73–372

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–112

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS

BILL, 2002

JUNE 26, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. CALLAHAN, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2311]

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, 2002, and for other purposes.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

Page Number

Bill Report

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 3

I. Department of Defense—Civil:

Corps of Engineers—Civil:

Introduction .................................................................................. 2 5

General investigations ................................................................. 2 6

Construction, general .................................................................. 3 33

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

Tennessee .................................................................................. 6 50

Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 7 55

Regulatory program ..................................................................... 8 76

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 8 76

General expenses ......................................................................... 9 77

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

General provisions ....................................................................... 10 78

II. Department of the Interior:

Central Utah Project completion account ......................................... 12 79

Bureau of Reclamation:

2

Page Number

Bill Report

Water and related resources ....................................................... 13 79

Bureau of Reclamation loan program account .......................... 14 90

Central Valley Project restoration fund ..................................... 15 92

California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration .............................. ........ 92

Policy and administration ........................................................... 15 93

Administrative provision ............................................................. 16 ...........

General provisions ....................................................................... 16 93

III. Department of Energy:

Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 95

Energy supply ...................................................................................... 17 101

Non-defense environmental management ......................................... 18 109

Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ............................ 18 111

Science ................................................................................................. 19 112

Nuclear waste disposal ....................................................................... 19 117

Departmental administration ............................................................ 21 120

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 22 122

Atomic energy defense activities:

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons activities ....................................................................... 22 123

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ............................................... 23 127

Naval reactors .............................................................................. 23 133

Office of the administrator .......................................................... 24 134

Environmental and Other Defense Activities:

Defense environmental restoration and waste management ... 24 134

Defense facilities closure projects ............................................... 25 140

Defense environmental management privatization .................. 25 142

Other defense activities ............................................................... 25 142

Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................. 26 147

Power marketing administrations:

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 26 148

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 26 149

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 27 149

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 28 150

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............. 29 150

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 29 151

General provisions .............................................................................. 30 164

IV. Independent agencies:

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 34 169

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 35 169

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... ........ 169

Denali Commission ............................................................................. ........ 170

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 35 170

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 36 171

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 37 172

V. General provisions ................................................................................. 37 173

House reporting requirements .................................................................. ........ 175

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2002. The

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2001 the

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal

year 2002.

3

[Dollars in thousands]

2001 2002 estimate

2002 recommendation compared with—

2002 recommenda- tion 2001 appropriation 2002 estimate

Title I—Department of Defense—Civil .... $4,541,065 $3,900,000 $4,468,233 ($72,832) $568,233

Title II—Department of the Interior ............... 816,637 819,727 842,890 26,253 23,163

Title III—Department of Energy 18,475,148 18,106,554 18,747,360 272,212 640,806

Title IV—Independent Agencies ................. 171,474 181,721 136,517 (34,957) (45,204)

Title V—Rescissions ............... (172,000) ............................. ............................. 172,000 .............................

Title VI—Emergency Supplemental ............. 213,988 ............................. ............................. (213,988) .............................

Subtotal .......... 24,046,312 23,008,002 24,195,000 148,688 1,186,998

Scorekeeping adjustments ........ (489,982) (491,000) (491,000) (1,018) .............................

Grand Total of

bill .............. 23,556,330 22,517,002 23,704,000 147,670 1,186,998

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal

year 2002 totals $23,704,000,000, which is $147,670,000 above the

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001, and $1,186,998,000 above

the President’s budget request. Under constrained funding conditions, the Committee has given priority to maintaining the existing

inventory of Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation water

resources projects; continuing construction of ongoing water resources projects to avoid increased costs from stretching out project

schedules; protecting basic science programs at the Department of

Energy; investing in new energy technologies; providing sufficient

funds for the Secretary of Energy to make a recommendation on

the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository for the nation’s

nuclear waste; maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile;

and providing for cleanup of contaminated Department of Energy

sites.

There has been much interest in how this bill would address the

Nation’s energy shortages. The Committee wishes to emphasize

that the Department of Energy’s energy technology programs are

not designed to provide immediate relief for the energy crisis. Instead, the energy technology programs consist primarily of research

and development into technologies such as renewable energy which

are intended to provide long-term solutions to the nation’s energy

needs. Near-term deployment of available energy technologies is

best accomplished through incentives other than appropriations.

The National Energy Policy directed the appropriate Federal

agencies to take actions to remove constraints on the interstate

transmission grid and to allow our nation’s electricity supply to

meet the growing needs of the economy. The Secretary of Energy

was directed to examine the benefits of establishing a national

4

grid, identify transmission bottlenecks, and identify measures to

remove transmission bottlenecks. The Committee expects to address these issues throughout the appropriations process as information becomes available on possible remedies requiring Congressional appropriations action. Title I of the bill provides $4,468,233,000 for the programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $72,832,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $568,233,000 over the budget request of

$3,900,000,000. The Committee has maintained nearly level funding for the civil works program despite budgetary constraints. By

concentrating resources on traditional missions such as flood control and navigation which yield the greatest economic benefits for

the nation, the Committee seeks to ensure the highest possible payback on taxpayer investment. The Committee has generally been

unable to provide funds for new construction projects within the

water resources programs of the Corps of Engineers. Title II provides $842,890,000 for the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $26,253,000 over fiscal

year 2001 and $23,163,000 over the budget request of

$819,727,000. The Committee has not provided funding for the

California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending

the enactment of authorizing legislation. Title III provides $18,747,360,000 for the Department of Energy, an increase of $272,212,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $640,806,000

over the budget request of $18,106,554,000. The Committee has

provided additional funding for energy technology, environmental

cleanup, and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Basic research

and science programs are supported at a level consistent with fiscal

year 2001. In addition, $7 billion is provided for environmental

cleanup programs to remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout the nation, and $443 million is provided for

the nuclear waste fund program in support of a final geologic repository for spent fuel high-level nuclear waste.

Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which

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

$6,667,274,000, an increase of $90,225,000 over fiscal year 2001

and a decrease of $109,496,000 from the budget request.

Title IV provides $136,517,000 for several Independent Agencies,

a decrease of $34,957,000 from fiscal year 2001 and a decrease of

$45,204,000 below the budget request of $181,720,000. Funding is

provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

its Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board.

(5)

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Committee is very concerned about the level of funding requested by the Administration for the water resources programs of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The amount requested by the

Administration is about $640 million below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001. At the level of funding recommended

by the Administration, ongoing construction projects would have

been funded at an average of only 57% of their capability, with the

result being that $5.8 billion in benefits would be forgone due to

delayed completion dates. In addition, $500 million in increased

costs would be incurred for these projects due to stretched out completion schedules.

The Committee understands that the new Administration did not

have time to fully analyze the importance of the Corps of Engineers’ missions to the economic well-being of the Nation. Here are

some examples of that importance. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for constructing and maintaining the Nation’s ports and

waterways. In 1999, about 2.3 billion tons of commerce moved

through and on those ports and waterways. The value of the foreign commerce handled at ports is about $672 billion. The Federal

taxes generated by waterborne commerce at ports is $150 billion

per year. Those ports also generate about 13 million jobs. In the

area of flood control, Corps projects have prevented an annual average of over $20 billion in damages between 1991 and 2000. Since

1928, Corps of Engineers flood control projects have prevented almost $6.00 for each dollar expended. The Corps of Engineers operates 75 hydroelectric power projects, which have an installed generating capacity of 20,720 megawatts. These plants provide 24% of

the Nation’s hydropower output and 3% of total U.S. generating capacity. Even though the Corps does not construct projects for the

sole purpose of recreation, recreation at Corps projects also contributes significantly to the Nation’s economy. About 10% of the U.S.

population visits at least one Corps project each year and those

visitors spend $15 billion per year. That visitation supports about

600,000 full- and part-time jobs.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended $4,328,233,000 for the Civil Works functions of the Corps of Engineers, $568,233,000 over the amount requested by the Administration (the total amount of $4,468,233,000 recommended for the

Corps of Engineers includes $140,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized

6

Sites Remedial Action Program). Even at this level, the Committee’s recommendation includes no new construction starts, and

many ongoing projects are funded well below their optimum levels.

In the last year, the Corps of Engineers has received a significant amount of external criticism, most of it centered around an

ongoing study, for which the Corps has never made a recommendation, of the need to expand the navigation capacity of the upper

Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. The Committee believes

that that study was poorly managed by the Corps of Engineers;

however, the National Academy of Sciences has found that the

Corps’ officers who questioned the preliminary results of the study

were completely justified in doing so since those preliminary results were based on a seriously flawed model. It is unfortunate that

the Army Inspector General did not have the benefit of the National Academy’s work before it issued a report critical of those officers. The other major area of criticism leveled at the Corps was

that it was secretly trying to grow its program. The Committee

finds this criticism to be somewhat absurd. The Corps currently

has a backlog on active projects of $40 billion. The Corps has plenty of work to keep it busy for years to come even if Congress enacts

no new project authorizations, which is highly unlikely. The Committee believes that it is the American people, who have recognized

the need for increased investment in water resources, who have

been attempting to expand the Corps’ programs.

Some have also criticized the Corps for not being ‘‘green’’ enough when, in fact, the Corps has requested over $300 million for construction of projects it categorizes as ‘‘environmental’’ and 36% of

its ongoing studies have environmental restoration as their primary purpose. Some think the Corps has become too ‘‘green.’’ The

Committee fully supports the environmental restoration efforts

being undertaken by the Corps, but urges it to maintain a balance

in its work and not lose sight of its traditional missions of navigation and flood control, which are so important to the Nation’s economy.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $160,584,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 130,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 163,260,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,676,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +33,260,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

False Pass Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee has provided $313,000 for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate completion of

plans and specifications for the False Pass Harbor, Alaska, project.

Colonias Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, Arizona.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate

detailed design and plans and specifications for a wastewater treatment facility and distribution system in the City of Marana, Pima

County, Arizona.

Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.—The bill includes $410,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction engineering

and design for the Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona, project.

Va Shly-Ah Akimel Salt River Restoration Project, Arizona.—The

Committee has provided an additional $300,000 for the Va Shly-Ah

Akimel Salt River Restoration Project in Arizona to advance completion of the study by one year.

Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to update the design for the

Pine Mountain Dam project in Arkansas.

White River Navigation, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided $169,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the ongoing studies for the White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas, project.

Arroyo Seco Watershed, California.—The Committee has pro- vided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate non-structural flood control management, opportunities for water quality improvement, and habitat restoration in the Arroyo Seco Watershed.

City of San Bernardino, California.—The bill includes $250,000

for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a feasibility study of flooding

problems and environmental restoration opportunities in the City

of San Bernardino, California.

City of Santa Clarita, California.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of engineers to undertake a reconnaissance

study of flood control improvements and environmental restoration

opportunities in the City of Santa Clarita, California.

Coast of California, Los Angeles, County, California.—The Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility phase of the study of long-term shoreline

changes, as well as coastal processes information needed to plan

and design future shore protection projects.

Huntington Beach, Coastal Bluff Erosion, California.—The bill

includes $400,000 for preconstruction engineering and design for a

project to correct a serious erosion problem of the coastal bluff adjacent to the Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach, California.

Murrieta Creek, California.—The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to proceed with the Murrieta Creek, California, project in accordance

with the cost sharing established for the project in Public Law 106–

377.

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

Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

complete monitoring studies to secure a permanent designation of

the LA–3 Ocean Disposal Site.

Regional Conservation/Conjunctive Use Project, California.—The

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

28

complete the reconnaissance and feasibility studies for the regional

water conservation and recycling project within Placer County, El

Dorado County, and the service area of the San Juan Water District.

Riverside County Special Area Management Plan, California.— The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers

to continue work on Special Area Management Plans for the San

Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds.

Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control Project, California.—The

Committee has included language in the bill which directs the

Corps of Engineers to use the feasibility report prepared under the

authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, as the basis for the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood Control

Project in Butte County, California, and has provided $200,000 for

preconstruction engineering and design of the project.

San Diego County Special Area Management Plan, California.— The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for completion of the Otay

River Watershed Special Area Management Plan and initiation of

the San Luis Rey River Watershed plan.

San Diego County Shoreline, California.—The Committee has

provided $750,000 to continue the study of the erosion of the City

of Oceanside’s beaches.

Santa Ana River and Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, California.— The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake

a reconnaissance study of environmental restoration, water quality,

and related issues at Big Bear Lake, California.

