delegation by the Secretary of primary 
                authority with respect to the project to the project 
                director; and
          (3) the Comptroller General certifies to the Congress that 
        the total taxes and fees in any manner or form paid by the 
        Federal Government on the Spallation Neutron Source and the 
        property, activities, and income of the Department relating to 
        the Spallation Neutron Source to the State of Tennessee or its 
        counties, municipalities, or any other subdivision thereof, 
        does not exceed the aggregate taxes and fees for which the 
        Federal Government would be liable if the project were located 
        in any other State that contains a national laboratory of the 
        Department.
The Secretary shall report on the Spallation Neutron Source Project 99-
E-334 annually, as part of the Department's annual budget submission, 
including a description of the achievement of milestones, a comparison 
of actual costs to estimated costs, and any changes in estimated 
project costs or schedule.
  (b) International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) 
Engineering Design Activities (EDA).--None of the funds authorized by 
this Act may be used either directly or indirectly for United States 
participation in International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 
(ITER) Engineering Design Activities (EDA).
  (c) Office of Science.--None of the funds authorized by this Act may 
be used either directly or indirectly to fund the salary of an 
individual holding the position of Director or Deputy Director of the 
Office of Science, or Associate Director (except for the Office of 
Laboratory Policy and the Office of Resource Management), or Director, 
Office of Planning and Analysis within the Department's Office of 
Science unless such individual holds a postgraduate degree in science 
or engineering.
  (d) Travel.--Not more than 1 percent of the funds authorized by this 
Act may be used either directly or indirectly to fund travel costs of 
the Department or travel costs for persons awarded contracts or 
subcontracts by the Department. As part of the Department's annual 
budget request submission to the Congress, the Secretary shall submit a 
report to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, 
that identifies--
          (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.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1655 is to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years (FYs) 2000 and 2001 for the civilian energy and 
scientific research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) and 
related commercial application of energy technology programs, 
projects, and activities of the Department of Energy (DOE).

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Three circumstances dictate the need for this legislation: 
(1) the importance of preserving and strengthening the Nation's 
scientific leadership; (2) the lack of specific authorizations 
for the bulk of the DOE's civilian energy and scientific RD&D 
and commercial application of energy technology activities 
under the Committee on Science's jurisdiction; and (3) the 
necessity to maintain discretionary budget caps.
    In the next century, it is imperative that the United 
States maintains and improves its scientific, technical, and 
engineering base to sustain prosperity, meet the challenge of 
new ideas, and ensure a better quality of life for future 
generations. Notwithstanding the projections of budget 
surpluses, competition for scarce Federal discretionary 
resources by competing interests requires Congress to stress 
the fundamental importance of Federal science programs to the 
nation. In this fiscal environment, it is the view of the 
Committee on Science that funding for basic scientific research 
should take precedence over activities better conducted by the 
private sector, which tends to focus more on short-term, 
applied research.
    Within this framework, the Committee on Science continues 
to support the goal of increasing research funding in a 
responsible manner. This means that increases must fall within 
the discretionary budget caps and be predicated upon the 
following five principles:
          1. Federal RD&D must focus on programs that are long-
        term, high-risk, non-commercial, well-managed, and 
        provide the potential for fruitful scientific advances.
          2. Federal RD&D should hue closely to agency missions 
        and be open to rigorous evaluations of quality and 
        results.
          3. Beyond the demonstration of technical feasibility, 
        research providing incremental improvements in a 
        product or process design, or associated with marketing 
        and commercialization, should be left to the private 
        sector.
          4. Partnerships of all kinds should be encouraged to 
        leverage scarce taxpayer dollars.
          5. Infrastructure necessary for carrying out 
        essential Federal RD&D programs needs to be prioritized 
        consistent with program requirements.
    The DOE is a major funding source for science--its Office 
of Science supports the Federal Government's third largest 
basic research program, exceeded in size only by the National 
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. In 
addition, DOE supports major energy RD&D efforts, including 
solar and renewable energy, energy efficiency, fossil energy, 
and nuclear and fusion energy.
    The general authority for these DOE activities lies in 
various statutes, including the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (P.L. 83-703), the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 
(P.L. 93-438), the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and 
Development Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-577), and the Department of 
Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91)--which established DOE in 
the Executive Branch on October 1, 1977, as a cabinet-level 
agency. Beyond this general authority,statutes such as the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) authorize numerous specific 
RD&D activities. However, with 3 exceptions--Hydrogen Research,\1\ Next 
Generation Internet,\2\ and Renewable Indian Energy Resources \3\--very 
few of the Department's civilian programs have specific authorizations. 
And nearly all such authorizations contained in the Energy Policy of 
Act of 1992 either have or soon will expire. This circumstance, in and 
of itself, dictates a compelling need for a comprehensive authorization 
bill to provide guidance and direction to the Department that will 
preserve and strengthen the Nation's science base and our energy 
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Hydrogen Research is authorized at $35.0 million for FY 2000 
and at $40.0 million for FY 2001 by the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 
(P.L. 104-271).
    \2\ NGI is authorized at $25.0 million for FY 2000 by the Next 
Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-305).
    \3\ Renewable Indian Energy Resources is authorized at $30.0 
million for FY 2000-2003 by the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act 
of 1998 (P.L. 105-388).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under Rule X, clause 1(n)(1) of the Rules of the House, the 
Committee on Science has jurisdiction over ``all bills, 
resolutions, and other matters relating to. * * * [all] energy 
research, development, and demonstration, and projects 
therefor, * * *'' [emphasis added]. Similarly, under Rule X, 
clause 1(n)(4), the Committee has jurisdiction over 
environmental RD&D under Rule X, clause 1(n)(6), the Committee 
has jurisdiction over the commercial application of energy 
technology; and under Rule X, clause 1(n)(14), the Committee 
has jurisdiction over scientific RD&D.
    In 1997, the committee reported H.R. 1277, the DOE Civilian 
RD&D Authorization Act of 1997, which would have authorized 
specific sums for DOE's civilian energy and scientific RD&D and 
related commercial application of energy technology programs 
for FYs 1998 and 1999. That bill was referred sequentially to 
the House Committee on Commerce, and was never acted on by the 
House because the two Committees could not resolve their 
jurisdictional differences. In the spirit of bipartisan 
cooperation to address the Commerce Committee's concerns about 
H.R. 1277, the Science Committee has divided the DOE programs 
contained in H.R. 1277 into two bills: (1) this bill, H.R. 
1655, which authorizes the DOE civilian energy and scientific 
RD&D and related commercial application of energy technology 
programs, projects, and activities that are under the sole 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee,\4\ and (2) H.R. 1656, 
which authorizes those DOE commercial application of energy 
technology and related civilian energy and scientific RD&D 
programs, projects, and activities that the Science Committee 
shares jurisdiction with the Commerce Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ H.R. 1655, as introduced, authorized only those DOE's civilian 
energy and scientific RD&D and related commercial application of energy 
technology programs that the Committee on Commerce did not strike from 
H.R. 1277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result of bipartisan consultations with the Commerce 
Committee after the introduction of H.R. 1655, Mr. Calvert, 
Chairman of the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment, offered a manager's amendment on behalf of himself 
and Mr. Costello, Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Environment, that deleted the Field Operations, 
Oak Ridge Landlord and Building Technology, State, and 
Community Sector (nongrants) Management and Planning line 
items--items for which the Commerce Committee has now claimed 
joint jurisdiction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The Field Operations, Oak Ridge Landlord and Building 
Technology, State, and Community Sector (nongrants) Management and 
Planning line items were included the Commerce Committee's reported 
version of H.R. 1277, thereby indicating that at that time the Commerce 
Committee agreed that these line items were the sole jurisdiction of 
the Science Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee believes that this authorization bill--the 
Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Authorization Act of 1999--authorizes the DOE civilian energy 
and scientific RD&D and related commercial application of 
energy technology programs, projects, and activities that are 
under the sole jurisdiction of the Science Committee and meets 
the Committee's responsibilities to set priorities for good 
fundamental science and a balanced energy research portfolio 
that is vital to the Nation's future, while maintaining the 
discretionary budget caps.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee 
on Science held hearings on March 3, March 10, March 24, and 
April 14, 1999 to hear testimony on the Administration's FY 
2000 budget request for the civilian energy and scientific RD&D 
and related commercial application of energy technology 
programs, projects, and activities of the DOE.
    Appearing as witnesses before the Subcommittee hearing on 
March 3, 1999, titled ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization 
Request: Department of Energy--Offices of Science; Environment, 
Safety and Health; and Environmental Management,'' were: Dr. 
Martha A. Krebs, Director, DOE Office of Science; Dr. David M. 
Michaels, DOE Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and 
Health (EH); Mr. Dan M. Berkovitz, DOE Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Planning, Policy and Budget, Office of 
Environmental Management (EM); and Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, 
Director, Energy, Natural Resources, and Science Issues, 
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).
    Dr. Kregs testified on the $2.85 billion request from the 
Office of Science. Her testimony included the following:
     DOE ranks second behind the Department of Defense 
in terms of the investment made in science by the Federal 
Government.
     Background and status of the Spallation Neutron 
Source (SNS), including some recent reviews of the project DOE 
has taken into account in planning the project.
     DOE hopes to use the Scientific Simulation 
Initiative to build computer and information technology for the 
second decade of the new century with the hope that the 
terascale computers developed will be used for numerous 
projects within DOE and the science community in general.
    Dr. Michael's testimony on the $50.8 million EH non-defense 
budget request discussed the following:
     In 1997 DOE decided to run pilot programs to 
determine the costs and benefits of external regulation, and 
subsequently intended to submit legislation to Congress that 
would externally regulate certain single-purpose energy 
research laboratories.
     The FY 1999 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Conference Report directed DOE not to begin any 
pilot projects that did not include the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC), the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), and other state and local bodies.
     These pilots have raised unexpected and as yet 
unresolved issues. With such issues outstanding, DOE does not 
feel comfortable in submitting single-purpose laboratory 
external-regulation legislation at this time. DOE, however, is 
still continuing with external regulation activities.
     Secretary of Energy Richardson designated the 
Integrated Safety Management (ISM) as the Department's safety 
policy and is continuing to take steps towards implementing 
ISM.
     EH is currently soliciting input from outside 
experts with the hope of addressing concerns by workers who 
claim that their health was put in jeopardy.
    Mr. Berkovitz discussed the $330 million non-defense 
request for EM and said the following:
     EM is responsible for cleaning up government-
related nuclear energy research facilities that have 
accumulated over the past 50 years. In addition, EM is tasked 
with maintaining the safety and security of weapons-usable 
plutonium and radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
     EM has set a goal of cleaning up as many sites as 
possible by the year 2006. There are 48 sites left (down from 
53 the previous year) and EM hopes to reduce that number to 42 
by the end of FY 2000.
     EM uses technological innovations to contribute to 
clean-up and continues to research and develop new technologies 
to aide in the future.
    Mr. Rezendes testified on the GAO review of the status of 
the SNS project and noted the following findings:
     DOE has not assembled a complete team with the 
necessary technical skills and experience to manage the 
project.
     The project is underspending its appropriations 
and has currently spent 60 percent of the planned budget.
     The project's cost and schedule estimates are not 
fully developed and thus do not represent a reliable estimate 
baseline. There is also an inadequate allowance for 
contingencies.
     DOE's complex management structure also creates 
problems for the SNS project.
     GAO reviewed 80 DOE projects from a 15-year period 
and found that only 15 were completed and 31 were terminated 
after spending $10 billion.
    Appearing as witnesses before the Subcommittee hearing on 
March 10, 1999, titled ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization 
Request: Department of Energy--Offices of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy; and Nuclear Energy, Science 
and Technology,'' were: The Honorable Dan Reicher, DOE 
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
(EERE); Mr. Robert Kripowicz, DOE Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Fossil Energy; and Mr. William Magwood, IV, Director, 
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. 
Department of Energy.
    Mr. Reicher discussed the EERE budget request of just over 
$1 billion and claimed the following:
     Consumer savings have totaled more than $33 
billion since 1978 as a result of several DOE-supported 
technologies, and energy-intensive industries such as steel, 
glass, aluminum, and paper have saved $2.1 billion because of 
energy-saving technologies.
     Renewable energy costs are down 80 percent since 
1980.
     DOE wants to reduce energy use 50 percent in new 
homes and 30 percent in commercial buildings.
     The EERE budget request hopes to keep up this pace 
as well as reach the following goals: complete work on advanced 
industrial turbine; accelerate R&D for high efficiency 
vehicles; increase grants to states for energy work, increase 
weatherization funding; improve R&D on highly efficient and 
affordable buildings; and increase the use of coal mixed with 
biomass.
     Eleven percent of the Office of Power Technologies 
budget is earmarked, and 93 percent of the remaining funds are 
distributed on a competitive basis. The Office of 
Transportation Technologies is in the 70 to 80 percent 
competitive awards range and the Office of Industrial 
Technologies is near 100 percent.
     The next generation of turbines will allow for 
wind energy in the two to three cents per kilowatt hour range--
down from 30 to 40 cents in 1980.
    Mr. Kripowicz gave testimony justifying the $364 million 
budget request by the Office of Fossil Energy (FE), which 
includes the following:
     FE has set as a priority the development of a 
virtually pollution-free power plant (named the Vision 21 Power 
Plant) in the 2015 timeframe. Also a key aspect in this project 
is higher efficiency resulting in lower costs and fewer 
emissions of greenhouse gases.
     Another priority of FE is research into carbon 
sequestration.
     Diversifying the future domestic supplies, 
including assuring adequate supplies of natural gas at 
reasonable prices and conducting more research into the 
potential of methane hydrates, is important.
     FE is also working to provide the technical 
assistance, including demonstrating improvements in both tools 
and techniques, as well as developing new technologies to keep 
oil flowing from the most threatened reserves, as it often 
costs more to pump out of the ground than it brings on the 
market. In most fields, only one-third or so of the oil has 
been produced.
     FE offered the deferral of $246 million from the 
Clean Coal Technology Program because only two of the 40 
projects in the program still require funding.
     Approximately 10 percent of the FE budget is 
earmarked; the remainder is awarded competitively.
    Mr. Magwood discussed the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science 
and Technology (NE) civilian budget request of $269.3 million, 
and gave the following justifications for the request:
     The U.S. remains a key international participant 
in the discussion over future application of nuclear 
technology. However, this position is in jeopardy as momentum 
from past accomplishments fades and the nuclear R&D 
infrastructure decays.
     NE's requested increase of $25 million, as well as 
increases requested in their university programs, are geared 
toward keeping the U.S. in a leadership role of nuclear 
technology.
     NE also is proposing several new projects, 
including the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program to 
ensure nuclear plants are safe and efficient over the next 
three decades and the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, 
part of the isotope program, to fight against cancer, 
arthritis, and other illnesses.
     NE is relying more than ever on outside advice in 
conducting nuclear R&D activity.
     DOE remains confident that the 
Electrometallurgical Treatment (EMT) project will continue 
after an independent review by the National Research Council 
even though the Administration has proposed cutting $20 
million, or one-fourth, of the project's funding.
    Appearing as witnesses before the Subcommittee hearing on 
March 24, 1999, titled ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization 
Request: Department of Energy Results Act Implementation,'' 
were: The Honorable Gregory H. Friedman, DOE Inspector General, 
Ms. Susan D. Kladiva, Associate Director, Energy Resources, and 
Science Resources, Community, and Economic Development 
Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO); Mr. John R. 
Sullivan, Director of Strategic Planning, Budget and Program 
Evaluation, DOE Office of Policy and International Affairs; and 
Ms. Gwendolyn Cowan, Director, Office of Procurement and 
Assistance Policy, DOE Office of Management and Administration.
    Mr. Friedman testified on reviews conducted by the Office 
of Inspector General regarding DOE's implementation of the 
Government Performance and Results Act (Results Act) and 
discussed the following findings and recommendations:
     The Offices of Science, NE, and EERE have not 
integrated their planning, budgeting, and performance measures 
into a unified strategy. On the other hand, the Offices of 
Defense Programs and of Environmental Management (EM) have 
performed such an integration.
    The Offices of Science, NE, and EERE also had limited 
success in developing results-oriented performance standards 
while the Office of Defense Programs and EM demonstrated 
significant progress in this area.
     None of the aforementioned offices adequately 
validated the estimated and actual costs used to measure 
performance, which is also a requirement of the Results Act.
    The Office of Inspector General has offered the following 
recommendations to DOE: (1) enhance the links between overall 
strategic plan and its individual program office budget 
request; (2) require program offices to develop performance 
standards that are results-oriented, clear, measurable, and 
tied to projected resources; and (3) require program managers 
to collect and validate both estimated and actual costs used in 
performance measures.
     DOE made significant use of the peer-review 
process to off-set problems in defining results and performance 
goals in areas such as basic research.
    Ms. Kladiva discussed GAO's observations concerning DOE's 
ability to implement GPRA, and noted the following:
     DOE's annual performance plan could be more useful 
if it better identified planned outcomes, presented information 
on individual offices' planned performance and requested funds, 
and described its verification and validation in more detail.
     While many of DOE's goals and measures clearly 
quantify planned performance, no baseline information is given, 
and therefore it is impossible to judge how much progress has 
been made.
     Some of DOE's annual goals and measures are vague 
and ambiguous and make it difficult to judge performance.
     DOE's measuring system is flawed because it allows 
DOE to rate incomplete work as successful.
     It is often difficult to associate an office's 
total planned performance with funds requested because of a 
complex matrix used by the Department.
    Mr. Sullivan testified on DOE's efforts to comply with and 
implement the Results Act and discussed the following:
     The Department initiated its strategic management 
system in 1996 which allows it to perform the functions of 
planning, budgeting, program execution, and evaluation.
     The first performance agreement between the 
President and the Secretary was published for FY 1995 and the 
first annual performance report was released later in 1995; 
1996 brought about the release of the first annual performance 
plan from the Department.
     The two main challenges remaining for DOE are 
refining and perfecting measures so that they represent 
outcomes, not outputs and ensuring that all Department 
activities, budgets, contracts, and plans clearly link to the 
strategic plan.
     DOE is planning on using the National Academy of 
Sciences report to learn how to shape and build their next 
strategic plan.
    Ms. Cowan talked about the progress DOE had made regarding 
GPRA and also discussed DOE's procurement and financial 
assistance award activities. She noted that in 1994, the 
Department eliminated its unique competition policy, the result 
being that incidents of competition for major contracts has 
been greater in the subsequent four years than in any time in 
the Department's history.
    The Subcommittee hearing of April 14, 1999, titled ``Fiscal 
Year 2000 Climate Change Budget Authorization Request,'' 
examined the Administration's FY 2000 climate change budget 
proposals related to the Kyoto Protocol and the Protocol's 
requirement that the U.S. reduce its net greenhouse gas 
emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels in the 2008-2012 
timeframe--a reduction in projected U.S. carbon emissions of 
about 550 million metric tons, according to the most recent 
estimate of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
contained in its Annual Outlook 1999 (AEO99) report. The 
hearing also considered the U.S. Global Climate Change Research 
Program (USGCRP).
    The Administration's FY 2000 climate change budget request 
totals $4.142 billion, which includes: (1) $200 million for an 
EPA ``Clean Air Partnership Fund''; (2) $1.368 billion for 
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) spending programs; 
(3) $387 million for CCTI tax incentives; (4) $400 million in 
other climate-related programs (DOE clean coal and natural gas, 
weatherization, and state energy grants); and (5) $1.787 
billion for the USGCRP.
    Appearing as witnesses were: The Honorable Neal F. Lane, 
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and 
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; The 
Honorable Dan W. Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy; The Honorable David M. 
Gardiner, EPA Assistant Administrator for Policy; and The 
Honorable Jay E. Hakes, EIA Administrator.
    Dr. Lane testified on the Administration's FY 2000 budget 
requests for CCTI and USGCRP, and noted the following:
     CCTI is the Administration's response to a report 
issued from the President's Committee of Advisors on Science 
and Technology (PCAST), which concluded that the federal energy 
R&D programs were not commensurate in scope and scale with the 
energy challenges and opportunities for the 21st century. PCAST 
also warned that this shortfall could translate into higher 
dependence on imported oil, higher energy costs, smaller U.S. 
energy technology exports, worse air quality than would 
otherwise be the case, and the diminished capacity to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions cost effectively.
     U.S. climate change science is largely supported 
by the $1.8 billion FY 2000 budget request of the USGCRP. This 
request includes a new Carbon Cycle Science Initiative and the 
U.S. climate modeling effort.
     The climate change issue requires two issues to be 
addressed: (1) a sustained and enhanced commitment to energy 
research, development, and deployment; and (2) continued 
research into the science of climate change.
    Mr. Reicher testified on the DOE's FY 2000 climate change 
budget request of approximately $1.1 billion, and Mr. Gardiner 
discussed EPA's role in CCTI and its FY 2000 budget requests of 
$216 million for CCTI and $200 million for a Clean Air 
Partnership Fund.
    Finally, Dr. Hakes gave testimony on the EIA report, 
Analysis of The Climate Change Technology Initiative, which was 
conducted at the request of Science Committee Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Minority Member George Brown, Jr. The 
EIA analysis predicts that the CCTI tax incentives would only 
reduce projected U.S. carbon emissions in 2010 by 3.1 million 
metric tons, or 0.17 percent. The EIA also found that while 
research, development, and deployment programs also have 
benefits in reducing carbon emissions, it is not possible to 
link program expenditures directly to program results or to 
separate the impacts of incremental funding requested for FY 
2000 from ongoing program expenditures. In addition, Dr. Hakes 
testified that the current EIA AE099 estimates already include 
the impacts of ongoing research and development.

                          V. Committee Actions

    As summarized above, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment of the Committee on Science heard testimony 
relevant to the program authorized in H.R. 1655 at hearings 
held on March 3, March 10, March 24, and April 14, 1999.
    On May 3, 1999, Mr. Ken Calvert, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, introduced H.R. 1655, 
the Department of Energy Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999, a bill to authorize 
appropriations for FY 2000 and FY 2001 for the energy and 
scientific R&D and related commercial application of energy 
technology programs, projects, and activities of the DOE.
    The Committee on Science met to consider H.R. 1655 on 
Tuesday, May 25, 1999, and entertained the following amendments 
and report language.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the Science 
Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, offered a 
manager's amendment on behalf of himself and Mr. Costello, 
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment, that: (1) made technical and conforming changes to 
H.R. 1655, as introduced; (2) added reporting requirements to 
the provisions in the bill dealing with Fossil Energy and 
Energy Efficiency Initiatives; (3) clarified the intent of the 
``Limitations on Demonstrations'' section; (4) raised the 
limits on the provisions dealing with General Plant Projects, 
Construction Projects, Authority for Conceptual and 
Construction Designs; (5) clarified the intent of the 
``Production or Provision of Articles or Services'' and the 
``Eligibility of Awards'' sections; and (6) and struck the 
prohibitions on the use of funds for DOE's High Performance 
Computing and Communications (HPCC) program and Scientific 
Simulation Initiative (SSI), with the understanding that they 
would be addressed in report language and subsequent 
legislation. And, as a result of bipartisan consultations with 
the Commerce Committee, the manager's amendment also deleted 
the Field Operations, Oak Ridge Landlord and Building 
Technology, State, and Community Sector (nongrants) Management 
and Planning line items.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment making 
available, within funds authorized for Concentrating Solar 
Power, $2.0 million for FY 2000 and $3.0 million for FY 2001 
for experimental beamed power technology demonstrations. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Gutknecht offered an amendment making 
available, within funds authorized for Fuel Utilization R&D, 
$2.5 million for FY 2000 and $2.75 million for FY 2001 for 
biodiesel fuel R&D. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 4.--Mr. Doyle offered an amendment to insert a 
new section establishing a gas hydrate energy and scientific 
and environmental R&D program within DOE. The amendment 
included the authorization of $5.0 million for FY 2000 and $7.5 
million for FY 2001 for the new program within the $107,916,000 
for FY 2000 and $108,831,000 for FY 2001 authorized under 
section 3(c)(3) for Gas. The amendment was adopted by voice 
vote.
    Amendment 5.--Mr. Udall offered an amendment to add $49.9 
million for FY 2000 and $52.0 million for FY 2001 for various 
Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies programs, and $99.0 
million for FY 2000 and $103.5 million for FY 2001 to various 
Energy Conservation R&D line items. The amendment was rejected 
by a recorded vote of 17 ayes to 20 noes.
    Amendment 6.--Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment to Mr. 
Udall's amendment (Amendment 5) that would provide $33.5 
million for FY 2000 and $35.0 million for FY 2001 for 
Geothermal. The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 16 
ayes to 19 noes.
    Amendment 7.--Mr. Costello offered an amendment to 
authorize $150.0 million for FY 2000 for the construction of 
Project 99-E-334, the SNS at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 
offset by $150.0 million in reductions in funding to various 
programs for FY 2000 and FY 2001, and subject to a number of 
limitations. The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 
17 ayes to 17 noes.
    Amendment 8.--Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson's amendment, 
cosponsored by Mr. Wu, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Capuano, and which 
was withdrawn, would have stricken subsections 9(a) and 9(b) of 
the bill prohibiting the use of any of the funds authorized by 
the Act for DOE's HPCC program or SSI.
    Amendment 9.--Ms. Biggert offered an amendment requiring 
the Secretary of Energy to make available through DOE's 
Internet home page abstracts relating to all research grants 
and awards made with funds authorized by this Act, with the 
proviso that nothing in the amendment shall be construed to 
require or permit the release of any information prohibited by 
law or regulation from being released to the public. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 10.--Mr. Nethercutt offered an amendment 
prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from admitting to any 
classified area of any federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
energy laboratory--except for Ames Laboratory, the 
Environmental Measurement Laboratory, 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, and the Thomas Jefferson 
National Accelerator Facility--an individual who is a citizen 
of a nation that is named on the DOE List of Sensitive 
Countries. The Secretary may waive the prohibition on a case-
by-case basis if he or she determines that such access is 
necessary for the furtherance of civilian science interests of 
the U.S., and, within 30 days after granting the waiver submits 
a report justifying the waiver to the House Science Committee 
and to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 11.--Mr. Costello offered an amendment to the 
amendment by Mr. Nethercutt (Amendment 10) prohibiting the 
Secretary of Energy from admitting to any classified facility 
of any DOE Laboratory, or to any facility of any DOE Laboratory 
to discuss sensitive subject material, an individual who is a 
citizen of a nation that is named on the DOE List of Sensitive 
Countries. Mr. Calvert raised a point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill and the Chair sustained 
the point order.
    Amendment 12.--Mr. Cook and Ms. Woolsey offered an 
amendment to provide $33.5 million for FY 2000 and $35.0 
million for FY 2001 for Geothermal, of which $4.0 million for 
FY 2001 and $4.615 million for FY 2001 shall be derived from 
savings resulting from reductions in contractor travel pursuant 
to section 9(f). The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Amendment 13.--Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to authorize 
$100.0 million for FY 2000 for the construction of Project 99-
E-334, the SNS at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, offset by 
$100.0 million in reductions in funding to various programs for 
FY 2000, and subject to a number of limitations. The amendment 
was adopted by a recorded vote of 29 ayes to 0 noes.
    Report Language 1.--Mr. Brady offered report language 
regarding the DOE's Industries of the Future program. The 
report language was adopted by voice vote.
    Report Language 2.--Mr. Calvert asked and received 
unanimous consent that the budget tables for H.R. 1655 be 
included in the bill's report language and that staff be 
permitted to make technical corrections to the table.
    Mr. Hall asked and received unanimous consent that the 
minority be given the opportunity to examine the budget tables 
in detail and negotiate over their content, and that upon 
completion of negotiations a final version be signed by a 
majority of the Committee, and that thereafter the minority 
have two subsequent days to file any minority supplemental or 
additional views.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Costello moved that the 
Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 1655, as amended, to 
the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do 
pass, that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative 
report and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and 
that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill 
before the House for consideration. The motion was adopted by a 
recorded vote of 31 ayes and 1 no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner asked and received unanimous consent 
that: (1) Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to 
submit supplemental, minority or additional views on the 
measure; (2) pursuant to clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Chairman may offer such 
motions as may be necessary in the House to go to conference 
with the Senate on H.R. 1655 or a similar Senate bill; (3) 
staff be given authority to make technical and conforming 
changes; and (4) the bill be reported in the form of a single 
amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting amendments 
adopted.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    As shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, H.R. 1655 authorizes to 
be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for DOE civilian 
energy and scientific RD&D and related commercial application 
of energy technology programs, projects, and activities 
$3,877,903,000 for FY 2000 and $4,098,770,000 for FY 2001, of 
which--(1) $432,366,000 for FY 2000 and $452,577,000 for FY 
2001 is for Energy Supply; (2) $2,657,761,000 for FY 2000 and 
$2,691,465,000 for FY 2001 is for Science; (3) $397,564,000 for 
FY 2000 and $427,102,000 for FY 2001 is for Fossil EnergyR&D 
and (4) $490,212,000 for FY 2000 and $527,626,000 for FY 2001 is for 
Energy Conservation R&D.
    Other provisions of the bill include the following:
     Establishes a Gas Hydrate energy and scientific 
and environment R&D program within DOE.
     Limits the amounts of funds that may be 
reprogrammed.
     Limits DOE funding for civilian or scientific or 
related commercial application of energy technology 
demonstration programs, projects, or activities to technologies 
and processes that can be reasonably expected to yield new, 
measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or performance of 
the technology or process.
     Limits funding for general plant and construction 
projects that overrun costs and amounts that may be spent for 
conceptual and construction design of a construction project in 
the absence of a specific authorization.
     Prohibits the obligation of any funds authorized 
for the construction of the SNS at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory until: (1) the Secretary certifies that senior 
project management positions for the project have been filled 
by qualified individuals; (2) the Secretary provides: (A) a 
cost baseline and project milestones for each major 
construction and technical system activity; (B) binding legal 
agreements that specify the duties and obligations of each DOE 
laboratory 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; 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 paid by the 
Federal Government on the SNS 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 also is 
required to report on the SNS project as part of the 
Department's annual budget submission.
     Prohibits funds authorized by this Act to be used 
either directly or indirectly for either U.S. participation in 
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) 
Engineering Design Activities (EDA), or 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 or Office 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.
     Provides that 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 its contractors or subcontractors. As part of the 
Department's annual budget request submission to the Congress, 
the Secretary must submit a report identifying travel costs, 
the purposes of such travel, and the sources of the funds used.
     Provides that no funds authorized by the 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 also 
submit a report identifying the amount of funds provided to 
trade associations, the services provided, and the sources of 
the funds used.
     Prohibits DOE from using any funds authorized by 
the bill to: (1) award a management and operating contract for 
one of its federally owned or operated civilian energy 
laboratories unless the Secretary of Energy grants a case-by-
case waiver and reports to Congress; (2) award, amend, or 
modify a contract that deviates from the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR), unless the Secretary grants, on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation and reports 
to Congress on the reasons for the waiver; (3) prepare or 
initiate Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for unauthorized 
programs, projects or activities; or (4) produce or provide 
articles or services for the purpose of selling them to a 
person outside the Federal Government, unless the Secretary of 
Energy determines that comparable articles or services are not 
available from a commercial source in the U.S.
     Excludes from consideration for grant agreements 
made after 1999 by the DOE for a period of five years any 
person who received funding for a project not subject to a 
competitive, merit-based award process, except as specifically 
authorized by the bill.
     Requires the Secretary of Energy to make available 
through DOE's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all 
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the 
bill.
     Prohibits the Secretary of Energy from admitting 
to any classified area of any federally owned or operated 
nonmilitary energy laboratory--except for Ames Laboratory, the 
Environmental Measurement Laboratory, 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, and the Thomas Jefferson 
National Accelerator Laboratory--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 he or she determines that such access is 
necessary for the furtherance of civilian science interests of 
the U.S., and within 30 days after granting the waiver submits 
a report justifying the waiver to the House Science Committee 
and to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

