```

[House Report 106-693]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

                              R E P O R T

                             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
        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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    2001 recommendation compared with--
                                                             2000            2001 estimate           2001        ---------------------------------------
                                                                                                recommendation    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)         59,907,000
Title 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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              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.
                                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 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:

    Coosa River, Alabama and Georgia.--The Committee has 
provided $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 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.
    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 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.
    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.
    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.
    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 
engineering 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 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 
Research 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:

    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 Committee 
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 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 
provided $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 
provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Larose to Golden 
Meadow hurricane protection project. The Committee recognizes 
the life-threatening 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 
construction 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 
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; $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 
provided $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 restoration 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 Alhambra 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 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 well-being 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 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:

    Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee and Kentucky.--The Committee has 
provided 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 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:

    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 Colorado 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.
    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.
    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.
    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 
appropriation 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 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.

                           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.
                                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:

    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 
$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 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:

                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 Bay-Delta 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 watershed 
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.
                               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 
reduced 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 laboratories 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.
    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 Department 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 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 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.

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 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 
infrastructure 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 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 non-Federal 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.

                  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 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); 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 conducted 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.

                 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.
    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.

                         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 program. 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 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.
    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.

                           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 environmental 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.
    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 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 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-the-ground 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. 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 
weapons-usable fissile materials; establishing transparent and 
irreversible nuclear reductions; and controlling nuclear 
exports. The Committee has moved the International Materials 
Protection, Accounting, and Control program from arms control 
and has established a stand-alone 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 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 initiatives 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 reactors, 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 long-term 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.
    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.

         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 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 long-term 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 F-area 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 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 
Decontamination 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 
program. 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.............................  ................

    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 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, 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.

                     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 
program 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 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 Employees 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 non-Federal 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 
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 turbine-induced 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.

      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.

 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 
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.

                           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 National 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.
                                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 Co-Chairman 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

    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 
individually, 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

    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 
reduction 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.
                                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.
                                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 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 and changing the expiration 
date to September 30, 2001.
              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                            Budget
                                                 authority         Outlays         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:
                                                                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: * * *

                              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 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.
    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 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.
    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 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.

                     Title IV--Independent Agencies

    Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission 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
        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 [2000] 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, [and 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 [``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:
    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.
                          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
                          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
                          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
                                    
                                    

   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 mid-1960s 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 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 high-payoff 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.
    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.

   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.
    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 situationhas 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 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.

                                  

```