Santa Barbara and Ventura County Shoreline, California.—The

Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of shoreline erosion problems in

Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.

Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.—The Committee has

provided $175,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the Fountain

Creek and Tributaries study. The Committee recommends that the

Corps of Engineers include erosion and sedimentation as a project

purpose equal in priority to that of flood damage reduction and environmental restoration along Fountain Creek north of Pueblo, Colorado.

Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick

Island, Delaware.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Fenwick Island, Delaware, project.

Egmont Key Shoreline, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to study alternatives for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key. Florida.

Hillsborough River, Florida.—The bill includes $375,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to continue the study of water conservation,

water supply, environmental restoration, and other related problems in the Hillsborough and Withlacoochee River Basins.

New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia.—The Committee

has provided $800,000 for preconstruction engineering and design

of the project to rehabilitate the New Savannah Bluff Lock and

Dam in preparation for transferring the project to the City of North

Augusta and Aiken County, South Carolina.

29

Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois.—The bill includes $250,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications for the

Illinois Beach State Park between Waukegan and Zion, Illinois.

Illinois River Basin Restoration, Illinois.—The Committee has

provided $2,000,000 for the Corps Engineers to initiate development of a comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Illinois

River Basin.

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Study, Illinois, Iowa,

Missouri, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.—The bill includes $1,000,000

for the Corps of Engineers to prepare the Upper Mississippi River

Comprehensive Plan in accordance with section 459 of the Water

Resources Development Act of 1999.

Indiana Harbor, Indiana.—The Committee has provided an addi- tional $250,000 to accelerate work on the Indiana Harbor, Indiana,

feasibility study.

Fort Dodge, Iowa.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of enhancement of the Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, Iowa.

North Fork Licking River, Kentucky.—The Committee has pro- vided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flood control, water

supply, and recreation at North Fork Lake in Bracken, Robertson,

and Mason Counties, Kentucky.

West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.—The Committee has pro- vided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake an expedited study of waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration,

and enhancements of the Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project, and, if justified, proceed directly to

preconstruction engineering and design, as authorized by section

517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

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 included report language on this issue last year, but understands that it remains unresolved. The Committee understands

that the delay in resolving this issue could result in the delay of

flood protection for citizens in St. John the Baptist Parish and directs the Crops of Engineers to make immediate resolution of this

issue a top priority.

Muddy River, Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility study and initiate and complete

preconstruction engineering and design for the Muddy River,

Brookline, and Boston, Massachusetts, project.

Cass River, Vassar, Michigan.—The Committee has provided

$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems at Vassar,

Michigan.

Belle Island Shoreline, Michigan.—The bill includes $150,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the

Belle Island Shoreline project which will identify areas in need of

stabilization and also identify where to employ innovative techniques for bank stabilization.

Detroit River Master Plan, Michigan.—The bill includes $100,000

for the Corps of Engineers to develop a master plan for the riverfront and historic trails along the Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan.

30

Rouge River Watershed, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for a basin-wide watershed management study to address

flood hazard reduction, riverine ecosystem restoration, and recreation needs in the Rouge River Watershed.

New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.—The Committee has provided $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to determine if federal maintenance of New Madrid Harbor is economically and environmentally

feasible.

St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.—The Committee

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

comprehensive water management reconnaissance study for ecosystem restoration and related purposes in the St. Clair River and

Lake St. Clair watershed in Michigan pursuant to section 426 of

the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

Hancock County, Mississippi.—The bill includes $100,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of the seawall in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Lower Platte River Watershed, Nebraska.—The Committee has

provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to assess and plan for

water quality improvements in the Lower Platte River watershed.

Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Nevada.—The Committee has

provided an additional $350,000 to accelerate completion of the

Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands feasibility study.

Goffle Brook, Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along Goffle

Brook in the Borough of Hawthorne, New Jersey.

New Jersey Shoreline Protection, Alternative Long-Term Nourishment Study, New Jersey.—The Committee has provided $250,000

for feasibility phase studies to develop comprehensive beach inlet

and borrow area management strategies to efficiently manage New

Jersey sand resources.

Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Keyport, New Jersey.—The

bill includes $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay,

Keyport, project.

Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.—The Committee has provided $475,000 for the Corps

of Engineers to continue, on an expedited basis, the feasibility

phase for the Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study. The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to include

in the study an evaluation of flood reduction measures that would

otherwise be excluded based on policies regarding the frequency of

flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of runoff.

Bronx River, New York.—The Committee has provided $300,000

for the Corps of Engineers to continue the ongoing Bronx River ecosystem restoration study.

Hudson–Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.—The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to direct sufficient resources

from the Hudson–Raritan Estuary project to include in its study

area the habitat restoration opportunities in the entirety of the

Hackensack Meadowlands ecosystem located in northern New Jersey.

31

Lake Montauk Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Lake Montauk Harbor study. In conducting this

study, the Corps of Engineers should determine if improvements

for storm damage reduction for the eastern and western shores adjacent to Lake Montauk Inlet, in conjunction with possible improvements for navigation, are advisable at this time. Beneficial use of

dredged material and sand bypassing should also be considered.

Upper Susquehanna River Basin Study, New York.—The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Upper Susquehanna River Basin study.

Surfside and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.—The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate

the feasibility phase of the Surf City and North Topsail Beach,

North Carolina, study.

Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio.—The bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility

phase studies for the project to remove contaminated sediments

from the Mahoning River.

Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio.—The Committee has pro- vided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance level studies for the Western Lake Erie Basin watershed

study.

Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma.—The bill includes $300,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies for the

Miami and Vicinity, Oklahoma, flood control study.

Wister Lake Watershed, Oklahoma.—The Committee has pro- vided $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility

phase of the study for watershed management at Wister Lake,

Oklahoma.

Schuylkill River, Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.—The Committee

has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of environmental

restoration opportunities along the Schuylkill River at

Wissahickon, Pennsylvania.

Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of the deepening of Charleston Harbor, South

Carolina.

Reedy River, South Carolina.—The Committee has provided

$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance

study of ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and

streambank stabilization in the Reedy River basin in South Carolina.

Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.—The bill includes $500,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and

design for the Chickamauga Lock project in Tennessee.

Brazoria County, Texas.—The Committee has provided $100,000

for a reconnaissance study of flooding problems along Mustang

Bayou in Brazoria County, Texas.

Sulpher River Environmental Restoration, Texas.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate

feasibility phase studies for the Sulpher River environmental restoration and flood reduction study.

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

additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate existing

32

flood control improvements and identify additional measures needed to protect the urban center of Fort Worth, Texas at the confluence of the West and Clear Forks of the Trinity River.

Fourmile Run, Virginia.—The Committee has provided $100,000

for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a reconnaissance study of

flood control needs and environmental restoration opportunities in

Fourmile Run, Virginia.

Goshen Dam, Virginia.—The Committee has provided $500,000

for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and specifications for

the dam safety improvements at Goshen Dam, Lake Merriweather,

Virginia.

Commencement Bay Environmental Dredging, Washington.—The

Committee has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance study of environmental dredging needs in Commencement Bay, Washington.

Walla Walla River Watershed, Washington.—The Committee has

provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility study to restore instream flows in the Walla Walla River in

Washington and Oregon.

Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.—The bill includes $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue

preconstruction engineering and design at the Erickson/Wood

County public port site.

Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility report and initiate preconstruction engineering and design for

the Parkersburg/Vienna, West Virginia, project.

Weirton Public Port, West Virginia.—The bill includes $400,000

for the Corps of Engineers to continue preconstruction engineering

and design at the Weirton public port site.

Coastal Field Data Collection.—The Committee has provided an

additional $1,000,000 for the Southern California Beach Process

Study.

Great Lakes Remedial Action Program.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue work on the Great Lakes Remedial

Action Program.

Planning Assistance to States.—Within the amount provided for

the Planning Assistance to States Program, $50,000 is for the preparation of a Comprehensive Drainage Basin Plan for Francis Bland

Floodway Ditch (Eight Mile Creek) and tributaries in the vicinity

of Paragould, Arkansas, and $100,000 is for the Corps of Engineers

to provide planning assistance to develop a master plan for Elk

Creek Lake in Fleming County, Kentucky.

Flood Plain Management Services.—Within the amount provided

for Flood Plain Management Services, $100,000 is to update a flood

plain study for Tripps Run in the City of Falls Church, Virginia.

In addition, the amount provided for Flood Plain Management

Services includes $1,300,000 for the development of a Foundational

Floodplain Management Geographic Information System for East

Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, containing essential graphic and

non-graphic detailed databases. The system will facilitate the

wisest use and planning within the floodplain, as well as improving

the response to emergency situations and watershed planning requirements.

33

Research and Development.—The Committee has provided $27,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers Research and Development

program. Within the amount provided, $3,300,000 is to continue

the National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program authorized by section 227 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This program allows the Corps

of Engineers to fund the demonstration of innovative techniques for

promoting shoreline protection and preventing coastal erosion.

Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $1,300,000

for the Corps of Engineers to demonstrate the effectiveness of erosion control systems consisting of permeable groins installed perpendicular to the shoreline which reduce wave and current energy

allowing a portion of the sediment load to fall out of suspension at

Gulf State Park in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The Committee also expects the Corps to continue the research program being undertaken

along the Lake Michigan shoreline which have revealed the significance of groundwater, rather than waves, as a primary cause of

slumps and landslides.

In addition, the Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to

fully investigate the use of electro-osmotic-pulse technologies at facilities where chronic water seepage and floods are problematic.

Within the funds provided for the Research and Development

Program, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to test the

effectiveness of the Aqua Levee emergency flood control system,

and report back to the Committee on the feasibility of deploying

this emergency flood control system for use in fighting floods.

Cooperation With Institutions of Higher Learning.—The Committee recognizes the ongoing problems associated with severe

weather phenomena in coastal regions and encourages the Corps of

Engineers, whenever possible, to collaborate with the engineering

departments of post secondary institutions in the development of

environmental, geotechnical, structural, and hydraulic systems to

address and prevent damage caused by severe weather.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $1,716,165,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,324,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,671,854,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥44,311,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +347,854,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

34

35

36

37

38

39

Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, Arizona.—The Committee has provided $22,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Rio Salado project in Arizona.

Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas.—The bill includes $180,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to complete the Limited Reevaluation Report for the Fourche Bayou Basin, Arkansas, project.

Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, Texas.—

The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers

to construct a bendway weir bank stabilization project along the

Red River in the vicinity of the Oklahoma State Highway 271

bridge. This project will demonstrate the effectiveness of bendway

weirs in preventing the severe bank erosion that is occurring on

the Red River between Index, Arkansas and Denison Dam, Texas.

City of Santa Clarita, California.—The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the study of perchlorate contamination and the planning for its removal within the

Eastern Santa Clara River Basin in the City of Santa Clarita.

Kaweah River, California.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Kaweah River, California, project. The

Committee is aware that the project sponsors have appropriated all

their required funds for the entire project.

Lower Walnut Creek, California.—The Committee has provided

$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a General Reevaluation Report which will detail a new project alternative that incorporates riparian restoration goals with flood control objectives.

Petaluma River, California.—The bill includes $8,000,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Petaluma River,

California, project, and reimburse the local sponsor for expenses in

excess of the required cost sharing.

Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, California.—The

Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

continue the Limited Reevaluation Report for the Sacramento

River Deep Water Ship Channel project.

Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.—The bill includes

$10,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of

Reach 3B of the San Timoteo Creek feature of the Santa Ana River

Mainstem project in California.

San Lorezo River, California.—The Committee has provided

$3,490,000 to continue work on the San Lorenzo River project.

When the project authorization was modified in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, it was the intent of Congress

that the Corps of Engineers treat the modification as a seamless

part of the original project, and that the bank erosion control portion of the project not be treated as a separate project subject to

a separate new start decision.

Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California.—The bill includes $3,800,000 to continue the stage 11 nourishment at

Surfside-Sunset beach.

Brevard County, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$8,500,000 for renourishment of the South Reach of the Brevard

County, Florida, project.

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

Corps of Engineers to reimburse Broward County for costs associVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:25 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
40

ated with the renourishment of the Broward County, Florida,

project.

Central and Southern Florida, Florida.—Within the funds provided for the Central and Southern Florida project, the Committee

expects the Committee to use $600,000 to undertake a review and

evaluation of the performance of the regional canal system in

Miami-Dade County.