                       TABLE 1. H.R. 1655--THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1999: SUMMARY
                                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              FY 2000                         FY 2001
                                                                                                          recommendation                  recommendation
                                                              FY 1999         FY 2000         FY 2000      compared with      FY 2001      compared with
                    Program/Activity                       appropriation      request     recommendation    (+ or -) FY   recommendation    (+ or -) FY
                                                                                                               1999                            2000
                                                                                                           appropriation                  recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Supply Budget Authority..........................         418,160         511,226         467,366         +49,206         492,577         +25,211
    Less Hydrogen Research Budget Authority/                     -22,250         -28,000         -35,000         -12,750         -40,000          -5,000
     Authorization (P.L. 104-271 and P.L. 105-245)......
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy Supply Budget Authorization.........         395,910         483,226         432,366         +36,456         452,577         +20,211
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Science Core Budget Authority/Authorization.............       2,449,685       2,436,402       2,539,861         +90,176       2,678,365        +138,504
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Budget Authority                 130,000         214,000         117,900         -12,100          13,100        -104,800
 Authorization..........................................
HPCC, NGI, SSI Budget Authority \1\.....................         125,775         184,991          25,000        -100,775               0         -25,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science Budget Authority................       2,705,460       2,835,393       2,682,761         -22,699       2,691,465          +8,704
    Use of Prior Year Balances/Other Adjustments........          -7,600               0               0          +7,600               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Budget Authority...................       2,697,860       2,835,393       2,682,761         -15,099       2,691,465          +8,704
                                                         ===============================================================================================
    Less Next Generation Internet (NGI) (P.L. 105-277            -14,602         -14,602         -25,000         -10,398               0         +25,000
     and P.L. 105-305) \1\..............................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Budget Authorization...............       2,683,258       2,802,791       2,657,761         -25,497       2,691,465         +33,704
                                                         ===============================================================================================

Fossil Energy Research and Development Budget Authority/         373,056         354,000         397,564         +24,508         427,102         +29,538
 Authorization..........................................
Energy Conservation Research and Development Budget              465,732         562,484         490,212         +24,480         527,626         +37,414
 Authority/Authorization................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal 1, H.R. 1655 Budget Authorization........       3,917,956       4,220,501       3,977,903         +59,947       4,098,770        +120,867
    Less 1 Percent of Subtotal 1 Authorized for FY 2000.               0               0         -39,779         -39,779               0         +39,779
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal 2, H.R. 1655 Budget Authorization........       3,917,956       4,220,501       3,938,124         +20,168       4,098,770        +160,646
    Less 0.7674 Percent of Subtotal 2 Authorized for FY                0               0         -30,221         -30,221               0         +30,221
     2000 Representing a Reduction in Travel Costs......
    Less $30,000,000 for Administrative Expenses for FY                0               0         -30,000         -30,000               0         +30,000
     2000...............................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, H.R. 1655 Budget Authorization.............       3,917,956       4,220,501       3,877,903         -40,053       4,098,770        +220,867
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Existing Authorizations:
    Hydrogen Research (P.L. 104-271 and P.L. 105-245)...          22,250          28,000          35,000         +12,750          40,000          +5,000
    Next Generation Internet (NGI) (P.L. 105-277 and 105-         14,602          14,602          25,000         +10,398               0         -25,000
     305) \1\...........................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, H.R. 1655 Budget Authority.................       3,954,808       4,263,103       3,937,903         -16,905       4,138,770        +200,867
                                                         ===============================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excluded from this authorization legislation is DOE's High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and NGI programs and its activities under
  the proposed Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT2) Initiative--the Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI). The lack of authorization for
  these programs in H.R. 1655 should not be construed as a lack of endorsement of these programs. It is the Chairman's intention or the Committee to act
  on separate legislation that will authorize appropriations for the HPCC Program--including DOE's portion--as well as the proposed IT2 Initiative and
  further NGI activities for those agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction.


                            TABLE 2. H.R. 1655--THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1999
                                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              FY 2000                         FY 2001
                                                                                                          recommendation                  recommendation
                                                              FY 1999         FY 2000         FY 2000      compared with      FY 2001      compared with
                    Program/Activity                       appropriation      request     recommendation    (+ or -) FY   recommendation    (+ or -) FY
                                                                                                               1999                            2000
                                                                                                           appropriation                  recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Energy Supply Summary

Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Budget                327,221         398,921         351,624         +24,403         365,321         +13,697
 Authority..............................................
Less Hydrogen Research Budget Authority/Authorization            -22,250         -28,000         -35,000         -12,750         -40,000          -5,000
 (P.L. 104-271 and P.L. 105-245)........................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies Budget                304,971         370,921         316,624         +11,653         325,321          +8,697
 Authorization..........................................
Nuclear Energy Budget Authority/Authorization...........          91,462         112,305         115,742         +24,280         127,256         +11,514
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Energy Supply Budget Authorization......         396,433         483,226         432,366         +35,933         452,577         +20,211
Use of Prior Year Balances/Other Adjustments............            -523               0               0            +523               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy Supply Budget Authorization.........         395,910         483,226         432,366         +34,456         452,577         +20,211
      Total, Energy Supply Budget Authority.............         418,160         511,226         467,366         +49,206         492,577         +25,211

                      ENERGY SUPPLY
       Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies

Solar:
    Solar Building Technology Research..................           3,600           5,500           3,708            +108           3,819            +111
    Photovoltaic:
        Photovoltaic:...................................          72,200          93,309          83,345         +11,145          85,845          +2,500
        Photovoltaic Energy Research....................           2,883           2,847           3,027            +144           3,179            +151
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Photovoltaic...........................          75,083          96,156          86,372         +11,289          89,024          +2,652
    Concentrating Solar Power:
        Experimental Beamed Power Technology                           0               0           2,000          +2,000           3,000          +1,000
         Demonstrations.................................
        Other Concentrations Solar Power................          17,000          18,850          15,510          -1,490          15,035            -475
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Concentrating Solar Power..............          17,000          18,850          17,510            +510          18,035            +525
    Biomass/Biofuels:
        Power Systems...................................          31,450          38,950          32,394            +944          33,365            +972
        Transportation..................................          41,750          53,441          43,003          +1,253          44,293          +1,290
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems........          73,200          92,391          75,396          +2,196          77,658          +2,262
        Biomass/Biofuels Energy Research................          27,199          26,740          28,559          +1,360          29,987          +1,428
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Biomass/Biofuels.......................         100,399         119,131         103,955          +3,556         107,645          +3,690
    Wind:
        Wind Energy Systems.............................          34,771          45,600          35,814          +1,043          36,889          +1,074
        Wind Energy Research............................             283             283             297             +14             312             +15
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Wind...................................          35,054          45,883          36,111          +1,057          37,201          +1,090
    Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program.......           4,000           1,500           1,500          -2,500           1,500               0
    Solar Program Support...............................               0          10,000               0               0               0               0
    International Solar Energy program..................           6,350           6,000           6,000            -350           6,000               0
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory................           3,900           1,100           1,100          -2,800           1,100               0
          Solar Photoconversion.........................          14,532          14,260          15,259            +727          16,022            +763
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Solar......................................         259,918         318,380         271,515         +11,597         280,346          +8,831
Geothermal..............................................          28,500          29,500          33,500          +5,000          35,000           1,500
Hydrogen:
    Hydrogen Research (P.L. 104-271 and P.L. 105-245)...          22,250          28,000          35,000         +12,750          40,000          +5,000
    Hydrogen Energy Research............................           3,008           2,970           3,158            +150           3,316            +158
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Hydrogen Research..........................          25,258          30,970          38,158         +12,900          43,316          +5,158
Hydropower..............................................           3,250           7,000           3,348             +98           3,448            +100
Electric Energy Systems and Storage.....................          40,100          41,000          41,303          +1,203          42,542          +1,239
Program Direction.......................................          18,100          19,171          18,100               0          18,100               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Solar and Renewable Resources                    375,126         446,021         405,924         +30,798         422,752         +16,828
       Technologies Budget Authority....................
Less Renewable Energy Research Program..................         -47,905         -47,100         -50,300          -2,395         -52,816          -2,516
Less Savings Resulting from Contractor Travel to be                    0               0          -4,000          -4,000          -4,615            -615
 Applied to Geothermal..................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies          327,221         398,921         351,624         +24,403         365,321         +13,697
       Budget Authority.................................
Less Hydrogen Research Budget Authority/Authorization            -22,250         -28,000         -35,000         -12,750         -40,000          -5,000
 (P.L. 104-271 and P.L. 105-245)........................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies          304,971         370,921         316,624         +11,653         325,321          +8,697
       Budget Authorization.............................
Nuclear Energy:
    Nuclear Energy R&D:
        Advanced Radioisotope Power System..............          37,000          37,000          37,000               0          37,000               0
    Test Reactor Area Landlord:
        Operation and Maintenance.......................           4,000           6,070           6,070          +2,070           6,070               0
        Construction:
            99-E-200 Electrical Utility Upgrade, Idaho               341           1,430           1,430          +1,089           1,944            +514
             National Engineering and Environmental
             Laboratory.................................
            95-E-201 Fire and Life Safety Improvements,            2,425           1,500           1,500            -925           2,500          +1,000
             Idaho National Engineering and
             Environmental Laboratory...................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Construction.......................           2,766           2,930           2,930            +164           4,444          +1,514
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Test Reactor Area Landlord.........           6,766           9,000           9,000          +2,234          10,514          +1,514
    University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support......          11,000          11,345          13,500          +2,500          16,000          +2,500
    Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization...................               0           5,000           5,000          +5,000           7,500          +2,500
    Nuclear Energy Research Initiative..................          19,000          25,000          30,000         +11,000          35,000          +5,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Energy R&D.........................          73,766          87,345          94,500         +20,734         106,014         +11,514
    Program Direction...................................          21,242          24,960          21,242               0          21,242               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Nuclear Energy..........................          95,008         112,305         115,742         +20,734         127,256         +11,514
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................          -3,546               0               0          +3,546               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Energy Budget Authority/                     91,462         112,305         115,742         +24,280         127,256         +11,514
       Authorization....................................
      Subtotal, Energy Supply Budget Authorization......         396,433         483,226         432,366         +35,933         452,577         +20,211
    Use of Prior Year Balances/Other Adjustments........            -523               0               0            +523               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy Supply Budget Authorization.........         395,910         483,226         432,366         +36,456         452,577         +20,211
    Hydrogen Research Budget Authority/Authorization              22,250          28,000          35,000         +12,750          40,000          +5,000
     (P.L. 104-271 and P.L. 105-245)....................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy Supply Budget Authority.............         418,160         511,226         467,366         +49,206         492,577         +25,211

                     SCIENCE SUMMARY

Science Core:
    High Energy Physics.................................         693,916         697,090         715,090         +21,174         753,110         +38,020
    Nuclear Physics.....................................         333,779         342,940         357,214         +23,435         375,600         +18,386
    Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Core....         432,890         401,408         413,674         -19,216         434,357         +20,683
    Basic Energy Sciences (BES) Core....................         665,522         667,256         698,800         +33,278         733,740         +34.940
    Computational and Technology Research (CTR) Core....          30,123          31,474          31,474          +1,351          32,333            +859
    Energy Research Analysis............................             908           1,000           1,000             +92           1,000               0
    Multiprogram Energy Labs--Facility Support..........          21,247          21,260          22,309          +1,062          23,425          +1,116
    Fusion Energy Sciences..............................         221,500         222,614         250,000         +28,500         275,000         +25,000
    Science Core Program Direction......................          49,800          51,360          49,800               0          49,800               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Core Budget Authority..............       2,449,685       2,436,402       2,539,361         +89,676       2,678,365        +139,004
Other Science:
    Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Budget Authority/            130,000         214,000         117,900         -12,100          13,000        -104,800
     Authorization......................................
    HPCC, NGI, and SSI Budget Authority/Authorization\1\         125,775         184,991          25,000        -100,775               0         -25,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Other Science Budget Authority/                     255,775         398,991         142,900        -112,875          13,100        -129,800
       Authorization....................................
      Subtotal, Science Budget Authority................       2,705,460       2,835,393       2,682,761         -22,699       2,691,465          +8,704
    Use of Prior Year Balance/Other Adjustments.........          -7,600               0               0          +7,600               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Budget Authority...................       2,697,860       2,835,393       2,682,761         -15,099       2,691,465          +8,704
    Less Next Generation Internet (NGI) (P.L. 105-277            -14,602         -14,602         -25,000         -10,398               0         +25,000
     and P.L. 105-305)\1\...............................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Budget Authorization...............       2,683,258       2,820,791       2,657,761         -25,497       2,691,465         +33,704
High Energy Physics:
    Operation and Maintenance:
        Research and Technology.........................         214,891         227,190         235,190         +20,299         246,950         +11,760
        Facility Operations.............................         459,635         441,200         451,200          -8,435         473,760         +22,560
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Operation and Maintenance..............         674,526         668,390         686,390         +11,864         720,710         +34,320
    Construction:
        00-G-307 Research Office Building, Stanford                    0           2,000           2,000          +2,000           5,200          +3,200
         Linear Accelerator Center......................
        99-G-306 Wilson Hall Safety Improvements                   6,700           4,700           4,700          -2,000           4,200            -500
         Project, Fermilab..............................
        98-G-304 Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI),           14,300          22,000          22,000          +7,700          23,000          +1,000
         Fermilab.......................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Construction...............................          21,000          28,700          28,700          +7,700          32,400          +3,700
          Subtotal, High Energy Physics.................         695,526         697,090         715,090         +19,564         753,110         +38,020
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................          -1,610               0               0          +1,610               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, High Energy Physics........................         693,916         697,090         715,090         +21,174         753,110         +38,020
Nuclear Physics:
    Operation and Maintenance:
        Medium Energy Nuclear Physics...................         118,543         111,130         124,470          +5,927         130,694          +6,224
        Heavy Ion Nuclear Physics.......................         150,407         181,810         181,810         +31,403         190,901          +9,091
        Low Energy Nuclear Physics......................          33,225          34,170          34,886          +1,661          36,631          +1,744
        Nuclear Theory..................................          15,760          15,830          16,548            +788          17,375            +827
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Operation and Maintenance..............         317,935         342,940         357,714         +39,779         375,600         +17,886
    Construction:
        91-G-3000 Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,                16,620               0               0         -16,620               0               0
         Brookhaven National Laboratory.................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Construction...........................          16,620               0               0         -16,620               0               0
          Subtotal, Nuclear Physics.....................         334,555         342,940         357,714         +23,159         375,600         +17,886
        Use of Prior Year Balances......................            -776               0               0            +776               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Nuclear Physics............................         333,779         342,940         357,714         +23,935         375,600         +17,886
Biological and Environmental Research (BER):
    BER Congressional Directives........................          42,713               0               0         -42,713               0               0
    Other BER...........................................         393,975         411,170         413,674         +19,699         434,357         +20,684
    Less Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) \1\.....               0          -9,762               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, BER Core................................         436,688         401,408         413,674         -23,014         434,357         +20,684
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................          -3,798               0               0          +3,798               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Biological and Environmental Research......         432,890         401,408         413,674         -19,216         434,357         +20,684
Basic Energy Sciences (BES):
    Material Sciences:
        Materials Sciences..............................         414,686         407,636         423,290          +8,604         438,760         +15,470
        Less Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) R&D........         -28,600         -17,900         -17,900         +10,700         -13,100          +4,800
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Materials Sciences Core................         386,086         389,736         405,390         +19,304         425,660         +20,270
    Chemical Sciences:
        Chemical Sciences...............................         206,837         215,577         217,179         +10,342         228,038         +10,859
        Less Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSN) \1\.               0          -6,828               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Chemical Sciences Core.................         206,837         208,749         217,179         +10,342         228,038         +10,859
    Engineering and Geosciences:
        Engineering Research............................          17,924          14,876          18,820            +896          19,761            +941
        Geosciences Research............................          24,815          22,669          26,056          +1,241          27,359          +1,303
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Engineering and Geosciences............          42,739          37,545          44,876          +2,137          47,120          +2,244
    Energy Biosciences..................................          29,862          31,226          31,355          +1,493          32,923          +1,568
    Construction: 96-E-300 Combustion Research Facility,           4,000               0               0          -4,000               0               0
     Sandia National Laboratories-Livermore.............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, BES Core................................         669,524         667,256         698,800         +29,276         733,740         +34,940
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................          -4,002               0               0          +4,002               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, BES Core...................................         665,522         667,256         698,800         +33,278         733,740         +34,940
Computational and Technology Research (CTR):
    Mathematical, Information, and Computational
     Sciences (MICS):
        MICS............................................         138,834         184,575          42,174         -96,660          18,033         +24,141
        Less NGI Budget Authority/Authorization (P.L.            -14,602         -14,602         -25,000         -10,398               0         +25,000
         105-277 and P.L. 105-305 \1\...................
        Less High Performance Computing and                     -111,173        -101,939               0        +111,173               0               0
         Communications (HPCC) \1\......................
        Less Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) \1\.               0         -50,860               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, MICS Core..............................          13,059          17,174          17,174          +4,115          18,033            +859
    Laboratory Technology Research......................          16,142          14,300          14,300          -1,842          14,300               0
    Advanced Energy Projects............................           2,495               0               0          -2,495               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, CTR Core................................          31,696          31,474          31,474               0          32,333               0
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................          -1,573               0               0          +1,573               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, CTR Core...................................          30,123          31,474          31,474          +1,351          32,333            +859
Energy Research Analysis:
      Subtotal, Energy Research Analysis................           1,000           1,000           1,000               0           1,000               0
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................             -92               0               0             +92               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy Research Analysis...................             908           1,000           1,000             +92           1,000               0
Multiprogram Energy Labs--Facility Support:
      Subtotal, Multiprogram Energy Labs--Facility                21,260          21,260          22,309          +1,049          23,425          +1,115
       Support..........................................
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................             -13               0               0             +13               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Multiprogram Energy Labs--Facility Support.          21,247          21,260          22,309          +1,062          23,425           1,115
Fusion Energy Sciences:
    Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) Decontamination             3,600          13,600          13,600         +10,000          19,400          +5,800
     and Decommissioning................................
    International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor              12,200               0               0         -12,200               0               0
     (ITER) Engineering Design Activities (EDA).........
    Other Fusion Energy Sciences........................         206,836         209,014         236,400         +29,564         255,600         +19,200
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Fusion Energy Sciences..................         222,636         222,614         250,000         +27,364         275,000         +25,000
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................          -1,136               0               0          +1,136               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fusion Energy Sciences.....................         221,500         222,614         250,000         +28,500         275,000         +25,000
Science Program Direction...............................          49,800          51,360          49,800               0          49,800               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Core Budget Authority/Authorization       2,449,685       2,436,402       2,539,861         +90,176       2,678,365        +138,504
Other Science:
    Spallation Neutron Source (SNS):
        SNS Research and Development (R&D)..............          28,600          17,900          17,900         -10,700          13,100          -4,800
        Construction: Project 99-E-344, SNS, Oak Ridge           101,400         196,100         100,000          -1,400               0        -100,000
         National Laboratory............................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, SNS....................................         130,000         214,000         117,900         -12,100          13,100        -104,800
    High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC)         111,173         101,939               0        -111,173               0               0
    Next Generation Internet (NGI) (P.L. 105-277 and              14,602          14,602          25,000         +10,398               0         -25,000
     P.L. 105-305)......................................
    Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI):
        BER SSI.........................................               0           9,762               0               0               0               0
        BES SSI.........................................               0           6,828               0               0               0               0
        CTR SSI.........................................               0          50,860               0               0               0               0
        Science Program Direction SSI...................               0           1,000               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, SSI....................................               0          68,450               0               0               0               0
          Total, Other Science Budget Authority/                 225,775         398,991         142,900        -112,875          13,100        -129,800
           Authorization \1\............................
          Subtotal, Science Budget Authority............       2,705,460       2,835,393       2,682,761         -22,699       2,691,465          +8,704
    Use of Prior Year Balances/Other Adjustments........          -7,600               0               0          +7,600               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Budget Authority...................       2,697,860       2,835,393       2,682,761         -15,099       2,691,465          +8,704
    Less Next Generation Internet (NGI) (P.L. 105-277            -14,602         -14,602         -25,000         -10,398               0         +25,000
     and P.L. 105-305) \1\..............................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Science Budget Authorization...............       2,683,258       2,820,791       2,657,761         -25,497       2,691,465         +33,704

                FOSSIL ENERGY R&D SUMMARY

Coal....................................................         123,143         122,432         126,609          +3,466         126,614              +5
Petroleum...............................................          48,616          50,166          50,574          +1,958          52,091          +1,517
Gas.....................................................         115,207         105,314         107,916          -7,291         108,831            +915
Program Direction and Management Support................          69,481          72,079          71,114          +1,633          72,796           1,682
Plant and Capital Equipment.............................           2,600           2,000           2,000            -600           2,060             +60
Cooperative Research and Development....................           6,836           5,836           7,178            +342           7,537            +359
Fuel Conversion, Natural Gas and Electricity............           2,173           2,173           2,173               0           2,173               0
Advanced Metallurgical Processes........................           5,000           5,000           5,000               0           5,000               0
Fossil Energy Science Initiative........................               0               0          25,000         +25,000          50,000         +25,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fossil Energy R&D Budget:
    Authority/Authorization.............................         373,056         365,000         397,564        --24,508         427,102         +29,538
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................               0         -11,000               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fossil Energy R&D Budget Authority/                 373,056         354,000         397,564         +24,508         427,102         +29,538
       Authorization....................................

                    FOSSIL ENERGY R&D
Coal:
    Advanced Clean Fuels Research:
        Coal Preparation................................           5,097           4,000           5,250            +153           5,407            +157
        Direct Liquefaction.............................           3,150           1,641           1,641          -1,509               0          -1,641
        Indirect Liquefaction...........................           5,500           6,659           6,659          +1,159           6,859            +200
        Advanced Research and Environmental Technology..           1,781           2,200           2,200            +419           2,310            +110
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Advanced Clean Fuels Research..........          15,528          14,500          15,750            +222          14,576          -1,174
    Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems:
        Advanced Pulverized Coal-Fired Powerplant.......          15,000           3,000           3,000         -12,000               0          -3,000
        Indirect Fired Cycle............................           6,500           7,010           7,010            +510           7,220            +210
        High-Efficiency Integrated Gasified Combined              32,388          38,661          38,661          +6,273          39,821          +1,160
         Cycle..........................................
        High-Efficiency Pressurized Fluidized Bed.......          14,638          12,202          15,077            +439          15,529            +452
        Advanced Research and Environmental Technology..          19,150          23,864          23,864          +4,714          25,057          +1,193
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems.          87,676          84,737          87,612             -64          87,628             +16
    Advanced Research and Technology Development........          19,939          23,195          23,247          +3,308          24,410          +1,162
      Total, Coal.......................................         123,143         122,432         126,609          +3,466         126,614              +5
Petroleum:
    Oil technology:
        Exploration and Production Supporting Research..          30,796          31,546          31,720            +924          32,671            +952
        Recovery Field Demonstrations...................           7,800           7,800           8,034             234           8,275            +241
        Effective Environmental Protection..............          10,020          10,820          10,820            +800          11,145            +325
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Petroleum..............................          48,616          50,166          50,574          +1,958          52,091          +1,517
Gas:
    Natural Gas Research:
        Exploration and Production......................          13,432          14,932          14,932          +1,500          15,380            +448
        Gas Hydrates....................................               0               0           5,000          +5,000           7,500          +2,500
        Delivery and Storage............................           1,000           1,000           1,030             +30           1,061             +31
        Advanced Turbine Systems........................          44,500          41,808          41,808          -2,692          41,808               0
        Emerging Processing Technology Applications.....           9,058           7,308           9,330            +272           9,610            +280
        Effective Environmental Protection..............           3,017           2,617           3,108             +91           3,201             +93
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Natural Gas Research...................          71,007          67,665          75,207          +4,200          78,559          +3,352
    Fuel Cells:
        Advanced Research...............................           1,200           1,200           1,260             +60           1,323             +63
        Fuel Cells Systems..............................          41,000          36,449          36,449          -4,551          36,449               0
        Multilayer Ceramic Technology...................           2,000               0               0          -2,000               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Fuel Cells.............................          44,200          37,649          37,709          -6,491          37,772             +63
    Less Offset for Gas Hydrates program................               0               0          -5,000          -5,000          -7,500          -2,500
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Gas........................................         115,207         105,314         107,916          -7,291         108,831            +915
Program Direction and Management Support:
    Headquarters Program Direction......................          15,049          16,016          15,049               0          15,049               0
    Energy Technology Center Program Direction..........          54,432          56,063          56,065          +1,633          57,747          +1,682
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program Direction and Management Support...          69,481          72,079          71,114          +1,633          72,796          +1,682
Plant and Capital Equipment: GP-F-100, General Plant               2,600           2,000           2,000            -600           2,060             +60
 Projects...............................................
Cooperative Research and Development....................           6,836           5,836           7,178            +342           7,537            +359
Fuels Conversion, Natural Gas and Electricity...........           2,173           2,173           2,173               0           2,173               0
Advanced Metallurgical Processes........................           5,000           5,000           5,000               0           5,000               0
Fossil Energy Science Initiative........................               0               0          25,000         +25,000          50,000         +25,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fossil Energy R&D Budget:
    Authority/Authorization.............................         373,056         365,000         397,564         +24,508         427,102         +29,537
    Use of Prior Year Balances..........................               0         -11,000               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Fossil Energy R&D Budget Authority/                 373,056         354,000         397,564         +24,508         427,102         +29,537
       Authorization....................................

             ENERGY CONSERVATION R&D SUMMARY

Transportation Sector...................................         194,166         241,400         204,935         +10,769         210,845          +5,910
Industry Sector.........................................         165,859         171,000         155,131         -10,728         159,534          +4,403
Building Technology, State and Community Sector--Non-             67,975         103,418          70,014          +2,039          72,115          +2,101
 Grants.................................................
Policy and Management...................................          37,732          46,666          35,132          -2,600          35,132               0
Energy Efficiency Science Initiative....................               0               0          25,000         +25,000          50,000         +25,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Energy Conservation R&D Budget Authority/           465,732         562,484         490,212         +24,480         527,626         +37,414
       Authorization....................................

