★ 88–380

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–212

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2004

JULY 16, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HOBSON, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2754]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2004, and for other purposes.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 4

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Introduction .................................................................................. ........ 7

General investigations ................................................................. 2 9

Construction, general .................................................................. 3 36

Flood control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ...................... 4 55

Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 5 59

Regulatory program ..................................................................... 6 80

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 6 81

Flood control and coastal emergencies ....................................... 6 81

General expenses ......................................................................... 6 82

Administrative provisions ........................................................... 7 ...........

General provisions ....................................................................... 7 82

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project completion account ......................................... 9 85

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and related resources ....................................................... 9 87

Bureau of Reclamation loan program account .......................... 11 104

California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration .............................. ........ 105

Central Valley Project restoration fund ..................................... 11 105

2

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Policy and administration ........................................................... 12 106

Working Capitol Fund ................................................................. 13 106

Administrative provision ............................................................. 13 ...........

General provisions ....................................................................... 13 107

III. Department of Energy: 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 109

Energy supply ...................................................................................... 16 115

Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion ....................................... 17 123

Non-defense environmental Services ................................................. 17 123

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund ................................................................................................. 18 124

Science ................................................................................................. 18 125

Nuclear waste disposal ....................................................................... 18 130

Departmental administration ............................................................ 21 136

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 22 138

Atomic energy defense activities: ....................................................... 23 139

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ....................................................................... 23 141

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ............................................... 23 152

Naval reactors .............................................................................. 24 159

Office of the administrator .......................................................... 24 159

Environmental and Other Defense Activities: 

Defense site acceleration completion .......................................... 24 162

Defense environmental services ................................................. 25 163

Other defense activities ............................................................... 25 164

Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................. 26 168

Power marketing administrations: 

Cerro Grande Fire Activities ...................................................... 26 168

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 26 169

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 26 170

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 27 170

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 28 171

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............. 29 171

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 29 172

General provisions .............................................................................. 30 189

IV. Independent agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 35 193

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 36 193

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... 36 193

Denali Commission ............................................................................. ........ 194

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 36 194

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 37 195

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 38 196

V. General provisions ................................................................................. 38 197

House reporting requirements .................................................................. ........ 199

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2004. The 

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2003, the 

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal 

year 2004.

[in thousands of dollars] 

2003 2004 estimate 2004 recommendation 

2004 recommendation compare

2003 appropriation 2

Title I—Department of Defense—Civil ................................................. 4,638,827 4,194,000 4,482,328 (156,499) Title II—Department of the Interior ...................................................... 972,294 922,208 947,904 (24,390) Title III—Department of Energy ............................................................ 20,834,432 22,163,367 22,016,347 1,181,915 Title IV—Independent Agencies ............................................................ 206,642 147,921 138,421 (68,221) 

Subtotal .................................................................................... 26,652,195 27,427,496 27,585,000 932,805 

Scorekeeping adjustments ..................................................................... (514,000) (481,332) (505,000) 9,000 

Grand Total of bill .................................................................... 26,138,195 26,946,164 27,080,000 941,805 

4

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2004 totals $27,080,000,000, $133,836,000 above the President’s budget request, and $941,805,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003. 

For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has placed a high priority 

on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program. While 

the Department of Energy maintains that its fiscal year 2004 funding request is sufficient to meet its next major milestone, the submission of the License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 2004, it is clear that chronic funding shortfalls have forced the Department to delay work related to the acceptance and transport of spent nuclear fuel to support initial repository operations in 2010. The Committee believes that it is essential for safety and security to begin shipments of spent nuclear 

fuel, which is presently stored at commercial power plants and 

DOE sites around the country, to the repository site at the earliest 

possible date. Accordingly, the Committee has funded the budget 

request of $591,000,000 to ensure the License Application is submitted on schedule, and, in addition, has provided an additional 

$174,000,000 for transportation and supporting infrastructure development in Nevada, for national waste acceptance and transportation planning, and for other related purposes. 

Title I of the bill provides $4,482,328,000 for the programs of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $156,499,000 below 

fiscal year 2003 and $288,328,000 over the budget request of 

$4,194,000,000. Due to the severe budgetary constraints, the Committee has only been able to provide a modest increase for the civil 

works program and has not provided funds for new studies and 

construction projects. By concentrating resources on traditional 

missions such as flood control and navigation which yield the 

greatest economic benefits for the nation, the Committee seeks to 

ensure the highest possible payback on taxpayer investment. 

Title II provides $947,904,000 for the Department of Interior and 

the Bureau of Reclamation, $24,390,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and $25,696,000 over the budget request 

of $922,208,000. The Committee has not provided funding for the 

California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending 

the enactment of authorizing legislation. 

Title III provides $22,016,347,000 for the Department of Energy, 

an increase of $1,181,915,000 over fiscal year 2003 and 

$147,020,000 below the budget request of $22,163,376,000. The 

Committee recognizes the importance of basic research and science 

programs and has provided an increase of over $200 million above 

the fiscal year 2003 level. In addition, $7.2 billion is provided for 

environmental cleanup programs to remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout the nation. 

Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which 

includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the office of the administrator is 

$8,508,184,000, an increase of $330,617,000 over fiscal year 2003 

and a decrease of $326,391,000 from the budget request. For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee has provided $1,280,195,000, 

an increase of $259,335,000 over fiscal year 2003. 

5

The Committee views with skepticism the large increases that 

DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration’s Weapons Activities account has received over the past three years. Since FY 2000, 

the weapons account grew by an average of 9.8 percent a year, increasing from $4.5 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $6.0 billion in fiscal 

year 2003. In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, DOE proposes 

an additional 6.6 percent increase. The Department has consistently justified these large increases as necessary to meet nuclear 

weapons requirements established by the Department of Defense. 

Each year, the Committee is confronted with a flawed budget process in which the NNSA Weapons Activities request is determined 

by DoD requirements but funded by DOE. Absent in such an arrangement are the usual tradeoffs that any agency must perform 

in setting its budget priorities and reaching a reasonable balance 

among competing priorities. In this case, DoD sets requirements for 

DOE to maintain a Cold War stockpile and nuclear weapons complex, at no cost to DoD, and DOE has little option but to budget 

to meet those requirements. In its fiscal year 2004 recommendations, the Committee has balanced the Weapons Activities request 

against the other important Energy and Water Development funding needs and adjusted funding levels to reflect the Committee’s 

priorities. 

Title IV provides $138,421,000 for several Independent Agencies, 

a decrease of $68,621,000 from fiscal year 2003 and a decrease of 

$9,500,000 below the budget request of $147,921,000. Funding is 

provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the Nuclear 

Waste Technical Review Board. 

(7)

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, this Committee has expressed a growing concern 

about a series of inadequate budget requests by the Administration 

for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

This year’s request does nothing to relieve our concern. Once again, 

the Administration, particularly the Office of Management and 

Budget, demonstrates by the numbers it submits that it has a fundamental misunderstanding of the value of the Civil Works program to the Nation’s well-being. Much of that value is expressed 

in the stewardship of the Corps of Engineers over an inadequate 

national infrastructure which supports much of the Nation’s commerce and provides a physical safety net against natural disaster 

for many of our citizens. 

In the budget submission, the Administration highlights the need 

to reduce the growing backlog of construction projects within the 

Civil Works program. The Committee agrees that this requires attention. However, the Committee believes that the way the Administration proposes to deal with this backlog is somewhat myopic. 

The Office of Management and Budget appears to believe that the 

way to reduce the existing construction backlog is to keep the Civil 

Works budget static at a little over $4 billion while not initiating 

any new projects already authorized for construction, and by cutting off the flow of new commitments by intentionally slowing down 

projects that are currently in the study process and not initiating 

any new studies. 

The Committee believes that this is ill-advised and counterproductive for a variety of reasons. The foremost of these is that 

the water resources needs of the Nation are growing and cannot be 

adequately addressed with just the projects currently under construction. Our Nation’s water resources infrastructure is already 

over-taxed. In order for the Nation to remain competitive in the 

world economy, we will continue to have to make improvements to 

our harbors and inland navigation system. As the population of the 

country continues to grow, more and more of our citizens will inevitably be placed in danger from floods and coastal storms. In addition, in recent years, the Congress has also assigned to the Corps 

of Engineers the responsibility of dealing with the problems of 

aging water supply systems and inadequate sewage treatment systems. To meet all of these National needs, we need to increase our 

8

investment in our water resources infrastructure, not allow it to 

stagnate. 

The second reason why the budget request is wrong for the future of the Nation is that the amount proposed by the Administration is inadequate to meet the funding needs of the projects included in the budget request. The Administration has chosen a 

handful of projects for full funding and appears to be content to 

have the others flounder, after which, most likely, it will call for 

their removal from the authorized backlog. The third reason is that 

there appears to be no sound scientific or economic basis for the selection of the Administration’s favored projects, since it omits or 

shortchanges many of the projects which objective analysis would 

identify as producing the greatest benefit to the nation, its citizens, 

and its economy. 

Accordingly, the Committee has included an additional $288 million over the budget request for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works 

program. Even with these additional funds, the Corps will not be 

able to carry out projects on their most efficient schedules. Though 

the Committee has provided no funds for new studies and construction projects, the added funds are inadequate for needed work on 

ongoing projects, including those included in the budget request 

and those for which the Administration chose not to request funds. 

The Committee has also reluctantly made minor reductions in 

some of the Administration’s favored projects described above, believing that these reductions will not adversely affect these projects 

given the total amount appropriated for the Construction account 

and the Corps’ ability to reprogram funds. 

Like many other Federal agencies, the Corps of Engineers is an 

organization confronted with the need to change in order to meet 

the challenges of the 21st century, including new responsibilities 

which will not respond readily to old methods and old management 

structures. The Committee is aware that the Corps is in the midst 

of a serious, thorough effort to modernize its vision, skills and culture, and wants to encourage these actions. Re-hashing the events 

of the past, even with the clearest of hindsight, is a waste of time 

and money in an atmosphere of rapid change and the Corps is to 

be congratulated on its courage and resolve. 

The Committee reminds that Administration that it has made 

every reasonable effort to undertake a dialog to learn the reasons 

why our Nation’s infrastructure needs are of low priority to the Administration, and why the Administration appears to reject the 

premise that the Congress is entitled to at least an equal role in 

the formulation and funding of the Corps of Engineers budget. The 

Administration has not responded to our requests. It is the position 

of the Commission that coming to an understanding on these issues 

is worth the time and effort it would require and we renew our request to begin that conversation. 

We want to urge upon the Administration another issue, as well. 

There is no better time than the present to begin the process of laying out a roadmap for the role of infrastructure and its stewards 

for the rest of this new century. Several areas of cooperation need 

to be resolved in order to optimize the Nation’s infrastructure. 

Which of our old harbors, locks, and dams are essential and must 

be rehabilitated, and which no longer serve a worthwhile purpose 

9

and can be retired, saving the cost of their operation and upkeep? 

Which emerging opportunities for the good of our economy and our 

people are to be the responsibility of the Congress and the Administration and which will be left to States and communities? We 

need to stop talking past each other and begin to answer these 

questions so that the Corps of Engineers can be given clear and unmistakable instructions on its role in a prosperous and secure future for our Nation. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $134,141,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 117,788,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥16,353,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +17,788,000 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

10


Insert graphic folio 9 HR212.001
11


Insert graphic folio 10 HR212.002
12


Insert graphic folio 11 HR212.003
13


Insert graphic folio 12 HR212.004
14


Insert graphic folio 13 HR212.005
15


Insert graphic folio 14 HR212.006
16


Insert graphic folio 15 HR212.007
17


Insert graphic folio 16 HR212.008
18


Insert graphic folio 17 HR212.009
19


Insert graphic folio 18 HR212.010
20


Insert graphic folio 19 HR212.011
21


Insert graphic folio 20 HR212.012
22


Insert graphic folio 21 HR212.013
23


Insert graphic folio 22 HR212.014
24


Insert graphic folio 23 HR212.015
25


Insert graphic folio 24 HR212.016
26


Insert graphic folio 25 HR212.017
27


Insert graphic folio 26 HR212.018
28


Insert graphic folio 27 HR212.019
29


Insert graphic folio 28 HR212.020
30


Insert graphic folio 29 HR212.021
31


Insert graphic folio 30 HR212.022
32

Matanuska River, Alaska.—The Committee has provided 

$250,000 to complete a reconnaissance report and initiate a feasibility study addressing erosion in the Matanuska River Watershed. 

Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.—The bill includes $250,000 to continue technical assistance as authorized by 

section 520 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. 

Arkansas River Navigation Study, Arkansas and Oklahoma.—

The Committee is aware of the extensive coordination involved in 

preparing the reevaluation for this project and the need to continue 

the work. The Committee, therefore, has included $1,200,000 in the 

bill for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on this study. 

Hot Springs, Arkansas.—The committee has provided $31,000 to 

complete reconnaissance studies for the purpose of identifying flood 

damage reduction measures and improved drainage in the Hot 

Springs, Arkansas, area. 

Red River, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and Louisiana.—The 

bill includes $100,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and 

design of navigation alternatives between Shreveport, Louisiana, 

and Index, Arkansas. 

White River Minimum Flows, Arkansas and Missouri.—The Committee has included $200,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design of project modifications needed to meet minimum 

flows criteria if the pending reallocation report is favorable. 

White River Navigation, Arkansas.—The bill includes $150,000 to 

continue coordination with the sponsor, local interests, and resource agencies, and to continue work on the project reevaluation 

and environmental documentation. 

California Coastal Sediment Master Plan, California.—The committee has provided $300,000 to execute a feasibility cost sharing 

agreement and begin the feasibility phase of this study. 

San Diego County Special Area Management Plan, California.—

The bill includes $250,000 for continuation of a special area management plan study for balancing aquatic resources protection and 

development in San Diego County. 

San Francisco Bay, California.—The bill does not include the 

$420,000 included in the budget request for a study of navigation 

hazards in the San Francisco Bay. The local sponsor, California 

State Lands, decided to terminate the study. 

Solana Beach—Encinitas, California.—The Committee has provided $944,000 to complete the feasibility study and report for the 

Solana Beach—Encinitas shoreline protection project. 

Tujunga Wash, California.—The bill includes $300,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the Tujunga Wash environmental restoration project in Studio City. 

Adams County, Colorado.—The Committee has included 

$100,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase and begin a feasibility study of an ecosystem restoration project on the South Platte 

River. 

Hagatna River, Guam.—The bill includes $150,000 to complete a 

reconnaissance study and initiate a feasibility study on the 

Hagatna River project. The Committee is aware that this project 

has previously been authorized and deauthorized, and that reauthorization would be required prior to the initiation of construction.

33

Waikiki Beach, Oahu, HI.—The Committee has included 

$250,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design of an 

erosion control project. 

Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River Navigation Study, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.—The Committee 

has provided $3,216,000 to complete the feasibility study on this 

vital waterway system. The Committee is aware of the need for 

hearings and reviews prior to completion, but urges that these take 

place as expediently as possible, so that the Division Commanders 

Notice may be published before the end of fiscal year 2004, as 

scheduled. 

Fort Dodge, Iowa.—The bill includes $217,000 for the completion 

of the feasibility phase of an ecosystem restoration project on the 

Des Moines river at Fort Dodge. 

Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri.—The 

Committee has provided $205,000 for preconstruction engineering 

and design of a tunnel upgrade project. 

West Shore—Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.—The Committee 

has included $200,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and 

design for a hurricane protection project. 

Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland and District of Columbia.—The bill includes $200,000 to develop work begun in the 

early 1990’s into a Comprehensive Plan to prioritize restoration activities in the Anacostia River basin. 

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, Maryland, New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided $400,000 

for the study of shoreline erosion in the area of the Chesapeake 

Bay and its tributaries, including the management of sediment at 

dams on the Lower Susquehanna River. 

Eastern Shore—Mid Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland.—The 

Committee has provided $1,000,000 to initiate the feasibility phase 

of this study, which will focus on the use of dredged material to restore and expand the habitat of a variety of animal life. It is the 

intent of the Committee that this funding be for the identification 

and study of existing islands in need of restoration, and not artificial islands. 

Middle Potomac Watershed, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.—The bill includes 

$250,000 to initiate one or more of a number of feasibility studies 

identified in the reconnaissance phase. It is the intent of the Committee that the Holmes Run watershed in Virginia continues to be 

within the scope of this study. 

Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, 

Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.—The 

bill includes $2,000,000 to continue work on a supplement to the 

reconnaissance report. 

Sand Creek Environmental Restoration Project, Nebraska.—In 

order to optimize needed coordination with highway work being 

performed by the State of Nebraska, the Committee directs the 

Secretary of the Army to work closely with the local sponsor on the 

Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project, accepting advance 

funds offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits and reimbursements, as appropriate, for work done by the sponsor, includVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
34

ing work performed in connection with the design and construction 

of seven upstream detention storage structures. 

Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.—The 

Committee has provided $625,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design of a shoreline protection program for this portion of the New Jersey coastline. 

Mid-Delaware River Basin Comprehensive Study, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, and Delaware.—The Committee has provided 

$100,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate feasibility studies. 

Passaic River Environmental Restoration, New Jersey.—The 

Committee has renamed the Lower Passaic River study as the Passaic River Environmental Restoration study and has included 

$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study, conduct public scoping activities, and collect survey data. 

Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico.—The bill includes $100,000 to initiate preconstruction 

engineering and design for a flood damage reduction project in the 

southwest valley of the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Ohio Riverfront Study, Cincinnati, Ohio.—The Committee has 

provided $350,000 to continue the Riverfront Study in Cincinnati, 

Ohio. The Committee has also included language in the bill which 

provides that the non-Federal sponsor shall receive credit towards 

project costs for work it has performed. 

Susquehanna & Delaware River Basin, Pennsylvania.—The bill 

includes $75,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase of a study 

addressing aquatic system restoration, acid mine drainage abatement, floodplain management, flood control and water supply in 

the Southern Anthracite Region. 

Abilene, Texas.—The Committee has included $250,000 to reactivate a feasibility study for Elm Creek, in Taylor County and the 

city of Abilene, Texas. The City has requested that the Corps restudy this area in response to recent flooding. 

Colonias—Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.—The bill includes 

$250,000 to provide technical and design assistance for rural communities, along the U.S.-Mexican border, which lack basic, adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure. 

Crown Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.—The 

Committee has provided $400,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design for a project to improve the commercial harbor 

just west of downtown Charlotte Amalie, USVI. 

Skagit River, Washington.—The bill includes $1,000,000 to continue and accelerate the feasibility phase of a flood damage reduction project in the Skagit River Basin, north of Seattle. 

South Charleston Port, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided $164,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate the 

master plan study for an inland port development in the Kanawha 

Valley of West Virginia. 

Coastal Field Data Collection.—The bill includes $3,500,000 for 

the Coastal Field Data Collection program. The additional funds 

are to be used for the Southern California Beach Process Study. 

Flood Plain Management Services.—The Committee has provided $7,200,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services program, including $500,000 to initiate mapping of areas of the Kenai PeninVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
35

sula of Alaska which were heavily flooded in November 2002. Also 

provided is $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to assist the Town 

of Rye, New York, in developing local floodplain management plans 

for Crawford Park. 

Other Coordination Programs.—Funding provided for Other Coordination Programs includes $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers 

to provide programmatic support to Lake Tahoe restoration activities, including coordination with the Federal Interagency Partnership and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, to implement the 

Environmental Improvement Program. 

Planning Assistance to States.—The amount recommended for 

the Planning Assistance to States includes $100,000 for a study to 

identify problems and potential solutions relating to current and 

future water treatment and conveyance in Butler, Kansas. For the 

study of a Conduit Hydroelectric Project at El Dorado Lake, on the 

Walnut River, in Butler County, Kansas, $50,000 is provided. 

The amount recommended for the Planning Assistance to States 

program includes $100,000 to begin a New Jersey Marine Fish 

Evaluation Study. The Corps of Engineers is urged to consider 

using the Save the Fish Foundation to carry out this investigation. 

To address the problem of sump pump discharges into the sanitary 

sewage system of the Township of Ewing, in Mercer County, New 

Jersey, $100,000 is provided in the amount for Planning Assistance 

to States. 

The Committee also urges the Corps of Engineers to use 

$400,000 to continue the project to upgrade the Daily Flow Model 

for the Delaware River Basin in New York. 

Provided a sponsor can be found, and matching funds made 

available, within the amount provided for the Planning Assistance 

to the States program, $100,000 is to be used by the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a comprehensive watershed plan to 

protect the Indian Brook Reservoir watershed, Ossining, New York.

Within the funds provided for Planning Assistance to States, the 

Committee expects the Corps to use $100,000 to initiate an Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan study in the State of Oklahoma. 

Also provided is $200,000 for a study of water needs in Georgetown 

and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina, specifically as relates 

to the viability of relieving the effects of drought with a desalination facility. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use 

$100,000 to initiate a study of the development of the riverfront in 

Memphis, Tennessee. In addition, the Corps is urged to use 

$100,000 on a study of the Oliver Creek watershed, Shelby County, 

Tennessee. 

Within the funds provided for Planning Assistance to States, 

$100,000 should be used to identify a plan for regional water and 

wastewater development for Denison and Pottsboro, Texas, and to 

support environmentally sustainable economic development at 

Lake Texoma. 

Research and Development.—The bill includes $23,000,000 for research and development, including $1,000,000 to be used for a continuation of a study of urban flooding by the Desert Research Institute of Nevada. 

36

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $1,744,598,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 1,350,000,000

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,642,911,000

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥101,687,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +292,911,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

37


Insert graphic folio 36 HR212.023
38


Insert graphic folio 37 HR212.024
39


Insert graphic folio 38 HR212.025
40


Insert graphic folio 39 HR212.026
41


Insert graphic folio 40 HR212.027
42


Insert graphic folio 41 HR212.028
43


Insert graphic folio 42 HR212.029
44

Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.—The Committee has provided 

$1,000,000 to continue assisting the Cullman-Morgan Water District with contract administration and construction management 

activities on its water supply infrastructure upgrade project. 

Nogales Wash, Arizona.—The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue 

construction of this flood warning and damage reduction project in 

Southern Arizona. 

Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided 

$2,000,000 for modernization of the Dam Site Park to a more current standard and to make facilities accessible to the handicapped. 

Petaluma River, California.—The bill includes $7,300,000 for 

completion, including required reimbursements, of the flood control 

project within the city of Petaluma, California. 

Sacramento Area, California.—The bill includes $8,600,000 for 

the Sacramento Area, California, project authorized by section 502 

of the Water Resources Act of 1999. The amount provided includes: 

$1,000,000 for the project to replace water meters and water lines, 

and undertake canal lining for the Placer County Water Agency; 

$1,000,000 for the City of Roseville Water Meter Retrofit Program; 

$4,600,000 for Technical Design and Construction Assistance on 

the El Dorado Irrigation District, Deer Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant; $800,000 for the Redundant Water Supply Intake at 

Folsom Reservoir; and $1,200,000 for the El Dorado Irrigation District Sly Park Recreation Area water system. 

Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.—The Committee has provided $25,700,000 for continued construction of the Santa Ana 

River Mainstem project, including $10,000,000 for the acceleration 

of work on the San Timoteo Creek element. 

Everglades Restoration, Florida.—The recent enactment of certain laws in Florida is widely perceived to presage or to permit a 

decline in support for Everglades restoration by non-Federal interests crucial to the success of the entire restoration effort. Under 

these circumstances, the Committee is naturally concerned about 

the wisdom of making full Federal funding available without additional safeguards over these funds. The Committee has, therefore, 

included language in the bill which will allow funds appropriated 

for Everglades restoration to be freed for other worthwhile uses if 

non-Federal participants do not meet their agreed-upon responsibilities under the governing consent decree. 

Pinellas County, Florida.—The bill includes $2,500,000 for the 

renourishment of Long Key and Treasure Island in Pinellas County, Florida. 

Tybee Island, Georgia.—The Committee has provided $225,000 to 

initiate a general reevaluation study of the existing shore protection project to identify needed modifications and to determine the 

feasibility of including the north end of Tybee Beach.

Rural Idaho, Idaho.—The Committee has provided $4,450,000 for 

environmental infrastructure projects as authorized in section 595 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended, in 

rural Idaho. Funds are to be used as follows: City of Burley, Idaho, 

$2,000,000; Coolin Sewer District, Idaho; $1,900,000; City of Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, $300,000; Upper St. Joe Distribution Line, 

Idaho, $250,000. 

45

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.—The bill includes 

$800,000 for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barrier 

demonstration project which is intended to prevent the movement 

of invasive aquatic nuisance species between Lake Michigan and 

the Mississippi River. Of the amount provided, $500,000 is intended for operating of the existing barrier, and $300,000 is to be 

used to initiate the design work necessary to make this barrier permanent. In addition, $750,000 is provided in a section 1135 ‘‘continuing authorities project’’ to continue work on a second barrier. 

Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, Iowa.—The Committee has 

provided $500,000 to continue the major rehabilitation of Mississippi River Lock and Dam 19, in Keokuk, Iowa. 

Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.—The bill includes 

$3,000,000 for development and upgrade of wastewater facilities in 

southern and eastern Kentucky, as authorized by section 531 of the 

Water Resources Development Act, as amended. 

Mississippi River—Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.—The bill includes 

$813,000 to complete the reevaluation study, including the investigation of ecosystem restoration issues, of the Mississippi River, 

Gulf Outlet project. 

George W. Kuhn Drain, Michigan.—The Committee has provided 

$388,000 to initiate design of Phase 2 of the George W. Kuhn 

Drain, previously known as the Twelve Towns Drain Retention 

Treatment Facility, Oakland County, Michigan. 

DeSoto County, Mississippi.—The bill contains $8,000,000 to 

complete currently authorized wastewater treatment work in 

DeSoto County, in northeast Mississippi. 

Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, Mississippi.—The 

Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure program authorized by section 592 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Committee expects 

the Corps of Engineers to continue to address the most critical 

water resources needs within the State of Mississippi. Of the funds 

provided, $100,000 is for a study of an alternative water supply for 

the Northeast Mississippi Regional Water Supply District. 

Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri.—The bill includes $1,200,000 for continuation of the design deficiency on the 

Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project. The 

sponsor has decided that the Section 205 project to increase the 

level of protection is not presently feasible and should be placed on 

hold. 

St. Louis, Missouri.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to continue to work in coordination with the 

St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address critical water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Table Rock Lake, Missouri.—The bill contains $2,500,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers to modernize facilities at its Campbell Point, 

Cape Fair, Indian Point, and Baxter Parks, at Table Rock Lake, 

Missouri. 

Rural Montana, Montana.—The Committee has provided 

$2,000,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as authorized 

in section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as 

amended, in rural Montana. Funds are to be used as follows: City 

46

of Conrad, Montana, $1,000,000; City of Laurel, Montana, 

$1,000,000. 

Rural Nevada, Nevada.—The Committee has provided 

$2,050,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as authorized 

in section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as 

amended, in rural Nevada. Funds are to be used as follows: Boulder City, Nevada, $750,000; City of Mesquite, Nevada, $1,000,000; 

and Tonopah, Nevada, $3,00,000. 

Passaic River, New Jersey.—The bill contains $4,000,000 to accelerate the Passaic River Preservation of Natural Flood Storage 

Areas, in the Central Basin of the Passaic River, New Jersey. 

Central New Mexico, New Mexico.—The Committee has provided 

$2,000,000 for design and construction assistance to non-Federal 

interests as authorized under section 593 of the Water Resources 

and Development Act of 1999. Of these funds, $,1,000,000 is to be 

used for the Black Mesa, New Mexico, Area Flood Management 

Project. 

Long Beach Island, New York.—The Committee remains fully 

supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to satisfy requirements in fiscal year 2004. 

New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.—

The Committee is aware of the difficulty posed by the requirement 

that a second shipper be in place on the Port Jersey element of the 

project before the construction may begin, and has included language in the bill to change the requirement to allow work to proceed whenever the sponsor has identified and secured commitments to ship from a second user. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use $2,000,000 of the funds provided for the project to plan for and enter into an agreement with 

a state or non-Federal sponsor to develop a dredged material processing facility that would accomplish the objectives of reducing the 

cost of dredged material management in the port, preparing 

dredged material for beneficial uses, and implementing innovative 

dredged material management technologies. 

Dare County, North Carolina.—The bill includes $1,000,000 for 

preconstruction monitoring and real estate acquisition on the Bodie 

County element of the Dare County, North Carolina, beaches 

project. 

Holes Creek, West Carrollton, Ohio.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for floodwall completion and relocations, to complete the Holes Creek, Ohio, flood damage reduction project. 

Ohio Environmental Assistance, Ohio.—The bill contains 

$17,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Assistance program authorized by section 592 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999. The amount provided includes: $1,500,000 for the City of 

Chardon, Geauga County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a Wastewater 

Treatment Plant, Toledo, Ohio; $3,000,000 for Clark County and 

Lower Mad River Valley Sewer Infrastructure, Ohio; $2,000,000 for 

Clark County & Lower Mad River Valley Storm Water Management Infrastructure, Ohio; $1,500,000 for the Dayton International 

Airport Sites Sewer & Drainage, Ohio; $200,000 for a Drain Line 

Replacement, Lafayette Township, Coshocton County, Ohio; 

$300,000 for the Oxbow and Sand Road Pond Water Pollution ConVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
47

trol Facility, City of Fremont, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a Sanitary 

Sewer Collection and Wastewater Treatment System, Village of 

Hartford, Hartford Township, Licking County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for 

a Sanitary Sewer Line Extension, City of Wellston, Jackson County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for Hospital Site Preparation, Springfield, 

Ohio; $268,000 for the State Route 285 Water Line Project, Noble 

County, Ohio; $2,500,000 for Environmental Restoration, Tech 

Town, Ohio; $375,000 for design of a project for Mason Run, Turkey Run & Walnut Creek, Ohio; and $1,000,000 for the Water Line 

Project, Guernsey County, Ohio. 

Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.—Funds provided in this Act and funds 

previously appropriated for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon, project 

are available to plan and implement long-term management measures at the project to maintain the project in an uncompleted state, 

including design and construction of a permanent trap-and-haul facility to replace the existing, interim facility. Funds may not be 

used for any further work on the Corps of Engineers proposal to 

remove a section of the dam for fish passage. 

Conemaugh River, Nanty Glo, Pennsylvania.—The bill includes 

$1,000,000 to complete construction of the Nanty Glo, Pennsylvania, Environmental Restoration project. 

South Central Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has 

provided $15,000,000 for environmental improvement in South 

Central Pennsylvania. When executing this program, the Corps of 

Engineers is encouraged to consider the needs of Pleasantville, 

Pennsylvania; Union Township, Pennsylvania; Juniata Terrace 

Borough, Pennsylvania; and the Industrial Park in Mifflin County, 

Pennsylvania. 

Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has 

provided $750,000 to continue work on the Cobbs Creek and Mill 

Creek watersheds in West Philadelphia, as authorized by section 

566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 

Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee.—The bill includes $1,072,000 to complete 

all remaining authorized work at the Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Environmental Restoration project in Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee. 

Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.—The Committee has provided 

$9,280,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of 

the Dallas Floodway Extension project in Texas. 

San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, Texas.—Consistent 

with existing project authorities for the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project in Texas, with specific reference to Section 335 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, which modified 

the project to include environmental restoration and recreation as 

project purposes, the Committee directs the Secretary of Army to 

designate all components of the project for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation as one integral and combined 

project. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue construction of such project. Subject to the Secretary’s approval of the 

General Reevaluation Report, the Secretary of Army is directed to 

use a portion of these funds and subsequent funding appropriated 

for the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project to design and 

subsequently construct these combined improvements. 

48

James River, Virginia.—The bill includes $1,150,000 to initiate 

preconstruction engineering and design for improvements to the 

turning basin on the James River, Virginia, navigation project. 

Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia.—The Committee directs 

the Secretary of the Army to use open and unrestricted bidding in 

prosecuting all construction of the Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia, project. 

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.—The Committee has provided a total of $50,400,000 for the Levisa and Tug 

Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River project. 

This amount includes $17,000,000 for the City of Grundy, Virginia, 

element of the project; $1,500,000 for the Bell County, Kentucky, 

element of the project; $3,500,000 for the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; $6,500,000 for the Clover Fork, Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; $2,000,000 for the 

Levisa Fork in Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; 

$4,500,000 for the Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the 

project; $900,000 for the Johnson County, Kentucky, element of the 

project; $1,000,000 for the Knox County, Kentucky, element of the 

project; $4,300,000 for the Tug Fork in Martin County, Kentucky, 

element of the project; $200,000 for the Levisa Basin in Pike County, Kentucky, element of the project; $4,000,000 in the Tug Fork in 

Pike County, element of the project; and $5,000,000 in the Town 

of Martin, Floyd County, element of the project. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Within the amount provided for 

the Aquatic Plant Control program, $200,000 is for aquatic plant 

control at high priority sites in Texas, and $100,000 is for the control of Hydrilla in the Potomac and Tributaries, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia. The Committee is aware of the 

growing aquatic invasive plant infestation problem around the 

country and supports efforts of the Corps, and the private sector, 

to develop new management and control technologies. The Committee further believes that success in the management of these 

invasive species is dependent upon a strong, stable research program. 

Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).—The 

Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14 program. 

Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 

$100,000 for construction of the Addison Creek, North Riverside, Illinois, project; $200,000 for construction of the Village of Riverside 

(Groveland Avenue Berm), Illinois, project; $60,000 to complete the 

planning and design analysis for the Ohio River, Rockport, Indiana, 

project; $200,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Ohio 

River, South Harrison County, Indiana, project; $100,000 for planning and design of the U.S. Highway 83 Bridge project in Garden 

City, Kansas; $330,000 for construction of the Nicholas County, 

Licking River, Kentucky, project; $31,000 for completion of plans 

and specifications for the Holmes Bay, Whiting, Maine, project; 

$24,000 for completion of plans and specifications for the 

Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, project; $100,000 to initiate 

construction of the Belle Isle Park, Michigan, project; $61,000 to 

complete planning and design of the Belle Isle South Shore, Michigan, project; $750,000 to initiate construction of the Marquette, 

49

Michigan, project; $150,000 to initiate and complete construction of 

the County Road 228 Bridge, Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; 

$40,000 for planning and design of the Borough of Rumson bulkhead replacement project in New York; $300,000 to initiate and 

complete construction of the Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, 

project; $250,000 to complete the feasibility study and plans and 

specifications for the Northport, Huntington, New York, project; 

$100,000 for planning and design for the Engel Park, Town of 

Ossining, New York, project; $40,000 for plans and specifications 

for the Losee Park, Village of Tarrytown, New York, project; 

$40,000 for plans and specifications for the Scarborough Park, Village of Briarcliff Manor, New York, project; $75,000 for plans and 

specifications for the Ottawa River, Shoreland Drive project in Toledo, Ohio; $40,000 for plans and specifications for the Hocking 

River, Athens, Ohio, project; $40,000 for plans and specifications 

for the Green River, Waynesboro, Tennessee, project; $40,000 for 

plans and specifications for the Hurricane Creek Road, Waynesboro, Tennessee, project; $175,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Hollywood Interceptor project in Memphis, Tennessee; 

$293,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for the Mount Moriah Culvert project in Tennessee; $100,000 

to complete plans and specifications for the Terminal Road, Chattanooga, Tennessee, project; $100,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Town of Dandridge, Tennessee, project; $100,000 

to complete plans and specifications for the Bogachiel River, 

Clallam County, Washington, project; and $40,000 for planning and 

design of the Concordia University, City of Mequon, Wisconsin, 

project. 

Shoreline Protection Project (Section 103).—The Committee has 

provided $3,500,000 for the Section 103 program. Within the 

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to complete the initial appraisal report for the City of Solano Beach, California, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 

Whiting Shoreline, Indiana, project; $100,000 to complete plans 

and specifications and execute a project cooperation agreement for 

the Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachusetts, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Lake Erie Islands project in Ottawa County, Ohio; and $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study 

for the Sandusky, Ohio, Lakefront Restoration project. 

Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).—The Committee has 

provided $8,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the 

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Point Mallard Park, Decatur, Alabama, project; $640,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the Blytheville Harbor, Arkansas, project; $850,000 for 

construction of the Russellville Slackwater Harbor project in Arkansas; $2,825,000 to complete construction of the Port Hueneme, 

California, project; $100,000 for the feasibility study for the Port 

Tobacco River/Goose Creek, Maryland, project; $50,000 to complete 

design and execute a project cooperation agreement for the Bass 

Harbor, Tremont, Maine, project; $20,000 to continue the feasibility 

study for the Bucks Harbor, Machiasport, Maine, project; $50,000 

to continue the feasibility for the Lubec Harbor, Maine, project; 

$86,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Detroit River 

50

project in Michigan; $75,000 to continue the feasibility study for 

the Mackinac Island Harbor, Michigan, project; $100,000 to initiate 

the feasibility study for the Grand Marais Harbor, Minnesota, 

project; $50,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Knife 

River Harbor, Minnesota, project; $500,000 to initiate construction 

of the Duluth (McQuade Road) Harbor, Minnesota, project; 

$500,000 to initiate construction of the Two Harbors, Minnesota, 

project; $583,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate 

plans and specifications for the Tri-State Commerce Park, Iuka, 

Mississippi, project; $200,000 to complete plans and specifications 

for the Buffalo Inner—South Basin Navigation Project in New 

York; $225,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility study for the 

Oconto, Wisconsin, project; and $305,000 to initiate and complete 

the feasibility study for the Olde Stone Quarry Park, Door County, 

Wisconsin, project. 

Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects (Section 

111).—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Section 111 

program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $125,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Grand 

River, City of Grand Haven, Michigan, project; and $100,000 to 

continue the feasibility study for the Mattituck Inlet, Southold, 

New York, project. 

Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).—The Committee 

has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 204 program. Within the 

amount provided, the recommendation includes $70,000 to continue 

the feasibility study for the Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, 

Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, project; and $100,000 for plans and 

specifications for the Ottawa River, Ohio, project. 

Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).—The Committee has 

provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within the 

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $50,000 to initiate 

a feasibility study for the Grubbs, Arkansas, project; $25,000 to 

complete the feasibility study for the Higginson, Arkansas, project; 

$500,000 to initiate construction of the Indian Bayou, Arkansas, 

project; $75,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans 

and specifications for the Spring Creek, Arkansas, project; 

$100,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems in Yucca Valley, California; $460,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, 

California, project; $100,000 for the Santa Venetia, California, 

project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Flint 

River, City of Albany, Georgia, project; $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Deer Creek, Village of Ford Heights, Illinois, 

project; $1,500,000 to continue construction of the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $100,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the 

Oak Forest and Midlothian (Natalie Creek), Illinois, project; 

$100,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for the Stoney Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois, project; $100,000 to 

initiate the feasibility study for the Olney, Illinois, project; $85,000 

to complete the feasibility study for the Pankey Branch, Harrisburg, Illinois, project; $150,000 to initiate the feasibility study for 

the Shelly Creek, Montgomery County, Indiana, project; $200,000 

to continue work on the Kankakee River (Sumava Resorts), Indiana, project; $115,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 

51

Cowskin Creek, Wichita, Kansas, project; $50,000 to initiate plans 

and specifications for the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers project in 

Augusta, Kansas; $175,000 to complete plans and specifications for 

the Lockport to Larose, Louisiana, project; $125,000 to continue 

plans and specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana, project; $145,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Winchester, Massachusetts, 

project; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems in Benton County, Minnesota; $250,000 for a study of flooding problems in Delano, 

Minnesota; $50,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate 

plans and specifications for the Ada, Minnesota, project; $100,000 

for a feasibility study for the Borup, Minnesota, project; $325,000 

to initiate the feasibility study for the City of Roseau, Minnesota, 

project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for the Marsh Creek, Site 

6, floodwater retention project in Minnesota; $350,000 to complete 

the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the 

Hidden Valley Storm Drainage project in Greene County, Missouri; 

$50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Goose Creek, Missouri, project; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 

Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; $75,000 to continue the feasibility 

study for the Lilbourn, Missouri, project; $200,000 to initiate construction of the Little River Diversion project in Dutchtown, Missouri; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Williams 

Creek, Missouri, project; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study 

for the Greens Mill Run, Greenville, North Carolina, project; 

$500,000 to continue construction of the Wahpeton, North Dakota, 

project; $250,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Jackson Brook, New Jersey, project; $1,150,000 to complete construction 

of the McKeel Brook, New Jersey, project; $200,000 to continue the 

feasibility study for the Poplar Brook, Monmouth, New Jersey, 

project; $200,000 for plans and specifications for the Hatch, New 

Mexico, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 

Hobbs, New Mexico, project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility 

study for the Fulmer Creek, New York, project; $45,000 to continue 

the feasibility study for the Great Gully Creek, Springport, New 

York, project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Moyer Creek, Village of 

Frankfort, New York, project; $238,000 to complete the feasibility 

study for the Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, project; 

$100,000 for a study of flooding problems in Highland Falls, New 

York; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems along Moodna 

Creek in New Windsor, New York; $100,000 for a study of flooding 

problems in the Town of Warwick, New York; $100,000 for a study 

of flooding problems along Blind Brook in the City of Rye, New 

York; $200,000 for plans and specifications for the Irondequoit 

Creek, Monroe County, New York, project; $1,000,000 for the 

Zimber Ditch, Stark County, Ohio, project; $75,000 to continue the 

feasibility study for the Little Mill and Mill Creeks, Pennsylvania, 

project; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems in Surfside 

Beach, South Carolina; $115,000 to continue plans and specifications for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol, Virginia, project; $165,000 to complete plans and specifications and 

initiate construction for the Baxter Bottom, Tennessee, project; 

$55,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Dresden, TenVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
52

nessee, project; $70,000 for a study of flooding problems along 

Jones Creek in Jackson, Tennessee; $250,000 for a feasibility study 

of flooding problems at the KellyUSA site in Bexar County, Texas; 

and $30,000 to continue coordination activities on the Estate La 

Grange, Estate Mon Bijou, Savan Gut, and Turpentine Run 

projects in the United States Virgin Islands. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).—The Committee 

has provided $18,050,000 for the Section 206 program. Within the 

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $235,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for 

the Spring Creek, Tuscumbia, Alabama, project; $90,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Brownsville Branch, Arkansas, 

project; $100,000 to initiate the Ecosystem Restoration Report for 

the Carpinteria Creek Park, California, project; $60,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Upper Sulphur Creek restoration project in California; $300,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration 

Report for the City of Lodi, California, White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility; $100,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report 

for the Thompson Creek project in Santa Clara County, California; 

$200,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Santa Paula 

Creek, California, project; $175,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration 

Report for the Sweetwater Reservoir Wetlands project in California; $100,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the English 

Creek, California, project; $200,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration 

Report for the Arroyo Los Positas, California, project; $360,000 for 

an Ecosystem Restoration Report for the St. Helena Napa River 

restoration project in California; $400,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Upper York Creek Dam removal project in 

California; $40,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the 

South Boulder Creek, Colorado, project; $250,000 for plans and 

specifications for the Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut, project; 

$2,800,000 for the Stevenson Creek project in Pinellas County, 

Florida; $253,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Columbus Dam removal project in Georgia; $100,000 for a Preliminary 

Restoration Plan for the Mountain Park Dam project in Georgia; 

$200,000 to initiate construction of the Squaw Creek Basin project 

in Lake County, Illinois; $700,000 to continue construction of the 

Butler Lake, Illinois, project; $150,000 for plans and specifications 

for the Hofmann Dam, Illinois, project; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Illinois and Michigan Canal, Willow Springs, 

Illinois, project; $111,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the State Line Kankakee River project in Illinois; 

$850,000 to initiate construction of the South Bend dam removal 

project in South Bend, Indiana; $300,000 to complete the detailed 

project report for the Cedar Lake, Indiana, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Wolf Lake, Indiana, project; $200,000 to 

initiate construction of the Grass Lake, Illinois, project; $100,000 

for plans and specifications for the Buras Marina, Louisiana, 

project; $200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Paint 

Branch fish passage and stream restoration project in Prince 

Georges County, Maryland; $125,000 for plans and specifications 

for the Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts, project; $232,000 for 

plans and specifications for the Milford Pond, Milford, Massachusetts, project; $717,000 to initiate and complete construction of the 

53

Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton, Massachusetts, project; 

$50,000 for the planning and design of the New Boulevard, Detroit 

River, Michigan, project; $180,000 for plans and specifications for 

the Belle Isle Piers project in Detroit, Michigan; $72,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for 

the Secord and Smallwood Lakes project in Secord Township, 

Michigan; $296,000 to initiate and complete construction of the 

Wiswall Dam, New Hampshire, project; $110,000 for an Ecosystem 

Restoration Report for the Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New 

Jersey, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the 

Bottomless Lakes State Park project in New Mexico; $300,000 to 

complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for the 

Las Cruces Wetlands Restoration, New Mexico, project; $50,000 for 

a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Alley Creek, Queens, New 

York, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility study phase of 

the Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York, project; $100,000 to 

complete design and initiate construction of the Chenango Lake 

wetlands restoration project in Chenango County, New York; 

$300,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Oriskany Wildlife 

Management Plan in New York; $245,000 for construction of the 

Greenwood Lake project in the Village of Greenwood, New York; 

$10,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Kowawese Area 

in New Windsor, New York; $200,000 for the feasibility study for 

the Echo Bay project in New Rochelle, New York; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Sheldrake Lake/Goodlife Pond 

project in New York; $200,000 for the feasibility phase of the Concord Streams restoration project in Concord, North Carolina; 

$75,000 to continue work on the Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the West Cary Stream restoration project in North 

Carolina; $100,000 for a study of ecosystem restoration and other 

improvements along the Lake Erie waterfront in Cuyahoga County, 

Ohio; $65,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Sandusky, 

Ohio, beach restoration project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility 

study for the Lake Carl Blackwell aquatic ecosystem restoration 

project in Oklahoma; $175,000 to complete the feasibility study for 

the Westmoreland Park, Oregon, project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Springfield Millrace ecosystem restoration project 

in Oregon; $300,000 to initiate construction of the Southampton 

Creek, Pennsylvania, project; $250,000 for a feasibility study for 

the Canonsburg Lake, Pennsylvania, project; $90,000 to complete 

planning and design of the Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers 

Creek restoration project in Pennsylvania; $100,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Upper Chartiers Creek, Pennsylvania, project; $800,000 to complete construction of the Lonsdale 

Drive-In Wetlands project in Rhode Island; $200,000 to complete 

the feasibility study for the Town of Jonesborough, Washington 

County, Tennessee, project; $700,000 to continue construction of 

the Ely/Pucketts Creek project in Virginia; $100,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for Lake Anna, Virginia; $200,000 to continue the Walla Walla River project in Washington; $112,000 for 

plans and specifications for the Lake Koshonong, Wisconsin, 

project; $50,000 each for the Pike River, Trinity Creek, and Wolf 

54

River projects in Wisconsin; and $515,000 for the Cheat River 

Basin acid mine drainage project in West Virginia. 

The Committee recognizes that innovative technologies can provide time and cost savings and encourages the use of the rapid 

dewatering system for the Stevenson Creek project in Florida. 

Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment 

(Section 1135).—The Committee has provided $16,000,000 for the 

Section 1135 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $85,000 to continue the feasibility study for 

the Ditch 28 project in Arkansas; $85,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Horseshoe 

Lake, Arkansas, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study 

for the Millwood, Grassy Lake, Arkansas, project; $2,000,000 to initiate construction of the Rillito/Swan Wetlands project in Pima 

County, Arizona; $300,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the 

Sand Cove Park, Sacramento River, California, project; $1,000,000 

to initiate construction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois, second dispersal barrier; $50,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Indian Ridge Marsh project in Chicago, Illinois; 

$150,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and initiate 

plans and specifications for the Spunky Bottoms Ecosystem Restoration in Brown County, Illinois; $250,000 to complete the feasibility report and initiate plans and specifications for the Sand 

Creek Ecosystem Restoration project in Newton, Kansas; $500,000 

to continue construction of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 

Plaquemine Lock, Louisiana, project; $50,000 to initiate plans and 

specifications for the Houma Navigation Channel, Mile 12 to Mile 

31.4, Louisiana, project; $200,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, Massachusetts, 

project; $50,000 for a feasibility study of restoration opportunities 

in Cohasset, Massachusetts; $200,000 to complete planning and design for the Nashua River, Fitchburg Urban Park, Massachusetts, 

project; $34,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans 

and specifications for the Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township, 

Michigan, project; $50,000 for plans and specifications for the Duck 

Creek, Stoddard County, Missouri, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study of the Old Number 7 Chute, Missouri, project; $150,000 

for the Kansas City Riverfront Habitat Restoration project in Missouri; $150,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Pecos River 

Restoration project in Chavez, New Mexico; $500,000 to initiate 

construction of the Whitney Point Lake, Broome County, New 

York, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Northport, Huntington, New 

York, project; $25,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 

Times Beach, New York, project; $50,000 to continue the feasibility 

for the Conneaut Harbor, Ohio, project; $250,000 to continue the 

feasibility study for the East Harbor State Park project in Marblehead, Ohio; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Sheldon’s Marsh Nature Preserve project in Ohio; $125,000 to initiate 

construction of the Allin’s Cove, Barrington, Rhode Island, project; $750,000 for construction of the Boyd’s Marsh project in Ports- mouth, Rhode island; $100,000 to initiate plans and specifications 

for the Lower Obion River, Tennessee, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study of fish passage improvements on the 

55

Walla Walla River in Washington; $80,000 to initiate and complete 

plans and specifications for the Lake Poygan, Wisconsin, project; 

and $533,000 for Sea Lamprey barriers at Black Mallard Creek, 

Michigan, Carp Lake River, Michigan, Kid’s Creek, Michigan, Paw 

Paw River, Michigan, Schmidt Creek, Michigan, Conneaut Creek, 

Ohio, South Branch Galien River, Michigan, St. Marys River, 

Michigan, and Trail Creek, Indiana. 

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, 

AND TENNESSEE

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $342,334,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 280,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 301,054,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥41,280,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +21,054,000 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

56


Insert graphic folio 55 HR212.030
57


Insert graphic folio 56 HR212.031
58

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Southeast Arkansas, Arkansas.—The Committee has included 

$350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the cost-shared 

feasibility study for the Southeast Arkansas, project to address 

flooding, agricultural water supply, and environmental problems 

and needs. 

Germantown, Tennessee.—The bill includes $61,000 to complete 

the feasibility phase of the flood control study in Germantown, Tennessee. 

Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.—The bill includes 

$200,000 to continue the reformulation of the Memphis Harbor 

project. 

CONSTRUCTION

Channel Improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.—The Committee recognizes 

the critical need to provide navigation along the Mississippi river, 

and the efficiency in the construction of dikes for the reduction of 

dredging requirements. Therefore, the Committee has included 

$41,742,000 for the Channel Improvement program, including 

$80,000 for the Below Williams, Kentucky, dike; $500,000 for the 

Caruthersville-Linwood Bend, Missouri, dike; $200,000 for the 

Moore Island, Missouri, dike; and $1,400,000 for the Drivers Bar, 

Tennessee, dike. 

Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.—The Committee recognizes 

the critical need of advancing much needed work in this project to 

ensure the integrity of the levee system and to protect people and 

property from flooding. Therefore the Committee has included 

$45,939,000 for Mississippi River Levees, including $500,000 for 

the initiation of Birds Point-New Madrid, Missouri, flowage easements; $450,000 to initiate St. Johns-New Madrid, Missouri, mitigation lands, box culverts, and levee closure; and $2,070,000 for 

Nash, Missouri, relief wells. 

St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.—The Committee is 

aware of frequent and prolonged flooding along the uncompleted 

portions of the St. Francis Basin project. The bill includes 

$5,985,000 for this project, including $610,000 to continue 10 & 15 

Mile Bayous, Arkansas, relocations; $400,000 to initiate construction on 10 & 15 Mile Channel improvement in Arkansas; $225,000 

to construct Ditch 13 Channel Enlargement in Arkansas; $685,000 

to complete construction on the Buffalo Island Outlet, Arkansas; 

$500,000 to initiate construction on Piggott Seepage, Item 1, Arkansas; $400,000 to construct Steele Bypass Weir, Missouri; and 

$800,000 to continue project engineering & design and supervision 

& administration. 

Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Mississippi and Tennessee.—

The bill includes $200,000 to continue the reevaluation phase of 

the Horn Lake Creek project. 

Yazoo Basin Mississippi, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.—

The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the continuation of this 

project, formerly known as the Demonstration Erosion Control Program. The Committee continues to feel that this project offers great 

59

value on the investment, and that its results represent some of the 

most effective seen in reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion 

and sedimentation, and improvements to the environment. The 

Committee once again urges the Administration to request adequate annual funding for this project until it is finished. 

St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.—The 

Committee has provided $5,000,000 to continue construction of the 

St. Johns Bayou-New Madrid Floodway in the vicinity of East Prairie, Missouri. 

Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.—The bill includes 

$3,018,000 for the Nonconnah Creek project. Additional funds are 

for the purpose of accelerating originally authorized work. 

West Tennessee Tributaries, Tennessee.—The Committee has 

added $100,000 to initiate a reevaluation of an alternative demonstration project. 

Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee.—The bill includes $350,000 for 

continuation of the restoration work on this project. 

MAINTENANCE

Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.—The Committee is aware of 

the backlog of critical maintenance items in this project and has included $11,690,000 in the bill. The additional funds include 

$750,000 to repair or replace culverts at Mound Creek, Illinois and 

New Madrid, Missouri; $500,000 to repair the Cairo, Missouri 

floodwall; $600,000 to provide gravel surfacing to selected levee-top 

roads in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana; $2,000,000 to provide levee crown surfaces in Louisiana, and $1,500,000 to repair 

the Birds Point-New Madrid, Missouri, levee setback with lime injection. 

Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, Mississippi.—The Committee 

has provided $670,000 for routine operation and maintenance and 

to continue preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement on work to restore the project to design capacities. 

Wappapello Lake, Missouri.—The bill includes $5,765,000 for 

Wappapello Lake, Missouri. Additional funds are for the continuation of road relocation work on Highway D. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $1,966,556,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 1,939,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,932,575,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥33,981,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥6,425,000 

Note: The FY 2003 amount includes $39,000,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 108– 11. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

60


Insert graphic folio 60 HR212.032
61


Insert graphic folio 61 HR212.033
62


Insert graphic folio 62 HR212.034
63


Insert graphic folio 63 HR212.035
64


Insert graphic folio 64 HR212.036
65


Insert graphic folio 65 HR212.037
66


Insert graphic folio 66 HR212.038
67


Insert graphic folio 67 HR212.039
68


Insert graphic folio 68 HR212.040
69


Insert graphic folio 69 HR212.041
70


Insert graphic folio 70 HR212.042
71


Insert graphic folio 71 HR212.043
72


Insert graphic folio 72 HR212.044
73


Insert graphic folio 73 HR212.045
74


Insert graphic folio 74 HR212.046
75


Insert graphic folio 75 HR212.047
76

Mobile Harbor, Alabama.—The Committee has provided an additional $3,500,000 to continue the environmental restoration project 

at Garrows Bend. 

Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.—The bill includes 

$6,931,000 for operation and maintenance of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project, including $2,000,000 to support Corps of 

Engineers assistance in local activities to revitalize the project 

areas for public safety, environmental restoration, recreation, aesthetics, community improvement, and related purposes. 

Pillar Point Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided 

$500,000 for repair of the east breakwater. 

San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, California.—The bill includes $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 

continue the San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, 

including evaluation of the effects of mercury in wetland restoration projects using dredged material and preparation of the Regional Dredged Material Management Plan and accompanying National Environmental Policy Act documentation. 

Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound, Connecticut.—The Committee has provided $750,000 for the Corps of 

Engineers to continue the demonstration program for the use of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredged materials at 

Bridgeport, Connecticut, in Long Island Sound. 

Potomac River Below Washington, District of Columbia.—The 

Committee has provided $320,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 

continue investigations of alternatives for placement of dredged 

material including upland placement sites and beneficial uses of 

dredged material. 

Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, 

and Florida.—The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for operation and maintenance activities, including $3,500,000 for annual 

dredging of the river system. 

West Point Dam and Lake, Georgia and Alabama.—The Committee has provided $6,900,000 for the West Point Dam and Lake, 

Georgia and Alabama, project. The additional funds will enable the 

Corps of Engineers to accomplish maintenance dredging of access 

channels and at recreational boat launch areas at the project in 

Troup County, Georgia. 

Illinois Waterway (MVR portion), Illinois and Indiana.—The bill 

includes $25,726,000 for operation and maintenance of the Rock Island District portion of the Illinois Waterway, Illinois and Indiana, 

including $1,000,000 for the Sangamon River (Beardstown) Sediment Trap. 

Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.—The Committee has provided $2,188,000 for the Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois, 

project, including $500,000 for lock maintenance and maintenance 

dredging. 

Council Grove Lake, Kansas.—The Committee is aware that the 

Council Grove reservoir is flooding privately owned land at several 

sites and that a beneficial land exchange with the owner has been 

proposed. The Committee has provided $1,840,000 for the Council 

Grove Lake, Kansas, project, including $80,000 for administrative 

and environmental costs associated with the land exchange or land 

transfer. 

77

John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas.—The bill includes 

$2,100,000 for the John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas, including $75,000 to complete the reallocation study of raising the 

conservation pool at the project. 

Perry Lake, Kansas.—The Committee has provided an additional 

$800,000 for the completion of repairs to the four flood control 

gates at Perry Lake, Kansas. 

Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.—

The Committee has provided $19,367,000 operation and maintenance of the Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, 

Louisiana project. For the past two years, the Committee has included report language directing the Corps to ‘‘make the safe transit of this waterway a priority’’, however, the ‘‘fluff’’ issue remains 

and the Corps has failed to maintain the authorized depth. The 

Committee directs the Corps to utilize these funds to ensure the 

proper depth is maintained for access to the Port of Morgan City 

and other facilities throughout this fiscal year. 

Mermentau River, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided 

$3,651,000 for the Mermentau River, Louisiana navigation project, 

including $1,000,000 for dredging between Grand Cheniere and the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland and West Virginia.—The 

Committee has provided $2,687,000 for Jennings Randolph Lake, 

including $913,000 for repair of the West Virginia access road and 

repair of the West Virginia outlet tunnel. 

Parish Creek, Maryland.—The Committee has provided $80,000 

to initiate engineering and design for maintenance dredging of the 

Parish Creek, Maryland, navigation project. 

Reservoirs at Headwaters of Mississippi River, Minnesota.—The 

Committee has provided $5,196,000 for Reservoirs at Headwaters 

of Mississippi River, Minnesota, including $750,000 to continue the 

Reservoir Operating Plan Evaluation and $250,000 to continue rehabilitation of the stop log system at Winnibigoshish Dam. 

Clearwater Lake, Missouri.—The Committee has provided 

$2,634,000 for Clearwater Lake Missouri, including $675,000 to 

prepare a new Water Control Plan for this reservoir project. 

Stockton Lake, Missouri.—The bill provides an additional 

$339,000 for continued investigations of the pre-historic Big Eddy 

archeological site at Stockton Lake, Missouri. 

Table Rock Lake, Missouri.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 to modernize boat launch facilities and day use 

areas at Cape Fair and Campbell Point Parks. 

Comprehensive Upland Dredged Material Disposal Site Evaluation, New Hampshire.—The Committee has provided $250,000 for 

a study to identify and evaluate upland disposal sites for dredged 

material from Federal navigation channels in New Hampshire.

Albiquiu Dam, New Mexico.—The bill includes $2,312,000 for 

Albiquiu Dam, New Mexico, including $600,000 to address safety 

issues associated with bank stabilization at the dam. 

Oak Orchard Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for maintenance dredging at Oak Orchard Harbor (Point 

Breeze), New York. 

Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate repair 

78

of the remaining deteriorated segments of the breakwater in Lake 

Champlain, Plattsburgh, New York. 

Rochester Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided an 

additional $300,000 for maintenance dredging of the Rochester 

Harbor, New York project to improve access to Coast Guard facilities, and for other commercial users on the Genesee River. 

Shinnecock Inlet, New York.—The Committee has provided 

$1,216,000 for the Shinnecock Inlet, New York, project. This includes funding to complete repairs to the western jetty and an additional $800,000 to initiate maintenance dredging of the navigation inlet. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.—The Committee 

has provided an additional $3,000,000 to accomplish maintenance 

dredging on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina, 

from the Neuse River to the South Carolina State line. 

Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.—The Committee 

has provided an additional $100,000 for mosquito control and prevention at Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota. 

Muskingum River Lakes, Ohio.—The Committee has provided 

$9,399,000 for the operation and maintenance at all Muskingum 

River Lakes projects, including $1,600,000 to correct the seepage 

problem at the Magnolia Levee at Bolivar Dam to ensure the 

project’s safety. 

Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers below Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,600,000 to complete the rehabilitation of the breakwater 

at the East Astoria Boat Basin. 

Depoe Bay, Oregon.—The Committee has provided $350,000 to 

continue repair and stabilization of the harbor seawall and local 

landslide at Depoe Bay, Oregon. 

Siuslaw River, Oregon.—The Committee has provided $100,000 

to continue monitoring of the north and south jetties and to continue to study alternatives to repair these damaged structures. 

Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.—The bill includes an additional 

$500,000 to initiate repair and restoration of the jetties at the 

Tillamook Bay and Bar project. 

Francis E Walter Dam, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided $1,181,000 for the operation and maintenance of Francis E 

Walter Dam, including $500,000 to continue relocation of the access 

road to improve safety and provide permanent access to vehicles. 

Johnstown, Pennsylvania.—The bill includes $2,497,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers to continue the major rehabilitation of the 

Johnstown, Pennsylvania, local flood protection project. 

Monongahela River, PA.—The bill includes $700,000 for additional maintenance at the Hildebrand, Morgantown, and Opekiska 

locks on the Monongahela River. 

Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided 

$6,074,000 for operation and maintenance of Raystown Lake, including $400,000 to install a data automation system. 

Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has pro- vided $4,352,000 for operation and maintenance of Tioga-Hammond 

Lakes, including $500,000 to complete engineering and design and 

initiate construction of a new access road to the Lambs Creek 

Recreation Area. 

79

Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided an 

additional $550,000 to complete campground and facility upgrades 

at Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania. 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State 

of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration.—The 

Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the State and Tribes for approved cultural resource investigations and stewardship plans. 

Belton Lake, Texas.—The Committee has provided $4,613,000 for 

operation and maintenance of the Belton Lake, Texas, project including $1,314,000 to refurbish and improve facilities at White 

Flint Park and for other backlog maintenance. 

Town Bluff Dam, B.A. Steinhagen Lake, Texas.—The Committee 

has provided an additional $925,000 to modernize and renovate 

recreation facilities at Camper’s Cove Park and to modernize and 

renovate recreation facilities and reduce shoreline erosion to protect existing recreation facilities at Sandy Creek Park. 

Wright Patman Dam and Lake, Texas.—The bill includes 

$3,464,000 for scheduled operation and maintenance at Wright Patman Dam and Lake, Texas, including $60,000 to determine the feasibility of a second marina.

Appomattox River, Virginia.—The Committee has provided 

$150,000 for an assessment of the suitability of the proposed 

dredged material placement site for the Appomattox River, Virginia, navigation channel. 

Deep Creek, Newport News, Virginia.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for maintenance dredging to remove hazardous 

shoals along the waterway. 

Pagan River, Virginia.—The Committee has provided $400,000 

for preparation of plans and specifications to remove hazardous 

shoals along the waterway. 

Tyler’s Beach, Virginia.—The Committee has provided $100,000 

for an assessment of the suitability of the dredged material placement site. 

Waterway on the Coast of Virginia, Virginia.—The bill includes 

$1,785,000 for continued maintenance dredging of the Waterway on 

the Coast of Virginia project, including $500,000 to remove additional shoals in the waterway. 

Columbia River between Chinook and the Head of Sand Island, 

Washington.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for maintenance dredging for the Columbia River between Chinook and the 

Head of Sand Island, Washington. 

Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.—The bill includes $9,377,000 for operation and maintenance of the Grays Harbor and Chehalis project in Washington, including $1,000,000 to 

further protect against breaching at the South Jetty near Half 

Moon Bay. 

R. D. Bailey Lake, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided 

an additional $150,000 to relocate a permanent trash boom and 

construct a drift and debris staging area. 

Coastal Inlet Research Program.—The Committee has provided $3,050,000 for the Coastal Inlet Research Program, including 

$300,000 to continue the development of applied hydrodynamic and 

sediment transport change models for existing navigation projects. 

Specifically, the Corps Engineering Research Development CenterVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
80

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory will use this additional funding 

to work with the Corps Portland District to apply these models to 

the Grays Harbor Navigation Study and identify operations and 

maintenance changes to reduce annual maintenance dredging 

costs. The Committee recognizes that high quality data of tidal 

inlet processes and the associated response are essential to development of these models and will maximize their utility for Corps 

navigation projects nationwide. 

Hydropower Maintenance.—The budget includes a proposal for 

the Power Marketing Administrations (excluding the Bonneville 

Power Administration) to provide direct funding from power sale 

revenues for the operation and maintenance of Corps’ hydropower 

facilities. Currently, hydropower operation and maintenance costs 

are appropriated from the General Fund. The Administration has 

submitted the necessary legislation to authorize this change. In anticipation of this change, the budget request includes $149 million 

for hydropower operation and maintenance, about $49,000,000 

more than the amount normally recommended. Due to budgetary 

constraints, the Committee has not provided this additional funding pending action by the appropriate authorizing committees to 

enact the proposal. 

Inland Waterway Navigation Charts.—The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to continue upgrades and conversions 

of electronic navigation charting for important secondary waterways in our nation’s inland navigation system, such as the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, and related waterways, and the Illinois, Cumberland and Arkansas Rivers. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $138,096,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 144,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 144,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +5,904,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs to administer laws pertaining to the regulation of navigable waters and 

wetlands of the United States in accordance with the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Marine 

Protection Act of 1972. 

For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $144,000,000, the same as the budget request and 

$5,904,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003. 

St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.—The Committee is aware of a reported lack of enforcement actions taken by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers for barge fleeting permit violators in the vicinity of St. 

Charles Parish, Louisiana, and directs the Corps to immediately 

ensure barge fleeting activities in the vicinity of St. Charles Parish 

are consistent with permitted activities. Within 90 days from the 

enactment of this legislation, the Corps shall provide a report to 

the committee on enforcement actions taken in the most recent fiscal year for which complete data is available. 

81

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $144,057,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 140,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 140,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥4,057,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the same as 

the budget request and $4,057,000 below fiscal year 2003 funding. 

The Corps may reprogram up to $1,000,000 among FUSRAP 

projects; reprogramming of amounts equal to or greater than 

$1,000,000 require Committee approval. 

Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 

(DOE) to the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible FUSRAP sites 

where DOE had not completed cleanup. The Committee did not intend to transfer to the Corps ownership of and accountability for 

real property interests, which remain with DOE. The Committee 

expects DOE to continue to provide its institutional knowledge and 

expertise to serve the Nation and the affected communities to ensure the success of this program. 

The Committee renews its guidance to the Corps to prepare a biannual report that provides a brief summary on the status of remediation efforts ongoing at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of this report 

should be made available to Congress, local stakeholders, and appropriate local, state, and Federal officials. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $14,902,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 70,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 40,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +25,098,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥30,000,000 

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies appropriation funds 

flood emergency preparation, flood fighting and rescue operations, 

and repair of flood control and Federal hurricane or shore protection works. It also provides funds for emergency supplies of drinking water where the source has been contaminated, and, in drought 

distressed areas, provides for adequate supplies of water for human 

and livestock consumption. 

For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has recommended 

$40,000,000, $25,089,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal 

year 2003 and $40,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is aware that a number of innovative systems 

have been developed for use in flood fights. One such system is the 

Rapid Deployment Flood Wall, which utilizes a series of interconnecting plastic cells which, when filled with sand, form a flood 

protection barrier. The Committee continues to encourage the 

Corps of Engineers to invest in the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall 

82

technology to evaluate the improvement in flood fighting that could 

be achieved through the use of this technology. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $154,143,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 171,000,000

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 164,000,000

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +9,857,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥7,000,000

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office of the 

Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and 

statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. 

The Committee recommendation for General Expenses is $164,000,000, $7,000,000 below the budget request and $9,857,000 

above the fiscal year 2003 amount. 

The Committee is concerned that the budget request included $7,000,000 for an audit of the Corps of Engineers, and has not included the requested funds in the bill. The requirement that the 

Corps of Engineers be audited on an annual basis is not new; only 

the requirement that the audit be done be accomplished by expensive private-sector practitioners at a cost to the taxpayer of millions 

of dollars is new. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 

continue to produce the same audit-ready reports as in previous 

years, and urges the Secretary of the Army to make every reasonable effort to arrive at a suitable arrangement for having the Corps 

audited by government auditors. 

The recommendation also includes bill language prohibiting the 

use of funds to support a congressional affairs office within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. This language has been included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act since 

fiscal year 2000. 

Reprogramming of Funds.—Over the years, Committee has 

granted the Corps of Engineers great latitude to reprogram funds 

from studies, construction projects, and maintenance activities 

which are either delayed or are being terminated to those where 

the funds can be effectively used to keep projects moving and accelerate completion. The Committee believes that the ability to reprogram funds is essential to the Corps’ ability to effectively manage 

its program. Accordingly, the Committee was very concerned to 

learn that the Corps of Engineers has not been reprogramming 

funds from a number of projects which are obviously not moving 

forward. It has been and continues to be the intent of the Committee that when any project is not moving forward, the Corps of 

Engineers look to reprogram the funds appropriated for that 

project to one where the funds can be effectively utilized unless explicitly instructed not to do so by the Committee on Appropriations. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration which places a limit on credits and reimbursements 

allowable per project and annually for all projects. The AdministraVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
83

tion also proposed that this provision be made permanent law; 

however, the Committee has elected not to make that change. 

Sec. 102. The Committee has included language prohibiting the 

expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in Tuscarawas 

County, Ohio. 

Sec. 103. The Committee has included language prohibiting the 

expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in Stark County, 

Ohio. 

Sec. 104. The Committee has included language renaming Lock 

and Dam 3 on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania. 

(85)

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $35,992,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 44,191,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 38,191,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +2,199,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥6,000,000 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II—VI of Public 

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the Central Utah 

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a 

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 to carry out 

the provisions of the Act is $39,191,000, $6,000,000 below the budget request and $2,199,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal 

year 2003. 

Section 402(b)(3)(B) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act 

directed that the Secretary of Energy, out of funds appropriated to 

the Western Area Power Administration, contribute funds annually 

to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Fund. The 

amount to be contributed is currently $6,000,000. On May 9, 2003, 

the Administration submitted a budget amendment proposing to 

transfer that responsibility to the Secretary of the Interior and requesting an additional $6,000,000 in this account for that purpose. 

The Committee believes that this matter should be addressed by 

the appropriate authorizing committee and has not, therefore, included the proposed amendment to the Central Utah Project Completion Act. The Committee has also not included the additional 

funds requested by the Administration. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

In May of this year, the Secretary of the Interior announced a 

new initiative—Water 2025: Preventing Water Crises and Conflict 

in the West. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Bureau of 

Reclamation includes $11,000,000 to initiate this effort, the purVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
86

pose of which is to prevent water supply problems from reaching 

the crisis stage. 

The Committee supports this effort and has provided the funds 

requested by the Administration. However, the Committee is troubled by other actions taken in the fiscal year 2004 budget request 

that seem to contradict the goals of the Water 2025 program. 

One of the ways the Department proposes to meet the challenge 

of inadequate water supplies is through improved technology. The 

Department states, ‘‘Wastewater, salty and other impaired water 

can be purified to increase their utility.’’ In fact, while additional 

research in this area is important, the technology already exists to 

make use of wastewater and other impaired waters. Title 16 of 

Public Law 102–575 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘to 

undertake a program to investigate and identify opportunities for 

reclamation and reuse of municipal, industrial, domestic, and agricultural wastewater, and naturally impaired ground and surface 

waters, for the design and construction of demonstration and permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse wastewater, and to conduct 

research, including desalting, for the reclamation of wastewater 

and naturally impaired ground and surface waters.’’ Under this 

program, 25 individual water reclamation and reuse projects have 

been authorized for construction. These projects directly accomplish 

the goals of the Water 2025 program by developing new sources of 

usable water through the use of state-of-the-art technology. In addition, the overwhelming majority of the cost of these projects is 

borne by local interests. However, for some reason, the Administration has determined that continued funding for these projects is not 

a high priority. For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has requested $12,680,000 for water reclamation and reuse projects, 

$17,770,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 in 

spite of the fact that the Administration recognizes that ‘‘these 

water reuse and recycling projects help expand water supplies in 

areas that routinely face severe water shortages, and are especially 

important in helping to shift California from its dependence on Colorado River water.’’ While obviously not the solution to all of the 

water problems in the West, these projects make an important contribution, and the Committee urges the Administration to reconsider its lack of support for this program. 

The Committee is also very troubled by the by the lack of funding requested for rural water supply projects. The purpose of the 

Water 2025 program is to address water supply problems before 

they reach the crisis stage; however, there are areas of the west, 

particularly in the upper Great Plains, where a crisis already exists 

because of the poor quality of available groundwater supplies. As 

the Department of the Interior has stated, ‘‘In some rural communities and Indian reservations, this salty groundwater is unusable 

for human consumption, limiting growth and prosperity.’’ In fact, 

the poor quality groundwater does more than limit growth and 

prosperity, it causes significant health problems. To address this 

problem, the Congress has authorized Federal participation in a 

number of projects that will replace impaired groundwater with 

clean surface water supplies from a variety of sources. Some of 

these projects have been under construction for a number of years. 

The Committee is particularly concerned that the Administration’s 

87

budget request would essentially halt construction on those 

projects, resulting in increased costs, and more importantly, forcing 

people to continue to drink unhealthy water. Accordingly, the Committee has provided funds to allow ongoing projects to continue and 

urges the Administration to do the same in future budget requests. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $833,203,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 771,217,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 817,913,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥15,290,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +46,696,000 NOTE: The fiscal year 2003 amount includes $25,000,000 in supplemental appropriations enacted in Public 

Law 108–11. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

88


Insert graphic folio 88 HR212.048
89


Insert graphic folio 89 HR212.049
90


Insert graphic folio 90 HR212.050
91


Insert graphic folio 91 HR212.051
92


Insert graphic folio 92 HR212.052
93


Insert graphic folio 93 HR212.053
94


Insert graphic folio 94 HR212.054
95


Insert graphic folio 95 HR212.055
96


Insert graphic folio 96 HR212.056
97


Insert graphic folio 97 HR212.057
98


Insert graphic folio 98 HR212.058
99

Central Arizona Project, Arizona.—The Committee is aware that 

under the proposed Gila River Indian Community Water Rights 

Settlement, the Federal government has agreed to forgo over $158 

million in debt to agricultural subcontractors who voluntarily relinquish their long-term Central Arizona Project water contracts. The 

Committee believes that pending the enactment of the legislation 

to enact the settlement, those contractors should not be forced to 

repay that debt. As the bill moves through the appropriations process, the Committee will consider adding language to the bill which 

permits the Secretary of the Interior to extend, on an annual 

schedule, the repayment schedules for that debt. 

Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and California.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for 

the Bureau of Reclamation to continue planning and design of regulating reservoirs near the All-American Canal. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I, Arizona.—

The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is 

having to make excess releases of more than 100,000 acre-feet of 

water per year from storage in Colorado River reservoirs in order 

to meet the delivery requirements of the 1944 Treaty with Mexico. 

This is due to not counting Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District drainage flows that are bypassed to the Cienega de 

Santa Clara as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet required to satisfy 

the Treaty. This loss of water has become particularly acute due 

to the drought in the Colorado River Basin. The loss of more than 

100,000 acre-feet per year robs all seven basin states of badly needed water. 

Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act identified 

construction and operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant as the solution to the agreement between the United States and Mexico preferred by all the parties. However, except for a six-month test period beginning in late 1992 when the plant was operated at onethird capacity, the plant has not been operated and has been maintained in a ready reserve status. The test operation identified a 

number of design deficiencies that need to be corrected in order for 

the plant to be placed in operation. In addition, certain environmental compliance activities would need to be undertaken before 

the plant can be operated. The Bureau of Reclamation currently estimates that one-third operation could be accomplished in 24 to 30 

months and full operation could be accomplished in 60 months. The 

Committee believes the ability to operate the plant is critical and, 

therefore, directs the Bureau of Reclamation to expedite its modifications of the plant to accomplish state of the art operation, and 

accelerate the permitting and environmental compliance activities 

needed for operation of the plant. The Bureau of Reclamation is directed to report to the Committee on the status of those activities 

by December 31, 2003. 

The artificial environmental conditions of the Cienega de Santa 

Clara are an inadvertent environmental benefit of the facilities constructed pursuant to Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act. As noted above, delivery of water to the Cienega is not 

currently counted as the delivery of water under the Treaty. Using 

funds provided for this project, the Committee directs the Bureau 

of Reclamation to work with the United States Section of the InterVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
100

national Boundary and Water Commission, in consultation with 

the seven Basin states, to identify alternatives for operation of the 

Yuma Desalting Plant recognizing the need to maintain the unique 

ecology of the Cienega, including the capability of Mexico to maintain the Cienega with its share of Treaty waters. The Bureau of 

Reclamation should submit a joint report with the United States 

Section on the results of those investigations to the Committee on 

Appropriations by April 1, 2004. 

Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.—The Committee 

has provided $630,000 for the Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration 

project in Arizona, the same as the budget request. The Committee 

believes that the data being generated by this program is essential 

to support construction of the Tres Rios environmental restoration 

project being undertaken by the Corps of Engineers, and directs 

the Bureau of Reclamation to continue its research and development activities at this project beyond fiscal year 2004. 

Central Valley Project, American River Division, California.—The 

Committee is aware that there is a need to construct a temperature 

control device on the El Dorado Irrigation District water intake at 

Folsom Dam in California and that legislation has been introduced 

to provide the necessary increase in the authorized funding level 

that is needed for the project to be completed. Should the authorization be enacted, the Committee will consider funding for this 

project as the bill moves through the appropriations process. The 

Committee is also aware that legislation has been introduced to authorize the construction of a parallel water supply line from Folsom 

Dam to serve the City of Roseville and the San Juan Water District. The Committee will also consider providing funding for this 

project as the bill moves through the appropriations process. 

Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,400,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation to continue work on the Delta Mendota Canal-California Aqueduct Intertie project. 

Central Valley Project, Friant Division, California.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation to continue the Upper San Joaquin River Basin storage investigation. 

Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, California.—The bill includes an additional $400,000 to continue the 

Kaweah River Delta Corridor Enhancement study. The Committee 

has also provided an additional $5,000,000 for the continuation of 

work on the Natomas Mutual Water Company, Reclamation District 108, and Sutter Mutual Water Company fish screen projects. 

Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, California.—

Within the amount provided for the Sacramento River Division, 

$400,000 is to continue the Colusa Basin Integrated Resources 

Management Plan. 

The Committee has also provided $2,422,000 for the GlennColusa Irrigation District fish passage improvement project, including an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to reimburse the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for costs incurred by 

the District in excess of its non-Federal cost-sharing requirement. In addition, the Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and the Tehana-Colusa 

101

Canal Authority to continue to carry out, in coordination with the 

Bureau of Reclamation, detailed, site specific environmental assessment and permitting work with respect to Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of the utilization of both the GCID Main Canal 

and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to convey water to the 

proposed reservoir. 

Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division, California.—

The bill includes an additional $1,000,000 for implementation of 

the Westside Regional Drainage Plan. The Committee has not provided the funds requested for payment of settlement costs in the 

case of Sumner Peck Ranch v. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Long Beach Water Reclamation Project, California.—The Committee has provided $700,000 to continue work on the Alamitos 

Barrier Reclaimed Water Project unit of the Long Beach Water 

Reclamation Project. 

Salton Sea Research Project, California.—The bill includes 

$5,500,000 for the Salton Sea Research Project, including 

$1,000,000 to continue environmental restoration efforts at the 

New and Alamo Rivers, $1,000,000 to continue the Imperial Valley 

groundwater assessment in cooperation with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and $2,500,000 for additional work 

needed to prepare for the construction of pilot desalination demonstration facilities. 

San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, California.—The bill includes language which provides that $10,000,000 of the funds appropriated for Water and Related Resources shall be deposited in 

the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund to continue the program 

to design, construct, and operate projects to contain and treat the 

spreading groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins in California. 

Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project, which will provide additional water supplies to Camp Pendleton, and the 

Fallbrook Public Utilities District. 

Southern California Investigations Program, California.—The 

Committee has provided $2,235,000 for the Southern California Investigations Program, including $500,000 to continue the Chino 

Basin Conjunctive Use Project, and an additional $600,000 for the 

Los Angeles Basin Watershed Water Supply Augmentation study. 

Boise Area Projects, Idaho.—The Committee has provided an additional $270,000 to offset costs associated with water service contract renewals from Lucky Peak Reservoir in Idaho. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to not seek reimbursement of these funds from water users. 

Columbia and Snake Rivers Salmon Recovery Project, Idaho.—

The budget request includes $19,000,000 for the Columbia and 

Snake Rivers Salmon Recovery Project. Of the total requested, 

$4,000,000 is for construction activities that require additional authorization. The Committee has not provided those funds. 

Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.—The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the Equus 

Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges the Bureau 

102

of Reclamation to work with the impacted communities and the 

State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-scale project. 

Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural 

Water System project in Montana. These funds will permit the 

completion of the pipeline which will bring treated water from 

Culbertson to Medicine Lake, where the existing treatment plant 

is inoperable. 

North Central Montana Rural Water Supply System, Montana.—

The bill includes $915,000 for the completion of the Final Engineering Report, Environmental Assessment, and Water Conservation 

Plan for the North Central Montana Rural Water Supply System 

project. 

Santee Sioux Reservation Water System, Nebraska.—The Committee is aware that the Santee Sioux Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed a needs assessment of water resources on 

the Santee Sioux Reservation. The Committee has provided 

$500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to determine the most feasible method of developing a safe and adequate municipal, rural 

and industrial water system for the Santee Sioux Reservation and 

the surrounding communities. 

Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, New Mexico.—

The Committee has provided $500,000 for the continuation of work 

on the Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse project. The Committee supports the efforts by the City and County of Santa Fe to 

mitigate present drought effects and to achieve water supply reliability and sustainability for the future through comprehensive, regional water development and management. The funds provided 

are intended to help the City and County address short-term 

drought relief needs, and longer-term drought protection and water 

supply reliability and stenvironmental protection needs. The Committee expects the Bureau of Reclamation, to the greatest degree 

practicable, to build upon the design work and environmental evaluation currently being undertaken by the City and County to meet 

these objectives. 

Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota.—The Committee has 

provided additional funds for the continuation of work on the Tribal and State municipal, rural, and industrial water supply programs. 

Oklahoma Investigations Program, Oklahoma.—The Committee 

has provided an additional $700,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 

to continue studies of ways to better manage the resources of the 

Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer. 

Klamath Project, Oregon and California.—The Committee has 

provided an additional $3,000,000 for the Klamath Project water 

bank program, and an additional $500,000 for long-term planning 

for the Klamath and Tulelake Wildlife Refuges. In addition, the 

Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the reimbursement of operation and maintenance expenses incurred by those who did not receive project water. 

Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.—The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the continued construction of the Mni Wiconi 

project in South Dakota, including additional funds for construction 

of the core pipeline system to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

103

El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.—The Committee has provided $370,000 to continue the Haskell Street feature of the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project in Texas. 

Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement, Texas.—The Committee has provided $3,000,000 to continue work on the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Program authorized by Public Laws 

106–576 and 107–351. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage, Washington.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 

continue work on the feasibility study of options for additional 

water storage in the Yakima River Basin, with an emphasis on the 

feasibility of the storage of Columbia River water in the potential 

Black Rock Reservoir. 

Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.—The Committee has 

provided an additional $750,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 

continue to participate with the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users 

Association in a project to reduce salinity and selenium loading to 

the Colorado River. 

Drought Emergency Assistance Program.—The Committee has 

provided an additional $1,000,000 for drought emergency assistance in Nebraska and an additional $1,000,000 for drought emergency assistance on the Navajo Nation in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Efficiency Incentives Program.—The bill includes $350,000 for 

the continued work on the Ganado Irrigation Water Conservation 

Project in Arizona. The Committee understands that these funds 

will complete the Bureau of Reclamation’s participation in this effort. 

Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.—The 

Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 

to continue to participate in an endangered species recovery implementation program for the Platte River Basin in Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, $1,000,000 below the budget request. The 

Committee is very concerned about the lack of clear authority for 

the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in this large, multi-year 

effort. Although the cost of the first increment of this program is 

currently estimated at $75,000,000, the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that costs could be as much as $150,000,000. In addition, 

there are no estimates of the cost of the program beyond the first 

increment. However, the budget states that the only authority for 

the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in this effort is the Endangered Species Act, which would seem to limit Reclamation’s 

participation to addressing impacts of operation of its projects on 

the species at risk. In response to a question from the Subcommittee, the Commissioner of Reclamation testified that a specific authorization for the program would provide clearer guidance 

for the expenditure of funds. The Committee agrees with that assessment and urges the Administration to work with the states and 

other Federal agencies to develop a specific authorization for this 

multi-year, multi-million dollar undertaking. 

Lower Colorado River Investigations Program.—The Committee 

is concerned about a potentially serious pollution threat on the 

Lower Colorado River below Hoover Dam that could adversely impact the drinking water of more than 20 million Americans. This 

104

threat remains notwithstanding the extraordinary financial commitments at the local level by members of the Colorado River Regional Sewer Coalition. The Committee recognizes that there is 

also a Federal responsibility to address the related water supply 

and quality issues, and directs the Bureau of Reclamation to act as 

the lead agency in conducting a study of the remaining technical, 

structural, and intergovernmental steps that must be taken to protect the River. The Bureau is instructed to work expeditiously with 

appropriate Federal, state, local, and private parties, including the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental 

Quality, and the Colorado River Regional Sewer Coalition in conducting this study. The Committee has provided $200,000 for this 

purpose. 

Science and Technology Program.—The Committee has provided 

an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to enter 

into a strategic alliance with the International Center for Water 

Resources Management at Central State University in Ohio, the 

Ohio View Consortium, and Colorado State University for the development of advanced remote sensing technologies for use in operational decisions to deal with the current drought conditions, and 

to develop optimal strategies for managing water resources to deal 

with future constraining events. 

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.—The Committee has provided $3,930,000 for the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The amount provided includes $2,500,000 

to continue support to the WateRuse Foundation’s research program. 

Western Water Initiative.—The Committee has provided 

$11,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the Western 

Water Initiative proposed by the Administration. Within the Enhanced Water Management and Conservation program element, 

the Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake 

a pilot project for innovative water conservation measures within 

the Klamath Basin Project. 

Wetlands Development.—The bill includes $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the East Wetlands Restoration project in Yuma, Arizona. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... $200,000

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 200,000

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +200,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a–422l), 

loans and/or grants may be made to non-Federal organizations for 

construction or rehabilitation and betterment of small water resource projects. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 

1990, this account records the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans, as well as administrative expenses of this program. 

For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided $200,000 for 

the administration of existing loans, the same as the budget request. 

105

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... $15,000,000

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥15,000,000

The purpose of the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration 

account is to fund the Federal share of ecosystem restoration and 

other activities being developed for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership 

(CALFED). Federal participation in this program was authorized in 

the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act 

enacted in the fall of 1996. That Act authorized the appropriation 

of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal 

years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Attempts to reauthorize the program 

have thus far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 in support of the 

CALFED effort through this account. 

The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that have 

been taken in the State of California to develop this program, 

which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water system for millions of people while improving the environment. However, for fiscal year 2004, the Committee has again recommended no funding 

in the absence of authorizing legislation for this multi-year, multibillion dollar effort. Should this program be reauthorized, the Committee reconsider funding as the bill moves through the appropriations process. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $48,586,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 39,600,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 39,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥8,986,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... ............................

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

Title 34 of Public Law 102–575, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding from 

project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 

Central Valley Project area of California. Revenues are derived 

from payments by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include several required by the Act 

(Friant Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to 

non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required 

in appropriations Acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided $39,600,000, the same as the budget request, and $8,986,000 below the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2003. 

Within the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, the Com- mittee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to use $500,000 to participate with the Orange Cove Irrigation District to evaluate fishery 

restoration opportunities in the Mill Creek watershed. 

106

The Committee has included language in the bill which provides 

that none of the funds made available from the Central Valley 

Project Restoration Fund may be used for the acquisition or leasing 

of water for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed 

to in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $54,513,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 56,525,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 56,525,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +2,012,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional offices. The Denver office 

and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical 

costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations. 

For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends $56,525,000, 

the same as the budget request, and $2,012,000 above the fiscal 

year 2003 amount. 

The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is 

not adhering to its guidelines, described in the ‘‘Corrosion Prevention Criteria and Requirements’’, with respect to the use of ductile 

iron pipe and steel pipe. With respect to both products, the Bureau 

of Reclamation should be attempting to establish good engineering 

practices which address the long-term value and cost effectiveness 

of facilities constructed over time. The Committee recognizes that 

additional work is needed to develop a more definitive corrosion 

standard on which to decide the best product for a particular application. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Commissioner of 

Reclamation to conduct a study on the current corrosion criteria 

and to report to the Committee on Appropriations by March 1, 

2004, on its recommendations for a more definitive standard. Until 

a more appropriate standard is in place, which reflects the basic 

principle of long-term cost effectiveness, the current criteria should 

continue to be used. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... ¥$4,525,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥4,525,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥4,525,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has proposed a one-time cancellation of $4,525,000 in unobligated balances available in the 

Working Capital Fund. These balances are the result of savings related to information technology reforms. The Committee has agreed 

with this proposal. 

107

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The Committee has included language proposed by 

the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 

Reservoir in California. This language has been included in Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Acts for several years. 

Section 202. The Committee has included language which prohibits the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease in the 

Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico unless the 

acquisition is in compliance with existing State law and administered under State priority allocation. 

Section 203. Section 206 of Public Law 101–514 authorized and 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to enter into water supply 

contracts with the Sacramento County Water Agency and the San 

Juan Suburban Water District. The Committee has included language which amends Section 206 by removing the requirement that 

the contracts include an annual needs determination. 

Section 204. The Committee has included language which authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to amend the Central Valley Project water supply contracts for the Sacramento 

County Water Agency and the San Juan Suburban Water District 

by deleting a provision requiring a determination of annual water 

needs. 

Section 205. The Committee has included language which provides that funds in the Lower Colorado River Basin Development 

Fund shall not be diverted to the General Fund of the Treasury 

pending the completion of an omnibus Arizona water rights settlement agreement. 

Section 206. The Committee has included language which provides that funds provided to the Bureau of Reclamation may be 

used for the payment of claims not exceeding $5,000,000. 

The Committee has not included language proposed by the Administration authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to continue the program 

of providing grants to institutions of higher learning to support the 

training of Native Americans to manage their water resources. The 

fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act made this provision permanent. 

(109)

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of Energy programs relating to: Energy Supply, Non-Defense Environmental Management, Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 

Decommissioning, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental 

Administration, the Inspector General, the National Nuclear Security Administration, Defense Environmental Management, Other 

Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Power 

Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation generally supports the Administration’s budget request for the Department of Energy and adjusts 

funding for some programs to reflect specific Congressional interests and priorities. Total funding for the Department of Energy is 

$22,016,347,000, an increase of $1,181,915,000 over fiscal year 

2003 and $147,020,000 below the budget request. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

The Committee modifies the direction provided in House Report 

107–681 requiring the Secretary to submit to the House Committee 

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, a quarterly report on the status of all projects, reports, fund 

transfers, and other actions directed in this House bill and report, 

in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, and in the conference report accompanying that Act. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The fiscal year 2005 budget justifications submitted by the Department must include the following: (1) a section identifying the 

last year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for 

each program; (2) funding within each construction project data 

sheet for elimination of excess facilities at least equal to the square 

footage of the new facilities being requested; and (3) funding to 

eliminate excess facilities at least equal to the square footage of 

new facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP). 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY FUNDING

Starting in fiscal year 2001, the Department began providing direct funding for safeguards and security costs by including a separate line item for these costs within the major programs, as opposed to the prior practice of funding these as an indirect cost within each program. This Committee was instrumental in encouraging 

110

this change, believing that direct funding would provide increased 

visibility for safeguards and security funding and would prevent 

the programs from underfunding this important activity. However, 

safeguards and security costs have increased dramatically since the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and these costs vary significantly as the threat level changes during the course of a fiscal 

year. Under these circumstances, direct funding of safeguards and 

security has functioned more like a funding ceiling, rather than a 

funding floor as originally intended. Having direct line item funding for safeguards and security requires frequent reprogramming 

actions to adjust to changing threat levels and security requirements. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to resume indirect funding of safeguards and security costs beginning in fiscal 

year 2005. The Department should include in the fiscal year 2005 

budget request an addendum identifying the proposed funding levels for all safeguards and security activities by site, and the Department should establish a mechanism to ensure that the safeguards and security costs are tracked separately within the indirect 

accounts. Also, the Department is to inform promptly the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees of any significant deviations (i.e., increases or decreases in excess of $1,000,000) from 

these estimates during the course of the fiscal year. 