Dade County, Florida.—The Committee has provided $14,857,000

for the Dade County, Florida, project. The additional funds will enable the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Alternative

Sand Test Beach project and renourish the Haulover Beach/Bal

Harbour segment of the project. The funds provided will also permit the Corps of Engineers to undertake innovative beach erosion

prevention and sand recycling initiatives.

Duval County, Florida.—The bill includes $3,000,000 for renourishment of the Duval County, Florida, shore protection project.

Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Bryzone study

and prepare plans and specifications to permanently fix the erosion

problem for the one mile of beach front adjoining the Federal

project south of the inlet.

Martin County, Florida.—The bill includes $3,000,000 to complete the renourishment of the Martin County, Florida, project.

Palm Beach County, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$4,500,000 for renourishment of the Delray Beach segment of the

project.

Pinellas County, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of

the Pinellas County, Florida, project.

Port Everglades, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse Port Everglades

for the Federal share of the costs associated with widening and

deepening the Southport Channel and the Turning Notch at Port

Everglades, Florida.

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 function is to drain storm water from public property.

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

bill includes $688,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the

General Reevaluation Report for the East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control project.

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Illinois.—The Committee has provided

$40,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of

the Olmsted Locks and Dam project. Within the amount provided,

the Committee urges the Corps to work with the Ohio River Valley

Water Sanitation Commission to develop tools to describe and monitor the biological processes of the Ohio River for the purpose of

maintaining and improving water quality.

41

Calumet Region, Indiana.—The bill includes $3,000,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Calumet Region,

Indiana, project.

Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.—The Committee has pro- vided $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Indiana Shoreline

Erosion, Indiana, project.

Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.—The Committee has provided an additional $700,000 for the

Unit L15 levee project.

Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.—The bill includes $1,000,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to modify the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky,

project by reallocating reservoir storage and undertaking measures

at full Federal expense to mitigate the impacts of raising the seasonal pool elevation to provide additional water supply storage for

the Upper Kentucky River Basin in accordance with the Louisville

District Carr Creek Lake Water Supply Reallocation Study, dated

January 2001.

Louisville Waterfront, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design of the Louisville Waterfront project.

Pond Creek, Kentucky.—The bill includes $425,000 for the Corps

of Engineers to continue the study to evaluate the purchase and

demolition of residences in the 100-year floodplain.

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.

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana.—The Committee is aware of the potential impacts on vehicular traffic as a

result of the construction of a new lock on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to

work with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and the U.S. Coast Guard on a revised traffic study. The

traffic study shall evaluate the feasibility of replacing existing

bridges with a tunnel or higher elevation crossings with the goal

of minimizing vehicular traffic delays resulting from the project.

Further, the Committee expects the Corps to make traffic impacts

a high priority when developing and implementing a community

mitigation plan with local community leaders.

Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.—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 possible completion of the Leon Theriot Lock to allow for the

unimpeded passage of mariners seeking safe harbor north of the

floodgates at Bayou Lafourche.

Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland.—The Committee has

provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the

project to restore wetland areas along the Anacostia River.

Desoto County, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided

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

the Desoto County, Mississippi, project.

42

Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.—The Committee is aware of the devastating flooding and life threatening situation that occurred to residents of Perry County, Missouri, during

the flood of 1993 when levee deficiencies resulted in failure of the

existing Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, project

authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1965. Therefore,

the Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the project and directs

the Secretary of the Army to initiate design and construction of deficiency correction work to restore the Bois Brule Drainage and

Levee District project to its authorized level of protection using

continuing contracts as appropriate, and with study and construction cost sharing consistent with the original project. Additionally,

the Committee is aware that a portion of the study effort being performed under the Section 205 program is attributable to the design

deficiency project, and, therefore, directs the Secretary to transfer

the associated study costs to the design deficiency project.

St. Louis, Missouri.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address critical flooding and water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.

Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey.—The

Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to construct the locally preferred plan for the

Middlesex Borough element of the Raritan River Basin, Green

Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey, project.

Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point,

New York.—The Committee has provided an additional $600,000

for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications,

modify the existing Project Cooperation Agreement, and advertise

a contract for implementing the recommended T-groin alternative.

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

supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to satisfy program requirements in fiscal year 2002.

Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.—The Committee has

provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preparation of a General Reevaluation Report for the Oak Island, Caswell

Beach, and Holden Beach segments of the Brunswick County

Beaches project in North Carolina.

Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina.—The Committee has

provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue shoreline

monitoring, and complete the General Design Memorandum and

Environmental Impact Statement supplement for the Oregon Inlet

project.

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

Committee has provided $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to

continue preparation of a General Reevaluation Report of the currently authorized project and the remaining shoreline at Topsail

Beach.

Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.—The Committee has provided

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the

project to repair and rehabilitate the Lower Girard Lake Dam in

Girard, Ohio.

43

Mill Creek, Ohio.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Mill Creek, Ohio, project. The funds are to be

used to accelerate completion of the General Reevaluation Report

and develop an early warning system to alert businesses and residents in the watershed of possible floods.

Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, Ohio.—The bill includes

$4,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Infrastructure program, including $1,500,000 to assist the City of Springfield, Ohio, with its

wastewater treatment and sewer improvement needs.

Ottawa River, Ohio.—The Committee has provided $300,000 for

the Corps of Engineers to complete the reevaluation report and initiate plans and specifications for the Ottawa River, Ohio, project.

Folly Beach, South Carolina.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to identify a new sand source

for the Folly Beach, South Carolina, project.

Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, Tennessee.—The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of the

authorized Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands

project in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The Corps of Engineers is directed to use available funds for additional features at the Outdoor

Classroom Space and at the passive and active park areas identified in Figure 10 of the authorizing document for the project.

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

Committee has provided $2,100,000 for the Corps of Engineers

complete a reevaluation study, continue construction, and continue

environmental monitoring for the Red River Basin Chloride Control

project.

Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the Red River Below Denison Dam project. Of the amount provided, $500,000 is

to rehabilitate the Bowie County Levee in Texas. The remaining

funds are to be used for the levee upgrade program in northwest

Louisiana.

San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.—The Committee has

provided $1,200,000 for a General Reevaluation Report for the San

Antonio Channel Improvement project to define the Federal interest in the environmental restoration and recreation components of

the project. In addition, $200,000 is provided for expand ongoing

hydraulic performance studies for the project.

Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on

the Marlinton element of the project.

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.—The bill includes a total of $35,200,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the

Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River project. The amount

provided includes: $4,500,000 for the Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,000,000 for the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; $1,650,000 for the Town of Martin,

Kentucky, element of the project; $2,100,000 for the Pike County,

Kentucky, element of the project, including $1,100,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a Detailed Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $3,850,000

for the Martin County, Kentucky, element of the project; $950,000

44

for the Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project; $600,000

for the Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; and

$800,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the Cumberland River in Bell County, Kentucky. In addition, the Committee has provided $18,600,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Grundy, Virginia, element of the project, $450,000 to complete the Buchanan County,

Virginia, Detailed Project Report, and $700,000 to continue the

Dickenson County, Virginia, Detailed Project Report. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to continue the Dickenson

County Detailed Project Report 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 considerations as may be appropriate to address the unique relocations and resettlement needs for the flood

prone communities within the County.

West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia

and Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided $2,300,000 for

the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control project. Of the

amount provided, $600,000 is to complete the Detailed Project Reports for Philippi and Belington, West Virginia, and to implement

an emergency flood warning system for the Tygart River Basin in

West Virginia. In addition, $1,700,000 is provided for the

Meyersdale flood damage reduction project in Somerset County,

Pennsylvania, and the Hooversville flood damage reduction project

in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

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

provided the amount of $5,000,000 for the Section 103 program.

Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:

$400,000 for the Carpinteria Beach Erosion Control project, California, project; $212,000 for plans and specifications for the project

at Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachusetts; $1,000,000 for the Sylvan Beach Breakwater, New York, project; $556,000 for beach restoration and shore protection on the Hudson River, Dutchess County, New York; $200,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the project on Lake Erie at Athol Springs, New York;

and, $100,000 to initiate the feasibility phase on the project to restore the Bay Point Peninsula off of the City of Luna Pier, Michigan, in Maumee Bay.

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

provided $15,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $300,000 to determine the Federal interest in a project for navigation on the Tennessee River, Bridgeport, Alabama; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study on the Tennessee River, Barton River Port, Tuscumbia,

Alabama; $1,000,000 to complete plans and specifications and to

initiate construction on the Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas River,

Russelville, Arkansas, project; $677,000 to complete the feasibility

study of the Blytheville Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas; $250,000 to

complete the feasibility phase for Pillar Point Harbor, California;

$330,000 for the project at Oyster Point Marina, California;

$1,500,000 to initiate construction of the Port Hueneme, California,

project; $1,500,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications

45

and initiate construction of the San Diego Bay Harbor Deepening,

California, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study of the

Whiting Shoreline, Whiting, Indiana, project; $100,000 to initiate

the feasibility study for Federal interest in navigation on the Rouge

River, Michigan; $827,000 to initiate and complete construction of

the Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, project; $1,000,000 for the

construction of the Buffalo-Inner Harbor Excavation Project, Buffalo, New York; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Lake

Erie at Sturgeon Point, Evans, New York; $100,000 to initiate the

feasibility study for the West Side Rowing Club, Buffalo, New York;

$2,000,000 to continue construction of the Lakeshore State Park,

City of Milwaukee Navigation Improvement, Wisconsin; and

$100,000 for Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin.

The Committee’s recommendation also includes the necessary

funds to reimburse local interests for credits authorized by Section

323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 related to the

construction of phase 1 of the New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, project.

Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects (Section

111).—The Committee has provided $900,000 for the Section 111

program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $350,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Saco

River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine, project; $190,000 for the

Saugatuck Harbor Federal Navigation Structure project, Michigan;

$260,000 for the initial assessment and feasibility study of

Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York; and $100,000 for the Puget

Sound Shoreline, Washington, project.

Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment

(Section 1135).—The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for the

Section 1135 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $5,000,000 for the design and construction

of the Garrow’s Bend Basin Restoration, Mobile, Alabama;

$340,000 for the Rillito/Swan Wetlands, Arizona, project; $100,000

to initiate and complete the feasibility study for Ditch 28, Arkansas; $650,000 initiate and complete plans and specifications and

construction on the Bull Creek Channel Ecosystem Restoration, Sepulveda Flood Control Basin Restoration, California, project;

$1,745,000 for the Gunnerson Pond, Lake Elsinore, California,

project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary restoration plan and

initiate the feasibility study on Pillar Point Harbor, California;

$1,000,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the San Gabriel River

Basin, Los Cerritos Wetlands Environmental Restoration, California; $750,000 to continue construction on the Colfax Reach,

South Platte River, Colorado, project; $240,000 to complete the feasibility phase and initiate plans and specifications on the Sand

Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Newton, Kansas, project; $1,000,000

to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the

Kansas City Riverfront Habitat Restoration, Missouri, project;

$685,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction on the Little Sugar Creek Habitat Restoration, North Carolina, project; $200,000 for the Great South Bay Hard Clam Restoration, New York, project; $290,000 to complete the feasibility study

and initiate plans and specifications on the Times Beach Environmental Improvement, Buffalo, New York, project; $200,000 to iniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:25 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
46

tiate a feasibility study of the Smokes Creek Relocation, Lackawanna, New York; $80,000 to complete plans and specifications for

the Boyd’s Marsh Restoration, Rhode Island, project; $60,000 to

complete plans and specifications for the Allin’s Cove, Rhode Island, project; $530,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the San Antonio River, Eagleland Habitat Restoration, San Antonio, Texas, project; and $844,000 to complete the

feasibility study and plans and specifications on the Richland Wye

Shoreline Enhancement, Washington.