                 ENERGY CONSERVATION R&D

Transportation Sector:
    Vehicle Technology R&D..............................         125,936         168,080         129,714          +3,778         133,606          +3,891
    Fuels Utilization R&D...............................               0               0           2,500          +2,500           2,750            +250
    Biodiesel fuels R&D.................................          17,785          23,500          21,000          +3,215          21,455            +455
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other Fuels Utilization R&D.........................          17,785          23,500          23,500          +5,715          24,205            +705
      Total, Fuels Utilization R&D......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Technology Deployment...............................           5,045           7,000           5,196            +151           5,352            +156
    Materials Technologies..............................          37,475          33,000          38,599          +1,124          39,757          +1,158
    Management and Planning.............................           7,925           9,820           7,925               0           7,925               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transportation Sector......................         194,166         241,400         204,935         +10,769         210,845          +5,910
Industry Sector:
    Industries of the Future (Specific).................          57,456          74,000          59,180          +1,724          60,955          +1,775
    Industries of the Future (Crosscutting).............         100,052          87,600          87,600         -12,452          90,228          +2,628
    Management and Planning.............................           8,351           9,400           8,351               0           8,351               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Industry Sector............................         165,859         171,000         155,131         -10,728         159,534          +4,403
Building Technology, State and Community Sector--Non-
 Grants:
    Building Research...................................          54,243          73,320          55,870          +1,627          57,546          +1,676
    Building Technology Assistance (Non-Grants).........          13,732          30,098          14,144            +412          14,568             424
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Building Technology, State and Community              67,975         103,418          70,014          +2,039          72,115          +2,101
       Sector--Non-Grants...............................
Policy and Management...................................          37,732          46,666          35,132          -2,600          35,132               0
Energy Conservation Science Initiative..................               0               0          25,000         +25,000          50,000         +25,000
      Total, Energy Conservation R&D Budget Authority/           465,732         562,484         490,212         +24,480         527,626         +37,414
       Authorization....................................
      Subtotal 1, H.R. 1655 Budget Authorization........       3,806,783       4,050,112       3,977,903        +171,120       4,098,770        +120,867
    Less 1 Percent of Subtotal 1 Authorized for FY 2000.               0               0         -39,779         -39,779               0         +39,779
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal 2, H.R. 1655 Budget Authorization........       3,806,783       4,050,112       3,938,124        +131,124       4,098,770        +160,646
    Less 0.7674 Percent of Subtotal 2 Authorized for FY                0               0         -30,221         -30,221               0         +30,221
     2000 Representing a Reduction in Travel Costs......
    Less $30,000,000 for Administrative Expenses for FY                0               0         -30,000         -30,000               0         +30,000
     2000...............................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, H.R. 1655 Budget Authorization.............       3,806,783       4,050,112       3,877,903         +71,120       4,098,770        +220,867
Existing Authorizations:
    Hydrogen Research (P.L. 104-271 and P.L. 105-245)...          22,250          28,000          35,000         +12,750          40,000          +5,000
    Next Generation Internet (NGI) (P.L. 105-277 and              14,602          14,602          25,000         +10,398           \1\ 0          25,000
     P.L. 105-305) \1\..................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, H.R. 1655 Budget Authority.................       3,843,635       4,092,714       3,937,903         +94,268       4,138,770        +200,867
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excluded from this authorization legislation is DOE's High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and NGI programs and its activities under
  the proposed Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT2) Initiative--the Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI). The lack of authorization for
  these programs in H.R. 1655 should not be construed as a lack of endorsement of these programs. It is the Chairman's intention or the Committee to act
  on separate legislation that will authorize appropriations for the HPCC Program--including DOE's portion--as well as the proposed IT2 Initiative and
  further NGI activities for those agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction.

          VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Views


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 cites the Act as the ``Department of Energy 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1999.''

Section 2. Definitions

    Section 2 defines: (1) the ``Department'' as the Department 
of Energy; and (2) the ``Secretary'' as the Secretary of 
Energy.

Section 3. Authorization of appropriations

    Subsection 3(a) authorizes $432,366,000 for fiscal year 
(FY) 2000 and $452,577,000 for FY 2001 for Energy Supply 
civilian energy and scientific RD&D 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, 
to remain available through the end of FY 2002, of which:
    (1) $316,624,000 for FY 2000 and $325,321,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies, 
including--(A) $3,708,000 for FY 2000 and $3,819,000 for FY 
2001 for Solar Building Technology Research; (B) $83,345,000 
for FY 2000 and $85,845,000 for FY 2001 for Photovoltaic Energy 
Systems; (C) $17,510,000 for FY 2000 and $18,035,000 for FY 
2001 for Concentrating Solar Power, of which $2,000,000 for FY 
2000 and $3,000,000 for FY 2001 shall be for experimental 
beamed power technology demonstrations; (D) $75,396,000 for FY 
2000 and $77,658,000 for FY 2001 for Biopower/Biofuels Energy 
Systems; (E) $35,814,000 for FY 2000 and $36,889,000 for FY 
2001 for Wind Energy Systems; (F) $1,500,000 for FY 2000 and 
$1,500,000 for FY 2001 for the Renewable Energy Production 
Incentive Program; (G) $6,000,000 for FY 2000 and $6,000,000 
for FY 2001 for the International Solar Energy Program; (H) 
$1,100,000 for FY 2000 and $1,100,000 for FY 2001 for the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; (I) $33,500,000 for FY 
2000 and $35,000,000 for FY 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 subsection 10(d); (J) $3,348,000 
for FY 2000 and $3,448,000 for FY 2001 for Hydropower; (K) 
$41,303,000 for FY 2000 and $42,542,000 for FY 2001 for 
Electric Energy Systems and Storage; and (L) $18,100,000 for FY 
2000 and $18,000,000 for FY 2001 for Program Direction; and
    (2) $115,742,000 for FY 2000 and $127,256,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Nuclear Energy, including--(A) $37,000,000 for FY 
2000 and $37,000,000 for FY 2001 for Advanced Radioisotope 
Power Systems; (B) $6,070,000 for FY 2000 and $6,070,000 for FY 
2001 for the Test Reactor Area (TRA) Landlord operation and 
maintenance; (C) $1,430,000 for FY 2000 and $1,944,000 for FY 
2001 for construction of Project 99-E-200, TRA Electric Utility 
Upgrade, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory (INEEL); (D) $1,500,000 for FY 2000 and $2,500,000 
for FY 2001 for construction ofProject 95-E-201, TRA Fire and 
Life Safety Improvements, INEEL; (E) $13,500,000 for FY 2000 and 
$16,000,000 for FY 2001 for University Reactor Fuel Assistance and 
Support; (F) $5,000,000 for FY 2000 and $7,500,000 for FY 2001 for 
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (G) $30,000,000 for FY 2000 and 
$35,000,000 for FY 2001 for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative; and 
(H) $21,242,000 for FY 2000 and $21,242,000 for FY 2001 for Program 
Direction.
    Subsection 3(b) authorizes $2,657,761,000 for FY 2000 and 
$2,691,465,000 for FY 2001 for Science scientific and energy 
RD&D operation and maintenance and construction programs, 
projects and activities for which specific sums are not 
authorized under other authority of law, to remain available 
until expended, of which:
    (1) $715,090,000 for FY 2000 and $753,110,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for High Energy Physics, including--(A) $235,190,000 
for FY 2000 and $246,950,000 for FY 2001 for High Energy 
Physics Research and Technology; (B) $451,200,000 for FY 2000 
and $473,760,000 for FY 2001 for High Energy Physics Facility 
Operations; (C) $2,000,000 for FY 2000 and $5,200,000 for FY 
2001 for construction of Project 00-G-307, Research Office 
Building, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; (D) $4,700,000 
for FY 2000 and $4,200,000 for FY 2001 for construction of 
Project 99-G-306, Wilson Hall Safety Improvements Project, 
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab); and (E) 
$22,000,000 for FY 2000 and $23,000,000 for FY 2001 for 
construction of Project 98-G-304, Neutrinos at the Main 
Injector, Fermilab;
    (2) $357,714,000 for FY 2000 and $375,600,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Nuclear Physics;
    (3) $413,674,000 for FY 2000 and $434,357,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Biological and Environmental Research;
    (4) $698,800,000 for FY 2000 and $733,740,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Basic Energy Sciences, including--(A) $405,390,000 
for FY 2000 and $425,660,000 for FY 2001 for Materials Sciences 
Research and Facilities Operations; (B) $217,179,000 for FY 
2000 and $228,038,000 for FY 2001 for Chemical Sciences 
Research and Facilities Operations; (C) $18,820,000 for FY 2000 
and $19,761,000 for FY 2001 for Engineering Research; (D) 
$26,056,000 for FY 2000 and $27,359,000 for FY 2001 for 
Geosciences Research; and (E) $31,355,000 for FY 2000 and 
$32,923,000 for FY 2001 for Energy Biosciences;
    (5) $31,474,000 for FY 2000 and $32,333,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Computational and Technology Research, including--
(A) $17,174,000 for FY 2000 and $18,033,000 for FY 2001 for 
Mathematical, Information, and Computational Sciences; and (B) 
$14,300,000 for FY 2000 and $14,300,000 for FY 2001 for 
Laboratory Technology Research;
    (6) $1,000,000 for FY 2000 and $1,000,000 for FY 2001 shall 
be for Energy Research Analysis;
    (7) $22,309,000 for FY 2000 and $23,425,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Multiprogram for Energy Laboratories--Facility 
Support;
    (8) $250,000,000 for FY 2000 and $275,000,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Fusion Energy Sciences, including $13,600,000 for 
FY 2000 and $19,400,000 for FY 2001 for Tokamak Fusion Test 
Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning;
    (9) $49,800,000 for FY 2000 and $49,800,000 for FY 2001 for 
Science Program Direction;
    (10) $17,900,000 for FY 2000 and $13,100,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for SNS R&D and
    (11) $100,000,000 for FY 2000 shall be for construction of 
Project 99-E-334, the SNS at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
    Subsection 3(c) authorizes $397,564,000 for FY 2000 and 
$427,102,000 for FY 2001 for Fossil Energy Research and 
Development energy and scientific RD&D 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, to remain 
available through the end of FY 2002, of which:
    (1) $126,609,000 for FY 2000 and $126,614,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Coal, including--(A) $5,250,000 for FY 2000 and 
$5,407,000 for FY 2001 for Coal Preparation; (B) $1,641,000 for 
FY 2000 for Direct Liquefaction; (C) $6,659,000 or FY 2000 and 
$6,859,000 for FY 2001 for Indirect Liquefaction; (D) 
$2,200,000 for FY 2000 and $2,310,000 for FY 2001 for Advanced 
Clean Fuels Research Advanced Research and Environmental 
Technology; (E) $3,000,000 for FY 2000 for Advanced Pulverized 
Coal-Fired Powerplant; (F) $7,010,000 for FY 2000 and 
$7,220,000 for FY 2001 for Indirect Fired Cycle; (G) 
$38,661,000 for FY 2000 and $39,821,000 for FY 2001 for High-
Efficiency-Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; (H) 
$15,077,000 for FY 2000 and $15,529,000 for FY 2001 for High-
Efficiency Pressurized Fluidized Bed; (I) $23,864,000 for FY 
2000 and $25,057,000 for FY 2001 for Advanced Clean/Efficient 
Power Systems Advanced Research and Environmental Technology; 
and (J) $23,247,000 for FY 2000 and $24,410,000 for FY 2001 for 
Advanced Research and Technology Development;
    (2) $50,574,000 for FY 2000 and $52,091,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Oil Technology, including--(A) $31,720,000 or FY 
2000 and $32,671,000 for FY 2001 for Exploration and Production 
Supporting Research; (B) $8,034,000 for FY 2000 and $8,275,000 
for FY 2001 for Recovery Field Demonstrations; and (C) 
$10,820,000 for FY 2000 and $11,145,000 for FY 2001 for Oil 
Technology Effective Environmental Protection;
    (3) $107,916,000 for FY 2000 and $108,831,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Gas, including--(A) $14,932,000 for FY 2000 and 
$15,380,000 for FY 2001 for Natural Gas Research Exploration 
and Production; (B) $1,030,000 for FY 2000 and $1,061,000 or FY 
2001 for Natural Gas Research Delivery and Storage; (C) 
$41,808,000 for FY 2000 and $41,808,000 for FY 2001 for Natural 
Gas Research Advanced Turbine Systems; (D) $9,330,000 for FY 
2000 and $9,610,000 or FY 2001 for Natural Gas Research 
Emerging Processing Technology Applications; (E) $3,108,000 for 
FY 2000 and $3,201,000 for FY 2001 for Natural Gas Effective 
Environmental Protection; (F) $1,260,000 for FY 2000 and 
$1,323,000 for FY 2001 for Fuel Cells Advanced Research; and 
(G) $36,449,000 for FY 2000 and $36,449,000 for FY 2001 for 
Fuel Cells Systems;
    (4) $71,114,000 for FY 2000 and $72,796,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Program Direction and Management Support, 
including--(A) $15,049,000 for FY 2000 and $15,049,000 for FY 
2001 for Headquarters Program Direction; and (B) $56,065,000 
for FY 2000 and $57,747,000 for FY 2001 for Energy Technology 
Center Program Direction;
    (5) $2,000,000 for FY 2000 and $2,060,000 for FY 2001 shall 
be for GP-F-100, Plant and Capital Equipment, at Energy 
Technology Center sites;
    (6) $7,148,000 for FY 2000 and $7,537,000 and FY 2001 shall 
be for Cooperative Research and Development;
    (7) $2,173,000 for FY 2000 and $2,173,000 for FY 2001 shall 
be for Fuels Conversion, Natural Gas, and Electricity;
    (8) $5,000,000 for FY 2000 and $5,000,000 for FY 2001 shall 
be for Advanced Metallurgical Processes; and
    (9) $25,000,000 for FY 2000 and $50,000,000 for FY 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 is required to submit 
to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations 
of the House 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 Initiative, including a 
description of the process used to award the funds and an 
explanation of how the research relates to fossil energy.
    Finally, subsection 3(d) authorizes $490,212,000 for FY 
2000 and $527,626,000 for FY 2001 for Energy Conservation 
Research and Development energy and scientific RD&D 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, 
to remain available through the end of FY 2002, of which:
    (1) $204,935,000 for FY 2000 and $210,845,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for the Transportation Sector, including--(A) 
$129,714,000 for FY 2000 and $133,606,000 for FY 2001 for 
Vehicle Technology Research and Development; (B) $23,500,000 
for FY 2000 and $24,205,000 for FY 2001 for Fuels Utilization 
Research and Development, of which $2,500,000 for FY 2000 and 
$2,750,000 for FY 2001 shall be for biodiesel fuel R&D (C) 
$5,196,000 for FY 2000 and $5,352,000 for FY 2001 for 
Technology Deployment; (D) $38,599,000 for FY 2000 and 
$39,757,000 for FY 2001 for Materials Technology; and (E) 
$7,925,000 for FY 2000 and $7,925,000 for FY 2001 for 
Management and Planning;
    (2) $155,131,000 for FY 2000 and $159,534,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for the Industry Sector, including--(A) $59,180,000 
for FY 2000 and $60,955,000 for FY 2001 for Industries of the 
Future (Specific); (B) $87,600,000 for FY 2000 and $90,228,000 
for FY 2001 for Industries of the Future (Crosscutting); and 
(C) $8,351,000 for FY 2000 and $8,351,000 for FY 2001 for 
Management and Planning;
    (3) $70,014,000 for FY 2000 and $72,115,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for the Building Technology, State and Community 
Sector (nongrants), including--(A) $55,870,000 for FY 2000 and 
$57,546,000 for FY 2001 for Building Research; and (B) 
$14,144,000 for FY 2000 and $14,568,000 for FY 2001 for 
Building Technology Assistance (nongrants);
    (4) $35,132,000 for FY 2000 and $35,132,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Policy and Management; and
    (5) $25,000,000 for FY 2000 and $50,000,000 for FY 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 is required to submit to the 
Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
House 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 Initiative, including a description of 
the process used to award the funds and an explanation of how 
the research relates to energy efficiency.
            Committee views
    As noted in the footnote to the budget Tables 1 and 2 above 
DOE's HPCC and NGI programs and its activities under the 
proposed Information Technology for the 21st Century(IT2) 
Initiative--the Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI), are 
excluded from this authorization legislation. The lack of 
authorization for these programs in H.R. 1655 should not be 
construed as a lack of endorsement of these programs. It is the 
Chairman's Intention for the Committee to act on separate 
legislation that will authorize appropriations for the HPCC 
Program--including DOE's portion--as well as the proposed IT2 
Initiative and further NGI activities for those agencies under 
the Committee's jurisdiction.
    High Energy Physics.--The authorization levels provided for 
High Energy Physics should be sufficient to implement the 
February, 1998 High Energy Physics Panel (HEPAP) 
recommendations for a ``current level of effort'' budget and 
that can sustain high-priority experimentation on current 
facilities and develop long-range opportunities for the field 
in the post-2010 era. The Committee notes HEPAP's recognition 
that this budget profile requires termination of some current 
research in deference to higher priorities.
    Nuclear Physics.--The authorization levels provided for 
Nuclear Physics support continuing operation of the MTT Bates 
Linear Accelerator Center, as well for increased operations of 
the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Laboratory and the 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and increased funding for 
university groups to more effectively participate in research 
at the new facilities.
    Biological and Environmental Research (BER) and Basic 
Energy Sciences (BES).--The authorization levels provided for 
the BER and BES programs provide a substantial increase above 
the Administration's request--particularly for the operation 
the current portfolio of world-class scientific facilities. The 
Committee expects that these additional funds will be used to 
utilize these facilities more fully, as well as to support 
other long-range, high-risk basic research.
    Fusion Energy Sciences (FES).--The Committee recognizes 
that the broad fusion community--both magnetic and inertial--
have made substantial progress in redirecting the FES program 
over the past several years. The Committee also notes that 
there are a number of ongoing reviews of the program that may 
result in further restructuring and expects that the additional 
funds provide in this bill will be allocated in a manner 
consistent with the results of these reviews. The Committee 
also has included bill language that prohibits funds authorized 
by this Act to be used either directly or indirectly for 
further U.S. participation in the ITER EDA.
    Industries of the Future Program.--While the bill does not 
authorize the full amount of funding requested by the 
Administration for DOE's Industries of the Future Program, the 
Committee does not intend this to affect negatively DOE's 
continuation of the black liquor and wood residue gasification 
initiative.

Section 4. Gas hydrate energy and scientific and environmental research 
        and development program

    Subsection 4(a) directs the Secretary, not later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, acting through 
the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy (ASFE), to commence a 
program of gas hydrate energy and scientific an environmental 
R&D.
    Subsection 4(b) allows the Secretary, acting through the 
ASFE, to 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 RD&D programs on gas hydrate. Such funds made 
available 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 peer review of proposals. Exceptions 
shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and reported by 
the Secretary, acting through the ASFE, to the Committee on 
Science of the House and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the Senate 30 days prior to any such award.
    Subsection 4(c) allows the Secretary, acting through the 
ASFE, to 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 R&D program 
carried out under subsection 4(a).
    Subsection 4(d) provides that: (1) 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 
ASFE, for expenses associated with the administration of the 
program carried out under subsection 4(a); and (2) 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).
    Subsection 4(d) defines the terms ``contract'', 
``cooperative agreement'', ``grant'', and ``institution of 
higher education''.
    And, subsection 4(e) provides that of the $107,916,000 for 
FY 2000 and $108,831,000 for FY 2001 authorized under section 
3(c)(3) for Gas, $5,000,000 for FY 2000 and $7,500,000 for FY 
2001 shall be available for carrying out this section.

Section 5. Notice

    Subsections 5(a) and (b) allow the Secretary to reprogram 
funds for any authorized civilian energy or scientific 
research, development, or demonstration or related commercial 
application of energy technology programs, projects, or 
activities of the Department--(1) up to the lesser of $250,000 
or 5 percent of the total funding for a fiscal year of another 
such program, project or activity of the Department; or (2) up 
to 25 percent of the total funding for a fiscal year for such 
program, project, or activity of the Department after the 
Secretary has transmitted a report containing a full and 
complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and the 
facts and circumstances that support such proposed action to 
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of 
the House, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and a period 
of 60 days has elapsed after the date on which the report is 
received (excluding 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).
    Subsection 5(c) prohibits the use of reprogrammed funds for 
a program, project, or activity for which funding has been 
requested to the Congress but which has not been funded by the 
Congress.
    Subsection 5(d) requires the Secretary to provide notice to 
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of 
the House, 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 application of energy technology program, project, or 
activity of the Department.
    Subsection 5(e) requires the Secretary to provide copies to 
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of 
the House, 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 of projects, programs and activities of 
the Department prepared at the direction of any committee of 
Congress.

Section 6. Limitation on demonstrations

    Subsection 6 requires DOE to provide funding only for 
civilian energy or scientific or commercial application of 
energy technology demonstration programs, projects and 
activities for technologies or processes that can reasonably be 
expected to yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, 
efficiency, or performance of the technology or process.

Section 7. Limits on general plant projects

    Section 7 requires the Secretary to halt the construction 
of a civilian energy or scientific research development, or 
demonstration or related commercial application of energy 
technology ``general plant project'' if the estimated cost of 
the project (including any revisions) exceeds $2,000,000 unless 
the Secretary has furnished a complete report to the Committee 
on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House, 
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.

Section 8. Limits on construction projects

    Section 8 prohibits construction on a civilian energy or 
scientific research, development, or demonstration or related 
commercial application of energy technology construction 
project for which funding has been specifically authorized by 
law to be initiated and continued if the estimated cost for the 
project exceeds 110 percent of the higher of: (1) the amount 
authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total 
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for 
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy 
must report in detail to the Committee on Science and the 
Committee on Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on 
Appropriations of the Senate and the report must be before the 
committees for 30 legislative days (excluding any day on which 
either House of Congress is not in session because of an 
adjournment of more than 3 days to a daycertain). This section 
shall not apply to any construction project which has a current 
estimated cost of less than $2,000,000.

Section 9. Authority for conceptual and construction design

    Section 9 limits the Secretary's authority to requests 
construction funding in excess of $2,000,000 for a civilian 
energy or scientific research, development, or demonstration or 
related commercial application of energy technology 
construction project until the Secretary has completed a 
conceptual design for that project. Furthermore, if the 
estimated cost of completing a conceptual design for the 
construction project exceeds $750,000, the Secretary must 
submit a request to Congress for funds for the conceptual 
design before submitting a request for the construction 
project.
    In addition, the section allows the Secretary to 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, or 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; if the total estimated cost for construction 
design exceeds $250,000, funds for such design must be 
specifically authorized by law.

Section 10. Limits of use of funds

    Subsection 10(a) prohibits the obligation of any funds 
authorized by subsection 3(b)(11) for the construction of the 
Project 99-E-334, the SNS at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
until: (1) the Secretary certifies in writing to the Committee 
on Science of the House 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; (2) the Secretary provides the Committee on 
Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House, 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 and the total taxes and fees in any manner or form 
paid by the Federal Government on the SNS and the property, 
activities, and income of the department relating to the SNS 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. Finally, subsection 
10(a) requires the Secretary shall report on the SNS project, 
as part of theDepartment'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.
    Also, section 10 prohibits funds authorized by this Act to 
be used either directly or indirectly for: (b) U.S. 
participation in the ITER EDA; or (c) 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 or Office 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.
    In addition, subsection 10(d) provides that 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 must submit a 
report to the Committee on Science and Committee on 
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources and 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 two previous years; (2) 
the major purposes for such travel; and (3) the sources of 
funds for such travel.
    Subsection 10(e) provides that no funds authorized by the 
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 also 
submit a report to the Committee on Science and Committee on 
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources and Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
that shall identify--(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 two previous 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.
    Finally, subsection 10(f) requires that (1) each of the 
amounts authorized by this Act for FY 2000 shall be reduced by 
1 percent; (2) each of the amounts authorized by this Act for 
FY 2000, as reduced pursuant to paragraph (1), shall be further 
reduced by 0.7674 percent, with such reduction representing a 
reduction in travel costs; and (3) each of the amounts 
authorized by this Act for FY 2000 for administrative expenses, 
including program management, shall be further reduced 
proportionately to achieve additional savings of $30,000,000.

Section 11. Management and operating contracts

    Subsection 11(a) prohibits the use of funds authorized by 
this Act 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.
    In the event the Secretary intends to grant a waiver to the 
subsection 11(a) prohibition, subsection 11(b) requires the 
Secretary to submit at least 60 days in advance of such waiver 
areport to the Committee on Science and the Committee on 
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, notifying 
the committees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the 
waiver.

Section 12. Federal acquisition regulation

    Subsection 12(a) prohibits the use of funds authorized by 
this Act to be used to award, amend, or modify a contract of 
the Department in a manner that deviates from the FAR 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.
    Subsection 12(b) requires that at least 60 days before a 
contact 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, 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.

Section 13. Requests for proposals

    Subsection 13 prohibits the Department from using funds 
authorized by this Act to prepare or initiate RFPs for a 
civilian energy or scientific research, development, and 
demonstration or commercial application of energy technology 
program, project, or activity if the program, project or 
activity has not been specifically authorized by Congress.

Section 14. Production or provision of articles or services

    Subsection 14 prohibits the use of funds authorized by this 
Act by any civilian energy or scientific research, development, 
and demonstration or related commercial application of energy 
technology programs, 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.

Section 15. Eligibility for awards

    Subsection 15(a) requires the Secretary to exclude from 
consideration for grant agreements for civilian energy or 
scientific research, development, or demonstration or related 
commercial application of energy technology programs, projects 
and activities made by the Department after 1999 any person who 
received funds, other than those described in subsection 15(b), 
appropriated for a fiscal year after FY 1999, under a grant 
agreement from any Federal funding source for a project 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.
    Subsection 15(b) provides that subsection 15(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 
assistanceis 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.
    Subsection 15(c) defines the term ``grant agreement'' to 
mean 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 also 
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)).
            Committee views
    The Committee has a long-standing position that awards 
should be based on a competitive merit-based process. Merit 
review allows taxpayers' dollars to be spent in the most cost-
effective manner.

Section 16. Internet availability of information

    Section 16 requires the Secretary to make available through 
DOE's Internet home page 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.
            Committee views
    The Committee believes that by giving public access to 
information about how tax dollars are spent, it is acting as a 
responsible steward of taxpayer resources. Such information can 
also stimulate additional public and private sector research by 
informing the research community.

Section 17. Foreign visitor program

    Subsection 17(a) prohibits the Secretary from admitting any 
individual who is a citizen of a nation that is named on the 
Department of Energy List of Sensitive Countries to any 
classified area of any federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
energy laboratory, except as provided in subsection 17(b) or 
17(c).
    Subsection 17(b) gives the Secretary authority--which may 
not be delegated--to waive the subsection 17(a) prohibition in 
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; and this authority of the Secretary under paragraph 
(1). Not later than 30 days after granting such a waiver, the 
Secretary must transmit to the Committee on Science of the 
House and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
Senate a report providing notice of the waiver, and which shall 
include: (1) the identity of each individual for whom a waiver 
is grantedand, with respect to each such individual; and (2) a 
detailed justification for the waiver; and (3) 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.
    Subsection 17(c) provides that 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.

                          VIII. Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that each report of a committee on a 
public bill or public joint resolution contain: (A) an estimate 
by the committee of the costs that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in 
which it is reported, and in each of the five fiscal years 
following that fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of 
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if 
less than five years); (B) a comparison of the estimate of 
costs described in subdivision (A) made by the committee with 
any estimate of such costs made by a Government agency and 
submitted to such committee; and (C) when practicable, a 
comparison of the total estimated funding level for the 
relevant programs with the appropriate levels under current 
law. However, House Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(3)(B) provides that 
this requirement does not apply when a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been included in the report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3). A cost estimate and comparison prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been 
timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the 
filing of this report and is included in Section IX of this 
report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the Rule of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee providing new 
budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new 
spending authority, or new credit authority, or changes in 
revenues or tax expenditures include the statement required by 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, except 
that an estimate of new budget authority shall include, when 
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant programs to the appropriate levels under 
current law. H.R. 1655 does not contain any new budget 
authority, new spending authority, or new credit authority, or 
changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums 
authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 1655 does 
authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in 
the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is 
contained in Section IX of this report.

             IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee include an 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if timely submitted to the 
committee before the filing of the report. the Committee on 
Science has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 1655 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 18, 1999.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1655, the 
Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Authorization Act of 1999. This estimate supersedes CBO's June 
8 estimate for H.R. 1655 and reflects amendments that were 
provided to CBO on June 11, 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kathleen 
Gramp (for federal costs) and Lisa Cash Driskill (For the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1655--Department of Energy Research, Development, and 
        Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 1655 would authorize appropriations for 
certain civilian research and development (R&D) programs at the 
Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. It 
would specify authorizations for DOE's basic research programs 
and for the department's R&D on solar and renewable energy, 
nuclear power, fossil energy, and energy conservation. The bill 
would impose various conditions on the expenditure of the 
funds, including limitations on funding for the Spallation 
Neutron Source, the International Thermonuclear Experimental 
Reactor, and other projects and activities. Other provisions 
would affect procedures for awarding grants and contracts and 
for admitting foreign visitors to DOE laboratories and 
facilities.
    CBO estimates that appropriation of the specified amounts 
would result in additional discretionary spending of $8.0 
billion over the 2000-2004 period. H.R. 1655 would not affect 
direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply. H.R. 1655 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1655 is shown in the following table. 
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts 
authorized by the bill will be appropriated by the start of 
each fiscal year and that outlays will follow the historical 
spending patterns for these activities. The costs of this 
legislation fall within budget functions 250 (general science, 
space, and technology) and 270 (energy).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority................................  \1\ 4,49         0         0         0         0         0
                                                             7
    Estimated Outlays:..............................     4,341     2,216       222        35         0         0
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level:............................         0     3,883     4,106         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays...............................         0     1,993     3,816     1,963       190        26
Spending Under H.R. 1655:
    Authorization Level.............................  \1\ 4,49     3,883     4,106         0         0         0
                                                             7
    Estimated Outlays...............................     4,341     4,209     4,038     1,998       190        26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the four accounts of DOE that fund the programs
  authorized by this bill. These accounts include some programs that are not covered by the authorizations in
  this bill. Of the amounts appropriated for 1999, about $4,046 million was provided for the programs authorized
  by H.R. 1655.

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 1655 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal 
governments. Currently, about $600 million of the research and 
development budgets of the programs affected by this bill goes 
to universities, some of which are funded by states.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains 
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On June 8, 1999, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for the version of H.R. 1655 provided by the 
Committee staff on May 26, 1999. That version did not include 
certain amendments adopted by the Committee when the bill was 
ordered reported on May 25, 1999. Differences between the 
estimates are attributable to differences in the two versions. 
The corrected version of June 11, 1999, contains no 
authorizations for three existing programs (field operations, 
Oak Ridge landlord activities, and planning and management for 
R&D on building systems), which together represented about $127 
million of the amounts shown for each of the fiscal years 2000 
and 2001 in the previous estimate. But it adds $12.5 million 
over two years for R&D related to gas hydrates. The net change 
between the two versions' authorization levels is $122 million 
for 2000 and $120 million for 2001.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kathleen Gramp; impact 
on State, local, and tribal governments: Lisa Cash Driskill.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1655 contains no unfunded mandates.

          XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee include 
oversight findings and recommendations under clause 2(b)(1) of 
rule X. The Committee on Science's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

    XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee include a 
summary of oversight findings and recommendations made by the 
Committee on Government Reform under clause 4(c)(2) of rule X 
if such findings and recommendations have been submitted to the 
reporting committee in time to allow it to consider such 
findings and recommendations during its deliberations on the 
measure. The Committee on Science has received no such findings 
or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform.

                XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that each report of a committee on a 
public bill or public joint resolution contain a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the 
United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1655.

               XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 1655 does not establish or authorize the establishment 
of any advisory committee.

                  XV. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1655 does not related to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

       XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                    XVII. Committee Recommendations

    On May 25, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy 
Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1999, as amended, by a voice vote, and recommended its 
enactment.

                    XVIII. Committee Correspondence

                                      Committee on Science,
                                     Washington, DC, July 14, 1999.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Spence: After our conversation on the floor 
regarding H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999, our 
respective staffs met to discuss your concerns with the 
legislation.
    It is the intent of the Committee on Science that the 
amendment regarding foreign visitors to the energy laboratories 
be confined to these laboratories over which the Committee on 
Science has jurisdiction. On the advice of the office of the 
Parliamentarian, the language of the amendment regarding 
foreign visitors was confined to non-military energy 
laboratories, which is the clear statement of Science Committee 
jurisdiction as stated in the Rules of the House.
    However, in order to allay your fears that the provisions 
in our bill may be duplicative or contradictory to the 
provisions in the DOD Authorization bill, the Science Committee 
will offer a Manager's amendment on the floor which will 
clarify that the foreign visitors provision does not apply to 
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, the Sandia National Laboratories and Y-12 
Plant.
    The Committee on Science will make this letter a part of 
the Report filed on H.R. 1655. Thank you for working with us on 
this issue.
            Sincerely,
                             F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.
                                ------                                

                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                     Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write in response to your letter of 
July 14, 1999 regarding H.R.1655, the Department of Energy 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1999.
    I appreciate the clarification of the intent of the 
Committee on Science and the steps taken to modify the 
provisions addressing the question of foreign visitors to 
Department of Energy laboratories. As you know, notwithstanding 
your good faith efforts I remain concerned that provisions 
contained in H.R. 1655, as ordered reported by the committee, 
rely on broad and legally undefined terminology to establish 
scope in a manner that would capture those Department of 
Eenergy facilities under the direct jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Armed Services, principally the national 
laboratories. Accordingly, I welcome your commitment to offer a 
Manager's amendment during floor consideration of H.R. 1655 
that would specifically exempt the application of the 
provisions in question to the Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Sandia 
National Laboratories and the Y-12 Plant.
    With this commitment, I am prepared to withdraw my request 
seeking sequential referral of H.R. 1655 and look forward to 
working with you on the necessary modifications as you bring 
the bill to the floor. I would appreciate your including a copy 
of this letter along with your letter of July 14, 1999 as part 
of the committee report on H.R. 1655.
            Sincerely,
                                         Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.

                        XIX. Supplemental Views

    We are concerned about the level of funding provided in the 
Department of Energy authorization bill for renewable energy 
and energy efficiency programs. We support funding for these 
programs at the level of the President's request in fiscal 2000 
and at an additional 3 percent in fiscal 2001. Holding funding 
at close to FY 1999 enacted levels for these programs, as this 
bill does, amounts to a cut in funding. The majority saw fit to 
fund other programs in this bill at the level of the 
President's request, but as in years past, renewable energy and 
energy efficiency programs have been left behind.
    As members of the Science Committee and as concerned 
citizens, we all should recognize the value of clean energy 
research and development to our communities and to our world. 
Renewable energy programs allow America to use its scientific 
and technological expertise in developing alternative energy 
sources--such as wind, solar, biomass power, and geothermal 
energy. These diverse energy resources can decrease our ever-
growing dependence on imported oil and reduce environmental 
impacts of traditional fossil fuels, while expanding our 
economy through technological advances.
    The DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency programs 
are a major component of the nation's environmental 
initiatives. By reducing air pollution and other environmental 
impacts from energy production and use, they also constitute 
the single largest and most effective federal pollution 
prevention program.
    Furthermore, investments in sustainable energy technologies 
meet multiple other public policy objectives. U.S. dependence 
on imported oil has increased to record levels over the past 25 
years. These programs are helping to reduce our reliance on oil 
imports, thereby strengthening our national security, and also 
creating hundreds of new domestic businesses, supporting 
thousands of American jobs, and opening new international 
markets for American goods and services.
    It is estimated that the world market for energy supply 
equipment and construction over the next 30 years is in the 
range of several hundred billion dollars per year. America 
currently leads the world technologically in developing 
advanced renewable instruments and products, and we should not 
surrender this lead to foreign competitors.
    Past federal support for sustainable energy programs has 
been key to the rapid growth of emerging renewable 
technologies. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass technologies 
have together more than tripled their contribution to the 
nation's energy mix over the past two decades. Including 
hydropower, renewables now account for about 10 percent of 
total domestic energy production, and approximately 13 percent 
of domestic electricity generation.
    While these technologies have become increasingly cost-
competitive, the pace of their penetration into the market will 
be determined largely by government support for future research 
and development as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-
private partnerships, leading to full commercialization.
    As it stands this bill undermines our progress in this 
vital area. Not only are these programs valuable to our 
national security and economy, but they also directly benefit 
each of our districts. The Department of Energy's clean energy 
programs help provide strategies and tools to address the 
environmental challenges we will face in the next century. 
Handcuffing these programs at 1999 funding levels for the next 
two years does not give us sufficient flexibility to utilize 
the potential benefits these programs could provide. We should 
do better.

                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Bart Gordon.
                                   Lynn Woolsey.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Bob Etheridge.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   John B. Larson.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   Jerry F. Costello.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Debbie Stabenow.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Michael E. Capuano.

             XX. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup



 MARKUP ON: H.R. 1655, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1999

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [presiding]. The Committee on 
Science will come to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science intends to 
consider the following measures: H.R. 1655, the Department of 
Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1999; 
H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy Commercial Application of 
Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999; H.R. 1742, the 
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and 
Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of 
1999; H.R. 1743, the EPA Office of Air and Radiation 
Authorization Act of 1999; and H.R. 1744, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 
1999.
    Let the Chair state that I have consulted with some of the 
Democratic members, and it is the Chair's intention to mark 
these bills up today. And if we go up to the lunch hour, we 
will have a break for lunch and come back this afternoon. I 
think it was a consensus that it would be more convenient for 
the members to finish up today rather than coming back either 
tomorrow or on Thursday. So, just so that everybody can be 
advised in planning their day today.
    I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess at any 
point. And without objection, so ordered.
    The first bill up will be H.R. 1655, and I will yield 
myself five minutes for an opening statement.
    This bill authorizes $4.005 billion for Fiscal Year 2000 
and $4.266 billion for Fiscal Year 2001 for the Department of 
Energy's Energy Supply, Science, and Fossil Energy R&D and 
Energy Conservation R&D Program.
    Highlights of the bill's authorization for these years 
include: first, Solar and Renewable Energy Technologies. It 
boosts spending for Solar and Renewable Energy Technologies. 
Including the already authorized Hydrogen Research Program and 
related Office of Science Program, the bill authorizes $401.9 
million for Fiscal Year 2000, which is an increase of 26.9, or 
7.1 percent, over the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriated level; and 
$418.1 million for Fiscal Year 2001, an increase of $16.2 
million, or 4 percent, above the amount recommended for Fiscal 
Year 2000.
    For Nuclear Energy, the bill revitalizes the DOE's moribund 
nuclear energy programs and recommends $115.7 million for 
Fiscal Year 2000, which is an increase of $24.3 million or 26.6 
percent over Fiscal Year 1999 appropriated level; and $3.4 
million above the Administration's request; and recommends 
$127.3 million for Fiscal Year 2001, an increaseof $11.5 
million, or 9.9 percent of the amount above recommended for Fiscal Year 
2000.
    For High Energy Physics, the bill preserves and strengthens 
the Nation's High Energy Physics program, fully funds U.S. 
participation in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and 
prevents layoffs at the two premier High Energy Physics labs--
Fermilab and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
    For Nuclear Physics, the bill also preserves and 
strengthens the Nuclear Physics program, prevents the closures 
of MIT's Bates Linear Accelerator Center and increases 
operations at the two premier nuclear physics facilities--the 
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the 
Realtavistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven.
    For Biological and Environmental Research, the bill fully 
funds important research on the Human Genome Project and global 
climate change, as well as basic environmental research.
    For Basic Energy Sciences, the bill provides robust funding 
for the core Basic Energy Sciences program, including 
significant increases to the operating funds for the Nation's 
existing premier synchrotron and neutron sources.
    For fusion, it reinvigorates the Fusion Energy Science 
program. There is an increase of $28.5 million, or 12.9 percent 
above Fiscal Year 1999 appropriated for Fiscal Year 2000, and 
above the Administration's request. And there is a 10 percent 
increase for Fiscal Year 2001.
    For Fossil Energy R&D, the bill makes a strong commitment 
to ensuring the clean and efficient use of the Nation's 
plentiful supply of fossil fuels.
    For Energy Conservation, it maintains a strong commitment 
to energy efficiency, recommending $503.4 million, which is an 
increase of $24.5 million, or 5.5 percent above Fiscal Year 
1999 appropriated level, and another $37.4 million, or 7.4 
percent above the recommendation for Fiscal Year 2000.
    There are other provisions of the bill. One prohibits the 
use of funds for High Performance Computing and Communications 
Program and the Scientific Simulation Initiative. This will be 
authorized in separate legislation and for the information of 
my friends on the Democratic side, we intend to give you a 
discussion draft of what we will be proposing by the end of the 
week.
    It cuts the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 request for 
the DOE's bureaucracy by almost $35 million; cuts wasteful 
travel by DOE and its contractors by more than 55 percent from 
current levels, freeing up about $60 million for research; 
prohibits non-competitive awards of grants, contracts, and 
subcontracts, and any other forms of financial assistance to 
trade associations; limits tech demonstrations to technologies 
and processes that are substantially new and not for 
incremental improvements for technologies or processes that 
already exist in the marketplace; and prohibits DOE and its 
contractors from competing with the private sector.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent that my full opening 
statement be included in the record, and at this time, I 
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, to make an 
opening statement for the Democratic side.
    [The statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner follows:]

       Opening Statement of Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

    H.R. 1655 authorizes $4.005 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and 
$4.266 billion for FY 2001 for Department of Energy (DOE) Energy 
Supply, Science, Fossil Energy R&D and Energy Conservation R&D 
programs. Highlights of the bill's authorizations for fiscal years 2000 
and 2001 include:
     Solar and Renewable Energy Technologies--H.R. 1655 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 FY 2000 for 
these programs--an increase of $26.9 million, or 7.1 percent above the 
amount appropriated for FY 1999; and recommends $418.1 million for FY 
2001--an increase of $16.2 million, or 4.0 percent above the amount 
recommended for FY 2000.
     Nuclear Energy--H.R. 1655 revitalizes DOE's moribund 
Nuclear Energy Program. The bill recommends $115.7 million in FY 2000 
for Nuclear Energy--an increase of $24.3 million, or 26.6 percent above 
the amount appropriated for FY 1999 and $3.4 million above the 
Administration's request; and recommends $127.3 million for FY 2001--an 
increase of $11.5 million, or 9.9 percent above the amount recommended 
for FY 2000.
     High Energy Physics--H.R. 1655 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--the Fermi 
National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center (SLAC). The bill recommends $715.1 million in FY 
2000 for High Energy Physics--an increase of $21.2 million, or 3.1 
percent above the amount appropriated for FY 1999 and $18.0 million 
above the Administration's request; and recommends $753.1 million for 
FY 2001--an increase of $38.0 million, or 5.3 percent above the amount 
recommended for FY 2000.
     Nuclear Physics--H.R. 1655 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 U.S. 
Nuclear Physics facilities--the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 
Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven 
National Laboratory. The bill recommends$357.7 million in FY 2000 for 
Nuclear Physics--an increase of $23.9 million, or 7.2 percent above the 
amount appropriated for FY 1999 and $14.8 million above the 
Administration's request; and recommends $375.6 million for FY 2001--an 
increase of $20.7 million, or 5.0 percent above the amount recommended 
for FY 2000.
     Biological and Environmental Research--H.R. 1655 fully 
funds important research on the Human Genome and global climate change, 
as well as basic environmental research. The bill recommends $413.7 
million in FY 2000 for Biological and Environmental Research--an 
increase of $19.7 million, or 5.0 percent above the amount appropriated 
for FY 1999 for the base program and $2.5 million above the 
Administration's request; and recommends $434.4 million for FY 2001--an 
increase of $20.7 million, or 5.0 percent above the amount recommended 
for FY 2000.
     Basic Energy Sciences--H.R. 1655 provides robust funding 
for the core Basic Energy Sciences, including significant increases to 
the operating funds for the Nation's existing premier synchrotron and 
neutron sources. The bill recommends $698.8 million in FY 2000 for the 
core Basic Energy Sciences programs--an increase of $33.3 million, or 
5.0 percent above the amount appropriated for FY 1999 for the base 
program and $31.5 million above the Administration's request; and 
recommends $733.7 million for FY 2001--an increase of $34.9 million, or 
5.0 percent above the amount recommended for FY 2000.
     Fusion Energy Sciences--H.R. 1655 reinvigorates the Fusion 
Energy Sciences Program. The bill recommends $250.0 million in FY 2000 
for the Fusion Energy Sciences program--an increase of $28.5 million, 
or 12.9 percent above the amount appropriated for FY 1999 and $27.4 
million above the Administration's request; and recommends $275.0 
million for FY 2001--an increase of $25.0 million, or 10.0 percent 
above the amount recommended for FY 2000. These funds will 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 Laboratory--as well as accelerated 
exploration of advanced magnetic and inertial fusion energy concepts.
     Fossil Energy R&D--H.R. 1655 makes a strong commitment to 
ensuring the clean and efficient use of the Nation's plentiful supply 
of fossil fuels. The bill recommends $397.6 million in FY 2000 for the 
Fossil Energy R&D progam--an increase of $24.5 million, or 6.6 percent 
above the amount appropriated for FY 1999 and $43.6 million above the 
Administration's request; and recommends $427.1 million for FY 2001--an 
increase of $29.3 million, or 7.4 percent above the amount recommended 
by FY 2000.
     Energy Conservation R&D--H.R. 1655 also maintains a strong 
commitment to energy efficiency, which not only saves energy, but also 
benefits the environment. The bill recommends $503.4 million in FY 2000 
for Energy Conservation R&D programs--an increase of $24.5 million, or 
5.1 percent above the amount appropriated for FY 1999; and recommends 
$540.8 million for FY 2001--an increase of $37.4 million, or 7.4 
percent above the amount recommended for FY 2000. Also included is 
$25.0 million in FY 2000 and $50.0 million in FY 2001 for an Energy 
Efficiency Science Initiative for grants to be competitively awarded 
and subject to peer review for research relating to energy efficiency.
    Other provisions of the bill include the following:
           Prohibits the use of any funds in the bill for DOE's 
        High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program 
        and Scientific Simulation (SSI)--which will be authorized by 
        separate legislation, construction of the Spallation Neutron 
        Source (SNS), U.S. participation in International Thermonuclear 
        Experimental Reactor (ITER) Engineering Design Activities 
        (EDA), and for unqualified individuals to hold important 
        positions within the Office of Science;
           Cuts the Administration's FY 2000 request for DOE's 
        bureaucracy by more than $34.9 million, or 9.7 percent, and 
        does not provide any increases for FY 2001;
           Cuts wasteful travel by DOE and its contractors by 
        more than 55 percent from current levels, thereby freeing up at 
        least an additional $60 million for research;
           Prohibits noncompetitive awards of grants, 
        contracts, subcontracts, or any other forms of financial 
        assistance to trade associations;
           Limits demonstrations to technologies and processes 
        that are substantially new, and not for incremental 
        improvements for technologies or processes that exist in the 
        marketplace; and
           Prohibits DOE and its contractors from competing 
        with the private sector.

    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank you for 
that very detailed outline of our proceedings; and I also 
appreciate the fact that you are going to put the entire 
statement in the record. I was going to ask that that be done 
had you not made the request. And I presume there is no 
objection to it. I certainly do not object to it, because I 
think it will be helpful to us.
    At this time, I would like to yield the balance of my time 
to the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee--of this Committee, 
Gordon--Congressman Gordon from Tennessee.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you and I am going to yield my time to 
the Ranking Member of this particular Subcommittee, Mr. 
Costello.
    Mr. Costello. And if I had someone I could yield to, I 
would. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will insert my 
statement in the record, but I do want to commend the Chairman 
and the members of the Committee for putting together a bill 
before us today regarding programs affecting nuclear energy 
R&D, fossil energy R&D, and many of the science initiatives, I 
believe are good in this bill. However, there remains some 
major concerns that I think need to be addressed to make this 
bill acceptable to the science community and to members of this 
committee.
    I will be offering amendments today to address concerns at 
our national laboratories regarding foreign visitors and U.S. 
national security. In addition, the majority has recommended 
that no construction funding be included in the bill for the 
Spallation Neutron Source, one of the Nation's most important 
scientific initiatives.
    I will offer an amendment to ask the members of the 
Committee to restore funding for the Spallation Neutron Source, 
with specific conditions before construction monies can be 
spent on the project.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will insert the rest of my 
statement in the record.
    [The statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

              Opening Statement of Hon. Jerry F. Costello

    Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    In many ways, I think what the Committee has put together in regard 
to the programs affecting nuclear energy R&D, fossil energy R&D and 
many of the science initiatives are good. However, there remain some 
major concerns that I think need to be addressed to make this bill 
acceptable to the science community and members of this committee.
    I will offer amendments today to address concerns at our national 
laboratories regarding foreign visitors and US national security. In 
addition, the majority has recommended that no construction funding be 
included in the bill for the Spallation Neutron Source, one of the 
nation's most important scientific initiatives. I will offer an 
amendment to ask the members of the committee to restore funding for 
the Spallation Neutron Source.
    Thank you very much.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. And 
without objection, all members may insert opening statements in 
the record at this point.
    [The statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

                   Statement of Chairman Ken Calvert

    Thank you Mr. Chairman. The business before the Committee is the 
markup of H.R. 1655, which 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.
    The bill recommends an authorization of $4.005 billion for fiscal 
year (FY) 2000 and $4.27 billion for FY 2001 for Department of Energy 
(DOE) Energy Supply, Science, Fossil Energy R&D programs. This includes 
a $26.8 million, or 7.1 percent, increase in research for Solar and 
Renewable Resource Technologies, and a $20.7 million, or 28.1 percent, 
increase in nuclear energy R&D for FY 2000 over the FY 1999 
appropriated levels.
    The Core Science budget will also receive a healthy increase over 
last year's appropriation--our recommended authorization for FY 2000 
increases funding by $90.2 million, which represents a 3.7 percent 
increase. We add a further 5.5 percent in FY 2001, bringing the two-
year grand total increase to $228.7 million dollars.
    The Fossil Energy R&D budget also deserves strong, continued 
support from this Committee. We are authorizing a 24.5 million dollars, 
which amounts to a 6.6 percent increase.
    I believe that H.R. 1655 promotes the committee's priorities for 
the future. We provide strong support for solar and renewable energy 
and nuclear power R&D. These areas are critical to the future energy 
supply of the United States. We need to enhance and diversify the 
nation's energy portfolio, while maintaining and extended the life of 
our existing nuclear infrastructure as we move into the 21st Century.
    We also take into account the importance of core scientific 
research including high-energy physics and fusion energy. This budget 
funds these areas of ``big science'' that legitimately need basic 
government support.
    Fossil energy R&D is also critical to the nation's energy security. 
This country has several hundred years of coal reserves. It would be 
irresponsible not to continue to explore ways to use coal in a more 
environmentally friendly and efficient way.
    Finally, I would like to endorse Chairman Sensenbrenner's earlier 
comments on the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).
    With that, I ask my colleagues for their support on this important 
authorization bill.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill is read 
a first time and is open for amendment at any point.
    [The information follows:]

                               H.R. 1655

  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 $546,178,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$566,744,000 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;
                  (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) $29,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $30,385,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Geothermal;
                  (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;
          (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 constructionof 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;
          (3) $102,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $102,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Field Operations; and
          (4) $11,812,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $12,166,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Oak Ridge Landlord.
  (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 $2,557,761,000 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) $22,323,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $23,439,000 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; and
          (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.
  (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.
  (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 
$503,383,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $540,797,000 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;
                  (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) $83,185,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $85,286,000 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;
                  (B) $14,144,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,568,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Building Technology Assistance 
                (nongrants); and
                  (C) $13,171,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,171,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Management and Planning;
          (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.

SEC. 4. 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. 5. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

  The Department of Energy 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 are substantially new, and not for incremental 
improvements to technologies or processes that exist in the 
marketplace.

SEC. 6. 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 $500,000, 
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. 7. 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 5 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 60 days has elapsed after the date on which 
        the report is received by the committees.
  (c) Exclusion.--In the computation of the 60-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.

SEC. 8. 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 $500,000, 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 $1,000,000.
  (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 $100,000.
  (2) If the total estimated cost for construction design in connection 
with any construction project described in paragraph (1) exceeds 
$100,000, funds for such design must be specifically authorized by law.

SEC. 9. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

  (a) High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program.--
None of the funds authorized by this Act may be used for the 
Department's High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) 
Program.
  (b) Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI).--None of the funds 
authorized by this Act may be used for the Department's Scientific 
Simulation Initiative (SSI).
  (c) Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).--None of the 
funds authorized by this Act may be used for the construction of the 
Project 99-E-334, the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory.
  (d) International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) 
Engineering Design Activities (EDA).--None of the funds authorized by 
this Act may be used either directly or indirectly for United States 
participation in International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 
(ITER) Engineering Design Activities (EDA).
  (e) 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.
  (f) 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 grants, contracts, 
subcontracts, or any other form of financial assistance 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 grants, contracts, subcontracts, or any 
        other form of financial assistance 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.
  (g) 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.

SEC. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 the articles or services are not available 
from a commercial source in the United States.

SEC. 14. 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.
  (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))).

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The first amendment on the roster 
is a managers' amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Calvert, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I have a amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Calvert. There has been a change in that amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, I agreed to, between myself and Mr. Costello, 
striking the prohibition of HPC and IT-squared, and I ask that 
amendment to be substituted for the original managers' 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, and the clerk 
will report the revised amendment while it is being passed out.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655, offered by Mr. Calvert 
and Mr. Costello. Page 2, line 18----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Calvert is recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  Page 2, line 18, strike ``$546,187,000'' and insert ``$432,366,000''.
  Page 2, line 18, strike ``$566,744,000'' and insert ``$452,577,000''.
  Page 4, line 9, insert ``and'' after ``Direction;''.
  Page 5, line 15, strike the semicolon and insert a period.
  Page 5, lines 16 through 21, strike paragraphs (3) and (4).
  Page 8, line 17, strike ``$22,323,000'' and insert ``$22,309,000''.
  Page 8, line 18, strike ``$23,439,000'' and insert ``$22,425,000''.
  Page 13, line 18, insert ``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.'' after 
``relating to fossil energy.''.
  Page 14, line 1, strike ``$503,383,000'' and insert ``$490,212,000''.
  Page 14, line 2, strike ``$540,797,000'' and insert ``$527,626,000''.
  Page 15, line 10, strike ``$83,185,000'' and insert ``$70,014,000''.
  Page 15, line 11, strike ``$85,286,000'' and insert ``$72,115,000''.
  Page 15, line 16, insert ``and'' after ``Research;''.
  Page 15, lines 19 through 22, strike ``; and'' and all that follows 
through ``and Planning''.
  Page 16, line 8, insert ``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.'' after ``relating to 
energy efficiency.''.
  Page 18, lines 13 through 20, amend section 5 to read as follows:

SEC. 5. 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.
  Page 19, line 3, strike ``$500,000'' and insert ``$2,000,000''.
  Page 19, line 19, strike ``5'' and insert ``10''.
  Page 20, line 10, strike ``60'' and insert ``30''.
  Page 20, line 13, strike ``60'' and insert ``30''.
  Page 20, after line 17, insert the following new subsection:
  (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.
  Page 21, line 5, strike ``$500,000'' and insert ``$750,000''.
  Page 21, line 11, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert ``$2,000,000''.
  Page 21, line 20, strike ``$100,000'' and insert ``$250,000''.
  Page 21, line 23, strike ``$100,000'' and insert ``$250,000''.
  Page 23, lines 9 and 10, strike ``grants, contracts, subcontracts, or 
any other form of financial assistance'' and insert ``contracts or 
subcontracts''.
  Page 23, lines 19 through 21, strike ``grants, contracts, 
subcontracts, or any other form of financial assistance'' and insert 
``contracts or subcontracts''.
  Page 27, line 5, strike ``that the articles'' and insert ``that 
comparable articles''.
  Page 28, line 2, insert ``or under circumstances permitting other 
than full and open competition under the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation'' after ``provided by law''.

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this 
managers' amendment on behalf of myself and my good friend the 
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    The bipartisan managers' amendment makes technical and 
conforming changes to H.R. 1655 as introduced, adds reporting 
requirements to the provisions in the bill dealing with fossil 
energy and energy efficiency initiatives, clarifies the intent 
of the limitations on demonstrations section, raises the limits 
on the provisions dealing with general plant projects, 
construction projects and authority for conceptual and 
construction designs, and clarifies the intent of the 
production or the provision of articles or services and the 
eligibility of awards sections.
    Furthermore, as a result of bipartisan consultations with 
the Commerce Committee, this managers' amendment also 
transferred the Field Operations, Oak Ridge Landlord, and 
Building Technology Stair and Community Sector Management and 
Planning line items to H.R. 1656.
    I want to thank my good friend for his cooperation in 
crafting this bipartisan managers' agreement amendment, and ask 
my colleagues for their support. With that, I would like to 
yield back the balance of my time to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. I thank Chairman Calvert for yielding and 
just want to indicate to the Chair and to the members of the 
Committee that we are in agreement with the en bloc amendment. 
We have worked on this amendment together. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Amendment number two is by the other gentleman from 
California, Mr. Rohrabacher. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655, offered by Mr. 
Rohrabacher----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher is recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 3, line 6, insert ``, 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'' after 
``Solar Power''.