HOMELAND SECURITY-RELATED WORK

Many of the Department’s contractors are performing homeland 

security-related activities and establishing centers for homeland security. The Committee wants to ensure that funds appropriated for 

Department of Energy missions are not diverted to homeland security activities. The Department is directed to provide a report to 

the Committee on March 31, 2004, and annually thereafter, on all 

homeland security activities being performed by the Department’s 

contractors. This report should provide by contractor and facility, 

a brief description of each homeland security activity being performed, the annual cost of the activity, and the specific source of 

funds (including direct funding through Department of Energy programs, work for others from the Department of Homeland Security 

or other Federal or State agencies, laboratory directed research and 

development, or overhead charges). 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The National Research Council’s Committee for Oversight and 

Assessment of U.S. Department of Energy Project Management recently completed its assessment of DOE’s progress in improving 

project management. This report highlights the importance of 

DOE’s Project Management Order 413.3 to changing the project 

management culture within DOE, and stated that ‘‘DOE needs to 

maintain the project management policies and procedures it has 

defined long enough to convince both DOE and contractor personnel that the changes are permanent.’’ This report also recognizes the value of the Project Management Career Development 

Program (PMCDP) and recommends central funding of PMCDP 

training to ensure broad implementation of the PMCDP throughout 

DOE.

111

One of most salient points made in this National Research Council report deals with initial project selection and justification. According to the NRC committee, ‘‘[p]erhaps the most important single point that the committee has stressed, and continues to stress, 

is the absolute need for DOE management to develop the strategic 

plans that define the need for capital improvement projects.’’ Several program offices in the Department have made significant improvements in this area in the last several years. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has issued its Future Years 

Nuclear Security Plan, its Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Plan, and its Construction Management Plan, all designed 

to provide a more rational basis for NNSA’s future capital investments. Similarly, the Office of Science is preparing a Twenty Year 

Facility Outlook, and the Office of Environmental Management has 

revised its facility plans in conjunction with its accelerated cleanup 

initiative. There is room for improvement in the Office of Nuclear 

Energy, Science, and Technology, particularly now that it has responsibility for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory. 

The Committee is pleased with the Department’s issuance of the 

Project Management Manual 413.3–1 for capital asset acquisition, 

and strongly supports the principles and requirements this manual 

contains. The Committee expects all that elements of the Department, including the NNSA, will comply with the Manual’s requirements. The Committee also urges all elements of the Department, 

including the NNSA, to apply the project planning and management principles identified in the Manual in the management of the 

entire programmatic portfolio in addition to specific capital assets. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee continues to be concerned about the deterioration 

of the Department’s facilities and the Department’s inability to 

evaluate and address the readiness and maintenance status of its 

facilities. The Committee strongly supports the efforts of the Office 

of Management, Budget and Evaluation to strengthen and standardize management of the Department’s facilities and infrastructure (F&I) program and to improve management of all F&I assets. 

The Committee supports current efforts to develop a directive establishing requirements for Department-wide implementation of an 

F&I program, and expects all the elements of the Department to 

comply with such corporate guidance. The F&I directive should establish a comprehensive program for the corporate management of 

all Departmental assets throughout their entire life-cycle and require appropriate data be provided to ensure that funds budgeted 

and spent on F&I assets can be tracked and outcomes measured. 

The F&I policy must also address the large inventory of excess facilities maintained throughout the complex and ensure that these 

facilities are decontaminated and decommissioned (D&D) as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible. The Committee also expects 

the Department to assign Federal staff at each site and Headquarters to provide oversight of this activity and ensure accountability. 

The Committee renews its direction that funds provided for the 

disposal of excess facilities should be competed to the maximum exVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
112

tent practicable, so that contractors with experience in the efficient 

decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition of facilities 

have the opportunity to bid on this work. The Committee is also 

concerned that a large number of new facilities are being requested 

and funded, particularly in the National Nuclear Security Administration, with no plans to eliminate the excess buildings that are 

being replaced. The Committee directs the Department to include 

the costs of D&D for the facilities that are being replaced in the 

costs of all construction projects and identify such D&D costs clearly in the construction project data sheets. 

SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES

Improving safety at the Department’s laboratories, sites, and 

plants continues to be one of this Committee’s top priorities. In fiscal year 2003, this Committee provided funding and directed a series of compliance audits to identify the backlog of safety deficiencies at the Department’s non-defense Science laboratories; additional funding is provided in fiscal year 2004 to begin correcting 

these deficiencies. For DOE’s defense facilities under the NNSA 

and the Environmental Management program, the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) serves as the independent safety 

overseer. The involvement of the DNFSB gives the Committee 

greater confidence that safety problems will be identified early. Resolving those safety problems, however, remains the sole responsibility of the Department. The Committee is concerned to learn that 

the Department is unable to quantify the backlog of safety-related 

deficiencies in its defense facilities and sites. The Department 

tracks the number of DNFSB recommendations that still need to 

be addressed, but does not obtain detailed information on the estimated cost of the corrective actions. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, 

the Department is directed to collect the necessary information and 

report to Congress annually on the backlog of safety-related deficiencies at NNSA and defense cleanup sites, and present an estimate and schedule for the corrective actions. 

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)

The Committee recognizes the value of conducting discretionary 

research at DOE’s national laboratories. Such research provides 

valuable benefits to the Department and to other Federal agencies, 

and is crucial to attracting and retaining scientific talent at the 

laboratories. However, the Committee continues to have concerns 

about the financial execution of this program. One concern centers 

on the manner in which DOE levies the LDRD ‘‘tax’’ on all DOE 

and Work for Other programs, and then accumulates the funds into 

an overhead pool. This Committee typically deals with defense and 

non-defense allocations within the Energy and Water Development 

bill, and the line between those two allocations is not easily 

crossed. Under LDRD, however, the laboratory directors are able to 

pool defense and non-defense appropriations at will. The only obvious solution to this concern is to require DOE to establish and 

track separate LDRD accounts for defense and non-defense funding 

sources, and the Committee is not yet ready to direct that change. 

The other principal concern deals with the application of LDRD 

to work being performed for other agencies (Work for Others). The 

113

conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107–66) directed the Secretary 

to ‘‘include in the annual report to Congress on LDRD activities an 

affirmation that all LDRD activities derived from funds of other 

agencies have been conducted in a manner that support science 

and technology development that benefits the programs of the 

sponsoring agencies and is consistent with the Appropriations Acts 

that provided funds to those agencies.’’ The Department has implemented this guidance by including the following language into its 

standard project proposal and funding acceptance documents that 

it requires the funding WFO agencies to sign: ‘‘The Department of 

Energy believes that LDRD efforts provide opportunities in research that are instrumental in maintaining cutting edge science 

capabilities that benefit all of the customers at the laboratory. The 

Department will conclude that by providing funds to DOE to perform work, you acknowledge that such activities are beneficial to 

your organization and consistent with appropriations acts that provide funds to you.’’ This is too facile a solution for the Department. 

According to a review conducted by this Committee’s investigative 

staff, only a little more than half of the WFO customers indicated 

they could reliably certify that DOE’s LDRD activities are consistent with the funding agencies’ appropriations acts. Nevertheless, most agencies sign the required certification letter to DOE because they see no real alternative. The Committee fully expects 

that there are terms and conditions attached to the appropriations 

acts for these other agencies that are being ignored through this 

so-called ‘‘certification’’ process for LDRD work. 

The Committee is considering changing the arrangement by 

which LDRD activities are funded to eliminate these concerns. The 

results of an ongoing General Accounting Office review will help to 

inform the Committee’s choice. The Committee is receptive to 

streamlining the annual LDRD report to Congress, which is undoubtedly a significant burden for the Department to prepare and 

is of little value to this Committee in resolving the concerns identified above. The Department should work with Committee staff to 

develop a simpler and more useful LDRD report. 

AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

The Committee continues to believe there is too much reliance on 

support service contractors and other non-Federal employees 

throughout the Department of Energy, but particularly in the Department’s Washington operations. The number of management 

and operating (M&O) contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2004 shall not exceed 220, 

the same as the fiscal year 2003 ceiling. 

Report on M&O contractor employees.—The Department is to 

provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 2003 

on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan area, 

including the name of the employee, the name of the contractor, 

the organization to which he or she is assigned, the job title and 

a description of the tasks the employee is performing, the annual 

cost of the employee to the Department, the Headquarters program 

114

organization sponsoring each M&O employee, the program account 

funding that employee, and the length of time the employee has 

been detailed to the Department or elsewhere in the Washington 

metropolitan area (e.g., the Congress, the Executive Office of the 

President, and other Federal agencies). The report should also include detailed information on the cost of maintaining each M&O office in the Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include 

actual data for the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 

2003, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2004. 

Report on support service contractors.—The report is to include 

for each support service contract at Headquarters: the name of the 

contractor; the program organization (at the lowest organization 

level possible) hiring the contractor; a descriptive list of the tasks 

performed; the number of contractor employees working on the contract; and the annual cost of the contract. This report is to include 

actual data for the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 

2003, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2004. 

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS

The Department’s Inspector General recently completed an audit 

(DOE/IG–0601) of one DOE laboratory in which it found that the 

laboratory improperly used a Strategic Initiative Fund, financed as 

an indirect cost allocation on all direct-funded programs, to supplement Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) activities and to pay for advertising and marketing activities. The 

Committee shares these concerns regarding augmentation of LDRD 

funds and concurs with the Inspector General’s recommendation 

that the Department needs to establish a clear policy defining the 

appropriate uses of mission development funds, segregating those 

funds from program funds, and prohibiting the use of such funds 

for advertising, marketing, and other activities designed to benefit 

the contractor rather than the Department. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to inform the Committee promptly and fully when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs 

and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the 

agency’s budget justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 

reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the 

justifications to another project or a significant change in the scope 

of an approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would 

result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority. 

Reprogrammings may also be considered if the Department can 

show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding 

115

for an activity. Mere convenience or desire should not be factors for 

consideration.

Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. 

In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the 

Committee and be fully explained and justified. 

Reporting and Approval Procedures.—The Committee has not 

provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines, 

but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter of the 

guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior years, the 

Committee has not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2004, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference reports. Any reallocation 

of new or prior year budget authority or prior year deobligations 

must be submitted to the Committees in writing and may not be 

implemented prior to approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee’s recommendations for Department of Energy 

programs are described in the following sections. A detailed funding table is included at the end of this title. 

ENERGY SUPPLY

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $696,858,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 748,329,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 691,534,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥5,324,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥56,795,000 

The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; and Environment, 

Safety and Health (non-defense). In support of the Secretary’s decision to establish a separate office in the Department of Energy 

with responsibility for electricity transmission and distribution, the 

Committee provides a separate program line within the Energy 

Supply account dedicated to Electricity Transmission and Distribution activities. Also, in recognition of the assignment of landlord responsibilities for the Idaho site to the Office of Nuclear Energy, 

Science and Technology, these landlord costs are now funded in the 

Energy Supply account and in the Other Defense Activities account. As in fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends that the 

funds for Energy Supply activities remain available until expended. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

The total committee recommendation for renewable energy resources is $330,144,000, a decrease of $114,063,000 compared to 

the budget request. Of this change, $77,047,000 is due to the transfer of activities to the new Electricity Transmission and Distribution program. 

The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) recently 

released its preliminary observations on the recent reorganization 

116

of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

and generally found the new organization to be a ‘‘reasonable structure for managing EERE.’’ The Committee expects the Department 

to pay attention to the NAPA recommendations to facilitate full implementation of this new organizational model. The Committee also 

notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes estimates of the potential benefits of various renewable energy technologies, as required by the Government Performance and Results 

Act. These estimates, while falling short of the metrics that this 

Committee in House Reports 107–112 and 107–681 directed the 

Department to submit, are at least a step in the right direction. 

The Committee renews its guidance to the Department to submit 

with the next budget request a clear set of quantitative measures 

that can be used by the Congress and the Administration to compare the effectiveness of the federal investment in alternate energy 

sources. These metrics should include the Federal investment to 

date in each renewable energy technology and an estimate of the 

cost per kilowatt-hour that is forecast to be achievable with these 

technologies, with information on the comparable costs of other energy sources. Lastly, the Committee is appreciative of the efforts by 

the Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency and his staff to improve the execution of Congressionally directed projects during this fiscal year. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels energy 

systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen research, 

hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems. 

Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems.—The Committee recommendation for integrated research and development on biomass 

and biofuels is $69,750,000, the same as the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research. 

Geothermal technology development.—The Committee provides 

$25,500,000 for geothermal technology development, the same as 

the budget request. The Department is directed to maintain funding for university research at the fiscal year 2003 funding level. 

Hydrogen research.— The FY2004 budget request proposes a new 

initiative to focus on the infrastructure for the generation, storage, 

and delivery of hydrogen. The Administration’s budget request proposes $87,982,000 for hydrogen research, more than double the 

funding level provided in fiscal year 2003. The Committee recommends $67,982,000 for hydrogen research, a decrease of 

$20,000,000 from the budget request but an increase of $28,242,000 

over fiscal year 2003 funding. The Committee reminds the Department that the requirements for competition and industry cost sharing, as specified in the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–271, 

42 U.S.C. 12403), apply to this research. The Committee is troubled 

by the Department’s stated intent to engage in ‘‘pre-competitive 

R&D carried out by national laboratories’’ and directs the Department to compete the hydrogen research program to the fullest extent possible. 

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends $5,489,000 for hydropower research, $2,000,000 less than the budget request for fiscal 

117

year 2003. As directed in the previous fiscal year, the Department 

should focus its efforts on completing a limited program of testing 

and demonstration of new turbine technologies and then transfer 

these technologies to other federal agencies and private sector 

firms for deployment. 

Solar Energy.—Solar energy technologies include: concentrating 

solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and solar building technology research. As in fiscal year 2003, these subprograms are combined into a single account for solar energy. The total Committee 

recommendation for solar energy in fiscal year 2004 is $79,683,000, 

the same as the budget request. The Committee notes that the Department recently commissioned an outside energy consultant to 

prepare an independent analysis to reconcile conflicting forecasts of 

the potential for Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies. 

This independent analysis found that Concentrating Solar Power 

(CSP) is a proven technology for energy production that can be 

cost-competitive with other technologies. Given the potential for 

CSP as a source of hydrogen as well as a source of electricity, the 

Committee expects the Department to take this latest information 

into account and to fund the CSP research program at no less than 

the fiscal year 2003 funding level. The control level for fiscal year 

2004 continues at the solar energy program account level. 

Zero energy buildings.—The Committee recommendation does not 

include the requested $4,000,000 for this activity. The Committee 

believes this activity should be funded as part of the Building Technologies program under the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation. 

Wind energy systems.—The Committee recommends $41,600,000 

for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request. 

Electricity reliability.—The Department requested $76,866,000 

for Electricity Reliability in fiscal year 2004; this program had been 

titled Electric Energy Systems and Storage in previous fiscal years. 

In support of the Secretary’s decision to establish a new office for 

Electricity Transmission and Distribution, the Committee transfers 

$72,866,000 of the requested $76,866,000 into a new program line 

entitled Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy Supply account. The remaining $4,000,000 of the requested 

funds is for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) 

program; these funds are transferred to the Intergovernmental Activities program. 

Intergovernmental activities.—The Committee recommends 

$16,500,000 for intergovernmental activities. This amount includes 

the requested $6,500,000 for the international renewable energy 

program, including $2,000,000 for the International Utility Electricity Partnership (IUEP) program, the requested $6,000,000 for 

tribal energy, and $4,000,000 for the Renewable Energy Production 

Incentive (REPI) transferred from the Electricity Reliability program. 

DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Energy Management is $2,300,000, the same as the budget request. 

118

NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

The Department requested $15,000,000 for the Renewable Energy Resources portion of the Department’s National Climate 

Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). This funding was to be coupled with $2,279,000 from Nuclear Energy and $22,700,000 from 

the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation to issue a competitive solicitation for new technologies to address climate change. 

The Committee supports the competitive approach to acquiring innovative climate change technologies from academia and the private sector, but does not support the pooling of funds from two separate appropriations bills into a single new program. The Committee does not provide any funds for NCCTI activities in fiscal 

year 2004, but does direct the Department to apply the competitive 

approach to the other funding already being spent on climate 

change within the Department. The Department’s request for fiscal year 2004 includes over $1.6 billion for research and development 

activities related to climate change, of which over $1.1 billion is 

funded in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. 

The Committee directs the Department to report on the amount of 

Energy and Water-funded climate change work that was competitively awarded in fiscal year 2003, and to increase that amount by 

$100 million for fiscal year 2004. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation for renewable energy Facilities 

and Infrastructure is $9,100,000, an increase of $4,150,000 over the 

budget request. The Committee funds the recommended amount of 

$4,200,000 for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

in Golden, Colorado, and includes an additional $4,900,000 to initiate construction of the new Science and Technology facility at 

NREL (project 02–EERE–001), for which project engineering and 

design is to be completed in the third quarter of the current fiscal 

year. The budget request of $750,000 for a new Energy Reliability 

and Efficiency Laboratory (project 04–E–TBD) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is funded but is transferred to the new program 

line entitled Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the 

Energy Supply account. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation for program direction is 

$12,230,000, a reduction of $4,347,000 from the budget request reflecting the reduction in Renewable Energy program activities and 

a transfer of $3,431,000 to the new program line entitled Electricity 

Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy Supply account. 

ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

The Secretary recently decided to establish a new office for Electricity Transmission and Distribution to serve as a focal point for 

these issues within the Department. Because this decision was 

made subsequent to the fiscal year 2004 budget submission, the 

Department has proposed adjustments to the fiscal year 2004 request to provide a total of $77,377,000 for this new office. The Committee recommendation provides the requested amount, 

119

$77,377,000, drawn from the following accounts and programs: 

$72,866,000 from electric reliability in Renewable Energy Resources, $750,000 for the new Energy Reliability and Efficiency 

Laboratory (project 04–E–TBD) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

from the facilities and infrastructure account within Renewable 

Energy Resources, $3,431,000 for program direction drawn from 

the program direction account within Renewable Energy Resources, 

and an additional $330,000 for program direction from policy and 

international affairs within the Departmental Administration account. The Committee recommendation removes the requirement 

for a fifty percent industry partner cost share for the Energy Reliability and Efficiency Laboratory at Oak Ridge as proposed in the 

budget request. The Committee interprets the National Transmission Grid Study language on industrial cost share as intended 

for research only and directs future budget requests to provide full 

funding for design, construction, and operation of this facility. 

Within available funds, the Department is directed to use up to 

$4,000,000 to continue field testing of aluminum matrix composite 

conductors. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs is 

$268,016,000, a decrease of $9,109,000 from the budget request. 

The budget request for nuclear energy programs increased significantly compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, but much of 

this increase is tied to the designation of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology as the lead office with landlord responsibilities for the Idaho site. Note that $112,306,000 of the 

funding proposed in the Nuclear Energy request represent costs allocated to the 050 budget function (i.e., defense activities); these 

costs are direct funded under the Other Defense Activities account. 

UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $19,500,000, an increase of 

$1,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee remains concerned about the need for more graduates specializing in nuclear 

science and engineering, and provides additional funding to increase DOE’s ability to support existing university reactors and for 

grants and fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education. The Committee is also aware of proposals for a DOE 

laboratory or site to host a next-generation research reactor to 

serve the university community, and encourages the Department to 

continue exploration of such an option. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee supports research and development to make the 

current generation of nuclear power plants safer and more efficient, 

to assist with the development of the next generation of reactor designs, and to develop advanced fuel cycles to minimize waste and 

proliferation concerns. However, the Committee continues to believe that this country will not build another nuclear power plant 

until the Yucca Mountain repository is licensed and operational, 

and the Committee has focused its limited resources to keeping the 

120

nuclear waste repository program on schedule. The total Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and development is $117,746,000, a decrease of $9,279,000 from the budget request. The Committee also notes that the Secretary has recently 

designated the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering 

Laboratory (INEEL) as the Nation’s leading laboratory for nuclear 

energy research and development. To be consistent with this designation, the Committee expects the Secretary will re-align the distribution of fiscal year 2004 funding by site under the Nuclear Energy Research and Development program so that the majority of 

laboratory-expended funds for nuclear energy research and development will be allocated to INEEL. 

Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization.—As in the previous fiscal 

year, the Committee does not concur with the Administration’s proposal to terminate funding for the nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) program in fiscal year 2004. For NEPO, the Committee provides $4,000,000, $4,000,000 more than the budget request. The Committee recognizes the improvements to the safety of 

existing reactors that have resulted from application of the Mechanical Stress Improvement Process (MSIP) in Russia, and provides $1,000,000 for AEA technology to expand the transfer of 

MSIP to other countries in the former Soviet Union. 

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.—The Committee recommendation for the nuclear energy research initiative (NERI) is 

$10,000,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 from the budget request due 

to funding constraints. 

Nuclear energy technologies.—The Committee provides 

$42,721,000 for nuclear energy technologies, $5,279,000 less than 

the budget request. The Committee generally supports the Nuclear 

Power 2010 and Generation IV Nuclear Energy initiatives under 

nuclear energy technologies, subject to having the repository operational in 2010. As noted in the discussion under Renewable Energy Resources, the Committee does not support the pooling of 

funds from different appropriations bills for the National Climate 

Change Technology Initiative, and does not provide the requested 

$2,279,000 for this activity. 

Nuclear hydrogen initiative.—The Committee provides 

$2,500,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, a reduction of 

$1,500,000 from the budget request. The requirements for competition and industry cost sharing, as outlined above in the discussion 

of the Hydrogen program under Renewable Energy Resources, 

should apply here as well. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommendation 

for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is $58,525,000, a reduction of $4,500,000 from the budget request but comparable to 

the amount provided in fiscal year 2003. Within the funds available 

for AFCI, the Department is directed to provide $3,000,000 for the 

Idaho Accelerator Center. Of the funding requested for transmutation science education, the Committee recommendation funds only 

the $3,000,000 requested for the competitive award of fellowships 

in advanced fuel cycle research. The Committee is still awaiting 

the detailed program plan for the treatment of sodium-bonded 

spent fuel presently stored at the Idaho National Environmental 

and Engineering Laboratory, which the Department was directed 

121

to submit to Congress by March 31, 2003. The Committee is also 

awaiting the annual AFCI comparison report, which was due May 

31, 2003. Absent these two reports, the Committee has no basis to 

provide an increase in funds for the AFCI effort. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management program 

is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to support users 

from the defense, space, and medical communities. The outside 

users fund DOE’s actual operational, production, and research activities on a reimbursable basis. 

Space and defense infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $36,230,000, the same as the budget request. This includes 

the requested amounts for the transfer of radioisotope power systems capabilities from Mound to the Idaho National Environmental 

and Engineering Laboratory, the Pu–238 facilities at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, and the Np–237 storage facilities at Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory. 

Medical isotopes infrastructure.—The Committee recommendation is $26,425,000, the same as the budget request. Included within this program amount is the requested funding for Phase I of the 

U–233 project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and for various 

facility costs at Brookhaven, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Sandia 

national laboratories. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

This program funds the activities at the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), including ANL-West 

operations and Test Reactor Area Landlord activities, as well as 

the Idaho landlord activities previously funded under the Environmental Management program. The Committee provides 

$44,145,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, the same as the 

budget request. This amount represents the portion of Idaho Facilities Management that is allotted to the 270 budget function; the 

balance, allotted to the 050 function, is funded under Other Defense Activities. 

ANL-West operations.—The Committee recommends $31,615,000, 

the same as the budget request, for ANL-West operations. 

INEEL Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$10,190,000, the same as the budget request. An additional 

$21,415,000 is provided under Other Defense Activities. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $2,340,000 for Idaho 

facilities construction, the same as the budget request. This includes the requested amounts of $500,000 for project 95–E–201 and 

$1,840,000 for project 99–E–200, both at the Test Reactor Area. 

IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded at the 

requested level of $56,654,000 as an 050 defense activity under the 

Other Defense Activities account.. 

122

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends a total funding level of $58,207,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request due to reduced 

program levels. The requested amount increased significantly over 

the fiscal year 2003 funding level because the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is assuming lead responsibility for 

the Idaho site and the Idaho Operations Office. Of this amount, 

$23,970,000 is funded here under budget function 270, and 

$34,237,000 is funded as budget function 050 under Other Defense 

Activities.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation is $24,000,000, a reduction of 

$6,000,000 from the budget request but an increase of approximately $1,500,000 over the fiscal year 2003 funding level. Within 

this amount, the Department is directed to transfer $2,000,000 to 

OSHA for the costs of OSHA regulation of worker health and safety 

at the Department’s non-nuclear facilities not covered under the 

Atomic Energy Act and to complete the compliance audits of the 

ten Science laboratories that were initiated in fiscal year 2003. It 

is the Committee’s intention that the funds appropriated in FY03 

and transferred to OSHA and NRC for these compliance audits 

shall remain available until expended. Based on the results of the 

audits completed to date, NRC and OSHA should focus their efforts 

in the remaining audits on identifying major hazards that would 

require significant capital investments to remedy. Given the late 

start on these audits in fiscal year 2003, the Committee revises the 

completion date for the audits and associated cost estimates to May 

31, 2004. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

A general reduction of $5,000,000 has been applied to the Energy 

Supply account, and the recommendation includes an offset of 

$3,003,000 for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable 

work, as proposed in the budget request. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 

funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of action. The Department has restructured its budget for Non-Defense 

Environmental Management to focus on activities that support the 

primary goals of site cleanup and closure. Activities that had previously been funded under the Non-Defense Environmental Management account are now funded in two separate accounts: NonDefense Site Acceleration Completion for accelerated cleanup and 

closure activities, and Non-Defense Environmental Services for 

those activities that indirectly support and closure activities, or 

that support other missions of the Department. Activities previously funded under the Other Uranium Activities subaccount of 

the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation, including 

123

the depleted uranium hexaflouride plants at Portsmouth and Paducah, are also transferred into the new Non-Defense Environmental 

Services account. 

Economic development.—None of the Non-Defense Environmental 

Management funds, including those provided in the Non-Defense 

Site Acceleration Completion, Non-Defense Environmental Services, and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic development activities. 

NON-DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $158,846,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 170,875,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 170,875,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +12,029,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion is $170,875, the same as the budget request. 

2006 Accelerated Completions.—The recommendation provides $48,677,000, the same as the budget request, including $38,840,000 

for soil and water remediation and graphite research reactor decommissioning at Brookhaven National Laboratory, $3,272,000 for 

soil and water remediation at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and $2,416,000 for soil and water remediation at the Stanford 

Linear Accelerator Center. The budget request indicates that the 

spent nuclear fuel presently stored at the West Valley Demonstration Project will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory by the end of fiscal year 2004; the Committee expects the Department to adhere to this schedule with no 

further slippages. 

2012 Accelerated Completions.—The recommendation provides $119,750,000, the same as the budget request, including 

$99,558,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at the West 

Valley Demonstration Project, and $18,467,000 for nuclear facility 

decontamination and decommissioning for the Energy Technology 

Engineering Center. 

2035 Accelerated Completions.—The recommendation provides $2,448,000, the same as the budget request. This amount includes 

the requested $2,000,000 to continue stabilization measures and 

complete the Environmental Impact Statement for remediation of 

the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at Moab, Utah, and 

$448,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium 

System Test Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $144,510,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 292,121,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 320,468,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +175,958,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +28,347,000

The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 

Services is $320,468,000 an increase of 28,347,000 above the budget request. This amount includes the requested funding of 

124

$12,394,000 for East Tennessee Technology Park, $45,000,000 for 

the depleted uranium hexaflouride conversion facility and 

$4,267,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition at Paducah, $45,000,000 for the depleted uranium hexaflouride conversion facility and $16,523,000 for nuclear material stabilization and 

disposition at Portsmouth, $20,000,000 for accelerated decontamination and decommissioning of the GCEP facilities at Portsmouth, and $102,082,000 to maintain the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in cold standby and to continue with deposit removal. 

The Committee recognizes the additional cleanup needs at the 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to support deployment of an 

advanced uranium enrichment technology and will work with the 

Senate in conference to determine if additional funding can be 

made available for this purpose. The committee recommendation 

also includes the requested funding of $43,842,000 for decontamination and decommissionings of the Fast Flux Test Facility. 

The additional $28,347,000 in the Committee’s recommendation 

represents the nondefense share for legacy management, the balance of which is funded under Other Defense Activities. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $338,117,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 418,124,000

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 392,002,000

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +53,885,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥26,122,000

Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate two previously 

separate programs. The consolidated Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account was managed by the Office of Environmental Management and included two subaccounts, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 

and Other Uranium Activities. As explained above, beginning in 

fiscal year 2004 the activities previously funded under the Other 

Uranium Activities subaccount are transferred into the new NonDefense Environmental Services account. 

The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(P.L. 102–486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation’s three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, and at 

Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also authorized use of 

a portion of the Fund to reimburse private licensees for the Federal 

government’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium 

processing sites. 

The Committee recommends $392,002,000 for activities funded 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, a reduction of $26,122,000 from the budget request. 

This amount includes $341,002,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and 

$51,000,000 for uranium and thorium reimbursements. In fiscal 

year 2003, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed to, 

125

an accelerated cleanup initiative for DOE sites. Sites would receive 

additional funding in the near term in order to accelerate cleanup 

and reduce funding requirements in the outyears. The Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget request assumed that it would reach 

agreement with all of the involved State regulators on accelerated 

cleanup plans. Where such agreement has not been reached, the 

Committee does not provide the additional increment of funding 

that was requested for accelerated cleanup. The $26,122,000 reduction reflects the failure to reach agreement on accelerated cleanup 

for the Paducah site.

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $3,272,328,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 3,310,935,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 3,480,180,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +207,852,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +169,245,000

The Science account funds the Department’s work on high energy 

physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental sciences, 

basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, maintenance 

of the laboratories’ physical infrastructure, fusion energy sciences, 

safeguards and security, science workforce development, and 

science program direction. The Committee recommendation is 

$3,480,180,000, an increase of $169,245,000 compared to the budget request. 

The Committee has provided additional funding for the Office of 

Science to address the following Committee priorities: high performance computing; additional operating time, equipment upgrades, and staffing to support increased research opportunities at 

the Office of Science user facilities; remediation of safety deficiencies at DOE Science laboratories; and restoration of domestic 

fusion funding displaced by the new international fusion initiative. 

