65–125

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–693

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS

BILL, 2001

JUNE 23, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. PACKARD, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 4733]

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, 2001, 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 .................................................................................. ........ 5

General Investigations ................................................................ 2 6

Construction, general .................................................................. 3 31

Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and

Tennessee .................................................................................. 5 45

Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 5 48

Regulatory program ..................................................................... 6 64

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 8 65

General expenses ......................................................................... 8 65

Revolving Fund ............................................................................ 9 65

Administrative provisions ........................................................... 9 ...........

General Provisions ....................................................................... 9 66

II. Department of the Interior:

Central Utah Project completion account ......................................... 10 67
2

Page Number

Bill Report

Bureau of Reclamation:

Water and related resources ....................................................... 11 67

Bureau of Reclamation loan program account .......................... 13 77

Central Valley Project restoration fund ..................................... 14 79

California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration .............................. ........ 79

Policy and administration ........................................................... 14 80

Administrative provision ............................................................. 15 ...........

General Provisions ....................................................................... 15 80

III. Department of Energy:

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ ...........

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

Non-defense environmental management ......................................... 17 91

Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ........ 91

Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ............................ 17 91

Science ................................................................................................. 17 93

Nuclear waste disposal ....................................................................... 18 97

Departmental administration ............................................................ 20 98

Office of the Inspector General .......................................................... 21 100

Atomic energy defense activities:

National Nuclear Security Administration ................................ ........ 100

Weapons activities ....................................................................... 21 101

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ............................................... 21 104

Naval reactors .............................................................................. 22 110

Defense environmental restoration and waste management ... 22 111

Defense facilities closure projects ............................................... 23 115

Defense environmental management privatization .................. 23 117

Other defense activities ............................................................... 24 117

Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................. 24 120

Power marketing administrations:

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 24 121

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 25 123

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 26 123

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 27 124

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............. 28 124

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 28 125

General Provisions .............................................................................. 29 136

IV. Independent agencies:

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 33 139

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 33 139

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... ........ 139

Denali Commission ............................................................................. ........ 140

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 34 140

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 35 141

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 35 142

V. Rescissions ............................................................................................. 36 143

VI. General provisions ............................................................................... 36 145

House reporting requirements .................................................................. ........ 147

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates which are contained in the Budget of the United Stats Government, 2001. The

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2000, the

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal

year 2001.
3

2000 2001 estimate 2001 recommendation

2001 recommendation compared with—

2000 appropriation 2001 estimate

Title I—Department of Defense—Civil ................................................................................................... 4,126,560,000 4,063,700,000 4,123,607,000 (2,953,000) 59,907,000Title II—Department of the Interior ........................................................................................................ 805,802,000 840,973,000 770,468,000 (35,334,000) (70,505,000)Title III—Department of Energy .............................................................................................................. 16,606,924,000 18,146,243,000 17,293,425,000 686,501,000 (852,818,000)Title IV—Independent Agencies .............................................................................................................. 128,510,000 177,166,000 107,500,000 (21,010,000) (69,666,000)Title V—Rescissions ................................................................................................................................ (20,749,000) (85,000,000) (85,000,000) (64,251,000) ...............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................... 21,647,047,000 23,143,082,000 22,210,000,000 562,953,000 (933,082,000)

Scorekeeping adjustments ....................................................................................................................... (450,078,000) (448,238,000) (467,000,000) (16,922,000) (18,762,000)

Grand Total of bill ...................................................................................................................... 21,196,969,000 22,694,844,000 21,743,000,000 546,031,000 (951,844,000)
4

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee recommendation for programs within its jurisdiction for fiscal year 2001 totals

$21.7 billion, which is $546 million above the amount appropriated

in fiscal year 2000, and $951.8 million below the President’s budget

request. However, for fiscal year 2001, the subcommittee has received separate section 302b allocations for defense and non-defense activities. Therefore, an analysis of the bill requires that

these functions be looked at separately.

For non-defense activities within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction,

the 302b allocation of $8.85 billion is approximately $210 million

below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000 and $761 million below the President’s budget request. Under these constrained

conditions, the Committee believes that funding priority must be

given to the following areas: maintaining the existing inventory of

Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation water resources

projects; continuing the construction of ongoing water resources

projects to avoid contract termination costs and the increased costs

associated with stretching out project schedules; protecting the

basic science programs of the Department of Energy; providing sufficient funds for the Department of Energy to make a recommendation on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository for the

Nation’s nuclear waste; and providing for the cleanup of Department of Energy non-defense facilities such as the gaseous diffusion

plants at Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio. In order to

achieve those goals, the Committee has been unable to provide

funds for new projects, both studies and construction projects, within the water resources programs of the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, and has been unable to provide funds for the

new and exciting science initiatives or the increases in solar and

renewable energy research proposed by the Administration for the

Department of Energy.

For atomic energy defense activities, the subcommittee’s 302b allocation of $12.893 billion is a decrease of $191 million from the

budget request, and an increase of $755.5 million over fiscal year

2000. This funding includes $6.2 billion for the new National Nuclear Security Administration that maintains the nuclear weapons

stockpile, supports international nonproliferation programs, and

funds the naval nuclear program. In addition, $5.86 billion is provided for environmental cleanup programs throughout the nation;

$592 million is provided for security and emergency operations, intelligence and counter-intelligence activities, and environment,

safety and health programs; and $200 million is provided for the

defense contribution to the nuclear waste fund program in support

of a final geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste.
(5)

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Committee has been and remains very concerned about the

amount of time and effort it takes the Corps of Engineers and the

office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army to review and approve

project decision documents and project cooperation agreements. In

light of that concern, the Committee last year directed the Chief of

Engineers to provide to the Committee, by February 1, 2000, a report outlining plans for improved and streamlined project decision,

review, and agreement processes. That report still has not been received by the Committee. At our hearing this year on the Corps of

Engineers fiscal year 2001 budget, the Committee learned that the

Chief of Engineers had completed the required report, but that it

was being held in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Civil Works. The Committee wishes to repeat that finding ways

to streamline the project review process and project cooperation

agreement process is one of its highest priorities. Therefore, the

Committee strongly urges the Assistant Secretary to release the report prepared by the Corps of Engineers so the Congress can begin

a dialog with the Administration on ways to improve these processes.

Earlier this year, allegations were raised that certain Corps of

Engineers officials acted improperly by manipulating data in connection with the ongoing study of navigation improvements on the

upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway in order to manufacture a rationale for the construction of improvements to the system. The Committee views these charges very seriously and a number of independent investigations of these charges are underway.

Because those investigations have not yet been completed, the

Committee believes it would be premature to take any specific actions regarding the allegations of wrongdoing in connection with

the Upper Mississippi River/Illinois Waterway study.

The Corps of Engineers has also been accused of improperly trying to ‘‘grow’’ its Civil Works program. While the Committee agrees

that any efforts by senior Corps of Engineers officials to pressure

planners and engineers to inappropriately justify projects is unacceptable, the Committee believes that it is a proper role of the

Chief of Engineers to advise the Administration, the Congress, and

the Nation of the level of investment in water resources infrastructure that he believes is needed to support the economy and improve

the quality of life for our citizens. The Chief of Engineers testified
6

that its backlog of critical deferred maintenance will grow from

$329 million in fiscal year 2000 to over $450 million in fiscal year

2001. At current funding levels, the backlog could grow to $1 billion in 10 years. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Civil Works testified that an additional $700 million per year

would be required to permit projects to move forward on their most

efficient schedules. Inefficient construction schedules lead to increased costs, and perhaps more importantly, result in forgone benefits that the projects are designed to provide. The Committee

hopes that the increased awareness of this problem brought about

by the statements of the Chief of Engineers will cause the Administration and the Congress to recognize that there may be a need for

increased investment in the Nation’s water resources infrastructure.

Last year, the Committee noted that the Corps of Engineers had

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation in pursuit of opportunities to promote

the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, in accordance with applicable law. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)

is a private, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization, established by Congress in 1984. The Committee continues to look favorably upon future cooperative efforts of the Corps and NFWF.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $161,994,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 137,700,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 153,327,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥8,667,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +15,627,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Coosa River, Alabama and Georgia.—The Committee has pro- vided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to update the economic

evaluation for the Coosa River navigation project in Alabama and

Georgia.

Saint George Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility

study of navigation improvements at Saint George Harbor, Alaska.

Colonias Along the U.S./Mexico Border, Arizona and Texas.—The

Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

continue to provide technical assistance to the Old Nogales Highway in Pima County, Arizona, and $60,000 to provide technical assistance for four identified colonias in Cameron County, Texas.

Pima County, Arizona.—The Committee recommendation includes $175,000 for a feasibility study to evaluate opportunities for

environmental restoration projects that fulfill the objectives of the

Pima County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, and for a Special

Management Plan for Pima County, Sonoran Desert Area, Gila

River and Tributaries.

Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.—The Committee recommendation includes $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate

preconstruction engineering and design for the Rio de Flag project

in Flagstaff, Arizona.

Rio Salado, Oeste, Arizona.—The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase

studies for the Rio Salado, Oeste, Arizona, project.

Santa Cruz River (Gila River and Tributaries), Arizona.—The

Committee has provided $300,000 for feasibility phase studies of

flooding problems along the Santa Cruz River from Grant Road to

Ft. Lowell Road.

Santa Cruz River (Paseo de las Iglesias), Arizona.—The Committee has provided $335,000 to continue the feasibility study of

the Santa Cruz River (Paseo de las Iglesias), Arizona, project.

Tres Rios, Arizona.—The Committee has provided $500,000 to

continue the preconstruction engineering and design effort for the

Tres Rios, Arizona, project.

Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.—The Committee has provided

$368,000 above the budget request to continue preconstruction engineering and design for the Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona,

project.

Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided

$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake preconstruction

engineering and design for the rehabilitation of levees along the

Arkansas River as authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990.

Southeast Arkansas, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided

$900,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continues the Southeast Arkansas feasibility study, which will examine flooding, agricultural

water supply, and environmental problems in the Boeuf-Tensas

and Bayou Bartholomew areas of Arkansas.

White River Navigation, Arkansas.—The Committee has included

$300,000 to continue general reevaluation studies for the White

River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas, project.

Aliso Creek Mainstem, California.—The Committee has provided

$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance
24

study and initiate the feasibility phase for the Aliso Creek

Mainstem project.

Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study, Los Angeles,

California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of

Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of the Coast of California

Storm and Tidal Wave study in Los Angeles County, California.

Hamilton Airfield Wetlands Restoration, California.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to identify

the Federal interest in incorporating the Bel Marin Keys into the

Hamilton Airfield Wetlands Restoration project.

Huntington Beach, Blufftop Park, California.—The Committee

has provided $211,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the

feasibility study for the Huntington Beach, Blufftop Park, project.

Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, California.—The

Committee has provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete preconstruction engineering and design of the

Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening project.

Malibu Creek, California.—The Committee has provided

$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility study

of the potential for environmental restoration in the Malibu Creek

Watershed, including the potential for the removal of Rindge Dam.

Mare Island Straight, California.—The Committee has provided

$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a General Reevaluation Report to study the current and potential future uses of

the Mare Island channel.

Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek, California.—The bill includes

$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the sediment control plan component of the Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek

project and expand the study to include the investigation of additional alternatives for Ballona Creek.

Murrietta Creek, California.—The Committee has provided an

additional $450,000 for the Murrietta Creek, California, project.

The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use the additional

funds to develop a comprehensive plan for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation-related activities for Murrietta

Creek through the communities of Murrieta and Temecula.

Newport Bay (LA–3 Site Designation Study), California.—The

Committee has provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

continue the designation study for the LA–3 offshore dredged material disposal site.

Northern California Streams, Lower Cache Creek, California.—

The Committee has provided funding above the budget request to

continue the feasibility phase of the Northern California Streams,

Lower Cache Creek, California, study.

Orange County Coast Beach Erosion, California.—The Committee

has provided $475,000 to complete the reconnaissance report and

initiate the feasibility study for the Orange County Coast Beach

Erosion project, which includes the coastline at San Clemente,

California.

Peninsula Beach (City of Long Beach), California.—The bill includes $250,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the study of ongoing beach erosion along the shoreline in Long Beach, California.
25

Poso Creek, California.—The Committee has provided funding

above the budget request to continue and advance completion of

the Poso Creek, California, feasibility study.

Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive

Study, California.—The Committee has provided funding of $1,500,000 above the budget request to continue feasibility studies

and advance completion of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin

River Basins Comprehensive Study, California.

San Diego County Shoreline, California.—The Committee has

provided $325,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate the feasibility study for the San

Diego County Shoreline project.

San Francisco Bay, California.—The Committee has provided an additional $450,000 to continue feasibility studies of the San Francisco Bay, California, project.

San Gabriel River to Newport Bay, California.—The Committee

has provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the

reconnaissance study and initiate the feasibility phase for the San

Gabriel River to Newport Bay, California, project.

San Joaquin River Basin, Frazier Creek, California.—The Committee has provided $250,000 to complete the reconnaissance report and initiate the feasibility study for the San Joaquin River

Basin, Frazier Creek, California, project.

San Joaquin River Basin, Tuolumne River, California.—The

Committee has provided $300,000 to continue the feasibility phase

of the San Joaquin River Basin, Tuolumne River, California, study.

San Juan Creek Watershed Management, California.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the San Juan Creek Watershed Management feasibility

study.

Solana Beach, California.—The Committee has provided $350,000 to complete the reconnaissance study and initiate the feasibility study of the southern California coastline in the cities of

Encinitas and Solana Beach, California.

Southern California Special Area Management Plans, California.—The Committee has provided $1,882,000 for the Corps of

Engineers to continue the process of developing Special Area Management Plans for southern California. This work will result in

comprehensive plans that allow for protection of aquatic resources

while considering reasonable economic growth. The amount provided includes $882,000 to continue the Orange County Special

Area Management Plan, and $500,000 each for the plans in San

Diego and Riverside Counties. These Special Area Management

Plans shall be conducted in coordination with the existing southern

California Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, California.—The Committee

has provided $300,000 to continue the feasibility phase study for

Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, California.

Tijuana River Environmental Restoration, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to broaden

the scope of the Tijuana River Environmental Restoration study to

identify the need for a regional water supply infrastructure that

would integrate existing surface water storage and potential

groundwater storage and recovery projects in the United States
26

and Mexico, and to explore the opportunity to improve water quality for San Diego County and the Tijuana region through desalting

shared groundwater basins and imported water supplies.

Whitewater River Basin, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate

preconstruction engineering and design for the Whitewater River

Basin project.

Delaware Bay Coastline, Broadkill Beach, Delaware.—The bill includes $304,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete

preconstruction engineering and design of the Delaware Bay Coastline, Broadkill Beach project.

Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet/Lewes Beach, Delaware.—The Committee has provided $124,000 to complete

preconstruction engineering and design of the Delaware Day Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet/Lewes Beach project.

Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany

Beach to South Bethany, Delaware.—The Committee recommends

$33,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design of the

Bethany Beach to South Bethany element of the Delaware Coast

from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island project.

Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois.—The Committee has provided

$325,000 to negotiate a design agreement and initiate

preconstruction engineering and design for the project at Illinois

Beach State Park, Illinois.

Kankakee River Basin, Illinois and Indiana.—The Committee

has provided $300,000 above the budget request to continue and

advance completion of the Kankakee River Basin, Illinois and Indiana, feasibility study.

Des Plaines River and Tributaries, Phase II, Illinois and Wisconsin.—The Committee has provided $500,000 above the budget

request to advance studies associated with the feasibility phase of

the Des Plaines River and Tributaries, Phase II, Illinois and Wisconsin, study.

Indiana Harbor Environmental Dredging, Indiana.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the feasibility phase of the study

of the need to perform environmental dredging in Indiana Harbor,

Indiana.

Little Calumet River (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana.—The bill includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and

specifications for the Little Calumet River (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, project.

Ohio River Greenway Public Access, Indiana.—The Committee

has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to undertake preconstruction engineering and design for the Ohio River

Greenway Public Access project in Indiana.

White River, Muncie, Indiana.—The Committee has provided

$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase

studies of flooding problems along the White River in Muncie, Indiana, including rehabilitation of the White River Dam.

Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.—The Committee has provided an additional $200,000 to continue the feasibility study, including the study of environmental remediation of brownfields sites

adjacent to the Racoon River.
27

Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky.—The Committee has

included $400,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for rehabilitation of flood control structures at Paducah, Kentucky.

Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana.—The Committee has

provided an additional $200,000 for the Ascension Parish portion

of the Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, study.

Calcasieu River Basin, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided

$300,000 to continue the Calcasieu River Basin, Louisiana, feasibility study.

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided an

additional $285,000 to advance completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project.

Orleans Parish, Louisiana.—The bill includes $300,000 for

preconstruction engineering and design of the Orleans Parish, Louisiana, project.

St. Bernard Parish Urban Flood Control, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $500,000 to initiate and advance completion of

the St. Bernard Parish Urban Flood Control, Louisiana, feasibility

study.

West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.—The Committee is

aware of concerns expressed by St. John the Baptist Parish regarding proposed levee alignments north of Interstate 10. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to work with parish officials

to determine a mutually acceptable levee alignment for this project.

Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue its review of flood control and environmental restoration

needs for the Muddy River in Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.

Detroit River Environmental Dredging, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $250,000 to complete the reconnaissance study

and initiate the feasibility study for the Detroit River Environmental Dredging, Michigan, project.

Muskegon Lake, Michigan.—The Committee has provided

$100,000 to initiate feasibility level studies for the Muskegon Lake,

Michigan, project.

Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $50,000 to resume the Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi,

flood damage prevention feasibility study.

Lower Platte River and Tributaries, Nebraska.—The Committee

has provided the budget request of $217,000 for the Lower Platte

River and Tributaries study. These funds may also be used to conduct studies authorized by section 503 (d)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.—The Committee recommendation includes $450,000 to continue

preconstruction engineering and design of the Barnegat Inlet to

Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey, project.

Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet (Brigantine Island),

New Jersey.—The Committee recommendation includes $391,000 to

complete preconstruction engineering and design, including plans

and specifications, for the Brigantine Island, New Jersey, project.
28

Delaware Bay Coastline, Oakwood Beach, New Jersey and Delaware.—The Committee recommendation includes $222,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design of the Oakwood

Beach element of the Delaware Bay Coastline project.

Delaware Bay Coastline, Reeds Beach to Pierces Point, New Jersey and Delaware.—The Committee recommendation includes

$135,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design of the

Reeds Beach to Pierces Point element of the Delaware Bay Coastline project.

Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey and

Delaware.—The Committee recommendation includes $155,000 to

complete plans and specifications for the Villas and Vicinity element of the Delaware Bay Coastline project.

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

Committee has provided $150,000 to negotiate and execute a design agreement and to initiate plans and specifications for the

Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet project.

Lower Cape May Meadows to Cape May Point, New Jersey.—The

Committee recommendation includes $345,000 to complete

preconstruction engineering and design for the Lower Cape May

Meadows to Cape May Point project.

Lower Saddle River, New Jersey.—The Committee has included

$100,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design of the

Lower Saddle River project.

Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.—The Committee

recommendation includes $150,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design of the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet

project.

Passaic River, Harrison, New Jersey.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 to prepare a final feature design

and decision document for the Passaic River, Harrison, New Jersey,

project.

Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.—The Committee has included language in the bill

which provides that in conducting the Southwest Valley Flood

Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study, the Corps of

Engineers shall include an evaluation of flood damage reduction

measures that would otherwise be excluded from feasibility analysis based on restrictive policies regarding the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of runoff.

Atlantic Coast of New York Monitoring Program, New York.—The

Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue the monitoring program directed at addressing post-storm actions and long-term

shoreline erosion control along the south shore of Long Island.

Bronx River Basin, New York.—The Committee has provided

$450,000 for continuation of the feasibility study, including a

brownfields assessment at the Cement Plant site and an analysis

of the best public access plan for Soundview Park which shall consider provision of a bridge and walkways between Hunts Point and

Soundview Park. The results of the Cement Plant site assessment

shall be made available prior to completion of the overall feasibility

report.
29

Buffalo Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided

$100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of environmental dredging

at Buffalo Harbor, New York.

Lake Montauk Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided

$200,000 for a feasibility study of navigation improvements at Lake

Montauk Harbor, New York.

Montauk Point, New York.—The Committee has provided

$200,000 to continue the Montauk Point, New York, feasibility

study.

Saw Mill River and Tributaries, New York.—The Committee has

provided an additional $50,000 to continue the Saw Mill River and

Tributaries feasibility study.

Sawmill River at Elmsford/Greenburgh, New York.—The Committee has included $750,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design of the project at Sawmill River, Elmsford and

Greenburgh, New York.

South Shore of Staten Island, New York.—Within the funds provided for the South Shore of Staten Island study, the Committee

urges the Corps of Engineers to examine the feasibility of reconstructing the Crescent Beach seawall.

Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York.—The Committee

has included $50,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the Upper

Susquehanna River Basin, New York.

Bogue Banks, North Carolina.—The Committee has provided

$250,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the Bogue Banks, North

Carolina, study.

Dare County Beaches, Hatteras and Ocracoke Island, North Carolina.—The Committee has provided $500,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the study at Dare County Beaches, North Carolina.

Devils Lake, North Dakota.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to continue feasibility phase studies of measures to control flooding caused by the high lake levels of Devils

Lake, North Dakota. The study should include all relevant requirements to serve as basis for project authorization, including economic and environmental analyses, compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act and other environmental statutes, and

compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.

Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio and Pennsylvania.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to continue feasibility studies of the need for environmental dredging of

the Mahoning River in Ohio.

Ohio River Commodity Flow Study, Ohio.—The Committee has

included $200,000 for completion of a system wide commodity flow

study on the Ohio River.

Steubenville, Ohio.—The Committee has provided $175,000 for a

feasibility level master plan study of a public port site on the Ohio

River at Steubenville, Ohio.

Southeast Oklahoma Water Resources Study, Oklahoma.—The

Committee has included $700,000 for the Southeast Oklahoma

Water Resources Study, which will advance the study completion

by 4 years.

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Matagorda Bay, Texas.—The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for preconstruction engi-
30

neering and design of modifications of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at Matagorda Bay, Texas.

Hunting Bayou, Texas.—The Committee has provided $337,000

for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor

for a portion of the Federal share of the project costs for the Hunting Bayou, Texas, project.

Lower Colorado River Basin, Texas.—The Committee has provided an additional $900,000 to accelerate completion of the study

of flooding problems in the Lower Colorado River Basin of Texas.

Raymondville Drain, Texas.—The Committee has provided

$700,000 for continued preparation of a general reevaluation report

to solve flooding problems at Raymondville, Texas.

Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.—The Committee has provided

$1,100,000 for continuation of the Upper Trinity River Basin,

Texas, feasibility study. The amount provided above the budget request is to expedite completion of the Dallas Floodway study and

continue the feasibility of the Trinity River Environmental Enhancement/Fort Worth Floodway component of the project.

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia.—The Committee

recommendation includes $170,000 to continue feasibility phase

studies for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline project at Hampton, Virginia.

Lake Merriweather, Goshen Dam and Spillway, Virginia.—The

Committee has provided $150,000 for a final decision document, a

design agreement, and initiation of plans and specifications for upgrading Goshen Dam.

New River Basin, Virginia, North Carolina and West Virginia.—

The Committee has included $200,000 to continue the New River

Basin study.

Centralia, Washington.—The Committee has provided $500,000

to continue preparation of a general reevaluation report and environmental impact statement for the project at Centralia, Washington.

Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.—The Committee has included $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to proceed

with preconstruction engineering and design for the Erickson/Wood

County Public Port, West Virginia.

Weirton Port, West Virginia.—The Committee recommendation

includes $750,000 for preconstruction engineering and design of the

Weirton Port, West Virginia, project.

Fox River, Wisconsin.—The Committee recommendation includes

$250,000 to continue the Fox River, Wisconsin, study.

Coastal Field Data Collection Program.—Within the amount provided for the Coastal Field Data Collection program, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to work with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography to determine wave characteristics along the

California coastline to aid in the prediction of coastal processes.

Flood Plain Management Services.—Within the amount provided

for the Flood Plain Management Services Program, the Committee

urges the Corps of Engineers to undertake a flood plain management study for the Yellowstone River at Glendive, Montana.

Planning Assistance to States.—Within the amount provided for

the Planning Assistance to States program, the Committee urges
31

the Corps of Engineers to update the daily flow model for the Delaware River Basin.

Stream Gaging.—Within the amount provided for the Stream

Gaging program, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to

replace and maintain the stream flow gages on Pescadero and

Pilarcitos Creeks in California.

Research and Development.—Within the amount provided for Re- search and Development, $2,000,000 is for the National Shoreline

Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program authorized by section 227 of the Water Resources Development Act of

1996.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $1,385,032,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 1,346,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,378,430,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥6,602,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +32,430,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:
32
33
34
35
36

Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas.—The Committee

has provided an additional $5,000,000 for construction of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project in Arkansas.

Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas, Louisiana,

Oklahoma, and Texas.—The bill includes $2,000,000 for the Corps

of Engineers to continue work on revetments within the state of

Arkansas.

Berryessa Creek, California.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue the General Reevaluation Report for the

Berryessa Creek, California, project.

Imperial Beach, California.—The Committee has provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications for the Imperial Beach, California, project.

Kaweah River, California.—The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of

the Kaweah River project in California.

Sacramento River Bank Protection, California.—The bill includes

additional funds to advance completion of the Sacramento River

Bank Protection project in California.

San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.—The Committee has

provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the General Reevaluation Report of the feasibility of constructing a turning

basin near Avon, California.

Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.—The bill includes an additional $5,000,000 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project in

California for the continued construction of the San Timoteo Creek

feature of the project.

Stockton Metropolitan Area, California.—The bill includes

$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the local sponsor for construction costs on the Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, project under the authority of section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California.—The bill includes $5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake periodic

nourishment of the Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach project in

California.

Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehoboth

Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.—The bill includes $3,000,000

to continue construction of the Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach

element of the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island project.

Brevard County, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of

the North Reach of the Brevard County, Florida, project.

Central and Southern Florida, Florida.—The Committee has

been advised by the Corps of Engineers that the amount requested

for fiscal year 2001 for the Central and Southern Florida is excess

to currently anticipated needs. This is due to delays in completing

the General Reevaluation Report for the C–111 project and the fact

that the amount requested for engineering and design for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was based on a cost sharing formula of 75% Federal/25% non-Federal. Cost sharing for engineering and design will actually be 50/50, reducing the requirement for Federal funds in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the Com-
37

mittee has reduced the amount requested for the project by

$12,000,000.

Dade County, Florida.—The Committee has provided $8,000,000

for the Dade County, Florida, project for the Corps of Engineers to

complete renourishment of the Sunny Isles reach, and initiate work

on north Miami and Haulover reaches.

Palm Valley Bridge, Florida.—The Committee has provided an additional $3,500,000 to accelerate construction of the Palm Valley

Bridge project in Florida.

St. Johns County, Florida.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of

the St. Johns County project in Florida.

St. Lucie Inlet, Florida.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for construction of the remaining authorized elements of the St. Lucie Inlet, Florida, project.

Sarasota County, Florida.—The Committee directs the Corps of

Engineers to use available funds to reimburse the City of Venice,

Florida, the Federal share of the construction costs of an artificial

reef that is to be considered an integral part of the Sarasota County beach nourishment project as well as the Federal share of the

costs of constructing and/or relocating any stormwater outfall

whose primary purpose is to drain storm water from public property.

Tampa Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided $300,000

for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a General Reevaluation

Report of navigation problems in Tampa Harbor, with particular

emphasis on the need for a deep draft anchorage area.

East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control, Illinois.—The

Committee has provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

continue the General Reevaluation Report for the East St. Louis

and Vicinity Interior Flood Control project in Illinois.

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.—The Committee has

provided an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction of the

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs project in Illinois.

Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.—The bill includes

$1,000,000 for renourishment of the beach at the Indiana Dunes

National Lakeshore and for continued monitoring of the project.

Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.—The bill includes

$7,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of

the Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, project.

Little Calumet River, Indiana.—The Committee has provided an

additional $3,500,000 to accelerate construction of the Little Calumet River project in Indiana.

Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to

accelerate construction of the Kentucky Lock and Dam project.

McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided an additional $4,000,000 for construction of

the McAlpine Locks and Dam project. The Committee is interested

in the development of more cost-effective methods of lock and dam

construction and rehabilitation. Roller compacted concrete has been

used in several Corps of Engineers projects, yet minimal research

has been done to test the long term durability and shear strength

of roller compacted concrete and grout enriched roller compacted
38

concrete. Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to

use funds provided for the McAlpine Locks and Dam project to undertake research on roller compacted concrete and grout enriched

roller compacted concrete in connection with construction of the

McAlpine Locks and Dam project.

Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.—The bill includes

$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and construction of selected environmental infrastructure projects in southern and eastern Kentucky.

Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana.—The Committee has pro- vided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the economic

analysis and investigate the environmental benefits of the Grand

Isle and Vicinity project.

J.Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.—The Committee has

provided an additional $3,000,000 for the construction of additional

features needed to ensure the reliability of the navigation channel.

Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection), Louisiana.—The Committee is very concerned by the budget request

submitted for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project. The

Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000 for the Corps of

Engineers to continue the construction of parallel protection and

other features of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana,

project and urges the Corps of Engineers to carefully evaluate its

fiscal year 2002 request.

Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.—The Committee has pro- vided an additional $1,000,000 for the Larose to Golden Meadow

hurricane protection project. The Committee recognizes the lifethreatening situations that have occurred several times by the closing of the Golden Meadow floodgates to protect its ‘‘interior’’ citizens from storm surges. While the Committee supports the use and

operation of this flood control system, the Committee urges the

Corps of Engineers to expedite to the fullest extent completion of

the Leon Theriot lock to allow for the unimpeded passage of mariners seeking safe harbor north of the floodgates on Bayou

Lafourche.

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.—The Committee has

provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the investigation of need to modify the existing project channel.

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.—The

bill includes $500,000 for the preparation of a long-term master

plan for the restoration of oyster habitat in Chesapeake Bay.

Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,400,000 to accelerate construction of the Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska, project.

Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet (Absecon Island), New

Jersey.—The bill includes $5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

continue construction of the Absecon Island feature of the Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet project in New Jersey.

New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel,

New Jersey.—The Committee recommendation includes

$10,000,000 to accelerate construction of the Port Jersey Channel,

New Jersey, project.

Passaic River Streambank Restoration, New Jersey.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,300,000 to continue construc-
39

tion of the Passaic River Streambank Restoration project in Newark, New Jersey.

Ramapo River at Mahwah, New Jersey and Suffern, New York.—

The bill includes $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to resume engineering and design of the Ramapo River at Mahwah project.

Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, New York.—The Committee has

recommended an additional $1,000,000 for additional dredging of

Fire Island Inlet with the placement of sand on Gilgo and Tobay

Beaches.

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

supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and understands that sufficient carryover funds are available to satisfy program requirements in fiscal year 2001.

New York City Watershed, New York.—The bill includes

$3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the New

York City Watershed project.

Onondaga Lake, New York.—The Committee has provided

$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to implement

projects to carry out the Onondaga Lake Management Plan.

Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.—The Committee has

provided $4,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete construction of the Ocean Isle Beach segment of the Brunswick County

Beaches project in North Carolina.

West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, North Carolina.—The

Committee has provided $330,000 for a General Reevaluation Report of the currently authorized project and the remaining shoreline at Topsail Beach.

Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.—The bill includes $1,000,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to continue the project to rehabilitate Lower

Girard Lake Dam in Girard, Ohio, as authorized by section 507 of

the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

West Columbus, Ohio.—The Committee recommendation includes

$10,000,000 to advance completion of the West Columbus, Ohio,

flood control project.

South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has included $20,000,000 to

continue the South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program.

Williamsport (Hagerman’s Run), Pennsylvania.—The Committee

has provided $446,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete repairs to the Hagerman’s Run flume and conduit, which are features

of the existing Federal flood control project.

Rio Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico.—The bill includes an additional

$2,800,000 to accelerate construction of the Rio Puerto Nuevo flood

control project.

Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.—The Committee

has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue

work on the project for water supply and distribution for Calhoun,

Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeberg, and Sumter Counties

in South Carolina which has been initiated using other Federal

funds.

Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, Tennessee.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to
40

continue construction of the Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands

Springs ecosystem restoration project.

Hamilton County, Tennessee.—The bill includes $1,500,000 for

completion of the Hamilton County, Tennessee, streambank stabilization project authorized by section 574 of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1996.

Brays Bayou, Texas.—The Committee has provided $6,000,000

for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor

for a portion of the Federal share of the project costs for the Brays

Bayou, Texas, project.

Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas and Oklahoma.—The

Committee has provided $1,300,000 to complete the reevaluation

report and continue the environmental monitoring program for the

Red River Basin Chloride Control program.

Red River below Denison Dam Levees and Bank Stabilization,

Texas.—The bill includes $900,000 for rehabilitation of the Bowie

County Levee along Red River. The Committee has included language in the bill which directs that this levee be rehabilitated to

the same standard as levees in Arkansas to ensure the integrity of

the entire levee system.

Environmental Remediation, Front Royal, Virginia.—The Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the environmental remediation project in Front

Royal, Virginia. The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers will award the contract for this project in fiscal year 2000

using Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites

funds as provided for in the project authorization. The funds provided in this bill will enable the Corps of Engineers to complete

this environmental remediation project.

Virginia Beach, Virginia (Hurricane Protection).—The Committee

recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue the Virginia

Beach, Virginia, hurricane protection project.

Virginia Beach, Virginia (Reimbursement).—The Committee has

included $1,100,000 to reimburse the non-Federal project sponsor

for the Federal share of annual renourishment costs of the Virginia

Beach, Virginia, project.

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and

Idaho.—The amount provided for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program does not include funds for engineering and design, or

other post-feasibility phase activities, associated with breaching

Lower Snake River dams.

Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to continue design and complete

a detailed project report for the Marlington element of the

Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia, project.

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.—In addition

to the amounts provided in the budget request, the bill includes

$4,000,000 for the Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project;

$4,800,000 for the Middlesboro, Kentucky, element of the project;

$700,000 for the Town of Martin, Kentucky, element of the project;

$4,200,000 for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of the project,

including $1,400,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of

the Tug Fork and a Detailed Project Report for the Levisa Fork;
41

$3,500,000 for the Martin County, Kentucky, element of the

project; $1,200,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of

the Cumberland River in Bell County, Kentucky; $800,000 to continue the detailed project report for the Buchanan County, Virginia, element of the project; and $700,000 to continue the detailed

project report for the Dickenson County, Virginia, element of the

project as generally defined in Plan 4 of the Huntington District

Engineer’s Draft Supplement to the Section 202 General Plan for

Flood Damage Reduction dated April, 1997, including all Russell

Fork tributary streams within the County and special consideration as may be appropriate to address the unique relocation and

resettlement needs of floodprone communities within the County.

West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia

and Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to

complete detailed project reports for Philippi and Belington, West

Virginia, and complete the emergency flood warning system for the

Tygart River Basin in West Virginia, and $1,000,000 to continue

work on projects within Pennsylvania.

Southern West Virginia, West Virginia.—The Committee has pro- vided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on

the Southern West Virginia environmental infrastructure project.

LaFarge Lake, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.—The Committee has

included $2,000,000 to continue the project at LaFarge Lake, Wisconsin.

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).—The Committee

has provided $14,500,000 for the Section 206 program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $500,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and specifications for the Clear Lake Basin Watershed Restoration, California, project; $300,000 for the Delta Science Center project in

California; $500,000 for the Lake Natoma Pond Study and Remediation, California, project; $300,000 for the Pacific Flyway Center,

California, project; $100,000 to initiate an ecosystem restoration report to address aquatic restoration including control of non-native

weeds in the Santa Clara River Basin, California; $203,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and specifications for the Upper Truckee River, California, project; $300,000

for the Turtle Bay Museums, Redding, California, project; $100,000

to complete a preliminary restoration plan and intiate an ecosystem restoration report for the Hayden Diversion, Colorado;

$100,000 for the Panama City Harbor (East Pass), Florida, project;

$2,000,000 for the Stevenson Creek Estuary, Florida, project;

$50,000 for a study of Butler Creek Detention Pond, Cobb County,

Georgia; $261,000 to initiate and complete a feasibility study for

Iowa River and Clear Creek, Iowa; $1,000,000 for the Chicago Botanical Garden, Illinois, project; $300,000 for the Kankakee River,

Illinois, project; $150,000 to initiate a feasibility study of Squaw

Creek Basin, Illinois; $100,000 for a study to evaluate aquatic ecosystem restoration along Spy Run Creek in Fort Wayne, Indiana;

$110,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility phase and plans

and specifications for the Wabash River, West Lafayette, Indiana,

project; $3,000,000 for the Lower Cumberland River, Kentucky,

project; $126,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Belle Isle

Piers, Detroit, Michigan; $40,000 to complete the preliminary res-
42

toration plan and initiate the feasibility report for LeMay Wetlands

Restoration, St. Louis County, Missouri; $250,000 for the Little

Sugar Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, North Carolina,

project; $210,000 to prepare a preliminary restoration plan and an

ecosystem restoration report for Lake Weamaconk, New Jersey;

$100,000 to initiate a preliminary restoration plan for Silvery Minnow Habitat, Rio Grande, New Mexico; $200,000 to initiate the feasibility phase for Port Jefferson Harbor Oyster Habitat Restoration,

Brookhaven, New York; $10,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan

for Weir Creek, New York; $1,000,000 for the Nine Mile Run, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, project; $133,000 to initiate and complete

construction of the North Fork Obion River, Tennessee, project;

$500,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and initiate

plans and specifications for the project at West Jordan, Utah;

$500,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for

Upper Jordan River Restoration, Utah; and, $1,516,000 to complete

construction of the Goldsborough Creek, Mason County, Washington, project.

The Committee is aware that since the 1960s, the Mill Creek watershed in Bryan County, Georgia, has been substantially degraded

due to a combination of factors, including a Natural Resources Conservation Service channelization project and effluent discharges

from a municipal sewage treatment facility. Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use funds available under

the section 206 program for an Ecosystem Restoration Report for

Mill Creek.

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Section 204 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $55,000 to

complete the feasibility phase of the Twenty First Avenue West

Channel, Duluth, Minnesota, project.

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

Committee has provided $6,000,000 for the Section 14 program.

Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:

$480,000 for the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River at Wallace, Idaho,

project; $184,000 for the project at Bellevue, Iowa; $50,000 for the

English Park at Owensboro, Kentucky, project; $40,000 to initiate

the planning and design analysis for the Belle Isle South Shore,

Detroit, Michigan, project; $40,000 for the planning and design

analysis for Middle Ground Island, Bay City, Michigan; $600,000

to complete the planning and design analysis and to initiate construction on the Lake Michigan Center, Muskegon, Michigan,

project; $40,000 to prepare a planning and design analysis for repair of erosion endangering the roads and bridge on Bayou Pierre,

Mississippi; $700,000 to continue construction of the Fargo, North

Dakota, project; $160,000 to complete the planning and design

analysis and initiate construction on the Little Miami River, Anderson Township, Ohio, project; $250,000 for the Bogachiel River

near La Push, Washington, project.

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

provided $30,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $98,000 to complete plans and specification for the project along Dallas Branch

and Pinhook Creek in Huntsville, Alabama; $500,000 for the Al-
43

hambra Valley Estates and Nancy Boyd Park Area Drainage and

Flood Control, California, project; $203,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Coyote Creek at Rock Springs, California,

project; funds to continue the Mission Zanja Creek, California,

project; $600,000 to complete the detailed project report and initiate and complete plans and specifications for the City of Folsom,

Willow and Humbug Creek, California, project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Magpie Creek, Sacramento, California,

project; $500,000 to initiate and complete a general reevaluation

report for Mare Island, California; $200,000 to initiate and complete a detailed project report and plans and specifications on

North Cache Creek Slide, Lake County, California; $260,000 to

complete a detailed project report on the Westside Storm Water Retention Facility, Lancaster, California, project; $100,000 to complete a feasibility study on a project at Farm River, North

Brandford and East Haven, Connecticut; $100,000 to complete a

feasibility study on Harbor Brook, Meriden, Connecticut; $100,000

to initiate a reconnaissance study of a project at Plant City, Florida; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility phase for a project on the

Weiser River, Idaho; $412,000 to continue construction of the Deer

Creek, Illinois, project; $862,000 to initiate construction on the

East Peoria, Illinois, project; $50,000 to complete the Grafton, Illinois, project feasibility study; $100,000 to initiate the Matteson, Illinois, feasibility study; $300,000 to continue construction of the

Stoney Creek, Illinois, project; $50,000 to initiate the feasibility

phase on the Willow Creek Drainage District, Illinois, project;

$50,000 to complete the Mad Creek at Muscatine, Iowa, feasibility

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

Spy Run Creek in Fort Wayne, Indiana; $500,000 for the Jean Lafitte, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $20,000 to initiate a

study of flood protection at Ell Pond, Melrose, Massachusettes;

$70,000 to continue study of the Yellowstone River at Glendive,

Montana; $500,000 to continue the project at Wahpeton, North Dakota; $2,600,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate

construction on the project at McKeel Brook, Dover and Rockaway

Township, New Jersey; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility phase on

the Medford, Oregon project; $100,000 for the Wissahickon Watershed, Pennsylvania, project; $140,000 for design and construction of

the Baxter Bottom project in Tipton County, Tennessee; $300,000

to complete the feasibility study for Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia; $175,000 for a feasibility study of

flooding problems in Erwin, Tennessee; $500,000 to complete the

feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the First

Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee, project; $75,000 for engineering and

design of the Rossville, Tennessee, project; $300,000 to continue

work on the City of Renton, Washington, project; $1,717,000 to

complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the

Snoqualmie River project at Snoqualmie, Washington; and, $50,000

to continue feasibility studies of flood damage reduction on the

Snoqualmie River at North Bend, Washington.

In addition, the Committee is aware of the devastation that occurred at Augusta, Kansas, during the Halloween flood of 1998,

which resulted in millions of dollars in property damages to more

than 600 homes and businesses. Therefore, the Committee strongly
44

encourages the Corps of Engineers to expeditiously complete the

feasibility study for the project using funds available for the section

205 program so that construction may begin as soon as possible.

The Committee is also aware that the Corps of Engineers will

use available fiscal year 2000 funds to complete plans and specifications for the Pipe Creek, Alexandria, Indiana, and White River,

Anderson, Indiana, projects. The Committee expects the Corps to

expeditiously move to the construction phase of these projects.

The Committee understands that the cost of the flood control

project being constructed on the Petaluma River in California

under the authority of section 205 has increased dramatically since

the initial cost estimate was made by the Corps of Engineers and

an agreement between the City of Petaluma and the Corps was entered into for construction of the project. Because the City entered

into the agreement based on the Corps’ cost estimate, the Committee is concerned that the inaccuracy of that estimate and the

Corps’ management of the project have contributed significantly to

the increase in the City’s financial obligation. Recognizing the importance of the project to the health, safety, and economic wellbeing of the community, and that the project is nearing completion,

the Committee believes that it is important that the project be

completed and encourages the Corps of Engineers to use available

funds to continue the project.

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

provided the requested amount of $2,500,000 for the Section 103

program. Within the amount provided $75,000 is recommended for

use in continuing the Lake Erie at Old Lakeshore Road, Hamburg,

New York, feasibility study, and $1,500,000 is recommended for the

Sylvan Beach, New York, project.

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

provided $9,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $2,000,000 to initiate construction of the Ouzinkie Small Boat Harbor, Alaska,

project; $30,000 for the Blytheville Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas,

project; $1,000,000 for Russellville Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas;

$100,000 for the project at Oyster Point Harbor, California;

$2,700,000 to initiate and complete construction at Port Hueneme,

California; $600,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the San Diego Harbor, California, project; $100,000 for a

feasibility study of the Whiting Shoreline Waterfront project in

Whiting, Indiana; $205,000 to complete the feasibility phase on

Westport River, Massachusettes; $100,000 for the Detroit River

Navigation Improvement, Michigan, feasibility study; $735,000 to

initiate and complete construction of the New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, project; $50,000 for design of the Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor project; and, $200,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications and construction for the Lake Shore

State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, project.

Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment

(Section 1135).—The Committee has provided $18,000,000 for the

Section 1135 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $340,000 to complete the environmental

restoration study for Rillito River Riparian and Wetlands Restoration, Arizona; $3,300,000 to complete construction of the Tucson
45

Detention Basin Wetlands Development, Arizona project; $765,000

to initiate and complete construction of the Ballona Wetlands Tide

Gate, California, project; $1,400,000 to continue construction of the

Gunnerson Pond, Lake Elsinore, California, project; $2,000,000 to

complete construction of the Pine Flat Turbine Bypass, California,

project; $1,500,000 to initiate construction of the Colfax Reach,

South Platte River, Colorado, project; $200,000 to complete the

study and initiate plans and specifications for the Chicopit Bay,

Florida, project; $800,000 for preliminary restoration reports and

ecosystem restoration reports for Sea Lamprey Control within the

Great Lakes Basin; $150,000 for the Lake Calumet, Illinois,

project; $4,000,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate

construction on the Sea Turtle Habitat Restoration, Long Beach,

North Carolina, project; $167,000 to prepare an ecosystem restoration report for the Rahway River Environmental Restoration, New

Jersey, project; $100,000 to initiate and complete construction of

the Buffalo River Habitat Restoration, New York, project; $500,000

to prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction on the

Rochester Harbor Habitat Restoration, New York, project; $210,000

to initiate the feasibility study on the Times Beach Environmental

Improvement, Buffalo, New York, project; $176,000 to complete the

feasibility phase for the Town of Brookhaven, New York Hard

Clam Restoration project; $720,000 to complete the feasibility

phase, initiate and complete plans and specifications, and initiate

construction on the Pasco Shoreline Restoration, Washington,

project; and, $250,000 to complete a preliminary restoration plan

and initiate feasibility phase studies on the Dry Slough Restoration, Skagit County, Washington, project.