    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have to 
offer this morning represents a significant opportunity to 
couple NASA and the DOE in the effort to produce clear, cost-
effective solar energy--and that is clean, cost-effective solar 
energy. In coordination with NASA, we have the opportunity to 
research and perfect a technology that enables the transference 
of power from Earth to space and back to Earth.
    The amendment requires the Department of Energy to invest a 
small amount each year in experimental technology 
demonstrations of wireless power transmission on Earth and in 
space. The Concentrated Solar Power Program funds research on 
distributed and dispatchable power generation, aimed primarily 
at meeting remote or peak demands for energy.
    Beginning in Fiscal Year 1998, NASA reinitiated analysis 
and technology investments pertaining to space-solar power. 
NASA has concluded that significant amounts of solar energy can 
be collected in space for use in space or transmission to the 
ground. While the cause I excuse me--while the use of space-
collected solar energy may not be economic now, there are 
nearer-term applications of this research for both space and 
terrestrial energy needs, as well as, of course, long-term 
benefits when the price of energy goes up 10 years from now and 
does make it economic.
    Among the primary areas of research we are taking about is 
beamed power, the transmission of energy over long distances 
via microphone and laser transmission. This technology has 
direct application for terrestrial energy production and 
distribution. For example, it allows geographically-isolated, 
but energy-rich, regions to become energy exporters, without 
the cost of other type of things--like, for example, 
transporting fuel or erecting electrical power lines, which, of 
course, are every costly. It allows for remote areas requiring 
more baseline power or areas requiring surplus power during 
peak demands to receive distributed energy.
    This technology also has immediate application that is 
important to our space goals. For example, in scientific 
research, space probes will be able to use this energy for 
energy-intensive microgravity research, as well as in 
commercial development where you have cheaper and higher power 
available for satellites and the space station.
    And finally, let me note that at a hearing, the Department 
of Energy posture hearing on Wednesday, May 14, 1979--1997, 
that is--I asked DOE about the possibility of looking into this 
issue in terms of beaming power from space. This was a 
Department of Energy posture hearing. ``Is the Department of 
Energy willing to work with NASA,'' I asked, in developing some 
technology that might be necessary to exploit this potential 
resource?'' And Department of Energy Secretary Pena stated, and 
I quote, ``Congressman, we have a number of relationships with 
NASA already, and we would be very happy to explore that new 
and exciting interesting idea that NASA has uncovered, meaning 
the transmission solar power from space to the Earth.''
    And, again, this is not a large amount of money. We are 
talking about just a couple million dollars per year for just 
two years. And I believe that it will open up great new doors 
for us in the future and would ask the support of my 
colleagues.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there further discussion on the 
Rohrabacher amendment?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition? The 
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall, for what purpose do you 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Udall. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Udall.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a brief comment, 
and I wanted to extend a couple of questions to my colleague 
from California.
    I applaud, as I have throughout the hearings on these--this 
legislation, the interest of my colleague inincreasing our 
research in the area of renewable energy. And I think it just points 
out why we need to keep doing more of this. I am going to offer a 
couple of amendments later on that speak to this. I am concerned that 
from what I understand this would take some of the resources that are 
available for some of our other renewable energy research and would be 
curious to hear from colleagues about how this, how he sees this all 
working out?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We have--we have not received any 
information that this would, in any way, diminish other 
research that this money would be used for. It comes out of the 
general research fund, which is designed and has already been 
allocated for this type of projected energy beam. But if the 
gentleman has some information--we do not have information of 
where this would diminish other research projects.
    Mr. Udall. Well, I thank the gentleman. I--from what I have 
heard, and we ought to maybe keep the conversation going down 
the road that this would cut into funds that have already been 
reduced. And I think it just points to, if I could make the 
comment, that with the interest I think in this Committee, I 
would hope that later on, when we consider these other 
amendments, to make sure that we at least keep our--we stay at 
previous levels, with a small increase for inflation, our 
renewable area that he will look on this favorably.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, would the gentleman yield further?
    Mr. Udall. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. From what I understand, this comes out of 
an account that was already funded at $20 million, and this 
is--we have not been told by the Department of Energy that this 
would hurt any of their projects that are ongoing. And, again, 
we have tried to make requests and not received information 
back. However, let me say that the purpose that that fund was 
established for at the Department of Energy is specifically 
what we are doing here. This is not inconsistent with what they 
were tasked to do. So, we are not taking money from a group 
that has already been tasked to do something for renewable 
energy and putting it in something that is not renewable. And, 
in fact, this gives us a lot more bang for our buck for that 
very end, because we are trying to combine it with NASA so that 
we will be able to it. It is like we have joint ventures 
between the Department of Defense and NASA sometimes. Well, 
this is a combined effort with the Department of Energy for it 
to meet our energy demands in the future, not just our national 
security demands.
    So, in a way, we are getting a lot more bang for the buck 
for the very goal that you have in mind.
    Mr. Udall. I would yield back the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Ehlers, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Ehlers. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several 
questions on this. It is just not clear to me, on this 
particular project, how is the energy to be beamed, and where 
is it being beamed from, and to where is it being beamed. I 
would yield to the gentleman for some answers.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield? I would yield 
so I may answer his questions?
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This is a purely experimental project. We 
are talking about developing laser and microwave technology 
that some research has already been done on, but in order to 
have demonstration--a demonstration technology. In a way, I 
guess what we are saying is that the money will be spent in 
developing that technology that will be able to beam from the 
Earth to a satellite, or from a satellite to the Earth, of 
energy, whether that energy is produced by, for example, clean 
natural gas that they are now flaring in Central Asia or be 
beamed by energy that could be produced in space by the 
collection of large solarcollectors in space, and then beamed 
to Earth.
    So, what we are doing by this--with this particular 
allocation is perfecting the technology necessary through 
microwave or laser to transfer technology--wireless transfers 
of technology--of energy, excuse me.
    Mr. Ehlers. Reclaiming my time--about 30 years ago, this 
was being proposed and quite a bit of work was done on it, at 
least theoretical work; and was dropped as being unfeasible for 
one reason or another. Economics was the one problem; another 
was the so-called fried goose syndrome, where geese flying 
through the microwave beams of such high energy would be 
damaged. Is this a new look at the same thing or is this a 
totally different approach?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It is a new look. I do believe that in the 
last 30 years that we have had a great deal of progress, 
especially in terms of--where, not only in the SDI Program, but 
other programs in terms of beaming energy. And so there has 
been a great deal of progress made in this area, and yes, it is 
a new look at the old goals. And perhaps with microwave--it 
will look at microwaves as well as lasers. And with a microwave 
system, it would be very low intensity and would not fry the 
geese. And that is what we want to determine: whether or not we 
can do it in a way that will be totally compatible with our 
environmental standards.
    Mr. Ehlers. At the request of the gentleman from Florida, I 
will yield to him.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I commend the Committee Chairman of the Space Subcommittee 
for offering this amendment. This is an area that I have taken 
some interest in, primarily from the perspective of solar power 
collection. And I have specifically talked to the scientists 
who have done work in this area, and they have assured me with 
the current technology that exists today that the so-called 
fried goose issue is not operative; the beam would not harm 
birds flying through the radiation beam. The degree of energy 
that they would receive would be comparable to solar radiation.
    I think it is very important that we test this technology 
in its very, very fundamental stages at this point. While 
financially it may not be viable today, the technology 
demonstration would be very useful.
    Mr. Ehlers. Well, I am a little skeptical, but I do not 
want to cook Mr. Rohrabacher's goose, so I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Tennessee seek recognition?
    Mr. Gordon. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Just two quick points. One, I want to 
compliment Mr. Udall for being the conscience of this Committee 
on renewable energy, and I hope that he will continue to raise 
these points with us. I think that he points out that we need 
to be doing more in this area, not less.
    And secondly, let me say that having worked with Chairman 
Rohrabacher for some time now, I know this is a real passion of 
his. This is not a parochial issue. This is something he spent 
a lot of time reviewing, and I would concur with the amendment. 
I think that we should take another look. I do not know--I do 
not want to set up a perpetual endowment here, but we should 
take another look at this hopefully good technology. And if it 
is not successful, then we will let Scottie beam Dana back to 
California. But let us at least give it a try.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Amendment number three is by the gentleman from Minnesota, 
Mr. Gutknecht. For what purpose does thegentleman from 
Minnesota seek recognition?
    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, to offer an amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered--amendment to H.R. 1655, 
offered by Mr. Gutknecht----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 14, line 12, insert ``, of which $2,5000,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 and $2,750,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be 
for biodiesel fuel research and development'' after ``Research 
and Development''.

    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, I hope I won't take the whole 
five minutes. But I do want to thank you and your staff and the 
Chair of the Subcommittee as well as their staff for working 
with us on this amendment for the Department of Energy to 
expand its research and development on biodiesel fuel.
    This environmentally-friendly fuel is created from mixing 
soybean oil with diesel fuel, and if you have ever been behind 
a bus or a truck when they took off, you recognize the value of 
biodiesel, because by mixing a 20-percent blend of soybean oil 
with diesel fuel, we know that we can cut the exhaust emissions 
by about 40 percent and perhaps in some cases even more.
    During the oil crisis of the 1970s, America imported less 
than 40 percent of its fuel. Today, we import nearly 60 percent 
of energy needs. I think it is time that we in this Congress 
start to look for ways--new and innovative ways--to reduce our 
dependence on foreign energy sources. And I believe that 
biodiesel fuel can help us do exactly that.
    This biodiesel provision is a win-win-win scenario. It is a 
win for cleaner air. We win with more energy independence. And 
we win by providing markets for our soybean producers and good 
paying jobs in rural America.
    As a matter of fact, in the April issue of ``DOE This 
Month,'' there is an article about two researchers who found a 
quicker way to turn waste french fry oil into a higher grade 
biodiesel. This improved process cuts down the amount of 
materials and the time needed to create biodiesel, making it 
cheaper to produce.
    Reducing the cost of production is a major step in the path 
towards producing a viable alternative fuel. More research like 
this can lead to an abundant energy source that is friendlier 
to the environment than traditional petroleum-based fuels.
    I ask each one of you to support this amendment to increase 
research on biodiesel.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the 
balance of this time?
    Mr. Gutknecht. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the amendment 
by the gentleman from Minnesota?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Michigan ask recognition?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, I would just say as far as the 
odor coming out of these diesel----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes to talk about odor. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. There is some evidence thatsunflower 
oil and safflower might smell better than the soybean oil, and I just 
pass that on for information.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman wish to use the 
remaining 4 minutes and 40 seconds?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No, I certainly would yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Further discussion on the 
amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota?
    Hearing none, all those in favor of agreeing to the 
amendment will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and amendment 
is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is one by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655, offered by Mr. Doyle----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  Page 16, after line 8, insert the following new section:

SEC. 4. GAS HYDRATE ENERGY AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 
                    AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary for 
Fossil Energy, shall commence a program of gas hydrate energy and 
scientific and environmental research and development.
  (b) Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, Interagency Funds 
Transfer Agreements, and Field Work Proposals.--
          (1) Assistance.--The Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
        Secretary for Fossil Energy, may award grants or contracts to, 
        or enter into cooperative agreements with, institutions of 
        higher education and industrial enterprises to conduct energy 
        and scientific and environmental research, development, and 
        demonstration programs on gas hydrate.
          (2) Peer review.--Funds made available under paragraph (1) 
        for initiating contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, 
        interagency funds transfer agreements, and field work proposals 
        shall be made available based on a competitive selection 
        process and a peer review of proposals. Exceptions shall be 
        considered on a case-by-case basis, and reported by the 
        Secretary, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Fossil 
        Energy, to the Committee on Science of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
        Resources of the Senate 30 days prior to any such award.
  (c) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
Secretary for Fossil Energy, may establish an advisory panel consisting 
of experts from industry, institutions of higher education, and other 
entities as the Secretary considers appropriate, to assist in 
developing recommendations and priorities for the gas hydrate research 
and development program carried out under subsection (a).
  (d) Limitations.--
          (1) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
        amount made available to carry out this section for a fiscal 
        year may be used by the Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
        Secretary for Fossil Energy, for expenses associated with the 
        administration of the program carried out under subsection (a).
          (2) Construction costs.--None of the funds made available to 
        carry out this section may be used for the construction of a 
        new building or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or 
        alteration of an existing building (including site grading and 
        improvement and architect fees).
  (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
          (1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a procurement 
        contract within the meaning of section 6303 of title 31, United 
        States Code.
          (2) Cooperative agreement.--The term ``cooperative 
        agreement'' means a cooperative agreement within the meaning of 
        section 6305 of title 31, United States Code.
          (3) Grant.--The term ``grant'' means a grant awarded under a 
        grant agreement, within the meaning of section 6304 of title 
        31, United States Code.
          (4) Institution of higher education.--The term ``institution 
        of higher education'' means 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.
  Redesignate subsequent sections accordingly.

    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have been pleased to work recently with my Chairman on 
the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Ken Calvert, and 
Ranking Member Jerry Costello on bipartisan legislation 
defining a research program on gas hydrates.
    Mr. Chairman, on May 12, the Energy and Environment 
Subcommittee marked up and reported out my bill on this issue, 
H.R. 1753 to the full Committee. I would like to commend it to 
you for your future consideration by the full Committee.
    In a nutshell, gas hydrates are a clean burning fossil 
energy source located primarily on the ocean floor and in the 
Arctic permafrost in quantities that are more than double 
existing oil, gas, and coal reserves worldwide. The downside is 
significant and research will be required before we can 
successfully access this energy.
    The amendment I am offering to H.R. 1655 today is a 
bipartisan consensus draft that follows on the progress we have 
made in subcommittee. This amendment will allow us to keep our 
options open as we move towards fuller consideration of H.R. 
1655--whether we wish to append it to a gas hydrates research 
program or not.
    Once again, I am pleased to be able to work with my friends 
on both sides of the aisle on this issue. And I urge that all 
members to give this issue the careful consideration it 
deserves. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Doyle. Sure. I will certainly yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let me say I think that this makes 
a constructive addition to this bill, and also that it is done 
without prejudice to the Committee marking up H.R. 1753 and 
sending it to the Floor. I think that we can put the bill the 
gentleman has introduced on the suspension calendar and get 
that over to the Senate a lot quicker than this one.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the amendment 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle?
    Hearng none, all those in favor of agreeing to the 
amendment will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    the next amendment on the roster is by the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Udall. For what purpose does he seek recognition?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R.----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, and is this the 
same amendment as the one that appears in the packets that have 
been distributed or is it a different version?
    [The information follows:]

    Page 2, line 18, strike ``$546,178,000'' and insert 
``$596,078,000''.
    Page 2, line 18, strike ``$566,744,000'' and insert 
``$618,761,630''.
    Page 2, line 21, strike ``$316,624,000'' and insert 
``$366,524,000''.
    Page 2, line 22, strike ``$325,321,000'' and insert 
``$377,339,630''.
    Page 2, line 24, strike ``$3,708,000'' and insert ``$5,500,000''.
    Page 2, line 25, strike ``$3,819,000'' and insert ``$5,665,000''.
    Page 3, line 1, strike ``$83,345,000'' and insert ``$93,309,000''.
    Page 3, line 2, strike ``$85,845,000'' and insert ``$96,108,270''.
    Page 3, line 4, strike ``$17,510,000'' and insert ``$18,850,000''.
    Page 3, line 5, strike ``$18,035,000'' and insert ``$19,415,500''.
    Page 3, line 7, strike ``$75,396,000'' and insert ``$92,391,000''.
    Page 3, line 8, strike ``$77,658,000'' and insert ``$95,162,730''.
    Page 3, line 10, strike ``$35,814,000'' and insert ``$45,600,000''.
    Page 3, line 11, strike ``$36,889,000'' and insert ``$46,968,000''.
    Page 3, line 13, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$4,000,000''.
    Page 3, line 14, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert ``$4,120,000''.
    Page 3, line 19, strike ``$1,100,000'' and insert ``$3,900,000''.
    Page 3, line 20, strike ``$1,100,000'' and insert ``$4,017,000''.
    Page 4, line 1, strike ``$3,348,000'' and insert ``$7,000,000''.
    Page 4, line 2, strike ``$3,448,000'' and insert ``$7,210,000''.
    Page 4, line 7, strike ``$18,100,000'' and insert ``$19,171,000''.
    Page 4, line 8, strike ``$18,100,000'' and insert ``$19,746,130''.
    Page 14, line 1, strike ``$503,383,000'' and insert 
``$589,217,000''.
    Page 14, line 2, strike ``$540,797,000'' and insert 
``$631,143,540''.
    Page 14, line 4, strike ``$204,935,000'' and insert 
``$246,999,000''.
    Page 14, line 5, strike ``$210,845,000'' and insert 
``$254,409,000''.
    Page 14, line 7, strike ``$129,714,000'' and insert 
``$168,080,000''.
    Page 14, line 8, strike ``$133,606,000'' and insert 
``$173,122,400''.
    Page 14, line 13, strike ``$5,196,000'' and insert ``$7,000,000''.
    Page 14, line 14, strike ``$5,352,000'' and insert ``$7,210,000''.
    Page 14, line 19, strike ``$7,925,000'' and insert ``$9,820,000''.
    Page 14, line 20, strike ``$7,925,000'' and insert ``$10,114,600''.
    Page 14, line 22, strike ``$155,131,000'' and insert 
``$171,000,000''.
    Page 14, line 23, strike ``$159,534,000'' and insert 
``$176,130,000''.
    Page 15, line 1, strike ``$59,180,000'' and insert ``$74,000,000''.
    Page 15, line 2, strike ``$60,955,000'' and insert ``$76,220,000''.
    Page 15, line 7, strike ``$8,351,000'' and insert ``$9,400,000''.
    Page 15, line 8, strike ``$8,351,000'' and insert ``$9,682,000''.
    Page 15, line 10, strike ``$83,185,000'' and insert 
``$103,418,000''.
    Page 15, line 11, strike ``$85,286,000'' and insert 
``$106,520,540''.
    Page 15, line 14, strike ``$55,870,000'' and insert 
``$62,018,000''.
    Page 15, line 15, strike ``$57,546,000'' and insert 
``$63,878,540''.
    Page 15, line 17, strike ``$14,144,000'' and insert 
``$41,400,000''.
    Page 15, line 18, strike ``$14,568,000'' and insert 
``$42,642,000''.
    Page 15, line 23, strike ``$35,132,000'' and insert 
``$42,800,000''.
    Page 15, line 24, strike ``$35,132,000'' and insert 
``$44,084,000''.

    Mr. Udall. I believe it is the same amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentleman is recognized 
for----
    Mr. Udall. There's no. There's no--it is a--it is a 
different----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, if it is a different version, 
would the gentleman please explain the bill differences. And 
the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would 
authorize Fiscal Year 2000 funding for the Department of 
Energy's--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs at 
the level of the President's request, and it would increase 
these numbers by three percent in Fiscal Year 2001.
    Renewable energy programs allow America to use its 
scientific and technological expertise in developing 
alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass power, 
and geothermal energy. These diverse energy resources can 
decrease our ever-growing dependency on imported oil and reduce 
environmental impacts of traditional fossil fuels while 
expanding our economy through technological advances.
    The DOE's Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency programs 
are a major component of the Nation's environmental 
initiatives. By reducing air pollution and other environmental 
impacts from energy production and use, they also constitute 
the single largest and most effective Federal pollution 
prevention program.
    Furthermore, investments in sustainable energy technologies 
meet multiple other public policy objectives. Our dependence on 
imported oil has increased to record levels over the past 25 
years. These programs are helping to reduce our reliance on oil 
imports, thereby strengthening our national security and also 
creating hundreds of new domestic businesses supporting 
thousands of jobs and opening new international markets.
    Past Federal support for sustainable energy programs has 
been key to the rapid growth of emerging renewable 
technologies. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass technologies 
have together more than tripled their contribution to our 
nation's energy mix over the past 20 years. Including 
hydropower, renewables now account for 10 percent of total 
domestic energy production and approximately 13 percent of 
domestic electricity generation.
    While these technologies have become increasingly cost 
competitive, the pace of their penetration into the market will 
be determined largely by Government support for future research 
and development, as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-
private partnerships eventually leading to full 
commercialization.
    Without this amendment, this bill would undermine our 
progress in this area. And let me give you a few reasons why.
    As it stands, the bill would reduce funding for the Solar 
Buildings program. One of the projects that would suffer 
involves a consortium of companies and universities that is 
developing a low-cost polymer solar water heater that could be 
installed for a thousand dollars and that would reduce the cost 
of energy by 50 percent relative to today's systems. Cuts to 
this program would affect companies and universities in 
Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Minnesota and 
Wisconsin.
    H.R. 1655, as it now reads, would reduce funding for 
Photovoltaic or PV Energy Systems. One of the largest domestic 
markets for PV system is the residential and commercial rooftop 
application. The bill's cuts would virtually eliminate the 
building integrated product development and deployment 
activities, adversely affecting companies--California, 
Maryland, Virginia, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Washington.
    The bill also would reduce funding for Biopower and 
Biofuels. These cuts would reduce the number of DOE-USDA 
biomass feedstock development centers which are being planned 
for the Pacific Northwest, Southeast, the Midwest Plain States, 
and Northeast Lake States, and reduce R&D that could lower the 
cost of producing ethanol.
    The ethanol industry currently provides 40,000 jobs or a 
billion dollars in household income.
    Not only are these programs valuable to our national 
security and economy, but they also directly benefit each of 
our districts. The world's largest solar manufacturer is 
located in Maryland's sixth district. The largest manufacturer 
of solar roofing shingles and electric care batteries is based 
in Michigan. And a new wind turbine manufacturing plant has 
been built in Champaign, Illinois.
    Rebuild America community partnerships reduce energy use in 
cities in California, Washington, and Utah, among other States. 
In my State of Colorado, the National Renewable Energy Lab is 
the Nation's leading center for renewable energy research.
    I could go on at length, but let me just sum up. Mr. 
Chairman, the Department of Energy's clean energy programs are 
vital to our nation's interests, helping provide strategies and 
tools to address the environmental challenges and energy 
production challenges we will face in the next century.
    Handcuffing these programs at 1999 levels for the next two 
years does not give us sufficient flexibility to utilize the 
potential benefits these programs could provide. We should do 
better, and I urge your support for my amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. I 
understand the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey, has an 
amendment to the Udall amendment. And let us get that on the 
table first. So, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from 
California seek recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the 
amendment, and ask to strike the last word----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will repot the amendment 
to the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 1, in the first item relating to page 2, line 18, in lieu of 
the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: 
``$600,078,000''.
    Page 1, in the second item relating to page 2, line 18, in lieu of 
the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: 
``$623,376,630''.
    Page 1, in the item relating to page 2, line 21, in lieu of the 
matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``$370,524,000''.
    Page 1, in the item relating to page 2, line 22, in lieu of the 
matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``$381,954,630''.
    Page 2, after the item relating to page 3, line 20, insert the 
following new items:
    Page 3, line 22, strike ``$29,500,000'' and insert ``$33,500,000''.
    Page 3, line 23, strike ``$30,385,000''and insert $35,000,000''.

