```

[House Report 106-492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress
                                                          Rept. 106-492
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

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

 
   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

                February 3, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1656]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
1656) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 
2001 for the commercial application of energy technology and 
related civilian energy and scientific 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..........................................  10
  III. Background and Need for Legislation..........................  10
   IV. Summary of Hearings..........................................  13
    V. Committee Actions............................................  18
   VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill......................  20
  VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Views..............  27
 VIII. Cost Estimate................................................  36
   IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate....................  37
    X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4.............................  41
   XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations.............  41
  XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
       Government Reform............................................  41
 XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement...........................  42
  XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement.........................  42
   XV. Congressional Accountability Act.............................  42
  XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported........  42
 XVII. Committee Recommendations....................................  43
XVIII. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup...................  43

                              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 Commercial 
Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy; 
        and
          (2) the term ``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 commercial application of energy technology 
and related civilian energy and scientific 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 $309,662,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$306,857,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available through the end 
of fiscal year 2002, of which--
          (1) $136,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $131,840,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Nuclear Energy, including--
                  (A) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $87,550,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Termination Costs;
                  (B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $30,900,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for the Fast Flux Test Facility;
                  (C) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,390,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Isotope Support; and
                  (D) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for completion of 
                Project 98-E-201, Isotope Production Facility, Los 
                Alamos National Laboratory;
          (2) $50,750,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $51,703,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Environment, Safety, and Health;
          (3) $9,100,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $9,148,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Technical Information Management;
          (4) $102,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $102,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Field Operations; and
          (5) $11,812,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $12,166,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Oak Ridge Landlord.
  (b) Non-Defense Environmental Management.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary for Non-Defense Environmental Management 
commercial application of energy technology and related civilian energy 
and scientific research, development, and demonstration operation and 
maintenance programs, projects, and activities for which specific sums 
are not authorized under other authority of law $330,934,000 for fiscal 
year 2000 and $340,862,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available 
through the end of fiscal year 2002, of which--
          (1) $211,146,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $217,480,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Site Closure;
          (2) $100,866,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $103,892,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Site/Project Completion; and
          (3) $18,922,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,490,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Post 2006 Completion.
  (c) Fossil Energy Research and Development.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary for Fossil Energy Research and 
Development Environmental Restoration commercial application of energy 
technology and related civilian energy and scientific research, 
development, and demonstration operation and maintenance programs, 
projects, and activities for which specific sums are not authorized 
under other authority of law $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$10,300,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available through the end 
of fiscal year 2002.
  (d) Energy Conservation Research and Development.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for Energy Conservation 
Research and Development commercial application of energy technology 
and related civilian energy and scientific research, development, and 
demonstration operation and maintenance programs, projects, and 
activities for which specific sums are not authorized under other 
authority of law $52,163,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $53,727,890 for 
fiscal year 2001, to remain available through the end of fiscal year 
2002, of which--
          (1) $10,700,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $11,021,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Clean Cities;
          (2) $12,802,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,186,060 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Building Standards and 
        Guidelines;
          (3) $13,343,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,743,290 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Lighting and Appliance Standards; 
        and
          (4) $15,318,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $15,777,540 for 
        fiscal year 2001 for Management and Planning for the Building 
        Technology, State and Community Sector (nongrants).

SEC. 4. NOTICE.

  (a) Reprogramming.--The Secretary may use for any authorized civilian 
energy or scientific research, development, and demonstration and 
commercial application of energy technology programs, projects, and 
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) 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 another such 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 civilian energy or scientific research, 
development, and demonstration or commercial application of energy 
technology 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, and demonstration or 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, and demonstration or commercial application of energy 
technology activities of the Department prepared at the direction of 
any committee of Congress.

SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

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

SEC. 6. LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS.

  If, at any time during the construction of a civilian energy or 
scientific research, development, and demonstration or 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. 7. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

  (a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b), construction 
on a civilian energy or scientific research, development, and 
demonstration or 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. 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, and demonstration 
or 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 
civilian energy or scientific research, development, and demonstration 
or commercial application of energy technology 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 commercial application of energy technology 
program 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. 9. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

  (a) Clean Coal Technology Reserve.--No funds in the Clean Coal 
Technology Reserve may be used to initiate or carry out a clean coal 
technology energy demonstration project based outside the United 
States.
  (b) 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.
  (c) 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 or any prior Act may be used to award a 
management and operating contract for a federally owned or operated 
nonmilitary 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 or any prior Act for any commercial application of energy 
technology or civilian energy or scientific research, development, and 
demonstration or 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 or any 
prior 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 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.

  (a) Restriction.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the 
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any prior Act may be 
used by any civilian energy or scientific research, development, and 
demonstration or 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.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the transmission and 
sale of electricity by any Federal power marketing administration.

SEC. 14. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall exclude from consideration for 
grant agreements for civilian energy or scientific research, 
development, and demonstration or commercial application of energy 
technology 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. 15. EXTERNAL REGULATION.

  (a) Authority.--
          (1) Elimination of department of energy authority.--Except as 
        provided in paragraph (2), effective January 1, 2000, the 
        Department shall have no regulatory or enforcement authority, 
        through rules, regulations, orders, and standards, or reporting 
        requirements, with respect to Federal, State, and local 
        environmental, safety, and health requirements at any federally 
        owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory.
          (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Department 
        shall retain regulatory or enforcement authority described in 
        paragraph (1) at any federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
        energy laboratory to the extent that no other Federal, State, 
        or local governmental agency has such regulatory or enforcement 
        authority.
  (b) Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authority.--
          (1) Enforcement responsibilities.--Effective January 1, 2000, 
        the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall assume the regulatory 
        and enforcement responsibilities of the Department under the 
        Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with regard to federally owned or 
        operated nonmilitary energy laboratories, including such 
        responsibilities with respect to accelerator-produced 
        radioactive material and ionizing radiation generating 
        machines.
          (2) Licensed entity.--For the purposes of carrying out at 
        federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories 
        regulatory and enforcement responsibilities described in 
        paragraph (1), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may regulate 
        and license or provide certification for the Department, the 
        Department's contractor, or both.
          (3) Decommissioning.--A contractor operating a federally 
        owned nonmilitary energy laboratory shall not be responsible 
        for the costs of decommissioning that facility. No enforcement 
        action may be taken against such contractor for any violation 
        of Nuclear Regulatory Commission decommissioning requirements, 
        if such violation is the result of a failure of the Department 
        to authorize or fund decommissioning activities. The Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission and the Department shall, not later than 
        July 1, 2000, enter into a memorandum of understanding 
        establishing decommissioning procedures and requirements for 
        federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
  (c) Occupational Safety and Health.--
          (1) OSHA jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of law, effective January 1, 2000, the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Administration shall assume the regulatory and 
        enforcement responsibilities of the Department relating to 
        matters covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
        1970 with regard to all federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
        energy laboratories. The Department's contractor or contractors 
        operating those laboratories shall be considered employers for 
        purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
          (2) Applicability.--Section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational 
        Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)) does not 
        apply with respect to the Department's regulation, or the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulation, of federally owned 
        or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
          (3) Radiation regulations.--With respect to federally owned 
        or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories, the Secretary of 
        Labor may enforce the regulations contained in part 20 of title 
        10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, relating to Protection 
        from Radiation, to the same extent as regulations issued under 
        section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
        (29 U.S.C. 655(b)).
          (4) Memorandum of understanding.--The Nuclear Regulatory 
        Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration shall, within 90 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, enter into a memorandum of understanding 
        to govern the exercise of their respective authorities over 
        occupational safety and health hazards at federally owned or 
        operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
  (d) Civil Penalties.--The Department's contractor operating a 
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory shall not be 
liable for civil penalties under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 for any actions taken before 
October 1, 2000, pursuant to the transfer of regulatory and enforcement 
responsibilities required by this section.
  (e) Indemnification.--The Secretary shall continue to indemnify 
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories in 
accordance with the provisions of section 170d. of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954.
  (f) Department of Energy Reporting Requirement.--By October 31, 1999, 
the Secretary shall transmit to 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, a plan for the termination of the 
Department's regulatory and enforcement responsibilities for federally 
owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories required by this 
section. The report shall include--
          (1) a detailed transition plan, drafted in coordination with 
        the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety 
        and Health Administration, giving the schedule for termination 
        of self-regulation authority as outlined in subsection (a), 
        including the activities to be coordinated with the Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration;
          (2) a description of any issues remaining to be resolved with 
        the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Administration, or other external regulators, and a 
        timetable for resolving such issues before January 1, 2000;
          (3) an estimate of--
                  (A) the annual cost of administering and implementing 
                self-regulation of environmental, safety, and health 
                activities at federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
                energy laboratories;
                  (B) the number of Federal and contractor employees 
                administering and implementing such self-regulation;
                  (C) the cost of external regulation based on the 
                pilot projects of simulated Nuclear Regulatory 
                Commission regulation which have already been 
                conducted; and
                  (D) the extent and schedule by which the Department 
                and laboratory staffs will be reduced as a result of 
                implementation of this section; and
          (4) a description of regulatory or enforcement authorities 
        the Department determines it will be required to retain 
        pursuant to subsection (a)(2).

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. 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.

SEC. 18. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COORDINATION.

  Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall ensure, for the laboratories owned by the Department 
carrying out programs under this Act--
          (1) consistency of technology transfer policies and 
        procedures with respect to patenting, licensing, and 
        commercialization;
          (2) the availability to aggrieved private sector entities on 
        request of binding alternative dispute resolution, nonbinding 
        alternative dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation between 
        authorized representatives of the disputing parties, or 
        resolution by the Department's site contracting officer to 
        resolve disputes regarding all technology transfer and 
        intellectual property matters, with costs and damages to be 
        provided for by the contractor to the extent that any such 
        resolution attributes fault to the contractor;
          (3) annual reports to the Secretary, as part of the annual 
        performance evaluation, on technology transfer and intellectual 
        property successes, current technology transfer and 
        intellectual property disputes involving the laboratory, and 
        progress toward resolving those disputes; and
          (4) training to ensure that laboratory personnel responsible 
        for patenting, licensing, and commercialization activities are 
        knowledgeable of the appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical 
        issues necessary to carry out those activities with the highest 
        possible professional and ethical standards.

SEC. 19. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SAFEGUARDING 
                    AND SECURITY OF RESTRICTED DATA.

  (a) In General.--Chapter 18 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
234A the following new section:
  ``Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
Energy Regulations Regarding Security of Classified or Sensitive 
Information or Data.--
  ``a. Any person who has entered into a contract or agreement with the 
Department of Energy, or a subcontract or subagreement thereto, and who 
violates (or whose employee violates) any applicable rule, regulation, 
or order prescribed or otherwise issued by the Secretary pursuant to 
this Act relating to the safeguarding or security of Restricted Data or 
other classified or sensitive information shall be subject to a civil 
penalty of not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
  ``b. The Secretary shall include in each contract with a contractor 
of the Department provisions which provide an appropriate reduction in 
the fees or amounts paid to the contractor under the contract in the 
event of a violation by the contractor or contractor employee of any 
rule, regulation, or order relating to the safeguarding or security of 
Restricted Data or other classified or sensitive information. The 
provisions shall specify various degrees of violations and the amount 
of the reduction attributable to each degree of violation.
  ``c. The powers and limitations applicable to the assessment of civil 
penalties under section 234A, except for subsection d. of that section, 
shall apply to the assessment of civil penalties under this section.''.
  (b) Clarifying Amendment.--The section heading of section 234A of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 2282a) is amended by inserting ``Safety'' before 
``Regulations''.
  (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for that Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 234 the 
following new items:

``Sec. 234A. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
Energy Safety Regulations.
``Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
Energy Regulations Regarding Security of Classified or Sensitive 
Information or Data.''.

SEC. 20. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

  (a) Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program to ensure that 
an employee of the Department, or a contractor employee, may not be 
discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal 
for disclosing to a person or entity referred to in subsection (b) 
information which the employee or contractor employee reasonably 
believes to provide direct and specific evidence of a violation 
described in subsection (c).
  (b) Covered Persons and Entities.--A person or entity referred to in 
this subsection is the following:
          (1) A Member of Congress.
          (2) An employee of Congress who has an appropriate security 
        clearance for access to the information.
          (3) The Inspector General of the Department.
          (4) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
          (5) Any other element of the Federal Government designated by 
        the Secretary as authorized to receive information of the type 
        disclosed.
  (c) Covered Violations.--A violation referred to in subsection (a) 
is--
          (1) a violation of law or Federal regulation;
          (2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, or abuse of 
        authority; or
          (3) a false statement to Congress on an issue of material 
        fact.

SEC. 21. INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION OF ALLEGED REPRISALS FOR 
                    DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TO CONGRESS.

  (a) Submittal of Allegations to Inspector General.--A Department 
employee or contractor employee who believes that the employee has been 
discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal 
for disclosing information referred to in subsection (a) of section 20 
in accordance with the provisions of that section may submit a 
complaint relating to such action to the Inspector General of the 
Department.
  (b) Investigation.--(1) For each complaint submitted under subsection 
(a), the Inspector General shall--
          (A) determine whether or not the complaint is frivolous; and
          (B) if the Inspector General determines the complaint is not 
        frivolous, conduct an investigation of the complaint.
  (2) The Inspector General shall submit a report on each investigation 
undertaken under paragraph (1)(B) to--
          (A) the employee who submitted the complaint on which the 
        investigation is based;
          (B) the contractor concerned, if any; and
          (C) the Secretary.
  (c) Remedial Actions.--(1) If the Secretary determines that an 
employee has been subjected to an adverse personnel action referred to 
in subsection (a) in contravention of the provisions of section 20(a), 
the Secretary shall--
          (A) in the case of a Department employee, take appropriate 
        actions to abate the action; or
          (B) in the case of a contractor employee, order the 
        contractor concerned to take appropriate actions to abate the 
        action.
  (2)(A) If a contractor fails to comply with an order issued under 
paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary may file an action for enforcement of 
the order in the appropriate United States district court.