The Committee also provides additional funding to perform essential research and development and preconcept design for one new 

project (i.e., the Rare Isotope Accelerator). The Committee may consider different or additional priorities for new research facilities 

once the Office of Science releases its Twenty Year Facility Outlook. 

External Regulation of DOE Science Laboratories.—In July 2002, 

the Department produced a Committee-directed implementation 

plan for external regulation. The Department identified several key 

unresolved questions about external regulation, specifically the unknown costs of transitioning to external regulation and the unknown cost savings that might result from such a transition. However, the Department stated that it ‘‘believes that these issues can 

be resolved’’ and ‘‘favors the prospect of a transition to external 

regulation . . .’’ The Committee has subsequently taken steps to 

resolve these questions, tasking the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to identify the current costs of DOE’s self-regulation of the 

Science laboratories and the potential savings that might result 

under external regulation. In its report (GAO–03–633R), the GAO 

found that the Department could save as much as $41 million annually by shifting to external regulation of its Science laboratories. 

126

To address the question of transition costs, the Committee in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003, directed 

the transfer of funds from the Department of Energy to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) to conduct compliance audits of 

the ten DOE Science laboratories. The audits are to be completed 

for four laboratories by September 30, 2003, and for all ten labs by 

March 31, 2004. Upon completion of these audits, the laboratories 

are also to prepare estimates of the costs to correct the identified 

deficiencies and bring these ten laboratories into compliance with 

NRC and OSHA safety standards. In recognition of the late start 

on these audits in fiscal year 2003, the Committee revises the completion date for the audits and associated cost estimates to May 31, 

2004. 

In response to the Committee’s concerns about continued self-regulation, the Office of Science in November 2002 directed its ten laboratories to conduct their own assessment of the potential costs of 

bringing those laboratories into compliance with NRC and OSHA 

standards. The Committee recognizes the crude nature of this estimate, particularly as it was conducted without the participation of 

the NRC and OSHA. Nevertheless, this self-assessment by the 

Science laboratories represents the only existing estimate of the 

costs of transitioning the laboratories to external regulation. These 

laboratories estimated their transition costs to be approximately 

$75 million. This estimate, approximate as it is, reveals the existence of a significant backlog of safety deficiencies at these laboratories. The existence and persistence of such a backlog is one of the 

unfortunate consequences of the Department’s adherence to its current scheme of self-regulation. The Department is able to identify 

safety problems but is unable or unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources to correct these problems. 

The Committee believes it is important to the health and safety 

of laboratory employees, of visiting researchers, and of the population in the surrounding communities that these safety deficiencies be corrected expeditiously. Therefore, the Committee has 

transferred $25,000,000 from the Departmental Administration account to the Science Laboratories Infrastructure subaccount to address these safety deficiencies at the ten Science laboratories; these 

funds may not be reprogrammed for other purposes. In addition, 

the Committee directs the Department to request sufficient funding 

in the budget requests for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to correct the 

remainder of these safety deficiencies over the next two fiscal 

years. The completion of the NRC and OSHA compliance audits 

should permit the preparation of a more accurate estimate of these 

costs. Regardless of whether the Department continues to regulate 

itself or makes the overdue transition to external regulation, this 

backlog of unresolved safety deficiencies must be addressed 

promptly. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends a total of $747,978,000 for high energy physics, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. 

The control level is at the High Energy Physics level. The additional funds are provided to increase operating time and enhance 

127

user support at the user facilities located at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. 

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount, 

$12,500,000, for construction of the Neutrinos at the Main Injector 

project at Fermilab. The Committee recognizes the efforts of the 

staff from the Office of Science, Fermilab, and the other laboratories to bring the Tevatron luminosity upgrade back on schedule. 

The Committee also encourages the Department to accelerate 

progress on the Supernova/Accelerator Probe (SNAP), which will 

provide an important tool to advance our understanding of the history of the universe. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 

$399,430,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. 

An additional $7,500,000 is provided to increase operating time and 

enhance user support at the user facilities located at the 

Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 for research and development and pre-conceptual 

design activities in support of the Rare Isotope Accelerator, an increase of $2,500,000 over the requested amount for this project. 

The Committee strongly encourages the Department to make a 

prompt CD0 decision for the 12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous 

Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and to include adequate PED funding for 

this project in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for biological and environmental 

research is $562,035,000, an increase of $62,500,000 over the budget request. The additional funds are provided to increase operating 

time and enhance user support at the user facilities located at various DOE laboratories that support the biological and environmental sciences user community, and to provide for additional university research grants for biological and environmental research. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 

$1,016,575,000, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget request. 

For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2004, the Department may allocate funding among all operating accounts within Basic Energy Sciences. 

Research.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$575,711,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 

$220,914,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences. The additional $8,000,000 in the material sciences and engineering account is provided to increase operating time and enhance user support at Basic Energy Sciences user facilities. Also included within this account is $7,673,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the same as 

the budget request. 

128

Construction.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$219,950,000 for construction, the same as the requested amount. 

The Committee recommendation provides the requested funding of 

$124,600 for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), $35,000,000 for 

the Molecular Foundry, $29,850,000 for the Center for Integrated 

Nanotechnologies, $20,000,000 for the Center for Nanophase Material Sciences, $7,500,000 for PED for the Linac Coherent Light 

Source, and $3,000,000 for PED for the Center for Functional 

Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee continues to support efforts to advance U.S. 

supercomputing technology and is encouraged that the President’s 

fiscal year 2004 budget identifies supercomputing as a critical component of its Networking and Information Technology Research and 

Development program. The Committee views the Department of 

Energy as a key player in the Federal government’s efforts in 

supercomputing. At the same time, the Committee recognizes that 

a number of other Federal agencies are involved with the development of, and have critical needs for, more advanced computing capabilities. The Committee notes that the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has recently established the 

multi-agency High End Computing Revitalization Task Force (HEC 

RTF). This task force, of which the Department is a participant, 

has been charged with developing a coordinated, interagency plan 

for supercomputing research and development that addresses 

issues of capability, capacity, and accessibility for scientific applications. The Committee strongly supports this interagency HEC RTF 

effort, and expects the Department to participate fully and to follow 

the HEC RTF plan for ongoing and future research and development, facility operations, and hardware procurement of its advanced scientific computing resources. The Committee recommendation is $213,490,000, an increase of 

$40,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides 

these funds for the Department to acquire additional advanced 

computing capability to support existing users in the near term 

and to initiate longer-term research and development on next generation computer architectures. The Committee directs the Department to use these funds in a manner fully consistent with the recommendations of the HEC RTF. The Committee also expects that, 

to the maximum extent practicable, these funds will be awarded 

using a merit-based, competitive process. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $71,535,000 

for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, an increase of $27,945,000 

over the budget request. The majority of this increase, $25,000,000, 

is transferred from the Departmental Administration account to 

correct safety deficiencies at the Science laboratories. The funding 

provided for Science Laboratory Safety Measures may not be reprogrammed for other purposes. The Committee recommendation also 

provides an additional $2,945,000 for excess facilities disposition, 

bringing this account total to $8,000,000, comparable to the fiscal 

year 2003 enacted level. The Committee is disappointed that the 

129

Department’s budget request recommended closing the 88–inch cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory yet failed to provide any funding for the decontamination and decommissioning 

(D&D) of this facility. Once a particular Science facility is no longer 

useful, the Department should take prompt action to reduce its 

landlord costs and make that space available for other purposes. 

The added increment of funding for excess facilities is to be applied 

to D&D of the 88-inch cyclotron. The Committee recommendation 

provides the requested funding of $1,520,000 for infrastructure 

support, $5,079,000 for Oak Ridge landlord costs, $2,000,000 for 

Science Laboratories Infrastructure 04–SC001, specifically to initiate PED for project MEL–001–36 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and $29,936,000 for construction of various subprojects under the MEL–001 infrastructure project. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 

$268,110,000, an increase of $10,800,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee is cautiously supportive of the Administration’s 

proposal to re-engage in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, but is disappointed that the budget 

request provides $12,000,000 in funding for the U.S. ITER effort 

only at the expense of displacing ongoing domestic fusion research. 

The additional $10,800,000 includes $4,000,000 for burning plasma 

experiments, including support for ITER and for the domestic FIRE 

project, $5,200,000 for fusion technology, and $1,600,000 for advanced design and analysis work. If the Department intends to recommend ITER participation in the fiscal year 2005 budget request, 

the Committee expects the Department will do so without harm to 

domestic fusion research or to other programs in the DOE Science 

budget. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $51,887,000, an increase of 

$3,760,000 over the budget request, to meet additional safeguards 

and security requirements. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Department requested $6,470,000 for Science Workforce Development in fiscal year 2004, including $1,000,000 to initiate a 

pilot program at Argonne National Laboratory providing intensive, 

hands-on training for approximately 60 science, engineering, and 

mathematics teachers. The Committee is very supportive of this 

initiative, but would like to see it applied at all five multiprogram 

Science laboratories. The Committee recommendation provides 

$7,470,000, including $2,000,000 for the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development initiative, to be distributed among all 

five multiprogram laboratories. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $147,053,000 for Science program direction. This amount includes: $80,102,000 for program direction at DOE field offices, $58,157,000 for program direction at 

130

DOE headquarters, $7,774,000 for Technical Information Management; and $1,020,000 for Energy Research Analyses. The request 

for program direction for field offices was reduced by $3,720,000 

and the amount transferred to the Safeguards and Security line. 

The control level for fiscal year 2004 is at the program account 

level of Science Program Direction. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation includes an offset of $4,383,000 

for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work, as 

proposed in the budget request. A general reduction of $1,000,000 

has been applied to the Science account. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $144,058,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 161,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 335,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +190,942,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +174,000,000 

The Federal government has a clear statutory responsibility, assigned by Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 

amended, to provide for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Department of Energy 

was required by statute to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel for 

disposal beginning on January 31, 1998, and entered into legally 

enforceable contracts with utilities to execute that obligation. Unfortunately, the Department has been unable to meet that deadline, resulting in a number of lawsuits over the Department’s failure to meet its statutory and contractual obligation and a growing 

financial liability over that failure. The Court of Federal Claims 

has found the Department to be in breach of its contractual obligations and is proceeding to determine the extent of damages. 

The primary consequence of the Department’s failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel is not, however, the existence of lawsuits 

and damage claims; it is that vast quantities of commercial spent 

nuclear fuel remain in temporary storage at reactor sites scattered 

around the country, many located near major population centers. 

The Committee is not questioning the current safety and security 

of spent nuclear fuel stored at commercial sites in accordance with 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission criteria. The Committee does, 

however, believe that the safety and security of these materials will 

be enhanced the sooner they are placed in the underground repository at Yucca Mountain. After the events of September 11, 2001, 

the Committee believes it is more essential than ever to move aggressively to get the Yucca Mountain repository licensed, built, and 

operating at the earliest possible date. 

Chronic funding shortfalls, however, have starved the program of 

the resources necessary to keep the repository program on schedule. The Department’s latest schedule calls for opening the repository and beginning to accept spent fuel in 2010 at the earliest, over 

12 years behind schedule. Most recently, the Department requested 

a total of $591,000,000 for the nuclear waste disposal program in 

fiscal year 2003, yet received only $457,000,000, a funding shortfall 

131

of $134,000,000. Such funding shortfalls have forced the Department to concentrate its limited resources on preparing the repository License Application, which is presently scheduled for submission to the NRC in December 2004. The Department’s emphasis on 

the License Application has meant that other activities, especially 

those relating to the transportation of materials to the repository 

to support initial operations in 2010, have suffered major delays. 

The Committee recommends $335,000,000 for nuclear waste disposal, an increase of $174,000,000 over the budget request of 

$161,000,000. The intent of this funding level is to make sure that 

the Department has the necessary funds to support a timely and 

technically robust License Application, and to provide additional 

funds for activities related to initial repository operations in 2010, 

primarily for development of a safe and secure transportation system in Nevada. Combined with the appropriation of $430,000,000 

from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, this provides a 

total of $765,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal activities in fiscal 

year 2004, an increase of $174,000,000 over the budget request. 

The Committee is also concerned about a number of delays in the 

repository program that have been caused, not by shortfalls in 

funding provided by Congress, but by internal legal and policy decisions made within the Department. The Secretary, the General 

Counsel, and the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management are reminded that Congress expects the Department to take all the actions necessary to keep this repository 

on schedule for initial operations in 2010. Delaying the resolution 

of pending litigation and avoiding potential future litigation are not 

the objectives of this program. The Department cannot minimize its 

legal exposure simply by taking no new actions; the Department 

must make the decisions and take the actions necessary to execute 

its nuclear waste disposal responsibilities as mandated by law, and 

accept the legal consequences of those actions. The Committee 

strongly believes that the best way to minimize the liability of the 

Federal government for spent nuclear fuel is to get on with the repository program in an expeditious manner. 

License application.—The Department is directed to submit the 

License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not 

later than December 31, 2004. Any delays in this submission will 

cause unacceptable delays in the start of repository operations, 

which will not only increase the Federal government’s liability on 

commercial spent fuel, but will also impact the ability of the Department to remove defense-related high level radioactive waste 

and spent nuclear fuel from other sites in the DOE complex, and 

may affect the government’s ability to meet legally enforceable 

cleanup milestones at those sites. The Committee has provided sufficient resources to ensure that the License Application can be submitted on schedule by the Department and can withstand the technical and legal challenges it will face in the licensing process. 

License support network.—The Committee directs the Department that Congressional communications between the Members 

and staffs of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

and the Department are not to be included in documentation posted on the License Support Network. 

132

Nevada transportation and site preparation activities.—The Committee notes the concerns of the State of Nevada about the selection of a transportation corridor within the State, particularly 

about any corridor that runs through or near the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Secretary’s continued delay in issuing the Record 

of Decision to designate a preferred transportation corridor within 

the State of Nevada has not been helpful in resolving these concerns. The Committee does not approve of any further consideration of alternative rail routes that would transport spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level radioactive waste through the environs of metropolitan Las Vegas. Therefore, the Committee includes bill language providing that none of the funds in this or any other appropriations Act may be used for the planning or development of the 

Valley Modified Corridor and the Jean Corridor, and variations 

thereof, as those corridors are delineated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal 

of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca 

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, dated February 2002. Of the remaining alternatives that avoid the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area, 

the information provided from the Department leads the Committee to believe that the Caliente Corridor, though not the cheapest, is the most feasible rail corridor to implement. The Committee 

allows the Secretary discretion in selecting the preferred rail corridor, as long as the selected corridor does not pass through the 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. The Committee includes bill language requiring the Secretary to designate rail as the preferred 

mode of transportation within Nevada and to select a Nevada rail 

corridor within 60 days after enactment, and then to conduct the 

full scale environmental and engineering analysis to select a specific rail alignment within the selected rail corridor and issue a 

final Record of Decision on the Nevada transportation system designating the specific rail alignment by June 30, 2005. 

The Committee directs the Department to focus its efforts on accelerating the development of a rail line in Nevada, with the objective of being ready to begin physical construction of the rail line 

immediately after receipt of the construction authorization for the 

repository, which is presently scheduled for 2007. This means the 

Department should have all planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and land withdrawal actions complete in time to support such 

a 2007 construction start. If the Secretary selects the Caliente corridor as the preferred rail corridor, the Secretary may spend up to 

$3,000,000 to initiate planning and design activities to support the 

construction of a rail-to-truck intermodal transfer facility to be located at Caliente, Lincoln County, Nevada, to support limited legalweight truck transportation until the rail system is fully operational. These funds for the Caliente intermodal transfer facility 

are separate from the external oversight funds provided to affected 

units of local government. The Committee recommendation provides a total of $70,000,000 for Nevada transportation activities. 

Development of this Nevada rail corridor for spent nuclear fuel and 

high-level radioactive waste will also benefits the safe transportation of low level waste and transuranic waste to and from the 

State of Nevada. 

133

Without prejudging the outcome of the NRC licensing process, 

and recognizing that the repository might not be licensed, the Secretary should perform all the necessary planning, site preparation, 

and preliminary construction needed to assure that, if construction 

authorization is received from NRC on schedule in 2007, the construction of the underground repository as well as the aboveground facilities and supporting infrastructure can proceed on a 

schedule to support the start of repository operations by 2010. The 

Committee views this ‘‘at-risk’’ planning, site preparation, and preliminary construction as necessary to support initial operations in 

2010 if the NRC authorizes repository construction. The Committee 

recommendation provides a total of $20,000,000 to initiate site 

preparation activities. 

To the maximum extent practicable, the Department shall ensure that funds provided for the development of infrastructure in 

the State of Nevada shall be spent through contracts awarded to 

contractors and subcontractors who are party to labor agreements 

applicable to all of its employees who are residents of that State 

and who perform manual labor and other work pursuant to such 

contract or subcontract. 

Local Impact Assistance.—Section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, authorizes financial assistance to the 

State of Nevada and affected units of local government to mitigate 

any potential economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts of the repository. With the repository siting decision having been made last year and Nevada transportation decisions in process as directed in the preceding paragraph, the Committee believes the time has come to begin providing this impact 

assistance to the State and affected local governments along the selected rail corridor. The Committee recommendation makes available a total of up to $30,000,000 for such impact assistance, contingent upon submission of a plan and approval of the plan by the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The 

Committee considers the transportation, emergency response, and 

medical services measures proposed in the plan already prepared 

by Nye County, Nevada, the ‘‘Nye County, Nevada, Community 

Protection Plan,’’ dated August 2001, to be representative of the 

kind of impact assistance contemplated under this section. 

Comprehensive national acceptance and transportation plan.—

The Committee has previously expressed concerns about the Department’s inadequate preparation for waste acceptance, storage, 

and transportation to the repository. Although the Committee recognizes that funding shortfalls have forced the Department to concentrate its limited resources on the License Application, the Committee believes the Department must maintain its focus on the actions necessary to support the start of repository operations in 

2010. The Department has already stated that it will issue a National Transportation Strategic Plan later this year to serve as a 

framework for having a national transportation system operational 

by 2010. While the Committee looks forward to receiving this National Transportation Strategic Plan, the Committee believes the 

Department should be working more actively with the contract 

holders and the DOE sites that will be shipping spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level waste to the repository to develop a detailed and 

134

comprehensive acceptance and transportation plan for the years 

2010–2020. The Department should submit this comprehensive 

plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not 

later than December 31, 2004. This plan should be developed to 

maximize efficient transportation and minimize the costs of continued on-site storage at contract holder and DOE sites. DOE should 

not allow the existence of ongoing litigation over DOE’s failure to 

begin accepting commercial spent fuel on the statutorily mandated 

date to preclude having the essential discussions with contract 

holders. DOE should negotiate with contract holders to reach a 

timely decision on the schedule for acceptance of spent nuclear fuel 

stored in existing NRC-licensed storage and transport systems. In 

addition, the Department should either ensure that the detailed acceptance criteria that will be part of the license application will include appropriate criteria and specifications for greater-than-classC waste, or present Congress with a separate plan proposing an alternative disposal path for greater-than-class-C waste. The comprehensive acceptance and transportation plan shall ensure that 

spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from those reactor sites 

that are undergoing decommissioning, including the Dairyland 

Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, shall be accepted and transported as soon as practicable to facilitate the closure of these sites. Finally, the Committee expects the Department 

to commence the institutional coordination and procurement actions necessary to support a national transportation campaign to 

begin shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to the repository beginning in 2010. The Committee recommendation provides 

$35,000,000 for comprehensive national acceptance and transportation activities. The Committee directs the Department to provide 

not less than $20,000,000 to the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) to use the expertise developed 

at INEEL on the handling, packaging, and transportation of spent 

fuel and high-level waste to execute the tasks outlined in this section. 

Updated Project Decision Schedule.—The Committee directs the 

Department to submit an updated Project Decision Schedule (PDS) 

as required by subsection 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

of 1982, as amended. Not later than December 31, 2003, the Department shall submit the updated PDS to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The updated PDS shall identify all steps required to initiate repository operations in 2010, including but not limited to: all 

waste acceptance, storage, and transportation elements; all surface 

and subsurface actions at the repository, including supporting infrastructure; all actions and decisions relating to federal and nonfederal casks; and all training and emergency response assistance 

necessary for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The updated 

PDS shall be fully resource-loaded and shall identify the budgetary 

resources required in each fiscal year to support the start of repository operations in 2010. As provided in subsection 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the PDS shall include 

a description of the objectives and a sequence of deadlines for all 

Federal agencies to take required actions related to repository conVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
135

struction and operations. The PDS shall identify those actions by 

the Department and by other Federal agencies that are on the critical path and for which a delay in completion will cause a delay in 

the start of repository operations. The Committee expects the Department to use the updated PDS to move aggressively to implement the provisions of paragraph (2) of subsection 114(e) to identify 

and resolve differences with other Federal agencies that could 

cause delays in the start or conduct of repository operations. The 

Committee also directs the Department to submit as part of its 

budget request for fiscal year 2005 a comprehensive legislative 

package that identifies all statutory language that will be necessary for repository operations to begin in 2010, including but not 

limited to: a proposal to ensure the availability of long-term funding for the repository program; land withdrawal and right-of-way 

acquisition for the repository site and for all supporting infrastructure, including the Nevada rail corridor and the Caliente intermodal transfer facility, and any other required legislative actions. 

The Committee recommendation provides $6,000,000 for the preparation of an updated and resource-loaded project decision schedule.

Early acceptance of spent nuclear fuel.—Since the last time that 

Congress considered authorizing the early acceptance of spent fuel, 

there have been two major changes in national circumstances. 

First, a majority of Members in both chambers of Congress voted 

in 2002 to confirm Yucca Mountain as the site of the nuclear repository. Second, the events of September 11, 2001, made clear that 

facilities we once assumed to be safe from terrorist attack may no 

longer be so. The Committee believes that the continued storage of 

spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites around the country, while in 

compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, poses 

a greater safety and security risk than previously assumed. The 

Committee further believes that safety and security would be improved if this spent fuel could be moved to a centralized surface 

storage facility, located at the Yucca Mountain repository site, at 

the earliest possible date. The Committee directs the Department 

to prepare a plan for early acceptance of commercial spent nuclear 

fuel presently stored at commercial power plants and storage sites, 

and for early shipment of such spent fuel to a surface storage facility at the Yucca Mountain repository site. This plan should identify 

the budgetary resources needed and provide the draft statutory 

language that would be required to initiate such early shipments 

upon receipt of the construction authorization for the underground 

repository. This plan should also address the possibility of early 

shipment of spent fuel and high-level waste presently stored at a 

variety of DOE sites. The early acceptance plan should include a 

thorough analysis of the casks that will be required for transport 

and interim storage at the repository site, and should propose an 

aggressive cask procurement strategy to allow for the movement of 

significant quantities of spent nuclear fuel beginning in 2007, assuming the timely receipt of the construction authorization. The 

plan should analyze the potential cost savings that could result 

from placing cooled fuel, presently stored in spent fuel pools, into 

dual use casks rather than separate storage and transportation 

casks. The Department is directed to submit this plan to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than December 

136

31, 2003. The Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for 

early acceptance activities. 

External oversight funds.—The fiscal year 2004 budget request 

did not include any external oversight funds for the State of Nevada or affected units of local government. The Committee recommendation provides an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 for the 

State of Nevada and an amount not to exceed $6,500,000 for the 

affected units of local government to conduct their respective external oversight responsibilities, essentially the same as provided in 

fiscal year 2003. The Committee is aware that the Department of 

Energy Inspector General conducted separate audits of the external 

oversight funds provided to the State of Nevada (DOE–IG Audit 

Report CR–C–02–01, dated August 2002) and to the affected units 

of local governments (DOE–IG Audit Report DOE/IG–0600, dated 

May 2003), and found irregularities in a number of expenditures. 

The Committee lacks sufficient information to offer guidance on 

whether the Department should seek to recover Federal funds used 

for questioned oversight expenses; that judgment remains with the 

Department. However, the Committee is concerned enough about 

the problems identified by the Inspector General to direct that the 

external oversight funds for fiscal year 2004 should not be released 

to the State of Nevada and affected units of local government until 

the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has reviewed and approved in advance the State and local 

government oversight plans for fiscal year 2004. The Department 

is reminded that it is required to audit these funds annually to ensure that they are spent consistent with the statutory restrictions 

and with the approved oversight plans. 

Long-term program funding.—The Committee was disappointed 

that the Department failed to champion effectively the budget cap 

adjustment that was proposed in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. As the program moves out of the site characterization phase 

and into license application, design, and construction phases, the 

funding requirements will increase significantly in coming fiscal 

years. Therefore, it is even more critical that the Department develops an integrated long-term budget plan for this program, and 

submits the legislative proposal necessary to secure future funding 

for the repository. The Committee reiterates its direction that the 

Department should submit its long-term budget plan for the repository program, including the necessary changes to existing law, as 

part of its next budget submission to the Congress.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $205,280,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 326,306,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 224,329,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +19,049,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥101,977,000

137

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ ¥$120,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... ¥146,668,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥123,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥3,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +23,668,000

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administration is $224,329,000, a decrease of $101,977,000 from the budget 

request of $326,306,000. Funding recommended for Departmental 

Administration provides for general management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy 

including the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account funds a wide array of headquarters activities not directly associated with program execution. 

After the changes in the use of prior year balances and the transfer from Other Defense Activities are factored out, the Department’s gross budget request for Departmental Administration 

amounts to an increase of $44,347,000, or roughly 14 percent, over 

the fiscal year 2003 level. The Committee does not concur with this 

large increase for DOE headquarters functions and funds Departmental Administration at roughly five percent over fiscal year 2003 

levels, applying the additional funds to other higher priority needs. 

In particular, the Committee believes these requested funds would 

be better applied to address the backlog of safety deficiencies at the 

ten Science laboratories, a backlog which developed under the nose 

of the DOE employees charged with establishing the policies and 

regulating safety at DOE laboratories. This backlog is an unfortunate byproduct of the Department’s continued reliance on self-regulation of nuclear and worker safety at its Science laboratories. 

Therefore, the Committee recommends transferring $25,000,000 

from Departmental Administration to the Science Laboratories Infrastructure subaccount within the Science appropriation to protect 

the health and safety of laboratory employees, visiting researchers, 

and the population of the communities surrounding these ten 

Science laboratories. 

Within the available funds, the Department is directed to conduct a study on how to increase the proportion of small business 

participation in DOE contracts; the contract for such a study 

should be awarded to a qualifying small business. 

Chief Information Officer.—The Committee is generally supportive of the I–MANAGE and cybersecurity initiatives of this office, but does not concur with all of the requested 46 percent increase for this office. The Committee recommendation provides an 

additional $6,000,000 over the fiscal year 2003 funding level for implementation of STARS and of the data warehouse for the Department’s financial data. 

General Counsel.—The Committee disagrees with a number of 

legal and policy positions taken recently by the Office of General 

Counsel, and is concerned that the Secretary, the Congress, and 

the American taxpayer are not being well-served by this office. The 

Committee recommendation is $20,000,000, a reduction of 

$2,879,000 from the budget request. 

138

Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation.—The Committee 

believes that the Office of Engineering and Construction Management within the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation 

continues to provide a strong focal point for the improvement of 

project management capabilities throughout the Department. The 

Committee recommendation transfers $5,000,000 from other accounts (i.e., Weapons Activities and Defense Site Acceleration Completion) to continue external independent reviews of proposed 

projects and programs. To continue to train and certify DOE 

project managers, the Committee directs the Department to make 

available not less than $2,500,000 from the Working Capital Fund 

to fund training under the Project Management Career Development Program. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Committee renews its guidance as 

presented in House Report 107–681 regarding management of the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Cost of Work for Others.—The recommendation for the cost of 

work for others program is $69,682,000, the same as in fiscal year 

2003. 

Use of Prior Year Balances.—The recommendation does not include the use of prior year funds to be carried over from fiscal year 

2003 to offset the fiscal year 2004 funding requirements.

Revenues.—The recommendation for revenues is $123,000,000, 

consistent with the estimate of revenues provided by the Congressional Budget Office. 

Transfer from Other Defense Activities.—For many years, full 

funding for all corporate and administrative activities of the Department has been provided in the energy portion of this bill despite the fact that the Department’s funding is provided in the national security and defense-related cleanup programs account for 

approximately 75 percent of the Department’s total budget. The 

Committee recommendation distributes these costs more equitably 

in fiscal year 2004 and transfers $86,679,000 from Other Defense 

Activities for national security programs, an increase of 

$61,679,000 over the budget request. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $37,426,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 39,462,000

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 39,462,000

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +2,036,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. 

The audit function provides financial and performance audits of 

programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

139

The Committee recommendation is $39,462,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security Administration that consists of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management programs which include Site 

Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental Services; 

Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided below. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March 

2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), NNSA is responsible 

for the management and operation of the Nation’s nuclear weapons 

complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. 

Three offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s national 

security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval Reactors. 

The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is $8,508,184,000, 

a decrease of $326,391,000 from the budget request of 

$8,834,575,000, but an increase of $330,617,000 over fiscal year 

2003. 

Nuclear weapons budget requirements.—This Committee continues to believe that our nation’s nuclear arsenal provides a vital 

deterrent to potential aggressors. In order to maintain a modern 

nuclear stockpile, the Nation needs to have a modern, efficient, and 

flexible nuclear weapons complex with the necessary design, production, testing, refurbishment, and dismantlement capabilities. 

Unfortunately, the country possesses neither a modern stockpile 

nor a modern nuclear weapons complex. Instead, both are largely 

carryovers from the Cold War era. After careful consideration, the 

Committee has concluded that much of the current situation results from a flawed budget process. Under the current process, the 

Department of Defense (DoD) establishes the military requirements 

for Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile (i.e., numbers and types of 

warheads), which in turn dictates the requirements that DOE must 

meet to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of those weapons. The size, capability and cost of DOE’s weapons complex is a 

direct result of the specific requirements established by DoD for 

warhead refurbishments, design modifications, testing, and dismantlement. However, when DoD develops their requirements 

their decision process is not constrained by the normal types of 

budget trade-offs that an agency confronts in the process of formulating a budget request. In effect, DoD sets the requirements and 

140

leaves it up to DOE to come up with the budget to support the nuclear weapons complex each year. If these costs were funded directly by DoD, the nuclear weapons activities would be considered 

against other national defense priorities, such as developing improved conventional weapons, procuring more of existing weapon 

systems, paying ever-increasing operational and training costs, and 

providing a better quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Similarly, if the costs of the nuclear weapons complex were 

solely determined by the DOE, they would be balanced against 

other DOE priorities, such as nonproliferation, science research, 

improving the Nation’s energy supply, or accelerating the cleanup 

of contaminated sites. Instead, the weapons activities portion of the 

NNSA budget is effectively insulated from any such tradeoffs—DoD 

sets requirements that another agency has to fund, and DOE treats 

the weapons activities budget as untouchable because DoD set the 

requirements. 