Snagging and Clearing (Section 208).—The Committee has provided $600,000 for the Section 208 program. Within the amount

provided, the recommendation includes $500,000 for the San Joaquin River and Tributaries, California, project; and, $80,000 for the

Farrenburg Ditch, Missouri, project.

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Within the amount provided for

the Aquatic Plant Control Program, the Committee directs the

Corps of Engineers to use $100,000 to continue to cooperate with

the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland on the

control and tracking of aquatic plants in the Potomac River.

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

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

AND TENNESSEE

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $309,416,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 309,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 323,350,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +13,934,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +14,350,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:
46
47

Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee and Kentucky.—The Committee has pro- vided an additional $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform

an analysis of potential flooding impacts associated with the construction of the proposed new spillway and its operation. None of

the funds provided may be used for construction of the proposed

new spillway.

Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided $22,800,000 for the Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas, project, the

same as the budget request. Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use $2,000,000 for an engineering review of additional water sources. None of the funds provided for the project may be used for construction of features to

withdraw water from the White River until the engineering review

of other water sources is completed and a specific appropriation of

funds is made by Congress for construction of those features. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to work with

large industrial users of groundwater to develop alternative sources

of water, including the Arkansas River.

Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $26,000,000 for continuing construction of Atchafalaya Basin

project, the same as the budget request. Though very concerned

about escalating costs for this element, the Committee urges the

Corps of Engineers to continue floodproofing efforts in the waterfronts of Morgan City and Berwick. In addition, the Committee expects that these funds will be used to complete the refurbishment

of the Bayou Yokely pumping stations, and conduct repairs to the

west guide levee sloughing/sliding as necessary to restore the integrity of the levees. The Committee supports the construction of the

Amelia and Chacahoula pumping stations as a portion of the Barrier Plan and urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite these components of the plan as well as other plan components that will immediately address backwater flooding issues in the area.

Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided the budget request to perform operation and maintenance activities in the Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana. It is the Committee’s understanding that the Davis Pond pumping station will

be operated with construction funds until the diversion project feature is completed. Additionally, the Committee urges the Corps of

Engineers to continue to work with the oyster fishing industry to

resolve any impacts resulting from the construction and operation

of this project.

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

provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to advance the construction of project elements within the state of Missouri.

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

Committee has provided $5,000,000 for St. Johns Bayou and New

Madrid Floodway project for the Corps of Engineers to proceed

with the next two items of construction, the New Madrid Pumping

Station, and the St. Johns channel enlargement.

Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.—The

Committee has provided $15,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

continue the Yazoo Basin Demonstration Erosion Control Program.

The work done to date by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural
48

Resources Conservation Service has shown positive results in reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion and sedimentation, and

improvements to the environment. These positive results show that

continued funding for the program is important and that the program should be completed so the total benefits are realized. This

may well be a case where the complete program yields results that

are much greater than the sum of the individual items of work.

The funds provided are to continue design, acquire real estate,

monitor completed work, and initiate continuing contracts for new

items of work. The Committee hopes that the next Administration

is better able to recognize the value of this program and expects

it to request funds to continue this important work.

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

provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to address the maintenance backlog that continues to threaten the integrity of floodway levees.

Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $9,482,000 for operation and maintenance of the Atchafalaya Basin

project, the same as the budget request. The Committee recognizes

the need to resolve flooding problems in the Bayou Portage-Guidry

drainage area. In an effort to address these issues, the Committee

urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite their efforts to dredge

Catahoula Lake.

Yazoo Basin Lakes, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 each for the Arkabutla Lake, Enid Lake,

Grenada Lake, and Sardis Lake projects to address the maintenance backlog at those projects.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $1,853,618,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 1,854,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,854,000,000

Comparison.

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +382,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.—The Committee

has provided an additional $1,000,000 for engineering and design

of replacements for the Bankhead Lock gates.

Mobile Area Digital Mapping and Geographic Information System, Alabama.—The Committee has provided $150,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to develop criteria for a comprehensive Geographic Information System database of the Mobile, Alabama, area.

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama.—The Committee has

provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to address the

maintenance backlog on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway

project.

Bodega Bay, California.—The Committee has provided $200,000

for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Dredge Material Management Plan for the Bodega Bay project in California.

Crescent City Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided

$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake the studies necessary to identify a permanent ocean disposal site for material

dredged from the Crescent City Harbor project.

Isabella Lake, California.—The Committee expects the Corps of

Engineers to use funds appropriated in this Act to conduct the

measures required by the April 18, 1997, Biological Opinion issued

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the long-term

operation of Isabella Reservoir, Kern County, California. The Committee further expects the Corps of Engineers to identify the least

costly actions available, including, whenever possible, the utilization of partnerships with other Federal and non-Federal agencies

and organizations, so that the Corps can continue to operate and

maintain Isabella Dam and Reservoir for flood control and water

conservation purposes as provided in the October 23, 1964, contract

among the United States of America and various public agencies.

Jack D. Maltester Channel (San Leandro Marina), California.—

The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for maintenance dredging

of the Jack D. Maltester channel.

Moss Landing Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided

$700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare a management plan

for future disposal of dredged material from the Moss Landing Harbor, California, project.

Oceanside Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided an

additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers for removal of the

submerged groin at the Oceanside Harbor project.

Redwood City Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided

$400,000 to allow the Corps of Engineers to conduct sediment testing prior to the start of maintenance dredging scheduled for fiscal

year 2002 at Redwood City Harbor.

San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, California.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the development of a long term strategy for the

disposal of dredged material in San Francisco Bay area.

Ventura Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided an

additional $1,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to repair the

breakwater at the Ventura Harbor, California, project.

Cherry Creek Lake, Colorado.—None of the funds provided for operation and maintenance of the Cherry Creek Lake project in Colo-
61

rado may be used to undertake a study of dam safety at the

project.

Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,

Delaware and Maryland.—The Committee has not provided the

funds requested for the demolition of the St. Georges Bridge. The

Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use $50,000 of the

funds provided for a study to determine the adequacy and timing

for maintaining good and sufficient crossings over the Chesapeake

and Delaware Canal.

Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Alabama,

and Florida.—The Committee has provided an additional

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to address the maintenance

dredging backlog on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint

Rivers project.

Miami River, Florida.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000

for maintenance dredging of the Miami River, Florida, project.

Pensacola Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Pensacola Harbor and

Bayou Chico Channels, Florida, project.

Port St. Joe Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$500,000 to initiate a dredged material management plan for the

Port St. Joe Harbor, Florida, project.

St. Petersburg Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided an

additional $3,300,000 for the St. Petersburg Harbor, Florida,

project.

Savannah Harbor, Georgia.—The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 enable the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study

of sediment disposal in nearshore areas and adjacent beaches as

part of continuing maintenance of the Savannah Harbor, Georgia,

project.

West Point Dam and Lake, Georgia and Alabama.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to address the maintenance backlog at the West Point Dam and Lake, Georgia and

Alabama, project.

Red Rock Dam and Lake, Iowa.—The Committee has provided

funds above the budget request for repair and replacement of various features of the Red Rock Dam and Lake, Iowa, project.

Illinois Waterway, Illinois.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the acquisition of dredged material disposal

sites as authorized by section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992.

Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Minneapolis, Illinois.—The Committee has provided an additional $4,000,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to address the critical maintenance backlog

within the Rock Island District portion of the Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Minneapolis navigation project.

Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.—The Committee has provided

funds above the budget request for critical maintenance of the

Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, project.

Michigan City Harbor, Indiana.—The Committee has provided

an additional $800,000 to complete dredging of the entrance channel, the turning basin, and Trail Creek at Michigan City Harbor,

Indiana.
62

John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas.—The Committee

has provided an additional $345,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

complete the ongoing reallocation study, which will determine an

equitable distribution of sediment storage between the conservation

and flood control pools and to evaluate the environmental impacts

of the appropriate reallocation at John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kanasa.

Kentucky River Locks and Dams 5–14, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete dam stabilization repairs at Locks and Dams 13 and 14. Of

this amount, funds are provided for additional construction activities at Lock and Dam 14 (including fencing, landscaping, and user

facilities), in conjunction with local interests.

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.—The Committee is aware of safety and navigation problems

on the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black

caused by ‘‘fluff’’ on the channel bottoms. The Committee is very

concerned about this issue and directs the Corps of Engineers to

take immediate steps necessary to resume safe, unimpeded navigation to the true authorized 20 foot depth. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the Waterways Experiment

Station to determine the cause of this phenomenon and to develop

and implement long term solutions to this problem.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.—The Committee has

provided an additional $2,000,000 to the budget request to allow

additional critical maintenance and repair at the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana, project.

Union River, Maine.—The Committee has provided $900,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance dredging of the

Union River, Maine, project.

Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland.—The Committee has

provided $1,000,000 above the budget request to allow completion

of the Tolchester Channel S-Turn straightening project.

Port of Baltimore Dredged Material Disposal, Maryland.—The

Committee has previously expressed concern about the limited

analysis and consideration given to alternatives to the proposed

open water dredge material disposal site known as Site 104. It is

the Committee’s understanding that in response to the concerns of

the Committee and others, the Corps of Engineers will release a

Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement this summer. Once

again, the Committee underscores its intent that the Environmental Impact Statement contain full consideration and thorough

evaluation of practicable alternatives to Site 104.

New Buffalo Harbor, Michigan.—The Committee has provided

$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance dredging and condition surveys at the New Buffalo Harbor, Michigan,

project.

Cedar River Harbor, Michigan.—The Committee has provided

$1,000,000 to continue the west breakwater repairs at Cedar River

Harbor, Michigan.

Duluth Alternative Technology Study, Minnesota.—The Committee has provided $320,000 to continue the development of plans

and the testing of techniques to process dredged materials from

Duluth-Superior Harbor.
63

New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.—The Committee has provided

funding above the budget request to provide for adequate maintenance dredging at New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.

Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided

an additional $2,000,000 to provide for increased maintenance

dredging at the Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi, project.

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

recommendation includes funding above the budget request to

carry out management activities for mosquito control near the City

of Williston.

Broken Bow Lake, Oklahoma.—The Committee expects the Corps

of Engineers to give due consideration to any request from the

State of Oklahoma to further development of marina operations on

Broken Bow Lake in McCurtain County, Oklahoma.

Wister Lake, Oklahoma.—The Committee has included $500,000

above the budget request for studies associated with identification

of water quality problems and management goals to improve water

quality at the Wister Lake, Oklahoma, project.

Cowanesque Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided

$250,000 above the budget request to provide for updating the

Cowanesque Lake, Pennsylvania, project master plan, including an

analysis of recreation and natural resource management needs.

Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided an

additional $1,250,000 for construction of facilities and structures at

Raystown Lake Pennsylvania, to interpret and understand environmental conditions and trends.

Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided $970,000 above the budget request to provide for updating

the Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania, project master plan, including an analysis of recreation and natural resource management

needs, and to provide for the design of a new ranger station and

visitor center at the entrance to the Ives Run recreation area.

Occoquan River, Virginia.—The Committee has provided

$1,000,000 to provide for maintenance dredging of the Occoquan

River, Virginia, project.

Willapa River and Harbor, Washington.—The Committee has

provided $650,000 for a study of navigation conditions at the

Willapa River and Harbor, Washington, project.

Quillayute River Navigation Project, Washington.—The Committee has provided $970,000 above the budget request to provide

necessary minimum maintenance at the Quillayute River Navigation Project, Washington.

Grays Harbor, Washington.—The Committee has included

$650,000 above the budget request to complete the basic work on

the South Jetty major maintenance contract at Grays Harbor,

Washington.

Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided

funds above the budget request for dam modifications and actions

necessary to manage drift and debris at the Bluestone Lake, West

Virginia, project.

Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.—The Committee has

provided $500,000 for continued development of sediment transport

models for high priority tributaries to the Great Lakes.
64

Hopper Dredges.—The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to maintain the hopper dredge WHEELER

in ready reserve status, the same as the amount provided in fiscal

year 2000. This is consistent with the amount estimated to be

needed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works in

his report to the Congress dated June 12, 2000. The Committee

strongly supports the report recommendation that the hopper

dredge McFARLAND also be placed in ready reserve status. The

Committee is aware that the Corps is currently evaluating the extent to which the McFARLAND needs to be rehabilitated to serve

in the ready reserve fleet. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to report to Congress on the extent of repairs needed before

making expenditures to rehabilitate the McFARLAND.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $117,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 125,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 125,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +8,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

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 2001, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $125,000,000, the same as the budget request and

$8,000,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

The Committee has not included language proposed by the Administration that would direct the Secretary of the Army to change the

current fee structure for the Regulatory Program.

The Committee has included language to improve the analysis

and public and congressional notification of the costs of regulatory

program nationwide permit modifications and permit processing

time requirements. The language directs the Corps of Engineers to:

(1) revise a cost analysis of modified nationwide permits based on

promulgated rules rather than proposed rules; (2) prepare a plan

to manage and reduce backlog associated with new and replacement permits issued on March 9, 2000, and develop criteria to

measure progress in reducing the backlog; (3) provide quarterly reporting on program performance based on the above criteria; (4)

provide quarterly reporting, on a one year pilot basis, of all Regulatory Analysis and Management System data for South Pacific Division; (5) publish in Division Office websites decisions rendered

under the administrative appeals process and allow any appellant

to keep a verbatim record of the appeals conference; and (6) record

in its data base the dates of initial permit application or notification.

The Committee is aware of on-going staffing issues in the San

Diego office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Committee

is concerned that these staffing issues will result in a further backlog of work and delays for many in the San Diego area who rely

on timely and appropriate responses and approvals of projects by
65

the Corps. The Corps of Engineers is, therefore, directed to report

to the Committee within 60 days of enactment of this Act on these

staffing problems, including any proposed remedies.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $150,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 140,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 140,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥10,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized Sites

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

the budget request. In fiscal year 1998, Congress transferred responsibility for cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP to

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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 sites where remediation had not been completed.

It did not intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for

real property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.

The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide the

institutional knowledge and expertise needed to best serve the Nation and the affected communities in executing this program.

The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup

of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee

intends for the Corps expertise be used in the same manner for the

cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP, and expects the

Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part

of the civil works program.

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $149,500,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 152,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 149,500,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥2,500,000

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 $149,500,000, the same as the fiscal year 2000 level and $2,500,000

below the budget request. 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.

REVOLVING FUND

The Committee has included language in the bill which provides

that funds available in the Corps of Engineers Revolving Fund may

be used for the costs of relocating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headquarters to office space in the General Accounting Office

headquarters building in Washington, D.C.
66

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund.—The Committee has

included language in the bill proposed by the Administration which

extends the authorization for spending Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund receipts through fiscal year 2001.

Joe Pool Lake, Texas.—Section 102 provides for the transfer of

responsibility of local sponsorship of recreation development at Joe

Pool Lake, Texas from the Trinity River Authority to the City of

Grand Prairie, Texas.
(67)

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $39,233,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 39,940,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 39,940,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +707,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

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 2001 to carry out

the provisions of the Act is $39,940,000, the same as the budget request, and $707,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal

year 2000.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $605,992,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 643,058,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 635,777,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +29,785,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥7,281,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75

Central Arizona Project, Indian Distribution Division, Arizona.— The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 to accelerate

work on the Gila River Indian Community distribution system.

Central Arizona Project, Native Fish Protection, Arizona.—The

bill includes $1,510,000 for native fish protection activities on the

Central Arizona Project, $200,000 below the budget request.

San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona.—The Committee is concerned with accountability in the Federal management of San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP) electric power resources. The Committee is aware that management of SCIP resources affects customer financing of operation and maintenance costs and could impact the economics of the pending Gila River Community Indian

water rights settlement. Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior,

acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, is directed to review electric power programs (including relevant power, allocation,

contract, delivery, and scheduling data and associated values) and

policies related to the San Carlos Irrigation Project. The Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration is directed to cooperate in this review, which should further address, and not be

limited to, the following issues: the role of any current or potential

Federal agency power management programs in SCIP operations;

the role and oversight of any non-Federal consultants in SCIP

management; and compliance with applicable Federal law. The

Secretary shall provide this collaborative review to the Committee

no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act. The report shall

include recommendations for SCIP power management services.

South Central Arizona Investigations Program, Arizona.—The

Committee has provided an additional $200,000 for the West Salt

River Valley Water Management Study.

California Investigations Program, California.—The Committee

has provided an additional $500,000 to expand the ongoing California Investigations Program to include studies of ways to increase the reliability of water supplies in southern Orange County,

California, which includes the Central Pool Augmentation Program.

Central Valley Project, American River Division, California.—The

Committee has provided an additional $5,300,000 for the construction of a permanent pumping facility for the Placer County Water

Agency. The Committee has also included language in the bill

which provides that none of the funds appropriated in the Act may

be used by the Bureau of Reclamation for closure of the Auburn

dam diversion tunnel or restoration of the American River channel

through the Auburn Dam construction site. In addition, the Committee has provided $200,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare plans and specifications and undertake the environmental review needed for a temperature control device on the El Dorado Irrigation District’s intake at Folsom Reservoir.

Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, California.—

The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the fish

passage improvement project at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. The

Committee has also provided an additional $520,000 to continue

the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Program.

Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division, San Luis

Unit, California.—The Committee has provided an additional
76

$1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to obtain flowage easements in the vicinity of the Arroyo Pasajero and continue to participate in the studies of the flooding problems.

Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration

Program, California.—The Committee has provided $503,000 to

continue the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Program.

North San Diego Area Water Recycling Project, California.—The

Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 to advance completion of the North San Diego County Water Recycling Project.

Salton Sea Research Project, California.—The Committee has

provided an additional $4,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to

undertake pilot projects to explore various methods of harvesting

salt from the Salton Sea, including enhanced evaporation system

technology. Of the funds provided, up to $1,000,000 may be used

to continue the program for the development of wetlands and other

activities designed to improve the water quality in the New River

and Alamo River.

Minidoka Area Projects, Idaho.—The Committee has provided an

additional $300,000 to continue the study of erosion problems on

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.—The pilot project for the Equus Beds is complete. As final reports are assembled, the Committee strongly encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the affected communities and the

State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-scale project.

Pick Sloan Missouri River Basin, North Loup Division, Nebraska.—The Committee has provided $1,750,000 for the Bureau of

Reclamation to repair the Twin Loups Reclamation District’s

Mirdan Canal.

Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project, New Mexico.—The

Committee has provided $250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to

continue work on the Eastern New Mexico Water Supply study.

Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.—The Committee is

aware that the budget request for the Middle Rio Grande project

includes $830,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to lease water and

work cooperatively with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to make flows available during the irrigation season in support of the silvery minnow, a Federally-listed endangered species.

The Committee is very supportive of these efforts and expects the

Bureau of Reclamation to work cooperatively with the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service in implementing the recovery plan for the silvery minnow.

Texas Investigations Program, Texas.—The Committee has provided an additional $250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake a study to identify potential mechanisms to enhance water

supplies in Mills County, Texas.

Drought Emergency Assistance Program.—The Committee has

provided an additional $1,400,000 for the acquisition of water for

the San Carlos Reservoir on the Gila River in Arizona.

Efficiency Incentives Program.—From within funds available for

the Efficiency Incentives Program, the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $750,000 to support the Navajo
77

Nation in its efforts to implement conservation measures on the

Ganado Irrigation Project.

Environment and Interagency Coordination.—Within the amount

provided for Environment and Interagency Coordination, the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $50,000 to expand regional cooperation on issues related to the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act in southern Arizona.

Technical Assistance to States.—Within the amount provided for

Technical Assistance to States, the Committee urges the Bureau of

Reclamation to use up to $150,000 to participate in a pilot project

to investigate the technical feasibility and associated costs of using

slowsand as a pretreatment for reverse osmosis treatment of Central Arizona Project water.

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.—The Committee is aware of the WateReuse Research Foundation’ ongoing efforts to conduct research on the science and technological aspects

of water reclamation. After more than 30 years, the Committee recognizes a need exists to ensure that the framework governing the

use and application of reclaimed water supplies, including risk assessments and technology assessments, requires review and updating. The effective and efficient use of this important resource will

continue to encounter unsubstantiated impediments because of a

reliance on outdated science and technologies. Accordingly, the

Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau of

Reclamation to support the WateReuse Foundation’s research program under the authority of section 1605 of Public Law 102–575.

In addition, of the funds provided for the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, the Committee directs the Bureau of

Reclamation to use $300,000 to continue the Phoenix Metropolitan

Water Reclamation and Reuse (Aqua Fria) project in Arizona.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $11,577,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 9,369,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 9,369,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥2,208,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

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.

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:
78
79

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $42,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 38,382,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 38,382,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥3,618,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

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.

Within the funds made available through the Central Valley

Project Restoration Fund, the Committee intends that $5,000,000

be made available for the San Joaquin River Restoration program,

which is being developed and implemented jointly by water users

in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project and environmental interests.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $60,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 60,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥60,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥60,000,000

The California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account funds

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 BayDelta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in the fall of

1996. That Act authorizes the appropriation of $143,300,000 for

ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999,

and 2000.

The Committee has been and continues to be very supportive of

the Bay-Delta program and the CALFED process. However, in light

of the fact that the authorization for this program ends in fiscal

year 2000, the Committee has recommended no new funding for fiscal year 2001. Should the program be reauthorized before work is

completed on the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development

Appropriations bill, the Committee will reconsider its recommendation. The Committee expects that the remaining unobligated balances in this program will be used equally for ecosystem restoration activities and other authorized activities, such as projects to

promote or develop water use efficiency, water quality, groundwater storage, surface storage, levees, conveyance systems, and wa-
80

tershed management. Since this has been and continues to be a

state-wide program, the Committee also expects that there will be

an equitable balance of work between northern California, the

delta region, and southern California.