  (B) In any action brought under subparagraph (A), the court may grant 
appropriate relief, including injunctive relief and compensatory and 
exemplary damages.
  (d) Quarterly Report.--(1) Not later than 30 days after the 
commencement of each fiscal quarter, the Inspector General shall submit 
to the Committee on Science and other relevant committees of the House 
of Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources and other relevant committees of the Senate, a report on the 
investigations undertaken under subsection (b)(1)(B) during the 
preceding fiscal quarter, including a summary of the results of such 
investigations.
  (2) A report under paragraph (1) shall not identify or otherwise 
provide any information on a person submitting a complaint under this 
section without the consent of the person.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1656 is to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years (FYs) 2000 and 2001 for the commercial application 
of energy technology and related civilian energy and scientific 
research, development and demonstration (RD&D) 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 commercial application of 
energy technology and energy and scientific RD&D 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 an 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 each of 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 
* * * '' [emphases added]. Similarly, under Rule X, clause 
1(n)(4), the Committee has jurisdiction over environmental R&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. 
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; and 
(2) H.R. 1656, which authorizes the DOE civilian energy and 
scientific RD&D and related commercial application programs, 
projects, and activities that are under the sole jurisdiction 
of the Science Committee.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ H.R. 1656, 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. 1656, 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 
from H.R. 1655--items for which the Commerce Committee has now 
claimed joint jurisdiction \5\--and added them to H.R. 1656. In 
addition, the manager's amendment struck the Uranium Programs 
authorization in H.R. 1656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 Commercial Application of Energy 
Technology Authorization Act of 1999--authorizes the DOE 
civilian commercial application of energy technology and 
related scientific RD&D programs, projects, and activities that 
are the joint jurisdiction of the Science and Commerce 
Committees, 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The Committee recognizes that other provisions of the bill, 
such as those dealing with external regulation and national security, 
may also fall within the jurisdiction of other committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        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. Krebs 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 step 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 aid 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 of 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 1995; 1996 
brought about the release of the first annual performance plan 
for 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 Departmental 
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 costs 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 programs authorized in H.R. 1656 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. 1656, 
the Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy 
Technology Authorization Act of 1999, a bill to authorize 
appropriations for FY 2000 and FY 2001 for the commercial 
application of energy technology and related energy and 
scientific R&D programs, projects, and activities of the DOE.
    The Committee on Science met to consider H.R. 1656 on 
Wednesday, May 26, 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. 1656, 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; and (5) clarified the intent of the 
``Production or Provision of Articles or Services'' and the 
``Eligibility of Awards'' sections. As a result of bipartisan 
consultations with the Commerce Committee, the manager's 
amendment also transferred the Field Operations, Oak Ridge 
Landlord and Building Technology, State, and Community Sector 
(nongrants) Management and Planning line items to H.R. 1656 
from H.R. 1655, as introduced, and deleted the authorization 
for Uranium Programs.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. Udall withdrew an amendment to the 
manager's amendment (Amendment 1) that added: (1) $3,664,000 
for FY 2000 and $3,774,060 for FY 2001 for Buildings Standards 
and Guidelines; (2) $6,954,000 for FY 2000 and $7,162,290 for 
FY 2001 for Lighting and Appliance Standards; and (3) 
$2,147,000 for FY 2000 and $2,606,540 for FY 2001 for Building 
Technology, State, and Community Sector (nongrants) Management.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Udall offered an amendment that added: 
(1) $3,664,000 for FY 2000 and $3,774,060 for FY 2001 for 
Buildings Standards and Guidelines; (2) $6,954,000 for FY 2000 
and $7,162,290 for FY 2001 for Lighting and Appliance 
Standards; and (3) $2,147,000 for FY 2000 and $2,606,540 for FY 
2001 for Building Technology, State, and Community Sector 
(nongrants) Management. The amendment was adopted by voice 
vote.
    Amendment 4.--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 5.--Mr. Costello, on behalf of himself and Mr. 
Nethercutt, offered an amendment 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. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 6.--Mr. Etheridge offered an amendment requiring, 
among other things, that the Secretary of Energy ensure 
consistency of technology transfer policies and procedures with 
respect to patenting, licensing, and commercialization for the 
DOE-owned laboratories carrying out programs under this Act. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 7.--Mr. Costello offered an amendment providing 
for civil monetary penalties for DOE-contractor violations of 
DOE regulations regarding the safeguarding or security of 
Restricted Data or other classified or sensitive information. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 8.--Mr. Calvert, on behalf of himself and Mr. 
Rohrabacher, offered an amendment requiring the Secretary of 
Energy to establish a whistleblower protection program, and 
also providing for an investigative and remediation process for 
alleged reprisals against whistleblowers. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
    Report Language.--Mr. Calvert asked and received unanimous 
consent that: (1) the budget table for H.R. 1656 be included in 
the bill's report language; (2) staff be permitted to make 
technical corrections to the table; (3) the minority be given 
the opportunity to examine the table in detail and negotiate 
over its content; and (4) upon completion of negotiations a 
final version be signed by a majority of the Committee, and 
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. 1656, as amended, 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 voice 
vote.
    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. 1656 or a similar Senate bill; (3) 
staff be given authority to make technical andconforming 
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. 1656 authorizes for 
DOE civilian commercial application of energy technology and 
related energy and scientific RD&D programs, projects, and 
activities $702,759,000 for FR 2000 and $711,746,890 for FY 
2001, to remain available through the end of FY 2002, of 
which--(1) $309,662,000 for FY 2000 and $306,857,000 for FY 
2001 is for Energy Supply; (2) $330,934,000 for FY 2000 and 
$340,862,000 for FY 2001 is for Non-Defense Environmental 
Management; (3) $10,000,000 for FY 2000 and $10,300,000 for FY 
2001 is for Fossil Energy R&D; and (4) $52,163,000 for FY 2000 
and $53,727,890 for FY 2001 is for Energy Conservation R&D.
    Other provisions of the bill include the following:
     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 use of Clean Coal Technology Reserve 
funds to initiate or carry out a clean coal technology energy 
demonstration project based outside the U.S.
     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 of 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 contact 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 5 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 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, unless the 
Secretary waives the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if the 
Secretary determines that such access is necessary for the 
national security of the U.S., and, within 30 days after 
granting the waiver submits a report to Congress justifying the 
waiver.
     Requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure for the 
DOE-owned laboratories carrying out programs under this Act: 
(1) consistency of technology transfer policies and procedures 
with respect to patenting, licensing, and commercialization; 
(2) the availability to aggrieved private sector entities on 
request of binding alternative dispute resolution, nonbinding 
alternative dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation between 
authorized representatives of the disputing parties, or 
resolution by the Department's site contracting officer to 
resolve disputes regarding all technology transfer and 
intellectual property matters, with costs and damages to be 
provided for by the contractor to the extent that any such 
resolution attributes fault to the contractor; (3) annual 
reports to the Secretary, as part of the annual performance 
evaluation, on technology transfer and intellectual property 
successes, current technology transfer and intellectual 
property disputes involving the laboratory, and progress toward 
resolving those disputes; and (4) training to ensure that 
laboratory personnel responsible for patenting, licensing, and 
commercialization activities are knowledgeable of the 
appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical issues necessary to 
carry out those activities with the highest possible 
professional and ethical standards.
     Amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
2241 et seq.) by inserting a new section authorization of 
assessment of civil penalties of not more than $100,000 per 
incidence for a DOE contractor who violates (or whose employee 
violates) any applicable DOE rule, regulation, or order 
relating to the safeguarding or security of Restricted Data or 
other classified or sensitive information.
     Requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a 
whistleblower protection program;
     Provides for an investigative and remediation 
process for alleged reprisals against whistleblowers.

          VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Views

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 cites the Act as the ``Department of Energy 
Commercial Application of Energy Technology 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 $309,662,000 for FY $306,857,000 
for FY 2001 for Energy Supply commercial application of energy 
technology and related civilian energy and scientific RD&D 
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, which:
    (1) $136,000,000 for FY 2000 and $131,840,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Nuclear Energy, including--(A) $85,000,000 for FY 
2000 and $87,550,000 for FY 2001 for Termination Costs; (B) 
$30,000,000 for FY 2000 and $30,900,000 for FY 2001 for the 
Fast Flux Test Facility; (C) $13,000,000 for FY 2000 and 
$13,390,000 for FY 2001 for Isotope Support; and (D) $8,000,000 
for FY 2000 for completion of Project 98-E-201, Isotope 
Production Facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    (2) $50,750,000 for FY 2000 and $51,703,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Environment, Safety, and Health;
    (3) $9,100,000 for FY 2000 and $9,148,000 for FY 2001 shall 
be for Technical Information Management;
    (4) $102,000,000 for FY 2000 and $102,000,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Field Operations;
    (5) $11,812,000 for FY 2000 and $12,166,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Oak Ridge Landlord.
    Subsection 3(b) authorizes to be appropriated $330,934,000 
for FY 2000 and $340,862,000 for FY 2001 for Non-Defense 
Environmental Management commercial application of energy 
technology and related civilian scientific and energy RD&D 
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) $211,146,000 for FY 2000 and $217,480,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Site Closure;
    (2) $100,866,000 for FY 2000 and $103,892,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Site Project Completion;
    (3) $18,922,000 for FY 2000 and $19,490,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for post 2006 completion.
    Subsection 3(c) authorizes to be appropriated $10,000,000 
for FY 2000 and $10,300,000 for FY 2001 for Fossil Energy 
Research and Development Environmental Restoration commercial 
application of energy technology and related energy and 
scientific RD&D 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.
    Finally, subsection 3(d) authorizes to be appropriated 
$52,163,000 for FY 2000 and $53,727,890 for FY 2001 for Energy 
Conservation Research and Development commercial application of 
energy technology and related energy and scientific RD&D 
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) $10,700,000 for FY 2000 and $11,021,000 for FY 2001 
shall be for Clean Cities;
    (2) $12,802,000 for FY 2000 and $13,186,060 for FY 2001 
shall be for Building Standards and Guidelines;
    (3) $13,343,000 for FY 2000 and $13,743,290 for FY 2001 
shall be for Lighting and Appliance Standards; and
    (4) $15,318,000 for FY 2000 and $15,777,540 for FY 2001 
shall be for Management and Planning for the Building 
Technology, State and Community Sector (nongrants).

Section 4. Notice

    Subsections 4(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 4(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 4(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 4(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 projects, programs and activities of the Department prepared 
at the direction of any committee of Congress.

Section 5. Limitation on demonstrations

    Subsection 5 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 costs, 
efficiency, or performance of the technology or process.

Section 6. Limits on general plant projects

    Section 6 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 7. Limits on construction projects

    Section 7 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 day certain). This section 
shall not apply to any construction project which has a current 
estimated cost of less than $2,000,000.

Section 8. Authority for conceptual and construction design

    Section 8 limits the Secretary's authority to request 
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 9. Limits of use of funds

    Subsection 9(a) prohibits the obligation of any funds in 
the Clean Coal Technology Reserve from being used to initiate 
or carry out a clean coal technology demonstration project 
based outside the U.S.
    Subsection 9(b) 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 9(c) 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.

Section 10. Management and operating contracts

    Subsection 10(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 10(a) prohibition, subsection 10(b) requires the 
Secretary to submit at least 60 days in advance of such waiver 
a 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, notifying the committees of the waiver and setting 
forth the reasons for the waiver.

Section 11. Federal acquisition regulation

    Subsection 11(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 11(b) requires that 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, 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 12. Requests for proposals

    Subsection 12 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 13. Production or provision of articles or services

    Subsection 13 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. The only exception to 
this prohibition is the transmission and sale of electricity by 
any Federal power marketing administration.

Section 14. Eligibility for awards

    Subsection 14(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 14(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 14(b) provides that subsection 14(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.
    Subsection 14(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))).

Section 15. External regulation

    Subsection 15(a) provides that--effective January 1, 2000--
the Department shall have no regulatory or enforcement 
authority, through rules, regulations, orders, and standards, 
or reporting requirements, with respect to Federal, State, and 
local environmental, safety, and health requirements at any 
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory 
(hereafter referred as ``laboratory''), except to the extent 
that no other Federal, State, or local government agency has 
such regulatory or enforcement authority.
    Subsection 15(b) provides that--also effective January 1, 
2000--the NRC shall assume the regulatory and enforcement 
responsibilities of the Department under the Atomic Energy Act 
of 1954 with regard to laboratories, including such 
responsibilities with respect to accelerator-produced 
radioactive material and ionizing radiation generating 
machines. For the purposes of carrying out these 
responsibilities, the NRC may regulate and license or provide 
certification for the Department, the Department's contractor, 
or both. A contractor operating a laboratory shall not be 
responsible for the costs of decommissioning that facility, and 
no enforcement action may be taken against such contractor for 
any violation of NRC decommissioning requirements, if such 
violation is the result of a failure of the Department to 
authorize or fund decommissioning activities. Not later than 
July 1, 2000, the NRC and the Department shall enter into a 
memorandum of understanding establishing laboratory 
decommissioning procedures and requirements.
    Subsection 15(c) provides that--effective January 1, 2000--
OSHA shall assume the Department's regulatory and enforcement 
responsibilities of the Department to matters covered by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 with regard to all 
laboratories. The Department's contractor or contractors 
operating those laboratories shall be considered employers for 
purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 
Furthermore, section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970, which prohibits OSHA from regulating the 
Department or the NRC, shall not apply with respect to the 
Department's or the NRC's regulation of the laboratories, and 
the Secretary of Labor may enforce current Department radiation 
protection regulations. Within 90 days of the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Department and OSHA shall enter into a 
memorandum of understanding to govern the exercise of their 
respective authorities over occupational safety and health 
hazards at the laboratories.
    Subsection 15(d) provides that Department's contractor 
operating a laboratory shall not be liable for civil penalties 
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970 for any actions taken before October 1, 
2000, pursuant to the transfer of regulatory and enforcement 
responsibilities required by this section.