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

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

Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:

$100,000 to initiate and complete the planning and design analysis

for the Ditto Landing Phase II, Huntsville, Alabama, project;

$800,000 to initiate and complete bank stabilization on the Little

Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas, project; $75,000 to complete

the planning and design analysis and initiate plans and specifications for the Powers Boulevard at East Fork of Sand Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project; $140,000 to prepare the detailed

project report and initiate plans and specifications for the Chelton

Road Bridge over Sand Creek, Colorado Springs, Colorado, project;

$220,000 for the Webster County, Iowa, project; $40,000 to initiate

and complete the planning and design analysis for the Ackerman

Creek in Morton, Illinois; $40,000 to initiate and complete the planning and design analysis for Farm Creek in Washington, Illinois;

$40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis for the

Maumee River, Shoreline Erosion Protection, Fort Wayne, Indiana;

$960,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and initiate

construction of the Punch Island Road, Dorchester County, Maryland, project; $100,000 to continue the planning and design analysis at Belle Isle South Shore, Michigan; $188,000 to complete construction of the Lake Michigan Center, Muskegon, Michigan,

project; $60,000 to initiate and complete planning and design for

the Bakers Creek, Clinton, Mississippi, project; $635,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the

Poughkeepsie, New York, project; $140,000 to initiate and complete

construction of the Dresden, Tennessee, project; $650,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and initiate construction of

the Bogachiel River near La Push, Clallam County, Washington,

project; and $40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis on

the Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, Shoreline Erosion Protection,

City of Kenosha, Wisconsin.

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

has provided $1,500,000 for the Section 204 program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $219,000 for the

Mississippi Gulf River Outlet, Louisiana and $90,000 for the Restoration of the Cat Island Chain, Wisconsin.

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

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

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Brewton, Alabama, project;

$200,000 for the Jasper, Alabama, project; $500,000 to complete

the plans and specifications and initiate construction of the locally

preferred plan for the Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, project;

47

$50,000 to complete the feasibility study of Bono Lake, Arkansas;

$500,000 to initiate construction for the Indian Bayou in Lonoke

and Jefferson Counties, Arkansas, project; $50,000 to complete the

feasibility study of Spring Creek, St. Francis County, Arkansas;

$113,000 to complete the detailed project report and initiate the

feasibility study for Coyote Creek at Rock Springs, California;

$2,000,000 to initiate construction on the Magpie Creek, Sacramento, California, project; $200,000 to continue the detailed

project report of Magpie Creek on McClellan Air Force Base, California; $100,000 to continue the feasibility study of the City of

Santa Clarita, Castaic Creek, Old Road Bridges, California, project;

$400,000 for the feasibility study of Anaverde Creek, Palmdale,

California; $375,000 for the City of Whittier, California, project;

$300,000 for the City of Norwalk, California, project; $100,000 to

initiate a feasibility study for flood control at Huntington Beach,

California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed project report for

Contra Costa Canal (Rock Slough), Oakley and Knightsen, California; $200,000 to initiate the detailed project report for Mallard

Slough, Pittsburg, California; $650,000 to determine Federal interest, design, and reconstruct the Santa Venetia Pump Replacement,

California, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on

Cheyenne Creek, Colorado Springs; $2,000,000 for construction of

the Van Bibber-Arvada Plaza Drainage, Colorado, project; $115,000

to complete the feasibility study for flood protection of the Farm

River, North Branford/East Haven, Connecticut; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the Ocmulgee River Levee, Macon,

Georgia; $70,000 to initiate a feasibility study at Monroe County,

Illinois; $1,439,000 to continue construction of the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $30,000 for the feasibility study at Grafton, Illinois;

$100,000 for the Prairie du Pont, Illinois, project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary assessment and feasibility study of the

Mississinewa River, Marion, Indiana; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study on the Southwest Branch, Cedar Falls, Iowa;

$1,430,000 for East Boyer River Denison, Iowa, project; $450,000

for the Mad Creek, Muscatine, Iowa, project; $200,000 to expeditiously complete the feasibility study of the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers, Augusta, Kansas in light of the devastation that occurred during the Halloween flood of 1998, which resulted in millions of dollars in property damage to more that 600 homes and

business; $454,000 for Cowskin Creek, Wichita, Kansas; $100,000

to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility study at

Versailles, Kentucky; $100,000 to complete the preliminary project

report and feasibility study at Winchester, Kentucky; $350,000 to

evaluate alternative solutions and resolve the issue of continued

flooding associated with the Mayfield Creek and Tributaries, Kentucky, flood control project; $100,000 to complete the preliminary

project report and feasibility study at Nicholasville, Kentucky;

$100,000 to complete the preliminary project report and feasibility

study of Banklick Creek, Kenton County, Kentucky; $2,972,000 for

the construction of the Jean Laffitte (Fisher School Basin), Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $300,000 to complete plans and

specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana,

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

for the Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $100,000

48

to initiate a feasibility study of the Aberjona River, Winchester,

Massachusetts; $25,000 for the Little River Diversion, Dutchtown,

Missouri; $550,000 to complete construction of the Main Ditch 8,

Pemiscot County, Missouri, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Trailwood Subdivision Area, Clinton, Mississippi; $750,000 to complete construction of the Mckeel Brook,

Morris County, New Jersey, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study of Jackson Brook, New Jersey; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersey, project;

$200,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Popular Brook,

Monmouth County, New Jersey, project; $100,000 for the feasibility

study of the Lower Palomas Creek, Sierra County, New Mexico;

$50,000 for the Cazenovia Creek Ice Control Structure, West Seneca, New York, project; $100,000 for the feasibility study of Brentwood Brook, Harrison, New York; $100,000 for the feasibility study

of Larchmont Reservoir, Larchmont, New York; $1,000,000 for the

Red River, Wahepeton, North Dakota, project; $150,000 for the

Dam Break Early Warning System, Silverton, Oregon; $100,000 to

initiate the feasibility study for the City of Keizer, Labish Ditch,

Oregon, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for Coloso

Valley, Aquada, Puerto Rico; $188,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee and Virginia,

project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate

plans and specifications for the Erwin, Tennessee, project; $195,000

to initiate and complete construction for the Baxter Bottom, Tipton

County, Tennessee, project; $50,000 to complete the feasibility

study at Covington, Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate and complete

a feasibility study at Dresden, Tennessee; $75,000 to complete the

feasibility study of the Dyer County Little Levee, Tennessee;

$50,000 to complete the feasibility study of Oliver Creek, Shelby

County, Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate the detailed project report

of the Dry Canyon Storm Watershed, Utah; $210,000 to complete

the feasibility study for Snoqualmie River at North Bend, Washington; and $210,000 for the feasibility study of Wind Lake, Wisconsin.

The Committee notes that the Snoqualmie Flood Control Project

is behind schedule and expects the Corps of Engineers to proceed

with the project as expeditiously as possible.

The Committee, in accordance with the authority provided in

Section 332 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, has

also provided $700,000 for the Bois Brule Drainage and Levee, District, Missouri project under the Continuing Authorities Program

and directs the Secretary to increase the authorized level of projection from 50–years to 100–years. The project costs allocated to the

incremental increase in level of projection shall be cost shared consistent with Section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1986, notwithstanding Section 202(a) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1996, and this increment should be constructed

concurrently with the deficiency correction work to ensure a technically sound and cost effective solution is provided to the flooding

problems in this area.

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).—The Committee

has provided $20,000,000 for the Section 206 program. Within the

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $105,000 to comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:25 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
49

plete the ecosystem report for the Aqua Caliente Wash, Pima

County, Arizona, project; $225,000 to initiate the feasibility study

for the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, California; $100,000 for the Arundo Donax, Santa Clara River, Santa

Clarita, California, project; $450,000 for the Delta Science Center,

California; $500,000 for the Huntington Beach Aquatic Restoration,

California, project; $175,000 for the Mill River Corridor Revitalization, Connecticut, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility

study of the Stevenson Creek Estuary, Florida; $700,000 for the

East Pass Opening (Channel), Panama City Harbor, Florida,

project; $425,000 for the Hogan’s Creek Restoration, Florida,

project; $700,000 for the Dinner Key (Sea Plane) Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Florida, project; $201,000 for the Duck Creek,

Davenport, Iowa, project; $45,000 for the Chouteau Island, Madison County, Illinois, project; $225,000 to initiate the feasibility

study for Squaw Creek Basin, Illinois; $400,000 to prepare plans

and specifications and initiate construction of the Hoffman,

Armitage, and Fairbanks Dams, Illinois, modification project;

$275,000 for the Kankakee River Basin aquatic ecosystem restoration, Illinois, project; $1,000,000 for the Wolf Lake, Indiana,

project; $400,000 for construction of the Lake Nemaha Wetlands,

Seneca, Kansas, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study

for the Lost River Valley Wetlands Development, Bowling Green,

Kentucky; $200,000 for the Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles

Parish, Louisiana, project; $118,000 for the St. James Parish Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana; $200,000 for the Nashawannuck

Pond, Easthampton, Massachusetts, project; $160,000 to complete

the feasibility study of the Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township,

Michigan, project; $50,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the

Black Lagoon, Trenton, Michigan; $600,000 for the Rivers South

Recreation Plan, River Des Peres, Missouri; $100,000 to initiate the

feasibility study for the David City Wetlands, Butler County, Nebraska; $210,000 for the feasibility study of Lake Weamaconk, New

Jersey; $50,000 for the Cazenovia, New York, project; $200,000 to

prepare a preliminary restoration plan and feasibility study for

Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York; $100,000 for the

Oyster Reef Creation, Port Jefferson, New York, project; $100,000

to initiate a feasibility study of the Oak Orchard Creek and Tonawanda Creek Watersheds, New York; $100,000 for the feasibility

study of the Nepperhan River Outlet, Yonkers, New York; $180,000

for the Weir Creek, Bronx, New York, project; $10,000 for the initial assessment of the Sheldrake and Goodlife Pond, New Rochelle

and Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for the initial assessment of

the Mamaroneck Reservoir, Mamaroneck, New York; $10,000 for

the initial assessment of the Duck Pond Restoration, Harrison,

New York; $350,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction on the Little Sugar Creek Aquatic Ecosystem

Restoration, North Carolina, project; $125,000 to initiate a feasibility study of Middle Cuyahoga River, Kent Dam Restoration, Portage County, Ohio; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study of the

Lake Carl Blackwell Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Oklahoma;

$1,000,000 for the Springfield Millrace, Oregon, project; $400,000

for the Kettle Creek Watershed, Dents Run, Pennsylania, project;

$250,000 for the environmental restoration report for the Wetland

50

Education Center, University of Texas Marine Science Institute,

Port Aransas, Texas; $250,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and specifications for the West Jordan, Utah, project; $400,000 for the Ely/Pucketts Creek, Viriginia,

project; $100,000 to determine Federal interest and initiate design

of the Duwamish Waterway Marsh Restoration, Washington,

project; and $150,000 for the Lake Koshkonong Aquatic Ecosystem

Restoration, Wisconsin, project.

Snagging and Clearing (Section 208).—The Committee has pro- vided $1,000,000 for the Section 208 program. Within the amount

provided, the recommendation includes: $324,000 for construction

of the Big Slough Ditch, Craighead County, Arkansas, project;

$100,000 for construction of the Ditch 2, Craighead County, Arkansas, project; $80,000 to construct the Farrenburg Ditch, Missouri,

project; and $205,000 to complete the planning and design analysis

and initiate and complete construction of the Lateral No. 3, Missouri, project.

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Within the amount provided for the Aquatic Plant Control Program: $150,000 is for the eradication

of aquatic weeds in Clear Lake, California; $50,000 is for the removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers in

Texas; $300,000 is for the removal of aquatic weeds in Caddo Lake,

Texas; and $100,000 is for the removal of aquatic growth in the Potomac River in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.—Within

the amount provided for the Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to continue critical dam safety repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

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

AND TENNESSEE

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $350,458,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 280,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 347,655,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥2,803,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +67,655,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

51

52

53

General investigations

Donaldsonville to the Gulf, Louisiana.—The Committee has pro- vided an additional $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to expedite

the feasibility study of solutions for flooding in the area.

Horn Lake and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.—The

Committee is aware of the residual flooding problems along the

urban areas of Horn Lake Creek and the need for a higher level

of flood protection to be provided. The Committee, therefore, has

provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the reevaluation of the project.

Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.—The Committee is aware of the

need to complete the reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin project,

conditionally authorized by Section 363(a) of the Water Resources

Development Act of 1996. The Committee, therefore, has included

$2,573,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reevaluation

and preconstruction engineering and design.

Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.—The Committee has

provided an additional $2,500,000 to continue the expedited engineering and design of the Houma Lock and completion of the

Morganza to the Gulf feasibility study this calendar year.