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $47,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 50,224,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 47,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... ¥3,224,000

The general administrative expenses program 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 2001, the Committee has recommended

$47,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2000 level, and $3,224,000

below the budget request.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Middle Rio Grande/Carlsbad Projects, New Mexico.—Section 201

provides that none of the funds appropriated by this or any other

act may be used to purchase or lease water in the Middle Rio

Grande or Carlsbad projects in New Mexico unless the purchase or

lease is in compliance with the requirements of section 202 of Public Law 106–60.

Trinity County, California.—Section 202 provides authority to

the Secretary of the Interior to make an annual assessment upon

Central Valley Project water and power contractors for the purpose

of making an annual payment to the Trinity Public Utilities District.
(81)

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 Facilities Maintenance and Remediation, 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

Due to severe funding constraints, funding recommendations for

many of the Department of Energy programs in fiscal year 2001

are significantly below the Department’s fiscal year 2001 budget request.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Department has established an Office of Engineering and

Construction Management to strengthen its project management

capabilities. The Committee strongly supports this effort. The Department has also proposed a new budget line item for preliminary

project engineering and design (PED) which would be used to

achieve a 30 to 35 percent level of design for new construction

projects before the projects are submitted to Congress for authorization and appropriations. This should provide a more mature

technical and cost baseline and a greater likelihood of achieving the

project cost and schedule. As part of the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Department should submit a PED line item for each program area which anticipates funding new construction projects in

future budgets.

The Committee will not require that an external, independent assessment of the baseline cost and schedule of all fiscal year 2001

construction projects be performed before funds can be obligated.

However, the Committee directs the Department to identify and

document the process that will be used to determine which projects

will require an external independent review and at which phase of

the project the review should be conducted. The report should also

identify how the use of PED will be incorporated into construction

project development. This report should be provided to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 31, 2000.

AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

The Committee continues to believe that there is too much reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal employees throughout the Department of Energy. The Department re-
82

duced the number of management and operating (M&O) contractor

employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area to 277 in

fiscal year 2000. The Committee directs the Department to reduce

the number to no more than 220 contractor employees in fiscal year

2001.

The Department is to provide a report to the Committee at the

end of fiscal year 2000 on the use of all support service contractors

(those funded directly by Headquarters, and those funded by M&O

contractors and assigned to Headquarters) and M&O contractor

employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area.

The report is to include for each support service contract: the

name of the contractor; the program organization (at the lowest organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a descriptive and

detailed list of the tasks performed; the number of contractor employees working on the contract; and the annual cost of the contract.

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 program account funding that employee, and the

length of time the employee has been detailed to the Department.

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, 1999

through September 30, 2000, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2001.

CONTRACTOR TRAVEL

The Committee has retained in fiscal year 2001 the limitation of $150,000,000 for contractor travel. The Department is expected to

ensure that critical mission assignments are funded first and administrative travel to Washington is limited.

Contractor travel funding was limited in fiscal year 2000 to $150,000,000 after a General Accounting Report identified significant travel abuses including one national laboratory that was averaging over 80 trips a week to Washington. Even with the reduction

in funding in fiscal year 2000, data provided through February

2000 on contractor travel indicates that the same laboratory is still

averaging 70 trips a week to Washington. The Committee strongly

urges the Department to review the need for this many trips to

Washington and ensure that contractor travel for specific program

needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex is not being curtailed by an excess of management trips to Washington.

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee has retained the limitation of four percent on

laboratory directed research and development (LDRD) that was included in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. This program allows each laboratory director to use four percent of all operating

funds provided to the laboratory to conduct research and development projects selected at the discretion of the laboratory directors.

For fiscal year 2001, the Department estimates that the labora-
83

tories will spend $300,000,000 on LDRD and additional funds on

Director’s Discretionary Research and Development (DDRD). The

Committee recommendation would provide approximately

$200,000,000 for LDRD, the same level as fiscal year 2000.

Rather than allowing each laboratory to tax all operating dollars

that are sent to the laboratory, the Committee directs the Department to submit a separate line item for LDRD funding in each appropriation account in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. This

will provide the visibility and accountability for this type of funding

that the Committee believes has been lacking in prior years. It also

addresses another concern of the Committee that LDRD funding is

automatically taken off the top of each program performed at the

laboratory. This has the effect of placing LDRD funding in a completely protected funding category at the expense of all other programs in the Department. The Committee supports some LDRD

funding, but believes it should be placed on equal terms with other

important programs. The Department is directed to submit a specific request for laboratory directed research and development

funding in each program in the annual budget submission.

INDEPENDENT CENTERS

The Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act required the Department to identify all independent centers at each laboratory or facility, the annual cost, number of employees, and the source of funding. As a result of this requirement,

the Department identified 183 centers that were funded through

various programs, laboratory directed research and development

funds, and overhead accounts. The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee by January 15, 2001 on all centers

funded in fiscal year 2001. The report should be at the level of detailed included in the fiscal year 2000 report to Congress. All centers should be specifically identified in the fiscal year 2002 budget

submission and should be funded in program accounts, rather than

overhead.

OVERHEAD COSTS

The Committee is aware the Department is reviewing costs included in the overhead charges of the management and operating

contractors and expects to be kept informed of the progress made

during this review. Changes made by the Department to remove

safeguards and security costs from overhead accounts will improve

accountability and oversight for that activity. The Committee’s recommendation to move LDRD and independent center funding from

overhead accounts in fiscal year 2002 will also improve this accountability and oversight.

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully

inform the Committee 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.
84

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 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 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

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 2001, 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, 2000 ............................................................................ $637,962,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 752,895,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 576,482,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥61,480,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥176,413,000

The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: renewable energy resources; nuclear energy; environment, safety and

health; and technical information management. In prior fiscal

years, Congress has provided one year funding for this appropriation account. However, for fiscal year 2001, the Committee is recommending that the funds remain available until expended.

As requested by the Administration, statutory language is included allowing for the receipt of royalties to compensate the De-
85

partment for its participation in the nuclear energy First-of-a-Kind

Engineering program.

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

The Committee recommendation for renewable energy resources is $350,519,000, a reduction of $106,081,000 from the budget request, and $11,721,000 less than fiscal year 2000. This program

consists of renewable energy technologies, electric energy systems

and storage, renewable support and implementation, the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory, and program direction.

National Academy of Public Administration Review.—A recent

review of the management and organization of the Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) by the National Academy

of Public Administration (NAPA) identified four principal themes:

fragmentation of EERE, emphasis on process rather than product,

poor communications, and weak decision-making processes. One of

the most important issues discussed in the report is EERE’s fragmentation: ‘‘. . . its different parts operate as independent entities

without common purpose and synergy. EERE speaks with different

voices, and it is hard to derive a clear picture of its programs and

priorities.’’

The report further notes that, ‘‘. . . EERE has not had a formal

program and budget formulation process, supported by an independent analytic capability, to insure clarification of mission, setting of priorities, identification of cross-functional goals and objectives, creation of an integrated program of work linked to goals and

priorities, and establishment of milestones and anticipated results.’’

The current renewable energy resources budget request reflects the

NAPA findings. All of the renewable programs are requesting increases of 30 to 50 percent with no clear integration or explanation

of why such increases are warranted in all programs simultaneously. The budget request reflects little integration or

prioritization, and the Committee cannot support the large increases. However, the Committee is aware that the Assistant Secretary is working to address the concerns raised by the NAPA review and strongly supports this effort.

Coordination of Basic Research.—The Committee is concerned

that there is scant cooperation and coordination between the Office

of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on the fundamental research needed to improve renewable energy technologies. Each year the Committee provides funding for

the Office of Science to support basic research in energy programs,

including renewable programs. There appears to be little coordination or consultation between the two offices on the synergies among

these programs. The Committee directs these two offices to identify

ways in which coordination can be improved and research conducted which is mutually beneficial, and to inform the Committee

how coordination will be improved.

Renewable energy technologies

Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels energy

systems, geothermal, hydrogen, hydropower, solar energy, and

wind. To more accurately reflect the total funding being spent by

the Department on these renewable technologies, the Committee
86

also includes the funding spent on basic research in support of

these technologies by the Office of Science.

Biomass/biofuels energy systems.—The Committee recommendation for biomass/biofuels energy systems is $101,000,000, including

$26,740,000 for related research conducted by the Office of Science.

This is a reduction of $28,181,000 from the budget request of

$129,181,000. The recommendation includes $32,000,000 for the

power systems program and $42,260,000 for the transportation program. The Committee strongly supports the basic research and

maintenance of a Federal role in promising biomass/biofuels programs.

Geothermal.—The Committee recommendation is $24,000,000, a

reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request of $27,000,000.

The Committee supports geothermal energy, but believes that

other technologies are a higher priority when resources are limited.

Hydrogen.—The Committee recommendation is $24,970,000, including $2,970,000 for related research conducted by the Office of

Science. This is a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request

of $25,970,000 due to funding constraints.

Hydropower.—The Committee recommendation includes

$3,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request of

$5,000,000, due to severe funding constraints. However, the Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 in the Bonneville

Power Administration to support this program.

Solar energy.—Solar energy technologies include concentrating

solar power, photovoltaics, solar building technology research, and

the Office of Science contribution in basic research for solar

photoconversion. The Committee recommendation for solar energy

is $92,107,000, a reduction of $26,500,000 from the budget request

of $118,607,000.

The recommendation for concentrating solar power is $6,000,000,

a reduction of $9,000,000 from the budget request of $15,000,000.

A recent programmatic review of the Department’s renewable energy programs by the National Research Council indicated that the

overall commercial prospects for concentrated solar power technologies were not very promising. The Council’s report, Renewable

Power Pathways, recommended that the Department ‘‘limit or halt

its research and development on power-tower and power-trough

technologies because further refinements would not lead to deployment.’’ The review further stated that the Department ‘‘should reassess the market prospects for the solar/dish engine technologies

to determine whether continued research and development would

result in a technology that warrants further expenditures.’’ Consistent with this recommendation, the Committee has provided

funding for solar/dish engine technologies, but eliminates funding

for power-tower and power-trough technologies.

The photovoltaic energy systems program is funded at

$69,847,000, a reduction of $15,000,000 from the budget request

due to funding constraints, but the same funding as the current

year. This includes $2,847,000 for related research conducted by

the Office of Science.

Funding of $2,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2000, is provided

for solar building technology research, and $14,260,000, the same
87

as the budget request, is provided for solar photoconversion energy

research.

Wind energy systems.—The Committee recommendation is

$33,283,000, a reduction of $17,500,000 from the budget request,

but the same level as last year. The recommendation includes

$283,000 for related research conducted by the Office of Science.

Electric energy systems and storage

The Committee recommendation for electric energy systems and

storage is $37,000,000, a reduction of $11,000,000 from the budget

request of $48,000,000. The Committee supports the Department’s

efforts to continue its work with electric utilities to facilitate voluntary, cost-effective means to reduce emissions from power generation and the use of up to $100,000 for this purpose.

The Committee recommendation includes $28,000,000 for high

temperature superconducting research and development,

$4,000,000 for energy storage systems, and $5,000,000 for transmission reliability. The recommendation includes the budget request of $3,000,000 for the distributed power program. The distributed power program supports efforts to integrate distributed resources into the power system; develop new interconnection hardware, software, and operational concepts; and develop regulatory

and institutional approaches to remove existing market barriers.

The Committee notes that Real Energy of California and Nextek

Power Systems of New York are participating in a consortia that

is privately funding public-private pilot programs in distributed energy resources (DER), such as solar panels, fuel cells, or micro-turbines that are installed at or near their point of use. Deployment

of these technologies has significant public benefits including environmental protection and support for the nation’s burdened electrical grid systems. The Committee requests that DOE report back

no later than October 1, 2001 with recommendations on how the

Federal government can facilitate increased private funding, and

what steps can be taken to coordinate local, state, and federal regulations to more effectively deploy DER.

Renewable support and implementation

The renewable support and implementation program includes departmental energy management, international renewable energy,

the renewable energy production incentive (REPI) program, renewable Indian energy resources, and renewable program support. The

Committee recommendation is $13,000,000, a reduction of

$19,000,000 from the budget request of $32,000,000. The recommendation provides $2,000,000 for the Departmental energy

management program; $4,000,000 for international renewable energy; $1,000,000 for the renewable energy production incentive program; $2,000,000 for renewable Indian energy resources; and

$4,000,000 for renewable program support.

The Committee encourages the Department to fully utilize the

Departmental energy management program to strengthen the energy management programs and achieve energy savings at DOE facilities.
88

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

The Committee recommendation is $4,000,000 for the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, an increase of $2,100,000 over the budget request. The Committee is

concerned that the Department continues to under-fund infrastructure improvements and maintenance at its laboratories. The additional funding for NREL will prevent further deterioration of these

facilities. The Department should submit a budget request that

adequately funds the existing infrastructure.

Program direction

The Committee recommendation for program direction is

$18,159,000, the same as the budget request.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation is $231,815,000, a decrease of

$76,630,000 from the budget request of $308,445,000. This reduction reflects the transfer of $53,400,000 for uranium programs to

a new appropriation account as well as funding constraints. The

nuclear energy programs represent a commitment to ensure that

nuclear power remains an important contributor to the Nation’s

electricity generating capability. These programs address the entire

spectrum of nuclear issues including safety, efficiency, advanced

fuels, and long-term safe storage of wastes.

Advanced radioisotope power systems.—The Committee recommendation is $29,200,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the

budget request. Due to severe funding constraints, the Committee

did not fund the new initiative for special purpose fission power

technology.

Isotopes.—The Committee recommendation for isotope support and production is $15,215,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the

budget request. Total isotope funding in fiscal year 2001 is estimated to be $23,215,000 which includes a direct appropriation of

$15,215,000 and the use of $8,000,000 in offsetting collections to be

received from the sale of isotopes and other services in fiscal year

2001. Due to severe fiscal constraints, the Committee has provided

only $500,000 for the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request of $2,500,000. The recommendation includes the budget request of $900,000 to

process uranium material to obtain alpha-emitting isotopes that

will be used in medical research and human clinical trials for the

cure of various cancers.

University reactor fuel assistance and support.—The Committee

recommendation is $12,000,000, the same as the budget request.

This program provides support for university research reactors and

supports education, training, and innovative research at U.S. universities.

Research and development.—The research and development program includes programs to support continued use of nuclear energy. The Committee recommendation is $5,000,000 for the nuclear

energy plant optimization (NEPO) program, the same as the budget request. The Committee strongly supports this initiative to help

ensure that existing nuclear power plants are operated as safely
89

and efficiently as possible. The Committee directs that all awards

be matched dollar for dollar from industry contributions. The Committee recommendation is $22,500,000 for the nuclear

energy research initiative (NERI) program, a reduction of

$12,500,000 from the budget request of $35,000,000, but the same

as last year. The Committee strongly supports this program which

awards grants to laboratories, universities and consortia using a

formal peer-review process.

Infrastructure.—The Committee has modified the Department’s

proposed budget structure to consolidate the facilities and infrastructure which support the nuclear energy programs. This includes facilities at Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho, the

Test Reactor Area at Idaho, and the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)

at Richland, Washington.

The Committee recommendation for ANL-West operations infra- structure is $39,150,000, the same as the budget request, which

was originally included in the termination costs program. The recommendation for the FFTF is $39,000,000, a reduction of

$5,010,000 from the budget request due to severe funding constraints. The recommendation for the Test Reactor Area at Idaho

is $9,000,000, the same as the budget request.

Termination costs.—Funding of $74,000,000 requested for termination costs has been split between two program accounts. Funding

of $39,150,000 for ANL-West Operations has been moved to ‘‘Infrastructure’’. Funding of $34,850,000 for EBR–II shutdown, disposition of spent nuclear fuel and legacy materials, and disposition

technology activities has been included in ‘‘Termination Activities’’.

Termination activities.—Funding for EBR–II shutdown, disposition of spent nuclear fuel and legacy materials, and disposition

technology activities has been moved to this program. The Committee recommendation is $34,850,000, the same as the budget request, for these activities. The recommendation includes $8,800,000

for EBR–II shutdown activities; $16,200,000 for disposition of spent

fuel and legacy materials; and $9,850,000 for disposition technology

activities.

The Department will soon decide whether to proceed with further

application of electrometallurgical technology (EMT) to the remaining inventory of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. However, considerable work is yet to be done on qualifying and characterizing

waste products, particularly from the post-demonstration work. A

recent National Research Council committee recommended that the

Department review the options for disposal of recovered uranium

so that the overall impacts of the process can be assessed.

In order to ensure that there is a clear and final disposal option

for all the waste forms resulting from EMT and that no further

treatment will be required, the Committee directs the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the Office of Environmental

Management, and the Office of Nuclear Energy to prepare a complete report on all waste forms generated through the use of EMT.

This will include: ceramic waste forms (actinide elements and fission products in a glass-ceramic matrix), the metal waste forms

(noble metal fission products in a fuel-cladding matrix), and the recovered uranium streams. The report should describe the volumes

of waste generated, radioactive content, waste forms created, and
90

lifecycle costs in annual increments of processing 25 MT of Experimental Breeder Reactor II fuel. The final disposition path for each

waste form should be identified, along with applicable storage and

disposal costs. This report is due to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 31, 2001.

The Committee is also concerned that the Department is considering application of this technology to other spent fuels before it

has been fully demonstrated. The Committee is to be notified before the Department expands this program to spent fuel outside the

current Sodium-bonded Fuel Environmental Impact Statement.

Uranium programs.—The Committee has transferred

$53,400,000, the same as the budget request, for the uranium programs to a new appropriation account, Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation.

Program direction.—The recommendation includes $25,900,000, a

reduction of $1,720,000 from the budget request, but an increase of

$1,200,000 over fiscal year 2000.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation is $35,000,000, a reduction of

$5,000,000 from the budget request of $40,000,000. The reduction

should be applied to lower priority items and a reduction in the reliance on contractors who provide policy guidance to other Department of Energy contractors and Federal employees.

The recommendation for environment, safety and health also includes $1,000,000 to be transferred to the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA). These funds are to be used to ensure the safety and health of non-Federal employees who are working in Departmental facilities which have been transferred to nonFederal entities for economic development purposes and for those

Department of Energy non-nuclear facilities that are not covered by

the Atomic Energy Act.

ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Technical information management.—The Committee recommendation is $8,600,000, a reduction of $702,000 from the budget request, and the same funding level as fiscal year 2000.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation for Energy Supply includes several funding

adjustments. The $47,100,000 adjustment represents the funding

provided for renewable energy research programs managed by the

Office of Science and funded in the Science account. The recommendation also includes an offset of $2,352,000 from royalties to

be received to compensate the Department for its participation in

the first-of-a-kind-engineering program for nuclear reactors. The

Department’s proposal to transfer $12,000,000 from the United

States Enrichment Corporation Fund has been included in the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account.
91

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $332,350,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 286,001,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 281,001,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥51,349,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥5,000,000

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 efforts resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination

which requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of action. The three major activities are: Site Closure where cleanup

will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2006, and no further

DOE mission is anticipated; Site/Project Completion where cleanup

will be completed by 2006, but DOE programs will continue; and

Post 2006 Completion where cleanup activities at the site will extend beyond 2006. The Committee recommendation is $281,001,000, a reduction of

$5,000,000 from the budget request. The recommendation includes

an additional $5,000,000 to expedite environmental cleanup at the

Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Since Congress has not passed legislation authorizing the Department of Energy to initiate cleanup of the Atlas site in Moab,

Utah, the Committee has not provided the $10,000,000 requested

in the budget. Also, as proposed by the Department, no funds have

been provided for the National Low-Level Waste Program in fiscal

year 2001.

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriation, 2000 ........................................................................ $249,247,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ................................................................... 303,038,000

Recommended, 2001 ....................................................................... ................................

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 ................................................................ ¥249,247,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ........................................................... ¥303,038,000

The Committee recommendation has transferred funding for the

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

(D&D) Fund to a new appropriation account, Uranium Facilities

Maintenance and Remediation. The new account consolidates uranium programs formerly funded in the Energy Supply account and

the Uranium Enrichment D&D fund.

URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... ............................

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 301,400,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +301,400,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +301,400,000

The Committee has recommended a new appropriation account,

Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation, to include funding for uranium programs. Uranium programs are currently funded

in the Energy Supply appropriation account which is managed by
92

the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund appropriation account

which is managed by the Office of Environmental Management.

The funding split between two program organizations and two appropriation accounts makes it difficult to coordinate and manage

remediation work performed at the uranium enrichment facilities

in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. To provide more visibility within the budget for uranium programs, the Committee has combined

the funding into a single appropriation account in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee recommendation for Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation is $301,400,000, a reduction of $43,038,000

from the budget request of $344,438,000 due to funding constraints. Of this amount, $260,000,000 will be derived from the

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund and $12,000,000 will be transferred from the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.—The Uranium Enrichment

Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Fund, established

by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, supports D&D, remedial actions,

waste management, and surveillance and maintenance associated

with preexisting conditions at sites leased and operated by the

United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), as well as Department of Energy facilities at these and other uranium enrichment

sites. The sites covered by this D&D Fund include the operating

uranium enrichment facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah,

Kentucky, and the inactive K–25 site in Tennessee, formerly called

the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Environmental restoration

efforts at these three sites are supported from the D&D Fund established by a tax on domestic utilities and by annual appropriations. In fiscal year 2001 the Department of Energy will transfer

$420,000,000 into this Fund.

Due to severe funding constraints, the Committee recommends $260,000,000, a reduction of $43,038,000 from the budget request

for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.

The Committee is aware of the substantial cleanup requirements

at each of the uranium enrichment sites, but is unable to provide

the requested increase in fiscal year 2001.

Uranium/thorium reimbursements.—The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000, the same as the budget request, to implement the reimbursement program authorized under

Title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act, for active uranium and

thorium processing sites which sold uranium and thorium to the

United States Government. This program is to assist site owners

by compensating them on a per ton basis for the restoration and

disposal costs of those mill tailings resulting from sale of materials

to the government.

Uranium programs.—This program funds the government’s activities related to the Federal uranium enrichment programs which

were not transferred to the United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC). This includes management and remediation of leased and

non-leased facilities at the gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah,

Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio; funding pre-existing liabilities

such as post retirement life and medical costs for contractor employees prior to the establishment of USEC; management of the

Department’s inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6);
93

and management of other surplus uranium inventories. The Committee recommendation for uranium programs requested in the Energy Supply appropriation account is $53,400,000, the same as the

budget request.

Depleted UF6.—Funding of $24,877,000, the same as the budget

request, is included for activities associated with the depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) management and conversion project.

This includes $12,877,000 in appropriated funds in this program

and an additional $12,000,000 from funds obtained under the

Memoranda of Agreement with the United States Enrichment Corporation.