    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support Mr. 
Udall's amendment, but I would like to add something to that 
because, Mr. Chairman, about 6 percent of the energy produced 
in my home State of California is produced by geothermal 
energy. In fact, geothermal heat produces energy for 
businesses, homes, schools in 17 States in this country.
    Geothermal is a technology with significant benefits and 
potential. Geothermal energy can provide a reliable alternative 
energy capable of supplying significant world energy needs, and 
we must support it.
    In June of 1998, the Department of Energy released a new 
strategic plan for geothermal energy, and this plan included 
new technology for advanced production of geothermal systems. 
However, over the past few years, we have had declining funding 
for geothermal. The budget request for Fiscal Year 2000 leaves 
geothermal well short of the Department of Energy's strategic 
plan.
    The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and 
Technology recommended in its 1997 report that geothermal be 
funded between $50 million and $60 million annually. And in 
this budget, we have a request for around $30 million for the 
two years--Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001. And because 
of this, I want to offer an amendment to increase the 
geothermal program by $4 million each year in 2000 and 2001. 
This increased funding would help implement the strategic plan 
for enhanced geothermal technology. That does not even come 
close to what was requested, the $50 million to $60 million, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Enhanced geothermal could have great benefits if adequately 
funded. We could triple domestic geothermal electric production 
and serve the needs of 18,000,000 people in the United States. 
Geothermal could also lead the way in U.S. renewable energy 
exports by installing at least 10,000 megawatts of geothermal 
energy in developing countries.
    I urge the members of this Committee to support the Udall 
amendment and to support my amendment to the amendment. Thank 
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired. 
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I understand the intent of the 
gentleman from Colorado and the gentlelady from California. 
However, 1655 already approves spending increases 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 fiscal year 2000 
for these programs--an increase of $26.9 million, or 7.1 
percent above the amount appropriated for Fiscal Year 1999--and 
recommends $418.1 million for Fiscal Year 2001, an increase of 
$16.2 million, or 4 percent above the amount recommended for 
Fiscal Year 2000. These amounts increase Solar and Renewable 
Energy Technologies well above the three-percent levels 
committed to in the Committee's views and estimates.
    H.R. 1655 also maintains a strong commitment to energy 
efficiency, which not only saves energy but also benefits the 
environment. The bill recommends $490.2 million Fiscal Year 
2000 for energy conservation and R&D programs, an increase of 
$24.5 million or 5.3 percent above the amount appropriated in 
Fiscal Year 1999; and recommends $527.6 million for Fiscal Year 
2001, an increase of $37.4 million, or 7.6 percent above the 
amount recommended for Fiscal Year 2000.
    Also included is $25 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and $50 
million in Fiscal Year 2001 for energy efficiency science 
initiative for grants to be competitively awarded and subject 
to peer review for research relating to energy efficiency. 
These amounts increase energy conservation R&D well above the 
three-percent levels committed to in the Committee's view and 
estimates.
    Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the funding levels in this bill 
and for these programs are already above the levels that can be 
reasonably accommodated by the AppropriationsCommittee. And 
further increases simply cannot be tolerated. The Committee has to have 
fiscal discipline in order to be taken seriously by the Appropriations 
Committee, and unfortunately we just do not have the money to stay 
within the budget caps, even though these are worthwhile goals. And so, 
Mr. Chairman, I opposed this amendment and urge my members----
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, would the gentleman yield?
    Mr Calvert. Be happy to yield.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. Thank you. And those were a lot of 
big numbers, and I understand. And we do have to be fiscally 
prudent here. But when we have energies, renewable energies 
like geothermal energy that we are not even coming close to 
what is needed to get what we need out of this. I would----
    Mr Calvert. If I could----
    Ms. Woolsey. I would like to suggest that maybe we could 
carve out a couple of these and do the best we can for those 
energies that are proving their point.
    Mr Calvert. Reclaiming my time from the gentlelady, I can 
understand her desire to increase geothermal. As a matter of 
fact, in my area in southern California, a large part of the 
geothermal that you are speaking of is produced in the Imperial 
County area in the southern part of California. We have spent a 
tremendous amount of resources over the years, actually since 
the early 1970s, to increase productivity of geothermal with 
some success, and I believe that this bill will continue that 
commitment toward research. I believe this is a sufficient 
amount of money to continue to have good research in 
geothermal. And our production levels will show that in 
geothermal power in the future.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Woolsey 
amendment?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Yes, I am--I rise in support of the amendment. 
And to the gentleman from California, who makes a lot of sense 
in his presentation, I would only point out that this is not an 
appropriations bill. It does not appropriate, it simply is an 
authorization bill. And if it turns out that the appropriators 
do not end up with enough additional funds, then clearly these 
programs would--might all have to be cut. Now, I do not know 
about the gentlelady from California, because I have not seen 
her amendment. I have just now been handed some information on 
it that I have not had a chance to read.
    But all this amendment does is to restore the President's 
request for these programs, and I think the request for solar 
and renewables and conservation programs for Fiscal Year 2000 
is, as you said, as you stated, just over a billion dollars. 
And this bill authorizes only $820 million, which is a 
difference of $180 million. By contrast, the nuclear energy--
and I have no quarrel with this--but it is up $3.4 million from 
the President's request. Fossil Energy, which I certainly have 
no quarrel with, is up $37.5 million from the President's 
request, and almost all the science programs are at or above 
the President's request.
    I have a hard time seeing why solar and renewables and 
conservation programs be the only ones for which we do not have 
enough money if we have enough money; and if we do not have 
enough money, they do not----
    Mr Calvert. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hall. Sure, I will be glad to yield.
    Mr Calvert. Actually, we increased the dollars going into 
solar and renewables significantly from last year's budget, as 
the gentleman knows. And, as a matter of fact, we have a 
tremendous commitment to those technologies. I support them. 
Unfortunately, based upon the budget realities, we cannot meet 
the President's desires in every category.
    Mr. Hall. Well, I must say I am having a little hard time 
supporting the increase because it is a substantial increase, 
but I see no problem in increasing the appropriations while we 
do not authorize them if something happens and they stop the 
war in Kosovo, and we wind up actually having a surplus. We may 
want to support these requests here. If not, we are under no 
bind, under no direction from this Committee or from the 
Congress to do it. With that, I yield back my time, or I yield 
back to the gentleman----
    Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield. I believe Mr. 
Cook is going to have an amendment that you might want to 
entertain that will entertain offsets to this. I still believe 
that the--that this position is a good one. We have increased 
the renewables a significant amount from last year's budget. 
And I would urge that this amendment be defeated. I thank the 
gentleman.
    Mr. Hall. Yes--requiring--reclaiming my time, I think Mr. 
Cook's amendment is only going to address the geothermal. I do 
not think it addresses the other. I may be wrong, but I may be 
interested. Mr. Cook's known for having good amendments.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, the gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, the gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Costello, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This 
amendment restores funds for solar and renewable energy 
programs, as well as the DOE's Energy Efficiency programs. The 
development of renewable energy sources and increased reliance 
on energy efficiency will reduce the U.S. reliance on imported 
oil.
    My friend from Texas, Mr. Hall, has pointed out that the 
mark in this bill is, in fact, $180 million below the 
President's request, and, as my friend the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, Mr. Calvert, pointed out, there was a significant 
increase from last year to this year. But it is still $180 
million less than the President's request and for that reason 
and the reasons that I have given, I am supportive of the 
amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman 
from California, Mrs. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I would like to 
remind this Committee we are an authorizing committee like 
Congressman Hall said. And I would like to remind you that if 
we here on this committee do not consider it our responsibility 
to champion renewable energies, then nobody else in this 
Congress is going to. That is our job. And we need to be 
symbolically on paper pushing the appropriators to invest in a 
balanced energy production. I mean, we cannot have it all 
nuclear and not--and all fossil fuels. We have to, on this 
Committee, make the stand and symbolically state that renewable 
energies will be the future of this nation.
    Mr. Calvert. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, I guess it is the--gentleman would 
yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Mr. Calvert. I believe authorizers have a responsibility 
also to work within the budget caps and the allocations that 
are given to us by the Budget Committee. And I would make every 
attempt to do that, at the same time meet all of the members' 
projects and goals. And I think the gentleman from Illinois 
would agree: we have a limited amount of dollars to deal with. 
We certainly cannot make everybody happy, but we do everything 
we can to do so.
    Mr. Costello. Reclaiming my time--reclaiming my time, I 
would yield the balance to Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes, thank you. And the gentleman is correct: 
we have limited funds. Let us invest those funds in renewable 
energies that are not limited instead of fossil fuels and other 
limited energy sources. And I will yield back.
    Ms. Rivers. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back--the 
gentleman yields back the balance of this time. For what 
purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, 
seek recognition.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This is just a suggestion, and I agree 
with Mr. Udall's motives here, because obviously he is 
concerned, and I as well am concerned, as my amendment 
suggested a few moments ago, that the price of energy will go 
up in the future. And Mr. Udall is trying to make sure America 
and the world is prepared for that when we start finding that 
our oil resources become depleted; and we do not want to, at 
that point, not have an alternative to go to because we will 
have to reduce all sorts of other things that pertain to our 
quality of life at that time just to provide the energy.
    So, your motive is very good here, Mr. Udall. My only 
suggestion is this: that when we have amendments like this 
where we are trying to focus more funds in a given area in 
renewables, there are ways that we can find other things in the 
budget rather than breaking the budget caps and just ignoring 
budget caps to beef those areas up. For example, when I was 
chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, I was 
faced with this problem too, and I just took massive cuts out 
of fusion energy research. And, frankly, the fusion energy 
program, from what I have seen, has not justified the amount of 
money that we are putting into it, because we have not had much 
progress with fusion energy. And my recommendation--I will 
reluctantly have to vote against the gentleman's amendment--but 
just a suggestion in the future if you would come forward and 
say, ``Hey, this money is not showing the right kind of results 
when we pump it into fusion energy. Let us put it into these 
renewables.'' I would be very inclined to support an amendment 
like that rather than just an amendment that just eliminated 
the budget cuts.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Would the gentleman yield? Would the 
gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I certainly will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I would. Sure.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Thank you. The question--part of the 
question is do we have a responsibility in the authorizing 
committee to stay within the caps or can we cavalierly say it 
is okay if we authorize more because really it is the 
appropriators that are busting the caps. And again, I call to 
this Committee's attention synonymous with busting the caps is 
using the Social Security surpluses to pay for these 
expenditures.
    And so, I strongly feel that Mr. Rohrabacher, and his 
suggestion that if you want to come up with a different set of 
priorities let us offset those and decide where reductions 
should be, but let us not simply say that we can authorize more 
because the ultimate decision is with the appropriators. I 
think it is very important that we be cognizant and conscious 
of the caps that we have set, number one; and number two, that 
we are simply authorizing using Social Security surpluses to--
for these kind of additional government surpluses, and I think 
it is very, very important that we be conscious of those 
applications to Social Security. And I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time--just to say that we 
have put money into some of these nuclear programs. And I 
imagine Mr. Udall and I totally agree that that is not the 
direction to go in terms of spending limited dollars. There is 
still money in this bill that does still continue to fund 
fusion research, and perhaps we should go to these renewables 
by taking money from that pool of money rather than just 
busting the caps and taking it from the pool of money that 
wewere hoping would go to Social Security.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Johnson, is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I fully understand and appreciate the statements on 
the budget caps. I just do not want us to overlook the fact 
that renewable energy and energy efficiency is really big 
business and expands our economy through technological 
advances, domestic job creation, and export markets. The 
worldwide market for energy supply and construction is several 
hundred billion dollars over the next 30 years. We currently 
lead the world in energy technologies and do not want to give 
up that market. Past Federal support for sustainable energy 
programs has been key to the rapid growth of emerging 
renewables technologies. Including hydropower renewables now 
account for 10 percent of the total domestic energy production 
and approximately 13 percent of the domestic electricity 
generation. Just six energy efficient building technologies 
that were developed with very little Department of Energy 
funding has saved consumers over $30 billion. While these 
technologies have become increasingly cost competitive, the 
pace of their penetration into the market will be determined 
largely by Government support for future research and 
development, as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-
private partnerships leading to full commercialization.
    I am not for spending Social Security money before Social 
Security is fixed. And I know it is a nice cliche to say that 
it is going to be taken from there, but I really do feel that 
we need to give strong consideration in this area, because as 
we begin to narrow our minds into the thinking and learning 
along these lines of energy research, we also inhibit and hurt 
our future. And want to have us figure that as we make our 
statements against this amendment. I happen to believe that it 
is good investment, and I fully support the fact that we are 
authorizing. Dollars might show up since we are in a surplus 
market. I really feel strongly that we should continue to 
support this research.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. I will yield to Mr. 
Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes, I think that you are certainly on track and 
when you mention pledging the Social Security Fund. The reason 
I have supported pledging the Social Security--uplifting it and 
supporting it and girding it with the surplus--is that I do not 
believe we have a surplus. And I would rather support it with 
the surplus we do not have as to spend the surplus we do not 
have and then initiate another long list of deficit spending.
    The last several presidents have used the Social Security 
surplus to show that we were not broke and then they deficit 
spent. And we are just now getting over that. I think there is 
a corollary between that and this gentleman's amendment. We are 
asking for money that may not be spent, but if the money is 
there, and we have the surplus, and we think these are 
deserving objects and subjects to support. That is this 
authorization committee's duty to do that--to do it sensible. 
To speak of fossil fuels, I do not make any apologies for 
fossil fuels. You have used fossil fuels to win all the wars of 
this last century, and there is not any lack or loss of oil. 
There is not any dearth of oil and gas. There is just a lack of 
support for it. The only energy policy we need is some 
incentive to look for it, and some reward for finding it. And 
the Government has taken that away. So, I just think that this 
bill, this amendment, is a good amendment. It does not cost us 
anything. We are not spending any money right now. We are 
saying in the event it is there, times go well, the surplus 
appears more real than questionable that we take another look 
at it. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
    Ms. Woolsey. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hall. I do yield.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentlewoman 
from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Woolsey. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. I yield.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. I want to repeat again this is not 
about busting the budget caps. This is about making a statement 
for renewable energy. And to tie the two together is, I 
believe, is irresponsible for us on this committee not to be 
going forward and making that statement in support of renewable 
energy, geothermal being part of that, with my amendment to the 
amendment. So, I will yield back.
    Ms. Rivers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired. 
For what purpose the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Rivers, 
seek recognition.
    Ms. Rivers. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Rivers. I am in support of the amendment and the 
amendment to the amendment, but I would like to speak first to 
the budgetary implications that have been raised here. As a 
member of the Budget Committee, I am somewhat mystified by the 
argument that the budget caps apply in an authorization 
setting, particularly since the underlying bills are not within 
the guidelines set by the Budget Committee. So the idea that we 
have somehow created a bright line that does not match the 
President's budget, but also does not match the Budget 
Committee's budget--and we are all obligated to hew to that is 
a very interesting argument. Every time I hear the question of 
offsets, I say, against what.
    What we have is we have the Chairman's opinion, his best 
initial assessment of what is needed to run the DOE programs. 
We have not hewed to the Budget Committee numbers for these 
functions. There is absolutely no binding number that exists to 
cap us to certain overall spending levels. And the argument can 
be made well, if we exceed our spending levels as determined or 
as if we follow the Budget Committee, the underlying bill's 
already due, by $525 million. So people who wish to argue the 
piety of not spending Social Security money, if that is the 
argument you want to make, have to vote against all of these 
bills, because, in fact, they exceed the budget caps.
    Now, if you understand, and I believe it is correct to 
understand, that the budget caps do not bind authorizing 
committees, then we can go along and look at these things. But 
to argue that budget caps apply to amendments, but not to the 
underlying bills, is really, really specious.
    Mr. Calvert. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Rivers. I would like to--let me finish my comments, and 
then I would be happy to yield.
    It is important to point out that these do not come to the 
President's numbers, but they do not go to the Budget Committee 
numbers either.
    We also have a situation where the Chairman has pulled out, 
has backed out some programs, that we are going to address 
later. We do not know for how much. We do not know when. So the 
idea that we have a loose enough process to allow for programs 
to be backed out, to be addressed later at a funding level 
unknown to us, but that is impossible within these procedures 
to consider other amendments, just does not make sense. We are 
now hewing to a tight, controlled procedure. What you are 
essentially doing is arguing that fiscal piety should limit the 
minority's ability to make amendments, but I should not limit 
any of the activities of the majority. And that makes no sense. 
The bills that we have looked at already--NOAA was at the 
President's numbers. The NASA bill was above the President's 
numbers. We did not seem concerned about that. We did not seem 
concerned that we were not sticking to some fundamental pre-
approved number. And the argument that there is such a number 
is not true.
    What we are using is the Chairman's best opinion, and that 
is fine. But let us not pretend that is written in stone 
somewhere, and we have a legal obligation to follow it.
    And who asked me--someone asked me to yield.
    Mr. Hall. The gentlelady.
    Ms. Rivers. Mr. Hall. I will yield to Mr. Hall. If you do 
not want to use the Social Security corollary, we could even 
use the corollary of our appointment of Academy nominees. You 
know, we appoint those in addition that are alternates, and we 
are not saying to do away with the ones that we appointed. We 
are saying if an opening shows, use one of our alternates. We--
shove this into the appropriation--to the authorization as we 
appropriate it. And if we do not appropriate it, they cannot 
authorize it. We do not--I think it is a win-win situation. I 
agree with the lady and I urge the adoption of this amendment 
because it does not cost us anything now.
    Ms. Rivers. Okay. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You are recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Ehlers. I move to strike the last word. I am in great 
sympathy with the motion and the intent of the motion, and I 
will get to that in a minute. But I also want to address the 
fiscal part and explain why I will not be voting for the 
amendment.
    The authorization process in the Congress is very 
important, and I think we have to view it as something of great 
importance. We also have to recognize two items here: first is 
that this Committee has adopted views and estimates, and we are 
trying to work within the guidelines adopted in the views and 
estimates. Secondly, this Committee has to maintain credibility 
with the appropriators. If that were not, if neither of those 
were true, we could simply authorize double the President's 
budget, or double what the Budget Committee recommended, 
because we are, in fact, just setting the maximum amount 
appropriators could spend. But then we would lose any 
credibility with the appropriators in terms of what we are 
supposed to be doing here, and that is setting priorities 
within the budget.
    And I believe that through our process, we are maintaining 
credibility with the appropriators. We are establishing 
priorities. And I believe that the appropriators will listen to 
the Committee, as they did last year, simply because we worked 
very hard to make the tough decisions and share those tough 
decisions with them rather than simply doubling everything and 
letting them make tough decisions.
    Ms. Rivers. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Ehlers. So much--no, I will not yield. I have quite a 
bit more to say.
    And for that reason, I won't be voting for this because 
there is no offset included in the amendment. And I think, 
noble as the amendment might be, I think we should offset.
    Now, let me explain why I sympathize with the intent, and I 
think this is a very important. It is an issue I have raised 
over the past several years. I believe we should allocate more 
money to this particular part of the Department of Energy 
budget. I also could say that I wish they used it more 
efficiently and better. But that is a separate issue.
    But let me point out, I don't like the terminology that has 
been used by the Department, that has been used here when we 
talk about renewals and conservation. I think it is much better 
to use more accurate terms. Instead of talking about 
conservation, we should talk about energy efficiency, because 
energy efficiency is really our goal. Conservation simply says 
we're going to try to save. Energy efficiency is a more 
proactive approach in which we look at every process we use in 
our society and say, ``Can we make it more efficient?'' We do 
that in all of our economic processes. We have failed to do it 
in our energy processes to a sufficient extent.
    Secondly, the term ``renewals'' implies that somehow all of 
this is being renewed. I think it's much better to use a fiscal 
analogy here and recognize that we have income sources of 
energy, and we have savings sources of energy. Income, for 
example, is solar energy, which is continually flowing into our 
Earth's system. Savings would be fossil fuels, which arethe 
accumulation over many, many years of the solar energy that we have 
received.
    Now, just as in a fiscal sense, we cannot spend our savings 
forever without going broke, and we must depend on our income 
instead. I think we should do the same with energy. We should 
get away from our dependence on burning up our savings and try 
to use our income as much as possible. That can be solar 
energy; it can be other forms of energy. Nuclear and geothermal 
are somewhere in between, because these are savings resources, 
but they are very, very long-term, and we don't have to be 
quite as concerned about using them.
    But I think the issue here is trying to switch from using 
our savings to using our income and switching from conserving 
to energy efficiency, and if we place the emphasis on that and 
say that's what we're going to do; try to reformulate the 
program in the Department of Energy and point them in that 
direction, I think we will be much better off. This is 
something that I hope we can continue to work on through the 
conference process, through the appropriations process,and take 
a earlier and fresher look at it next year.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Gordon, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there's 
been a lot of discussion about dollars and balance sheets and 
budgets. I want to compliment Ms. Rivers on, really, a splendid 
explanation of how these specific numbers really are met, and I 
want to bring up another, sort of, balance sheet area, and that 
is the fact that right now and over the past several years, we 
have spent billions of dollars in the Mid East, and we've spent 
these billions of dollars for a variety of good reasons. But 
let's not play games, the fact of the matter is we're spending 
that money, to a great extent, to keep a stable environment so 
that we can have a supply of oil. And as this country increases 
its dependency on oil from overseas, we're spending billions of 
dollars more. So, if we're going to get out the balance sheet, 
it would seem to me that it would be a good investment to spend 
a few million dollars more on renewable energies in this 
country, so that we're less dependent on foreign resources, and 
we can spend less billions of dollars there.
    With that, I'll yield the rest of my time to Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I wanted 
to make a couple of points. First, I want to express my support 
for Congresswoman Woolsey's amendment. I think it's an 
important addition to what we are trying to do here.
    I want to talk to the comments made about being fiscally 
responsible and the budget caps--I think a number of colleagues 
have brought this point up--but it's important to recognize 
that almost every other program in this bill is being funded at 
or above the President's request, and if you really look at it, 
only the Spallation Nextron Source, the solar, the renewable, 
and the conservation accounts are cut. So, the symbolism of 
what we're doing here, I think, if my amendment doesn't pass, 
is significant. We said that this Committee is on the cutting 
edge and supports renewable energy, but we're not going to do 
that in this important piece of legislation. I'd also point out 
that in my opening statement I talked about many of the things 
that we lose out on if we don't pass this amendment, and you 
have states across the country--California, Maryland, Virginia, 
Michigan, Massachusetts, Washington--the biofuels programs that 
really touch every area of the country. These programs are not 
going to be operating at the levels at which we feel that they 
should if we do not pass this amendment. So, I, again, renew my 
plea that this is important to send to the appropriators that 
we're making a statement that this Committee is on the cutting 
edge.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Maryland seek recognition?
    Mr. Bartlett. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I speak in strong 
support of where Mr. Udall wants to go. It's been mentioned 
that at the time of the Arab oil embargo, we imported some 40 
percent of our oil. We now report almost 60 percent of our oil. 
The reason for that is that at about 1970, America had found 
and pumped half of all the oil that we had. Since 1970, I 
think, year by year, we have found less oil and pumped less oil 
than the year before. Just about now, the world oil supply has 
been half found and has been about half pumped. We will shortly 
be on the downside of pumping the world's oil.
    What Mr. Udall asked us to do is certainly in our national 
economy interest. We cannot afford to be importing every-
increasing amounts of energy, and, ultimately, it will be in 
our national security interest. We cannot be, from a national 
security viewpoint, dependent on other sources outside our 
country for most of our energy supply.
    I'm on the horns of a dilemma, because, although I strongly 
support where Mr. Udall wants to go, I also am very concerned 
about being responsible and stay within the budget caps. If 
this bill represents simply a wish list, then my wish is to put 
increased amounts of money into these programs, but I do not 
want to make a statement that is fiscally irresponsible. I hope 
that Mr. Udall and the Chairman might come to my rescue and 
that the amendment might be withdrawn with the Chairman's 
agreement that we will look for additional funding for these in 
conference. If this cannot be done, then I will be forced to 
choose the lesser of two evils, which I believe for me will be 
voting for this amendment and treating this bill as a wish 
list, because it's my understanding it already exceeds the 
probable amount of money that will be there through the 
appropriators.
    I would like not to have to be in this position, but I do 
want to speak strongly in support of where Mr. Udall wants to 
go. We have, in the past, and we are, at present, not 
committing sufficient resources to develop the alternative 
energy sources that we must develop as the world will 
increasingly find it more difficult to find and pump oil at 
present prices.
    Mr. Calvert. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bartlett. So, I speak in strong support of the 
amendment and hope that there may be a way out. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bartlett. I can yield; yes, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. I would be more than happy to work with any 
member on any offset on amounts of dollars on any amendment 
that may be proposed. There are as many different goals and 
objectives as we have members in this Committee, both 
Republicans and Democrats. We have tried to meet those goals 
and objectives as best as we can. If there's an offset to this, 
I'd be more than happy to entertain that. Some of these offsets 
we may agree to, and some of us may not agree to, but I believe 
that we have a responsibility as authorities to set the dollar 
limit that we can spend. We have done that, and, for that 
reason, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. 
Nethercutt. For what purpose do you rise?
    Mr. Nethercutt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Let me take 60 seconds simply to say that 
as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I don't want 
anybody to be under the illusion that we don't take, on the 
Appropriations Committee, what we do on the Authorizing 
Committee seriously. We don't have the luxury there of saying 
``Well, let's just go above the cap, because it was 
authorized.'' That isn't possible in this day and age and in 
this world of tight budget caps. The Appropriations Committee 
is where the rubber hits the road; we have to make it all fit.
    So, to the extent that this is an issue of goodness or 
badness of the amendment, I think it's a laudable effort on the 
part of the gentleman from Colorado, but if he wants to 
proceed, my suggestion would be, to make it more palatable for 
the people on the Appropriations Committee to deal with this at 
the proper time, to do offsets. Make it all fit here so that--
because it has to all fit together in the budget caps at the 
Appropriations Committee.
    So, I appreciate what Mr. Ehlers and others have said about 
that, and while it may be a good amendment, I think it all has 
to be fiscally responsible and offset if it's going to be 
valid, because we don't have the luxury of just lifting caps--
--
    Mr. Gordon. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Gordon. Since you mentioned the budget caps at the 
Appropriation level, could you tell us what those are?
    Mr. Nethercutt. I don't know what they are. I couldn't tell 
you as I sit here right this moment.
    Mr. Gordon. So, what are we trying to abide by?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nethercutt. Sure, I will yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For the information, the gentleman 
from Tennessee, the 302(b) budget cap for the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee is approximately $2 billion below the Fiscal Year 
1999 appropriated level. So, it is brutal.
    Mr. Nethercutt. And let me take my time back and say that's 
the reality that we have to work with. The Appropriations 
Committee Chairman and Subcommittee Chairman are going crazy 
trying to fit all of what they want to put on a bill into that 
bill when it's $2 billion less.
    Mr. Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nethercutt. Sure.
    Mr. Gordon. Well, again, if we want to be fiscally 
responsible, as you suggest, we need to know what that magic 
figure is. So, could you tell us--and if you can't tell us what 
that figure is, then why should we not----
    Mr. Nethercutt. Well, let me take my time back. My 
understanding is that it is--that this would be above the 
level, as the Chairman has said.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Washington 
yield?
    Mr. Nethercutt. Sure.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The 302(b) cap that applies to the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee is for all of the programs that 
are under the jurisdiction of that Subcommittee. What we are 
talking about authorizing in this bill is a fraction of the 
programs that are under jurisdiction of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee. For example, they have got all of the Army Corps 
of Engineers' reclamation projects and things like that. So, I 
will be the first to admit that where we are at is above 
probably what the appropriators will end up giving us.
    So, we are being an advocate; we are setting priorities. 
With the increases that conform to the budget views and 
estimates that the majority of each party signed off on, I 
think we are being advocates, and certainly the amounts 
recommended, which are above the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriated 
levels of solar and renewable as well as energy efficiency, 
we're not being parsimonious on that. But there comes a point 
where we can go across the line and lose our credibility, and I 
think the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, is absolutely 
correct in that type of assessment.
    And the reason I oppose this amendment is that I think it 
does cross the line. Certainly, we could make everybody happy 
in this town, except the appropriators, by giving everybody 
everything they wanted and then adding 10 percent, and that's 
what we did in the last decade, and when those bills got down 
to the Appropriations Committee that was run by the Democratic 
Party, it was met with laughter, and I don't think we want to 
make ourselves irrelevant and make ourselves be completely out 
of the loop.
    And while I think the gentleman from Colorado has thebest 
of intentions, the fact is that we don't have an unlimited pot of money 
to deal with, and the more we go above the views and estimates that we 
all signed off on, the less likely it's going to be that we're going to 
have our views listen to when it counts in the Appropriations 
Committee.
    Ms. Woolsey. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Washington.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I'll yield.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. That's the point, Mr. 
Chairman. We are the authorizers. The appropriators cannot 
spend more, even if they wanted to, than we authorized, and why 
when the caps--they can spend less, absolutely--when the caps 
have already been busted, why would we use renewable energies 
as our example of where we're going to be fiscally 
conservative?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.  The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I yield back whatever remaining time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment to 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Woolsey, relating to geothermal energy.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I would like a recorded vote, 
please.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are you insinuating that I was 
going to say that the noes had it? [Laughter.]
    If that's the case, the noes appear to have it, and the 
clerk will call the roll. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Woolsey. Oh, Mr. Chairman, did I blow it?
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Texas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barton votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Smith of Michigan.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Ewing.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Brady.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes no. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Sanford.
    Mr. Sanford. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford votes no. Mr. Metcalf.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional members in the 
room who wish to cast their votes or any members who wish to 
change their votes?
    Mrs. Morella. How am I recorded--Morella?
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella is not recorded.
    Mrs. Morella. I vote no in hopes also that we can find an 
offset.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Other members who wish to--the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. You are not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Brady. I would like to be recorded no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any members desire to change their 
votes? If not, the Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes, 17; no, 19.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question, now, is on the 
original amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Udall.
    Those in favor of the amendment will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Udall. I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote will be ordered.
    Those in favor of the Udall amendment will signify by 
saying aye; those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Texas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barton votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Ewing.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Brady.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mr. Green.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Sanford.
    Mr. Sanford. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford votes no. Mr. Metcalf.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional members in the 
chamber who wish to cast their vote or change their vote? The 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. 
Metcalf.
    Mr. Metcalf. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Brady.
    Mr. Brady. I would like to be recorded no, Mr. Chairman.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Anybody else who wish to cast their 
vote or change their votes? If not, the Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 17 yes; 20, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Johnson, has another obligation to go to, and I'm going to call 
on her for amendment number eight, out of order.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas rise?
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 22, lines 2 through 10, strike subsections (a) and 
(b).
    Page 22, lines 11, 16, and 23, page 23, line 6, and page 
24, line 1, redesignate subsections (c) through (g) as 
subsections (a) through (e) respectively.

    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I thank the 
majority for agreeing to strike the language prohibiting 
funding for the High Performance Computing and Communications 
Program in the manager's amendment. I would ask unanimous 
consent that the report language on the High Performance 
Computer Program include the same statement that was included 
in the NOAA authorization bill indicating that the funding for 
this program was excluded without prejudice.
    I would also ask that a footnote be included in the table 
accompanying the bill on the line which now simply indicates 
zero funding for the High Performance Computer Program. A 
footnote should be added that specifically references the 
report language on the HPCC Program to ensure that the reason 
for the exclusion of funding is clear. As the table now reads, 
it simply appears to fund the HPCC Program.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. I'll yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. As I stated in my opening statement 
at the beginning of the meeting today, it is my hope that we 
will have a discussion draft in the hands of everybody, 
including the minority, before we leave here on Thursday, of an 
overall HPCC and IT-squared bill. The reason I am doing it this 
way rather than actually introducing a bill is that I want to 
get input before we get the bill into final form, which I think 
will probably speed up its consideration when we deal with this 
next month. But, certainly, I support what the gentlewoman from 
Texas has said, and, without objection, the requests contained 
in the first statement are agreed to.
    Is there any objection?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, so ordered, and you still have some time 
left.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, 
Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Amendment number seven by Mr. 
Costello. For what purpose does Mr. Costello seek recognition?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655 offered by Mr. Costello--
--
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 5, line 10, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$25,000,000''.
    Page 5, line 11, strike ``$35,000,000'' and insert ``$25,000,000''.
    Page 6, line 2, strike ``$2,557,761,000'' and insert 
``$2,707,761,000''.
    Page 7, line 3, strike ``$357,714,000'' and insert 
``$352,714,000''.
    Page 7, line 4, strike ``$375,600,000'' and insert 
``$360,600,000''.
    Page 7, line 6, strike ``$413,674,000'' and insert 
``$403,674,000''.
    Page 7, line 7, strike ``$434,357,000'' and insert 
``$414,357,000''.
    Page 7, line 9, strike ``$698,800,000'' and insert 
``$688,800,000''.
    Page 7, line 10, strike ``$733,740,000'' and insert 
``$718,740,000''.
    Page 9, line 3, strike ``and''.
    Page 9, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
    Page 9, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
          (11) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be for 
        construction of Project 99-E-334, Spallation Neutron Source, 
        Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    Page 22, lines 11 through 15, amend subsection (c) to read as 
follows:
    (c) Construction of Spallation Neutron Source Project.--None of the 
funds authorized by section 3(b)(11) may be obligated until the 
Secretary--
          (1) 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; and
          (2) provides the Committee on Science of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
        Resources of the Senate with--
                  (A) a cost baseline and project milestones for each 
                major construction and technical system activity; and
                  (B) a revised project management structure that 
                integrates the staff of the collaborating laboratories 
                working on the project under a single project director.
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.
    Page 24, after line 19, insert the following new subsection:
    (h) Percentage Reduction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
this Act, each of the amounts authorized by this Act for fiscal year 
2000 or 2001 shall be reduced by .74 percent, with such reduction 
representing a reduction in travel costs.