There needs to be a serious debate about whether the approximately $6 billion spent annually on DOE’s nuclear weapons complex is a sound national security investment. Until that debate occurs and the DOE weapons budget request is subject to meaningful 

budget trade-offs, this Committee will not assume that all of the 

proposed nuclear weapons requests are legitimate requirements. 

Future Years Nuclear Security Program.—The Committee expects 

the NNSA Administrator to continue to address the deficiencies 

noted by the Committee in the past so that the NNSA’s Future 

Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) can be used by both the 

Department and Congress as an effective multi-year programming 

and budgeting resource, which includes realistic resource constraints that force meaningful decisions on potential tradeoffs between programs. The Committee notes particular support for the 

ongoing effort of the NNSA to implement a Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) structure and a budgeting 

by weapons type budget process. The Committee will work with the 

Department to implement a budgeting by weapons type pilot in fiscal year 2004 and full implementation in fiscal year 2005 and urges 

the Department to maintain a management focus on this transition 

to ensure a successful implementation process. 

The Committee notes that the DOE Inspector General is conducting an independent review of the NNSA’s PPBE process and 

structure, including its comparability to that of the Department of 

Defense. The early indications from that review indicate that the 

NNSA has made significant progress in implementing their planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation process. However, 

there are several areas where improvements need to be made before it is fully operational. Specifically, the NNSA needs to address 

independent cost validation of contractor cost estimates that form 

the basis for Department’s budget estimates. The Committee will 

withhold any recommendations pending the final IG report. 

141

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $5,981,409,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 6,378,000,000

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 6,117,609,000

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +136,200,000

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥260,391,000

The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure the safety, security, reliability and performance of the Nation’s nuclear 

weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and refurbish 

nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction 

treaties. The Committee’s recommendation for Weapons Activities is $6,117,609,000, a decrease of $260,391,000 from the budget request of $6,378,000,000, but an increase of $136,200,000 over fiscal 

year 2003. 

Within the total amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 the 

wartime supplemental appropriations bill contained additional 

funding of $67,000,000 for weapons activities. An additional 

$47,000,000 was provided for increased safeguards and security requirements and $20,000,000 for activities of the Office of Secure 

Transportation Asset. 

Availability of funds.—Consistent with the provisions of H.R. 

1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, 

the funds in this account are available until September 30, 2006. 

Stockpile Review.—The Committee is still waiting for the Nuclear 

Weapons Stockpile report required in the Conference Report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

2003 (Pub. L. 108–7). This stockpile review is to present a revised 

nuclear weapons stockpile plan structured to support the President’s announcement on November 13, 2001, to draw down our nuclear forces toward the goal of 1,700–2,200 operationally deployed 

strategic nuclear warheads between now and 2012. As the Committee noted in the FY 2003 House Report 107–681, ‘‘The National 

Nuclear Security Administration has not been able to reconcile the 

recently announced dramatic reductions planned for deployed operational nuclear warheads to its strategic weapons modernization 

plans, some of which will cost billions of dollars each, and which 

are currently structured to upgrade the maximum number of warheads.’’ One year later, the situation has not changed. The Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for establishing the military 

requirements that are incorporated into the Presidentially approved Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan (NWSP). Until a revised 

NWSP is finalized, the NNSA continues to plan and budget for a 

weapons program that maintains the nuclear weapons stockpile in 

accordance with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) 

active and inactive stockpile quantities. The fiscal year 2004 budget request is the second budget request delivered to the Committee 

that is loosely justified on the requirements of the Nuclear Posture 

Review (NPR) policy document but lacking a formal plan that 

specifies the changes to the stockpile reflecting the President’s decision. The Committee was hopeful that the outcome of the Administration’s review would provide a definitive inventory objective for 

each weapons system to allow the NNSA to plan and execute a proVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
142

gram to support defense requirements based on what is needed 

rather than the continuation of a nuclear stockpile and weapons 

complex built to fight the now defunct Soviet Union. While the conventional forces in the Defense Department go through a 21st-Century transformation to meet the challenges of a new era, the NNSA 

is forced, through inertia and indecision, to maintain all contingencies regardless of how unlikely the threat. The Department of 

Defense needs to determine the composition of the stockpile required to support the President’s announced stockpile reductions, 

and then coordinate with DOE to establish the nuclear weapons 

complex requirements based on deliberate, timely, well-justified decisions supported by Congress. Because the results of the stockpile 

review will not be provided to Congress in time to justify the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request, the Committee has to view the significant budget growth proposed for the current program with skepticism. 

W80 life extension project.—The Committee has had a special interest in the W80 warhead stockpile life extension project (W80 

LEP) and has consistently asked for unambiguous answers from 

the NNSA and the Air Force, the military user of the W80 weapons 

system, justifying the significant budget increases and the aggressive schedule for the W80 LEP. In fiscal year 2000, the Nuclear 

Weapons Council agreed to a W80 LEP schedule assuming a W80 

LEP First Production Unit (FPU) in fiscal year 2006. However, the 

Committee understands that both NNSA and the Defense Department are currently reviewing the Air Force requirement for the 

W80 FPU and the NNSA is rebaselining the W80 LEP program to 

meet a revised delivery date to the Air Force in fiscal year 2008 

or fiscal year 2009. However, the existing fiscal year 2006 FPU 

baseline continues to drive the budget request and the Committee 

has yet to receive an acceptable military justification for supporting 

such an aggressive W80 LEP program. Until a revised W80 LEP 

baseline has been finalized and justified to Congress, the Committee will continue to view the large proportion of the NNSA 

budget proposed for accelerated W80 LEP activities as unnecessary. As a result, the Committee has reduced the weapons activity 

budget for the W80 LEP. 

Stockpile Life Extension Program budget request.—The General 

Accounting Office is currently conducting a review of the NNSA’s 

Stockpile Life Extension Program (SLEP) addressing the comprehensiveness and reliability of the SLEP budget requests for 

each of the four specific warhead life extension projects: W87, W80, 

W76, and the B61. The Department’s life extension activities are 

designed to extend the service life of the existing nuclear weapons 

stockpile by providing new subsystems and components for each 

warhead thereby extending the operational service life. Preliminary 

results from the GAO review identify concerns that question the reliability of the SLEP fiscal year 2004 budget request. The Committee is particularly concerned that the NNSA has yet to develop 

a managerial cost accounting system that provides the full cost of 

the refurbishments programs and validates the cost estimates that 

are used to develop the budget requests. The Committee has consistently requested comprehensive cost estimates for the individual 

weapon type SLEPs. While the NNSA is making progress in budgVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
143

eting by weapons type, the weapons activities campaign costs are 

still unassigned by weapon type even though the budget justifications for many of the proposed campaigns activities are tied to the 

life extension requirements. The Committee will withhold any recommendations pending the final GAO report. 

Life-of-Program buys.—The Committee notes that the W76 and 

W80 life extension programs include procurement actions referred 

to in the Selected Acquisition Reports as ‘‘Life-of-Program buys.’’

Such procurements assume the purchase of sufficient units to supply the entire inventory of weapons (i.e., every Block) to be refurbished during the life extension program. The purpose of the ‘‘life 

of program buy’’ concept is to ensure the availability of commercial 

parts and minimize the scope of required qualifications and surveillance programs. The Committee appreciates the potential program 

efficiencies of a ‘‘life-of-program buy’’ including a simplified qualification process and subsequent surveillance program. However, if 

the NNSA’s current planning assumes refurbishing the entire 

START I stockpile and the ongoing Administration’s review of the 

stockpile results in significant changes to the number of warheads 

required for the relevant weapon system, such procurements risk 

buying significantly more units than are necessary. This is another 

instance where the continued delay in the decision-making and implementation of a revised stockpile plan risks wasting resources. 

The Administrator is directed to include all ‘‘life-of-program buy’’

procurements for each currently planned LEP in the Selected Acquisition Reports submitted with the fiscal year 2005 budget request, including the number of warheads to be refurbished assumed in procurement, how much is budgeted for each procurement, the procurement schedule and the specific rationale for proposing a Life-of-Program buy. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The conference agreement provides 

limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in 

advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The reprogramming thresholds will be as follows: directed stockpile 

work, science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion, advanced simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in technical base and facilities. This should 

provide the needed flexibility to manage these programs. 

In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these categories and each construction 

project subject to the following limitations: only one transfer may 

be made to or from any program or project; the transfer must be 

necessary to address a risk to health, safety or the environment or 

to assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a 

site; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress has 

specifically denied funds or for a new program or project that has 

not been authorized by Congress. 

The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the use 

of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the fiscal year 

which would result in increases or decreases in excess of 

$5,000,000 or which would be subject to the limitations outlined in 

144

the previous paragraph require prior notification and approval 

from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, and certification activities. The 

Committee’s recommendation is $1,343,786,000, a decrease of 

$21,000,000 from the budget request, but an increase of 

$117,343,000 over fiscal year 2003. The Committee notes an increase of over $138,343,000 in the fiscal year 2004 request over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level in the 

Directed Stockpile Work account. Because of the still undefined 

outyear DOD requirements for the W80 weapons system, the Committee is reducing DSW workload concerning the W80 Life Extension Program a total of $20,000,000. The Committee notes that the 

Selected Acquisition Report for the W80 shows a growth of 

$42,000,000 in DSW from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004. However, the Committee recognizes a portion of this increase is associated with the ‘‘first user concept’’ under which funding is assigned 

to a specific weapons type on the basis of first required utilization 

of facilities or activities on the part of a specific weapon refurbishment. The Committee agrees with this cost accounting concept and 

expects the NNSA to continue to use it for budgeting by weapons 

system. The Committee expects the NNSA to maintain the fiscal 

year 2003 level of effort as it rebaselines the W80 LEP to be consistent with revised Air Force plans and requirements. DSW Stockpile Research and Development is reduced $13,000,000 to slow activity consistent with the W80 LEP rebaselining. The Committee’s 

recommendation increases Stockpile Maintenance a net $9,000,000 

by reducing W80 LEP activities by $6,000,000 and increasing funding by $15,000,000 for the Y–12 Plant in Tennessee to complete 

and closeout the W87 LEP activities in fiscal year 2004. Stockpile 

Evaluation is reduced $1,000,000 to slow activity consistent with 

the W80 LEP rebaselining. 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Advanced Concepts research.—The Committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Administration has requested $21,000,000 in DSW Stockpile R&D 

to explore advanced weapons concepts, including $15,000,000 to 

continue feasibility and cost studies for the Robust Nuclear Earth 

Penetrator (RNEP) and $6,000,000 for other advanced concepts definition studies. The Committee provides $5,000,000 for RNEP and 

eliminates funding for additional advanced concepts research in 

favor of higher priority current mission requirements. The Committee is concerned the NNSA is being tasked to start new activities with significant outyear budget impacts before the Administration has articulated the specific requirements to support the President’s announced stockpile modifications. Under current plans, the 

NNSA is attempting to modernize the industrial infrastructure of 

the weapons complex and restore production plant capability in 

order to refurbish the entire START I stockpile, reengineer the federal management structure of the complex and downsize the workforce by 20 percent by the end of fiscal year 2004, while struggling 

to successfully demonstrate its core mission of maintaining the exVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
145

isting stockpile through the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Before 

any of the existing program goals have been successfully demonstrated, the Administration is now proposing to spend millions 

on enhanced test readiness while maintaining the moratorium on 

nuclear testing, aggressively pursue a multi-billion dollar Modern 

Pit Facility before the first production pit has even been successfully certified for use in the stockpile, develop a robust nuclear 

earth penetrator weapon and begin additional advanced concepts 

research on new nuclear weapons. It appears to the Committee the 

Department is proposing to rebuild, restart, and redo and otherwise exercise every capability that was used over the past forty 

years of the Cold War and at the same time prepare for a future 

with an expanded mission for nuclear weapons. Nothing in the past 

performance of the NNSA convinces this Committee that the successful implementation of Stockpile Stewardship program is a foregone conclusion, which makes the pursuit of a broad range of new 

initiatives premature. Until the NNSA has demonstrated to the 

Congress that it can successfully meet its primary mission of maintaining the safety, security, and viability of the existing stockpile 

by executing the Stockpile Life Extension Program and Sciencebased Stewardship activities on time and within budget, this Committee will not support redirecting the management resources and 

attention to a series of new initiatives. 

The Committee directs that funding provided for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) be used for research on the problem 

of deep earth penetration through hard or hardened surfaces, including modeling and simulation of the use of advanced materials, 

and varied trajectories and speeds. The Committee further directs 

that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) coordinate the RNEP research program with ongoing programs at the 

Department of Defense relating to research on earth penetration to 

maximize the dual-use applicability for both conventional and nuclear weapons. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request identified specific funding 

amounts by weapons system in the Selected Acquisition Reports 

that accompanied the submission of the President’s budget request. 

The Committee is to be notified in advance if the proposed funding 

levels for any weapons system change from the estimate provided 

in the Selected Acquisition Reports submitted with the fiscal year 

budget justification. Congressional approval will be required before 

any actual RNEP modifications are initiated. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants, 

and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities 

needed to achieve program objectives. The Committee recommendation is $2,268,455,000, a decrease of $127,000,000 below the budget 

request of $2,395,455,000. 

In order to facilitate review of the President’s annual budget request, the Committee continues to direct the Department to provide project baseline data for each campaign to include a brief description of the campaign with planned completion dates, the total 

estimated cost of each campaign, the costs by fiscal year for each 

146

major component of the campaign, and a list of major milestones 

by year. The Committee expects the Department to provide detailed project baseline data for each campaign showing the annual 

and five-year costs, schedule, scope, and deliverables for individual 

project activities as part of the fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

From within funds provided for the various campaigns, 

$4,300,000 is for the University Research Program in Robotics.

Science campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for science 

campaigns is $236,548,000, a reduction of $33,000,000 from the 

budget request. The dynamic materials properties campaign is reduced by $5,000,000 because of slower progress than anticipated in 

Atlas experiments in fiscal year 2003, and the advanced radiography campaign is reduced by $20,000,000 due to reduction in the 

level of R&D work in the development of the multi-axis multi-time 

radiography. The primary certification campaign was reduced 

$8,000,000 by limiting the increase in the Boost Physics activity to 

$5,000,000 over current year and limiting the Materials Science Integration and Analysis increase to $3,516,000 over current year 

consistent with W80 LEP rebaselining. 

Inspector General report.—The Committee is very concerned 

about the recent DOE Inspector General report (DOE/IG–0599) on 

the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT) 

project that included findings that, notwithstanding the NNSA announcement that DARHT construction project had been completed 

on time and within budget, the facility would not be fully operational until June 2004. In addition to the 15–month delay from 

the projected completion date of March 2003, the IG noted a lack 

of a viable baseline and the shifting of at least $57.5 million of additional costs that were transferred to other work elements but 

should have been identified with the DARHT total project cost. The 

Committee has consistently urged the NNSA to strengthen its federal project management oversight expertise and reviews such as 

the DARHT audit reinforces the Committee’s position on that recommendation. 

Engineering campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

engineering campaigns is $298,187,000, a decrease of $33,000,000 

from the budget request. The enhanced surety campaign is reduced 

$5,000,000 to slow down the level of effort identified for advanced 

use denial elements and options for the W80 Block 2, which under 

current W80 LEP schedule is not scheduled to start until fiscal 

year 2011. The Committee reduces the large increase for the enhanced surveillance campaign by $3,000,000 within the nonnuclear 

components, nonnuclear materials, and systems work activities. 

Construction projects.—The Committee recommends $36,800,000 

a reduction of $25,000,000 from the budget request, for Project 01–

D–108, Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), 

SNL, New Mexico, to rebalance the current financial state of the 

construction project. The Committee is supportive of the MESA 

project, however, the significant uncosted balances associated with 

the project in addition to the significant increases over the requested budget levels provided over the past two years represent 

a serious project management challenge for the NNSA and a serious concern for the Committee. 

147

Inertial Confinement Fusion.—The Committee recommends 

$511,769,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an increase of $45,000,000 over the budget request of $466,769,000. Consistent with the recommendation of the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Committee recommendation provides $58,337,000 for Experimental Support Technologies, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the request, but an increase of $27,975,000 over current year. The Committee recognizes 

the recent successes on the NIF project and expects NNSA to focus 

on the core NIF project to maintain cost and schedule performance. 

The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue development 

of high average power lasers and supporting science and technology. The Committee recommendation also includes the budget 

request of $10,467,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory, and 

$68,132,000 for the University of Rochester, an increase of 

$25,000,000 over the budget request. This additional funding has 

been provided to the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser 

Energetics for the OMEGA Extended Performance Facility in support of the nation’s stockpile stewardship program. 

The Committee recommendation provides $150,000,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the 

budget request. 

Advanced simulation and computing.—The Committee recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 

$715,626,000, a reduction of $35,000,000 below the budget request 

of $750,626,000, but an increase of $15,763,000 over the current 

year. Within the ASCI campaign, the Committee provides 

$52,102,000 for Simulation Support, a reduction of $5,000,000 from 

the budget request; $135,000,000 for Physical Infrastructure and 

Platforms, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request; 

$61,534,000 for Computational Systems, reduction of $5,000,000 

from the budget request; $10,000,000 for PathForward, a reduction 

of $5,000,000 from the budget request; $2,250,000 for ASCI Integration, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request; and 

$37,600,000 for University Partnerships, a reduction of $10,000,000 

from the budget request. 

Pit Manufacturing and Pit Certification.—The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing and certification campaign is 

$273,228,000, a reduction of $47,000,000 from the budget request, 

but an increase of $12,228,000 over the current year budget. The 

Committee strongly supports the progress the NNSA and the Los 

Alamos National Laboratory have demonstrated in turning around 

the performance in the pit manufacturing and certification activities. The Committee urges the Department to continue to concentrate its management attention on meeting the fiscal year 2007 

schedule for a certified pit and challenges the NNSA to reduce the 

total estimated cost required to meet the fiscal year 2007 certification goal. The Committee provides $116,773,000 for W88 Pit 

Manufacturing and $98,592,000 for W88 Certification. The Department is requesting $19,700,000 for pit manufacturing capability to 

develop manufacturing technologies for pits other than the W88. 

The Committee has determined this level of technology development for manufacturing capability in a facility that is a minimum 

of 15 years away from planned operational capability is premature. 

148

The Committee recommendation is $4,700,000 in FY 2004, an increase of $2,000,000 over the current year program level. The Committee recommendation is $10,810,000 for the modern 

pit facility (MPF), a reduction of $12,000,000 from the request. The 

Committee supports the budget request in fiscal year 2004 for continued conceptual design work on a Modern Pit Facility, but urges 

the NNSA to look diligently at ways to more effectively utilize TA– 55 at Los Alamos National Laboratory to address Stockpile Stewardship Program pit manufacturing requirements in the near term 

and take a less aggressive planning approach for a new multi-billion dollar facility. The Committee feels the Department’s rush to 

commit to an MPF design and siting decision is premature without 

the development of a detailed analysis of outyear pit production capacity requirements tied to the 2012 stockpile. 

The Committee provides the budget request for Pit Campaign 

support activities at the Nevada Test Site. 

Readiness campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

Readiness Campaigns is $233,097,000, a reduction of $24,000,000 

from the budget request. The Committee recommends $45,158,000, 

for Stockpile Readiness. The Committee reduces the Establish 

Near-Term Process Capability $10,000,000 to reduce the growth in 

procurements for capital equipment associated with the W80 LEP 

to be consistent with W80 LEP rebaselining. The Committee recommends $19,649,000 for High Explosives Manufacturing & Weapons Assembly/Disassembly, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the 

budget request to slow the growth of high explosive manufacturing, 

product requalification, and science-based manufacturing activities 

consistent with W80 LEP rebaselining. The Committee recommends $33,397,000 for Nonnuclear Readiness, a reduction of 

$4,000,000 from the budget request, to reduce the level of effort associated with the W80 readiness of production operations. The 

Committee recommends $134,893,000 for Tritium Readiness, the 

same as the budget request. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program supports 

the physical and operational infrastructure at the laboratories, the 

Nevada Test Site, and the production plants. The Committee recommendation is $1,511,080,000, a reduction of $102,391,000 below 

the budget request of $1,613,471,000. 

Operations of facilities.—The Committee recommendation for Operations of facilities is $997,773,000, an increase of $25,000,000 

over the budget request. Additional funding of $20,000,000 has 

been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and $5,000,000 for the 

Y–12 Plant in Tennessee to meet facility needs. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommends $106,202,000, 

a reduction of $24,891,000 from the budget request for Program 

Readiness. The budget request proposes $24,891,000 for enhanced 

test readiness activities. The increase over the base program for 

Nevada site readiness is proposed to fund the transition from the 

current 24 to 36 month time-to-test requirement to an 18–month 

test readiness posture at the Nevada Test Site. The Committee is 

concerned with the open-ended commitment to increase significantly funding for the purpose of Enhanced Test Readiness without 

149

any budget analysis or program plan to evaluate the efficiency or 

effectiveness of this funding increase. Recent reports done by the 

DOE Inspector General and two NNSA management studies done 

at the Committee’s request all identified significant problems with 

the current test readiness program, but the Department’s proposal 

does not address the fundamental difficulties in maintaining test 

readiness during a testing moratorium. 

The September 2002 Office of Inspector General audit (DOE/IG–

0566) identified several problem areas impacting the ability to resume testing within the existing 24 to 36 month requirement: decline in the number of employees with testing experience; the deterioration of necessary systems and equipment; the inability to keep 

pace with new technology; and a delay in conducting required safety studies. The Committee notes that the IG identified these problems assuming the current 24 to 36 month test readiness posture 

rather than the proposed test readiness time frame of 18 months. 

As the IG audit noted, if the current testing infrastructure and personnel resources are moribund due to eleven years of inactivity, the 

Committee fails to see how the NNSA’s enhanced test readiness 

proposal puts in place a program that precludes a similar state of 

disarray ten years into the future. Neither past performance nor 

any program or planning documentation provided to the Committee 

supports the Department’s contention that an additional $100 million over three years and a $45 million increment every year thereafter is likely to result in a consistent 6 to 12 month improvement 

in test readiness posture when the current requirement has not 

been successfully maintained. 

The Department’s rationale for the change to an 18–month posture was included in the April 2003 Report to Congress on Nuclear 

Test Readiness, ‘‘An 18 month posture is appropriate because this 

is the minimum time we would expect it would take, once a problem was identified, to assess the problem, develop and implement 

a solution, and plan and execute a test that would provide the information needed to certify the fix.’’ The NNSA’s July 2002 Enhanced Test Readiness Cost Study stated that even during the Cold 

War era of routine testing, the national labs required 18–24 

months to design and field a nuclear test with full diagnostics. The 

Committee questions a proposal to move to and attempt to indefinitely maintain a test readiness state that is the absolute minimum amount of time necessary to conduct a test designed to 

produce meaningful diagnostic results. The proposal reflects a disturbing ‘‘cost is no object’’ perspective in the Department’s decisionmaking process. 

The Committee supports the continued maintenance of the Nevada Test Site as a valuable resource for the NNSA nuclear weapons complex. Indeed, the Committee provides significant resources 

every year to fund a wide variety of activities at NTS that support 

the overall Stockpile Stewardship program. However, the Committee will not spend money on a perceived problem when the Department has not provided a rationale or a plan that addresses the 

underlying problems inherent in maintaining a testing capability 

during a testing moratorium. The Department’s report states, ‘‘The 

NNSA has made a deliberate decision, in consultation with DOD 

and other agencies with the Administration, to move to an 18–

150

month nuclear test readiness posture by the end of fiscal year 

2005.’’ The Committee does not recognize the NNSA declaring a revised test readiness posture as a new requirement nor is it convinced that the decision can be successfully implemented based on 

the planning information provided to date. The Committee challenges the NNSA to work within the significant funding provided 

each year for its site readiness activities to demonstrate the ability 

to meet its current requirements before additional funds are added 

to meet a more problematic goal.

The Committee provides no funds for Enhanced Test Readiness 

as proposed by the Department in fiscal year 2004 pending better 

definition of the national security requirement. 

Special Projects.—The Committee recommendation for Special 

Projects is $34,975,000, a reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget 

request. The Committee concurs with the concerns identified in the 

Report accompanying the House-passed Fiscal Year 2004 National 

Defense Authorization Act and recommends the elimination of the 

$8,000,000 of funding assistance for the Los Alamos School District. 

The Committee recommendation for material recycle and recovery is $76,189,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee 

recommendation for containers is $16,006,000, the same as the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation for storage is 

$11,365,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident response is 

$89,694,000, the same as the budget request. 

Construction projects.—

Project 04–D–101, Test capabilities revitalization, SNL, Albuquerque, NM. The Committee recommends $36,450,000, the same 

as the budget request. The Committee notes the importance of the 

test capabilities being available for the out year stockpile life extension programs. 

Project 04–D–102, Exterior Communications Infrastructure Modernization, SNL, NM. The Committee recommends the modernization of the exterior communications infrastructure at Sandia National Lab be delayed until fiscal year 2005 and redirects the funds 

to higher priorities. 

Project 04–D–104, National Security Sciences building, LANL, 

NM. The Committee recommends the LANL office building, Project 

04–D–104, be delayed until fiscal year 2005 and redirects the funds 

to higher priority requirements. 

Project 04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility 

Replacement (CMR–R)—LANL. The Committee recommends no 

funding for Project 04–D–125 in fiscal year 2004. Due to the complexity of this project, the Committee directs the completion of the 

project management decision process for the CMR–R in fiscal year 

2004 prior to actual start of construction in fiscal year 2005. The 

Committee notes the Department has not completed the project engineering steps concerning CMR–R, including reaching critical decision one (CD–1) to commence the acquisition strategy or any baseline cost validation. The current cost estimate is based on pre-conceptual planning while the baseline cost validation will not be completed until reaching critical decision two. Although the Committee 

continues to be a strong adherent of the Department’s new project 

151

management process, the Committee must question the actual commitment of the Department to its own process by allowing this 

project to go forward in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

Project 03–D–121, Gas Transfer Capacity Expansion, Kansas 

City, The Committee recommends $11,300,000, a reduction of 

$4,000,000 from the request. The construction activity is slowed 

consistent with the W80 life extension program FPU rebaselining. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure 

Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $255,123,000, a reduction of 

$10,000,000 from the budget request, but an increase of 

$14,187,000 over the current year. The Committee remains encouraged by the execution of this program and holds the NNSA to its 

commitment to ensure the results of this funding are quantifiable 

and provide measurable improvements at each site. 

FIRP is a corporate program to restore, rebuild, and revitalize 

the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. Its 

purpose is to stem the deterioration of the complex and address the 

backlog of maintenance, repair, and upgrade projects. The Committee directs NNSA to ensure that funds for recapitalization are 

not diverted to fund ongoing maintenance and programmatic needs 

while at the same time guarding against the inefficiency of large 

uncosted balances. The Committee recognizes the effort to revitalize the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex is in its 

early phases however, the Committee cannot continue to support 

such significant budget increases for FIRP unless the funds are 

being utilized efficiently. 

The Committee directs that at least $50,000,000 of the facilities 

and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2004 be used to dispose 

of excess facilities. The Committee encourages continuation of the 

strides made during the first two years of this program to reduce 

the overall facilities footprint of the complex. The use of new and 

innovative decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) practices 

must continue to be implemented to reduce costs and expedite site 

cleanups. The Committee continues to expect that services for D&D 

and demolition of excess facilities services be procured through 

open-competition where such actions provide the best return on investment for the federal government. The Committee directs the 

NNSA to continue a free and open competition process for at least 

70 percent of the funds provided for disposing of excess facilities. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the safe, 

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, 

and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations 

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States. 

The Committee recommendation is $182,400,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee recommendation is 

152

$585,750,000, the same as the budget request. Consistent with the 

recommendation of the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Committee recommends no funding in the weapons activities safeguards and security for the new 

research and development initiatives in cyber and physical security. The Committee notes that security R&D activities are more 

appropriately funded within the Department’s Office of Security. 

The Committee directs an additional $10,000,000 for Y–12 National 

Security Complex to implement available security technologies to 

minimize additional manpower increases to meet new security requirements. As the Committee noted last year physical safeguards 

and security measures are only part of the solution to address security concerns throughout the weapons complex. With program 

needs going unmet and infrastructure deteriorating, the Committee 

strongly encourages the NNSA to review these growing costs and 

seek smarter and more efficient ways to meet security needs. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The budget request included an offset of $28,985,000 for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $1,168,860,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 1,340,195,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,280,195,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +111,335,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥60,000,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding 

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development; 

Nonproliferation and International Security; Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International Materials Protection, 

Control, and Cooperation, Russian Transition Initiative, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium 

Production; Accelerated Materials Disposition; Fissile Materials 

Disposition; and Program Direction. Descriptions of each of these 

programs are provided below. 

Risk based priority setting.—The Committee concurs with a recent DOE Inspector General audit (DOE/IG–0603) wherein the IG 

noted that the NN program had not established a formal, riskbased approach to allocating program funding. Despite several requests from the Committee, the Department has yet to produce any 

sort of qualitative or quantitative analysis that compares the costs 

of various nonproliferation initiatives against the presumed benefits in terms of reduced risk. The Committee acknowledges that 

such a comparison, especially on a quantitative basis, is not simple, 

nor can it be the sole decision making rationale. However, for the 

purpose of evaluating budget requests and making funding decisions the Committee requires a stronger analytical decision-making 

justification to determine the appropriate use of the marginal budget dollar for nonproliferation activities. The Committee directs the 

NNSA to submit as part of its fiscal year 2005 budget request for 

nonproliferation activities a budget justification including a proVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
153

gram analysis applying a risk-based evaluation of different activities proposed in the budget request. 

Availability of funds.—Consistent with the provisions of H.R. 

1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, 

as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds in this account are available until September 30, 2006. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The nonproliferation and verification research and development 

program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for strengthening the United 

States response to threats to national security and to world peace 

posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and special nuclear 

materials. Activities center on the design and production of operational sensor systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty 

verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and intelligence activities. The counter nuclear smuggling effort and the entire Chemical and Biological National Security component formerly 

a part of the nonproliferation and verification research and development office were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003. The Committee recommendation is $203,873,000, the same as 

the budget request, and includes $108,536,000 for proliferation detection; $89,277,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, of which 

$25,000,000 is for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring; and 

$6,333,000 for supporting activities. 

The Committee has continuing concerns with the management of 

the research and development program. The Department needs to 

involve the end users in the project proposal process, not allow laboratories and Headquarters program managers to come up with 

ideas and then shop around in search of potential end users. While 

funds for research and development are increasing, there is a gap 

not being filled between long-term laboratory research and development and what private industry is currently developing. The potential users of these technologies are looking for short-term improvements to existing products, not long-term research and development projects. The need to bring incrementally improved technologies to the marketplace quickly has never been more urgent. 