Construction

Channel Improvement.—The Committee recognizes the critical

need of providing navigation along the Mississippi River and the efficiency in the construction of dikes as they reduce dredging requirements. Therefore, the Committee has included $43,905,000 for

the project, $500,000 above the budget request, to initiate dike construction at Keyes Point, Arkansas; Kate Aubrey, Arkansas; and

Ashport-Goldust, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Mississippi River Levees.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the Mississippi River Levees and has provided an additional amount of $6,543,000 above the budget request of

$43,457,000. Further, the committee is aware of the conditions of

the levee in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri. This condition

is primarily the result of stone being placed along the slope of the

levee by the Corps of Engineers during flood situations to protect

the levee from wave wash and from dilapidated structures that

exist in the vicinity of the levee section. These conditions pose a

threat to safe public access and prevent satisfactory maintenance

of the levee. The Committee, therefore, directs the Corps to construct improvements under the Mississippi River Levees authority,

which have been identified in a report prepared by the Memphis

District. The Committee has included $4,100,000 within the additional amount to construct these improvements.

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

aware of the frequent and prolonged flooding of lands and improvements along the uncompleted portion of the St. Francis Basin

project. Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional

$1,000,000 above the budget request of $3,230,000 to complete construction of Ditches 1 & 6, Missouri.

Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.—The Committee has included $1,300,000 above the budget request of $1,600,000 for the

project features at the Davis Pond area. Additionally, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue to work with the

54

oyster fishing industry to resolve any impacts resulting from the

construction and operation of the project.

Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.—The work to date

by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation

Service has shown positive results in the reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion and sediments, and improvements to the

environment. These positive results show that continued funding

for the program is important and that it should be completed to

recognize the total benefits of the program. This may well be a case

where the completed program gives results that are much greater

than the sum of the individual items of work. The additional funds

are provided to continue design, real estate acquisition, monitoring

of completed work, and initiation of continuing contracts. The Committee expects the Administration to continue to request funds for

this important project.

Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided

an additional $5,000,000 to continue construction on the Upper

Yazoo Project, Mississippi.

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

Committee has provided an additional $850,000 for a total of

$1,000,000 to advance construction of elements within the State of

Missouri on the St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway.

Nonconnah Creek, Flood Control Feature, Tennessee and Missouri.—The Committee has provided $1,615,000 of which $200,000

is to be used to reevaluate the extension of the flood control project

upstream five miles and $115,000 is to be used to investigate recreational and environmental enhancements for the Nonconnah

Creek project.

Maintenance

St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.—The Committee recognizes the critical backlog of maintenance items on this project

and has provided an additional $8,367,000 above the budget request to address this problem. The funds are to be used for levee

maintenance, scour repairs, and channel cleanout at various locations of the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, project.

Bonnet Carre, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided an additional $960,000 for the replacement of critical operating equipment

bringing the total funds provided to $2,814,000 on the Bonnet

Carre, Louisiana, project.

Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.—The Committee provides the following

additional amounts for the maintenance of the Yazoo Basin

projects: $4,000,000 for Arkabutla Lake, $2,700,000 for Big Sunflower River, $2,500,000 for Enid Lake, $2,100,000 for Grenada

Lake, $3,000,000 for Sardis Lake, and an additional $847,000 for

the Yazoo Tributaries, Mississippi.

Wappapello Lake, Missouri.—The Committee provides an additional $500,000 above the budget request for a total of $8,500,000.

The additional funds are to be used for road relocation as part of

the Wappapello Lake Missouri, project.

55

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2001 .......................................................................... $1,897,775,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ..................................................................... 1,745,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ......................................................................... 1,864,464,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................. ¥33,311,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................. +119,464,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama.—The Committee has provided

an additional $4,625,000 for annual operation and maintenance including lake and recreation maintenance, environmental studies,

and replacement of spillway safety signs for the Alabama-Coosa

River, Alabama, project.

Bayou Coden, Alabama.—The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou Coden, Alabama, project.

Bayou La Batre, Alabama.—The Committee has provided an additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of the Bayou La Batre,

Alabama, project.

Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.—The Committee

has provided an additional $2,600,000 for annual operation and

maintenance including the locks and dams, recreation facilities,

and upland disposal areas on the Black Warrior and Tombigbee

Rivers

Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama.—The Committee has provided an

additional $350,000 for annual operation and maintenance on the

Dauphin Island Bay, Alabama, project.

Mobile Area Digital Area Mapping and Geographic Information

System, Alabama.—The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the

Corps of Engineers to continue work begun in fiscal year 2001 to

develop an area-wide geographic information system for Mobile and

Baldwin Counties in Alabama. This effort will continue the development of a geographic information system to organize, store, analyze, and maintain geospatial data associated with Federal projects

in the area.

Millers Ferry Lock and Dam, Alabama.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,300,000 for a debris disposal system and to

replace a raw water piping system for the Millers Ferry Lock and

Dam project.

Mobile Harbor, Alabama.—The Committee has provided an additional $5,700,000 to dredge the bay and channel sumps, maintain

Arlington channel, perform sediment reevaluation, continue data

reporting, and develop the Chickasaw Creek disposal plan for the

Mobile Harbor, Alabama, project.

Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam, Alabama.—The Committee has

provided an additional $600,000 to replace spillway safety signs on

the Robert F. Henry Lock and Dam.

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama.—The Committee has

provided an additional $1,700,000 for the Tennessee-Tombigbee

Waterway project. The additional funds above the budget request

are to be used for deferred maintenance dredging, to repair and

resite the historic snagboat, Montgomery, and to clear the channel

from the downstream end of the Big Creek Bendway past the confluence with Big Creek.

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation, Alabama

and Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the

states of Mississippi and Alabama to administer 125,925 acres of

wildlife mitigation lands for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.

Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for a model study of Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.

71

Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee has provided an addi- tional $750,000 for maintenance dredging of Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.

Helena Harbor, Phillips County, Arkansas.—The Committee has

provided $340,000 for maintenance dredging of Helena Harbor, Arkansas.

Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson, Arkansas.—The Committee has

provided an additional $1,000,000 for recreation and powerhouse

facilities rehabilitation on the Narrows Dam, Lake Greeson, Arkansas, project.

Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided an ad- ditional $610,000 for maintenance dredging of Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.

Yellow Bend Port, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided an additional $150,000 for maintenance dredging of Yellow Bend Port,

Arkansas.

Bodega Bay, California.—The Committee has provided $1,800,000 for the preparation of an upland disposal site for the

dredging of the Bodega Bay, California, project.

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

Engineers to use funds appropriated in the Act to conduct the

measures required by the June 14, 2000, Biological Opinion issued

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with respect to 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.

Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.—The Committee

has provided an additional $2,000,000 to grade and maintain the

basin within Hansen Dam to enhance and maintain flood capacity

and to provide for future use of the basin for compatible purposes

consistent with the Master Plan, including recreation and environmental restoration on the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, project.

Moss Landing Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided

$2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of the Federal channel in

Moss Landing Harbor, California.

Redwood City Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 for maintenance dredging of Redwood City Harbor, California.

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

San Francisco Harbor and Bay (Drift Removal), California.—The

Committee has provided an additional $134,000 for debris removal

activities in San Francisco Bay and Harbor, California.

San Francisco Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided

an additional $199,000 for maintenance dredging of San Francisco

Harbor, California.

72

San Joaquin River, California.—The Committee has provided an

additional $2,802,000 for maintenance dredging on the San Joaquin River, California, project.

Ventura Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided an

additional $1,165,000 for repairs of the South Beach Groin on 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.—None of the funds provided for operation

and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware

River to Chesapeake Bay project may be used to close or remove

the St. Georges Bridge without prior authorization of the Congress.

Canaveral Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,930,000 for maintenance dredging of the Canaveral

Harbor, Florida, project.

Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$150,000 for a sand flat removal dredge management study at the

Carrabella Bay Harbor, Florida, project.

Fort Pierce Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided an

additional $1,951,000 for maintenance dredging of the Fort Pierce

Harbor, Florida, project.

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

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

Suwanee River, Florida.—The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 for the dredging of McGriff Pass on the Suwanee River,

Florida, project.

Allatona Lake, Georgia.—The Committee has provided an additional $906,000 for recreational facility maintenance at the

Allatona Lake, Georgia, project.

Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Alabama,

and Florida.—The Committee has provided an additional

$6,818,000 to address the maintenance and dredging backlog on

the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers project.

Of the funds provided, $540,000 is to restore fish and wildlife

habitat and hydrologic connections to Florida River, Kennedy

Creek, and Iamonia Lake within the Apalachicola system, and

$500,000 is to restore the historic hydrologic connection between

the Apalachicola River and Virginia Cut.

Carters Dam and Lake, Georgia.—The Committee has provided

an additional $1,200,000 for powerhouse repairs at the Carters

Dam and Lake, Georgia, project.

Savannah Harbor, Georgia.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,089,000 for operation and maintenance dredging on the

Savannah Harbor, Georgia, project.

Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.—The Committee has provided an additional $491,000 for maintenance dredging on the

Kaskaskia River Navigation project, Illinois.

Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided an additional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the Buckhorn

Lake, Kentucky, project.

73

Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided an ad- ditional $120,000 for recreational improvements on the Carr Creek

Lake, Kentucky, project.

Elvis Stahr (Hickman) Harbor, Kentucky.—The Committee has

provided $460,000 for maintenance dredging of the Elvis Stahr

Harbor, Kentucky, project.

Barataria Bay Waterway, Louisiana.—The Committee has pro- vided $2,000,000 for dredging on the Barataria Bay Waterway

project including Bayou Rigaurd and Barataria Pass in the vicinity

of Grand Isle, Louisiana.

Bayou Teche, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to dredge the bayou and East and West Calumet Floodgates on the Bayou Teche, Louisiana, project.

Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to perform maintenance dredging on the

Freshwater Bayou, Louisiana, between the Freshwater Bayou Lock

and the Gulf of Mexico.

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

provided an additional $2,000,000 to address critical backlog maintenance on the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana, project.

Mermentau River, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided an additional $300,000 to dredge between Grand Cheniere and the

Gulf of Mexico on the Mermentau River, Louisiana.

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.—The Committee has

provided an additional $2,000,000 for embankment stabilization on

the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, project. The Committee is very concerned about erosion problems on the channel.

Waterway from Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $500,000 to maintain the waterway from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac, Louisiana.

Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.—The Committee has pro- vided an additional $1,000,000 to upgrade recreational facilities on

the Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland, project.

Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided

$300,000 for the dredging of the Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts,

project.

Andrew’s River, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided

$130,000 for the dredging of the Andrew’s River, Massachusetts,

project.

Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided

$1,500,000 to dredge the Federal channel, anchorages, and repair

the South Jetty on the Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts, project.

St. Mary’s River, Little Rapids Channel, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the St. Mary’s River, Little Rapids Channel.

Grand Marais, Michigan.—The Committee has provided

$200,000 to conduct a major rehabilitation reevaluation of the harbor project at Grand Marais, Michigan.

Caruthersville Harbor, Missouri.—The Committee has provided

$240,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at Caruthersville

Harbor, Missouri.

Clearwater Lake, Missouri.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,635,000 for the relocation of recreation facilities and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:25 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
74

pairs due to ice storm damage on the Clearwater Lake, Missouri,

project.

New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.—The Committee has provided

$290,000 for maintenance dredging of the project at New Madrid

Harbor, Missouri.

Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri.—The Committee has provided $400,000 for maintenance dredging of the

Southeast Missouri Port, Mississippi River, Missouri, project.

Table Rock Lake, Missouri.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to address the maintenance backlog and upgrade recreation areas on the Table Rock Lake, Missouri, project.

Missouri National Recreation River, Nebraska.—The Committee

has provided $275,000 for bank stabilization along the Missouri

National Recreation River, Nebraska.

Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.—The Committee has provided

$3,200,000 for the Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, project. The additional funds above the budget request will enable the Corps to repair the south jetty and replace the north inlet bulkhead.

Shrewsbury River, Main Channel, New Jersey.—The Committee

has provided $130,000 for maintenance dredging of the Shrewsbury

River, Main Channel, New Jersey, project.

Flushing Bay and Creek, New York.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to restore the channel to the Federally authorized depth on the Flushing Bay and Creek, New York,

project.

Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 to repair the breakwater on the Plattsburgh Harbor,

New York, project.

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.—The Committee

has provided an additional $2,609,000 to address the critical dredging maintenance backlog along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,

North Carolina.

Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.—The Committee has

provided an additional $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on the

project at Lockwoods Folly River, North Carolina.