Domestic uranium industry.—The Committee is concerned about

the protection of the public interest in maintaining a reliable and

economical domestic source of uranium mining, enrichment and

conversion services, as such interest is stated in the United States

Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act and Executive Order

13085. The Committee reminds the Secretary of the responsibilities

delegated by the President to take action or propose to take action

to prevent or mitigate any material adverse impact on such industries and expects the Secretary to work with the President and

other parts of the Administration toward those ends with sharply

and swiftly renewed vigor.

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $2,787,627,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 3,151,065,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 2,830,915,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +43,288,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥320,150,000

The Science account includes the following programs: high energy and nuclear physics; biological and environmental research;

basic energy sciences; advanced scientific computing research; energy research analysis; multi-program energy laboratories facility

support; fusion energy sciences; and program direction. Due to severe funding constraints, the Committee was unable to provide the

significant budget increases requested by the Department in fiscal

year 2001. It has been necessary to defer many on-going programs

and new initiatives which the Committee views very favorably and

regrets being unable to fund.

Statutory language proposed by the Administration to provide

advance appropriations through fiscal year 2005 for the Spallation

Neutron Source has not been included.

Coordination of Basic Research.—The Committee is concerned

that there is scant cooperation and coordination between the Office

of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on the fundamental research needed to improve renewable energy technologies. Each year the Committee provides funding for

the Office of Science to support basic research in energy programs,

including renewable programs. There appears to be little coordination or consultation between the two offices on the synergies among

these programs. The Committee directs these two offices to identify

ways in which coordination can be improved and research con-
94

ducted which is mutually beneficial, and to inform the Committee

how coordination will be improved.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The high energy physics program of the Department of Energy

has the lead responsibility for Federal support of high energy physics research. The program is directed at understanding the nature

of matter and energy at the most fundamental level and the basic

forces which govern all processes in nature. Fundamental research

provides the necessary foundation that ultimately enables the Nation to progress in its science and technology capabilities, to advance its industrial competitiveness, and to discover new and innovative approaches to our energy future.

The Committee’s recommendation for high energy physics is

$714,730,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase of

$6,840,000 over fiscal year 2000.

Research and technology.—The Committee recommendation for

research and technology is $224,820,000, a reduction of $12,900,000

from the budget request of $237,720,000. For fiscal year 2001 the

Department requested $19,200,000 for research and development

on the Next Linear Collider and $8,700,000 for research and development on the Muon-Muon Collider. Due to severe funding constraints, the recommendation limits funding for these two activities

to a total of $15,000,000. With the funding constraints on operating

existing facilities and the need to fund major science projects currently under construction, the Committee is not anxious at this

time to fund designs for expensive new facilities.

Facility operations.—The Committee recommendation for facility

operations is $489,910,000, an increase of $12,900,000 over the

budget request of $477,010,000. The Department requested

$207,031,000 in fiscal year 2001 for facility operations at the Fermi

National Accelerator Laboratory in Batvia, Illinois. This level of

funding would severely impact on-going operations at Fermi, so the

Committee has provided $230,931,000, an additional $23,900,000,

for Fermi operations in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee recommendation for the Large Hadron Collider

(LHC) is $59,000,000, a reduction of $11,000,000 from the budget

request of $70,000,000. Funding is available since obligations for

the LHC have been slower than anticipated, and there will be no

negative impact on the project.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The goal of the nuclear physics program is to support basic research scientists, develop and operate the facilities, and foster the

technical and scientific activities needed to understand the structure and interactions of atomic nuclei, and the fundamental forces

and particles of nature as manifested in nuclear matter. The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is $369,890,000, the

same as the budget request, and an increase of $17,890,000 over

fiscal year 2000.
95

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The biological and environmental research program provides fundamental science to develop the knowledge needed to identify, understand, anticipate, and mitigate the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy production, development, and

use.

The Committee recommendation is $404,000,000, a reduction of

$41,260,000 from the budget request of $445,260,000, and

$37,500,000 below fiscal year 2000. Due to severe funding constraints, the Committee was unable to provide the requested level

of funding for this program. While this appears to be a significant

reduction from fiscal year 2000, it is actually comparable when

funding is adjusted for the additional projects which were added to

the program in fiscal year 2000.

Construction and infrastructure.—The Committee has deferred

without prejudice funding to initiate construction of the Laboratory

for Comparative Functional Genomics at the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory. The Committee has also deferred funding to develop facilities and infrastructure at the University of South Carolina

School of Public Health.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is

$791,000,000, a reduction of $224,770,000 from the budget request,

and an increase of $7,873,000 over fiscal year 2000. Due to severe

funding constraints, the Committee was unable to provide the requested level of funding for this program. It has been necessary to

defer funding for many new initiatives which the Committee views

very favorably.

For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2001, the Department may reallocate funding among all operating accounts in

basic energy sciences. The recommendation includes $6,815,000,

the same as last year, for the Experimental Program to Stimulate

Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program, and provides an increase

of $7,873,000 to fund new waste management activities transferred

to the program in fiscal year 2001.

Spallation Neutron Source.—The Committee recommendation

provides $100,000,000, a reduction of $161,900,000 from the budget

request of $261,900,000, and the same level as fiscal year 2000 for

construction of the Spallation Neutron Source. The Committee is

aware that the Department has made significant progress in improving the management of the project in the past year. The funding reduction does not reflect concern with the current status of the

project, but rather the severe funding constraints under which the

Committee is operating in fiscal year 2001.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The goal of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)

program is to discover, develop, and deploy the computational and

networking tools that enable researchers in the scientific disciplines to analyze, model, simulate, and predict complex phenomena.
96

The Committee recommendation is $137,000,000, a reduction of

$44,970,000 from the budget request, but an increase of $5,000,000

over fiscal year 2000. The Committee is aware that the Department

has worked hard to develop an advanced computing program to

meet the needs of the science programs and laboratories. However,

severe funding constraints make it impossible to fund a large new

computing program in fiscal year 2001. The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for computer equipment upgrades at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) at

the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSIS

The energy research analysis program assesses research projects

and programs and seeks to identify undesirable duplications and

gaps. The Committee recommendation for energy research analysis

is $1,000,000, the same as the budget request.

MULTI-PROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT

The multi-program energy laboratories facilities support program

provides funding for general purpose facilities to support the infrastructure of the five Office of Science multi-program national laboratories and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, landlord costs. The Committee

recommendation for multi-program energy laboratories facilities

support is $33,930,000, the same as the budget request.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is

$255,000,000, an increase of $7,730,000 over the budget request,

and the same as fiscal year 2000. Additional funding of $25,000,000

has been provided in the inertial confinement fusion program in

the Weapons Activities appropriation account to support work on

the development of high average power lasers.

Funds for this program should be allocated in accordance with

the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee’s (FESAC) report

on Balance and Priorities. The Committee is pleased that the

FESAC review process seems to be positioning the U.S. program to

take advantage of the much larger international fusion research effort with the resources available and also positions the program to

accelerate the development of fusion energy.

The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of

$19,600,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the

Tokomak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR).

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation for program direction is

$138,000,000, a reduction of $3,245,000 from the budget request.

Funding of $4,500,000, the same as last year, has been provided for

the science education program.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation for Science includes a general reduction of

$13,635,000 due to funding constraints.
97

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $ 239,601,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 325,500,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 213,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 ........................................................................ ¥26,601,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ................................................................... ¥112,500,000

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established

the Federal government’s responsibility and statutory framework to

provide for the permanent geologic disposal of commercially generated spent nuclear fuel and the high-level radioactive waste generated by the Nation’s nuclear defense activities. This law also established the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund to finance disposal activities through the collection of fees from the owners and generators of nuclear waste.

The Committee recommends $213,000,000 to be derived from the

Fund in fiscal year 2001. Combined with the appropriation of

$200,000,000 to the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, a

total of $413,000,000 will be available for program activities in fiscal year 2001. This is a reduction of $24,500,000 from the budget

request of $437,500,000, but the Committee believes the Department can meet its objectives in fiscal year 2001 with this level of

funding.

Sufficient funding for this program is critical in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2001, an investment of approximately $4 billion and

almost 18 years of site investigations will culminate in a series of

decisions on whether the repository should be sited at the Yucca

Mountain site in Nevada. If the site is determined to be suitable

and the Secretary of Energy decides to recommend the site for repository development, a Site Recommendation Report will be prepared and submitted to the President in fiscal year 2001. If the

President, and then Congress, accept the site recommendation, a license application will be prepared and submitted to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission in fiscal year 2002.

State and local government funds.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,887,000 for the affected units of local government,

the same as the budget request, and $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada, a reduction of $2,148,000 from the budget request, to conduct

oversight responsibilities. The Committee has been reluctant in

prior years to provide funding to the State of Nevada in view of the

documented abuses by State employees, but believes it is important

for the State of Nevada to oversee the program at this crucial stage

in the site characterization process. The Committee has provided

statutory language directing that the State funds be provided to

the Nevada Division of Emergency Management for program management and execution. The Committee expects the Governor of

Nevada to ensure that appropriated funds are expended according

to Federal law and Congressional intent and that State employees

fully comply with the law and Congressional directives. Statutory

language is included prohibiting the payment of salaries and expenses of State employees.

Report requirement.—The Department is directed to update the

report required by Section 303 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act regarding alternative approaches to financing and managing this pro-
98

gram. In conducting these studies, the Department shall consult

with other Federal agencies and with financial and organizational

management experts who would provide salient input to this study.

As part of the study, the Department should identify models of effective organizations that might benefit the operation of the program. An updated report regarding alternative means of financing

and managing this program shall be submitted to the Congress by

June 30, 2001.

Statutory language.—The Committee has included statutory language proposed by the Administration that would allow the use of

proceeds and recoveries from the sale of assets. Proceeds estimated

at approximately $1,000,000 are anticipated in fiscal year 2001.

Waste acceptance and transportation.—The Committee is concerned about the steady erosion of Administration support for activities associated with the waste acceptance and transportation

functions of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

The Department needs to demonstrate its ability to remove spent

fuel from utility sites for Federal management, and, in particular,

its commitment to the timely removal of spent fuel. Accordingly,

the Department should submit to the Committee by December 31,

2000, a plan for the timely fabrication and deployment of waste acceptance capabilities. The plan should be developed after consultation with affected contract holders and consider currently licensed

transportation systems and other transportation.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $205,581,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 213,339,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 153,527,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥52,054,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥59,812,000

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ ¥$106,887,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... ¥128,762,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... ¥111,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥4,113,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +17,762,000

The funding recommended for Departmental Administration provides for general management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy. The account

funds a wide array of activities not directly associated with program execution. In fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided

funding for Departmental Administration activities in two appropriation accounts. The Committee has provided $153,527,000 in

this account, and $51,000,000 in the Other Defense Activities appropriation account, for total funding of $204,527,000, a reduction

of $8,812,000 from the budget request. Funding for many offices

has been reduced due to funding constraints and the availability of

prior year carryover balances.

Office of Ombudsman.—The recommendation of $5,100,000 for

the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity includes all funding
99

for salaries and expenses associated with the newly established Office of Ombudsman.

Working Capital Fund.—The Committee has included statutory

language prohibiting the Department from including the salaries

and expenses for Federal employees in this account. The Committee appropriates funds separately for all Federal employees and

will continue to do so.

The Department is using a charge back program similar in nature to a working capital fund which charges benefiting programs

and organizations with certain administrative and housekeeping

activities traditionally funded in a central account. The Committee

continues to support this, but wants to reiterate its expectations

that: no salaries or other expenses of Federal employees may be

charged to the fund; Departmental representation on the Board establishing the policies should be broad based and include smaller

organizations; the pricing policies used must be sound and defensible and not include added factors for administrative costs; the advanced payments at any time may be no more than the amount

minimally required to adequately cover outstanding commitments

and other reasonable activities; and a defined process must be established to dispose of excess advance payments (accumulated credits). Additionally, it is the Committee’s expectation that the fund

manager will ensure that the fund will neither be managed in a

manner to produce a profit nor allow the program customers to use

the fund as a vehicle for maintaining unencumbered funds.

The working capital fund should be audited periodically by the

Department’s Inspector General to ensure the integrity of the accounts, and the Committee expects to be apprised of any recommendations to improve the charge back system.

Reprogramming guidelines.—The Committee has provided reprogramming authority of $500,000 or five percent, whichever is

less, within the Departmental Administration account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. No individual program account

may be increased or decreased by more than this amount during

the fiscal year using this reprogramming authority. Congressional

notification within 30 days of the use of this reprogramming authority is required.

Use of Prior Year Deobligations and Construction Project Reserves.—Throughout the fiscal year, funds often become available

as projects are completed and contracts closed out throughout all

of the Department’s appropriation accounts. These funds become

available for reuse and are retained by the Controller as either

prior year deobligations or transferred to construction project reserve accounts. During fiscal year 2001 these funds are not available for reallocation within the Department unless approved by

Congress as part of a reprogramming or specifically identified in

the budget request.

Cost of Work for Others.—The recommendation for the cost of

work for others program is $34,027,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee recognizes that funds received from reimbursable activities may be used to fund general purpose capital

equipment which is used in support of those activities.
100

Revenues.—The Department’s revenue estimate for fiscal year

2001 is $128,762,000. However, the Committee recommendation is

$111,000,000, a decrease of $17,762,000 from the budget request.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the Department’s revenues will be less than the budget request in fiscal

year 2001. The Committee has included the CBO recommended

level of revenues.

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 over 70 percent of the Department’s funding is

provided in the national security programs. The Committee has

distributed these costs more equitably in fiscal year 2001 and provided $51,000,000 from national security programs.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $29,500,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 33,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 31,500,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +2,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥1,500,000

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies which 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.

The Committee recommendation is $31,500,000, a reduction of

$1,500,000 from the budget request due to funding constraints.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security Administration which consists of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors; Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure Projects;

Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Other Defense

Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. Descriptions of

each of these accounts are provided below.

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,

Public Law 106–65, established within the Department of Energy

a separately organized agency to be known as the National Nuclear

Security Administration (NNSA) and to become effective on March

1, 2000. The Committee’s recommendations for funding in fiscal

year 2001 reflect this new organization and budget structure.
101

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $4,427,052,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 4,594,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 4,625,684,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +198,632,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +31,684,000

The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain confidence in the safety, security, reliability and performance of the

Nation’s enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to

maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in

their safety and reliability indefinitely under the nuclear testing

moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The Committee’s recommendation for Weapons Activities is $4,625,684,000, an increase

of $31,684,000 over the budget request of $4,594,000,000.

Authorization of appropriations.—Consistent with the guidance

in the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization bill passed

by the House of Representatives, appropriations for Weapons Activities are being made available for obligation only until October

1, 2003.

Organization and Management Structure.—The Committee continues to believe that the Department’s internal organization and

management structure at Headquarters and in the field does not

efficiently support the Department’s current mission in the post

Cold War environment. The Committee encourages the new Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to review the urgent need for organization and

management changes in the NNSA headquarters and field structure. Simply renaming the same employees, the same organizational structure, and the same management culture as the ‘‘National Nuclear Security Administration’’ will not address the fundamental problems that Congress sought to address by creating this

new entity. The Committee does not need to outline the problems

with overlapping, duplicative responsibilities and lack of accountability. There are numerous reports outlining these issues and offering solutions. The Committee strongly urges the new Administrator and Deputy Administrator to use this opportunity to make

bold and strategic improvements.

Performance measures.—In fiscal year 1999, the Department

identified 11 performance measures to be accomplished by Defense

Programs. The Department met only six of these goals successfully

while failing to meet five of the goals. Weapons alteration schedules were missed; construction of the National Ignition Facility was

delayed; upgrades to key operations facilities fell behind schedule;

and there were fewer warheads dismantled than scheduled. While

the Department can explain why each of these delays occurred, the

overall trend is disturbing. If the Department expects to retain

credibility that it is capable of meeting critical national security

goals, it would do well to focus more strongly on its core nuclear

weapons mission.

Land conveyance and transfer.—The Department has identified

ten tracts of land in the vicinity of the Los Alamos National Laboratory to be conveyed to the County of Los Alamos and the Department of Interior. Costs associated with this transfer include en-
102

vironmental and remediation activities and landlord activities.

While the Committee supports the transfer, some of the landlord

costs associated with this activity appear to be quite excessive. In

order to track these costs, the Department is directed to include a

specific funding request for the land conveyance and transfer program in the annual budget submission for Environmental Management and Weapons Activities.

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 recommendation is $856,603,000, an increase of

$20,000,000 over the budget request of $836,603,000. For stockpile

maintenance, an additional $5,000,000 has been provided for the

Kansas City plant in Missouri and $4,000,000 for the Y–12 plant

in Tennessee. For stockpile evaluation, an additional $5,000,000

has been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and $6,000,000 for

the Y–12 plant in Tennessee.

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. Campaigns have definitive

milestones, specific work plans, and specific end dates. The Committee recommendation is $1,958,014,000, an increase of

$653,775,000 over the budget request of $1,304,239,000. Most of

this increase reflects a restructuring of the Department’s budget request. For some campaigns, the recommendation incorporates funding which was requested by the Department in the Readiness in

Technical Base and Facilities program. The Committee has moved

this funding to more accurately portray the cost of these campaigns.

Inertial Confinement Fusion.—The Committee recommends

$364,600,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an increase of $169,700,000 over the budget request of $194,900,000.

The recommendation includes $144,700,000 which has been transferred to inertial confinement fusion from the readiness in technical base and facilities program, and $25,000,000 to further the

development of high average power lasers.

Last year the Committee requested the Secretary of Energy to

complete and certify a new cost and schedule baseline for the National Ignition Facility (NIF). This certification was to be submitted

by June 1, 2000. If the Department was unable to provide such a

certification, the Department was to prepare an estimate of the

costs necessary to terminate the project. The Department has not

been able to certify a new cost and schedule baseline, but has submitted an interim report calculating the total project cost at approximately $3.26 billion. The Committee does not believe that the

information provided to date is an adequate basis for additional appropriations in fiscal year 2001. The Committee will reserve judgment on this project until the final report is submitted in September.
103

Although completion of the NIF project in a timely and cost effective manner is a high priority for the stockpile stewardship program, it is important that the Department continue to support and

maintain the work at other inertial fusion facilities, and efforts in

diagnostics, target fabrication, and cryogenic target development.

These elements of the inertial confinement fusion program not only

enable the goals of NIF, but have important roles in meeting the

overall goals of stockpile stewardship. With significant delays in

NIF, increased use of existing facilities and the continued development of the supporting activities are essential to the long term success of the program. The Committee recommendation includes the

budget request of $9,750,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory

and $32,150,000 for the University of Rochester.

Defense computing and modeling.—The budget request includes $776,175,000 for defense computing and modeling, an increase of

$457,075,000 over the request of $319,100,000. The increase reflects the transfer of $477,075,000 for the Accelerated Strategic

Computing Initiative (ASCI) from the readiness in technical base

and facilities program. Funding for ASCI is then reduced by

$20,000,000 from the budget request.

Pit manufacturing readiness.—The Committee recommendation

for pit manufacturing readiness is $110,038,000, an increase of

$2,000,000 over the budget request. To address concerns that the

NNSA lacks a robust capability for replacement of plutonium pits

and the difficulties currently being experienced in producing pits in

a laboratory environment, the Committee has provided $2,000,000

to initiate conceptual design work on a pit manufacturing facility.

Tritium.—The Committee recommendation for the tritium program is $177,000,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget

request of $152,000,000. The Department requested no funding for

Project 98–D–126, the Accelerator Production of Tritium project,

but the Committee has provided $25,000,000 to continue design activities.

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 $1,483,883,000, a decrease of $608,775,000 from

the budget request of $2,092,658,000. Most of this reduction is due

to transferring funds to other programs. Funding of $144,700,000

was transferred to the inertial confinement fusion program and

$477,075,000 was transferred to the defense computing and modeling program for a total transfer out of the account of

$621,775,000. The Committee recommendation also provides an additional $10,000,000 for infrastructure at the Y–12 plant in Tennessee; $10,000,000 for infrastructure at the Pantex plant in Texas;

and $10,000,000 for infrastructure at the Kansas City plant in Missouri. Consistent with the recommendations contained in the Fiscal

Year 2001 National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee has

not provided $17,000,000 requested for educational activities associated with the national weapons laboratories.

Uranium-233.—The Committee recommends that the Department process Uranium-233 stored in Building 3019 at the Oak
104

Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in a manner

that would retain and make available isotopes for beneficial use.

Isotopes such as Thorium-229 and its decay products have significant potential for the treatment of cancer. Efforts should be made

to expedite processing of the Uranium-233 while considering the

radiological and criticality hazards, safeguard limitations and environmental regulations associated with this material. The Committee recommends that the Department procure a well-qualified

contractor for this project with a proven track record of meeting

safety, quality, cost and schedule requirements.

Construction projects.—The Committee recommendation includes

$14,500,000 for the preliminary project engineering and design

(PE&D) project. The Department is directed to notify the Committee when PE&D funds are allocated for a specific project.

TRANSPORTATION SAFEGUARDS DIVISION

The Transportation Safeguards Division 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 $115,673,000, the same as the budget request.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation of $216,871,000 for program direction is a reduction of $7,200,000 from the budget request of

$224,071,000. The Committee expects the Department to initiate a

five percent reduction in Federal staffing, consistent with the guidance contained in the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization bill.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

General reduction.—The Committee recommends a general reduction of $26,116,000 in fiscal year 2001. This reflects a reduction

in the use of Laboratory Directed Research and Development funds

from six percent as requested in the budget to four percent as recommended by the Committee.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $729,100,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 906,035,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 861,477,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +132,377,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥44,558,000

Consistent with the legislation establishing the National Nuclear

Security Administration, the Committee has provided a separate

appropriation account for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. This

account includes funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development, Arms Control, International Materials

Protection, Control, and Accounting, the Long-term Nonproliferation Program for Russia, HEU Transparency Implementation,

International Nuclear Safety, Fissile Materials Disposition, and
105

Program Direction. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.

GENERAL

Strategic Planning and Analysis.—U.S. engagement with the

Russian nuclear complex has grown over the past few years resulting in securing nuclear materials and promoting nonproliferation

strategies. This rapid growth of activities has contributed to multitudes of DOE federal employees, U.S. contractors, and national

laboratory employees visiting Russia and the Newly Independent

States (NIS). In addition, new programs such as the Administration’s proposed $100 million initiative seek to expand this engagement. The Committee is deeply concerned with the sporadic appearance of initiatives and programs with ill defined scope, lack of

an understanding of U.S. out-year financial obligations, and lack of

documented commitments that these ‘‘joint’’ U.S./Russian initiatives are even supported by the Russians.