    Subsection 15(e) requires the Secretary to continue to 
indemnify laboratories in accordance with the provisions of 
section 170d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
    And finally, subsection 15(f) requires the Secretary to 
transmit, by October 1, 1999, to 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, a plan for the termination of the 
Department's regulatory and enforcement responsibilities for 
laboratories required by this section. The report shall 
include--(1) a detailed transition plan, drafted in 
coordination with the NRC and OSHA, giving the schedule for 
termination of self-regulation authority as outlined in 
subsection 15(a) above, including the activities to be 
coordinated with the NRC and OSHA; (2) a description of any 
issues remaining to be resolved with the NRC and OSHA, or other 
external regulators, and a timetable for resolving such issues 
before January 1, 2000; (3) an estimate of--(A) the annual cost 
of administering and implementing self-regulation of 
environmental, safety, and health activities at the 
laboratories; (B) the number of Federal and contractor 
employees administering and implementing such self-regulation; 
(C) the cost of external regulation based on the pilot projects 
of simulated NRC regulation which have already been conducted; 
and (D) the extent and schedule by which the Department and 
laboratory staffs will be reduced as a result of implementation 
of this section; and (4) a description of regulatory or 
enforcement authorities the Department determines it will be 
required to retain pursuant to subsection 15(a)(2) above.

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 make 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. Moratorium on Foreign Visitors Program

    Section 17 prohibits the Secretary of Energy from admitting 
to any classified facility or sensitive area of any DOE 
Laboratory 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 the Secretary 
determines that such access is necessary for the national 
security interests of the U.S., and, within 30 days after 
granting the waiver, submits a report justifying the waiver to 
various committees of Congress. Furthermore, the moratorium on 
a DOE-owned laboratory shall be lifted when the Secretary, in 
consultation with and with the concurrence of the Director of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 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. This section also requires the Director of the FBI 
and the Secretary to transmit jointly to the committees of 
Congress 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 DOE-owned laboratories, 
including facilities and areas at those laboratories at which 
unclassified work is carried out. The report shall include--(A) 
a description of the status of counterintelligence and 
safeguards and security at each of the DOE-owned laboratories; 
(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 DOE-owned laboratories, 
prepared by a panel of individuals with expertise in 
intelligence, counterintelligence, and nuclear weapons design 
matters.

Section 18. Technology transfer coordination

    Section 18 requires that within 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall ensure, for the 
DOE-owned laboratories carrying out programs under this Act: 
(1) consistency of technology transfer policies and procedures 
with respect to patenting, licensing, and commercialization; 
(2) the availability to aggrieved private sector entities on 
request of binding alternative dispute resolution, nonbinding 
alternative dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation between 
authorized representatives of the disputing parties, or 
resolution by the Department's site contracting officer to 
resolve disputes regarding all technology transfer and 
intellectual property matters, with costs and damages to be 
provided for by the contractor to the extent that any such 
resolution attributes fault to the contractor; (3) annual 
reports to the Secretary, as part of the annual performance 
evaluation, on technology transfer and intellectual property 
successes, current technology transfer and intellectual 
property disputes involving the laboratory, and progress toward 
resolving those disputes; and (4) training to ensure that 
laboratory personnel responsible for patenting, licensing, and 
commercialization activities are knowledgeable of the 
appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical issues necessary to 
carry out those activities with the highest possible 
professional and ethical standards.

Section 19. Department of Energy regulations relating to the 
        safeguarding and security of restricted data

    Section 19 amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
2241 et seq.) by inserting a new section authorizing the 
assessment of civil penalties of not more than $100,000 per 
incidence for any person who has entered in a contract or 
agreement with the DOE, or a subcontract or subagreement 
thereto, and who violates (or whose employee violates) any 
applicable DOE rule, regulation, or order relating to the 
safeguarding or security of Restricted Data or other classified 
or sensitive information. This section also authorizes the 
Secretary to assess monetary penalties against DOE contractors 
for any violation by the contractor or contractor employees of 
any rule, regulation, or order relating to the safeguarding or 
security of Restricted Data or other classified or sensitive 
information.

Section 20. Whistleblower protection

    Subsection 20(a) requires the Secretary of Energy to 
establish a whistleblower protection program to ensure that no 
DOE employee or DOE contractor employee may be discharged, 
demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for 
disclosing information to a person or entity referred to in 
subsection 20(b) information which the employee or contractor 
reasonably believes to provide direct and specific evidence of 
a violation of any Federal law or regulation; of gross 
mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority; or 
of a false statement to Congress on an issue of material fact.
    Subsection 20(b) defines the person or entity referred to 
in subsection 20(a) to be: (1) a Member of Congress; (2) an 
employee of Congress who has an appropriate security clearance 
for access to the information; (3) the DOE Inspector General 
(IG); (4) the FBI; or (5) any other element of the Federal 
Government designated by the Secretary as authorized to receive 
information of the type disclosed.

Section 21. Investigation and remediation of alleged reprisals for 
        disclosure of certain information to Congress

    Subsection 21(a) provides that a DOE employee or DOE 
contractor employee who believes that they or any other such 
employee have been discharged, demoted, or otherwise 
discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing information 
referred to in subsection 20(a) may submit a complaint relating 
to such action to the DOE IG.
    Subsection 21(b)(1) requires the IG to review all 
complaints submitted to him pursuant to subsection 21(a) and 
to: (A) determine whether or not the complaint is frivolous; 
and (B) to conduct an investigation of the complaint if the IG 
determines the complaint is not frivolous. In addition, 
Subsection 21(b)(2) requires the IG to submit a report on each 
such investigation to: (A) the employee who submitted the 
complaint on which the investigation is based; (B) the 
contractor concerned, if any; and (C) the Secretary.
    If the Secretary determines that an employee has been 
subjected to an adverse personnel action, then Subsection 21(c) 
requires the Secretary to: (A) in the case of a Department 
employee, take appropriate actions to abate the action; or (B) 
in the case of a contractor employee, order the contractor 
concerned to take appropriate actions to abate the action. If a 
contractor fails to comply with an order issued by the 
Secretary, the Secretary may file an action for enforcement of 
the order in the appropriate United States district court, 
which may grant appropriate relief, including injunctive relief 
and compensatory and exemplary damages.
    Subsection 21(d) requires the IG, not later than 30 days 
after the commencement of each fiscal quarter, to submit to the 
Committee on Science and other relevant committees of the House 
of Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources and other relevant committees of the Senate, a report 
on the investigations undertaken during the preceding fiscal 
quarter, including a summary of the results of such 
investigations. This report shall not identify orotherwise 
provide any information on a person submitting a complaint under this 
section without the consent of that person.

                          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 Rules 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. 1656 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. 1656 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. 1656 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 16, 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. 1656, the 
Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy 
Technology Authorization Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley 
and Cynthia Dudzinski.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1656--Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy 
        Technology Authorization Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 1656 would authorize appropriations for 
civilian research and development programs at the Department of 
Energy (DOE) for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and would end 
DOE's authority to regulate or enforce environmental safety, 
and health requirements at nonmilitary energy laboratories 
beginning on January 1, 2000. Assuming the appropriation of all 
amounts specifically authorized in the bill for research and 
development activities, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
1656 would cost about $1.4 billion over the 2000-2004 period.
    Additional civil penalties under current law could be 
collected as a result of implementing this bill, and new civil 
penalties that would be established by the legislation could 
also affect receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
apply. However, CBO estimates any such collections would total 
less than $500,000 annually. H.R. 1656 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 
significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    In addition to the research and development spending 
authorized by the bill, CBO estimates enactment of the bill 
would increase the need for appropriated funds at the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) to pay for new efforts that would 
be necessary because the bill would end DOE's authority to 
regulate health and safety at its nonmilitary laboratories 
(this activity by DOE is known as self-regulation). While the 
cost of this provision of the bill is uncertain, and would 
depend on many future decisions made by DOE and these 
regulatory agencies, CBO estimates that ending self-regulation 
of health and safety at DOE nonmilitary laboratories would cost 
about $14 million annually over the 2000-2004 period. This 
estimate does not include the cost to implement corrective 
actions that are required at nonmilitary laboratories today 
because these facilities do not comply with DOE health and 
safety standards. In addition, this estimate assumes that NRC 
and OSHA regulation of nonmilitary laboratories will not reveal 
significant new corrective actions that must be undertaken, 
beyond those already known to DOE.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1656 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 270 
(energy) and 550 (health).

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

Specified Authorization Level..................          703          712            0            0            0
Estimated Outlays..............................          481          696          223           13            3
Estimated Authorization Level..................           15           14           13           13           12
Estimated Outlays..............................           13           14           13           13           13
Total Spending:................................
    Authorization Level........................          718          726           13           13           12
    Estimated Outlays..........................          494          710          236           26           16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: Most of H.R. 1656's budgetary impact 
would stem from its authorization of $1.4 billion over the next 
two years. CBO expects that implementing the bill would require 
additional appropriations averaging about $13 million a year. 
Enacting the bill could also affect governmental receipts, but 
any such effects would not be significant.

Research and development spending

    Section 3 would authorize the appropriation of $703 million 
in 2000 and $712 million in 2001 for the commercial application 
of energy technology and related civilian energy and scientific 
programs, projects, and activities of the DOE. For purposes of 
this estimate, CBO assumes the full amounts authorized will be 
appropriated each year and that spending will occur at 
historical rates for these programs and activities.

Costs of external regulation

    Section 17 would end DOE's authority to regulate or enforce 
environmental, safety, and health requirements at any federally 
owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory after January 
1, 2000. The bill does not define the term ``nonmilitary energy 
laboratory;'' but for the purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the bill intends to include all DOE laboratories 
except for Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratories. In addition, based on information from DOE, we 
assume that the Environmental Protection Agency, and state and 
local governments are already the primary enforcers of 
environmental laws at DOE laboratories. Over the next five 
years, CBO estimates that moving to external regulation of DOE 
nonmilitary laboratories would require additional applications 
averaging about $14 million annually for the NRC and OSHA, and 
that this sum would not initially be offset by reduced 
expenditures at DOE.
    Department of Energy. Based on information from DOE, CBO 
estimates that the DOE laboratories received appropriations of 
about $3.2 billion in 1999, and that $285 million (or 9 
percent) of these funds were allocated to ongoing health and 
safety activities. In 1996, DOE compared its own health and 
safety spending to regulatory compliance costs at nuclear power 
reactors and other private-sector industries licensed by the 
NRC and found that such costs usually accounted for 10 percent 
or less of facility operating costs. This comparison suggests 
there is no compelling basis for estimating significantly 
higher (or lower) compliance costs at DOE nonmilitary 
facilities under external regulation. Furthermore, any future 
savings in health and safety oversight costs to DOE as a result 
of enacting this bill could be applied to the existing backlog 
of corrective actions needed at the nonmilitary laboratories.
    Many DOE facilities do not comply with the department's 
current health and safety standards, in most cases corrective 
actions have not been taken because sufficient funds have not 
been allocated to these projects. DOE estimates that full 
funding of identified corrective actions necessary at its 
nonmilitary laboratories would total about $0.25 billion over 
the next five years. DOE, NRC, and OSHA have conducted limited 
pilot studies of external regulation at DOE laboratories and 
some former DOE facilities are now regulated by NRC and OSHA. 
Based on these experiences, CBO assumes that external 
regulation would not significantly increase the cost of needed 
health and safety corrective actions at nonmilitary DOE 
facilities, nor change the timing of these costs in the short 
term. We assume DOE will be able to negotiate compliance 
agreements with NRC and OSHA for implementing corrective 
actions at facilities that do not comply with agency standards. 
If compliance agreements between these agencies cannot be 
reached, it is possible that the imposition of external 
regulation at DOE facilities could change the future funding 
profile for identified corrective action projects by 
accelerating the timing of such spending by DOE or by revealing 
the need for additional spending. CBO has no information to 
predict whether or not additional funds for corrective actions 
would be required as a result of enacting this bill, but any 
increase in such spending would be subject to the availability 
of appropriated funds.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Occupation Safety and 
Health Administration. Over the next five years, CBO estimates 
that moving to external regulation of DOE nonmilitary 
laboratories would require about $13 million annually of 
additional appropriated funds for the NRC and OSHA.
    Based on information from the NRC and DOE, we estimate NRC 
would incur additional oversight costs at DOE nonmilitary 
laboratories of about $10 million annually. The DOE facilities 
that were selected for pilot studies of NRC regulation are not 
considered representative of all DOE nonmilitary laboratories. 
NRC estimated that its annual oversight costs for the pilot 
studies of external regulation at three DOE facilities ranged 
from less than $100,000 to nearly $400,000. NRC does not have 
experience with regulating particle accelerators which are 
found at several DOE laboratories and would require 
significantly more resources to oversee. We estimate that some 
of the nonmilitary laboratories with accelerators, nuclear fuel 
storage facilities, or areas that handle transuranic materials 
could cost the NRC between $1 million and $2 million annually 
to regulate.
    CBO estimates that transferring the responsibility of 
enforcing safety and health regulations at DOE nonmilitary 
laboratories to OSHA would cost $5 million in 2000, and an 
average of about $3 million per year thereafter. This estimate 
is based on information from OSHA concerning the cost to the 
agency of transferring enforcement of health and safety laws 
for all DOE facilities to OSHA. We estimate that during the 
first two years following enactment of H.R. 1656 OSHA would 
hire additional inspectors and health physicists, purchase 
radiation monitoring equipment, and perform an initial 
inspection and evaluation at each nonmilitary laboratory. 
Following these initial inspections, OSHA would continue to 
monitor the DOE labs to verify that identified hazards are 
corrected. OSHA anticipates that it would implement an enhanced 
compliance program at the DOE labs and could reinspect most of 
these facilities once every two years initially, then gradually 
decrease to an inspection rate of once every four years. For 
purposes of comparison, high hazard industrials in the private 
sector are inspected about once every six years.

Civil penalties

    Section 19 would amend the Atomic Energy Act to establish a 
monetary penalty for violations of DOE regulations concerning 
the security of classified or sensitive information. Civil 
penalties are recorded in the budget as governmental receipts, 
thus this provision could result in additional collections; 
however, CBO estimates any amounts collected under this 
provision would not be significant.