    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the 
Committee, my amendment would restore construction funding for 
the project known as the Spallation Neutron Source. The 
Chairman, in drafting this bill, included $17.9 million for R&D 
only and zero for construction for the Spallation project. This 
bill, as it's currently written, would kill the Spallation 
Neutron project by no construction funds in either Fiscal Year 
2000 or Fiscal Year 2001. This Committee, according to the 
project manager, would effectively pull the plug on the 
Nation's number one neutron science project.
    Mr. Chairman, I know you have had major concerns with this 
project after reading the GAO report and visiting the Oak Ridge 
Lab in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. They are valid concerns; many of 
them, frankly, I agree with. I shared your concerns about 
missed deadlines and past mismanagement practices of the SNS. I 
read your travel report, and I decided to visit the laboratory 
to see for myself what DOE is doing to rectify these problems. 
I met with Dr. David Moncton who, as the DOE Project 
Chairperson and Project Manager, was recently appointed by DOE 
to be the Project Manager.
    As you know, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Moncton is one of the 
Nations' most highly regarded scientists. He has a history with 
big DOE projects, such as the Advanced Photon Source; getting 
them done on time and under budget. I believe he is the 
appropriate and, perhaps, the only person who could steer the 
SNS project back on course.
    Since your visit and my visit to the Oak Ridge Lab, Mr. 
Chairman, Dr. Moncton has begun to address the concerns in the 
GAO report and the concerns that you raised in your travel 
report as well as the concerns that I expressed to him on my 
visit. He has begun to hire a skilled management team for the 
project. He has worked to strengthen memoranda of understanding 
with the five other laboratories--Argonne, Brookhaven, Los 
Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Berkeley--involved in this project. He 
is preparing a new budget baseline at your request for this 
Committee, which is due in July. I have been impressed by Dr. 
Moncton's willingness to work with the Chairman and members of 
this Committee in moving the SNS project forward in a 
cooperative effort. That is why I met with you in April and 
earlier this month in an effort to reach an agreement to move 
forward with the SNS project.
    I would like to outline briefly for the Committee what I 
have done in my amendment to address the concerns that have 
been raised by the GAO, your travel report, and concerns that 
we have raised on our side, as well. Number one, my amendment 
provided to this Committee, it provides a realistic number. As 
you know, in the President's request, the President request 
$214 million for the SNS project, of which--I am sorry, $196 
million was designated for construction. I have worked with DOE 
to come up with a realistic number for construction funding for 
Fiscal Year 2000 for the project. I believe $150 million in 
construction in Fiscal Year 2000 will put the project back on 
schedule and on budget. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, this 
number is down from the Administration's request from $196 
million.
    Number two, we place conditions on spending the funds. My 
amendment includes conditions, some of which you endorsed in 
your travel report, including a requirement that the Secretary 
of Energy certify to this Committee that major positions be 
filled before funding is released. A new baseline must be 
submitted and that operational management structure be 
centralized for stronger control of the project's progress.
    Number three, I considered offering an amendment today 
without offsets, but after a discussion with you, I decided to 
try and comply with all of your concerns--address all of your 
concerns in your request. So, this amendment that I am offering 
offers an offset to the construction funding. Mr. Chairman, you 
asked us to come up with the offsets from H.R. 1655 to pay for 
the construction of SNS. I have done so. My amendment calls for 
an offset of $150 million to offset the construction cost for 
Fiscal Year 2000.
    Mr. Chairman, the members of this side of the aisle have 
worked for several weeks to meet the concerns that the GAO has 
pointed out, your concerns, and concerns that we havehad. We 
have attempted to address all of the issues that you have raised----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman. May I ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman be given an additional minute to finish his 
statement?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Costello. I thank Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, let me 
say that we have attempted to address all of the issues that 
you have raised, issues that concern us, and issues pointed out 
in the GAO report. We have provided offsets. Mr. Chairman, this 
Committee has a choice today: we can either support the 
Costello amendment, moving forward with a scaled-down 
authorization level of $150 million with conditions that must 
be met before the money can be spent or we can take no action 
whatsoever, which will, in effect, kill the spallation neutron 
project.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Barton. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in a very 
difficult position on this amendment. I can remember when this 
Subcommittee and the full Committee was addressing the Super 
Collider project, which we ultimately killed on an amendment on 
the Floor, and I think that was one of the most short-sided 
actions that this Congress has taken in the last 20 years. I'm 
obviously not as involved with this particular project, but I 
want to commend Mr. Costello for what he's done. I think that 
this Committee has an obligation to fund basic research, and I 
think this is very basic research. I think the bottom line 
project is a good project.
    I understand the Chairman's concern about not going forward 
until all the administrative and budget guidelines have been 
set, and I haven't decided how I'm going to vote on this 
amendment yet, so I'd like to yield to the Chairman to find out 
what your position is. Are you trying to make sure that some of 
the things that Congressman Costello is now putting on the 
table are put into the bill or are you literally trying to kill 
this project?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barton. I'll be happy to yield to the distinguished 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding.
    First of all, let me say I support the Spallation Neutron 
Source, and I support it being built in Tennessee, and I have 
said that to anybody who has asked me that question and to a 
lot of people who haven't asked me that question.
    The question, however, before us today is whether we are 
going to insist that the Department of Energy manage this 
project properly so that we don't get ourselves into a position 
like what happened with the Superconducting Super Collider 
where we went ahead and gave them the money; we ignored 
significant management problems, including their inability to 
put together and live by a baseline for the constructing the 
SSC. I don't want to see history repeat itself, and I don't 
want the Science Committee, on our watch, to go along with 
authorizing the money for this program given the fact that 
there have been significant management lapses identified both 
by the General Accounting Office and by the EG&G firm that the 
Department of Energy hired late last year or the first part of 
this year to review what has been going on.
    The DOE fired the previous project manager after these 
reports came up. We were told we were to have a baseline by 
January of this year; now, it's due sometime in July, and to go 
ahead with the project that the projected cost is $1.3billion 
without having the budget I think is just flat out irresponsible.
    Mr. Barton. Could I reclaim my time and ask another 
question?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Certainly.
    Mr. Barton. Well, as I understand Congressman Costello's 
amendment, he wants to maintain some funding level for 
construction, and anybody who's ever looked at any of these 
long-term projects know, at some point in time, you have to 
actually begin to construct. So, is it the Chairman's--are you 
basically postponing the decision to construct for a year or do 
you assume that at some point in this budget year we will 
authorize construction at the full Committee?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, I assume that sometime in this 
budget year, if the DOE gets its act together and gives us the 
proper information, we can consider authorizing the 
construction without prejudice as to what the DOE is going to 
come up with.
    Mr. Barton. So, do we--and, again, I have not been privy to 
these negotiations, so I'm kind of coming in here at the last 
minute on this--but is it your intention, then, sometime in the 
next 3 to 4 months to move an authorization on this particular 
project that includes construction?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the DOE comes in with the 
appropriate figures, I believe that we should introduce a 
separate bill authorizing the construction of the Spallation 
Neutron Source, and I have it considered in this Committee.
    Mr. Barton. And you would work with interested members on 
doing that?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I certainly would work with 
interested members in doing that, but I'm afraid giving the DOE 
the money before they answer all these questions that have been 
raised and which are legitimate is putting the cart before the 
horse.
    Mr. Barton. I'd yield to Mr. Costello. I think he's got a--
--
    Mr. Costello. I think the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, let me say--I have said this to you, and I 
will say it to the Committee members--I commend you for the 
action that you've taken. It's because of the issues that you 
have brought to the table that we are here today. We want what 
you want, and that is for the project to go forward but to make 
sure that it's managed in a way that can come in under budget 
and manage properly.
    My concern today is that: if we're going to do a free-
standing bill, where are we going to get the appropriations? 
We're talking about offsets. I was required to submit an 
amendment today that would require offsets as opposed to $150 
million add-on to the authorization. I am concerned that if we 
leave here today that this project, in fact, will be dead, and 
I would like to elaborate----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Texas has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Gordon. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to give a couple of compliments, first, to my friend 
from Texas for the good points that he raised, trying to get us 
focused on what this debate is all about, and, secondly, I want 
to concur with Jerry Costello's compliments of the Chairman. It 
has been an arduous, sometimes painful, trip to get us to this 
point, but we have a better bill, a better situation because of 
the tough questions that Chairman Sensenbrenner has asked, and 
because he asked those tough questions, Jerry Costello has put 
contingencies into this bill that none of this money can be 
spent unless those timelines and those contingencies are met 
and met timely. So, the plug will be pulled if those very 
legitimate questions aren't answered. So, that should be taken 
care of. We don't need to wait till later. We put those 
contingencies in now.
    The second question of offsets. Mr. Costello has put forth 
offsets in his bill.
    So, let's make it clear what we're talking about right now. 
We've had discussions about priorities today. Should we put a 
little more money into solar? Should we put a little less here? 
And what kind of priorities are we sending? When you're talking 
about the Spallation project, you're not talking about 
priorities, you're talking about killing it or moving forward. 
There is no little bit here or little bit there.
    And let me read to you from the respected publication, 
Nature, May 6, 1999 issue, and I think it says it very well: 
``If the construction money is halted by the Congress at this 
early stage, the project will quickly enter a spiral of delays 
and cost overruns that will probably destroy it.'' And, so this 
is a vote either for it or against it.
    If you vote against it, let me tell you what you're voting 
against. Right now, American researchers have to go overseas to 
have neutron research, and so we simply can't get the research 
done that we need. This will be the only facility in the United 
States. It will be 10 times more powerful than any other 
facility in the country, and what are they trying to do and 
what will you be voting against if you vote against this? 
You'll be voting against discovering drug delivery systems that 
release a medicine precisely when andwhere it's needed in the 
body to relieve pain without side effects. You'll be voting against the 
necessary research for artificial blood. You'll be voting against 
research necessary for medical implants, like artificial hips and knees 
that have a lifetime use. You're going to be voting against lubricants 
that are specially tailored for tomorrow's efficient, emission-free 
engines. You're going to be voting against the technology that's 
necessary to learn more about superconducting wires and stronger 
magnets that can bring lower power costs and much faster trains that 
will float above magnetic levels. You're going to be voting against the 
research that's necessary for stronger, lighter materials.
    This is not about priorities; this is not about ``Well, 
we'll do a little bit now; we'll do a little bit later; we'll 
try to fit it in.'' This is a vote just squarely either to go 
forward or we kill it. The contingencies that were well raised 
are in here. The offsets are in this. This is a good amendment. 
Either vote for having the United States have the ability to 
have a spallation project or you vote to kill it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I strike the last 
word and yield myself five minutes.
    Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think that while the 
efforts of the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from 
Tennessee are rather well on point, their amendment doesn't go 
as far as it should. The amendment authorizes $150 million for 
SSN for the year 2000, but there are only $90 million in 
offsets, of which, only $30 million are in Fiscal 2000, and an 
additional $60 million are in Fiscal Year 2001. So, there is no 
money authorized in the amendment by the gentleman from 
Illinois for Fiscal Year 2001, but they take money away from 
other programs in Fiscal Year 2001 to spend in Fiscal Year 
2000, which I don't think is a very good idea.
    There is also one other issue that the gentleman from 
Illinois' amendment does not address, and that is the fact that 
the State of Tennessee charges a use tax for the construction 
of a project within Tennessee that is estimated at the present 
time to cost $1.3 billion, and I think it is outrageous that 
any State that secures Federal procurement then turns around 
and sticks the Federal taxpayers with a use tax for the honor 
of building that project within that State.
    Mr. Costello. Would the Chairman yield on that particular 
point?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, I didn't interrupt you; I'm 
going to make this point. If the amendment contained this type 
of language prohibiting the State of Tennessee from charging 
use tax, I think that we would be well on the road to 
negotiating making sure that this is not going to cost the 
taxpayers more by locating it in Tennessee than in a State that 
does not charge a use tax. And I do have a letter from the 
Governor and the speakers of both houses of the State 
legislature saying that that would not be the case, but there 
is no statutory authority that there will be no tax charged 
either in the gentleman from Illinois' amendment or in 
Tennessee legislation.
    Now, I support funding the science behind the SNS, but 
before we pump hundreds of millions of dollars into 
construction, we need to have better answers from DOE. This 
amendment does not guarantee that we get the better answers 
from DOE. If we get an answer, whether it's a good answer or a 
rotten answer, they get the money, and they are able to dig the 
hole, and we don't come back to revisit this issue until this 
project is actually under construction.
    Now, you may recall a similar scenario a few years ago with 
regards to the Super Collider. Construction began and soon 
thereafter the project began to lose political support because 
the DOE could not control spiraling program costs, and 
eventually the House canceled the SSC. The taxpayer was left 
holding the bill for an expensive hole in the ground, and I 
don't want that to happen again here.
    The Costello amendment would fund construction of the SNS 
even before the DOE has fully developed a project schedule and 
cost estimates. The DOE report says it will be another 6 months 
before a baseline with adequate contingencies is available. A 
few weeks ago, the DOE reduced what it said it needed, and this 
amendment further reduces what it needs, and I think that this 
shows how fluid these figures are.
    Let me mention a few other shortcomings. This is a complex 
project which, as proposed, requires an unprecedented level of 
cooperation among five different DOE labs operated by four 
different contractors. Although a draft memorandum of agreement 
with the labs has been floated by DOE, it remains unsigned, and 
until this MOA is legally binding, I'm concerned that Mr. 
Monkton, the Director of the SNS project, who is a good person, 
won't have authority over the other participating labs' 
employees.
    The project is still without a technical director. A DOE 
report says that Oak Ridge needs an adequate level of technical 
management. It needs a full-time operations manage. It needs a 
manager to oversee construction of the facilities that will 
house the equipment and instruments being built.
    Finally, I can't accept this amendment, because the offsets 
contained do not offset on a dollar-for-dollar basis. As I 
pointed out, there is $150 million being authorized for Fiscal 
2000 and only $30 million of offsets for 2000 and another $60 
million offset for 2001 where there is no authorization that is 
contained therein.
    So, I think that the amendment is not properly drafted, as 
well. It changes certain amounts and accounts but does not 
change the overall totals. Part of the problem is that we were 
not given this amendment until just a few minutes before the 
markup began.
    I would hope that we would listen to the Vice President 
where he was talking in his National Performance Review that 
we, as a Government, ensure that the taxpayers get a dollar's 
worth of value for a dollar of tax money spent. This amendment 
does not guarantee that. I would hope that we would wait for 
the DOE to get its together, and my time has expired.
    For what purposes does the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Etheridge, seek recognition?
    Mr. Etheridge. I move to strike the last word, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Mr. 
Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you. I guess we've all heard that cliche 
that two people can seen an accident, and they describe it 
differently. The Chairman and I are seeing the same accident, I 
thought, but apprently we are seeing it very different. As I 
pointed out earlier he has raised very good significant 
questions, and I think we've tried to address those.
    Let me go, first, to the concern about Tennessee getting 
some kind of a windfall. First of all, this project is going to 
be dealt with in all five of the national labs. Tennessee will 
be the location of, I guess, the central location of it, but 
it's going to be in all the labs. Now, we have a letter from 
the Governor of Tennessee--well, first of all, we offered to 
put in the legislation anything he wanted concerning that 
Tennessee wasn't going to get some kind of windfall from sales 
tax, but we were rejected, because that would give jurisdiction 
to Ways and Means, and you didn't want to share jurisdiction 
here. So, we said, ``Fine.'' We got a letter from our 
Republican Governor, Don Sunquist, signed by the Speaker of the 
House and the Senate, saying that whatever legislation was 
necessary to hold the Federal taxpayer harmless so that it 
would not cost anymore to build this project or a portion of it 
in Tennessee than anywhere else, they would pass that 
legislation.
    Now, again, what are we talking about? This is almost $1.5 
billion project. They said that there might be as much as $30 
million in taxes over the entire period in all of the states 
involved. Now, every state has some kind of sales tax of some 
nature, but it doesn't matter. We've got a letter from the 
Governor; it can be put in the record. Put it in the 
legislation if you want to give Ways and Means jurisdiction--I 
am satisfied with it--that the Federal taxpayer will be held 
harmless. It will cost no more to build there. So, that should 
be off the table.
    The other questions concerning these other contingencies, 
I'm going to yield to Mr. Costello who has, I think, done a 
herculean effort in addressing all of these.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, let me try and address a few 
points that you made. Number one, you had said that we show $90 
million in offsets as opposed to $150 million. There are $150 
million in offsets. I believe what you may not be taking into 
account is the $60 million that we are getting out of the DOE 
travel account.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Costello. I'd be happy to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Could you please specify those 
offsets and tell us what is spread between Fiscal 2000 and 
Fiscal 2001?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, the travel account is $60 
million; the offset is $70 million in each fiscal year for 
contractors and Government travel; number two, biological and 
environmental research by $30 million; number three----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. In which years?
    Mr. Costello. The travel offsets are $30 million in Fiscal 
Year 2000; $30 million in Fiscal Year 2001. The nuclear 
research, $5 million in Fiscal Year 2000; $10 million Fiscal 
Year 2001. The biological and environmental, $10 million the 
first year; $20 million the second year. In basic energy, $10 
million the first year; $15 million the next year. And I have a 
list that I would be happy to provide you and the members of 
the Committee.
    This is a 2-year authorization bill. It seems that every 
step that we have taken to try and reasonably move this project 
forward but without allowing the Department of Energy to spend 
money on the project----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield further?
    Mr. Costello. Let me--if I can finish, and then I'd be 
happy to yield to the Chairman.
    We've tried to take every reasonable step possible by 
offering offsets. I am told now that because we have offset 
this, the $150 million over the 2 years--it's a 2-year 
authorization bill--that that is--the Chairman has expressed 
concerns about the 2-year authorization of the 2-year offset. I 
have checked with legal counsel. There is no reason why we 
cannot offset over 2 years other than if the Chairman objects 
to it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if the gentleman will yield--
the gentleman from North Carolina will yield----
    Mr. Costello. I'd be happy to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. I have added up the 
offsets that the gentleman has just explained, and they are 
$55million out of 2000; $75 million out of 2001, for a total of $130 
million. That's one of the problems. The second problem that I had is 
that your amendment provides no construction funds for Fiscal Year 
2001, and what you're doing is you're using funds that are authorized 
for other programs in 2001 to offset construction in the year 2000. 
That's playing games with the money, I think.
    Mr. Costello. Well, reclaiming my time, the fact is the 
reason we didn't include money--authorization in 2001 is 
because we did not want to authorize 2001 construction funds 
until we made certain that the Department of Energy was 
managing this project according to this amendment and according 
to the triggers we put in place.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired, 
and I'd ask unanimous consent the gentleman from North Carolina 
be given an additional minute so we can conclude this 
discussion.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I think the bottom line here is 
this: you have said in your travel report, we have had meetings 
that you want to seek the Spallation project move forward. The 
fact is the President sent this budget over. It had $214 
million in for Spallation; $196 million for construction. You 
took that amount of money--the $196 million--and distributed it 
over other projects that you felt are priorities in this budget 
leaving us at zero. I have attempted to do what I think is 
reasonable. I have $150 million in offsets. It's over the 2-
year authorization. It does not cut into projects that are 
important to members of this Committee and the scientific 
community. I think it's a reasonable amendment, and I think our 
goals are the same--we want to move the project forward, but we 
do not want DOE to spend the money----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield?
    Mr. Costello. I'd be happy to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Then why couldn't you find the 
offsets in the year that you wanted to spend the money, because 
none of us are able to spend next year's income on this year's 
goodies?
    Mr. Costello. Reclaiming my time. In all due respect, we 
attempted to do that, but we got no cooperation from the 
majority. We attempted to lay offsets on the table for the 
first year and work with the majority if in fact they wanted to 
see spallation move forward. We were told that we had to come 
up with all $150 million and that the majority would not be 
submitting offsets for consideration. So, we tried to do it in 
a bipartisan way; it was rejected, and that's the reason we are 
here today.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield 
further?
    Mr. Costello. I'd be happy to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We got this amendment just as the 
markup was beginning. Now, I've heard a lot of complaints from 
the minority side, which were valid, that legislation and 
amendments were not shared with the minority before the first 
markup that we had. I think that we ought to share amendments 
so that they can be analyzed and we don't have amendments 
explained in the course of a markup, and would hope that the 
minority, in the future, would give us the same consideration 
that they have demanded of us with amendments that we would 
like to offer.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I can, 
and I will conclude. You make a valid point. I think the point 
is weeks ago when the majority decided where the money would go 
for spallation--the $196 million that the President put in--had 
we been consulted at that time, had we had a markup at the 
Subcommittee level, which we should have had and maybe even a 
hearing on a project of this magnitude at the full Committee 
level so Committee members could hear from the Assistant 
Secretary and from D. Moncton, we might be at a different place 
today.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Ehlers. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Ehlers. I hope I won't use that much time, Mr. 
Chairman, because I think we should draw this to a close.
    I support building the Spallation Neutron Source. I think 
it can contribute a great deal to our knowledge of the 
structure of matter. I believe it should be built, but it 
should not be started until we clear up the questions that have 
been raised. And the problem, I believe, with the amendment is 
that it does not specify clearly enough what questions have to 
be raised. There's far more to be dealt with here. I am 
surprised this has become a partisan issue, and I think it's 
not on the substance of the issue. I think there's support on 
both sides of the aisle to do this. There's a difference on the 
process to be used.
    And I simply have to say, based on the experience I've had 
in going through the Large Hadron Collider, which I was very 
concerned about the prospects of that, the Chairman took it 
upon himself to solve the problems. He flew to CERN; negotiated 
a better agreement which took care of the problems. I've heard 
from a number of high energy physicists over the years that the 
work that he did has really made their job and their ability to 
get the research done much easier and much better. I have faith 
in the Chairman to do the same here--to resolve the issues by 
working with the DOE. I'm willing to wait a few months and give 
him the opportunity to do as he did with the Large Hadron 
Collider--resolve the problems and bring this project to the 
House in an appropriate fashion. The last thing that we need to 
do is to get this project off on the wrong foot and have it end 
up in the gutter as a result.
    Mr. Gordon. Would you yield, please? Mr. Ehlers, would you 
yield?
    Mr. Ehlers. Who's asking? Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you. I concur with your concerns about 
being sure that those questions that were raised earlier are 
addressed before the money is spent. That's why, working with 
the majority counsel, Mr. Costello has four contingencies in 
this bill that address those concerns that have to be met and 
will be met, and they have a panel that will be making a report 
back in July before the money can be spent. And, so your 
concerns will be met within this bill.
    Mr. Ehlers. Reclaiming my time. They will not be met within 
this amendment, and I don't want to get into a nit-picky battle 
on it but simply say, looking at the conditions that the 
Secretary of Energy has to provide the Committee on Science, et 
cetera, with a cost baseline and project milestones for each 
major construction technical system activity. This does 
indicate that in any way we approve them; all they have to do 
is provide it and automatically they have met the condition. A 
revised project management structure--again, not that it has to 
be a good one; it could be a terrible one, but once they submit 
it, the project can go forward. I think we're looking for a lot 
more specificity than we can get in an amendment like this----
    Mr. Gordon. Would my friend yield?
    Mr. Ehlers [continuing]. And I would like to wrap this up. 
I think we can head for a vote. I'll yield very briefly.
    Mr. Gordon. Well, we submitted all these things to the 
majority staff some time ago. It seemed to be satisfactory at 
that time. Now, it may not be satisfactory now, but if you have 
an amendment to perfect this, then certainly introduce it, but 
the staff--and I understood the Chairman was satisfied that 
those contingencies that were put in this bill met those 
concerns.
    Mr. Ehlers. Reclaiming my time. If I were to offer an 
amendment, I would simply express my faith in the Chairman to 
resolve this and urge him to do it as speedily as possible, 
which I am sure he will do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Ehlers. I'd be pleased to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That's the Chairman's intent to 
resolve this, but we do want to get a bill down for the 
appropriators to consider, and the issues that are contained in 
this bill are much larger than the fate of the SNS.
    Mr. Ehlers. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, seek recognition?
    Mr. Doyle. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief.
    I just want to speak in support of Mr. Costello's amendment 
and to say that I think Mr. Costello has made some very good 
faith efforts here to accommodate some of the concerns of the 
Committee, to find offsets, and that this amendment deserves 
the support of the Committee, and, with that, Mr. Chairman, 
would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, seek recognition?
    Mrs. Biggert. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a great deal 
of respect of confidence in both the Chairman and the Project 
Director, David Moncton, and I'm confident that a solution will 
be reached.
    But, as I understand it, the importance of the project has 
never been questioned. What appears to be at issue is the 
timing and the ability of the project managers to move forward 
with the next phase of the project. I have known Dr. Moncton 
for a long time when he was involved with the Advanced Photon 
Source at Argon, and he is the most highly respected scientist 
that I have known for a long time and did deliver the $811 
million advanced photon source project at Argonne on time and 
under budget.
    My fear is that the longer we delay, the less likelihood 
that this project will go forward. I think that there is the--
that with this delay, it is unlikely that the most talented 
that have been approached or have been hired for this project 
will remain. I think that even the recruitment of qualified 
technical and management people is in jeopardy. So, I would 
hope that we can come to consensus soon.
    I do intend to vote with the Chairman, but hopeful that a 
deal can be reached before this bill comes to the Floor. I 
don't think we want to see the loss of this expertise, which, 
to me, spells the end of the project. I know that the Chairman 
has a strong sense that there are some aspects that SNS aren't 
really ready to move, but I think that it can be worked out and 
reach an agreement.
    Mr. Costello. I would ask the gentlelady, my friend from 
Illinois, to yield?
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes, I'll yield.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be understood 
by members of this Committee that we all have great respect for 
Dr. Moncton. My friend from Illinois has just stated what he 
has done, and I know you have respect for him as well.
    Dr. Moncton clearly has said to me and I believe to the 
Chairman of the Committee that if he does not get $150 million 
minimum, is his level, to move forward with construction, many 
of the professionals that have already been recruited for the 
Spallation project--they have moved their families from 
locations around the country to the Oak Ridge, Tennessee to 
work on this project--will get pink slips this summer. They, in 
fact, will be lost. Now, if we come back a year from now and 
decide that we want to move forward with spallation, it is very 
doubtful that any of the people who will be let go--the 
professionals on this project--can be recruited to come back 
and work on spallation, let alone try and go out and recruit 
others on a project where their colleagues have relocated their 
families to Tennessee only to get a pink slip and then later to 
start the project up.
    Lastly, if we are going to delay this project, what we're 
going to do is add on to the cost of the project. So, I would 
just ask the Chairman that if, in fact, we all support the 
Spallation project, that we support this amendment, an 
amendment that says that money cannot be spent and will notbe 
spent on the project without triggers and safeguards, and that is my 
intention and I think the intention of all of the members of this 
committee, including the Chairman.
    With that, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield? Gentlelady yield?
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes.
    Mr. Hall. You know, I've always looked at these votes just 
like the old storekeeper who said he ignored the impossible and 
cooperated with the inevitable. I believe that we're going to 
get outvoted, and I believe that the Chairman will give you his 
word that he'll work this project out with you before 
conference. Is there a time element in there that precludes 
that?
    Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what is that 
vehicle to do so? I mean, we can have all the good will in the 
world, but if you can't give----
    Mr. Hall. Well, the vehicle would be the Chairman's word 
that he was going to work this out; that he likes this 
amendment; that he has some problems with it, but he'll work it 
out with you. I'd rather not lose this amendment; I see the 
importance of it, and I think there are a lot of folks over on 
the chairman's side of the docket that really want to vote for 
this amendment, but out of respect for the Chairman, they're 
not going to. So, we might as well be realistic. If we want to 
lose this--I think it would hurt the project more to have a 
negative vote than it would to have a----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
    Mr. Gordon. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that the 
Chairman be given the opportunity to explain to us what is this 
vehicle? What are these future opportunities where this can be 
cleaned up added? I just simply don't know what they are.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, anybody want to yield me 
time? I've already spoken once.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Kuykendall. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Kuykendall, is recognized for five minutes.
    Let me say, gentleman from Tennessee, I probably have spent 
more time working on this project than on any other issue under 
the Science Committee's authorization this year, and I am 
sincere in stating that I want to see the SNS built; I believe 
it has scientific merit, and I also support building it in 
Tennessee where it has been sited by the Department of Energy. 
However, with a GAO report and an internal DOE consultant's 
report talking about these terrible management problems and the 
fact that they are way behind in putting together their 
baseline, I think it is important, if we believe in doing 
oversight in this Congress and making the oversight improve the 
functions of Government, that we make those kinds of decisions 
stick.
    Now, this entire debate would have been unnecessary had DOE 
come in with its initial deadline of January 1 in coming up 
with the baseline for the construction of this project. They 
missed that deadline, and I guess one of the reasons why the 
former Project Director was fired--kicked upstairs to be Deputy 
Director of Oak Ridge is because he did miss a deadline, and he 
put a lot of people on the payroll down there, and there was no 
output in terms of putting together the budget.
    I believe that Secretary Richardson did the right thing in 
naming Mr. Moncton who I believe is the best project manager 
within the DOE for building expensive projects, and his track 
record is extremely admirable. He has told me that there will 
be a baseline that will come in by the 12th of July. I would 
hope that he would be able to do that, and, as you all know, 
this is the first step in a very long process in sending the 
bill to the Floor.
    I will spend as much time as is necessary to attempt to 
work these matters out before this bill and the appropriations 
bill come to the Floor, and I give everybody my word that I 
will do that. On the other hand, as I have said and the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, has said,the conditions 
that are contained in the Costello amendment are satisfied if the DOE 
sends us this information, whether it's good and believable and well 
thought out information or whether it's terrible information, and if 
it's terrible information, this project is going to be defunded by 
Congress sooner or later just like what happened when the DOE kept on 
sending us bad information on the Super Collider. I don't want that to 
be this Committee's record.
    I want to make sure that we build this thing in a 
professional manner on time and on budget, and, so far, the DOE 
has given me no information to the effect that they are going 
to be able to do that. My faith in them was increased when Mr. 
Moncton was appointed, but Mr. Moncton has not had the time to 
come up with some better information than his predecessor--who 
ended up becoming Deputy Director of Oak Ridge--was able to do 
on his watch. So, we should have a little more time to allow 
the DOE to do this.
    I want to move the bill ahead, but, certainly, I think that 
if the Costello amendment is voted down, the DOE knows that it 
has its work cut out for it to come up with these answers 
pretty quickly. If the Costello amendment is adopted, exactly 
the opposite message is given to the DOE saying that they can 
goof up on their management; they can admit to goofing up on 
their management, but when all else fails, they can come and 
roll to Congress, and that's, I don't think, what we want to 
see happen.
    And I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey, seek recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Woolsey. And I will yield time to Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, again, I think we're trying to accomplish the 
same goal here, and I'm wondering if the Chairman would accept 
my amendment with the understanding and a pledge from the 
minority--since we are all attempting to do the same thing--to 
improve the amendment by the time we go to the Floor. Accept it 
here with the understanding that we will work with you, and any 
reasonable condition that you place----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentlewoman from California 
will yield. I would ask the gentleman to withdraw his 
amendment, because that puts more pressure on DOE to come up 
with the answers that we all want to have.
    Mr. Costello. Well, it seems to me that we have to send a 
signal to the appropriations that the Spallation project is an 
important project, at least for some of us on this Committee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if the gentleman will yield, 
a properly managed----
    Ms. Woolsey. It's my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. Spallation project I 
think is important to all of us. The question is not whether or 
not the project is necessary. I think everybody in this room 
agrees that it's necessary. The question is how we best can 
force the DOE to clean up its act.
    Now, I pointed out to you that 2 years ago when we marked 
up a similar bill, I proposed defunding the American 
contribution to the Large Hadron Collider in Cern. That got the 
attention of the DOE and the high energy physics community. I 
went to Cern at my own expense, I might add--negotiated out 
with them an improvement to the intergovernment agreement, 
which has worked out extremely well. I'd ask you to give me a 
little bit of credit for the track record that I had on the 
other project in terms of working this thing out, but the 
burden's on the DOE.
    I don't think we, as a Committee, should draft memorandums 
of agreement to give Mr. Moncton the authority to manage the 
project with respect to the employees at the other labs; that's 
DOE's job, but telling them that until this is done they aren't 
going to get any money, I think is going to make sure that it's 
done a lot better way than the way that you proposed in your 
amendment.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Mr. Costello. Are you yielding to me?
    Ms. Woolsey. I'm yielding to you and then to Bart Gordon.
    Mr. Costello. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I give you a 
great deal of credit for bringing us to the point that we are 
today, and I believe that every step of the way that we have 
agreed with you as far as the management and the triggers that 
need to be in place. My concern, again, is if we leave this 
Committee having zero line item in for construction of the 
Spallation project that we, in fact, will kill the project, and 
the intent of the members of this Committee and the Chairman is 
to move the project forward properly managed, and I suggest 
that my amendment would do that, and if we need to strengthen 
the triggers, we certainly are pledged to working with you to 
do that.
    Ms. Woolsey. And I will yield to Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you. I want to concur with all the 
accolades that are presented to the Chairman in terms of his 
understand of this issue and how we are at a better point now, 
but I have to go back to, I think, two people seeing this 
accident different ways. Mr. Chairman, you asked us for 
offsets, we provided offsets. you said that it shouldn't be--
Tennessee should not be given a windfall, even though it's 
being done at five different labs, and you didn't want Ways and 
Means to have joint jurisdiction. So, you have a letter from 
the Governor, from the Speaker of the House and Senate saying 
that federal taxpayer--they'll introduce whatever legislation 
is necessary----
    Mr. Gordon. But you say, let's put more pressure on DOE. 
The fact of the matter is, there is a process now to answer all 
of your questions by the end of June, which then they will sign 
off on. And you can sign off on the first of July.
    You know, they can't do it any faster than that. They can't 
do it any differently than that. I mean, all of that is in this 
bill. So, I mean, what you have asked for is what you have been 
provided.
    You know, we are going to have to have a vote here 
because--and the vote is going to be on whether you want to 
zero out this project or whether you want to go forward with 
the project. I mean, there is nothing else that can be added.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman from 
California has expired right now.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Maryland----
    Mrs. Morella. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. Morella. In listening to this debate, my friends, I 
think maybe the solution might be report language. And so I 
have just had prepared report language which indicates--I will 
offer it at the appropriate time. But basically, the thrust of 
it is to indicate we all believe that the Spallation Neutron 
Source is good and for all of the various reasons in terms of 
our nation's research enterprise that should be built in 
Tennessee. And that the Committee believes that the project in 
the national interest provided there are various management and 
cost issues that are addressed prior to commencing 
construction.
    so it also leaves an opening that it could be within this 
piece of legislation or in separate authorization. I just 
want----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Mrs. Morella. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You know, that certainly expresses 
my sentiments, and I would support the inclusion of that report 
language when it is offered at the proper time.
    Mrs. Morella. The proper time, yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Barton. Will the gentlelady yield, gentlelady from 
Maryland?
    Mrs. Morella. Yes.
    Mr. Barton. I want to thank the gentlelady for that effort. 
I want to make a couple points. I think the Chairman has made a 
good-faith promise that if the amendment is withdrawn he will 
work to together to work this out. I want to add to that.
    I will vote with Mr. Costello if this comes to a vote today 
for it. I would hope that he would withdraw it, take the 
Chairman's word that he will work on it. And I will work in a 
positive way to make this happen. If we can't work out an 
accommodation that is acceptable to the majority and minority, 
I will work with whoever wants to support the project when it 
goes to the floor.
    I mean, I think we need to commit the basic research. That 
is what this committee is all about. But what we have got here 
is food fight. Everybody says they are for the project, but 
neither side is willing to back down right now.
    Well, the gentlelady from Maryland has made a good-faith 
effort. I will help her. I will help anybody. But I don't think 
we can continue to say next year, next year, next year. If this 
committee is serious about DOE management, let's hold a hearing 
on DOE management.
    Let's reform the Department of Energy, but let's don't kill 
this project to make that happen. And I yield back to the 
gentlelady from Maryland.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from South Carolina seek recognition?
    Mr. Sanford. I was--to move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Sanford. I just want to pick up on the food fight 
comment. It seems to me that we are at an impasse. If the 
author of this amendment is not going to accept Mrs. Morella's 
language, I would simply call the question.
    Mr. Hall. Will the gentleman yield? If you are pretty close 
to the Chairman, I wish you would reach over and ask him, in 
the event we have the vote and the vote is voted down, would he 
still consider Mrs. Morella's amendment.?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from South 
Carolina yield?
    Mr. Sanford. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Absolutely. You know, I have told 
Mrs. Morella that I would support the report language. And I 
believe I told Mr. Costello, more than once, that I will spend 
whatever time is necessary working with him and with the DOE to 
work out these management problems. But I do think we ought to 
have a budget before authorizing construction.
    That is my principal complaint.
    Mr. Costello. Will the Chairman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I yield back the balance of his 
time.
    Okay. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly ask for recorded 
vote and I hope that we in fact can work this out at a later 
date.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is ordered. Those 
in favor of the Costello amendment will signify by saying aye. 
Those opposed, no. And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barton votes yes. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Smith.
     Mr. Smith of Michigan. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Mr. Smith as 
not voting.
    The Clerk. Yes, sir. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Ewing.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes no. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes no. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Sanford.
    Mr. Sanford. No.
    The Clerk. Mr Sanford votes no. Mr. Metcalf.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms.  Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes, Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional members in the 
chamber who wish to cast their vote or change their vote.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes. How am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson is not recorded.
    Mr. Lampson. Then I vote yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any members in the chamber who wish 
to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 17 yes and 17 no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair is about ready to declare 
a recess for lunch. I would ask the members to come back at 2 
o'clock. We are going to finish the bills that are on the 
agenda today, I think we have done most of the heavy lifting. 
There will be a couple of controversial amendments, but I think 
that the most controversial issues have been resolved.
    So the Committee stands in recess until 2:00 o'clock. 
Members please be prompt.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 2:00 p.m., the same day.]