Masonboro Inlet and Connecting Channels, North Carolina.—The

Committee has provided an additional $700,000 for maintenance

dredging on the Masonboro Inlet and Connecting Channels, North

Carolina, project.

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

has provided an additional $500,000 for maintenance and upgrading of recreational facilities on the Garrison Dam, Lake

Sakakawea, North Dakota, project, and an additional $100,000 for

mosquito control in Williston, North Dakota.

Hugo Lake, Oklahoma.—The Committee has provided an additional $130,000 for land transfers on the Hugo Lake, Oklahoma,

project.

Wister Lake, Oklahoma.—The Committee has provided an additional $70,000 for land transfers on the Wister Lake, Oklahoma,

project.

Columbia River and lower Willamette River below Vancouver and

Portland, Oregon.—The Committee has provided an additional

$3,000,000 for the East Astoria Boat Basin breakwater project.

75

Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.—The Committee has provided

an additional $200,000 for a major maintenance report for the

north and south jetties for the project at Tillamook Bay and Bar,

Oregon.

Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oregon.—The Committee has provided

an additional $100,000 to dredge the Newport South Beach Marina

and Harbor to its Federally authorized depth at Yaquina Bay and

Harbor, Oregon.

Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided an

additional $750,000 for upgrades of the recreation facility at the

Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania project.

Murells Inlet, South Carolina.—The Committee has provided

$200,000 for maintenance dredging on the Murrells Inlet, South

Carolina, project.

Houston Ship Channel, Texas.—The Committee has provided an

additional $4,445,000 maintenance dredging on the Houston Ship

Channel, Texas, project.

Proctor Lake, Texas.—The Committee has provided an additional

$600,000 for the planning of land acquisition on the Proctor Lake,

Texas, project.

Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for critical maintenance dredging on

the Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas, project.

Waco Lake, Texas.—The Committee understands the importance

of having a reliable water supply source to ensure the economic viability of the central Texas region. The City of Waco has partnered

with the Corps of Engineers to complete a study that was approved

in 1984 to reallocate storage at Waco Lake, Texas, for increasing

the available water supply storage. However, significant increases

in project costs since completion of the study have delayed project

implementation. A portion of the cost increase is due to the need

to relocate existing recreation facilities. The Committee understands that the existing facilities are reaching the limits of their

useful life and would need to be rehabilitated or replaced in the

near future. To minimize further delays in implementing this much

needed project, the Committee has provided an additional

$1,500,000 to perform cultural resource mitigation and recreation

improvements. Notwithstanding the provisions of Public Law 85–

500, the costs for this work shall be accomplished at Federal expense.

Whitney Lake, Texas.—The Committee has provided an additional $573,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the power

house upgrade in compliance with the Major Rehabilitation Report

dated March 2001, submitted to the Chief of Engineers.

Winter Harbor, Virginia.—The Committee has provided

$1,000,000 for maintenance dredging on the project at Winter Harbor, Virginia.

Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.—The Committee

has provided an additional $3,800,000 for the rehabilitation of the

north jetty, to investigate improvements to the north jetty, and to

continue the analysis of the south jetty on the Grays Harbor and

Chehalis, Washington, project.

76

Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.—The Committee has provided

an additional $500,000 for the design of fish passage facilities at

the Mud Mountain Dam, White River, Washington, project.

Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided an

additional $2,269,000 for continuing construction of the multi-level

release tower and debris removal at the Bluestone Lake, West Virginia, project.

Fox River, Wisconsin.—The Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000 for transfer of the lock system to the State of

Wisconsin.

Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.—The Committee has

provided an additional $500,000 for the development of the sediment transport model for the Maumee River, Ohio.

Dredged Material Recycling Program.—The Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of Engineers to

fully investigate the development of an upland disposal site recycling program on the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers project

and the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers project.

Many of the existing upland dredged disposal on these and other

projects are nearing capacity and a program to recycle dredged material would enable necessary maintenance dredging to continue

while reducing the need to develop new disposal sites in environmentally sensitive areas.

Inland Waterway Navigation Charts.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin the process of

making inland waterway navigation chart date available in electronic format. Electronic navigation chart data would enable

towboats and other vessels to navigate more precisely, provide increased capability in poor visibility, and aid in the training of vessel operators.

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $124,725,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 128,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 128,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +3,275,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

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 2002, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $128,000,000, the same as the budget request and

$3,275,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $139,692,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 140,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 140,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +308,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

77

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.

The Committee is concerned that many of the stakeholders living

near FUSRAP sites around the Nation are not fully aware of when

these FUSRAP sites will be fully remediated. To ensure that such

documentation is available to FUSRAP stakeholders, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to prepare a bi-annual report

which provides a brief summary on the status of remediation efforts on-going at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of this report should be

made available by the Corps of Engineers to stakeholders, including the appropriate local, state and Federal officials.

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $151,666,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 153,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 153,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,334,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

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 $153,000,000, the same as the budget request and $1,334,000

above the fiscal year 2001 amount. 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.

Corps of Engineering Hiring Practices.—The Committee understands that Army Corps of Engineers’ district offices do not have

authority to recruit and hire new applicants for positions within

Corps of Engineers, and that this policy may impede the ability of

the Corps to attract qualified candidates from Hispanic and other

minority groups. The needs of the Corps of Engineers are different

from those of the Army generally, as Corps district offices serve the

regions of the country in which they are located, whereas other

78

Army organizations serve the nation as a whole. The scope and

complexity of the Army’s centralized personnel management system for worldwide military service and combat operations may not

be meeting the Corps need to hire from within the communities in

which they operate in order to effectively resolve regional water

management issues and to enhance relations with local communities. The centralized Army personnel management system is not

designed to recruit personnel from local communities to meet Corps

of Engineers regional district needs. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the Appropriations Committees of Congress by September 1, 2001, on his

plans to address this problem and how a demonstration program

could be established in fiscal year 2002 to permit Corps regional offices more flexibility to recruit and hire locally, and to take advantage of untapped potential in Hispanic and other minority communities.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends

the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration, California,

program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority shall receive

credit for prior expenditures.

Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which provides

that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in support of

national defense.

Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs

the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis of a

multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River watershed, California, long-term study.

Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the

Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek Lake,

Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue Township, Kansas.

Sec. 105. The Committee includes language which directs the

Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection projects in accordance with the cost sharing provisions contained in existing

Project Cooperation Agreements.

Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which provides

that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in

States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the

Gavins Point Dam.

(79)

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $39,862,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 36,228,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 36,228,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥3,634,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

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 2002 to carry out

the provisions of the Act is $36,228,000, the same as the budget request, and $3,634,000 less than the amount appropriated in fiscal

year 2001.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $678,953,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 647,997,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 691,160,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +12,207,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +43,163,000

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are

shown on the following table:

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona.—The

Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau of

Reclamation to accelerate completion of design and National Environmental Policy Act compliance for water management reservoirs

to be constructed along the All American Canal.

Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.—The Committee

has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue

the Tres Rios research and demonstration project.

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

bill includes $3,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to reimburse

the City of Folsom, California, for costs associated with the replacement of the Natoma Pipeline System, which is owned and operated

by the Bureau of Reclamation, and is the single water supply

source for the City.

Central Valley Project, East Side Division.—The Committee has

provided an additional $2,400,000 for water and sewer system upgrades and a visitor capacity study at New Melones Lake.

Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs.—Within

the amounts provided for the Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous

Project Program, and the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund,

the Committee expects the Bureau of Reclamation to completely

fulfill its obligations under the San Joaquin River Agreement, including the timely payment to non-Federal parties to the Agreement.

Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, California.—

The Committee has provided $7,371,000 for the Resources Management activity of the Sacramento River Division of the Central Valley Project, $3,300,000 above the budget request. Of the amount

provided, $2,000,000 is for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

(GCID) Fish Screen Improvement Project; $1,000,000 is for detailed, site-specific environmental assessment and permitting work

associated with Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of both the

GCID Main Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means to

convey water to the proposed reservoir; and $300,000 is for the

Colusa Basin Drainage District’s Integrated Resources Management Plan for critical flood control, conjunctive use, and waterfowl

habitat activities.

Groundwater Replenishment System Project, California.—The

Committee has included an additional $1,200,000 for the Groundwater Replenishment System project. This project was previously

known as the Orange County Regional Water Reclamation project.

Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.—The

Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Tahoe Airport Stream

restoration project and $1,500,000 for the project to restore Third

and Incline Creeks.

Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, California.—The bill includes $740,000 to continue the Los Angeles

Area Water Reclamation and Reuse project.

Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration

Project, California.—The Committee has provided $400,000 for the

Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the Mission Basin

Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration project.

89

North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project, California.—The bill includes $3,000,000 to continue work on the North

San Diego County Area Water Recycling project.

Salton Sea Research Project, California.—The Committee has

provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue environmental work related to the preferred alternative for the restoration of the Salton Sea. In addition, the Committee has provided

$1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the program

to perform research and construct river reclamation and wetlands

projects to improve water quality in the Alamo River and New

River, Imperial County, California.

San Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse Program, California.— The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the San

Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse program.

Animas La-Plata Project, Colorado.—The bill includes

$16,000,000 for the Animas La-Plata project. The additional funds

above the budget request will enhance the Bureau of Reclamation’s

ability to complete the project within the time period established

by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.

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 affected communities and the

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

Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue the Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System project in Montana.

Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project,

New Mexico.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the continuation of the Albuquerque Metro Area Water Reclamation and

Reuse Project.

Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, Oregon.—The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 to facilitate efforts to

improve streamflows and improve water quality in the Deschutes

River Basin.

Deschutes Project, Oregon.—The Committee has provided an additional $600,000 to continue work on the project to install buried

pipe in portions of the Tumalo Irrigation District’s Bend Feed

Canal to conserve water lost to seepage.

Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, South Dakota.—The bill includes an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction on the

Mid-Dakota Water Rural Water project in South Dakota.

Mni-Wiconi Project, South Dakota.—The Committee has provided

an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate construction of the MniWiconi project in South Dakota.

El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to facilitate construction of the

Central Portion of the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse

project.

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington.—

The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement project in Washington.

Drought Emergency Assistance.—The Committee has provided

$2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a Weather

90

Damage Modification Program, including a regional weather modification research program involving the states of Oklahoma, Texas,

and Kansas.

Wetlands Development.—Within the amount provided for the

Wetlands Development Program, the Committee has provided

$500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake a project to

restore natural vegetation along the lower Colorado River in the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $9,348,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 7,495,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 7,495,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥1,853,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ...............................................................

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:

91

92

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $38,360,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 55,039,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 55,039,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +16,679,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in

Title 34 of Public Law 102–575, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding from

project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the

Central Valley Project area of California. Revenues are derived

from payments by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include several required by the Act

(Friant Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to

non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required

in appropriations Acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $55,039,000,

the same as the budget request.

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement

Project.—In addition to the funds provided under the Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, the Committee has provided $2,000,000 from within funds made available through the

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

Fish Screen Improvement Project.

Anadromous Fish Screen Program.—The Committee expects the Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $12,000,000 for the Anadromous Fish Screen program to continue work on the American

Basin Fish Screen and Habitat Improvement Project (Natomas Mutual Water Company) as well as the fish screen projects being undertaken by the Sutter Mutual Water Company and Reclamation

District 108.

San Joaquin River Restoration Program.—The Committee intends that within the funds provided through the Central Valley

Project Restoration Fund in fiscal year 2001, the $5,000,000 made

available to the San Joaquin River Restoration Program remains

available for that purpose until expended.

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... $20,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥20,000,000

The California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account funds

the Federal share of ecosystem restoration and other activities

being developed for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal

participation in this program was authorized in the California BayDelta Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in the fall of

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

93

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

and 2000. Attempts to reauthorize the program last year were unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that have

been taken in the State of California to develop this program,

which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water system for millions of people while improving the environment. However, for fiscal year 2002, the Committee has again recommended no funding

in the absence of authorizing legislation for this multi-year, multibillion dollar effort. The Committee is aware that authorizing legislation has been introduced in the House and the Senate and will

reconsider funding for the program as the bill moves through the

appropriations process.

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $50,114,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 52,968,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 52,968,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +2,854,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

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 2002, the Committee has recommended

$52,968,000, the same as the budget request, and $2,854,000 above

the fiscal year 2001 amount.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 201. The Committee has included language which provides

that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used by the

Bureau of Reclamation to issue permits, either directly or by making funds available to an entity under a contract, for commercial

rafting activities within the Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are met.