    Under H.R. 1656, private contractors who operate DOE's 
nonmilitary laboratories would be liable for any enforcement 
penalties imposed by OSHA. The bill would give the NRC the 
option to issue licenses (and impose penalties) under the 
Atomic Energy Act to either DOE, or the private operating 
contractors who operate the laboratories, or both. Any 
penalties that would be collected from private contractors 
would increase governmental revenues, but CBO estimates 
additional collections would be less than $500,000 annually.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. Imposing 
the new civil penalties contained in H.R. 1656, and subjecting 
private operating contractors to penalties under the Atomic 
Energy Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act could 
result in an increase in governmental receipts, but CBO 
estimates that any such changes would be less than $500,000 a 
year.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1656 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. Some of the funds authorized in the bill 
would be used for research at academic institutions, including 
public universities.
    Estimate prepared by: Kim Cawley and Cynthia Dudzinski.
    Estimate approved by: Peter M. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1656 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 of 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 the 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. 1656.

               XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 1656 does not establish or authorize the establishment 
of any advisory committee.

                  XV. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1656 does not relate 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

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE I--ATOMIC ENERGY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        CHAPTER 18--ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 221. General Provisions.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 234. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Licensing 
          Requirements.
Sec. 234A. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
          Energy Safety Regulations.
Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
          Energy Regulations Regarding Security of Classified or 
          Sensitive Information or Data.

     * * * * * * *
  Sec. 234. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of 
Licensing Requirements.--
  a. * * *

  Sec. 234A. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of 
Department of Energy Safety Regulations.--
  a. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  a. Any person who has entered into a contract or agreement 
with the Department of Energy, or a subcontract or subagreement 
thereto, and who violates (or whose employee violates) any 
applicable rule, regulation, or order prescribed or otherwise 
issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act relating to the 
safeguarding or security of Restricted Data or other classified 
or sensitive information shall be subject to a civil penalty of 
not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
  b. The Secretary shall include in each contract with a 
contractor of the Department provisions which provide an 
appropriate reduction in the fees or amounts paid to the 
contractor under the contract in the event of a violation by 
the contractor or contractor employee of any rule, regulation, 
or order relating to the safeguarding or security of Restricted 
Data or other classified or sensitive information. The 
provisions shall specify various degrees of violations and the 
amount of the reduction attributable to each degree of 
violation.
  c. The powers and limitations applicable to the assessment of 
civil penalties under section 234A, except for subsection d. of 
that section, shall apply to the assessment of civil penalties 
under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    XVII. Committee Recommendations

    On May 26, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy 
Commercial Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act 
of 1999, as amended, by a voice vote, and recommended its 
enactment.

           XVIII. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup

 MARKUP OF: H.R. 1656, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF 
              ENERGY TECHNOLOGY AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in 
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next bill up is H.R. 1656, the 
Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy 
Technology Authorization Act of 1999. Without objection, the 
Chairman's opening statement will appear in the record at this 
point.
    [The statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner follows:]

Opening Statement of Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Committee on 
                                Science

    H.R. 1656 authorizes $605.0 million for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and 
$608.2 million for FY 2001 for Department of Energy (DOE) Energy 
Supply, Non-Defense Environmental Management, Fossil Energy R&D and 
Energy Conservation R&D programs. Highlights of the bill's 
authorizations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 include:
     Nuclear Energy--H.R. 1656 maintains a strong commitment to 
the Nation's Nuclear Energy Program. The bill recommends $177.0 million 
in FY 2000 for Nuclear Energy--an increase of $5.1 million, or 3.0 
percent above the amount appropriated for FY 1999 and $20.0 million 
above the Administration's request; and recommends $174.1 million for 
FY 2001--a decrease of $2.9 million, or 1.7 percent below the amount 
recommended for FY 2000.
     Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H)--Non-Defense--H.R. 
1656 supports DOE's efforts to protect its workers, the public, and the 
environment. The bill recommends $50.75 million in FY 2000 for ES&H--an 
increase of $3.3 million, or 7.0 percent above the amount appropriated 
for FY 1999; and recommends $51.7 million for FY 2001--an increase of 
$1.0 million, or 1.9 percent above the amount recommended for FY 2000.
     Non-Defense Environmental Management--H.R. 1656 fully 
supports DOE's request to accelerate cleanup of legacy waste sites. The 
bill recommends $330.9 million--the Administration's request in FY 2000 
for Non-Defense Environmental Management; and recommends $340.9 million 
for FY 2001--an increase of $9.9 million, or 3.0 percent above the 
amount recommended for FY 2000.
     Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration--H.R. 1656 also 
fully supports DOE's request to accelerate cleanup of old fossil energy 
sites. The bill recommends $10 million--the Administration's request in 
FY 2000 for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration; and recommends 
$10.3 million for FY 2001--an increase of $0.9 million, or 3.0 percent 
above the amount recommended for FY 2000.
     Energy Conservation R&D--H.R. 1656 also maintains a strong 
commitment to energy efficiency, which not only saves energy, but also 
benefits the environment. The bill recommends $26.2 million in FY 2000 
for Energy Conservation R&D programs--an increase of $3.2 million, or 
14.1 percent above the amount appropriated for FY 1999; and recommends 
$27.0 million for FY 2001--an increase of $0.5 million, or 3.0 percent 
above the amount recommended for FY 2000.
    Other provisions of the bill include the following:
           Prohibits the use of Clean Coal Technology Reserve 
        funds to initiate a clean coal technology energy demonstration 
        project based outside the U.S.;
           Cuts wasteful travel by DOE and its contractors by 
        more than 55 percent from current levels;
           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
           Ends DOE's self-regulation of its civilian energy 
        and scientific laboratories and transfers these 
        responsibilities to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to 
        the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Illinois 
wish to make an opening statement?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I will insert my statement in 
the record so we can move onto amendments.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. Also without 
objection, all members may insert opening statements at this 
point in the record.
    [The information follows:]

                 Opening Statement of Jerry F. Costello

    Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, I'd like to extend my thanks to you 
and your staff for your willingness to discuss our concerns and address 
so many of them before today's mark up.
    The only remaining major concern I have with this bill is the 
failure to include the amount requested by the President for the 
building and lighting standards programs. These programs help to save 
consumers money by facilitating the introduction of energy efficient 
technologies into industries that have not used them in the past.
    I do however support a lot of what is contained in this bill, and 
am pleased that it includes language to externally regulate DOE energy 
research labs. In recent weeks, we have seen that DOE seems to have had 
a very difficult time managing itself with respect to some of our 
nation's most vital secrets. I think that requiring the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and OSHA to regulate nuclear and worker safety 
issues at DOE facilities makes a tremendous amount of sense.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working 
with you to get the provisions in this bill enacted.

 Statement of Chairman Ken Calvert, Energy and Environment Subcommittee

    Thank you Mr. Chairman. The business before the Committee is the 
mark up of H.R. 1656, which authorizes funding for the commercial 
application of energy technology and related civilian energy and 
scientific programs, projects and activities of the Department of 
Energy (DOE) for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
    HR 1656 authorizes funding of $605 million for FY 2000, a 1.7 
percent increase over the Administration request, and $608.2 million 
for FY 2001. These totals include an increase of $21 million, or 9.7 
percent over the Administration's request, for Energy Supply research. 
Non-Defense Environmental Management and Fossil Energy R&D are funded 
at the Administration's requested levels. And Energy Conservation R&D 
is increased by $3.2 million, or 14.1 percent from last year's 
appropriated levels.
    I believe that these authorization levels responsibly fund these 
DOE programs. Due to a very crowded schedule today I will conclude my 
remarks at this point by asking for your support on this bill.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time.

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

                               H.R. 1656

 A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for 
 the commercial application of energy technology and related civilian 
    energy and scientific programs, projects, and activities of the 
             Department of Energy, and for other purposes.
  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 Commercial 
Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy; 
        and
          (2) the term ``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 commercial application of energy technology 
and related civilian energy and scientific 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 $237,850,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$235,921,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available through the end 
of fiscal year 2002, of which--
          (1) $177,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $174,070,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Nuclear Energy, including--
                  (A) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $87,550,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Termination Costs;
                  (B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $30,900,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for the Fast Flux Test Facility;
                  (C) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,390,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Isotope Support;
                  (D) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for completion of 
                Project 98-E-201, Isotope Production Facility, Los 
                Alamos National Laboratory; and
                  (E) $41,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $42,230,000 
                for fiscal year 2001 for Uranium Programs;
          (2) $50,750,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $51,703,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Environment, Safety, and Health;
          (3) $9,100,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $9,148,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Technical Information Management; and
          (4) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for transfer to the Occupational Health and 
        Safety Administration for external regulation of all federally 
        owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories under section 
        15.
  (b) Non-Defense Environmental Management.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary for Non-Defense Environmental Management 
commercial application of energy technology and related civilian energy 
and scientific research, development, and demonstration operation and 
maintenance programs, projects, and activities for which specific sums 
are not authorized under other authority of law $330,934,000 for fiscal 
year 2000 and $340,862,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available 
through the end of fiscal year 2002, of which--
          (1) $211,146,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $217,480,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Site Closure;
          (2) $100,866,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $103,892,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Site/Project Completion; and
          (3) $18,922,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,490,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for post 2006 Completion.
  (c) Fossil Energy Research and Development.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary for Fossil Energy Research and 
Development Environmental Restoration commercial application of energy 
technology and related civilian energy and scientific research, 
development, and demonstration operation and maintenance programs, 
projects, and activities for which specific sums are not authorized 
under other authority of law $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$10,300,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available through the end 
of fiscal year 2002.
  (d) Energy Conservation Research and Development.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for Energy Conservation 
Research and Development commercial application of energy technology 
and related civilian energy and scientific research, development, and 
demonstration operation and maintenance programs, projects, and 
activities for which specific sums are not authorized under other 
authority of law $26,227,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $27,014,000 for 
fiscal year 2001, to remain available through the end of fiscal year 
2002, of which--
          (1) $10,700,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $11,021,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Clean Cities;
          (2) $9,138,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $9,412,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Building Standards and Guidelines; and
          (3) $6,389,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $6,581,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Lighting and Appliance Standards.

SEC. 4. NOTICE.

  (a) Reprogramming.--The Secretary may use for any authorized civilian 
energy or scientific research, development, and demonstration and 
commercial application of energy technology programs, projects, and 
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) 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 another such 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 civilian energy or scientific research, 
development, and demonstration or commercial application of energy 
technology 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, and demonstration or 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, and demonstration or commercial application of energy 
technology 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 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, and demonstration or 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, and 
demonstration or 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, and demonstration 
or 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 
civilian energy or scientific research, development, and demonstration 
or commercial application of energy technology 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 commercial application of energy technology 
program 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) Clean Coal Technology Reserve.--No funds in the Clean Coal 
Technology Reserve may be used to initiate or carry out a clean coal 
technology energy demonstration project based outside the United 
States.
  (b) 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.
  (c) 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 or any prior Act may be used to award a 
management and operating contract for a federally owned or operated 
nonmilitary 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 or any prior Act for any commercial application of energy 
technology or civilian energy or scientific research, development, and 
demonstration or commercial application of energy technology 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 or any 
prior 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 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.

  (a) Restriction.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the 
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any prior Act may be 
used by any civilian energy or scientific research, development, and 
demonstration or 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.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the transmission and 
sale of electricity by any Federal power marketing administration.

SEC. 14. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall exclude from consideration for 
grant agreements for civilian energy or scientific research, 
development, and demonstration or commercial application of energy 
technology 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))).

SEC. 15. EXTERNAL REGULATION.

  (a) Authority.--
          (1) Elimination of department of energy authority.--Except as 
        provided in paragraph (2), effective January 1, 2000, the 
        Department shall have no regulatory or enforcement authority, 
        through rules, regulations, orders, and standards, or reporting 
        requirements, with respect to Federal, State, and local 
        environmental, safety, and health requirements at any federally 
        owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory.
          (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Department 
        shall retain regulatory or enforcement authority described in 
        paragraph (1) at any federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
        energy laboratory to the extent that no other Federal, State, 
        or local governmental agency has such regulatory or enforcement 
        authority.
  (b) Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authority.--
          (1) Enforcement responsibilities.--Effective January 1, 2000, 
        the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall assume the regulatory 
        and enforcement responsibilities of the Department under the 
        Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with regard to federally owned or 
        operated nonmilitary energy laboratories, including such 
        responsibilities with respect to accelerator-produced 
        radioactive material and ionizing radiation generating machine.
          (2) Licensed entity.--For the purposes of carrying out at 
        federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories 
        regulatory and enforcement responsibilities described in 
        paragraph (1), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may regulate 
        and license or provide certification for the Department, the 
        Department's contractor, or both.
          (3) Decommissioning.--A contractor operating a federally 
        owned nonmilitary energy laboratory shall not be responsible 
        for the costs of decommissioning that facility. No enforcement 
        action may be taken against such contractor for any violation 
        of Nuclear Regulatory Commission decommissioning requirements, 
        if such violation is the result of a failure of the Department 
        to authorize or fund decommissioning activities. The Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission and the Department shall, not later than 
        July 1, 2000, enter into a memorandum of understanding 
        establishing decommissioning procedures and requirements for 
        federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
  (c) Occupational Safety and Health.--
          (1) OSHA jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of law, effective January 1, 2000, the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Administration shall assume the regulatory and 
        enforcement responsibilities of the Department relating to 
        matters covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
        1970 with regard to all federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
        energy laboratories. The Department's contractor or contractors 
        operating those laboratories shall be considered employers for 
        purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
          (2) Applicability.--Section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational 
        Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1)) does not 
        apply with respect to the Department's regulation, or the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulation, of federally owned 
        or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
          (3) Radiation regulations.--With respect to federally owned 
        or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories, the Secretary of 
        Labor may enforce the regulations contained in part 20 of title 
        10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, relating to Protection 
        from Radiation, to the same extent as regulations issued under 
        section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
        (29 U.S.C. 655(b)).