The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) needs to

demonstrate that its Russian programs are integrated, support the

most urgent security needs, and clearly meet a strategic, measurable policy goal within a disciplined budgetary profile. The Committee strongly recommends that the Deputy Administrator form a

long-range strategic planning group for Russian programs that can

integrate DNN activities, such as treaty negotiations, DOE on-theground work in Russia, and advances in nonproliferation and

verification research. Absent this integration, the current stove-piping of program offices has resulted in multitudes of DOE staff and

representatives visiting Russia and the NIS, and often the same

Russian officials, with duplicative or conflicting agendas. The Committee requests that a 5-year plan (FY 2001–2005) on U.S./Russian

nonproliferation and arms control programs at DOE be submitted

concurrent with the submittal of the fiscal year 2002 budget, that

demonstrates how DNN programs are using an integrated approach to address urgent security needs in Russia. Consistent with

this 5-year plan, corresponding funding profiles for each program

should be provided, noting total life-cycle cost and end dates for

each program.

Regional Threat Reduction.—The Department of Energy has a

unique role in regional security and arms control, with nuclear experts that can analyze and understand nuclear weapons development programs. While significant DNN resources are targeted for

Russian nuclear initiatives, the Committee is concerned that the

Department has neglected proliferation concerns in other regions of

nuclear instability. This important analysis can allow the U.S. to

predict nuclear weapons development in proliferant states and

form the basis for U.S. and international efforts to impede, prevent,

and roll-back proliferation. The Committee urges the Department

to focus resources, with experienced, credible leadership for regional security programs.

Competitive Research.—The Committee is concerned that the Department of Energy has not followed the language included in last

year’s conference report directing the Department to initiate a free

and open competitive process for 25 percent of its research and development, including 25 percent of the treaty monitoring program.
106

The Committee directs the Department to provide a report immediately describing the status of competition in these programs. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Department to have a competitive, peer-reviewed program with outside experts by October

2000, for 25 percent of the Non-proliferation and National Security

programs, including 25 percent of the Department’s Treaty Monitoring program.

Limitation on Russian Program Funds.—The Committee remains

concerned about the amount of funding for Russian programs

which goes to the Department’s own national laboratories rather

than going to the facilities in Russia. The Committee directs that

not more than 20 percent of the funding for any of these programs

may be spent in the United States.

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 nonproliferation and verification research and development

program consists of hundreds of projects executed primarily at the

nuclear weapons laboratories. The Committee has consistently expressed concern that this appears to be an unfocused, level of effort

activity performed at DOE laboratories. Last year the Committee

directed the Department to implement an external, peer-review

process to examine each of the projects, their progress, and their

value to the overall needs of the program. The Committee also requested a report identifying the value of the individual research

and development projects, and how the individual projects relate to

an overriding program plan or technology roadmap. The Department has not submitted this information to the Committee.

In lieu of providing the specific information requested by the

Committee, the Department established a panel to look at the quality of the research, technology transfer, and the balance of work

and budgets across nonproliferation programs. While this information is helpful, it did not directly address the Committee’s concerns

and did not provide an external review of individual projects.

The Committee recommendation is $222,000,000, a decrease of

$10,990,000 from the budget request of $232,990,000. This provides

the budget request of $42,138,000 for chemical and biological nonproliferation, and the budget request of $7,000,000 for the Nonproliferation and International Security Center.

ARMS CONTROL

The arms control and nonproliferation program supports the Nation’s arms control and nonproliferation policies; limiting weaponsusable fissile materials; establishing transparent and irreversible

nuclear reductions; and controlling nuclear exports. The Committee

has moved the International Materials Protection, Accounting, and
107

Control program from arms control and has established a standalone program for these activities. The Committee recommendation is $141,514,000, an increase of

$18,500,000 over the budget request of $123,014,000. The recommendation includes $17,500,000 for the Nuclear Cities Initiative

and $22,500,000 for Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention. Within

the Nuclear Cities Initiative, $10,000,000 is to fund the Accelerated

Closure of Serial Production Facilities initiative for Avangard and

Penza–19. The increase of $18,500,000 will fund long-term nonproliferation initiatives for Russia: $15,000,000 for spent fuel dry

storage at Mayak; $500,000 for the plutonium registry at Mayak;

$2,500,000 for geologic repository cooperation research and planning; and $500,000 for research reactor spent fuel acceptance.

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING

The International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting

(MPC&A) activities are designed to work cooperatively with Russia

to protect the direct use of nuclear materials. 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 Soviet security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. The Department

had included funding for this program in Arms Control, but the

Committee has created a separate program for these activities. The Committee recommendation is $169,856,000, an increase of

$20,000,000 over the budget request of $149,856,000. The increase

reflects the amount requested in the long-term nonproliferation

program for Russia for expanded MPC&A activities at Russian

naval sites and plutonium storage at Mayak.

LONG-TERM NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAM FOR RUSSIA

The Department of Energy proposed nine new initiatives to respond to previously recognized, but unaddressed threats to U.S. security. The initiatives are intended to supplement ongoing Department programs with Russia and seek to establish new and accelerated solutions. DOE requested $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 for

these initiatives. The Committee has provided $48,500,000 for

these initiatives, but has transferred the funding to the appropriate

existing programs. The Committee has provided $20,000,000 as requested for the

Russian Naval Sites and the Mayak plutonium storage initiatives

in the International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting

program, and $10,000,000 as requested for accelerating the closure

of serial production facilities, Avangard and Penza–19 in the Arms

Control program. According to a General Accounting Office review

of all nine initiatives, for these three programs, the scope of the

project is defined, Russian commitments are in place, and a spending plan for fiscal year 2001 has been developed.

A review of the remaining initiatives found varying degrees of

scope definition, incomplete or inadequate documentation on how

requested funds will be spent, and lack of a firm commitment by

the Russian Federation to participate in them. In particular, the

$20,000,000 requested for Proliferation Resistant Reactors and
108

Fuels Research Program, and $2,000,000 Situation and Crisis Center appeared to be lacking in all three review categories. As such,

the Committee provides no funding for these initiatives.

The Committee has provided partial funding for the following ini- tiatives in the Arms Control program: $15,000,000 for spent fuel

dry storage at Mayak, a decrease from the budget request of

$38,000,000; $500,000 for the plutonium registry at Mayak, a decrease from the budget request of $2,000,000; $2,500,000 for geologic repository cooperation research and planning, a decrease from

the budget request of $5,000,000; and $500,000 for research reactor

spent fuel acceptance, a decrease from the budget request of

$3,000,000.

HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency implementation program is responsible for ensuring that the nonproliferation

aspects of the February 1993 agreement between the United States

and the Russian Federation are met. This agreement covers the

purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU) derived

from at least 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

purpose of the program is to put into place those measures agreed

to by both sides that permit the U.S. to have confidence that the

Russian side is abiding by the agreement. The Committee recommendation is $15,190,000, the same as the

budget request.

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY

The international nuclear safety program is designed to reduce

the threats posed by the operation of unsafe and aging Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in Russia and the Newly Independent

States. The Committee recommendation for this program is

$20,000,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase of

$5,000,000 over fiscal year 2000.

A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) review of the Department of Energy’s nuclear safety assistance activities ‘‘found that

the Department of Energy had funded several projects that may

have worthwhile objectives but are not directly related to improving the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors and do not meet

the Department’s project selection criteria. For example, environmental centers in Russia and the United States—established by

the Department to address nuclear waste issues—are not directly

related to improving the reactors’ safety. Similarly, GAO questions

whether nine joint research projects being performed at nuclear

safety centers in the United States and Russia are directly improving the safety of currently operating nuclear power plants.’’

The Committee believes the Department needs to focus its efforts

on improving the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors, and

eliminate extraneous projects that do not contribute directly to this

goal. As such, the Committee directs the Department to provide an

annual report showing the status of each of the Soviet-designed reactors, the work to be accomplished, the total estimated cost for

each reactor, the cost of completing the upgrades to each of the re-
109

actors, the schedule by fiscal year for accomplishing this work, and

the cost of each task by fiscal year.

In addition, the report should provide summary tables of total

annual resources expended and planned at each reactor and each

project/activity receiving funding outside explicit reactors for fiscal

years 1993–2005, which total to the annual amount provided and

projected to complete the program. The report should add a strategic plan outlining the most urgent and pressing safety priorities

that remain and need to be addressed in order to close out the program by 2005 within current funding levels.

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 $241,449,000, an increase of $18,014,000 over the budget request of $223,435,000. Funding of $139,517,000, an increase of $4,000,000 over the

budget request, is provided for U.S. surplus materials disposition.

This reflects an increase of $7,000,000 in operating dollars transferred from environmental management to the fissile materials disposition program for the highly enriched uranium blend down facility, and a decrease of $3,000,000 in operating dollars transferred

to the MOX fuel fabrication facility project. The Committee has provided $40,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the Russian plutonium disposition program. Within

this amount $10,000,000, the same as the budget request, is for the

support of the joint U.S./Russian program to develop the GT–MHR

for the purpose of destroying surplus Russian plutonium. The Committee believes that monetary support of other governments is essential to the success of this program.

Report requirement.—The Committee is concerned that the cost

estimate for the fissile materials disposition program has increased

substantially. The estimated cost of the U.S. program is approximately $4,000,000,000, and the estimated cost of the Russian program is now in excess of $2,000,000,000. These estimated costs are

significantly higher than the cost estimates provided to the Committee when the program was initiated. The Committee directs the

Department to provide a detailed report on the full costs of this

program with a cost and schedule baseline by year through completion of the program. The report should also provide detailed information by year on the funding to be contributed by Russia and

other countries in support of this initiative. This report is due to

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February

15, 2001.

The report should also address the Committee’s concerns that the

U.S. program is being conducted at a faster pace than the Russian

program. The design of several expensive new facilities in the

United States is underway while funding for comparable Russian

facilities is still uncertain. The Department should include in the

report the process by which parity between the two countries will

be maintained throughout execution of the program.
110

Construction.—Funding of $20,932,000 for Project 01–D–407, the

highly enriched uranium blend down facility, at the Savannah

River Site has been included in this program. The Department requested funding for this project in the Environmental Management

program, but it is more appropriately funded in the fissile materials disposition program.

The Committee has provided $18,000,000, an increase of

$3,000,000 over the budget request of $15,000,000, for Project 99–

D–143, the MOX fuel fabrication facility project. This funding was

transferred from the operating account.

Program direction.—No program direction funds are provided in

the fissile materials disposition program. Funds for salaries and expenses are included in the overall program direction account for defense nuclear nonproliferation.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation of $51,468,000 for program direction combines the budget request of $41,550,000 for defense nuclear nonproliferation and the request of $9,918,000 for fissile materials disposition.

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $677,600,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 677,600,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 677,600,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

Consistent with the legislation establishing the National Nuclear

Security Administration, the Committee has recommended a separate appropriation account for the Naval Reactors program. The

Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion-from technology development through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. This program provides

for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved

naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are

critical to the continued success of over 99 reactors in operating nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships and to development of

the next generation reactor.

The Committee recommendation is $677,600,000, the same as

the budget request. The Administration has once again under-funded the successful environmental cleanup program being executed

by the Naval Reactors program. The Committee is aware that additional funds could be used to continue test reactor inactivation efforts and preclude inefficiencies due to delaying environmental

cleanup activities that are scheduled to be completed in fiscal year

2002. Unfortunately, the Committee is unable to accommodate this

additional requirement.
111

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $4,467,308,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 4,551,527,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 4,522,707,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +55,399,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥28,820,000

The Environmental Management program is responsible for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites where the

Department carried out nuclear energy or weapons research and

production activities which resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and

mixed waste contamination requiring remediation, stabilization, or

some other type of cleanup action. Environmental management activities are budgeted under the following appropriation accounts:

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure Projects; Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Non-Defense Environmental Management; and

Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation.

Statutory language proposed by the Administration is included

providing that any amounts appropriated for economic assistance

under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act shall

be used to reimburse costs of financial assurances required of a

contractor by the State of New Mexico.

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management is $4,522,707,000, a decrease

of $28,820,000 from the budget request of $4,551,527,000, and

$55,399,000 over fiscal year 2000. Details of the recommended

funding levels follow.

GENERAL

The Committee is concerned that some projects scheduled for

completion by 2006 are slipping. The Department should be very

careful not to underestimate the strong intent of the Committee

that site cleanups remain on schedule for completion by 2006. The

Department must demonstrate that it is capable of completing a

project on schedule and within cost. Problems that arise during the

course of project execution must be dealt with quickly to ensure

project completion.

The Department should also begin to address the next round of

cleanup projects to be completed within ten years. The current emphasis on project closure by 2006 has been very helpful in focusing

the attention of the Department and its contractors on completing

projects on time and within cost. The Committee now believes it is

time to begin the next round of focused site and project cleanups

by 2010 and that particularly the larger cleanup sites should identify discrete projects which can be completed within the next ten

years. The Department is directed to include in the fiscal year 2002

budget submission a program for all sites and projects which can

be completed by 2010. The Department should work with the Committee on the appropriate budget structure.

Purchase of motor vehicles.—The Committee has limited to 30

the number of motor vehicles that can be purchased in fiscal year

2001, a reduction of 37 from the request for 67 new vehicles. An

audit by the Department’s Inspector General of vehicle usage at
112

the Idaho site found that 45 percent of the vehicles were

underused, and the fleet was larger than necessary. Despite this

audit, the Department has requested 62 replacement vehicles for

Idaho. The Department appears to seek replacement of dozens of

vehicles without assessing the actual need and ignoring guidance

from the Inspector General audit reports. The Committee believes

this is unnecessary and directs the Department to review the process used to evaluate the number of motor vehicles needed by field

operations.

Project Changes.—The Department is directed to provide a report

by January 30, 2001, showing the initial funding allocation by site

for each individual project. After that, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must be notified of any change that increases or decreases funding for any project by more than 25 percent. The Department should work with the Committee to establish

the level of detail required in the initial report.

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support

the need for some flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at former defense sites which are undergoing remedial

cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2001, each site manager may

transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program activities such as site/project

completion and post–2006 completion, and 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 after the transfer of funds occurs.

Economic development.—None of the environmental management

funds are available for economic development activities.

National monument designation.—The Committee has provided

no funding for the Department to use for the coordination, integration, or implementation of a management plan or any other activity

related to a national monument designated under the 1906 Antiquities Act in the State of Washington.

SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION

The site/project completion account provides funding for projects

that will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities

where a DOE mission will continue beyond the year 2006. This account focuses management attention on completing specific environmental projects at sites where the Department anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes these projects from the longterm cleanup activities such as those associated with high level

waste streams.

The Committee recommendation for site/project completion activities is $941,711,000 a reduction of $29,240,000 from the budget

request of $970,951,000. Additional funding of $10,000,000 is provided for the H-area stabilization project and $1,000,000 for the Farea stabilization project at the Savannah River Site. These funds

will be used to support stabilization of plutonium materials and

americium/cesium solutions as well as acceleration of authorization
113

basis work. Funding for the Highly Enriched Uranium Blend Down

Project at the Savannah River Site has been transferred to the

Fissile Materials Disposition Program. This included a reduction of

$27,932,000 to Project 01–D–407 and a reduction of $10,000,000 in

operating expenses associated with the project. In addition,

$2,308,000 that was provided for the Idaho validation and

verification program has been transferred to Science and Technology.

POST 2006 COMPLETION

Environmental Management projects currently projected to require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post 2006

completion account. This includes a significant number of projects

at the largest DOE sites—the Hanford site in Washington; the Savannah River site in South Carolina; the Oak Ridge Reservation in

Tennessee; and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory in Idaho—as well as the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Nevada Test Site, and the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. A variety of multi-site activities are also funded in this account.

The Committee recommendation for Post 2006 completion is $3,067,765,000, a reduction of $40,692,000 from the budget request

of $3,108,457,000. Funding requirements for the Savannah River

Site have changed since the budget request was submitted, and the

recommendation makes the following adjustments: an additional

$3,000,000 for transuranic waste activities; an additional

$3,000,000 for low level waste activities; a reduction of $10,000,000

for environmental remediation of the four mile branch project; and

a reduction of $18,000,000 since operation of the Consolidated Incinerator Project will be suspended for an indefinite period. In addition, funding of $18,692,000 for validation and verification activities at Idaho has been transferred to the Science and Technology

program where it has been funded previously.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).—The interim report on ‘‘Improving Operations and Long-Term Safety of the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant’’ by the National Research Council found that the current system for managing transuranic waste does not ‘‘send DOE

TRU waste to WIPP at a minimum risk (from all sources of risk,

including radiological exposure and highway accidents) and cost.’’

The report recommends that the Department review and revise

waste management procedures with reduction of risk and cost as

guiding principles. The Committee expects the Department to respond promptly to the guidance provided in this report. Improving

the safety and cost effectiveness of WIPP operations would offer

great benefits to many of the Department’s cleanup sites.

National Programs.—The Committee is concerned with the fragmentation of funding related to the national programs such as Nuclear Criticality Safety Training, Transportation and Packaging

Management, National Analytical Management, and Pollution Prevention in the budget request. The Department is directed to manage these programs centrally through the multi-site account.

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Contribution.—The Committee

recommendation includes the budget request of $420,000,000 for

the defense contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamina-
114

tion and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in Public Law 102–

486, the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Health Effects Studies.—The Committee recommendation does

not include any funding for worker and public health effects studies.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The Office of Science and Technology conducts a national program that provides a full range of resources and capabilities—from

basic research through development and demonstration, and technical and deployment assistance—that are needed to deliver scientific and technological solutions to cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems. The Committee recommendation

for science and technology is $242,548,000, an increase of

$46,000,000 over the budget of $196,548,000.

Technology Deployment.—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for technology deployment activities in fiscal year 2000

to continue the Department’s efforts to deploy cost-effective new

technologies. The Administration had requested no funding for this

program. Deployment of new technologies is a strategic activity affecting virtually all environmental management programs and sites

and should be strongly supported as a complex-wide program to

help meet compliance agreement milestones within a resource constrained budget. This funding should be used to accelerate the use

of new technologies and leverage funding already available for deployment activities.

The Committee urges the Department to make every effort to

seek alternative cost effective cleanup technologies from outside the

Department in cleaning up its legacy waste. The Committee is

aware that the international agreement with AEA Technology has

been very successful in bringing cheaper and more efficient technologies to the Department’s cleanup problems and urges the Department to renew this agreement. The budget request included

$2,000,000 for this agreement in fiscal year 2001, but the Committee has allocated $4,000,000 from within available funds.

Environmental Management Science Program.—The Committee

is disappointed that the Department was unable to provide funding

for new grants in fiscal year 2001. This is a collaborative program

between the Department’s Office of Environmental Management

and the Office of Energy Research that identifies long-term, basic

science research needs and targets the research and development

toward critical cleanup problems. This program has been given

high marks by the National Research Council and the Department’s Environmental Management Advisory Board. The Committee believes it is critical to provide continuity of funding for this

research program and has provided $10,000,000 for the next round

of new and innovative research grants in fiscal year 2001.

Idaho Validation and Verification Program.—The Committee has

transferred $18,692,000 for the Idaho validation and verification

program from the Post 2006 completion account and $2,308,000

from the site/project completion account to science and technology

where it has been funded in prior years.

Long-Term Stewardship Program.—The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 to support the long-term stewardship pro-
115

gram. No funds were requested by the Administration. This program is required to protect human health and the environment

from hazards remaining after cleanup is complete. Complete restoration to levels acceptable for unrestricted use cannot be accomplished at many sites. Long-term stewardship will be needed to ensure that the selected remedies will remain protective for future

generations.

Oversight of Environmental Management Laboratories.—The Department should ensure that proper management and oversight is

provided for each laboratory reporting to the Office of Environmental Management. This should include a review by the Headquarters’ Office of Environmental Management of all research

projects to assure mission relevancy and compliance with all applicable orders and regulations, as well as a review and evaluation of

the institutional planning process for the program’s national laboratory.

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—The Committee

recommendation includes the use of up to four percent of environmental management funds provided to government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories for Laboratory Directed Research and

Development (LDRD) activities. However, the Department must

ensure proper management and oversight of these funds. These

funds must be applied only to environmental research and will be

selected based on a rigorous proposal and review process to be established by the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. This process must include review and approval by the Headquarters’ Office of Science and Technology to assure all research

projects achieve mission relevancy and scientific merit. The Department is to provide the Committee with a report outlining the review process to be used.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $355,000,000 for program direction,

a decrease of $4,888,000 from the budget request of $359,888,000.

This reduction should be applied to lower priority activities.

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).—

The Committee expects the Department to fulfill its responsibilities

at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial actions to be performed

by the Corps.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management includes two funding adjustments requested in

the budget. Prior year balances of $34,317,000 and a pension refund of $50,000,000 will be used to offset current year funding requirements.

DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $1,060,447,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 1,082,297,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,082,297,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +21,850,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................
116

The Defense Facilities Closure Projects account includes funding

for sites which have established a goal of completing cleanup by

the end of fiscal year 2006. After completion of cleanup, no further

Departmental mission is envisioned, except for limited long-term

surveillance and maintenance, and the sites may be available for

some alternative use. Sites to be completed by 2006 include the

Rocky Flats Closure Project in Colorado, and several sites in

Ohio—Ashtabula, Columbus, Fernald and Miamisburg.

This account is intended to highlight those sites where cleanup

can be accelerated and substantial savings achieved by reducing

long-term program costs and ongoing support costs. The Committee

strongly supports this program, and the recommendation for fiscal

year 2001 funding is $1,082,297,000, the same as the budget request. Funding levels for each of the sites are addressed below.

Rocky Flats Closure Project.—The Department has prepared a

baseline schedule showing closure of the Rocky Flats Site in Colorado by 2006. The Committee is aware that to meet the 2006 deadline, stable funding will be required over several years, and critical

path work activities must be successfully completed, not only at

Rocky Flats, but at other sites throughout the Department’s complex. The Department should ensure that complex-wide funding

issues are addressed as they relate to the closure of the Rocky

Flats Site. It is only through the closure of smaller sites like

Fernald and Rocky Flats that funds will be made available to support expensive future cleanup projects like the vitrification plants

needed at Hanford and Idaho.

The Committee has provided fiscal year 2001 funding of

$664,675,000, the same as the budget request.

Ohio Sites.—The Committee recommendation is $417,622,000 for

the four Ohio sites. Funding for the Ashtabula site which will

achieve complete cleanup by fiscal year 2003 is $16,248,000, the

same as the budget request. The budget request of $94,000 is provided for Ohio Field Office activities.

The Columbus Environmental Management Project consists of

two geographic sites in Columbus, Ohio. Activities at one of the

sites were completed in 1998, and at the remaining site will be

completed by fiscal year 2005. The budget request of $16,134,000

has been provided.