Sec. 202. The Committee has included language which amends

the authorization for the American and Sacramento Rivers, California, project.

(95)

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

The Committee recommendation provides additional funding for

several Department of Energy programs: renewable energy technologies, environmental cleanup activities, and nuclear nonproliferation programs. However, due to overall funding constraints, the Committee was forced to reduce other Departmental

programs in order to add funding to these critical areas.

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

The President’s National Energy Policy Development Group released its National Energy Policy in May of 2001. The National Energy Policy includes a number of recommendations relevant to the

Department of Energy, from increasing research in certain energy

technologies to finding solutions to bottlenecks in the national

transmission grid. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Energy to proceed as quickly as possible to complete the necessary reviews in order to implement the recommendations of the National

Energy Policy.

Unfortunately, the National Energy Policy was released too late

to have an effect on the Department’s fiscal year 2002 budget request. If the Secretary needs to make changes to bring fiscal year

2002 program funding into alignment with the National Energy

Policy, the Committee is receptive to making the necessary adjustments through the appropriations process and through fiscal year

2002 reprogrammings.

The Secretary should place priority on those actions that can alleviate the electricity shortage that is especially acute in the West.

In particular, the Secretary should expedite reviews of Path 15 in

California and other transmission constraints, the projected financing needs of the Bonneville Power Administration, and projected

needs of the other Federal power marketing administrations.

The Committee wishes to emphasize that most of the Department’s programs are not designed to provide immediate relief to

the Nation’s energy crisis. Instead, the Department’s energy supply

programs consist primarily of research and development into techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
96

nologies intended to provide long-term solutions to the Nation’s energy needs. Near-term deployment of available energy technologies

is best accomplished through incentives other than appropriations.

BASIC RESEARCH FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee is concerned that the Department does not have

an adequate plan or policy that relates the basic research being

conducted by the Office of Science to the energy needs of the country. While the Committee understands that basic research can lead

in many directions, there should be a focus on the underlying needs

of the Department’s energy portfolio. There appears to be minimal

cooperation and coordination between the Office of Science and

other Departmental offices on the fundamental research needed to

improve energy technologies. Each year the Committee provides

funding for the Office of Science to support basic research in energy

programs. The Committee directs the Department to identify ways

in which coordination can be improved and research conducted

which is mutually beneficial and to report to the Committee by

January 15, 2002, on the Department’s strategy for ensuring that

the basic research programs also focus on energy technology needs.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Department has established an Office of Engineering and

Construction Management (OECM) to strengthen its project management capabilities. The Committee strongly supports this effort,

but continues to be concerned with the placement of this Office in

the Department’s organizational structure. In its recent report to

Congress, the National Research Council (NRC) reaffirmed its recommendation that the Office of Engineering and Construction

Management ‘‘. . . should be at the level of assistant secretary and

report directly to the Deputy Secretary.’’ The NRC also noted that,

‘‘The most important unresolved issues are: (1) definition of the authority and scope of OECM; (2) the provision of adequate financial

and staff resources to improve project management . . .’’

The Committee endorses the NRC recommendation that, ‘‘...

the authority of OECM and the PMSOs be strengthened and that

the resources and personnel available to them be increased to support their responsibilities.’’ In that regard, the Committee strongly

urges the Department to elevate OECM to a level equal to an Assistant Secretary with a direct reporting relationship to the Deputy

Secretary/Secretarial Acquisition Executive authority. The Committee believes that the director of the office should continue to be

a career position rather than a political appointment. Further, it

fully expects that OECM’s existing personnel should continue in

their current positions in OECM’s new location. The Department

also should place the facilities and infrastructure policy development and program oversight responsibilities and budget under

OECM.

Consistent with NRC’s recommendation for strengthening available financial and staff resources, the Committee has provided

$7,600,000 for OECM in fiscal year 2002 and expects the office to

report directly to the Deputy Secretary.

97

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee is aware of the continuing decline in the condition of the Department’s facilities throughout the complex and of

the Department’s inability to properly evaluate and address the

readiness and maintenance status of its facilities. Many of its aged,

deteriorated facilities and infrastructure lack the functionality to

provide adequate mission support.

Focus on breakdown maintenance at the Department, in lieu of

preventive maintenance programs and adequate capital investments for facility upgrades, has resulted in increasing deferred

maintenance costs, further exacerbating the problem and increasing the risks for mission failures. This absence of adequate maintenance and capital investment has also resulted in facility operating

costs which are inordinately high. The Committee is reluctant to

continue funding costly mission-critical repairs and facility upgrades that could have been prevented or corrected at less cost.

The Department must develop an improved management system

and allocation of resources for its facilities and infrastructure.

The Committee is also aware that the Department has an increasing number of excess facilities that require extensive budgets

for surveillance and maintenance. It is critical that the Department

address its long-term operations budget requirements which must

take into consideration approaches to the re-engineering of its complex, priorities for recapitalization, and removal of excess facilities.

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to:

• Contract with the National Research Council to provide

the Congress an evaluation of the steps the Department is taking to improve its facility and infrastructure management;

• Provide by December 15, 2001, information regarding the

current and projected total budgets required for facilities and

infrastructure and the process being established to determine

priorities and return-on-investments;

• Initiate a Site Planning Pilot program to demonstrate the

reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet its

mission and to address its long-term operational costs and return on investments;

• Initiate a Pilot Site Program that can be used as a model

for a cost-efficient maintenance program addressing mission

requirements and life cycle costs;

• Include in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, for all construction projects and general plant projects (GPP) initiated in

fiscal year 2002 or later, funds to eliminate excess facilities

(based on the greatest impact on long-term costs and risk) that

are at least equal to the square footage of the new facilities

which are being proposed;

• Identify in the fiscal year 2003 budget request all maintenance and infrastructure costs and the adequacy of this funding to meet mission requirements by site and program; and

• Prepare Site Plans for each Department site not slated for

closure under the Environmental Management program.

98

AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF

The Committee continues to believe there is too much reliance on

support service contractors and other non-Federal employees

throughout the Department of Energy. The Department reduced

the number of management and operating (M&O) contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area to 220 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee expects the Department not to exceed this number in fiscal year 2002. However, at Headquarters

the Department also continues to rely extensively on support service contractors for technical assistance and oversight despite the

large number of Federal employees also on staff.

Report on M&O contractor employees.—The Department is to

provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year 2001

on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan area,

including the name of the employee, the name of the contractor,

the organization to which he or she is assigned, the job title and

a description of the tasks the employee is performing, the annual

cost of the employee to the Department, the Headquarters program

organization sponsoring each M&O employee, the program account

funding that employee, and the length of time the employee has

been detailed to the Department. 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, 2000 through September 30, 2001,

and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2002.

Report on support service contractors.—The report is to include

for each support service contract at Headquarters: the name of the

contractor; the program organization (at the lowest organization

level possible) hiring the contractor; a descriptive and detailed list

of the tasks performed; the number of contractor employees working on the contract; and the annual cost of the contract. This report

is to include actual data for the period October 1, 2000 through

September 30, 2001, and is due to the Committee on January 31,

2002.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STAFFING

The Committee continues to be concerned with the staffing levels

in many Departmental organizations. Despite expectations expressed by Congress during establishment of the National Nuclear

Security Administration (NNSA) in fiscal year 2001 that the new

organization should incorporate many organizational and management efficiencies, there appear to be few changes in the regular

way of doing business. The result of the new organization has been

an increase in the number of field offices and additional staff at

Headquarters. The remainder of the Department has also maintained the same staffing levels despite the creation of the NNSA

and its separation from most of the Department’s support organizations. This failure to address organizational and management efficiencies that were expected both in the NNSA and the remainder

of the Department is a disappointment. It was hoped that the Department and NNSA would use this opportunity to revamp the opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
99

eration of an agency that is widely viewed as overly bureaucratic

and process-oriented.

To jump-start a process that should have been implemented one

year ago, the Committee directs the Department to prepare an

overall staffing plan that implements organizational and management efficiencies throughout the Department and the NNSA and

that could lead to a reduction in overall staffing during fiscal year

2003. Each program organization at Headquarters, each support

and administrative organization at Headquarters, and each field office should be included in this review. If legislation permitting

early retirements or excepted civil service hiring is required to implement this plan, the Department should request this authority

when submitting the organization and staffing plan to the Committee. This plan is due by January 31, 2002.

EXTERNAL REGULATION

The Department of Energy is currently self-regulating with respect to nuclear safety and worker safety at most of its facilities

under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The Committee directs the Department to prepare an implementation plan

to transition to external regulation at the Department’s non-defense science laboratories. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) would assume responsibility for nuclear safety at the Department’s non-defense science laboratories and the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for worker safety at these same sites. The Department is directed in fiscal year 2002 to prepare a plan for implementation of

external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the actual

implementation of external regulation of October 1, 2002. This plan

is due by March 31, 2002.

For planning purposes, external regulation will apply to the five

multiprogram national laboratories under the Office of Science: Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. External regulation shall also apply to the five single-purpose laboratories under

the Office of Science: Ames Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator

Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Stanford Linear

Accelerator Center; and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The requirement to plan for the transition to external regulation is not applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants,

or test facilities, nor to the Department’s environmental remediation sites or other laboratories and research facilities.

CONTRACTOR TRAVEL

The Committee has not included a statutory limitation on contractor travel in fiscal year 2002. However, each program organization within the Department is expected to ensure that contractor

travel is limited to critical mission functions and that administrative travel to Washington is limited. The Committee directs the Department to maintain a tracking system that will allow for periodic

reviews of contractor travel costs and destinations.

100

INDEPENDENT CENTERS

The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee

by January 15, 2002, on all independent centers funded in fiscal

year 2002. The report should identify all independent centers at

each laboratory or facility, the annual cost, number of employees,

and the source of funding; i.e., multiple programs, laboratory directed research and development funds, and overhead accounts.

The report should be at the level of detail included in the fiscal

year 2001 report to Congress. All centers should be specifically

identified in the fiscal year 2003 budget submission.

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The fiscal year 2003 budget justifications submitted by the Department should include the following: a section identifying the last

year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for each

program; funding within each construction project data sheet for

elimination of excess facilities at least equal to the square footage

of the new facilities being requested; and funding to eliminate excess facilities at least equal to the square footage of new facilities

being constructed as general plant projects (GPP). The Department

should work with the Committee on the specific information needed

for each requirement.

SALE OF LAND

The Department recently sold 182 acres of land in Oak Ridge,

Tennessee, for $54 per acre to a private development company. The

Department claimed that the Atomic Energy Act provided the authority to sell land in the performance of a programmatic function

without regard to standard Federal practices. It is not clear that

the land was sold at fair market value, and the Committee is concerned that the Department did not act in the best interest of the

Federal government and the taxpayers. The Department is directed

to notify the Committee at least 60 days in advance of any proposed sale of land which does not follow the standard Federal practices for property sales and provide a detailed explanation for the

waiver of Federal practices for the sale of the property.

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.

101

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of

the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would

result in a detrimental impact to an agency program or priority.

Reprogrammings may also be considered if the Department can

show that significant cost savings can accrue by increasing funding

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 2002, 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, 2001 ............................................................................ $659,918,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 544,245,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 639,317,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥20,601,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +95,072,000

The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety

and Health (non-defense); and Technical Information Management.

As in fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends that the funds

for Energy Supply activities remain available until expended.

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in

March 2000 identified a number of deficiencies in the management

and organization of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (EERE), including the absence of clear goals and priorities,

an integrated work program linked to those goals and priorities,

and milestones reflecting program results. In fiscal year 2001, the

Committee noted that ‘‘[a]ll 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 simulVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
102

taneously.’’ The opposite situation exists in fiscal year 2002, where

the initial budget request proposed reductions of nearly 50 percent

in most renewable energy programs. A budget amendment of $39.1

million restored funding in some but not all of these renewable energy programs. Again, there is no clear rationale provided to explain the selective budget cuts, and no sense that the Department

is conducting an integrated program with a well-defined scheme for

measuring success. There is also no apparent coordination between

the budget request, which was submitted to Congress in April 2001

and amended in early May 2001, and the National Energy Policy,

which was released shortly after submission of the amended budget

request.

The total Committee recommendation for renewable energy resources is $376,817,000, an increase of $100,164,000 over the

amended budget request and $1,032,000 over fiscal year 2001 funding.