          (4) Memorandum of understanding.--The Nuclear Regulatory 
        Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration shall, within 90 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, enter into a memorandum of understanding 
        to govern the exercise of their respective authorities over 
        occupational safety and health hazards at federally owned or 
        operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
  (d) Transfer of Funds.--For the purposes of carrying out this 
section, and for conducting pilot programs and other activities 
necessary to prepare for and effect the transition of regulatory and 
enforcement responsibilitiesfor federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
energy laboratories from the Department, the Secretary shall transfer 
$1,000,000 from the appropriation made pursuant to section 3(a)(4) to 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
  (e) Civil Penalties.--The Department's contractor operating a 
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratory shall not be 
liable for civil penalties under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 for any actions taken before 
October 1, 2000, pursuant to the transfer of regulatory and enforcement 
responsibilities required by this section.
  (f) Indemnification.--The Secretary shall continue to indemnify 
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories in 
accordance with the provisions of section 170d. of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954.
  (g) Department of Energy Reporting Requirement.--By October 31, 1999, 
the Secretary shall transmit to 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, a plan for the termination of the 
Department's regulatory and enforcement responsibilities for federally 
owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories required by this 
section. The report shall include--
          (1) a detailed transition plan, drafted in coordination with 
        the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety 
        and Health Administration, giving the schedule for termination 
        of self-regulation authority as outlined in subsection (a), 
        including the activities to be coordinated with the Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration;
          (2) a description of any issues remaining to be resolved with 
        the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Administration, or other external regulators, and a 
        timetable for resolving such issues before January 1, 2000;
          (3) an estimate of--
                  (A) the annual cost of administering and implementing 
                self-regulation of environmental, safety, and health 
                activities at federally owned or operated nonmilitary 
                energy laboratories;
                  (B) the number of Federal and contractor employees 
                administering and implementing such self-regulation;
                  (C) the cost of external regulation based on the 
                pilot project of simulated Nuclear Regulatory 
                Commission regulation which has already been conducted; 
                and
                  (D) the extent and schedule by which the Department 
                and laboratory staffs will be reduced as a result of 
                implementation of this section; and
          (4) a description of regulatory or enforcement authorities 
        the Department determines it will be required to retain 
        pursuant to subsection (a)(2).

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The first amendment on the roster 
is by the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, and the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois seek--or 
the gentleman from California seek recognition?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1656 offered by Mr. Calvert 
and Mr. Costello.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

     Amendment to H.R. 1656 Offered by Mr. Calvert and Mr. Costello

  Page 2, line 19, strike ``$237,850,000'' and insert ``$309,662,000''.
  Page 2, line 19, strike ``$235,921,000'' and insert ``$306,857,000''.
  Page 2, line 22, strike ``$177,000,000'' and insert ``$136,000,000''.
  Page 2, line 23, strike ``$174,070,000'' and insert ``$131,840,000''.
  Page 3, line 9, insert ``and'' after ``Support;''.
  Page 3, line 13, strike ``and''.
  Page 3, lines 14 through 16, strike subparagraph (E).
  Page 3, line 22, strike ``and''.
  Page 3, line 23, through page 4, line 3, strike paragraph (4).
  Page 4, after line 3, insert the following new paragraphs:
          (4) $102,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $102,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Field Operations; and
          (5) $11,812,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $12,166,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Oak Ridge Landlord.
  Page 4, line 22, strike ``post'' and insert ``Post''.
  Page 5, line 17, strike ``$26,227,000'' and insert ``$39,398,000''.
  Page 5, line 18, strike ``$27,014,000'' and insert ``$40,185,000''.
  Page 6, line 3, strike ``and''.
  Page 6, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
  Page 6, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
          (4) $13,171,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,171,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 for Management and Planning for the Building 
        Technology, State and Community Sector (nongrants).
  Page 8, lines 10 through 16, amend section 5 to read as follows:

SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

  The Department shall provide funding for civilian energy or 
scientific or 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 8, line 23, strike ``$500,000'' and insert ``$2,000,000''.
  Page 9, line 15, strike ``5'' and insert ``10''.
  Page 10, line 6, strike ``60'' and insert ``30''.
  Page 10, line 9, strike ``60'' and insert ``30''.
  Page 10, after line 13, 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 11, line 4, strike ``$500,000'' and insert ``$750,000''.
  Page 11, line 10, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert ``$2,000,000''.
  Page 11, line 18, strike ``$100,000'' and insert ``$250,000''.
  Page 11, line 21, strike ``$100,000'' and insert ``$250,000''.
  Page 12, lines 6 and 7, strike ``grants, contracts, subcontracts, or 
any other form of financial assistance'' and insert ``contracts or 
subcontracts''.
  Page 12, lines 16 through 18, strike ``grants, contracts, 
subcontracts, or any other form of financial assistance'' and insert 
``contracts or subcontracts''.
  Page 14, line 17, insert ``programs, projects, and'' after ``energy 
technology''.
  Page 16, lines 2 and 3, strike ``that the articles'' and insert 
``that comparable articles''.
  Page 17, line 2, insert ``or under circumstances permitting other 
than full and open competition under the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation'' after ``provided by law''.
  Page 18, line 20, strike ``machine'' and insert ``machines''.
  Page 21, lines 3 through 11, strike subsection (d).
  Page 21, lines 12, 19, and 23, redesignate subsections (e) through 
(g) as subsections (d) through (f), respectively.
  Page 23, line 5, strike ``pilot project'' and insert ``pilot 
projects''.
  Page 23, line 6, strike ``which has'' and insert ``which have''.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California will 
be recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this 
manager's amendment on behalf of myself and my friend, the 
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Costello. This 
bipartisan managers amendment makes technical and conforming 
changes to H.R. 1656 as introduced; better clarifies the intent 
of the limitations on demonstration section; raises the limits 
on the provisions dealing with general plant projects, 
construction projects, authority for conceptual and 
construction designs; and better clarifies the intent of the 
production or provision of articles or services, and the 
eligibility of award section.
    Again, after bipartisan consultation with our friends at 
the Commerce Committee, this amendment transfers the field 
operations of Oak Ridge Landlord and Building Technology, State 
and Community Sector Management and Planning line items to this 
bill, H.R. 1656, from H.R. 1655, and deletes the authorization 
for Uranium Programs.
    I want to thank my friend for his cooperation in crafting 
this bipartisan managers amendment, and would ask my colleagues 
for their support. With that, I would yield the balance of my 
time to Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. I thank Chairman Calvert for working with the 
Minority on this managers amendment, and urge my colleagues to 
support it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time is yielded back. Further 
discussion on the amendment by the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Calvert? If none, all those in favor will signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Amendment number 2 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 amendment 
number 2.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado to the Amendment Offered by 
                      Mr. Calvert and Mr. Costello

    Page 2, in the item relating to page 5, line 17, in lieu of the 
matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``$41,545,000''.
    Page 2, in the item relating to page 5, line 18, in lieu of the 
matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``$42,791,540''.
    Page 2, line 7, strike ``$13,171,000'' and insert ``$15,318,000''.
    Page 2, line 8, strike ``$13,171,000'' and insert ``$15,777,540''.

    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you 
offered to accept my amendment to this bill provided that I 
find offsets to the increases in clean energy----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you offered to accept 
my amendment to this bill, provided that I find offsets in the 
bill to the increases in clean energy programs that I am 
proposing. I appreciate your offer, and I want to thank you for 
your readiness to support such an amendment. I know that you 
understand the importance of these energy efficiency programs, 
and that you believe in the importance of clean energy research 
and development.
    However, I have chosen not to seek offsets to these 
programs. As my colleague, Ms. Rivers, explained so well 
yesterday, these authorization bills are intended to give 
guidance to appropriators about our priorities, not to fit into 
some artificially binding number.
    How do we determine what is an appropriate level of 
funding? In some bills we have considered, we have used the 
President's requested funding levels. In others, we have not. I 
am simply seeking to restore funding levels to the level of the 
President's request, a process that involved months of 
deliberation between DOE and OMB. Moreover, by offsetting my 
proposed increases, I would be forced to pick and choose 
between important programs, favoring some over others. This 
doesn't send the overall signal to appropriators that I would 
like to send.
    Now to the amendment. This amendment would authorize 
funding for the Department of Energy's Conservation Research 
and Development Commercial Application Programs at the level of 
the President's request for Fiscal Year 2000, and would 
increase these numbers by 3 percent in Fiscal Year 2001. Energy 
efficiency programs which work to improve energy use in our 
homes, industries, and cars, are largely voluntary initiatives 
that further our national goals of broad-based economic growth, 
environmental protection, national security, and economic 
competitiveness. DOE's conservation programs are designed to 
significantly improve the fuel economy of automobiles and other 
vehicles, to increase the productivity of the Nation's most 
energy-intensive industries, and improve the energy efficiency 
of buildings and appliances.
    My amendment would allow full funding of the Building 
Standards and Guidelines Program which assists the building 
industry in setting codes to provide a working framework for 
the home building industry, and to help consumers save energy 
and money, and stay comfortable in energy efficient living 
spaces.
    Additionally, my amendment would allow full funding of the 
Lighting and Appliances Standards Program. This programenables 
DOE to work hand in hand in manufacturers to develop such products as 
the super-efficient refrigerator and the horizontal axis clothes 
washer, both of which are now being marketed to consumers everywhere 
for their energy and cost savings.
    All of these programs are voluntary initiatives that have 
drawn from technologies developed in DOE labs, and combined 
them with the tools necessary to push those technologies into 
the market. Over the past two decades, energy efficiency has 
reduced energy use from projected levels by nearly 30 percent, 
making in effect the Nation's largest energy resource. By 
developing the means to more cost effectively manage energy 
use, these programs provide tools for our Nation, our 
industries, and our citizens to be smart about energy.
    In our discussion yesterday, my colleague from Michigan, 
Mr. Ehlers, pointed out that increasing energy efficiency is 
really our challenge. Mr. Chairman, I urge you and my 
colleagues to think about the important implications of these 
programs for our environment and our future. I urge support for 
my amendment. Thank you. I yield back the balance.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman from Colorado 
yield?
    Mr. Udall. I would be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Listening to your argument, it 
sounds like you are arguing in favor of amendment number 3 
rather than amendment number 2. Amendment number 2 is what was 
called up and is before us. Does the gentleman want to withdraw 
amendment number 2 and try amendment number 3?
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous 
consent that amendment 2 be withdrawn.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You don't need unanimous consent, 
because somebody can object to that. That is your right to 
withdraw it.
    All right. Amendment is withdrawn.
    Mr. Udall. I would ask to withdraw my amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Colorado seek recognition on amendment number 3?
    Mr. Udall. I would ask that my statement appear in the 
record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe that the gentleman has an 
amendment at the desk, number 3, which the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1656----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

        Amendment to H.R. 1656 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

    Page 5, line 17, strike ``$26,227,000'' and insert ``$52,163,000''.
    Page 5, line 18, strike ``$27,014,000'' and insert ``$53,727,890''.
    Page 6, line 1, strike ``$9,138,000'' and insert ``$12,802,000''.
    Page 6, line 2, strike ``$9,412,000'' and insert ``$13,186,060''.
    Page 6, line 4, strike ``$6,389,000'' and insert ``$13,343,000''.
    Page 6, line 5, strike ``$6,581,000'' and insert ``$13,743,290''.
    In the matter inserted as section 3(d)(4) by the Managers' 
Amendment, strike ``$13,171,000'' the first place it appears and insert 
``$15,318,000''.
    In the matter inserted as section 3(d)(4) by the Managers' 
Amendment, strike ``$13,171,000'' the second place it appears and 
insert ``$15,777,540''.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that the 
statement I just gave be considered as----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, Mr. Udall's 
statement will be transferred from amendment number 2 to 
amendment number 3.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might just add, I 
appreciate your help. The previous amendment was prepared in 
response to the managers amendments. After consideration, it 
was realized we didn't need to submit that amendment. I thank 
you for your understanding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Udall 
amendment? If not, all 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 4 is 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. 1656 offered by Mrs. Biggert.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

             Amendment to H.R. 1656 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

    Page 23, after line 14, insert the following new section:

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.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Illinois is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As in the other 
bills, this amendment is to have grant abstracts with 
descriptions of the research being done on the Internet. I 
think that in this--this agency needs to provide consistent 
information on grants and awards that is easily accessible. I 
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Biggert 
amendment? The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
    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 5 is by Mr. Costello and Mr. Nethercutt.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois 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. 1656 offered by Mr. Costello 
and Mr. Nethercutt.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

   Amendment to H.R. 1656 Offered by Mr. Costello and Mr. Nethercutt

  Page 23, after line 14, insert the following new section:

SEC. 16. 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.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I realize we are trying to get 
through our business today, so I'll be brief. This is the same 
amendment that I offered yesterday to Mr. Nethercutt's 
amendment to H.R. 1655 and then withdrew it because of 
jurisdictional concerns.
    My amendment calls for a moratorium on foreign visitors 
from sensitive countries to all labs when the visit is to a 
classified facility, and topics involve export control and non-
proliferation. It also waives, provides a waiver of a 
moratorium on visits related to the U.S.-Russia non-
proliferation programs that are important to our national 
security.
    In addition, this is similar to the bipartisan bill passed 
by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Secretary can issue 
waivers as long as he reports to the Congress within 30 days. 
Also, it contains a sunset to the moratorium after all 
applicable portions of the Presidential Decision Directive 61 
are in place, additional counterintelligence safeguards and 
security measures announced by the Secretary are in place, and 
the DOE's current export controls on non-proliferation that 
govern foreign visits is in place.
    In addition, an annual report would be required. The 
Secretary of DOE would be required to file an annual report, as 
would the Director of the FBI to the Congress, assessing 
security at each lab.