Competitive Research.—The capability of the Department to develop and apply technology rapidly to meet growing nonproliferation and terrorism challenges is a continuing concern of the Committee. The Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) is the focal 

point in the federal government to conduct the national interagency 

research and development program for combating terrorism requirements. TSWG seeks technology solutions that address operational and technological shortfalls identified by government agency users. Using a solicitation format called a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), TSWG solicits industry, academia, and government laboratories for innovative research and development solutions to these requirements, including nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological countermeasures. The Committee directs the 

Department to use the TWSG BAA process for all nonproliferation 

and verification research and development activities during fiscal 

year 2004. The Committee believes that TSWG will help the DeVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
154

partment identify and prioritize requirements and develop technology solutions more quickly. 

Annual Report Requirement.—The Committee directs the Department to prepare an annual report of each project with the baseline 

cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, lab performing the research 

and development, and the proposed user and submit this with the 

fiscal year 2005 budget. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The nonproliferation and international security program (formerly the Arms Control program) seeks to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials, 

technology, and expertise. The major functional areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy; international safeguards; export control; and treaties and agreements. The Committee recommendation for nonproliferation and international security is 

$105,734,000, an increase of $4,000,000 from the budget request to 

fund the accelerated activities in Reduced Enrichment for Research 

and Test Reactors (RERTR) and the HEU Research Reactor Fuel 

Purchase proposed under the AMD initiative. 

Within the nonproliferation policy program is the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) program to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by minimizing and possibly 

eliminating the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in civilian 

nuclear programs worldwide. The RERTR program develops the 

technologies needed to substitute LEU for HEU in research and 

test reactors, and proposes to complete this activity by 2009. The 

recommendation includes $8,860,000, an increase of $3,000,000 

from the budget request to fund the accelerated activities in Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) proposed under the Accelerated Materials Disposition initiative. 

Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the Russian Foreign Research Reactor Fuel Return (RFR) initiative to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by repatriating to Russia civilian 

HEU fuel from Russian-supplied research reactors in various countries, including those located in regions of proliferation concern. 

The recommendation includes the budget request of $9,691,000. 

Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the Kazakhstan 

Spent Fuel Disposition initiative to secure three tons of weaponsgrade plutonium in the BN–350 reactor spent fuel at Aktau, 

Kazakhstan. The recommendation includes the budget request of 

$8,270,000. The Committee has serious reservations concerning the 

baseline plan, which assumes transporting the spent fuel out of its 

secure location in Aktau, across the country, to an as-yet-unbuilt 

storage facility in eastern Kazakhstan. The Department is directed 

to conduct an updated vulnerability analysis (VA) applying the revised Postulated Threat statement to the existing VA data to 

evaluate the costs and risks of transporting the material to the 

storage site area assumed in the baseline compared to securing the 

material in a dry storage option on site at the BN–350 reactor in 

Aktau. None of the funds provided for this activity in fiscal year 

2004, or previous fiscal years, may be obligated for transportation 

equipment or activities without first notifying the Committee. 

155

NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian nuclear 

weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific expertise from 

Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons materials, and help 

downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex. 

Limitation on Russian Program Funds.—The Committee remains 

concerned that the Department is not putting a high enough management priority on ensuring as much of the funds appropriated for 

the Russian programs as practical, be spent in Russia rather than 

at the Department’s own national laboratories in the U.S. The Department’s contracting mechanisms are resulting in excess funds 

going to pay laboratories for contract administration and oversight 

that would be better performed by Federal personnel. The Committee expects more direct contracting will be a result of the Nuclear Nonproliferation office achieving its Federal staffing goals in 

FY 2004. The Department’s national laboratories should be used to 

provide technical oversight and programmatic guidance in those 

areas where they have special expertise. 

The Committee directs that not more than 35 percent of the 

funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States. 

The Department’s failure to review the types of administrative and 

programmatic guidance that are needed for these programs and to 

choose the proper contractual mechanism leads to excessive costs 

for administration and less funding going to Russia. The Department should report to the Committee by December 15, 2003, on the 

steps being taken to meet the 35 percent limitation. 

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND COOPERATION

The International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

program is designed to work cooperatively with Russia to secure 

weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable that are of proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring equipment, 

inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. 

The Committee recommendation is $255,000,000, an increase of 

$29,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for accelerating the Material Consolidation 

and Conversion (MCC) program as proposed under the Accelerated 

Materials Disposition initiative. The Committee continues to direct 

the Department to increase the level of program funding that goes 

to employing Russian workers and purchasing Russian-made 

equipment and reduce the amount of funding that is spent in the 

United States. 

Megaports initiative.—The fiscal year 2003 wartime supplemental included $84,000,000 for developing and deploying radiation 

detectors at mega seaports. The Megaports initiative is a new activity in fiscal year 2003 intended to install radiation detection 

equipment at the top 20 major overseas seaports to detect and 

interdict special nuclear material prior to arrival in the U.S. The 

top 20 foreign seaports identified in the Megaports initiative as priVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
156

ority upgrades are the source of 70% of the container traffic from 

all overseas ports destined for U.S. ports. The Committee is fully 

supportive of the Megaports concept of interdicting source material 

for a weapon of mass destruction as far from the U.S. border as 

feasible and directs the department to expand this new program in 

fiscal year 2004. The Committee provides $28,000,000 within International Materials Protection, Control and Cooperation, Second 

Line of Defense, for Megaports. The Department did not include 

funding for Megaports activities in the department’s budget request 

for fiscal year 2004; however, the Committee expects the Department to request funding for this high priority activity in the fiscal 

year 2005 budget request. 

Standards for Cleanup after RDD Event.—The Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, provided $17,000,000 

to expand efforts under the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program to secure materials that may be 

used to construct a radioactive dispersal device (RDD) and to develop standards for the cleanup of contamination resulting from a 

potential RDD event. In its efforts to help develop appropriate 

cleanup standards for an RDD event, the Committee expects the 

Department to coordinate fully with the other Federal agencies 

that have responsibility for setting radiation standards in the 

United States, namely the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition Initiative program is $40,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

This includes the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI) to develop projects 

to employ Russian weapons scientists and downsize the Russian 

weapons complex. 

HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency implementation program develops and implements mutually agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement between the 

United States and the Russian Federation. This agreement, which 

has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers the purchase over 20 

years of low enriched uranium (LEU) derived from 500 metric tons 

of HEU removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under 

the agreement, conversion of HEU components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The Committee recommendation is 

$18,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION

With the completion of the Soviet-designed reactor safety program in fiscal year 2003, the international nuclear safety and cooperation program should plan to complete all ongoing activities by 

the end of fiscal year 2004. The Committee does not support an expanded mission for the program beyond the original mandate of the 

Soviet-designed reactor safety program. The Committee notes that 

the security of nuclear materials and facilities is the mission of 

157

other offices within the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation, and that 

other Federal and international entities already have nuclear safety as a primary mission. The Committee recommendation is 

$6,083,000, a reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget request of 

$14,083,000. The Committee reallocates the funds to continue and 

accelerate the Megaports initiative in fiscal year 2004. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program (EWGPP) was transferred from the Department of Defense to 

the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2003. This is a cooperative 

effort with the Federation of Russia to stop plutonium production 

at three nuclear reactors still in operation in Russia, two located 

at Seversk and one at Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors have approximately 15 years of remaining lifetime and could generate an 

additional 25 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also 

provide heat and electricity required by the surrounding communities. The current approach is to shutdown these three reactors 

within six years by providing alternate fossil-fueled energy plants 

to supply heat and electricity to the surrounding communities. The 

total estimated cost to shutdown the three nuclear reactors and 

build two new fossil-fuel plants is $470,000,000. The Committee 

recommendation is $50,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee appreciates that the Administrator of the NNSA 

choose to complete the EWGPP fossil fuel construction projects in 

accordance with the direction of the Committee and expects to be 

kept informed of program progress. 

ACCELERATED MATERIAL DISPOSITION

The Department has proposed a new initiative to augment activities currently conducted under the 1993 HEU/LEU Purchase 

Agreement with the Russian Federation to reduce weapons useable 

high enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) for 

fuel to be used in civilian power producing reactors in the U.S. The 

Accelerated Material Disposition initiative proposes to directly purchase HEU and HEU converted to LEU material from the Russia 

Federation for storage and use by the U.S. government. The Accelerated Material Disposition initiative has a ten-year projected cost 

estimate of $710 million to $1.13 billion in order to eliminate an 

additional 15 Metric Tons (MT) of excess HEU in Russia. Under 

the existing 1993 HEU/LEU Purchase Agreement, 30 MT per year 

are presently being eliminated by downblending to low enriched 

uranium at no cost to the taxpayer. 

The Committee is disappointed that the Administration’s highest 

profile nonproliferation initiative imposes a government solution at 

significant cost to the taxpayer for a nonproliferation issue that has 

been successfully addressed for nearly a decade using a free market 

approach under the HEU/LEU Purchase Agreement. At a time of 

constrained resources when the Department is ignoring an obvious 

unmet need such as nuclear material detection at foreign seaports, 

the Committee cannot support such a significant commitment of 

outyear budgets for what is a marginal nuclear nonproliferation 

gain. The Committee concurs with the recent DOE Inspector General audit (DOE/IG–0603) wherein the IG noted that the NN proVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
158

gram had not established a formal, risk-based approach to allocating program funding. A proposal such as the AMD initiative 

demonstrates that the NN program requires a stronger analytical 

decision-making model to determine the appropriate use of the 

marginal budget dollar. 

The Committee notes that the $14,000,000 provided for fiscal 

year 2003 will most likely remain uncosted, as the implementing 

agreement negotiations with the Russians have not been completed. Considering the ongoing concern of the Committee regarding the large uncosted balances in the Nonproliferation programs 

the request for AMD has been reduced pending conclusion of negotiations with the Russians. Consistent with the direction provided 

in the House-passed Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act the Committee provides $5,000,000, a reduction of 

$25,000,000 for the Accelerated Material Disposition proposal. 

The Committee recommended funding for accelerated Reduced 

Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) and the HEU 

Research Reactor Fuel Purchase and the Material Consolidation 

and Conversion (MCC) program in the appropriate NN program account where the existing base programs are funded. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The fissile materials disposition program is responsible for the 

technical and management activities to assess, plan and direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally sound longterm storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to national defense 

needs. 

The Committee recommendation is $656,505,000, the same as 

the budget request. Funding of $193,805,000 is provided for U.S. 

surplus materials disposition and $47,100,000 for the Russian plutonium disposition program. 

The U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition program is 

not to be counted in the 35 percent limitation on funds for Russian 

programs to be spent in the U.S. 

Construction projects.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$402,000,000 for Project 99–D–143, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility project. Funding of $13,600,000 is provided for Project 

99–D–141, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility project. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation includes the use of $60,000,000 

of prior year balances. The Committee reiterates its concern over 

the ever-increasing uncosted balances in the Nuclear Nonproliferation program. The Department estimates that the end of fiscal year 

2003 uncosted balances for NN will be over $1,000,000,000. The 

Committee questions whether the program is achieving its program 

goals with uncosted balances at such levels. These balances represent a serious management challenge for the NNSA and the 

Committee expects these funds will be efficiently utilized in a timely manner. 

159

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $702,196,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 768,400,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 768,400,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +66,204,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion—from technology development through 

reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants and to developing the next generation 

reactor. The Committee recommendation is $768,400,000, the same 

as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $325,102,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 347,980,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 341,980,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +16,878,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥6,000,000 

The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight 

for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and 

Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico, 

Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is 

$341,980,000, a reduction of $6,000,000 from the budget request to 

reflect the reduction in overall program activities. 

The NNSA formally delivered to Congress a management reengineering plan on December 20, 2002, with a goal of consolidating functions, clarifying lines of authority and reducing federal 

employment levels by 20 percent throughout the complex by the 

end of fiscal year 2004. The Committee fully supports the successful implementation of the NNSA reengineering effort and will work 

with the Administrator to achieve the fiscal year 2004 goal. The 

Committee expects regular updates on the reengineering implementation progress throughout fiscal year 2004. 

The Committee directs the Administrator of NNSA to provide at least $5,000,000 for the Office of Engineering and Construction 

Management for External Independent Reviews (EIRs) of NNSA 

projects and continue to provide financial support for training and 

mentoring programs to improve the skills of NNSA project managers. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.—The Committee provides $58,000,000 for the Federal employees in the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to allow greater management flexibility for 

that office in hiring Federal employees. The Committee continues 

to identify the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation separately to 

maintain the transparency and management attention on achieving 

the FY 2004 goal of 244 on-board Federal employees. 

160

The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 

the budget request, for official reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $6,723,090,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 6,809,814,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 6,748,457,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +25,367,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥61,357,000 

The Defense Environmental Management program is responsible 

for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 

where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear research 

and production activities that resulted in radioactive, hazardous, 

and mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup action. These responsibilities include facilities and areas at 114 geographic sites. These sites are 

located in 30 states and one territory and occupy an area equal to 

that of Rhode Island and Delaware combined-or about two million 

acres. 

The Department has restructured its Defense Environmental 

Management budget for fiscal year 2004 to focus on accelerated 

cleanup and closure. The former Defense Environmental Management accounts (Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 

Management, Defense Facilities Closure and Defense Privatization) 

have been collapsed into the new Defense Site Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental Services accounts. Defense Site 

Acceleration Completion, by far the largest account at a request of 

$5.8 billion, has as its primary mission the closure of cleanup sites 

centered on three timeframes: 2006, 2012 and 2035. Defense Environmental Services are those activities that support closure (e.g. 

federal salaries, and payments to States and communities) and 

non-mission environmental work (e.g. storage of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level waste, management of newly generated low level radioactive waste for other programs). 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Management totals $6,748,457,000, a reduction of $61,357,000 from 

the budget request of $6,809,814,000. Details of the recommended 

funding levels follow below for the specific Defense Environmental 

Management accounts. 

The Committee continues to support the Department’s efforts to 

reform the Environmental Management program and realize significant cost and schedules savings and accelerate risk reduction. 

The Department should focus on reducing risk, accelerating cleanup, eliminating activities that do not contribute to risk reduction 

and cleanup, and improving the structure, scope, and management 

of cleanup contracts. The Committee does have several significant 

concerns about the execution of the accelerated cleanup initiative, 

as detailed below. 

Lack of Agreement for Accelerated Performance Management 

Plans.—As noted above in the discussion for the Uranium EnrichVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
161

ment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Congressional 

support for accelerated cleanup, specifically in the form of additional near-term funding for accelerated cleanup, is predicated on 

the concurrence of the involved State regulators to the accelerated 

Performance Management Plans (PMPs). Where the Department 

has not been able to reach agreement with State regulators for specific accelerated PMPs, the Committee does not provide the additional increment of funding requested to support accelerated cleanup. The Committee encourages the Department to continue working with these State regulators so that the funds to support accelerated cleanup may be restored in a future fiscal year. The Committee is watching closely the negotiations between the Department and the State of Washington regarding accelerated cleanup 

at Hanford. For the present, the Committee recommendation includes the requested accelerated cleanup funds for Hanford because 

the Committee believes the Department and the State are making 

substantial progress toward agreement. However, if the Department is not able to resolve its differences with the State in the next 

several months, the Committee reserves the right at conference to 

redirect the additional funds to other sites that are more committed to accelerated cleanup. 

Review of Cost and Schedule Baselines.—The Department recently notified the Committee that the total estimated cost for the 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (project 01–D–416) at 

Hanford has increased from $4.35 billion to $5.78 billion. This represents an increase of $1.43 billion, or roughly 33 percent. Some of 

this increase is a result of changes to the project scope resulting 

from the accelerated cleanup schedule at Hanford, but much of this 

increase stems from the dubious quality of the previous estimate. 

The Office of Engineering and Construction Management has completed an External Independent Review (EIR) on this latest project 

baseline cost and schedule and confirmed it to be reasonable, and 

the Committee has no real alternative but to accept that judgment. 

However, the dramatic cost increase for this one project does call 

into question the reliability of the baselines for the other major 

projects within the accelerated cleanup program. The Committee 

directs the Department to review the baseline cost and schedule estimates for all of the line item construction projects included in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request. To fund these reviews, $2,500,000 

should be provided from within funds made available for the appropriate Defense Environmental Management accounts. 

Statutory Changes Required for Accelerated Cleanup.—The Department’s contractor for the cleanup of the Fernald, Ohio, site recently proposed a statutory change to allow the material stored in 

the Fernald silos to be treated as 11(e)(2) material for purposes of 

disposal in a commercial disposal facility. Such a statutory change 

is not required to meet the current cleanup baseline, but apparently is necessary if the contractor is to achieve the maximum possible schedule acceleration and receive the maximum possible performance fee from the Department. The Committee does not disagree with the merits of this proposal regarding the classification 

of the Fernald silo material for disposal purposes. However, the 

Committee strongly objects to the Department sending forth its 

contractors to advocate for legislative changes that are necessary to 

162

execute accelerated cleanup plans. If these statutory changes are 

responsible and for the benefit of the Government and the taxpayer, then the Department should submit such changes as part of 

a formal legislative proposal from the Administration to the Congress. The Committee directs the Department to review its current 

PMPs and cleanup contracts and identify any other instances 

where statutory changes are required to execute accelerated cleanup. The Department is directed to report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations within 60 days after enactment of 

this Act with the results of this review, and to submit a comprehensive legislative proposal with the fiscal year 2005 budget request including all such proposed changes to existing law. 

Legacy Management.—A recent report by the National Research 

Council on the status of Long-Term Stewardship of DOE legacy 

waste sites raised concerns that departmental cleanup planning 

and decision making was decoupled from long-term stewardship 

planning. The Committee expects the department to consider explicitly the long-term stewardship requirements when implementing its accelerated cleanup plans to ensure that long-term 

stewardship is not used as a substitute for complete and effective 

site cleanup. The PMPs should identify the resources that will be 

required to execute legacy responsibilities at each site. 

Economic development.—None of the Defense Environmental 

Management funds are available for economic development activities unless specifically authorized by law. 

DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION COMPLETION

The Defense Site Acceleration Completion account is a new account largely incorporating the programs, projects, and activities 

from the previous site/project completion and post–2006 completion 

subaccounts within the Defense Environmental Restoration and 

Waste Management account, the site closure activities within the 

Defense Facilities Closure Projects account, and the Defense Environmental Management Privatization account, as well as the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform initiative proposed by the 

Department in fiscal year 2003. The Committee recommendation 

for defense site acceleration completion in fiscal year 2004 is 

$5,758,278,000, a reduction of $56,357,000 from the budget request 

of $5,814,635,000. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 

sites which are undergoing accelerated cleanup activities. In fiscal 

year 2004, each site manager may transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense Site Acceleration Completion subaccounts (i.e., accelerated completions 2006, accelerated completions 2012, accelerated completions 2035, and line item construction projects) to reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no 

program or project is increased or decreased by more than 

$5,000,000 once during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. 

The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must 

be notified within thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority. 

163

Accelerated Completions, 2006.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $1,242,751,000, a reduction of $2,420,000 from the budget 

request to reflect the lack of regulatory agreement on accelerated 

2006 cleanup activities for the Sandia National Laboratories. This 

funding supports the closure by the year 2006 of the Rocky Flats, 

West Jefferson, Fernald, Miamisburg, and Ashtabula sites, and the 

completion of significant cleanup projects at various other sites 

such as Melton Valley. 

Accelerated Completions, 2012.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $2,216,587,000, a reduction of $11,727,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of regulatory agreement on accelerated 

2012 cleanup activities for the Los Alamos National Laboratory 

and the Pantex site. This amount includes the requested funding 

of $23,500,000 for project engineering and design of two projects at 

the Savannah River Site (SRS) and the Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) (project 04–D–414), 

$1,134,000 for construction of container surveillance capability at 

SRS (project 04–D–423), $1,126,000 for construction of the INTEC 

cathodic protection system expansion project at INEEL (project 02– D–402), and $690,000,000 for construction of the Waste Treatment 

and Immobilization Plant at Hanford (project 01–D–416). 

Accelerated Completions, 2035.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $1,961,387,000, a reduction of $17,210,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of regulatory agreement on accelerated 

2035 cleanup activities for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

This amount includes the requested funding of $13,954,000 for construction of the Immobilized High Level Waste Interim Storage Facility at Hanford (project 03–D–403), $51,500,000 to continue design of the Salt Waste Processing Facility Alternative at SRS 

(project 03–D–414), and $20,259,000 for construction of Glass 

Waste Storage Building #2 at SRS (project 04–D–408). 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommendation provides $299,977,000, the same as the budget request. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommendation provides $63,920,000, the same as the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee provides $5,000,000 

to continue the five-year international agreement with AEA Technology, and $7,000,000 to continue the five-year agreement with 

Florida International University’s Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology. 

Funding adjustments.—The Committee recommendation includes 

an offset of $1,344,000, the same as the budget request, for the security costs associated with reimbursable work, and a general reduction of $25,000,000 to be applied primarily to activities with the 

least impact on near-term cleanup and closure. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

The Defense Environmental Services account is a new account 

incorporating the activities that indirectly support the cleanup and 

closure of contaminated sites. These include activities such as the 

management of non-legacy spent nuclear fuel and newly-generated 

waste and the recovery and disposal of sealed radioactive sources, 

as well as community and regulatory support, the Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and DecommisVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
164

sioning Fund, and program direction for the Department’s environmental management efforts. The Committee recommendation for 

Defense Environmental Services in fiscal year 2004 is 

$990,179,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request. 

Community and Regulatory Support.—The Committee recommendation is $61,337,000, the same as the budget request. 

Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund.—The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102–486, created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of cleanup of 

the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $452,000,000 for the 

Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in Public Law 102–486. 

Non-Closure Environmental Activities.—The Committee recommendation is $189,698,000, the same as the budget request, including the requested amounts for spent nuclear fuel stabilization 

and disposition at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and 

Savannah River Site, and solid waste stabilization and disposition 

of newly generated waste at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

The Department is to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training 

Program at the fiscal year 2003 level from within available funds. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation for program direction is $292,144,000, the same as the budget request. 

Funding adjustments.—The Committee recommendation includes 

a general reduction of $5,000,000. 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).—

The Committee continues to expect the Department to fulfill its responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial actions to 

be performed by the Corps of Engineers.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $515,659,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 636,154,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 666,516,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +150,857,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +30,362,000 

This account provides funding for Energy Security and Assurance; the Office of Security; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Worker and Community Transition; National Security Programs Administrative Support; and the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs are 

provided below. 

ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE

The operational component of this office was transferred to the 

Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003. The remaining Department of Energy component will be maintained as an office for the purpose of advising the Secretary of Energy in the development of policy to ensure the reliability of the nation’s energy 

165

infrastructure. The Committee recommendation for energy security 

and assurance is $2,472,000, a reduction of $1,800,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee notes the FTE level dropped from 

22 to 8 from fiscal year 2003 to 2004. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Office of Security provides a domestic safeguards and security program for protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, 

nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified information 

against sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any loss or unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national security or 

disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation for security 

and emergency operations is $211,757,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

In fiscal year 2004, the Department of Energy will spend over $1 

billion on safeguards and security activities at Headquarters and 

field locations. The $211,757,000 provided to the Office of Security 

is for Headquarters activities only. Funding for safeguards and security activities at Departmental facilities and laboratories in the 

field is included within each program budget. 

The Committee notes that safeguards and security is not a mission of the Department of Energy; instead it is a requirement that 

must be met when conducting activities to meet the actual defense, 

science, and environmental clean up missions of the Department. 

When implementing the needed security enhancements to meet increased requirements, the Committee will look to the Department’s 

use of improved technology and the efficient restructuring and consolidation of material and facilities requiring the highest levels of 

security with the goal of improving S&S and reducing the percentage of the budget that must be used for safeguards and security. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE

The intelligence program provides information and technical 

analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in the 

Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of the 

Department’s intelligence analysis and reporting is on emerging 

proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers, foreign nuclear 

materials production, and proliferation implications of the breakup 

of the Former Soviet Union. The Committee recommendation is 

$39,823,000, the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and implement 

an effective counterintelligence program throughout the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to identify, neutralize, 

and deter foreign government or industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department’s facilities, personnel, information, and 

technologies. The Committee recommendation is $45,955,000, the 

same as the budget request.

166

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance 

is the focal point for independent evaluation of safeguards, security, emergency management, and cyber security. The Committee 

recommendation is $22,575,000, the same as the budget request. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops programs 

and policies to protect the workers and the public, conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health effects studies. 

The Committee recommendation is $107,686,000, the same as the 

budget request. With a significant Headquarters staff of Federal 

employees, the Committee continues to believe that outside contractor assistance can be reduced. 

The recommendation for health effects studies is $48,160,000, the 

same as the budget request. The Department funds several programs for occupational medicine, public health studies, and epidemiologic monitoring. The Committee expects the Department to 

review all these activities to achieve efficiencies through consolidation.

WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

The Committee’s recommendation for the worker and community transition program is $15,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

Funding has remained stable or increased in many Departmental 

programs, and there are no significant contractor reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2004. The Committee has provided $1,400,000 from within available funds for the Pinellas Community Reuse Organization to complete the STAR Center transition. The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for 

this program be used for additional severance payments and benefits for Federal employees. 

The worker and community transition program was established 

to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of contractor 

workforce reductions as a result of the end of the Cold War. Funds 

are provided for enhanced severance payments to employees at 

former defense sites, and for assisting community planning for defense conversion through Federal grants. However, the cost of this 

program has not been insignificant and now exceeds $1 billion. 

With program funds increasing in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 

2004 at NNSA and environmental cleanup sites, the Committee 

sees no need to increase funding for severance benefits above the 

budget request for fiscal year 2004. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation of 

$2,679,000 for program direction, the same as the budget request. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes to establish the Office of Legacy Management to manage the long-term stewardship 

responsibilities at the Department of Energy clean up sites after 

remediation activities are completed. The functions of the Office 

will include long-term surveillance and maintenance of DOE facilities where remediation measures are substantially completed and 

167

the management of the post-closure benefits of former contractor 

employees. The Committee expects the Department’s legacy management plans and activities will be coordinated with the Office of 

Environmental Management to ensure clean up and long term 

stewardship is appropriately integrated. The Committee recommendation for the Office of Legacy Management activities includes $47,525,000, the same as the budget request, of which 

$19,178,000 is provided in Other Defense Activities and the balance is provided in nondefense Environmental Services. The Committee directs the Legacy Management appropriation account line 

to continue to be identified separately in future departmental budget requests. 

FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

The Committee recommendation includes $112,306,000 to fund 

the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the Idaho 

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and 

associated Idaho cleanup sites. This amount includes $21,415,000 

for INEEL infrastructure, the same as the budget request, for activities at this site previously funded under the Defense Environmental Management account; 56,654,000 for Idaho sitewide safeguards and security, the same as the budget request; and 

$34,237,000 for program direction to support Headquarters and 

Idaho Field Office personnel previously funded under Defense Environmental Management. 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $86,679,000, to provide 

administrative support for programs funded in the atomic energy 

defense activities accounts. This will fund Departmental activities 

performed by offices such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and 

Under Secretary, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, 

Human Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs, which 

support the organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for all 

of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The 

Committee recommendation is $3,797,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments includes an offset of $712,000 for the safeguards and security charge 

for reimbursable work, the same as the budget request.

168

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $312,952,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 430,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 430,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +117,048,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 

amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for activities 

related to the disposal of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel 

generated from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. At the end of fiscal year 2002, the balance owed 

by the Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was 

$1,212,000,000 (including principal and interest). The Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation was established to ensure payment of the Federal government’s contribution to the nuclear waste 

repository program. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of 

$1,693,129,000 has been appropriated to support nuclear waste repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense activities. The Committee recommendation is $430,000,000, the same as 

the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for 

Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of $765,000,000 

for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal year 2004. 

CERRO GRANDE FIRE ACTIVITIES

The Committee has included language proposed by the Administration canceling $75,000,000 of remaining available balances from 

the Cerro Grande Fire activities. The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to deobligate the funds to be cancelled. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 

transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of 

Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95–

91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and all other 

functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 

Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 

funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004 does not support the 

Administration proposal to continue the phase-out of federal financing of the customers’ purchase power and wheeling expenses 

for the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern 

Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does not at this time incorporate the Administration proposal for the Power Marketing Administrations to fund directly from revenues the costs of operation 

169

and maintenance of federal hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams, as this proposal is presently under consideration by 

the authorizing committees. 

Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the Bonneville 

Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance 

the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, 

and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements. 

Purchase power and wheeling.—The Committee finds no compelling reason to continue the phase out of purchase power and wheeling, particularly since this activity is budget neutral. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004 maintains purchase 

power and wheeling activities at approximately the fiscal year 2002 

level. The Committee will continue to establish ceilings on the use 

of receipts for purchase power and wheeling, and also establish the 

amount of offsetting collections.

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region, and 

exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada and California. 

The Committee continues to have concerns about Bonneville’s financial situation, particularly in light of the $700 million in additional borrowing authority provided to Bonneville in the Energy 

and Water Development Act, 2003. At the same time that the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations were conferencing the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill and deciding whether to provide this additional borrowing authority, Bonneville realized that it had a 74 percent probability that it would miss its loan 

repayment to the Federal Treasury in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, Bonneville neglected to inform Congress of this critical 

change in its financial circumstances until after the fiscal year 

2003 appropriations conference was completed. 

The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) 

to conduct a thorough review of the Bonneville Power Administration. The GAO has provided the following preliminary findings and 

observations: (1) increasing borrowing authority for the transmission side of BPA will increase BPA’s overall costs but will not 

resolve its current financial difficulties on the power generation 

side of BPA (i.e., low cash reserves and poor bond rating); (2) BPA 

is currently overextended as a result of committing to provide more 

power than it can generate from the Federal hydropower system, 

creating greater volatility in costs and revenues; (3) stakeholders 

see a lack of sufficient oversight and a lack of incentives to control 

costs; and (4) the present rate structure insulates customers from 

natural fluctuations in hydropower availability, thus eliminating 

any price signal when electricity is scarce. The net result is that 

Bonneville continues to operate at significant financial risk, which 

170

impacts both ratepayers in the region and taxpayers in the rest of 

the country. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct an independent 

review of Bonneville’s mission, management, and financial condition to address the GAO findings and conclusions. The Committee 

expects the Secretary to make specific recommendations to Congress to show how Bonneville might focus its mission on delivering 

the electricity generated by the Federal hydropower system and reduce the risk to the ratepayers in the region and to the Federal 

Treasury. The Secretary should submit this report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than December 

31, 2004. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $4,505,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 5,100,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 5,100,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +595,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Southeastern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects in eleven 

states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate any 

transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power using 

the existing transmission facilities of area utilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power Administration is $5,100,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2003 is 

$39,100,000, with $34,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling 

and $5,100,000 for program direction. The purchase power and 

wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,000,000. The offsetting collections total of $34,000,000 includes $15,000,000 made 

available in Public Law 106–377 for use in fiscal year 2004, plus an additional $19,000,000 provided in this Act. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $27,200,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 28,600,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 28,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +1,400,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Southwestern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the 

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma 

and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 miles of 

transmission lines, with the supporting substations and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the sale of its 

power to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is $28,600,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2004 is 

$30,400,000, including $4,663,000 for operating expenses, 

171

$1,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $19,205,000 for program direction, and $4,732,000 for construction. The offset of 

$1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling yields 

a net appropriation of $27,378,000. The offsetting collections total 

of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made available in Public Law 106– 377 for use in fiscal year 2004, plus an additional $1,512,000 provided in this Act. The Committee recommendation also provides 

authority for Southwestern to accept advances from non-Federal 

entities to provide interconnections to Southwestern’s transmission 

system. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $167,760,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 171,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 171,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +3,240,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western states over a service area of 1.3 

million square miles. 