The Fernald site in Ohio has implemented an accelerated cleanup schedule which provides for site closure with the completion of

all currently established in-situ contaminant source remediation

and risk mitigation by fiscal year 2006. Follow-up activities for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 include finalizing treatment and disposal of the silo wastes and structures. The site is currently seeking to complete all of these activities by 2006, and the Committee

strongly supports these efforts. Significant cost savings can be

achieved with early closure. The Committee recommendation for

the Fernald site is $290,793,000, the same as the budget request.

Cleanup at the Miamisburg, Ohio, site is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is concerned that the

cleanup date has slipped from 2005 and expects the Department to

do everything possible to maintain the closure of this site by 2006.

The Committee has made accelerated closure of cleanup sites a
117

very high priority and expects the Department to do the same. The

Committee recommends the budget request of $94,353,000.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $188,282,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 515,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 259,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +70,718,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥256,000,000

The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental

Management Privatization program is $259,000,000, a reduction of

$256,000,000 from the budget request. The recommendation includes a total of $370,000,000 for the Tank Waste Remediation System at Richland—$194,000,000 in new budget authority and the

use of $176,000,000 of previously appropriated funds. The recommendation also includes the budget request of $65,000,000 for

the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at Idaho,

$25,092,000 for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage at Idaho, and the

use of $25,092,000 in prior year balances.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $309,199,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 555,122,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 592,235,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +283,036,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +37,113,000

This account provides funding for Security and Emergency Operations; 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.

SECURITY AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

Security and emergency operations provides a domestic safeguard and security program for protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified

information, including cyber systems, 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 $332,376,000, a reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget request

of $340,376,000.

The Committee recently received a budget amendment to consolidate safeguards and security funding throughout the Department.

However, the amendment was received too late in the process to incorporate all the changes into the Committee’s recommendation.

The Committee will address these changes at a later date in the

appropriations process.

Nuclear Safeguards and Security.—The nuclear safeguards and

security program provides policy, programmatic direction, and

training for the protection of the Department’s nuclear weapons,
118

nuclear materials, classified information, and facilities. The Committee recommendation is $116,409,000, a reduction of $8,000,000

from the budget request of $124,409,000.

The Administration requested $13,000,000 for a greatly expanded critical infrastructure protection program. The recommendation includes $3,000,000, an increase of $600,000 over fiscal year 2000, for this program. The Committee believes that many

of these proposed initiatives are already being funded in other program areas of the Department and urges the Department to coordinate the activities already being performed in areas such as transmission and gas pipeline reliability and infrastructure.

The Committee has included $2,000,000 for procurement of security locks that meet the Federal specifications for containers that

hold sensitive classified material.

Security Investigations.—The security investigations program

funds background investigations for Department of Energy and

contractor personnel who, in the performance of their official duties, require access to restricted data, national security information, or special nuclear material. The Committee recommendation

is $33,000,000, the same as the budget request. In fiscal year 2001

the program organizations which request background investigations for contractors and non-Federal employees will fund the investigations. This will provide a $20,000,000 funding offset to the

budget request of $33,000,000.

Emergency Management.—The Office of Emergency Response ensures that capabilities are in place to provide an appropriate response to any Department of Energy facility emergency and to any

nuclear or radiological emergency within the United States or

abroad. The Committee recommendation is $90,000,000, a reduction of $3,600,000 from the budget request of $93,600,000. This

funding has been transferred to the program direction account. The

Committee commends the program for seeking cost savings and

greater program accountability by converting contractor positions

to Federal employees and encourages the program to continue this

initiative.

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation is

$92,967,000 for program direction, an increase of $3,600,000 over

the budget request. These funds have been transferred from the

emergency management program and will be used to fund Federal

employees to do tasks previously performed by contractor employees.

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

$38,059,000, the same as the budget request.
119

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 $45,200,000, the

same as the budget request.

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 $14,937,000, 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 $103,163,000, a decrease of

$5,887,000 from the budget request, but an increase of $5,163,000

over fiscal year 2000. The Department is directed to fund the requirements of the gaseous diffusion plants within this allocation.

Health Effects Studies.—The recommendation for health effects

studies is $48,632,000, a decrease of $4,324,000 from the budget request, but the same as fiscal year 2000.

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation for pro- gram direction is $22,604,000, the same as the budget request.

WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

The Committee’s recommendation for the worker and community transition program is $24,500,000, the same as the budget request.

The Committee has provided $2,100,000 for infrastructure improvements at the former Pinellas plant. The Committee expects the Department to adequately fund and fulfill the commitment which was

made to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation.

The worker and community transition program was established

to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of contractor

workforce restructuring by providing enhanced severance payments

to employees at defense sites, and assisting community planning

for defense conversion through Federal grants. However, the cost

of this program has not been insignificant. Through fiscal year

1999, enhanced severance payments and benefits have totaled

$817,000,000, and Federal grants to communities have totaled

$220,000,000, for a total cost of $1,037,000,000.

The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for this

program be used for additional severance payments and benefits

for Federal employees.

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $51,000,000 to provide

administrative support for national security programs. This will
120

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. These funds also support the new offices

to be established in the National Nuclear Security Administration.

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 $3,000,000, the same as the budget

request.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation includes an offset of

$20,000,000, the same as the budget request, from user organizations which will fund security investigations through other program accounts.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $111,574,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 112,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 200,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +88,426,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... +88,000,000

Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as

amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for activities

related to disposal of high-level waste generated from the atomic

energy defense activities of the Department of Energy. At the end

of fiscal year 1999, the balance owed by the Federal government to

the Nuclear Waste Fund was approximately $1,500,000,000 (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 1999, a total of $1,176,830,000 has been

appropriated to support the nuclear waste repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense activities. The Committee recommendation is $200,000,000, an increase of

$88,000,000 over the budget request of $112,000,000. The budget

request of $112,000,000 is not sufficient to reduce the outstanding

balance of $1,500,000,000 which is owed for the defense portion of

the repository. Eliminating this outstanding balance will require a

significant increase in the amount paid each year and could require

as much as $500,000,000 annually in future years. Since shipment

of defense high level waste to the repository is contingent upon full

payment of the balance owed at the time the repository is opened,

the Committee believes it is prudent to address this funding shortfall sooner rather than later.

ENERGY EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommendation does not include the Administration’s proposal to establish an account to fund the Energy Em-
121

ployees Compensation Initiative. Legislation establishing this program has not been enacted by Congress.

POWER MARKETING ACTIVITIES

Management of the Federal power marketing functions was

transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of

Energy as directed in the Department of Energy Organization Act

(Public Law 95–91). The functions include power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944

and all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration,

Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, now included in the Western Area Power Administration.

All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are funded annually with appropriated funds. Revenues collected from

power sales and transmission services have been deposited in the

Treasury. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommendation includes the Administration’s proposal to fund purchase power and

wheeling from power revenues for the Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and Western Area

Power Administration.

Bonneville operations are self-financed under authority of Public

Law 93–454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act

of 1974, which authorizes Bonneville to use its revenues to finance

operating costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell

bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital

program requirements.

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s electric power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a

300,000 square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of adjacent

western States in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville

markets hydroelectric power from 29 Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects, as well as thermal energy from nonFederal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also markets

and exchanges surplus electric power inter-regionally over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie with California, and in

Canada over interconnections with utilities in British Columbia.

Bonneville constructs, operates and maintains the Nation’s largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of over 15,000 circuit-miles of transmission line and 324 substations with an installed capacity of 22,500 MW. Public Law 93–454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, placed Bonneville

on a self-financed basis. With the passage in 1980 of Public Law

96–501, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, Bonneville’s responsibilities were expanded to include meeting the net firm load growth of the region, investing in

cost-effective, region-wide energy conservation, and acquiring generating resources to meet these requirements.

Borrowing Authority.—A total of $3,750,000,000 has been made

available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority. Each

year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville
122

plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation for these

borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommendation includes an additional increment of $331,200,000 in

new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for

transmission system construction, power services, conservation and

energy efficiency, and capital equipment programs.

Voluntary Separation Incentives.—The Committee did not include

language proposed by the Administration to extend Bonneville’s

voluntary separation incentives authority until 2005. The Department of Energy has statutory buy-out authority through fiscal year

2003 which can be utilized by Bonneville.

Energy Efficiency Services.—The Committee is concerned that

Bonneville is interpreting certain activities as ‘‘inherently governmental functions’’ to the detriment of the private sector. For purposes of meeting energy efficiency goals, as set by statute or executive order, for any federal agency or department, federal funds may

be used to contract with the private sector. The provision of energy

efficiency products and services to federal agencies or departments

shall not be considered to be an ‘‘inherently governmental function’’

as defined under the Federal Acquisition Inventory Reform Act of

1998. Such declaration of energy efficiency products and services as

an ‘‘inherently governmental function’’ by any federal agency or department would limit that agency’s or department’s ability to contract directly with the private sector for such products and services.

Hydropower Technology.—The Department of Energy has been

funding research and development activities that will provide a biological and engineering basis for a new generation of hydropower

turbines. Successful development will significantly reduce turbineinduced fish mortality. Proof of concept testing of innovative designs selected through a competitive bidding process will be conducted in fiscal year 2001. Federal taxpayers have been funding

this program in prior years, and the Committee recommendation

includes $3,000,000 in the renewable energy technology program to

continue this activity. To reflect the benefits that will accrue to the

region upon successful demonstration of this project, the Committee strongly encourages Bonneville to provide $2,000,000 to support the testing of these turbine designs.

Budget revisions and notification.—The Committee expects Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee of

any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the need for

Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess of such

amounts.

Repayment.—During fiscal year 2001, Bonneville plans to pay

the Treasury $620,000,000, of which $163,000,000 is to repay principal on the Federal investment in these facilities.

Limitation On Direct Loans.—The Committee recommends that

no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2001.
123

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $39,579,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 3,900,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 3,900,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥35,679,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric

power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 southeastern

states. There are 23 projects now in operation with an installed capacity of 3,392 megawatts. Southeastern does not own or operate

any transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program

by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power utilities

in the area. This is accomplished through ‘‘wheeling’’ arrangements

between Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver

specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility for the

wheeling service performed.

The Committee recommendation is $3,900,000, the same as the

budget request. The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal

year 2001 is $39,463,000 which is offset by the use of $1,100,000

in prior year balances and $34,463,000 in offsetting collections. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, customer receipts and net billing will

pay for purchase power, transmission wheeling, and ancillary services. Purchase power and wheeling costs will be offset by receipts

of $34,463,000.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $27,891,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 28,100,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 28,100,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +209,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing agent

for the power generated at Corps of Engineers’ hydroelectric plants

in the six-state area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed capacity of 2,158

megawatts. It operates and maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 46 microwave and VHF radio sites, and 23 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to publicly and

cooperatively owned electric distribution utilities.

The Committee recommendation is $28,100,000, the same as the

budget request. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, Southwestern will

utilize purchase power and wheeling revenues in the amount of

$288,000 to finance purchase power and wheeling expenses previously funded by direct appropriations.
124

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $192,602,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 164,916,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 160,930,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥31,672,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥3,986,000

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the

Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water

Commission. Western operates hydropower generating plants in 15

central and western states encompassing a 1.3 million square-mile

geographic area. Western is also responsible for the operation and

maintenance of 16,854 miles of high-voltage transmission lines

with 260 substations.

Western, through its power marketing program, must secure revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities, and other expenses, in order to repay all of the power investment with interest,

and to repay that portion of the Government’s irrigation and other

non-power investments which are beyond the water users’ repayment capability. Under the Colorado River Basins Power Marketing Fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort

Peck, and Colorado River Storage Facilities, all operation and

maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from revenues.

Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee recommendation is $160,930,000, a reduction of $3,986,000 from the budget request, and a reduction of $31,672,000 from the amount provided in

fiscal year 2000. The use of prior year balances has been increased

by $2,986,000 for a total of $8,969,000. The Committee has recommended $4,036,000 for deposit in the Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation account, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the

budget request.

In fiscal year 2001, revenues collected from purchase power and

wheeling sales will finance annual purchase power and wheeling

activities previously funded by direct appropriations. Purchase

power and wheeling costs will be offset by receipts of $35,500,000.

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $1,309,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 2,670,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 2,670,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +1,361,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operation and Maintenance

Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995. This legislation also directed that the

Fund be administered by the Administrator of the Western Area

Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the United

States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
125

hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams in Texas.

Prior to fiscal year 1996, funds for Falcon and Amistad were included in the appropriations of the Department of State. The Committee recommendation is $2,670,000, the same as the

budget request, and $1,361,000 more than the current fiscal year.

Extensive rehabilitation to protect critical powerhouse structures

will be conducted in fiscal year 2001.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $174,950,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 175,200,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 175,200,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +250,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ ¥$174,950,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... ¥175,200,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... ¥175,200,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥250,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommendation is $175,200,000, the same as

the budget request, and an increase of $250,000 over the current

year. Revenues are established at a rate equal to the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net appropriation of

zero.

The Committee understands that the Commission is establishing

precedent in implementing the stranded cost provisions of Order

888 in the context of ‘‘retail turned wholesale’’ customers. The Committee urges the Commission to stand by its commitment to full

cost recovery and directs that the agency, in this context, use a

methodology that contains a recovery period sufficient to ensure

the recovery of all generating asset investments included in state

approved rates used to serve the departing customers.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs

in Title III are contained in the following table.
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Contract Competition.—Section 301 provides that none of the

funds in this Act may be used to award a management and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using competitive

procedures, or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case

basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. At least 60 days before such action, the Secretary of Energy must submit to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the

Committees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the

waiver. Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract

awarded using competitive procedures.

The Committee’s concerns regarding the Department’s contracting procedures result from the Department’s history of having

management and operating contracts which have never been bid

competitively, in some cases for over four decades. Ensuring competition for these situations in particular, and establishing competition as the norm for the Department’s contracting, is imperative.

However, the Committee is well aware that there may be circumstances where the existing contract has been competed in the

past few years; the existing contractor has been doing a good job;

the mission at a specific site has been scheduled to end in a limited

amount of time; or the time required for a full competitive procurement would result in significant delays to an ongoing project. In

those instances where it is clearly in the taxpayers’ interest, the

Committee would not object to a contract extension.

Use of Standard Contracting Clauses.—Section 302 provides that

none of the funds in this Act may be used to award, amend, or

modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy grants, on a

case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. At least

60 days before such action, the Secretary of Energy must submit

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report

notifying the Committees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the waiver. The Committee directs the Department, as

contracts are awarded or renegotiated, to standardize its contracts

in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.—Section 303 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.

Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.—Section 304

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to augment

the $24,500,000 made available for obligation in this Act for severance payments and other benefits and community assistance

grants authorized under the provisions of section 3161 of the Na-
137

tional Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law

102–484.

Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.—Section 305

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.

Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.—Section 306 permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill.

Laboratory Directed Research and Development.—Section 307

provides that not more than four percent of the funds in this Act

may be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development

(LDRD). The same limitation was enacted in fiscal year 2000. Department of Energy laboratory directors are allowed to take up to

four percent from all operating funding sent the laboratory to use

for research and development of a creative and innovative nature

selected by the director of a laboratory. They have the flexibility to

use this funding with little Congressional oversight. The Committee expects the Department to exert substantial oversight over

the use of these funds.

Contractor Travel.—Section 308 provides that not more than $150,000,000 of the funds provided in this Act for the Department

of Energy are available for reimbursement of contractor travel expenses. Contractor travel funding was limited in fiscal year 2000

to $150,000,000 after a General Accounting Report identified significant travel abuses including one national laboratory that was

averaging over 80 trips a week to Washington. Even with the reduction in funding in fiscal year 2000, data provided through February 2000 on contractor travel indicates that the same weapons

laboratory is still averaging about 70 trips a week to Washington.

The Committee strongly urges the Department to review the need

for this many trips to Washington and ensure that contractor travel for specific program needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex is not being curtailed by excess management trips to Washington.

Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.—Section 309

provides that none of the funds provided 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.

Federal Salaries and Expenses.—Section 310 provides that none

of the funds provided to the Department of Energy’s Working Capital Fund in this or any previous Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Act may be used to pay the salary and expenses of

any United States Government employee. The Committee has

made a strong effort to improve oversight and accountability of

Federal employee costs by requiring the Department to consolidate

all Federal salaries and expenses in separate accounts in the budget. The Committee is concerned that the Department is considering

violating this provision by taxing programs for Federal salaries.

This provision prohibits any taxing of program dollars to pay Federal salaries and expenses.

(139)

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $66,149,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 71,400,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 63,000,000

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥3,149,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥8,400,000

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 recommends $63,000,000, a reduction of $8,400,000 from the budget

request due to funding constraints.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $16,935,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 18,500,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 17,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... 65,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥1,500,000

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.

Consistent with the recommendation in the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee recommends

$17,000,000, a decrease of $1,500,000 from the budget request of

$18,500,000.

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... $30,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥30,000,000
140

The Committee recommends no funding for the proposed Delta

Regional Authority. Congress has not passed legislation authorizing establishment of this new Authority.

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $19,924,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 20,000,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥19,924,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥20,000,000

The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali

Commission in fiscal year 2001.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $464,913,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 481,900,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 481,900,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +16,987,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ ¥$442,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... ¥447,958,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... ¥457,100,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥15,100,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥9,142,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $22,913,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 33,942,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 24,800,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... +1,887,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥9,142,000

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is $481,900,000, the same as the budget request. This amount is offset by revenues of $457,100,000, resulting

in a net appropriation of $24,800,000. The recommendation includes $21,600,000 to be made available from the Nuclear Waste

Fund to support the Department of Energy’s efforts to characterize

Yucca Mountain as a potential site for a permanent nuclear waste

repository. An additional $3,200,000 is made available from the

General Fund for assistance provided to other Federal agencies and

States including the Commission’s work related to the Hanford

Tank Waste Remediation System under development by the Department of Energy.

The Committee congratulates the Commission for issuing the

first license renewal of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. this year.

The Committee notes that the Commission is making many

changes and has responded positively to a number of issues that

Congress has raised over the last few years. The Commissioners in-
141

dividually, and the Commission staff, are to be commended for the

time and effort taken to implement a broad reform agenda.

Extension of authority to collect fees.—The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recover 100 percent of its budget authority,

less the appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the General Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. The Committee

has included a statutory provision providing for a one-year extension of this authorization. The extension of this authority is necessary to provide the resources needed to fund the activities of the

Commission.

Revenues.—The Administration proposed to reduce the fee recovery requirement from 100 percent to 98 percent in fiscal year 2001,

and further decrease the fee by an additional two percent per year

until the fee recovery requirement was reduced to 90 percent in

2005. This proposal addressed fairness and equity concerns relating

to charging NRC licensees for agency expenses which do not provide a direct benefit to them. While the Committee sees the merit

in this proposal, it is a legislative issue which should be addressed

by the authorizing committee. Thus, the Committee has not provided for this reduction in revenues.

Russian programs.—The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has

provided valuable assistance in the U.S. nuclear safety assistance

program for Soviet-designed nuclear power reactors. However, an

April 2000 report by the General Accounting Office found that ‘‘the

lack of coordination and communication between different NRC offices’’, and lack of a coherent planning strategy contributed to large

unobligated balances in the program. The Committee understands

that the Commission has taken steps to consolidate these nuclear

safety assistance activities under one organization. The Committee

emphasizes the need to have a focused approach in mitigating safety issues surrounding the Soviet-designed reactors, in order to accomplish program goals and complete the program in a timely,

cost-effective manner.

Monthly report.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and

regulatory duties.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $5,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 6,200,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 5,500,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ 500,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... ¥700,000

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ $5,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... ¥6,076,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... ¥5,500,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... ¥500,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... 576,000
142

This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector General of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pursuant to law, budget authority appropriated to the Inspector General must be recovered

through the assessment of license and annual fees. Statutory language proposed by the Administration has been included that identifies licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and collections as the source of revenues to be retained and made available until expended. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,500,000, a re- duction of $700,000 from the budget request. However, this is

$500,000 more than the current fiscal year, or a 10 percent increase. The revenue estimate has also been reduced to $5,500,000,

a reduction of $576,000 from the budget request. Pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 2214, this appropriation must be recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees, resulting in a net appropriation of $0.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2000 ............................................................................ ¥$2,589,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ....................................................................... 3,200,000

Recommended, 2001 ........................................................................... 2,700,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2000 .................................................................... 111,000

Budget Estimate, 2001 ............................................................... ¥500,000

The Committee recommendation provides continued funding for

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste

Policy Act Amendments Act of 1987 directs the Board to evaluate

the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Board must

report its findings not less than two times a year to the Congress

and the Secretary of Energy.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,700,000, a reduction of $500,000 from the budget request.
(143)

TITLE V

RESCISSION

INTERIM STORAGE ACTIVITIES

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of

$85,000,000 as proposed by the Administration. In Public Law 104–

46, the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Congress set aside $85,000,000 in the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation account for activities to support

interim storage of civilian spent nuclear fuel. These funds have remained unobligated and are now available to be rescinded.

(145)

TITLE VI

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 601 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 602 requires that American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent practicable.

Drainage of the San Luis Unit.—Section 603 provides language

clarifying the funding requirements for the San Luis Unit.

Extension of Authority for Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Collect Fees and Charges.—Section 604 provides a one-year extension

of the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to collect

fees and charges to offset appropriated funds.

Kyoto Protocol.—Section 605 prohibits the use of funds to take

certain actions for the purpose of implementing, or in contemplation of preparing to implement, the Kyoto Protocol. Although the

agency may under the current prohibition continue to conduct educational seminars and activities, it should ensure balance in those

programs. Balance does not mean merely that there is an acknowledgment of viewpoints different from those of the Administration,

but that qualified representatives of those viewpoints are included

in the programs and in numbers roughly equal to the participants

representing the Administration’s positions. One dissenting voice in

what is otherwise an obviously stacked or biased program does not

constitute balance.

The bill language is intended to prohibit funds provided in this

bill from being used to implement actions called for under the

Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification. The bill language prohibits

the proposing or issuing of rules, regulations, decrees, or orders, for

the purpose of implementing, or in preparation of implementing,

the Kyoto Protocol.

The Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which passed with a vote

of 95–0 in July 1997, remains the clearest statement of the will of

the Senate with regard to the Kyoto Protocol. Through the prohibition contained herein, the Committee is committed to ensuring that

the Administration not implement the Kyoto Protocol without prior

Congressional consent, including approval of any implementing legislation, regulation, programs, or initiatives.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendment.—Section 606

amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by authorizing ap-
146

propriations for fiscal year 2001 and changing the expiration date

to September 30, 2001.
(147)

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 Constitution of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but 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 1

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary .......................................................... 21,743 22,025 21,743 21,933

Mandatory ............................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

1 Includes outlays scored in the House passed FY 2000 supplemental.

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY 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:
148

Millions

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 21,743

Outlays:

2001 ................................................................................................. 13,950

2002 ................................................................................................. 6,678

2003 ................................................................................................. 1,123

2004 ................................................................................................. 9

2005 and beyond ............................................................................. 14

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 .................................................................................... 68

Fiscal year 2001 outlays resulting therefrom ...................................... 12

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 $1,916,000 shall be available for transfer

to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $33,667,000

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; and of which is not to exceed $200,000 for financial

assistance for the preparation of cooperative drought contingency plans under Title II of Public Law 102–250: Provided, That such transfers may be increased or decreased

within the overall appropriations under this heading:

***

Under Title III, Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation:

* * * of which $12,000,000 shall be derived by transfer

from the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund:

***

Under Title, III, General Provisions:

SEC. 306. 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.

Under Title V, Rescissions, Interim Storage Activities:

Of the funds appropriated in Public Law 104–46 for interim storage of nuclear waste, $85,000,000 are transferred to this heading: * * *
149

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:

Rescission Recommended in the Bill

Department or Activity Amount

Department of Energy, Interim Storage Activities ............................. $85,000,000

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) 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 is also included

under General Investigations which provides that the Southwest

Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study in New Mexico shall include

an evaluation of flood damage reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the feasibility analysis bases on certain restrictive policies.

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 provided

under Construction, General earmarking specific amounts for the

San Timoteo Creek, Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Southern and

Eastern Kentucky, and certain elements of the Levisa and Tug

Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River

projects. Language has also been included under Construction,

General directing the Secretary of the Army to proceed with the

Town of Martin, Kentucky, project in accordance with a specific

plan and directing the Secretary of the Army to undertake the

Bowie County Levee, Texas, project in accordance with a specific

plan.

Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,

General, stating the following:

* * * including such sums as may be necessary for the

maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of harbor lines,

and serving essential needs of general commerce and navigation; * * *

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.

Language has been included under the Regulatory Program regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.

Language is included under the Regulatory Program which directs the Corps of Engineers to: (1) revise a cost analysis of modi-
150

fied nationwide permits based on promulgated rules rather than

proposed rules; (2) prepare a plan to manage and reduce backlog

associated with new and replacement permits issued on March 9,

2000, and develop criteria to measure progress in reducing the

backlog; (3) provide quarterly reporting on program performance

based on the above criteria; (4) provide quarterly reporting, on a

one year pilot basis, of all Regulatory Analysis and Management

System data for South Pacific Division; (5) publish in Division Office websites decisions rendered under the administrative appeals

process and allow any appellant to keep a verbatim record of the

appeals conference; and (6) record in its data base the dates of initial permit application or notification.

Language has been included under General Expenses regarding

support of the Coastal Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Water Resources

Support Center 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. 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.

Language has been included under the Revolving Fund which

provides that funds available in the Corps of Engineers Revolving

Fund may be used for the costs of relocating the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers headquarters to office space in the General Accounting Office headquarters building in Washington, D.C.

Language has been included under Administrative Provision providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of motor vehicles.

Language is included under General Provisions in section 101

which extends the authorization for spending Coastal Wetlands

Restoration Trust Fund receipts through fiscal year 2001 and in

section 102 which provides for the transfer of responsibility of local

sponsorship of recreation development at Joe Pool Lake, Texas

from the Trinity River Authority to the City of Grand Prairie,

Texas.

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE 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 are available for financial assistance for the preparation of cooperative

drought emergency plans. Language is included under Water and
151

Related Resources providing that funds may be derived from the

Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established by 16

U.S.C. 460l–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 non-reimbursable basis. Language is included under Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act and increasing the

amount authorized for the Minidoka project in Idaho. Language is

included under Water and Related Resources which provides that

none of the funds appropriated in the Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation for closure of the Auburn Dam diversion tunnel or restoration of the American River channel through the Auburn Dam construction site.

Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation

Loan Program 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 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 provided under General Provisions in section

201 prohibiting the use of funds to purchase or lease water in the

Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad projects in New Mexico unless certain requirements are met and in section 202 authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to assess and collect funds from Central Valley Project water and power contractors and remit the amount collected to the Trinity Public Utilities District.

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Language has been included under Energy Supply providing that

royalties received to compensate the Department of Energy for its

participation in the First-Of-A-Kind-Engineering program shall be

credited to this account.

Language has been included under 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, that within 90 days of completion of the fiscal

year the State and local entities must certify that all funds were

expended for authorized activities, and that none of the funds may

be used to influence legislation pending before Congress or a State

legislature.

Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal making any proceeds and recoveries from the sale of assets estimated

at $1,000,000 available for use in the program.
152

Language has been included under the Departmental Administration account, 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 the Departmental Administration account 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 is included in Weapons Activities and Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation limiting the availability of funds until October 1,

2003.

Language has been included under Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation providing not to exceed $7,000 for official reception

and representation expenses for national security and nonproliferation activities.

Language has been included under Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management providing that amounts appropriated for economic assistance shall be used to the extent necessary to reimburse costs of financial assurances required of a contractor by any permit or license of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

issued by the State of New Mexico.

Language has been included under the Bonneville Power Administration account approving the Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program and the Cour D’Alene Tribe Trout Production facility; providing not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation expenses; and precluding any new direct loan obligations.

Language has been included under Southeastern 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 the Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration account providing $4,036,000 for deposit into the Utah Reclamation mitigation and Conservation Account pursuant to Title IV
153

of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1992, and 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, 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 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

appropriations Acts.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that management and operating contracts must be awarded using competitive procedures unless Congress is notified 60 days in advance.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, requiring 60 days notice to the Committees on Appropriations if the Secretary of Energy awards, amends, or modifies

a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition

Regulation.

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.

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.

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 established in this Act.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, limiting to 4 percent the use of funds for Laboratory Directed Research and Development.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, limiting to no more than $150,000,000 the funds

available for reimbursement of contractor travel expenses.

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, prohibiting the use of Working Capital Funds to

pay the salaries of any United States Government employee.
154

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission providing $15,000 for official representation expenses, and

excluding the costs for regulatory reviews and assistance to other

Federal agencies and States from license fee revenues. 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 the 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.

TITLE VI—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 extent 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 use of funds to determine the point of discharge for the

interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit until development by the

Secretary of Interior and the State of California of a plan to minimize the impact of drainage waters, and directing the Secretary of

Interior to classify the costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup

Program and San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program as reimbursable or nonreimbursable.

Language has been included under General Provisions providing

a one-year extension of the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission to collect fees and charges to offset appropriated funds.

Language has been included under General Provisions providing

that none of the funds shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation or

preparation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Language has been included under General Provisions amending

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 2001 and changing the expiration date to September 30, 2001.

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:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

Department of Energy:

Energy Supply

Non-Defense Environmental Management

Science

Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation
155

Nuclear Waste Disposal

Departmental Administration

Office of the Inspector General

Weapons Activities

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Naval Reactors

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Defense Facilities Closure Projects

Defense Environmental Management Privatization

Other Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Power Marketing Administrations

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Inspector General

The Committee notes that the annual authorizing legislation for

many of these programs is in various stages of the legislative process. It is anticipated these authorizations will be enacted into law

later this year.

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 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 16 U.S.C. 777c(a) as follows:

(a) INITIAL DISTRIBUTION—The Secretary of the Interior shall distribute 18 per centum of each annual appropriation made in accordance with the provisions of section 777b of this title as provided in the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (title III, Public Law 101–646) (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.).

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 777b of this title, such

sums shall remain available to carry out such Act through fiscal

year ø2000¿ 2001.

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 (relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California),

there is authorized to be appropriated not more than $90,000,000

in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, øand

2000¿ 2000, and 2001.

The accompanying bill would amend Section 6101(a)(3) of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended:

Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2214(a)(3)), is amended by striking

‘‘September 30, 1995’’ and inserting ø‘‘September 30, 2000’’¿ ‘‘September 30, 2001.’’

The accompanying bill would amend Section 166 of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6246) as follows:
156

Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years

2000 and 2001 such sums as may be necessary to implement this

part[, to remain available only through March 31, 2000].

The accompanying bill would amend Section 181 of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6251) as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, all authority

under any provision of this subchapter and any rule, regulation, or

order issued pursuant to such authority, shall expire at midnight,

[March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001, but such expiration shall not

affect any action or pending proceedings, civil or criminal, not finally determined on such date, nor any action or proceeding based

upon any act committed prior to midnight, [March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001. The accompanying bill would amend Section 281 of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6285) as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, all authority

under any provision of this subchapter and any rule, regulation, or

order issued pursuant to such authority, shall expire at midnight,

[March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001, but such expiration shall not

affect any action or pending proceedings, civil or criminal, not finally determined on such date, nor any action or proceeding based

upon any act committed prior to midnight, [March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001.
157

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule XIII 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:

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: June 20, 2000.

Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,

FY 2001.

Motion by: Mr. Visclosky.

Description of motion: To perfect an amendment offered by Mr.

Packard requiring Corps of Engineers Divisions to publish on

websites all findings, rulings, decisions, and opinions rendered

under the administrative appeals process by striking ‘‘findings, rulings, decisions, and opinions rendered’’ and inserting ‘‘key summary data and final appeal decision documents’’.

Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 32 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Dicks Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Dixon Mr. Boyd

Mr. Farr Mr. Callahan

Mr. Forbes Mr. Cramer

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Dickey

Mr. Jackson Mr. Edwards

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Frelinghuysen

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Goode

Mrs. Lowey Ms. Granger

Mrs. Meek Mr. Hobson

Mr. Moran Mr. Kingston

Mr. Murtha Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Obey Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Olver Mr. Latham

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Lewis

Mr. Price Mr. Miller

Mr. Sabo Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Serrano Mr. Packard

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Pastor

Mr. Porter

Mr. Regula

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young
158

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule XIII 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:

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: June 20, 2000.

Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,

FY 2001.

Motion by: Mr. Visclosky.

Description of motion: To replace language in the Committee report regarding the Kyoto Protocol with new report language.

Results: Rejected 27 yeas to 28 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan

Mr. Dicks Mr. Dickey

Mr. Dixon Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Edwards Mr. Goode

Mr. Farr Ms. Granger

Mr. Forbes Mr. Kingston

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Jackson Mr. Latham

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Lewis

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Miller

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Nethercutt

Mrs. Meek Mrs. Northup

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Packard

Mr. Moran Mr. Peterson

Mr. Murtha Mr. Regula

Mr. Obey Mr. Rogers

Mr. Olver Mr. Skeen

Mr. Pastor Mr. Sununu

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Taylor

Mr. Porter Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Price Mr. Walsh

Mr. Sabo Mr. Wamp

Mr. Serrano Mr. Wicker

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young
159

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule XIII 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:

ROLLCALL NO. 3

Date: June 20, 2000.

Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,

FY 2001.

Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.

Description of motion: To increase the amount appropriated for

renewable energy programs by $106,000,000.

Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 32 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan

Mr. Dicks Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Edwards Mr. DeLay

Mr. Farr Mr. Dickey

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode

Mr. Jackson Ms. Granger

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Hobson

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg

Mrs. Meek Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Moran Mr. Latham

Mr. Obey Mr. Lewis

Mr. Olver Mr. Miller

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Price Mrs. Northup

Mr. Sabo Mr. Packard

Mr. Serrano Mr. Peterson

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Porter

Mr. Regula

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young
160
161
162
163
164
165
(166)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY AND

HON. DAVID R. OBEY

We submit these additional views on the bill as reported by the

Committee on Appropriations. The bill includes substantial funding

for programs, projects, and initiatives within the Department of

Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While the bill maintains the status quo related to these two agencies of the federal

government, it fails to address the fundamental problem of continued under-investment of federal resources in science research and

physical infrastructure. These two areas are suffering considerably

after years of constrained budget levels.

Particular concern must be given to the failure of the Congress

and the Administration to provide new resources to the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. For example, in the thirty years from the mid1960s to the late 1990s, the average annual funding (in 1999 dollars) for the general construction account in the bill has eroded in

value from $5.5 billion to $1.4 billion. Since 1965, the civil works

budget has continually become a smaller percentage of both the

total federal budget and the Gross Domestic Product. Since 1955,

civil works appropriations have not exceeded 1.1 percent of the

budget. Today, they represent about 0.2 percent of all federal outlays.

As Corps spending power has fallen, Congress has authorized billions of dollars in new projects that have not been funded through

the appropriations process. Administration officials testified earlier

this year that $30 billion in authorized water projects were on the

books waiting for funding. These projects, if funded by the government, would return two dollars in new benefits for each dollar expended constructing the project. We are also slipping behind maintaining our aging water infrastructure. The Corps estimates that

the backlog of critical deferred maintenance at Corps facilities is

expected to grow to $450 million in fiscal year 2001.

We are extremely concerned about the ongoing efforts to hamstring the Corps of Engineers regulatory program. On June 7,

2000, the Corps of Engineers made effective new nationwide permits designed to ensure that federal regulations are in compliance

with the statutory requirements of the Clean Water Act. These new

permits have been criticized by some in the regulated community

as possibly extending the timeline for permit approvals by the

Corps. Given that concern, we fail to see the reason the majority

refused to include the funding the Corps needs to prevent additional delays in permit approval timelines. The Corps testified that

it needed an additional $6 million over the budget request to prevent any delay in permit approval timelines. The majority did not

include this funding.

In addition, the majority has included several new legislative

provisions (unfunded mandates) directing the Corps to change a
167

number of its policies and procedures. Although we are greatly concerned about how these new mandates will affect Corps personnel

and workload, we are particularly upset about language in the bill

arbitrarily ordering the Corps to recalculate the way in which permit approval timelines are calculated. The bill proposes to change

the date on which a permit application is considered filed with the

government, from the day in which all aspects of the application

are fully completed, to the day when a first-draft application is initially sent to the Corps.

This provision will artificially cause it to appear that the length

of time a permit application is awaiting approval from the government has substantially increased overnight. We would not be surprised if members of the regulated community at some future date

attempt to argue that the new nationwide permits are responsible

for statistically higher permit approval timelines. The simple fact

is that if Congress (1) arbitrarily changes the date permit applications are considered to be in the system; (2) refuses to fully fund

the regulatory program at the needed level; and (3) imposes new

unfunded mandates on regulatory staff, then permit approval

timelines will inevitably lengthen. The problem will not be the new

nationwide permits but rather the failure of Congress to help the

Corps regulatory staff do its job and the statutory language artificially changing the way timelines are calculated.

During full committee consideration of the bill, the majority offered an amendment, (Roll Call No. 1), to improve bill language

proposed by the majority imposing a new mandate on the Corps

regulatory program. The fact that the amendment was rejected

demonstrates to us that the majority is more interested in imposing new burdens on the Corps than solving the problem of wetlands

destruction in the United States.

The bill also contains inadequate funding levels for basic science

research and an anti-environmental rider related to the Kyoto Protocol. An amendment (Roll Call No. 2) was offered to strike language in the report that the minority considered too restrictive on

the ability of the government to implement programs and initiatives authorized under current U.S. laws. The escalating emission

of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is an environmental issue

that demands federal involvement. The language in the report to

which we object would instruct the Department of Energy to refrain from working on any authorized programs or initiatives designed to improve our environment or reduce greenhouse gas emissions if similar measures or methods are called for in any Kyoto

Protocol document. The report language is not acceptable to the minority.

The funding levels for basic science research are inadequate to

advance scientific endeavors in which the government should be investing. In particular, nanotechnology research (the manipulation

of matter on the atomic and molecular levels) represents a highpayoff field with potential benefits rivaling those of the integrated

circuit chip. The bill fails to support the President’s budget request

for nanotechnology, advanced supercomputer research, spallation

neutron source, renewable energy research, and other important

scientific initiatives.
168

We would also note our continued opposition to the unrealistic

and inadequate Congressional Budget Resolution and the 302(b) allocations provided to the committee. The funding levels contained

in the bill do not provide the appropriate level of investment needed for the critical national programs encompassed in the bill.

PETER J. VISCLOSKY.

DAVE OBEY.
(169)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID OBEY, HON. MARCY

KAPTUR, AND HON. CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK

Despite the best efforts of the Energy and Water Subcommittee

Chairman and Members to put together a bipartisan bill reflecting

the priorities of the nation as a whole, the fiscal year 2001 Energy

and Water Development appropriations bill is yet another exercise

in missed opportunities. At its best, it is the Majority Party’s latest

effort to cover the demands of national priorities with a fig leaf of

budget allocation—some items are indeed covered, but there are

still serious gaps. At its worst, it takes an inside-the-beltway perspective on vital issues, failing to address real-world concerns that

will have to be dealt with before the bill is signed into law. Two

critical concerns that are largely unaddressed in this bill are the

soaring fuel prices in the Midwest and the low water levels along

the Great Lakes.

Asleep at the pump on gas prices

The price of gasoline remains high around the country, and especially in the Midwest. It has topped $2 per gallon in many places,

and everyone is looking for answers. The national average price for

gas this week is $1.68 per gallon, up 5 cents from the previous

week. While the Federal government has launched an investigation

through the Federal Trade Commission in hopes of uncovering the

answer to what is behind the soaring prices, there is still no question that the Republican-led Congress fails to adequately address

the roots of the gasoline price problem. While there is no instant

relief that this Committee can provide, the failure of the Majority

party in this Congress to make even a minimal effort to deal with

the issue borders on gross negligence. When oil prices plunged to $8–$10 per barrel in March 1999, the

Republicans took little action to protect domestic oil producers.

When gas prices across the nation neared $1 per gallon, the Majority party leadership, including members of the Appropriations committee started a push to eliminate the Energy Department entirely.

They ignored efforts by Members to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with oil from struggling domestic producers, and

twiddled their thumbs while OPEC chose to cut production to boost

prices. Had they acted, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could have

115 million more barrels of oil, and we might have a healthier domestic oil industry, but they were asleep at the pump.

The Majority didn’t do much of anything until March 2000, when

the price had risen to such levels that they decided that political

points could be scored by attacking the Administration for a pennies-on-the-gallon tax that funds highway safety programs. However, lobbying by the Administration helped produce an increase in

production by OPEC countries, political opportunity subsided, and

now they have nodded off again.
170

The reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve itself

gained much attention during that time, and the House managed

to pass a bill by a large margin to reauthorize the Reserve. Once

the political heat subsided slightly, the leadership lost interest,

however, and while they dozed, the House-passed bill became tied

up in political gamesmanship. Fortunately, the Appropriations

Committee has now given them another opportunity to deal with

this issue by approving (by voice vote) an amendment by Ms. Kilpatrick and Ms. Kaptur to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on this bill.

Awakened once again by the prospect of political gain, the Majority has been too busy pointing fingers to address the long-term solution to this problem. The Republicans blast the Administration

for failing to have an energy policy, yet have systematically shut

down Administration initiatives to fund energy research efforts

that could help in finding a solution to this problem. This bill is

$106 million short of the President’s request in solar and renewable energy research, stifling hope for developing marketable solutions to what promises to be a perennial problem.

During consideration of this bill at Full Committee, Ms. Kaptur

offered an amendment (Roll Call No. 3) to restore the line for Solar

and Renewable Energy Research to the level requested in the

President’s budget. The amendment, which was rejected by the

Committee on a party line vote, would have solved a problem,

which is not unique to this bill. The House has just passed the VA/

HUD appropriations bill, which slashes the President’s budget request for the National Science Foundation by a half billion dollars.

Floor action on the Interior bill made a bad situation worse, by

leaving the bill $100 million below last year’s level on energy efficiency research and over $200 million below the President’s request. The debate in the full Committee markup of the bill featured

Majority party members reassuring us that there was support for

these programs in other bills, but the actions of the Majority have

ensured that no such support is available. As a result any light at

the end of the tunnel that represents a way out of this situation

has been pushed that much further out of reach.

The Department of Energy and EPA have written the Federal

Trade Commission, asking them to look into whether price gouging

is taking place in the Upper Midwest, and people talk about pipeline problems and reformulated gas adding to prices. But these elements do not make up the crux of the problem—the problem is that

we are over-reliant on imported petroleum to power our economy,

and the big oil companies know it.

The Appropriations Committee does not have the ability or the

desire to set fuel prices, but we should have the good sense to support research into ways to avoid the kind of shocks high fuel prices

can deliver to the economy, by encouraging the development of alternative energy sources.

Great Lakes water levels

Just as the Majority has failed to recognize the impact of their

ongoing neglect of sound energy policy, the Committee bill fails to

reflect the growing crisis on the Great Lakes regarding the impact
171

of falling water levels on the environment and on Great Lakes

shipping.

The historic plunge in Great Lakes water levels over the course

of the last year has left the Army Corps of Engineers struggling to

cope with one of their core tasks: maintaining the shipping channels. Maintenance of shipping channels in the Great Lakes is conducted with an assumption that Lake levels will not sink below a

certain point, but on several Lakes, the lake levels are forecast to

go below this threshold or to come dangerously close.

The decreasing water levels are resulting in higher demand by

the Corps for dredging services, additional needs for disposal areas

for dredge spoils, and an increase in the cost of fulfilling of those

contracts. The Corps will require additional resources to meet the

needs of the Great Lakes community. Given that navigation on the

Lakes by large vessels has a small margin for error, and the increasing difficulty of getting ships into port, especially along the

upper Lakes, the economic health of many of the port cities along

the shores of the Lakes is threatened. The light loading demanded

by shallower navigation channels puts a further strain on the economics of ship traffic.

As the Corps works to maintain the Great Lakes availability for

shipping, they will also be called on to be sensitive to possible environmental impacts of vessel operations on the Great Lakes with

significantly lower levels, as well as those of deeper dredging in

certain areas. The Great Lakes represent a unique freshwater ecosystem as well as a transportation resource, and the Corps should

be funded at a level so that Great Lakes operations are reflective

of both the Corps environmental and transportation missions.

The Committee has tried to deal with the many demands placed

upon it, that could never otherwise be met under the existing allocation, by sticking closely to a series of rules that have helped them

be fair in allocation of resources to projects. While this may be the

right thing to do under these circumstances, it is the circumstances

themselves—the Majority’s slavish devotion to a tax cut for the

wealthy and the resultant discretionary spending allocations—that

are unacceptable. These shortcomings must be addressed before

this bill becomes law.

Conclusion

The fundamental problem with the process we are going through

this year is that the Majority is too wrapped up in their game of

budgetary hopscotch to move ahead on issues that are national priorities. By leaving these issues aside in the pursuit of tax cuts for

the wealthiest two percent of America, the Majority is threatening

to simultaneously leave the economy on an empty tank and in

some parts of the country, literally on the rocks.

DAVE OBEY.

MARCY KAPTUR.

CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK.

Æ