    Mr. Chairman, I hope that this will address the issue of 
foreign visitors to our national labs, and I would ask that the 
amendment be adopted.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Costello. I would be happy to yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I enthusiastically support this 
amendment. Let me express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Illinois for not putting in this version of the amendment. Let 
me express my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for 
not putting in this version of the amendment to the bill that 
we considered yesterday. That was important for jurisdictional 
reasons. The bill we considered yesterday is not within the 
jurisdiction of other committees and we can bring that bill to 
the floor relatively promptly if we avoid a sequential 
referral.
    This bill is very clearly in the jurisdiction of other 
committees in part. So adding this language at this time is not 
going to slow down the legislative process, but have a much 
more clear and definitive guideline on when foreign visitors 
will be allowed, and under what circumstances, while the 
Department of Energy figures out how to clean up its act. It 
has been in disrepair for a good 20 years, from what I have 
read in the newspaper.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your support.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Costello. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I might just say as a cosponsor of this 
measure, I also thank the gentleman from Illinois for his 
discussion and withdrawal of this amendment yesterday. I 
certainly support the Chairman relative to the jurisdictional 
question. I thank the gentleman for working with us and trying 
to make this whole concept of security effective on both 
yesterday's bill and today's bill. I'll yield back.
    Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman for his support and his 
input on this amendment.
    I yield to Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
I rise to object to the amendment. As I mentioned the other day 
during the security hearing, I am appalled at some of the 
practices that the Department of Energy has followed. I have 
previous experience working in these laboratories. But to my 
knowledge, foreign visitors have never been a problem. I am not 
aware of any case where spying has occurred as a result of a 
foreign visitor taking information in and either selling it or 
giving it to country of his or her choice.
    It seems to me this misleads the public into thinking that 
the problem is foreign visitors, when in fact, the problem is 
the DOE's lax security with regard to employees. I really 
question the need for this amendment. There are already rather 
stringent requirements on foreign visitors. We have to 
recognize that foreign visitors generally are far more 
beneficial to the lab they are visiting than the reverse of 
that. So I just wanted to voice that concern about passing this 
amendment. I had somewhat similar reservations about the one 
yesterday, but that was more tightly constructed, and I don't 
think it created quite as many problems.
    So I register my objections to it, and I would be happy to 
hear any counter arguments on it. But I really don't think that 
this is the problem that we have to deal with. I don't think 
what we have outlined here is necessary. There are other ares 
of the lab security that are much more at question and have to 
be dealt with much more promptly rather than spending time on 
this. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. If I do have time, let me just address a 
couple of issues. First, the moratorium applies to all visits 
to classified facilities.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman ask unanimous 
consent for an additional two minutes?
    Mr. Costello. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Costello. For example, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab does 
not classified work, so this part wouldn't apply to them at 
all. Let me say that the moratorium on each lab is unlike many 
of the amendments that I understand will be offered to the DOD 
authorization bill and other bills that have jurisdiction. It 
is unlike those bills in the sense that this in fact has a 
sunset. As soon as the Secretary of Energy and the Director of 
the FBI and everyone certifies that the Presidential Directive 
61 is in place, in fact it specifically says when all of the 
security measures are in place, that the moratorium will be 
lifted and visits can in fact be conducted.
    I share Mr. Ehler's concern. I know that it is very healthy 
for us to be able to allow for us to visit labs in other 
countries and for us to share our science. This of course only 
applies to sensitive classified issues that are going on in our 
labs here in the United States.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Michigan seek recognition?
    Mr. Ehlers. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, let me just add a few comments on 
this. First of all, I recognize Lawrence Berkley Lab has no 
classified areas at this time. Argonne Laboratory, however, 
which is in Illinois, does have something like 3 percent of 
their effort is in classified areas. I think it is important 
also to recognize that a classified area may require the 
attendance--let me restate that. A foreign visitor may have to 
enter a classified area to conduct certain experiments. There 
may be a piece of equipment that is classified but is not 
conducting a classified experiment at the time that the visitor 
comes to work on that particular piece of equipment. I believe 
in that case, there is no reason for the foreign visitor to be 
hindered in that effort. There is a requirement now that they 
must be accompanied by either a guard or a person who stays 
with them constantly while they are in the classified area. So 
I think we have sufficient security already.
    I would also comment in regard to the statement by the 
gentleman from Illinois, I do appreciate that this amendment is 
far better than some others that are floating around the 
Capitol on this issue. I do appreciate that. My point is 
simply, just because there's a lot of garbage out there doesn't 
mean we have to offer an amendment that still addresses this. 
Even though it's not garbage, it is still questionable whether 
or not we need it. I yield back the balance.
    Mr. Costello. I wonder if the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Ehlers. I would be pleased to yield.
    Mr. Costello. Let me just finally touch on one point that 
you mentioned. That is that the Secretary--this amendment is 
similar to what the Senate Intelligence Committee passed. The 
Secretary can issue waivers as long as he reports to Congress 
within 30 days that he in fact issued a waiver. So waivers are 
built into this amendment, unlike the other amendments that we 
no doubt will have an opportunity to vote on. I thank the 
gentleman.
    Mr. Ehlers. Reclaiming my time. I just want to thank the 
gentleman for that statement. That is true, and I recognize 
that. I am just concerned about misleading the public and 
anyone else into thinking that this is the cause of the 
security problems we have had, when to the best of my 
knowledge, this has never been a problem. I don't know of any 
security leak resulting from foreign visitors.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Michigan 
yield back the balance of his time?
    Mr. Ehlers. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment 
from my good friend from Illinois. This is a good amendment. I 
think it is a reasonable amendment. It has been well thought 
out. The gentleman from Michigan is correct. There are other 
ideas out there that are far more radical. I think this is a 
rational approach to a problem. I don't know if we know all the 
problems that have happened at the National Laboratories yet. 
In the short term, I think this is a reasonable approach to be 
cautious. I support this amendment and I urge its adoption.
    I would yield time to the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, let me just state for the 
record that I don't think it is a good idea for the United 
States of America to play host to scientists from totalitarian 
and potential hostile powers. If the country is anti-democratic 
and militaristic, and one of the worst human rights abusers or 
perhaps the worst human rights abuser in the world, as is the 
case with Communist China, I don't want their scientists in our 
laboratories. I don't care if there hasn't been any proof that 
these people have managed to obtain information while on 
exchange programs to the United States. I don't want to 
establish personal relationships between Nazi German 
scientists, even though there hasn't been any proof that those 
Nazi German scientists stole any information or Communist 
Chinese scientists or anybody else from a power that's hostile 
to the United States.
    What we have here, and what the big stir in Washington, DC 
is, along with the Cox Report and everything else, comes right 
down to a fundamental analysis of how do we cope with 1.2 
billion people who are currently under the control of a regime 
that is the worst human rights abuser in the world, a regime 
conducting genocide in Tibet, a regime that's modernizing its 
military, a regime that uses its relationship to the United 
States to gain leverage on the United States, a regime that is 
not just potentially hostile, but is run by people who are 
hostile to everything the United States believes in.
    So I am sorry, Vern, and I am sorry to the others. I mean I 
don't think this amendment goes far enough, as far as I am 
concerned. I don't want Communist Chinese scientists over here. 
When they start evolving in the right direction, I'm not 
talking about imperfect governments now, if they start evolving 
towards a freer society, boy, I'll be the first one to say 
let's loosen up here and let more of them come in and let's 
have a better relationship. But not until that happens.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman from California yield?
    Mr. Calvert. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Michigan.
    Mr. Ehlers. Just a brief response, Mr. Chairman. That is, I 
don't have the list of sensitive countries at hand right now, 
but to the best of my memory, it included Israel, as an 
example. There have been extremely fruitful collaborations 
between the United States and Israel on a number of 
experiments, some of which involved using equipment housed in 
classified areas. There are also a large number of other 
friendly countries on the list. I recognize the need to have 
some controls with some countries, but I think the majority of 
the visitors are from friendly countries and not unfriendly 
ones. I yield back.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Calvert. I will be happy to yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I'm not sure how much of the information 
is public, but I'm sure most of us who have read the classified 
reports understand that Israel is a proliferator, and a 
proliferator to countries that are not just hostile to the 
United States, but who have declared themselves enemies of the 
United States, who have done great damage to this country. 
Perhaps whether it's Israel or whatever country, if they are a 
proliferator or if they are declared hostile to the United 
States, we should not be facilitating the transfer of 
information, scientific information to them by having exchange 
programs.
    Now perhaps the current Israeli government will change or 
perhaps the violations that I saw earlier have been corrected 
already. If that is the case, terrific. Let's make sure we have 
a good exchange program. Israel is a democratic country. Israel 
is not a massive abuser of human rights or an enemy of the 
United States. But if they either are going to proliferate, if 
they are going to give our secrets to countries that are 
enemies of ours, I don't want them in our laboratories. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Calvert. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Costello 
compromise? [Laughter.]
    That's between the Ehlers and Rohrabacher positions. 
Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
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 six. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, seek recognition?
    Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1656 offered by Mr. Etheridge.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

            Amendment to H.R. 1656 Offered by Mr. Etheridge

  Page 23, after line 14, insert the following new section:

SEC. 16. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COORDINATION.

  Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall ensure, for the laboratories owned by the Department 
carrying out programs under this Act--
          (1) consistency of technology transfer policies and 
        procedures with respect to patenting, licensing, and 
        commercialization;
          (2) the availability to aggrieved private sector entities on 
        request of binding alternative dispute resolution, nonbinding 
        alternative dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation between 
        authorized representatives of the disputing parties, or 
        resolution by the Department's site contracting officer to 
        resolve disputes regarding all technology transfer and 
        intellectual property matters, with costs and damages to be 
        provided for by the contractor to the extent that any such 
        resolution attributes fault to the contractor;
          (3) annual reports to the Secretary, as part of the annual 
        performance evaluation, on technology transfer and intellectual 
        property successes, current technology transfer and 
        intellectual property disputes involving the laboratory, and 
        progress toward resolving those disputes; and
          (4) training to ensure that laboratory personnel responsible 
        for patenting, licensing, and commercialization activities are 
        knowledgeable of the appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical 
        issues necessary to carry out those activities with the highest 
        possible professional and ethical standards.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is to 
this Committee, what would you do if you owned a small 
business, risked your money to license technology from a 
Federal Government lab, and then find out that you have been 
sold a bill of goods. It turns out that there isn't much you 
can do. This very thing happened to Remote Data Systems, a 
small engineering company in North Carolina.
    In 1995, RDS saw an article in Popular Science which touted 
the radar on the chip technology developed by Lawrence 
Livermore National Lab. The microcomputer impulse radar device 
were advertised to be technological miracles. They cost only 
$10 to make, they would comply with FCC regulations they were 
told, and the Livermore inventors it said, had won many awards.
    The RDS shareholders borrowed money on their personal 
guarantees to develop the products based on the technology and 
were under the impression that they had literally struck gold. 
But it turned out the technology which had been called the most 
successful technological transfer project in DOE's history, was 
not a miracle after all. For one, the technology had been the 
subject of an intellectual property dispute since 1995, a 
dispute that RDS found out only after the press reported that 
the Patent Office had initially rejected key claims from 
Livermore's patent. Despite devoting almost all of its personal 
resources and all the profits of the company on making it work, 
RDS found that the technology did not work the way Livermore 
said it would, and came nowhere close to costing the $10 that 
they said it would cost.
    Finally and most importantly, the technology does not 
comply with FCC regulations as advertised. In fact, the 
technology is illegal. What's worse, I'm informed, that 
Livermore met with the FCC in 1994 and was told that the 
technology could not comply with the FCC regulations. But that 
didn't stop them from taking Remote Data's money in 1995, 
almost a year later, and the money of dozens of other 
companies.
    These facts are presented and can be found in the House 
Science Committee Democratic Staff's report entitled Spin Off 
or Rip Off. I would like to submit the executive summary of 
that report for the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                           Spinoff or Ripoff?

                           executive summary
    It is increasingly apparent that one of the keys to the success of 
the U.S. innovation system is R&D partnership--that is, ``cooperative 
arrangements engaging companies, universities, and government agencies 
and laboratories in varying combinations to pool resources in pursuit 
of a shared R&D objective''.\1\ These collaborations give us an edge in 
the international marketplace, but they do not come without conflicts 
and stresses. For example, university researchers engaged in industrial 
partnerships often have to adjust to new practices regarding 
publication rights. Federal agencies may have to deal with fair pricing 
of products, including breakthrough drugs and genetically engineered 
seeds, which have been developed at universities with federally 
sponsored research and then licensed to for-profit corporations. And, 
with growing economic globalization comes questions about licensing of 
federally sponsored research to corporations wholly or partly owned by 
foreign interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Endless Frontier, Limited Resources: U.S. Policy for 
Competitives'', by the Council on Competitiveness, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All facets of these issues are in play in collaborations involving 
government-owned Laboratories. Since the mid-1980s, Congress has 
encouraged the Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories to 
partner with industry to transfer technology into the private 
sector.\2\ These partnerships have taken the form of Cooperative 
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) between the Laboratories 
and consortia of private companies and/or universities, as well as 
licensing agreements. These activities are designed to enhance U.S. 
industrial competitiveness by allowing companies access to technologies 
developed as part of DOE's mission. The Laboratories and their 
scientists have been given incentives to pursue this new mission: the 
Laboratory contractors are allowed to retain ownership of the 
intellectual property developed by the scientists; the Laboratories are 
able to use licensing fees to fund further technology development; and 
the inventors receive a share of the licensing fees and royalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Trademark Clarification Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-620), Federal 
Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502), National Competitiveness 
Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (Section 3131 of P.L. 101-189), Defense 
Authorization Act of 1991 (P.L. 101-510), and the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There has been extensive Congressional oversight of the technology 
transfer mission of the DOE government-owned contractor-operated 
laboratories. Advocates of this mission believe that transferring 
technology developed at the taxpayer's expense to private industry 
allows taxpayers to reap additional rewards from the technologies. 