                           AFTERNOON SESSION

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee on Science will be in 
order.
    When the Committee recessed before lunch, we had completed 
this first eight amendments on the amendment roster and the 
bill H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999.
    The next amendment on the roster is one by the gentlewoman 
from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. For what purpose does she seek 
recognition?
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655 offered by Mrs. Biggert. 
Page 28----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. And the gentlewoman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 28, after line 15, insert the following new section:

SEC. 15. 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.

    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment I 
offer today would require DOE to make available on the Internet 
all abstracts relating to research grants and awards with funds 
authorized by the bill. And currently, DOE has a web site that 
contains grant abstracts with the descriptions of the research 
being done. However, the information is difficult to find. It 
is not centrally located or accessible from DOE's home page.
    Instead, the information is organized by DOE office and 
various bits of information can only be located through a 
search of the entire web site. So this would put it all 
together.
    I think this is a good government amendment, it will allow 
the public to more easily access and understand research funded 
by the Federal Government.
    And I ask my colleagues for their support.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Biggert 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment will 
signify by saying aye.
    Oppose, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Nethercutt was in the vicinity. He is next.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Nethercutt around.
    Costollo amendment is the substitute for the Nethercutt 
amendment. So----
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I 
intended to offer to Mr. Nethercutt's amendment. If you would 
like for me to proceed----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No. I think that if Mr.--here he 
is.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Washington seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655, offered by Mr. 
Nethercutt.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Washington is 
recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 28, after line 15, insert the following new section:

SEC. 15. 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.

    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment prohibits the admittance to any federally-
owned or -operated non-military energy laboratory of any 
citizen from a country named on the DOE list of sensitive 
countries. Sensitive countries are listed, quote, ``for reasons 
of national security, terrorism, or nuclear non-proliferation 
support,'' close quote.
    And I think there will be broad agreement on this amendment 
that we should limit access to lab facilities for these 
individuals. Waiver authority is granted in the amendment to 
the Secretary on a case-by-case basis to permit admission to 
labs if notice is made to Congress.
    The amendment specifies that the civilian labs that do not 
conduct national-security-related work are excluded from this 
moratorium. This committee does not have direct oversight over 
the lax security at DOE weapons lab facilities that are the 
subject of the news reports, almost daily now--we are finding 
out each and every day about security problems there.
    But we do have jurisdiction over all civilian Department of 
Energy lab work. In fact, over $250 million annually in DOE 
defense program funds flows to civilian labs under the 
jurisdiction of our Science Committee.
    Ten of our civilian labs conduct no classified work and are 
therefore unlikely targets of foreign espionage. But another 10 
civilian labs do have a wide range of classified work, ranging 
from 3 percent to a hundred percent national security related.
    I am concerned that as the story of espionage and loose 
security unfolds, it will become apparent that problems extend 
for beyond the weapons labs. If the design secrets for nuclear 
warheads are at risk at our most secure labs, the potential for 
espionage at the non-military labs is vast.
    My amendment forces the Secretary of Energy to be 
accountable for security at his facilities. And I think it is a 
good thing that Secretary Richardson announced recently of a 
security czar in the broad cyber-security initiatives that he 
has announced.
    These are good measures, but it is apparent that statutory 
changes are needed to correct this problem. I also do not 
believe that we can ignore our responsibility to send a message 
of concern about this issue as the committee of jurisdiction, 
nor can we wait for DOE initiatives to take hold.
    As the Committee learned in last week's testimony, it took 
the Administration three years from learning of Wen Ho Lee's 
activities to actually implement recommended security 
guidelines blocking data transfer from classified computers.
    I have worked to address numerous concerns in drafting this 
amendment.
    Mr. Chairman, I understand your interest in avoiding cross-
referrals of H.R. 1655. So I have authored a very narrow bill 
to avoid triggering such referrals. I have limited the burdens 
on DOE by dropping a requirement for background checks for all 
foreign visitors at civilian labs, although I would be willing 
to entertain that proposal, if we could provide the agency with 
some additional funding.
    We have dropped prior congressional approvals of waivers to 
address concerns about adherence to treaty obligations. I have 
limited the scope of the amendment to only those labs which 
conduct some aspect of classified work, recognizing that such 
facilities as the Environmental Measurement Lab do not likely 
have much of an espionage threat.
    And I included language suggested by Mr. Ehlers which will 
further clarify that our concern is the classified work at 
these labs.
    With a waiver, Mr. Chairman, all existing lab programs can 
continue, and cooperative exchanges with foreign states can 
continue as well.
    This amendment merely codifies what should have already 
been law and makes the Secretary personally responsible for the 
security of these facilities.
    I don't want this amendment to be misunderstood or 
misinterpreted either, Mr. Chairman. This doesn't strike out or 
emphasize the background, the ethnic background, or thecountry 
of origin for people who are citizens of this country. We have some 
fine people who have come here from other countries who have become 
naturalized citizens who are working throughout our country with high 
distinction.
    So this is not aimed at them. This is aimed at just an 
extra measure of verification. And, you know, we want to trust 
but verify that our classified activity at these labs, non-
weapons labs, are protected and secured. And this is a way to 
do it.
    I think it is a good amendment. I hope the Chairman and 
others on this committee will support it.
    And I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Illinois seek recognition?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
to the amendment offered by Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly reserve a point of 
order against the Costello amendment in that it is not germane 
to the bill and it could subject the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Point of order is reserved. The 
clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Costello to 
the amendment offered by Mr. Nethercutt----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. And the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 28, after line 15, insert the following new section:

SEC. 15. MORATORIUM ON FOREIGN VISITORS PROGRAM.

  (a) Moratorium.--Until the appropriate conditions are met under 
subsection (c), the Secretary may not admit any individual who is a 
citizen of a nation that is named on the current Department of Energy 
List of Sensitive Countries to--
          (1) any classified facility of a laboratory owned by the 
        Department; or
          (2) any facility of a laboratory owned by the Department for 
        the purposes of conducting activities related to any of the 
        sensitive subjects listed in part 1 of Appendix 4 of the 
        February 1997 document entitled ``Guidelines on Export Control 
        and Nonproliferation'', issued by the Nuclear Transfer and 
        Supplier Policy Division of the Office of Arms Control and 
        Nonproliferation of the Office of Nonproliferation and National 
        Security of the Department.
  (b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary may waive the prohibition in 
subsection (a) on a case-by-case basis with respect to specific 
individuals whose admission to a laboratory owned by the Department is 
determined by the Secretary to be necessary for the national security 
of the United States.
  (2) Not later than 30 days after granting a waiver under paragraph 
(1), the Secretary shall transmit to the committees described in 
subsection (e) a report in writing regarding the waiver. The report 
shall identify each individual for whom such 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 laboratory owned by the Department is necessary 
for the national security of the United States.
  (3) The authority of the Secretary under paragraph (1) may not be 
delegated.
  (c) Conditions for Lifting Moratorium.--The moratorium on a 
laboratory owned by the Department shall be lifted when the Secretary, 
in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, transmits to the Congress a report 
certifying that--
          (1) all of the applicable counterintelligence and safeguards 
        and security measures contained in Presidential Decision 
        Directive 61 have been fully implemented at the laboratory, and 
        that adequate oversight and resources exist to ensure that they 
        are properly followed;
          (2) all of the additional applicable counterintelligence and 
        safeguards and security measures announced by the Secretary on 
        March 17, 1999, and March 31, 1999, have been fully implemented 
        at the laboratory, and that adequate oversight and resources 
        exist to ensure that they are appropriately followed; and
          (3) all of the guidelines in February 1997 document entitled 
        ``Guidelines on Export Control and Nonproliferation'', issued 
        by the Nuclear Transfer and Supplier Policy Division of the 
        Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation of the Office of 
        Nonproliferation and National Security of the Department are 
        being followed with respect to all activities at the 
        laboratory.
  (d) Report to Congress.--(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Secretary jointly shall transmit to the 
committees described in subsection (e) an annual report, the first of 
which shall be transmitted not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, on counterintelligence and safeguards and 
security activities at the laboratories owned by the Department, 
including facilities and areas at those laboratories at which 
unclassified work is carried out.
  (2) The report required by paragraph (1) shall include--
          (A) a description of the status of counterintelligence and 
        safeguards and security at each of the laboratories owned by 
        the Department;
          (B) a description of the status of the conditions for lifting 
        the moratorium under subsection (c); and
          (C) a net assessment of the foreign visitors program at the 
        laboratories owned by the Department, prepared by a panel of 
        individuals with expertise in intelligence, 
        counterintelligence, and nuclear weapons design matters.
  (e) Committees.--The Committees referred to in this section are the 
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on 
Energy and National Resources, and the Select Committee on Intelligence 
of the Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
Appropriations, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Science, 
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
Representatives.

    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, we 
have all been shocked and appalled by the lapses in security at 
DOE labs that have been reported in the press as well as by the 
apparent failure of various agencies to respond to these lapses 
in a timely manner.
    I applaud the attempt of the gentleman from Washington to 
address these issues, but would seek to submit a substitute to 
his language for a version that I believe gets to the heart of 
the problem.
    My amendment would call for a moratorium on foreign 
visitors from sensitive countries to all labs, but only in 
certain cases. When the visit is to be a classified facility or 
when the visit will directly involve topics that DOE's guidance 
on export control and non-proliferation deemed to be sensitive. 
This should exempt foreign visits relating to most basic 
science activities, which are activities that all of us on the 
Science Committee recognize to be invaluable to the health of 
our nation's scientific enterprise.
    My amendment also recognizes that some of the visits, such 
as international treaty inspections, are visits related to the 
U.S.-Russia non-proliferation programs, and are important to 
national security. And so I allow for a waiver of the 
moratorium to be made for national security purposes. Like the 
bipartisan bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
the Secretary can issue waivers as long as he reports to 
Congress within 30 days of doing so.
    But unlike all other legislation, my amendment contains a 
sunset to the moratorium. The rest of the legislation has it go 
on forever. My amendment would allow the moratorium to be 
lifted on a lab when the FBI and the DOE certify to Congress 
that three things have happened at the lab.
    One, that all applicable portions of the counter-
intelligence measures in Presidential Decision Directive 61 are 
in place. Two, that all additional counter-intelligence 
safeguards and security measures announced by Secretary 
Richardson are in place. And three, that DOE's current guidance 
on export controls and non-proliferation that govern foreign 
visits is in place at the lab.
    So when the FBI and DOE certify that the security is tight 
enough, the lab can resume the foreign visits that were 
prohibited.
    Finally, my amendment calls for an annual report to be 
submitted to Congress by DOE and the FBI that assesses the 
status of counter-intelligence safeguards and security at each 
lab.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment is protective of 
national security, creates an incentive for quick 
implementation of all counter-intelligence and safeguards and 
security measures, and ensure FBI and Congressional oversight 
of security at the labs, all while ensuring that most foreign 
visits involving basic research and unclassified facilities 
will not be harmed.
    I appreciate the consideration of my amendment to the 
Nethercutt amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from California 
insist on his point of order?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, just to speak to the point of 
order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You must make your point of order 
first. You just reserved it.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I make my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And what is your point of order?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, the Costello amendment is not 
germane to the bill and would create the situation where this 
bill would be subject to referral to other committees. And 
unfortunately, even though I agree with this amendment, it 
would put us in a position not to have our bill in front of the 
appropriations process.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does anybody else wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
    The gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunityto 
respond. And based on the objection by my friend from California, I 
agree to withdraw my amendment with the understanding----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The point of order will be 
sustained, and the question is on the adoption of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the 
Nethercutt amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cook, for what purpose do you 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Cook. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655, offered by Mr. Cook and 
Ms. Woolsey----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 
five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 3, lines 22 through 24, amend subparagraph (I) to read as 
follows:
                  (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 9(f);

    Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer 
this amendment with Ms. Woolsey. I would also like to thank the 
Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, and the Committee staff for working with 
me on this amendment.
    This amendment is similar to Ms. Woolsey's earlier 
amendment in that it would increase funding geothermal energy 
research and development programs by $4 million in Fiscal Year 
2000 for a total of 33 and a half million and for a total of 
$35 million in Fiscal Year 2001.
    This amendment would give limited funding to begin 
implementing the new strategic plan to develop enhanced 
geothermal production technologies. The Department of Energy 
produced this strategic plan in collaboration with National 
Laboratories, the University of Utah, and the geothermal 
industry.
    Implementing the strategic plan will develop the technology 
to enhance the production from geothermal systems. The 
technology would be applicable to hundreds of sites throughout 
the United States.
    A recent report, prepared by the Geothermal Energy 
Association in conjunction with the University of Utah and the 
Department of Energy, expects this research to yield in a 
threefold increase of domestic geothermal electricity 
production. The extra power will supply 18 million homes with 
electricity.
    This amendment is different from Ms. Woolsey's earlier 
amendment in that it has offsets. It is paid for from savings 
resulting from reductions in contractor travel pursuant to 
Section 9(f) of H.R. 1655.
    I think this is the correct way to pay for this program, 
rather than taking the money out of the Social Security Trust 
Fund. This amendment is not only fiscally responsible, it is 
environmentally responsible. It takes the savings from cleaning 
up the waste and inefficiencies in the contractor travel budget 
and uses them to fund research in clean, safe energy produced 
here in America.
    This amendment will lead to cleaner air for our children 
and continue to protect Social Security for our parents.
    Accelerating development of renewable resources is a good 
investment. We, in Congress, have a duty to spend the money 
taxed from the American people responsibly. This amendment does 
that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge all my colleagues to 
support this amendment. And I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Cook 
amendment?
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Gutknecht. I would like to strike the last word----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cook, I recognize this is 
not the Budget Committee, it's not the Appropriations 
Committee, but as I understand it, you are going to take $4 
million out of the--you are going to reduce in contractor 
travel. Is that correct?
    Mr. Cook. That's right.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Can you tell me, how much do we spend on 
contractor travel?
    Mr. Cook. If the gentleman would yield, the--according to 
this General Accounting Office report, I think the--let me 
just, I can tell you that--well, I know that there is at least 
$175 million that we could save over five years. So, I think 
the amounts are on the order of six and seven hundred million 
dollars.
    But that relates to more than just the Department of 
Energy, I guess. DOE savings--well, the Department of Energy 
incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in travel costs each, 
each year. And although, in 1995, there was some attempt by 
Congress to do something significant, we feel that this Section 
9(f), limiting that to 1 percent of the contracts is going to 
save as much as $60 or $70 million over a couple years.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Well, Mr. Chairman and members, I don't hold 
myself as an expert in travel expenses, but this does seem to 
be outrageous in terms of the amount that this Department is 
spending on travel, and particularly for contractor travel. And 
as one member of the Budget Committee, I think we have at least 
one or two others who are members of this committee, I would 
hope that in coming years we take a much more careful look, 
line by line, at what's in these requests.
    I will support your amendment, but I think it does raise 
the whole issue of how much we are spending, or some might even 
say wasting, on contractor travel.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Gutknecht. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from California seek recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. To strike the last word----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Woolsey. And to support Mr. Cook's offsets, and to 
thank him for bringing this forward because we are showing this 
wasn't intended to start picking on the travel. It was intended 
to show that we could cut down in some areas in order to 
support some of the programs that we want to take forward.
    And when we are talking about $4 million each year or more 
for geothermal energy, then I think there is plenty of room in 
that offset to make that happen.
    So I do support him, and I thank him for bringing this 
forward.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I just want to thank the gentleman for 
offering a good amendment, and this is certainly a proper way 
to offset and to put together expenditures on a program that is 
worthwhile. So I thank the gentleman, and I thank the 
gentlelady for yielding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    The question is on----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition? The 
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
    I, too, rise in support of this amendment. I did, however, 
want to make the point that we have, I think earlier in the 
day, taken the position, or some of us in the Committee, that 
all amendments should be offset by funding reductions 
elsewhere. And my reading of the amendment is that the 4 
million for Fiscal year 2000 and the 4.6 million for Fiscal 
year 2001 is not truly offset, despite the reference to travel 
cuts.
    I think to constitute an offset, the amendment would have 
to reduce actual authorization levels elsewhere in the bill, 
and it doesn't as I read it.
    We are talking about $3.937 billion, and if you put this 
amendment in, it is going to be $3.941. It might be an 
interesting exercise to ask the legislative counsel to give 
their opinion after we finish the final markup on the bill. But 
I do support what is going on here. I think it is very 
important to continue to promote renewable energy, but I think 
again we could go back to the debate we had earlier today about 
what is authorized and what is appropriated.
    And in that spirit, I will support this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Udall. I certainly would.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The offsets will be reflected in 
the tables that will appear as a part of the Committee report.
    The gentleman's time has expired.
    Again, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cook.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Oppose, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Further amendments to the bill?
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1655, offered by Mr. Gordon--
--
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. And the gentleman from Tennessee is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  Page 6, line 2, strike ``$2,557,761,000'' and insert 
``$2,657,761,000''.
  Page 9, line 3, strike ``and''.
  Page 9, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
  Page 9, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
          (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 22, lines 11 through 15, amend subsection (c) to read as 
follows:
  (c) 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.
  Page 24, after line 19, insert the following new subsection:
  (h) 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.

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the amendment is 
being handed out, let me just once again say that I think we 
had an important discussion this morning on the spallation 
project. The project is important. But we need to learn more 
about the benefits. We need to learn more about the problems.
    And, as I have said all along, the Chairman has played a 
very constructive role in trying to make this project even 
better. And in the spirit of trying to continue to fine tune 
this effort, in consultation with the Chairman and the staff, 
we may, we have an amendment that I think will maybe pull all 
these pieces together.
    The first thing it does is adds $100 million for the 
spallation. Again, lower than it should be but at least we are 
making a statement to the appropriators that this a major 
project. This $100 million is offset in this coming Fiscal 
Year. It is done by a variety of ways.
    First is, there is a 1 percent, across-the-board reduction. 
Then there is a .74 percent reduction in travel. And then there 
is an additional $300 million reduction in the Department's 
administrative expenses for a total of an agreed-up $100 
million.
    In addition to that, It restates the various triggers that 
the Chairman has pointed out, rightfully so, that the 
Department needs to meet.
    And finally, even though this project will be done by five 
different labs, we are going to codify here that the 
Comptroller General will certify that the Federal taxpayer will 
be no worse off by any portion of this project being in the 
State of Tennessee.
    So I hope that we have been able to make a, you know, less 
than perfect bill closer to perfect. And, hopefully, we can 
have a better project here.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gordon. I yield to the Chairman. Oh, to Mr. Costello.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in 
support of his amendment. And for all of the reasons that I 
stated earlier when I offered my amendment, I would hope that 
the Committee would approve this amendment so that we can move 
forward with the $100 million in offsets that Mr. Gordon is 
offering, and also the same triggers that we talked about 
before so that the money cannot be spent until both DOE reaches 
the management level that we are all comfortable with and meets 
the guidelines that are in place by this committee.
    And I yield back to Mr. Gordon.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Tennessee 
yield back the balance of his time.
    Mr. Gordon. I would yield to her.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you for yielding the time to me, Mr. 
Gordon.
    I just want to indicate that I am very pleased with this 
amendment that we are going to build on, a bipartisan 
amendment. And, therefore, I don't feel it is necessary to 
offer the report language. It was so carefully crafted. It was 
so wonderful. Because I think this amendment takes care of it 
very nicely. [Laughter.]
    Thank you. I yield back. Thank you for yielding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Tennessee yield back 
the balance of his time.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair strikes the last wordand 
recognizes himself for five minutes.
    I am prepared to support the amendment by the gentleman 
from Tennessee, which deals favorably with the concerns that I 
raised this morning with the earlier amendment that had been 
offered by Mr. Costello.
    First the $100 million authorization for Fiscal Year 2000 
is fully offset with Fiscal Year 2000 offsets. Those Fiscal 
Year 2001 offsets as described by the gentleman from Tennessee 
but with the exception that the administrative expense 
reduction is $30 million rather than $300 million.
    Mr. Gordon. Oh. Excuse me. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Stated in case the Secretary of 
Energy just called 911----
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. To bring the paramedics over there 
to resuscitate him.
    There are a number of strengthened protections to the 
taxpayers contained in this amendment which were not present in 
the Costello amendment. And I will tick them off one by one.
    First, there is a requirement that DOE gets no funds until 
the Secretary certifies in writing to our committee, to the 
comparable committee in the Senate that the management, the 
senior project management positions, have been filled by 
qualified individuals. So they don't get any money until they 
have completed their hiring.
    Second, the Secretary has to provide us, the comparable 
committee in the Senate, and in the appropriations committees 
in both Houses first a cost baseline and project milestones 
consistent with the overall cost and schedule submitted with 
the Department's Fiscal Year 2000 budget that had been reviewed 
and certified by an independent entity, which is outside the 
Department and has no financial interest in the project, as the 
most cost effective way to complete it.
    Third, binding legal agreements that specify the duties and 
obligations of each lab of the Department in carrying on the 
project.
    Fourth, a revised project management structure that 
integrates the staff of the collaborating laboratories working 
under the project under a single project direction, which means 
that Mr. Moncton will be the boss of this project, not just the 
boss of Oak Ridge, but the boss of the whole thing.
    And finally, the official designation by the Secretary of 
the primary authority with respect to the project, the project 
director. So that means that Mr. Moncton would achieve his 
authority from the Secretary of Energy himself rather than 
anybody else in the Department, including the Director of Oak 
Ridge.
    Finally, they don't get money until the Comptroller General 
certifies to the Congress that the total taxes and fees paid in 
any manner or form by the Federal Government on the SNS 
property to the State of Tennessee, its counties, its 
municipalities, or any other subdivision thereof, would not 
exceed the aggregate taxes for which the Federal Government 
would be liable if the project were locate in any other state 
that contains a national laboratory.
    I think this implements the understanding that the Governor 
of Tennessee and the Speaker of the Senate and Speaker of the 
House of Representatives of the State of Tennessee have 
expressed to me personally, and this committee in writing.
    And with those understandings and the fact that this is 
fully offset, I am pleased to support this amendment, and yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, I will be brief. I just wanted to point out that I 
am supportive of the spirit of this amendment, but I did want 
to suggest that again in the original budgets that we looked 
at, nuclear--the research and development efforts for nuclear 
power were increased. The research in fossil fuels area has 
been kept flat. And we have cut solar and renewable energy 
research and development in this bill.
    These cuts are going to result in a further $3.16 million 
for our renewable efforts. I am hopeful that we can continue to 
address these as the legislation proceeds.
    I thank you for your forbearance, and I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Gordon 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, all those in favor will 
signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The Chair is in doubt, and the clerk will call the roll. 
[Laughter.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes yes. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes yes. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Ewing.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes yes. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes, Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there other members in the 
chamber who desire to vote or to change their vote. the 
gentleman from California--Florida, Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Mr. Weldon votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Anybody else who desires to vote or 
to change their votes?
    If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 29 yes, and zero no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is agreed to.
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments to the 
bill?
    [No response.]
    If not, it is time for report language. If we agreed to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland's report language, which has now 
become moot by unanimous consent, that is stricken.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I have report language at the 
desk. The clerk will report the report language.
    The Clerk. Report language offered by Congressman Kevin 
Brady to accompany H.R.----
    Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the report 
language be considered read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. The gentleman is 
recognized for five minutes.
    [The information follows:]

 Report Language Offered by Congressman Kevin Brady to Accompany H.R. 
                                  1655

    While this bill does not authorize the full amount of funding 
requested by the administration for the Department of Energy (DOE)'s 
Industries of the Future Program, we do not intend this to negatively 
affect DOE's continuation of the black liquor and wood residue 
gasification initiative.

    Mr. Brady. I will be very brief and would like to submit my 
full statement for the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Brady. The forest and paper products industry currently 
generates a little more than half of its own energy needs, 
which is very good. They want to do even better, seeking and 
have made a commitment to a promising new technology to 
generate nearly--its goal is to generate nearly a hundred 
percent of its own power needs.
    This report language simply ensures that the continuation 
of a valuable public-private partnership between the Department 
of Education and the industry, which is funded on a 50-50 
basis, won't be adversely affected as a result of a decrease in 
the authorization amount of the industry's future funding 
category.
    I thank Mr. Calvert for his leadership on this issue, urge 
my colleagues to support, and yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Brady 
report language?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. 
Opposed, no.
    The ayes have it. And the report language is agreed to.
    The report language by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Lampson--the Subcommittee Chair wishes to be recognized to 
include tables in the report language.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
budget tables for H.R. 1655 be included in the bill's report 
language and that staff be permitted to make any technical 
corrections.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    The gentleman from Texas reserves the right to object, 
recognized on his reservation.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, these tables that are inserted, or 
to be inserted, end of the report, accomplish what we think are 
some very serious policy matters and, in fact, this language is 
in lieu of statutory language. Since we have had less than 24 
hours notice--we have talked about notice here earlier and 
problems that both sides have had with the other about giving 
enough notice.
    We have had less than 24 hours notice to review these 
tables. And we would request the opportunity to examine the 
tables in detail and negotiate over the matter. I think that is 
the way it ought to be done. In the spirit of committee rule 
2(t)(2), we would suggest that upon completion of negotiations 
that a final version be signed by a majority of the Committee 
and thereafter the minority would have its two subsequent days 
to file any minority supplemental or additional views.
    And at this time, before I ask unanimous consent that this 
procedure be adopted for this bill and the other three bills 
where this issue matters, let me ask, is there anything in the 
tables, dollar amounts or programs, that are not in the bill?
    Would somebody tell me that?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the tables will 
specify what we have agreed to today and would be outlined in 
the tables. And we would certainly work with the minority to 
assure them that we are doing in this full consultation.
    Mr. Hall. All right. We would like more notice in the 
future. We would like the 24 hours that we are entitled to. And 
I think I will ask it whether it granted or not. I would like 
to ask unanimous consent that this procedure be adopted for 
this bill and the other three bills where this matter is at 
issue.
    If there are----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. There already is one unanimous 
consent request on the floor. So the Chair can't entertain that 
until the first one is disposed of.
    Mr. Hall. I will withdraw mine, and the gentleman from 
California may allay my fears by addressing it a little 
further.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, certainly if the gentleman wouldyield, I 
agree that we should certainly give notification to the minority at 
every opportunity, and would certainly agree to your unanimous consent 
request once mine is agreed to.
    Mr. Hall. I will withdraw mine until yours has had a 
hearing.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request by the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, it is so ordered.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this 
procedure that I have outlined be adopted for this bill and the 
other three bills where this matter is at issue.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, so ordered.
    Further report language? It is not time for a motion to 
favorably report the bill.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 1655, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, 
I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative 
report and make necessary technical and conforming amendments 
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the 
bill before the House for consideration.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You have heard the motion. Is there 
any discussion on the motion to favorably report the bill?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, the Chair notes the presence of a reporting 
quorum. The question is on agreeing to the motion to report the 
bill favorably.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the bill 
is favorably reported. Members will----
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded 
vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested on the 
motion to report the bill favorable. And the clerk will call 
the roll. Those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those 
opposed, no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes yes. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Smith.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes yes. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Ewing.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes yes. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes yes. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes yes. Mr. Lucas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional members in the 
chamber who desire to vote or change their vote. The 
gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you. How is Morella recorded?
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella is not recorded.
    Mrs. Morella. Morella votes yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to record 
their votes or change their votes?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 31 yes, 1 no.
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report favorably 
is agreed to. All members will have two subsequent days in 
which to file additional supplemental minority or dissenting 
views. Without objection, the bill will be reported in the form 
of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting 
amendments adopted today.
    Without objection, the Chair, pursuant to House rules, is 
authorized to make such motions in the House as may be 
necessary to go to conference. And without objection, the staff 
will be given permission to make technical and conforming 
amendments.
    Without objection, all of those requests are agreed to.

                                  