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is $171,000,000, the same as the budget request. The 

total program level for Western in fiscal year 2003 is $360,992,000, 

which includes $12,200,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 

$36,204,000 for system operation and maintenance, $186,000,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, and $126,588,000 for program direction. Consistent with the budget request, no funds are provided 

for Utah mitigation and conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power and wheeling total $186,000,000; with the use of 

$3,992,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam 

Fund (as authorized in P.L. 98–381), this requires a net appropria- tion of $171,000,000. The offsetting collections for purchase power 

and wheeling includes $20,000,000 made available in Public Law 

106–377 for use in fiscal year 2004, plus an additional $166,000,000 provided in this Act. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes 

$4,825,000 for upgrades of the Phoenix substation. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $2,716,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 2,640,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 2,640,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥76,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water 

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams 

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power AdminisVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
172

tration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The Committee recommendation is $2,640,000, the same as the 

budget request.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $192,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 199,400,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 192,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥7,400,000

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ ¥$192,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... ¥199,400,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥192,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... +7,400,000

The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission (FERC) is $192,000,000, the same as the fiscal 

year 2003 funding level and a decrease of $7,400,000 compared to 

the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Revenues for FERC are established at a rate equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net 

appropriation of $0. 

The Committee has concerns regarding the integration of various 

Midwestern companies into a regional transmission organization 

(RTO) under the FERC order issued July 31, 2002. To protect consumers in the Midwestern States, the Committee expects FERC 

will require that the conditions of its July 31, 2002, order be met 

before proceeding with any irreversible integration of transmission 

systems. The Committee may address this issue in more detail at 

conference, pending receipt of a report from FERC on the status of 

this integration. 

The Federal Power Act requires FERC to establish and collect 

reasonable annual charges for the use of federal lands for non-federal hydropower projects. Since 1987, FERC has charged land rents 

for hydropower projects based on a system used by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for linear rights-of-way 

(e.g., power lines, pipelines, etc.) The General Accounting Office 

(GAO), in response to a request from this Subcommittee and the 

Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, conducted an analysis of 

these land rents charged by FERC for non-federal hydropower 

projects located on federal lands. In its completed report (GAO–03– 383), GAO concludes that FERC is collecting only two percent of 

the fair market value of these Federal lands used for non-federal 

hydropower. This represents a significant loss of revenues to the 

Treasury and also a significant subsidy for non-Federal hydropower 

projects. 

173

Based on preliminary results from this GAO review last year, in 

House Report 107–681 the Committee directed FERC to submit in 

its fiscal year 2004 budget request a proposal to revise the existing 

fee schedule to capture more of the real market value of these federal lands. The Committee did not direct FERC to make a change 

to the existing fee schedule, and certainly did not suggest that 

these land rents should be increased overnight by a factor of 50 or 

more. However, the Committee did expect to receive a serious proposal from FERC on how the current land rent fees could be revised over time to capture more of the real value of these lands for 

the U.S. Treasury. Instead, FERC submitted a 2-page letter report 

explaining its reservations about adopting the GAO net benefits 

methodology (which the Committee did not direct FERC to do), noting that a shift to a more complex methodology will require additional resources (which the Appropriations Committee already realized), and stating that FERC intends to wait until the Forest Service revises its right-of-way index before it will consider making any 

changes to the FERC methodology. 

The Committee considers this FERC response to be wholly inadequate. The Committee does not support increased budget authority for FERC at this time. Further, the Committee strongly recommends that the House Budget Committee and the Office of Management and Budget take a closer look at the revenues being foregone by FERC’s continued use of the existing fee schedule for land 

rents. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table.

174


Insert graphic folio 183 HR212.059
175


Insert graphic folio 184 HR212.060
176


Insert graphic folio 185 HR212.061
177


Insert graphic folio 186 HR212.062
178


Insert graphic folio 187 HR212.063
179


Insert graphic folio 188 HR212.064
180


Insert graphic folio 189 HR212.065
181


Insert graphic folio 190 HR212.066
182


Insert graphic folio 191 HR212.067
183


Insert graphic folio 192 HR212.068
184


Insert graphic folio 193 HR212.069
185


Insert graphic folio 194 HR212.070
186


Insert graphic folio 195 HR212.071
187


Insert graphic folio 196 HR212.072
188


Insert graphic folio 197 HR212.073
189

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Contract Competition.—The Committee is very concerned that 

the Department continues to maintain a number of management 

and operating (M&O) contracts that have never been competed, 

some since their inception over 60 years ago. The general provision 

carried in previous Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Acts, requiring competition of these contracts but allowing the Secretary to waive the requirement upon notification to Congress, has 

not been effective in changing the Department’s continued reliance 

on noncompetitive contract awards and contract extensions. Therefore, this Committee has included bill language barring the use of 

appropriated funds to continue to pay for M&O contracts that have 

not been competitively awarded within the past fifty fiscal years 

(i.e., since fiscal year 1954). For M&O contracts that have not been 

competitively awarded within that time period, the Department 

may continue to fund such contracts only if the Secretary announces his intent to compete these contracts when their current 

terms expire. The Secretary must publish such notification in the 

Federal Register, and must submit a written notification to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, within 60 days 

of enactment of this Act. The specific reference to section 303(c)(1) 

of the Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 

Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(3)) in included to ensure that the Department does not continue to use the status of DOE laboratories 

as federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) as 

an excuse for not competing these laboratory contracts. 

It is not the Committee’s intent to disrupt contracts that have 

been competitively awarded in recent years (e.g., Brookhaven, 

NREL, Sandia), nor to undo decisions the Secretary has already 

made to extend non-competitively the existing contracts at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. However, the Committee does intend to change the Department’s contracting practice going forward. The Committee is hopeful that the Secretary’s Blue Ribbon Commission on the Use of 

Competitive Procedures for DOE Laboratories will be able to provide the Secretary with specific guidance on how to evaluate the 

performance of the incumbent contractors, how to structure a full 

and open competition that is fair to incumbents and competitors 

alike, and how to compete the contracts for those laboratories situated on university property. The Committee also expects that these 

changes will help to stimulate a larger pool of qualified for-profit, 

non-profit, and academic contractors to compete for these M&O 

contracts. 

To the Department’s credit, it has recently announced its intent 

to compete the M&O contracts for the Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and for the Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL), and has made significant improvements in competing the contracts for the cleanup of Environmental 

Management sites. However, the Secretary has imposed several 

conditions on the competition of the LANL contract that this Committee believes will unduly bias any competition in favor of the incumbent LANL contractor. Specifically, the Secretary has directed 

190

that any competition of the LANL contract must protect all of the 

existing workforce and all of the pension benefits of the existing 

workforce. In addition, the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) has recently suggested that the 

incumbent contractor for LANL may be able to charge its proposal 

preparation costs to the existing contract. Any incumbent contractor already enjoys enormous advantages over potential competitors in proposal preparation, both in terms of having a known 

record of performance and of having inside knowledge of lab operations that other competitors will not have. The Department should 

not offer to pay the incumbent’s proposal costs unless the Department is prepared to offer the same benefit to all competitors, an 

obviously expensive and impractical solution. Therefore, the Committee includes bill language prohibiting the inclusion of any condition to an M&O contract that has the effect of biasing the competition in favor of the incumbent contractor or otherwise establishing 

something less than full and open competition. The prohibition on 

such conditions does not extend to defining the scope of the contract, for which the incumbent enjoys a natural advantage, or to 

crediting the incumbent’s past performance when evaluating its 

qualifications for a future contract. 

Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.—Section 302 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to prepare 

or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide enhanced 

severance payments and other benefits and community assistance 

grants for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under 

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 1993, Public Law 102–484. The Committee has provided no 

funds to implement workforce restructuring plans which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy 

which are not available to other Federal employees of the United 

States Government. This provision was included in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003. 

Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.—Section 303 

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to augment 

the $15,000,000 made available for obligation in this Act for enhanced severance payments to contractors and other benefits and 

community assistance grants authorized under the provisions of 

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 1993, Public Law 102–484. This provision was included in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003. 

Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.—Section 304 

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate 

requests for proposals or expressions of interest for new programs 

which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet been approved and funded 

by Congress. This provision was included in the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2003. 

Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.—Section 305 permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

This provision was included in the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act, 2003.

191

Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.—Section 306 

provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 

used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration 

to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 

Bonneville service territory unless the Administrator certifies in 

advance that such services are not available from private sector 

businesses. This provision was included in the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2003. 

User Facilities.—Section 307 establishes certain notice and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of universities in Department of Energy user facilities. This provision was 

included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act, 2003. The detailed guidance on the application of this provision was provided in House Report 107–681 and continues to apply. 

Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.—Section 

308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national security funding at the Kansas City, Pantex, and Y–12 plants, the Savannah 

River Plant, and the Nevada Test Site to be used for research, development, and demonstration activities. This provision was included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

2003. 

Authorization of Intelligence Activities.—Section 309 authorizes 

intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2004 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 

fiscal year 2004. 

Authorization for Continued External Regulation Analyses.—Section 310 provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

the Secretary of Energy shall proceed with planning and analyses 

for external regulation of the Department’s laboratories under the 

Office of Science. 

(193)

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $70,827,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 33,145,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 33,145,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥37,682,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of 

the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a Federal CoChairman who is appointed by the President. The Committee recommendation is $33,145,000, the same as the budget request. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $18,876,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 19,559,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 19,559,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +683,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the 

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board, 

composed of five members appointed by the President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding 

public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear 

facilities. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the 

content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. 

The Committee recommendation is $19,559,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $7,948,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 2,000,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥5,948,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Delta Regional 

Authority for fiscal year 2004, the same as the budget request. 

The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the Authority 

194

to submit a detailed budget justification if funds were requested in 

fiscal year 2004. The Authority did not comply with this requirement. If no budget justification is submitted with the fiscal year 

2005 budget request, the Committee will not provide funding for 

the Authority. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $47,688,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 9,500,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥47,688,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ¥9,500,000 

The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali 

Commission in fiscal year 2004 due to funding constraints. 

The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the Commission to submit a detailed budget justification if funds were requested in fiscal year 2003. The Commission did not comply with 

this requirement. The Committee again directs the Commission to 

submit a detailed budget justification if funds are requested in fiscal year 2005. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $577,806,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 618,800,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 618,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +40,994,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $¥520,087,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... ¥538,844,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥538,844,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥18,757,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $57,719,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 79,956,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 79,956,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +22,237,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses is $618,800,000, the 

same as the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated 

revenues of $538,844,000, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$79,956,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount 

of $33,100,000 to be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund 

to support the Department of Energy’s effort to develop a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. 

Fee Recovery.—Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal year 

2001, the NRC is required in fiscal year 2004 to recover 92 percent 

195

of its budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. Of the 

$618,800,000 gross appropriation, $33,100,000 is drawn from the 

Nuclear Waste Fund, 92 percent of the balance of $585,700,000 

(i.e., $538,844,000) is funded by fees collected from NRC licensees, 

and the remaining eight percent (i.e., $46,856,000) is funded from 

the General Fund of the Treasury. This amount funded from the 

General Fund is available to fund those activities, such as NRC 

corporate homeland security expenses, that may not be appropriate 

to assess to NRC licensees. 

Repository Licensing.—The Committee is concerned about the extent of documentation that the Department of Energy may be required to post as part of the License Support Network (LSN). The 

Committee has provided guidance in Title III of this report directing DOE that Congressional communications between the Members 

and staffs of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

and the Department are not to be included in documentation the 

Department posts on the LSN. The Committee encourages the 

Commission to review its regulatory requirements and guidance regarding the LSN to ensure they do not require duplication of information otherwise easily obtainable, focus on information that is 

truly relevant to substantive decisions that will have to be made, 

and establishes a timeframe in accord with the traditional conduct 

of an adjudicatory proceeding. The Committee expects the Commission to work with the Department to ensure that all significant and 

relevant documents are made available in the License Support Network to support sound decisionmaking on the License Application, 

but to also ensure that the care and feeding of the License Support 

Network does not expand to consume a disproportionate amount of 

DOE and NRC resources. 

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to 

provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and other 

regulatory activities. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $6,797,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 7,300,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,300,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +503,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $¥6,392,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... ¥6,716,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... ¥6,716,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥324,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

196

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $405,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 584,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 584,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... +179,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,300,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of $503,000 over fiscal 

year 2003. The Commission is required by law to recover 92 percent of this budget authority in fiscal year 2004 through the assessment of license and annual fees. Therefore, the revenue estimate 

is $6,716,000, resulting in a net appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $584,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2003 ............................................................................ $3,179,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ....................................................................... 3,177,000 

Recommended, 2004 ........................................................................... 3,177,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2003 .................................................................... ¥2,000 

Budget Estimate, 2004 ............................................................... ............................

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by 

the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 

provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee sees the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the Department begins 

to focus on the packaging or transportation of high-level radioactive 

waste and spent nuclear fuel. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,179,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the budget request and a decrease of $2,000 from fiscal year 2003 funding. 

(197)

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommendation includes several general provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities funded in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. 

Prohibition on Lobbying.—Section 501 provides that none of the 

funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, directly 

or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or 

appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of 

Title 18, United States Code. 

Buy American.—Section 502 requires that American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent practicable. 

Transfer of Funds.—Section 503 provides that none of the funds 

made available in this Act may be transferred to any department, 

agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided 

in, this Act or any other appropriation Act. 

(199)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 

joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement 

citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Commission of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury bill in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)2 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:

[In millions of dollars] 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Discretionary ................................................... 27,080 27,211 27,080 27,173

Mandatory ....................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

200

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAYS PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority in the accompanying bill:

Millions 

Budget Authority ............................................................................................. 27,080

Outlays: 

2004 ........................................................................................................... 17,975

2005 ........................................................................................................... 7,786

2006 ........................................................................................................... 1,285

2007 ........................................................................................................... 22

2008 and beyond ....................................................................................... 7

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows:

Millions 

Budget Authority ............................................................................................. 32

Fiscal year 2004 outlays resulting therefrom ............................................... 3

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources:

* * * of which $57,330,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

$33,570,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 

Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such 

amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; * * *

* * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased or 

decreased within the overall appropriations under this 

heading: * * *

* * * Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds 

appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San Gabriel 

Restoration Fund established by section 110 of division B, 

Title I of Public Law 106–554, as amended * * *

Under Title III, Weapons Activities:

* * * Provided further, that not less than $10,000,000 of 

the funds provided in this paragraph shall be transferred 

to the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Energy 

for the sole purpose of upgrading the Department of EnerVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
201

gy’s accounting and financial systems to track National 

Nuclear Security Administration costs by weapon system.

Under Title III, Environmental Cleanup Reform:

* * * Provided, That these amounts may be transferred 

to and merged with accounts under this title which fund 

specific cleanup activities only after the Secretary of Energy enters into an agreement satisfactory to the Secretary 

and the appropriate State and Federal regulators, for each 

site for which these funds may be used.

Under Title III, General Provisions:

Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may be transferred 

to appropriation accounts for such activities established 

pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be 

merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the 

same time period as originally enacted. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. Language has also been 

included under General Investigations providing credit for work 

done by local interests on the Ohio Riverfront, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

project. 

Language has been included under Construction, General, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also included under Construction, General, directing the Corps of Engineers to proceed with the New York Harbor Deepening project 

under certain conditions and placing a limitation on the use of 

funds for activities related to restoration of the Everglades. 

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 

General stating that funds may be used for providing security at 

facilities owned and operated by or on behalf of the Corps of Engineers, including the Washington Aqueduct. 

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 

General, stating the following:

* * * for the maintenance of harbor channels provided 

by a State, municipality or other public agency that serve 

needs of general commerce * * *

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance, 

General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance of 

outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of funds from 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

202

Language has been included under the Regulatory Program regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands. 

Lanaguage has been included under General Expenses regarding 

support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center Activity, the 

Institute for Water Resources and headquarters support functions 

at the USACE Finance Center. Language is also included under 

General Expenses prohibiting the use of other title I funds for the 

Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices. Language 

is also included prohibiting the use of funds to support an office of 

congressional affairs within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. 

Lanaguage has been included under Administrative Provision 

providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of motor 

vehicles. 

Language is included under General Provisions as follows:

Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration which places a limit on credits and reimbursements 

allowable per project and annually for all projects. 

Sec. 102. The Committee has included language prohibiting the 

expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in Tuscarawas 

County, Ohio. 

Sec. 103. The Committee has included language prohibiting the 

expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in Stark County, 

Ohio. 

Sec. 104. The Committee has included language renaming Lock 

and Dam 3 on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Language has been included under Water and Related Resources 

providing that funds are available for fulfilling Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing 

that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado 

River Dam Fund. Language is included under Water and Related 

Resources which permits fund transfers within the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower 

Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Language is included 

under Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be 

used for work carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing 

that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 4601–6a(i). Language is 

included under Water and Related Resources which provides that 

funds contributed by non-Federal entities shall be available for expenditure. Language is included providing that funds advanced for 

operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account. Language is also 

included permitting the use of funds available for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program for site remediation on a nonreimbursable basis. Language is included under Water and Related 

Resources providing that $10,000,000 shall be deposited in the San 

Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. Language is included under 

203

Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation States 

Emergency Drought Relief Act. 

Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation 

Loan Program Account providing that funds may be derived from 

the Reclamation Fund. 

Language has been included under the Central Valley Project 

Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess 

and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and restoration 

payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102–575. 

Language is included under the Central Valley Project Restoration 

Fund providing that none of the funds provided may be used for 

the acquisition or lease of water for in-stream purposes if the water 

is already committed to in-stream purposes be a court adopted decree or order. 

Language has been included under Policy and Administration 

providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund 

and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the Act 

may be used for activities budgeted as policy and administration 

expenses. 

Language has been included under the Working Capital Fund rescinding unobligated balances. 

Language has been provided under General Provisions as follows: 

Section 201. The Committee has included language proposed by 

the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 

Reservoir in California. This language has been included in Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Acts for several years. 

Section 202. The Committee has included language which prohibits the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease in the 

Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico unless the 

acquisition is in compliance with existing State law and administered under State priority allocation. 

Section 203. The Committee has included language which 

amends Section 206 of Public Law 101–514 regarding water supply 

contracts for the Sacramento County Water Agency and the San 

Juan Suburban Water District by removing the requirement that 

the contracts include an annual needs determination. 

Section 204. The Committee has included language which authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to amend the Central Valley Project water supply contracts for the Sacramento 

County Water Agency and the San Juan Suburban Water District 

by deleting a provision requiring a determination of annual water 

needs. 

Section 205. The Committee has included language which provides that funds in the Lower Colorado River Basin Development 

Fund shall not be diverted to the General Fund of the Treasury 

pending the completion of an omnibus Arizona water rights settlement agreement. 

Section 206. The Committee has included language which provides that funds provided to the Bureau of Reclamation may be 

used for the payment of claims not exceeding $5,000,000. 

204

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Language has been included under Energy Supply providing for 

the purchase of not to exceed 12 passenger motor vehicles of replacement only, including 2 buses. 

Language has been included under Science providing for the purchase of not to exceed 15 passenger motor vehicles for replacement 

only, including not to exceed one ambulance. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal providing that none of the funds provided in this or any other appropriations Act may be used for the planning, design, or development 

of the rail corridors that pass near the Las Vegas Metropolitan 

Area, specifically the Valley Modified Corridor and the Jean Corridor, and providing that $65,000,000 of the $70,000,000 made 

available in this Act for Nevada rail transportation shall be available only if the Secretary designates rail as the preferred mode of 

transportation within Nevada and selects a Nevada rail corridor 

within 60 days of enactment of this Act and commences the necessary environmental and engineering analysis to develop and 

issue a record of Decision for a specific rail alignment within the 

selected rail corridor by June 30, 2005. 

Language has been included under the Nuclear Waste Disposal 

providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall be 

made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management for 

oversight activities. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of Energy to 

use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations language 

for this account reflects the total estimated program funding to be 

reduced as revenues are received. This language has been carried 

in prior appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing that notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases 

in the estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such 

increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater 

amounts. 

Language has been included under Departmental Administration 

providing not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Naval Reactors providing for 

the purchase of not to exceed one bus. 

Language has been included under the Office of the Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Naval Reactors providing for 

the purchase of not to exceed one ambulance for replacement only. 

Language has been included rescinding $75,000,000 previously 

appropriated for Cerro Grande Fire activities. 

Language has been included under the Bonneville Power Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses, and precluding any new direct 

loan obligations in fiscal year 2004. 

205

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding the provisions of 31 

U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and to provide not to exceed $1,500 

for official reception and representation expenses. This language 

has been carried in previous appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that, notwithstanding the provisions of 31 

U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and 

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose 

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under Southwestern Power Administration providing that notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, beginning 

in fiscal year 2004 and thereafter such funds as are received by the 

Southwestern Power Administration from any state, municipality, 

corporation, association, firm, district, or individual as advance 

payment for work that is associated with Southwestern’s transmission facilities, consistent with that authorized in section 5 of 

the Flood Control Act, shall be credited to this account and be 

available until expended. 

Language has been included under the Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception 

and representation expenses. 

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation, 

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration 

providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, 

amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and 

remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making 

purchase power and wheeling expenditures. 

Language has been included under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, 

to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to 

permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as 

revenues are received. This language has been included in previous 

appropriate acts. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that no funds may be used to pay for 

management and operating contracts that have not been competitively awarded within the past fifty fiscal years unless the Secretary, within 60 days of enactment, announces his intent to compete those contracts when the current contract term expires. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare workforce 

restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance payments 

and other benefits for Department of Energy employees under section 3161 of Public Law 102–484. 

206

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102–484 unless a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or initiate 

requests for proposals for programs which have not yet been funded by Congress. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior appropriations may be transferred and merged with new appropriation 

accounts establish in this Act. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the Administrator of the Bonneville 

Power Administration to enter into any agreement to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville service territory. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, requiring the Department of Energy to ensure 

broad public notice when it makes a national user facility available 

to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding 

significant characteristics or equipment in a national user facility 

or a proposed national user facility, and requiring competition 

when the Department partners with a university or other entity for 

the establishment or operation of a user facility. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing the manager of a nuclear weapons production plant or the Nevada Test Site to engage in research, development, and demonstration activities using no more than 2 percent 

of the amounts available from national security programs. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that, notwithstanding the provisions of 

any other law, the Secretary may proceed with planning and analyses for external regulation of the Department’s Science laboratories. 

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that funds for intelligence activities are 

deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of section 504 of 

the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 2003. 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use in recruiting new employees. Language is also included to permit the 

NRC to utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations Acts. 

Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspector General, to utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language 

has been carried in previous appropriations Acts. 

207

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Language has been included under General Provisions prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action 

on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress. 

Language has been included under General Provisions requiring 

to the greatest extend practicable, that all equipment and products 

purchased should be American-made, and prohibiting contracts 

with persons falsely labeling products as ‘‘Made in America.’’ Language has been included under General Provisions prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant to a transfer 

made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other 

Appropriation Act. 

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE) 

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 the black brackets, new matter is printed in 

italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law 

102–250, the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 

1991, as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title (related 

to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California), there is 

authorized to appropriate not more than $90,000,000 in total for 

fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 

øand 2003¿ 2003, and 2004.

The accompanying bill would amend subsection 206(b) of Public 

Law 101–514 as follows:

(b)(1) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to enter into the following contracts: (A) a municipal 

and industrial water supply contract with the Sacramento 

County Water Agency, not to exceed 22,000 acre-feet annually, to meet the immediate needs of Sacramento County 

and a municipal and industrial water supply contract with 

the San Juan Suburban Water District, not to exceed 

13,000 acre-feet annually, for diversion from Folsom 

Lakeø, with annual quantities delivered under these contracts to be determined by the Secretary based upon the 

quantity of water actually needed within the Sacramento 

County Water Agency service area and San Juan Suburban Water District after considering reasonable efforts to: 

(i) promote full utilization of existing water entitlements 

within Sacramento County, (ii) implement water conservation and metering programs within the areas served by the 

contract, and (iii) implement programs to maximize to the 

extent feasible conjunctive use of surface water and 

groundwater¿; and (B) a municipal and industrial water 

supply contract with the El Dorado County Water Agency, 

not to exceed 15,000 acre-feet annually, for diversion from 

Folsom Lake or for exchange upstream on the American 

208

River or its tributaries, considering reasonable efforts to 

implement water conservation programs within areas to be 

served by the contracts. The contracts required by this 

subsection are intended as the first phase of a contracting 

program to meet the long-term water supply needs of Sacramento and El Dorado Counties. The Secretary shall 

promptly initiate the necessary analysis for the long-term 

water supply contracts. The Secretary shall include in 

these contracts terms and conditions to ensure that the 

contracts may be amended in any respect required to meet 

the Secretary’s obligations under applicable State law and 

the Federal environmental laws.

The accompanying bill would amend subsection Public Law 102–

377 as follows: 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * * 

Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation in this Act or in 

subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts 

shall hereafter be available for payment of claims for damages to 

or loss of property, personal injury, or death arising out of activities of the Bureau of Reclamation, not to exceed $5,000,000 for each 

causal event giving rise to a claim or claims; * * *

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/program Last year of

authorization 

Authorization level 

Appropriations

in last year of au- thorization 

Appropriations

in this bill 

Corps of Engineers: 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................................................... (1) (1) (1) 140,000

Department of Energy: 

Energy Supply: 

Biomass/Biofuels ................................. 1993 (2) (4) 69,750

Geothermal Energy ............................... 1993 23,000 (4) 25,500

Hydrogen .............................................. 2001 40,000 27,000 67,982

Hydropower ........................................... 1982 11,700 (4) 5,489

Solar Energy ......................................... 1993 (2) (4) 79,693

Wind Energy Systems ........................... 1993 (2) (4) 41,600

Intergovernmental activities Renewable Energy Production Incentive .... 1995 (7) (4) 16,500

Renewable Energy Production Incentive 

International Renewable Energy Program ................................................ 1996 (3) (4) ..........................

Electricity Transmission and Distribution .................................................. 1994 (3) (4) 77,377

Departmental Energy Management ..... 1984 (3) (4) 2,300

Renewable Program Support ............... 1984 (3) (4) 2,059

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1984 (3) (4) 9,100

Program Direction ................................ 1984 (3) (4) 12,230

Nuclear Energy: 

Space and defense infrastructure ....... 1992 (2) (4) 36,230

Isotopes ................................................ 1974 (2) (4) 26,425

209

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/program Last year of

authorization 

Authorization

level 

Appropriations

in last year of authorization 

Appropriations

in this bill 

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and 

Support ............................................ 1974 (2) (4) 19,500

Research and Development ................. 1994 (7) (4) 117,746

Radiological Facilities Management .... 1974 (2) (4) 62,655

Program Direction ................................ 1992 (2) (4) 23,970

Environment, Safety and Health ................... 1974 (2) (4) 24,000

Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion ........... 1984 (5) (5) 170,875

West Valley Demonstration Project ........................ 1981 5,000 5,000 99,558

Non-Defense Environmental Services (including 

Other Uranium Activities) .................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 292,121

Science ................................................................... 1984 500,000 635,417 3,480,180

High Energy Physics ..................................... 1984 (3) 477,947 747,978

Nuclear Physics ............................................. 1984 (3) 155,220 399,430

Biological and Environmental Research ....... 1994 (3) 388,298 562,035

Basic Energy Sciences .................................. 1994 (3) 743,590 1,016,575

Advanced Scientific Computing Research .... 1996 169,000 111,068 213,490

Science Laboratories Infrastructure .............. 1994 (3) 39,327 71,535

Fusion Energy Sciences ................................ 1994 380,000 322,277 268,110

Science Program Direction ............................ 1984 (2) (4) 147,053

Energy Research Analysis .................... 1994 (3) 3,507 1,020

Technical Information Management .... 1981 (2) (4) 7,774

Nuclear Waste Disposal ......................................... (8) (2) 190,654 335,000

Departmental Administration ................................. 1984 246,963 185,682 101,329

Office of the Inspector General ............................. 1984 (2) 14,670 39,462

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ............................... 2002 5,343,567 5,901,641 6,117,609

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........ 2002 776,886 1,104,130 1,280,195

Naval Reactors ..................................... 2002 688,445 706,790 768,400

Office of the NNSA Administrator ........ 2002 312,596 325,929 341,980

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 

Management ...................................................... 2002 6,022,415 4,510,133 ..........................

Defense Environmental Cleanup Reform ............... (6) (6) (6) ..........................

Defense Facilities Closure Projects ....................... 2002 1,080,538 1,109,314

Defense Environmental Management Privatization 2002 153,537 158,399 ..........................

Defense site acceleration completion .................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 5,758,278

Defense environmental services ............................ .......................... .......................... .......................... 990,179

Other Defense Activities ........................................ 2002 499,663 462,664 694,863

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................... 2002 280,000 315,000 430,000

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Southern Power Administration .................... 1984 24,240 39,463 39,100

Southwestern Power Administration ............. 1984 40,254 29,288 30,400

Western Area Power Administration ............. 1984 259,700 237,037 360,992

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ............................................... 1995 (2) 2,663 2,640

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................ 1984 275,000 175,200 192,000

Independent Agencies: 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Study Board ....... 2002 18,500 18,459 19,559

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................... 1985 460,000 448,200 618,800

Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Office of 

Inspector General ..................................... 1985 (9) (9) 7,300

(1) Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization. 

(2) No amount specified. 

(3) Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances. 

(4) Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified. 

(5) Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year of authorization was 1984. 

In 1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental management appropriation account. There has not been a separate authorization of this account. (6) New program in FY 2003. 

(7) Such sums as necessary. 

(8) Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations. 

(9) The first separate appropriation for the Office of the Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was in FY 1990. Prior to 

that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and appropriations for the NRC. 

The Commission notes that the annual authorizing legislation for 

many of these programs is in various stages of the legislative procVerDate Jan 31 2003 23:22 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 088380 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR212.XXX HR212
210

ess. It is anticipated these authorizations will be enacted into law 

later this year. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Department or Activity Amount 

Bureau of Reclamation: Working Capital Fund .................................. $4,525,000

Department of Energy: Cerro Grande Fire Activities ......................... 75,000,000

FULL COMMITTE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on 

an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names 

of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 

There were no rollcall votes.

211


Insert graphic folio 208 HR212.074
212


Insert graphic folio 209 HR212.075
213


Insert graphic folio 210 HR212.076
214


Insert graphic folio 211 HR212.077
215


Insert graphic folio 212 HR212.078
216

Æ


Insert graphic folio 213/500 HR212.079