However, skeptics have expressed concerns that the Laboratories may use 
their resources to unfairly compete against the private sector, that 
inadequate oversight of Laboratory activities by DOE could result in 
inappropriate conduct by the Laboratories, and that Laboratory 
personnel do not have the knowledge necessary to interact with the 
private sector in a productive manner. The Galvin report, which 
assessed the state of the National Laboratory system, articulated some 
of these concerns:

          We are further concerned about the possibility that DOE and 
        its laboratories, in engaging in industrial R&D, may find 
        themselves competing with private firms in providing technical 
        services or new technological developments. In such a 
        situation, the laboratories' access to public funds would give 
        them an inappropriate advantage.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy 
Laboratories,'' Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Task Force on 
Alternative futures for the Department of Energy Laboratories, 
February, 1995.

    In the Conference Report for the FY99 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill, Congress also pointed out the potential advantage 
the Laboratories might have in competing with existing private sector 
capabilities, and requested that DOE examine the issue in a section 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
entitled ``Competing With Private Sector Companies'':

          The Department of energy's laboratories are prohibited from 
        competing with the private sector by numerous statutes and 
        regulations including the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and 
        provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulation regarding 
        Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.
          The conferees have received complaints that the Department of 
        energy has failed to enforce these provisions at the 
        laboratories and other facilities, and that adequate recourse 
        is not available to those that allege harm.
          The conferees direct the Secretary of Energy to assess the 
        statutory and regulatory limitations on laboratories and other 
        Departmental entities allegedly competing with the private 
        sector, and to ascertain what grievance mechanisms are 
        available to the private sector. The Secretary is directed to 
        provide this information to the Committees by March 1, 1999, 
        and make such information readily available to the private 
        sector.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Conference Report (H. Rept. 105-749) on H.R. 4060, the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999.

    Technology transfer programs allow Laboratories and inventors to 
reap financial rewards for patenting and licensing technologies to the 
private sector, but may not have effective mechanisms to prevent unfair 
competition with the private sector, misrepresentation of the 
capabilities of a particular technology to prospective licensees, or 
intellectual property conflicts. Private sector entities engaged in 
such activity would be subject to a variety of legally or financially 
punitive measures such as lawsuits or losses in stock value. By 
contrast, DOE Laboratories do not risk their annual operating budgets 
(which, for some Laboratories, exceed $1 billion), and companies who 
feel they have been wronged by a National Laboratory are faced with the 
daunting prospect of having to sue the U.S. Government or a National 
Laboratory (whose litigation costs are often reimbursed by the U.S. 
Government at the taxpayers' expense).
    Allegations of misconduct surround one of the most widely 
publicized technological developments in DOE history, the Micropower 
Impulse Radar (MIR) announced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
(LLNL) in 1993. MIR, advertised as a cheap, small, low-power ultra-
wideband (UWB) radar device, was featured on CNN, in the Financial 
Times, Business Week, Popular Science, and countless other 
publications, Thomas McEwan, the LLNL inventor, won the Distinguished 
Inventor of 1994 award, the only government inventor ever to have been 
so honored; the technology won an R&D 100 award in 1994. LLNL, the 
University of California (UC) \5\ and Mr. McEwan have collected several 
million dollars in licensing fees, and LLNL won a Federal Laboratory 
Consortium Award for Excellence in Technology Transfer in 1995. MIR has 
been lauded by Laboratory officials in Congressional testimony, and 
according to LLNL press releases, there have been several thousand 
inquiries made by interested companies. Thirty licenses for the 
technology have been sold, each for a $100,000 up-front licensing fee 
and a $25,000 minimum annual royalty payment. In late 1996, Mr. McEwan 
left LLNL and started his own company, TEM Innovations, which sought to 
further commercialize MIR technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ LLNL is a Government owned Laboratory that is managed and 
operated by the University of California under a contract with the DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June, 1998, Congressman Bud Cramer (D-AL) asked Congressman 
George Brown (D-CA), ranking Democratic Member of the Houses Science 
Committee, and several other Members of Congress, to examine long-
standing allegations made by Time Domain Corporation (TDC) regarding 
the development and commercialization of MIR. TDC specifically charged 
that:
           TDC inventor Larry Fullerton invented and patented 
        the same technology 7 years prior to LLNL/UC;
           LLNL/UC and the MIR inventor, Thomas McEwan, were 
        aware of Fullerton's inventions, but did not cite the 
        inventions or other publications describing them to the Patent 
        Office as is required by law;
           LLNL/UC was engaged in false and deceptive 
        advertising practices, because MIR technology did not perform 
        as advertised from a technical or economic perspective;
           LLNL/UC marketed its technology aggressively in the 
        private sector despite the existence of, and in unfair 
        competition with, TDC's allegedly superior technology;
           LLNL/UC have intentionally misled the licensees of 
        MIR technology regarding the intellectual property dispute 
        between LLNL/UC and TDC;
           High-ranking LLNL/UC and DOE personnel have been 
        aware of these issues since 1995 and have failed to take 
        appropriate measures to resolve them.
    House Science Committee Democratic Staff (hereafter to be referred 
to as Democratic Staff) have examined these allegations. Dozens of 
technical and legal experts on all sides of the dispute were consulted, 
including Thomas McEwan, LLNL/UC personnel, DOE personnel, TDC 
personnel, and independent technical and legal experts, and tensof 
thousands of pages of documents were reviewed.\6\ Several written and 
verbal requests for information from LLNL/UC were made by Members of 
Congress and Democratic Staff. LLNL/UC did respond to most requests for 
information, but generally months after the information was requested, 
often without providing specific or complete answers to the questions 
asked, or with information that was later shown to be in conflict with 
other information obtained by the Democratic Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Most LLNL/UC documents cited in this report were obtained from 
sources other than LLNL/UC, most notably from a company named Geisis 
which obtained its information only after litigating a California 
Public Records Act (CPRA, the California equivalent of the Freedom of 
Information Act) request regarding MIR with LLNL/UC. Ultimately, after 
a 9-month legal dispute, the judge ordered the release of about 70,000 
pages of LLNL/UC documents. LLNL/UC paid almost $70,000 to reimburse 
Geisis' legal fees, in addition to the $150,000 LLNL/UC spent fighting 
the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Democratic Staff have obtained documents that support many of the 
allegations made by TDC, and in addition have obtained information that 
suggests further disturbing behavior on the part of LLNL/UC in the 
development and commercialization of MIR:
           LLNL/UC claimed, to its licensees and prospective 
        licensees of MIR technology, that MIR devices could be licensed 
        by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), even though 
        LLNL/UC knew that the devices could not comply with FCC 
        regulations and could not be legally marketed. MIR licensees 
        may also have been encouraged to take deceptive measures to 
        gain approval from the FCC and other regulatory bodies;
           There appear to be serious inadequacies in 
        technology transfer and patenting practices at LLNL/UC;
           LLNL/UC misled Members of Congress and the public 
        about the genesis of early UWB radar work at LLNL;
           LLNL/UC may have misled its MIR licensees in a 
        variety of ways, resulting in considerable financial damage to 
        many companies.
    It is not the role of a Congressional committee to determine 
whether the behavior alleged to have been committed by LLNL/UC should 
incur any civil or criminal penalties. However, there is sufficient 
information to suggest that LLNL/UC engaged in activities that do not 
live up to the high professional and ethical standards expected of a 
federally funded entity. Moreover, LLNL's status as a Federal 
Laboratory caused some MIR licensees to trust assertions made by the 
Laboratory to a greater extent than they might have had the licensor 
been a private entity. In the words of one MIR licensee:

          Perhaps RDS [Remote Data Systems, a MIR licensee] would have 
        been more diligent if the licensor had been a for-profit 
        corporation, but here the licensor was a U.S. Government funded 
        national laboratory with the credentials of having developed 
        revolutionary technologies in the past. Moreover, assurances by 
        LLNL/UC and the policy of limiting of the identity of other 
        licensees restricted the information to which RDS had 
        access.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ November 10, 1998 letter from Mr. Bill Mason, attorney for RDS, 
to Dr. Michal Freedhoff.

    Not only does this behavior highlight serious problems with 
technology transfer activities at LLNL/UC, it may also have resulted in 
substantial economic damages to many U.S. small businesses at the hands 
of a U.S. Government funded entity. TDC lost several valuable years of 
the lifetime of its patents by investing significant time and money 
into attempting to resolve the intellectual property dispute, and 
claims to have lost tens of millions of dollars in government contracts 
and licensing revenues. Dozens of companies who licensed MIR invested 
many millions of dollars trying to develop and commercialize a 
technology that LLNL/UC may have known was not theirs to license, not 
legal for the licensees to market, and not capable of living up to its 
advertisements. The following MIR licensees cite the substantial 
economic damages their companies suffered at the hands of a U.S. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
government-funded Laboratory.

          In summary, had Pile Dynamics, Inc. had any knowledge either 
        that the patent for MIR was invalid or that the product would 
        never be FCC compliant under the current regulations, we would 
        not have wasted our money on a LLNL/UC license for Micropower 
        Impulse Radar nor on the subsequent 2 year wasted engineering 
        effort. This was a very costly process for us. The negative 
        effects of this have resulted in damage to our business.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ December 17, 1998 letter form Mr. George Piscsalko, Pile 
Dynamics, Inc., to Dr. Michal Freedhoff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          After expending these substantial resources, it became 
        apparent that the licensed technology was compromised and not 
        effective for the applications licensed, that the license 
        agreement did not provide meaningful legal protection, and that 
        the FCC certification would be significantly delayed or not be 
        forthcoming at all. * * * In summary, [the MIR licensee] has 
        found that LLNL business practices lacked integrity and 
        transparency. There were extensive delays, attempts to obtain 
        additional monies for the ``improvements' which would 
        supposedly make the technology work, and failures to provide 
        support. In general, there was a lack of communication and 
        cooperation by LLNL. Contrary to LLNL's indications that the 
        technology was reliable and functional, that the license would 
        provide valuable legal protection, and that it was highly 
        confident of obtaining FCC certification, none of these were 
        forthcoming.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ December 22, 1998 email from the CEO of a MIR licensee company 
to Dr. Michal Freedhoff.

    The broader consequences of this case are of even greater concern--
namely, a lack of serious oversight of Laboratory technology transfer 
activities by DOE and UC. Some MIR licensees contacted by Democratic 
Staff have decided never to partner with a National Laboratory again, 
highlighting a profound lack of trust in the U.S. Government in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
words of TDC:

          As the son of a distinguished government research scientist, 
        and as someone who has personally benefited from NASA 
        Technology Transfer programs, I am greatly saddened that the 
        actions of LLNL-UC will bring unfair criticism to legitimate 
        government research scientists. LLNL-UC's actions could 
        undermine national support for important national research 
        goals and endanger future funding.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ February 9, 1999 letter from Mr. Ralph Petroff, President and 
CEO of TDC, to Dr. Michal Freedhoff.

    The U.S. Congress and the DOE need to seriously and comprehensively 
evaluate the technology transfer activities of the DOE Laboratories, 
and take whatever legislative and/or administrative measures are 
necessary to ensure that the Laboratories conduct these activities in 
the future in a manner consistent with the highest possible 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
professional and ethical standards.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I am prepared to support the 
amendment. I think that there are some drafting problems that 
we will be willing to work with you to resolve between now and 
the time the bill goes to the Floor. I think it's important 
that there be provisions in the statute that clearly states 
what's in-bounds and what's out-of-bounds over at the national 
labs. I think that this is a welcome addition to the bill.
    With respect to the allegations that appeared in USA Today 
a number of weeks ago on this issue, I just want the record to 
state that right after they did that, I have written the Patent 
Office asking for a speedy determination of the claims.
    Mr. Etheridge. Very good.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Because either the patent was 
violated by the Department of Energy's labs or it was not. That 
should not be a legislative determination. That should be a 
determination that is made on the facts and the evidence by the 
Patent Office, which is subject to judicial review if somebody 
disagrees with their decision. That is the proper way to get a 
final determination on that.
    But I have asked the Patent Office not to tarry on this, 
because I do think that it is important for them to make a 
determination which we can review, as well as the parties to 
this dispute. So I would hope that this amendment would be 
adopted, and we'll work with you to try to improve upon it.
    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to 
make whatever adjustments we need, but I think it's important 
that we get at least a policy in place.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Maryland, for 
what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you. To comment. To strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you. I want to commend Mr. Etheridge, 
who is a member of our Technology Subcommittee, for his 
amendment and his interest in furthering Federal technology 
transfer. From what I understand, Mr. Chairman, from what you 
have just said, you will not oppose the amendment in the hopes 
that the technical aspects and other concerns can be addressed. 
I agree. I will not oppose the amendment. But again, I make a 
plea that some concerns be addressed.
    I do want to--I believe it is important to note for the 
record that the Department of Energy and a number of Federal 
laboratories have significant concerns regarding the provisions 
contained in the amendment before us. My office has been 
contacted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories, 
expressing their belief that the amendment, if adopted, could 
significantly impact the public policy objectives of the 
technology transfer programs that Congress has carefully 
crafted over the past 19 years.
    As the author of a number of technology transfer bills that 
have been supported by this Committee, I have sought to pursue 
greater collaboration between our Federal labs, private 
industry, and universities, with the goal of encouraging 
commercialization of taxpayer-funded technology in order to 
assure public access and to provide a return on our R&D 
investment to the American people.
    The Department of Energy's concern that's also echoed by 
other Federal laboratories is that this amendment would 
fundamentally shift the nature of the relationship between the 
laboratories and its industrial partners by potentially placing 
the two in an adversarial relationship. Currently, the 
Department, the laboratories, and their industrial partners 
have equal access to all formal and informal mechanisms to 
resolve conflicts. While there may be conflicts that arise in 
negotiations over licenses and research and development 
agreements, they are often resolved through compromises reached 
in the process of achieving a mutual agreement, with most 
disputes historically having been resolved informally.
    The amendment's requirement that an industrial partner 
would have the right to a binding non-judicial process with the 
exception of finding a fault being placed on one of the parties 
as a first attempt at resolving differences between the two 
partners could significantly increase the number of challenges 
to technology transfer related actions. The Federal labs 
believe that this requirement could result in increased costs 
of legal defense, create a hostile adversarial climate instead 
of a climate of cooperative partnership, and potentially 
prolong the process of resolution.
    Additionally, the Federal labs believe that this amendment 
would place them at a disadvantage in fulfilling their 
obligations under existing laws to protect the public's 
investment in the technology that they have developed by 
limiting their opportunity to the appropriate legal recourse in 
reaching disputes.
    So I offer this in the hopes that as this bill is being 
prepared for consideration by the House, and I understand the 
motivation for the gentleman from North Carolina, that he will 
be able to work out these concerns and others relating to 
various ambiguities in his amendment with the Department of 
Energy and the Federal laboratories. By successfullyaddressing 
these concerns, I think that Mr. Etheridge could improve his amendment 
and improve our federal technology transfer process.
    Mr. Etheridge. Will the lady yield?
    Mrs. Morella. I stand ready to work with him. Yes, indeed.
    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. I look forward to working with 
you, Madam Chair, because we have had a chance to work on 
transfer. I believe very strongly in it.
    It bothers me that DOE has had the amendment almost three 
weeks, and they chose not to even talk about it. I think they 
are the ones who really ought to come forward and come forward 
earlier so we can work them out. But I look forward to working 
out the details so that it can be appropriate.
    Really the issue that I want to get to is just make sure 
that there is protection on both sides. We certainly don't want 
to do anything to limit the transfer to the private sector, 
because that's really where the action is.
    Mrs. Morella. I understand your motivation and value your 
feeling about it. I would agree with you too, that DOE should 
have contacted you about that as they contacted me. Thank you. 
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition? The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for what purpose do you 
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. I would just like to 
say a few words on the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. 
Etheridge. This is a complex issue. I recognize that a lot of 
work has been done on this issue by the Democratic and 
Republican staffs and representatives at DOE. The work is 
continuing. The intent of the amendment, as I understand it, is 
to address specific abuses at DOE National Labs with regard to 
technology transfer.
    Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to work closely with DOE 
personnel at a research in my district, the Federal Energy 
Technology Center, which operates under different rules in 
technology transfer and a host of other areas. For example, 
Government-owned, Government-operated research facilities such 
as the one in my district are subject to Department of Commerce 
regulations on technology transfer, unlike the National Labs.
    In short, I am aware that the work is continuing on this 
amendment. I understand that the Administration has concerns at 
this point, and everyone is working hard to address the issues 
raised by Mr. Etheridge without creating additional barriers to 
cooperation between the Department of Energy and industry.
    We have an understanding that one of the changes that has 
been agreed to in the current round of drafting is to exclude 
Government-owned, Government-operated research facilities from 
the restrictions imposed by the amendment. The grounds for this 
are that the intent of the amendment is to address specific 
problems at the National Labs with regard to technology 
transfer, and because there are different regulations governing 
technology transfer at these two different kinds of research 
facilities.
    With that understanding, and recognizing that the work is 
continuing on the details, I intend to support the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. 
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.
    Number 7, by Mr. Costello. For what purpose do you seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have a replacement amendment 
to my amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment. The staff will distribute it.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1656 offered by Mr. Costello.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

             Amendment to H.R. 1656 Offered by Mr. Costello

  Page 23, after line 14, insert the following new section:

SEC. 16. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SAFEGUARDING 
                    AND SECURITY OF RESTRICTED DATA.

  (a) In General.--Chapter 18 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
234A the following new section:
  ``Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
Energy Regulations Regarding Security of Classified or Sensitive 
Information or Data.--
  ``a. Any person who has entered into a contract or agreement with the 
Department of Energy, or a subcontract or subagreement thereto, and who 
violates (or whose employee violates) any applicable rule, regulation, 
or order prescribed or otherwise issued by the Secretary pursuant to 
this Act relating to the safeguarding or security of Restricted Data or 
other classified or sensitive information shall be subject to a civil 
penalty of not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
  ``b. The Secretary shall include in each contract with a contractor 
of the Department provisions which provide an appropriate reduction in 
the fees or amounts paid to the contractor under the contract in the 
event of a violation by the contractor or contractor employee of any 
rule, regulation, or order relating to the safeguarding or security of 
Restricted Data or other classified or sensitive information. The 
provisions shall specify various degrees of violations and the amount 
of the reduction attributable to each degree of violation.
  ``c. The powers and limitations applicable to the assessment of civil 
penalties under section 234A, except for subsection d. of that section, 
shall apply to the assessment of civil penalties under this section.''.
  (b) Clarifying Amendment.--The section heading of section 234A of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 2282a) is amended by inserting ``Safety'' before 
``Regulations''.
  (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for that Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 234 the 
following new items:

``Sec. 234A. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
Energy Safety Regulations.
``Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of 
Energy Regulations Regarding Security of Classified or Sensitive 
Information or Data.''.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Illinois in 
his five minutes explain the differences between this and 
what's in the packet?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, first, last week as you well 
know and the members of this Committee know, Secretary 
Richardson testified before the Committee. He agreed that civil 
fines should be charged for infractions of civil liabilities, 
including not-for-profit contractors such as universities. 
Therefore, I am offering the following amendment.
    This amendment, one, ensures that any lab contractor who 
violates the rules relating to the safeguards and security of 
sensitive information of data will be accountable. Two, this is 
similar to bipartisan language passed in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee last week. Three, the amendment calls for a 
new fine of up to $100,000 to be imposed on lab contractors in 
the event that the contractor or contracting employee violates 
any of the rules associated with keeping classified data 
secure. Last, it will, in my judgment, provide lab contractors 
and universities an incentive to protect our national security.
    Without this amendment, Mr. Chairman, as you recognized and 
stated so, I believe, before Secretary Richardson when he was 
with the Committee last week, right now the private contractors 
are held accountable, but contract employees and universities 
are not. This amendment will rectify that problem and provide 
an incentive, in my judgment, for universities and private 
contractors to protect our national security.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Costello. I would be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I would like to commend the 
gentleman for drafting this amendment. In fact, this amendment 
is better than what is in the Senate version of the Department 
of Defense authorization bill, because the Senate tied its 
penalties to the limitations in the Price-Andersen Act, and had 
a number of specific exemptions which included all of the 
contractors at the major labs where sensitive and classified 
material is dealt with. So it is something that appears to 
impose a penalty on the contractor for breach of security, but 
when you look at the fine print, it shows that it is not.
    Your amendment I think does what the Secretary needs to 
have. It is better than what the Senate did, but that doesn't 
surprise me. So I am happy to support it.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You have just 
explained the difference between my amendment that was in the 
packet and the replacement amendment. I want to thank you for 
your support, and not only for supporting the amendment today, 
but for your input to strengthen this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the 
balance of his time? Further discussion on Costello amendment 
number 7? 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 the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Number 8, by Mr. Calvert and Mr. Rohrabacher. For what 
purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1656 offered by Mr. Calvert 
and Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

   Amendment to H.R. 1656 Offered by Mr. Calvert and Mr. Rohrabacher

  Page 23, after line 14, insert the following new sections:

SEC. 16. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

  (a) Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program to ensure that 
an employee of the Department, or a contractor employee, may not be 
discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal 
for disclosing to a person or entity referred to in subsection (b) 
information which the employee or contractor employee reasonably 
believes to provide direct and specific evidence of a violation 
described in subsection (c).
  (b) Covered Persons and Entities.--A person or entity referred to in 
this subsection is the following:
          (1) A Member of Congress.
          (2) An employee of Congress who has an appropriate security 
        clearance for access to the information.
          (3) The Inspector General of the Department.
          (4) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
          (5) Any other element of the Federal Government designated by 
        the Secretary as authorized to receive information of the type 
        disclosed.
  (c) Covered Violations.--A violation referred to in subsection (a) 
is--
          (1) a violation of law or Federal regulation;
          (2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, or abuse of 
        authority; or
          (3) a false statement to Congress on an issue of material 
        fact.

SEC. 17. INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION OF ALLEGED REPRISALS FOR 
                    DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TO CONGRESS.

  (a) Submittal of Allegations to Inspector General.--A Department 
employee or contractor employee who believes that the employee has been 
discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal 
for disclosing information referred to in subsection (a) of section 16 
in accordance with the provisions of that section may submit a 
complaint relating to such action to the Inspector General of the 
Department.
  (b) Investigation.--(1) For each complaint submitted under subsection 
(a), the Inspector General shall--
          (A) determine whether or not the complaint is frivolous; and
          (B) if the Inspector General determines the complaint is not 
        frivolous, conduct an investigation of the complaint.
  (2) The Inspector General shall submit a report on each investigation 
undertaken under paragraph (1)(B) to--
          (A) the employee who submitted the complaint on which the 
        investigation is based;
          (B) the contractor concerned, if any; and
          (C) the Secretary.
  (c) Remedial Actions.--(1) If the Secretary determines that an 
employee has been subjected to an adverse personnel action referred to 
in subsection (a) in contravention of the provisions of section 16(a), 
the Secretary shall--
          (A) in the case of a Department employee, take appropriate 
        actions to abate the action; or
          (B) in the case of a contractor employee, order the 
        contractor concerned to take appropriate actions to abate the 
        action.
  (2)(A) If a contractor fails to comply with an order issued under 
paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary may file an action for enforcement of 
the order in the appropriate United States district court.
  (B) In any action brought under subparagraph (A), the court may grant 
appropriate relief, including injunctive relief and compensatory and 
exemplary damages.
  (d) Quarterly Report.--(1) Not later than 30 days after the 
commencement of each fiscal quarter, the Inspector General shall submit 
to the Committee on Science and other relevant committees of the House 
of Representatives, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources and other relevant committees of the Senate, a report on the 
investigations undertaken under subsection (b)(1)(B) during the 
preceding fiscal quarter, including a summary of the results of such 
investigations.
  (2) A report under paragraph (1) shall not identify or otherwise 
provide any information on a person submitting a complaint under this 
section without the consent of the person.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Calvert, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the 
whistleblower protection amendment, crafted along with my good 
friend Mr. Rohrabacher, is an attempt to address certain 
recently revealed problems at the Department of Energy. This 
amendment establishes a program within DOE to ensure that an 
employee or contractor shall not be retaliated against for 
disclosing waste, fraud, and abuse or violations of the law by 
the Department.
    Furthermore, it calls upon the DOE Inspector General to 
investigate allegations, and report back to employees and 
contractors involved, and the Secretary. The Secretary is 
required to undertake appropriate remedial action. The IG shall 
also be required to submit a quarterly report of its 
investigation to the House Committee on Science and other 
appropriate committees.
    I ask for the members of the Committee to support this 
important amendment that will protect DOE employees. With that, 
I yield time to my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I am in strong support of this amendment. 
Currently, at the Department of Energy, there is a controversy 
swirling around one of the people that was identified by The 
Wall Street Journal as a security official who was Director of 
the Safeguards and Security Office at the Department of Energy. 
During that time period, The Wall Street Journal stated that he 
had identified lax security inside the Agency. His name is Ed 
McCallum.
    Unfortunately, Mr. McCallum, for being what is the 
equivalent of a whistleblower, is now finding himself charged 
with all kinds of charges and going through all kinds of 
problems. This is what happens sometimes.
    Now I cannot at this time say what are the facts behind 
this because it needs to be looked into, because this man might 
be guilty of some of the charges against him, or he might be 
totally innocent. But we know that when you have someone who is 
willing to speak up and point out mistakes that are going on 
within an agency, that they are leaving themselves open to all 
kinds of abuse, especially in terms of this national security 
issue, which is controversial and one that has a great deal of 
public attention now.
    I think that it behooves all of us to make sure that if 
people like Ed McCallum are being unjustly punished simply by 
bringing out or bringing to attention to the Congress things 
that should be taken care of at the agencies, that they not be 
retaliated against. I believe that this, Mr. Calvert's 
amendment will go a long way to sending the type of message 
that we need to have sent, and also to protecting people or 
watching out for the interests of our country.
    With that said, I yield back my time to Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion? The gentleman 
from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman 
Calvert and my friend Mr. Rohrabacher for proposing this 
amendment. I have read similar press reports, and we had 
Secretary Richardson before the Committee last week. I think 
Mr. Rohrabacher asked some important questions about 
whistleblowing at the Department. I think the last thing we 
want to do is to send the message out to employees at DOE or 
any other Federal agency that if they come forward and identify 
security lapses or other problems within their agency that they 
will be retaliated against.
    So I commend my colleagues for supporting or proposing this 
amendment, and urge my colleagues to support it.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Costello. I would be happy to yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Just for the record, I have every faith in 
Bill Richardson. I think Bill Richardson is a terrific human 
being. I am sorry that he didn't get over to the Department of 
Energy earlier. He has my faith and confidence. But I do know 
that the people under him have been working there, and maybe 
they have made mistakes, and maybe they would report something 
that wasn't true to him. So while I have every faith in Mr. 
Richardson, we have to make sure that any of these charges that 
are brought up, and especially the people who are making 
charges, are protected so they know that they shouldn't just 
keep their mouth shut.
    With that, again, I don't want anybody to believe that we 
don't have faith in Bill Richardson. He is a fine man. We 
worked with him here in Congress. He is a man of his word. He 
is a man of integrity.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment by 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.
    Are there further amendments to the bill? If not, report 
language and the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, has a 
unanimous consent relative to tables.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous 
consent that the budget tables for H.R. 1656 be included in the 
bill's report language, and that the staff be permitted to make 
technical corrections. This is consistent with Mr. Hall's 
unanimous consent offered yesterday on H.R. 1655. I ask my 
colleagues to support its adoption. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman's 
unanimous consent is agreed to.
    Further report language on this bill? If not, it is time to 
make a motion to report the bill favorably.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 1656, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, 
I move that 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. The 
Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. Those in favor 
of reporting the bill favorably will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The bill is 
reported favorably.
    Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to 
submit supplemental Minority dissenting or additional views. 
Without objection, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII of the 
rules of the House, the Committee authorizes the Chairman to 
offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to 
conference with the Senate on the bill. Without objection, the 
staff is given the authority to make technical and conforming 
changes to the bill, and without objection to this bill and the 
two previous bills reported today, they will be reported in the 
form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute 
reflecting all amendments that were adopted today. Without 
objection, those unanimous consents are agreed to.

                                


```