Metrics.—The objective of federal research on renewable energy

resources should be to develop significant quantities of clean, reliable and affordable energy from renewable resources. The Secretary of Energy reports that, from fiscal year 1977 through fiscal

year 2001, the cumulative Federal investment by the Department

of Energy in renewable energy technologies totals over $6.1 billion.

The Committee is concerned that we continue to expend federal research dollars on various renewable technologies without a clear

relation between the money invested and the power generated. As

the NAPA report noted, there is within EERE an ‘‘emphasis on

process rather than on product.’’ The Department needs to develop

a clear set of metrics that can be used by the Congress and the Administration to compare the effectiveness of the federal investment

in alternate energy sources. These metrics should include the cumulative federal investment to date in each technology, the current

cost per kilowatt-hour generated, a realistic assessment of likely future costs and performance with additional research and development, the current total amount of power generated in the United

States by each source, a realistic assessment of the potential future

power generation capacity available from each source, and an estimate of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of each

technology. Past and present subsidies to each technology should

be clearly identified. The metrics should also indicate the progress

of each technology along the research, development and deployment

spectrum so that it is clear when a particular technology is mature

enough to hand off to the private sector, recognizing the need to

overcome various market barriers and infrastructure gaps. The Department should submit the above-referenced metrics as part of the

detailed budget justification for Renewable Energy Resources in the

fiscal year 2003 budget request and in subsequent budget requests.

Strategic Review.—The Committee is supportive of the Department’s recently announced strategic review of its renewable energy

programs. Such a review is consistent with the need for reliable

and quantifiable measures of success, as outlined in the preceding

paragraph, which can be used to guide future funding decisions.

Upon completion of this strategic review, the Department should

submit, if necessary, a reprogramming request to align fiscal year

103

2002 spending on the most cost-effective renewable energy technologies.

Renewable energy technologies

Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels energy

systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen research,

hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems.

Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems.—The Committee recommendation for biomass/biofuels energy systems is $88,960,000,

which is an increase of $7,005,000 over the amended budget request and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. This

amount includes $41,010,000 for power systems and $47,950,000

for the transportation program. The funds provided for power systems include: $2,000,000 for re- search and development on biopower from switchgrass; $1,000,000

to support a cost-shared Agricultural Waste Methane Power Generation Facility in California; $1,000,000 to support a cost-shared

agricultural mixed waste biorefinery in Alabama using the thermal-depolymerization technology; and $1,000,000 to support the

Black Belt Bioenergy Demonstration Project in Alabama. The funds

provided for the transportation program include $1,000,000 for

microcombustion research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the program account

level of biomass/biofuels energy systems.

Geothermal technology development.—The Committee provides $27,000,000 for geothermal technology development, an increase of

$13,100,000 over the budget request and the same as the fiscal

year 2001 funding level. The Committee is particularly concerned

about preserving a strong knowledge base on geothermal energy in

the university community. The budget request, however, proposed

to reduce university research on geothermal technologies by over

80 percent. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes

sufficient funding in the geothermal technology development account to maintain university research on geothermal technologies

at the fiscal year 2001 funding level of $2,600,000. The Committee

recommendation also includes $2,000,000 in final funding for the

Lake County Basin geothermal project in California.

Hydrogen research.—The National Energy Policy of May 2001

noted the promise of hydrogen as a clean-burning, limitless fuel of

the future, and recommended continued research on next-generation hydrogen technologies. Funding of $27,000,000 is provided for

hydrogen research, an increase of $119,000 over the amended

budget request and the same as fiscal year 2001 funding.

Hydropower.—A major focus of the Department’s recent research

on hydropower has been on the development of more environmentally friendly turbine designs that will reduce fish mortality.

While a worthwhile objective, such research is more appropriately

funded by turbine manufacturers and by the federal agencies with

responsibility for building and operating federal hydropower facilities, principally the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the power marketing administrations. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for hydropower research by the Department of Energy, $2,000,000 less than fiscal year 2001 and

$1,989,000 less than the amended budget request.

104

Solar Energy.—Solar energy technologies include: concentrating

solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and solar building technology research. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy is $94,657,000, an increase of $51,725,000 over the budget request and $1,132,000 over fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommends $7,932,000 for concentrating solar power, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request and

$5,868,000 less than fiscal year 2001. Both solar troughs and solar

dish/Stirling engine technologies have the potential to be more efficient than solar tower technology. Therefore, $6,000,000 is provided

to the Department for field testing of these technologies, and

$1,932,000 is provided to the national laboratories for materials research, reliability testing, and support. Photovoltaic energy systems are funded at $81,775,000, an in- crease of $6,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 and $42,775,000 over the

budget request. The recommendation includes $8,700,000 for basic

research/university programs and $18,500,000 for the thin film

partnership program. The Committee supports cooperation with

universities and industry to develop the science and engineering

base required to move photovoltaic technology from the laboratory

bench to the assembly line. The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for solar building tech- nology research, an increase of $1,000,000 over fiscal year 2001 and

$2,950,000 over the budget request.

The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the solar energy program account level.

Wind energy systems.—The Committee recommends $40,000,000

for wind energy systems, the same as in fiscal year 2001 and an

increase of $19,500,000 over the budget request. The Committee

supports the Department’s current focus on developing the next

generation of wind turbines that will be able to generate electricity

at a competitive cost per kilowatt-hour in moderate (i.e., Class 4)

winds without the need for a continuing federal subsidy. The Department is encouraged to work with private turbine manufacturers and the utility industry to develop, test, and bring such turbines to market at the earliest opportunity.

Electric energy systems and storage

The electric energy systems and storage program is funded at

$60,000,000, $8,000,000 more than in fiscal year 2001 and

$8,254,000 more than the amended budget request. Under this program, the Department conducts research and development on advanced technologies for the generation, transmission, storage, and

distribution of electric power. The Committee encourages the Department to continue its work to support the timely deployment of

distributed energy resources.

The Committee recommends $39,870,000 for high temperature

superconducting research and development, $3,051,000 more than

the amended budget request and $2,870,000 more than provided in

fiscal year 2001. For energy storage systems, the Committee provides $7,130,000, $1,143,000 more than the budget request and

$1,130,000 more than fiscal year 2001. For transmission reliability,

the Committee recommends $13,000,000, an increase of $4,000,000

over the funding level in fiscal year 2001 and an increase of

105

$4,060,000 over the budget request. Within the funds available for

transmission reliability, the Department should initiate the field

testing of advanced composite conductors, which have the potential

to increase the capacity of existing transmission lines.

The control level for fiscal year 2002 is at the electric energy systems and storage program account level.

Renewable support and implementation

The renewable support and implementation program includes departmental energy management, international renewable energy,

the renewable energy production incentive (REPI), renewable Indian energy resources, and renewable program support. The Committee recommendation for renewable support and implementation

is $12,500,000, an increase of $2,950,000 over the budget request

and a decrease of $9,100,000 compared to the fiscal year 2001 funding level. This recommendation provides $2,500,000 for departmental energy management, $3,000,000 for the international renewable energy program, $4,000,000 for the renewable energy production incentive program, and $3,000,000 for renewable program

support. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee has

provided no funding for renewable Indian energy resources, with

available funds directed to other renewable energy work.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

The Committee recommendation for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, is $5,000,000, the

same as the budget request and an increase of $1,000,000 over the

fiscal year 2001 funding level. NREL is one of the Department’s

newer laboratories, and it is essential that the Department maintain this facility properly so that it does not require a larger investment later in time, as is the case with much of the infrastructure

elsewhere in the DOE complex.

Program direction

The Committee notes with disapproval that the Department requested a three percent increase for program direction at the same

time as it proposed a 36 percent reduction in the total funding for

Renewable Energy Resources. The program direction funding, and

the Federal staff supported by this funding, should be proportional

to the funding available for substantive research and development

work on renewable energy resources. The Committee, therefore,

recommends $18,700,000 for program direction, the same as the

fiscal year 2001 level and a reduction of $500,000 from the budget

request.

The Committee supports the Department’s initiative to improve

the project management capabilities in the Golden Field Office.

Centralized project management by the federal staff in Golden

should offer efficiencies compared to the current fragmented approach in which renewable energy projects are managed by a variety of other field offices and laboratories. However, the Committee

does not believe that this initiative requires additional funding and

FTEs. Instead, the Department should look first at retraining the

existing federal workforce in the Golden Field Office and then

106

gradually shift more project management responsibilities as their

capabilities improve.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Department’s programs support a wide variety of applications of nuclear energy, from powering spacecraft to treating cancer

to developing reactor technologies that provide 20 percent of the

Nation’s electricity. The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs is $224,130,000, an increase of $1,008,000 over

the budget request but a decrease of $35,795,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 funding level.

Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.—The Committee recommendation is $28,200,000, a reduction of $894,000 from the

budget request and $4,000,000 below the enacted level for fiscal

year 2001. The Committee acknowledges the importance of maintaining the infrastructure and institutional knowledge base necessary to provide radioisotope power systems for space and national

security missions. However, given the funding constraints on the

overall Department of Energy budget, the Department should seek

additional support for radioisotope power systems from the user

agencies.

Isotopes.—The amount provided for isotope support and produc- tion is $22,683,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request and $2,032,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. Funding for the

Isotope Production Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory is

$2,494,000, the same as the budget request. With the use of offsetting collections of $9,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, the net appropriation for isotopes is $16,177,000, $2,000,000 less than the budget request. The recommendation includes $900,000 for alpha emitting

isotopes, the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001.

For the extraction of alpha emitting isotopes from excess uranium 233 presently stored in Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Department should submit a project plan to

the Committee by December 31, 2001, and include the proposal as

part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. This proposal should

clearly identify all project costs, including the costs for storage and

final disposal of the excess uranium 233 and for decontamination

and decommissioning of Building 3019. The Department’s proposal

should include a baseline estimate for these activities, so that it

can be determined whether or not the extraction of alpha emitting

isotopes would increase the ultimate cleanup costs for the excess

uranium 233 and for Building 3019. The Department’s proposal

should also address the cost-effectiveness of acquiring the medically-valuable isotopes from the Russian nuclear complex.

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.—The Committee

recommendation is $15,895,000, an increase of $3,921,000 over the

budget request and $3,895,000 over fiscal year 2001. The Committee is concerned about the recent decline in the number of graduates specializing in nuclear science and engineering. One of the

major impediments to the construction of next-generation nuclear

power plants in the United States may not be the technology itself,

but rather the lack of skilled scientists and engineers who can design, license, build, and operate these new reactor designs. The

Committee, therefore, provides additional funding for both the fuel

107

to support the university reactors and for the various grants and

fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education.

The Committee is aware that several universities are currently

deciding whether to continue operating their reactors for teaching,

research, and service. Past support for these reactors has been inadequate in view of their importance in forging the nation’s nuclear

technology capabilities. The Committee directs DOE to work with

the nuclear engineering community, the nuclear medicine community, and the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee to provide, through a peer-reviewed process, enhanced long-term support

for key university facilities, possibly including staff support and instrumentation. The Department should submit a report to the

Committee by December 31, 2001, presenting the Department’s

plan to accomplish this objective.

Research and Development.—The Committee strongly supports

continued research and development to make the current generation of nuclear power plants safer and more efficient, and to develop the next generation of reactors. The total Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and development is

$32,579,000, an increase of $5,500,000 over the budget request and

a decrease of $14,921,000 relative to fiscal year 2001.

For the nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) program, the Committee provides $5,000,000, the same amount as in fiscal year

2001 and $500,000 more than the budget request. As directed in

fiscal year 2001, all NEPO projects should have industry contributions that equal or exceed the Federal share.

The Committee recommendation for the nuclear energy research initiative (NERI) is $23,079,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the

budget request and a decrease of $11,921,000 compared to fiscal

year 2001. In addition to partnering with industry, the Department

should ensure that universities play a major role in the NERI program. The Committee provides $4,500,000 for nuclear energy tech- nologies, the same as the budget request and $3,000,000 less than

the fiscal year 2001 funding level. In addition to its efforts on developing Generation IV reactor technologies, the Department

should take steps to facilitate the near-term deployment of existing

advanced reactor designs. However, the Committee is not persuaded that the Federal government needs to fund the licensing of

advanced reactor designs. No funds are made available for activities related to the deployment of small modular reactors in remote

locations.

Infrastructure.—The Committee provides a total of $80,529,000,

$750,000 less than the budget request and $11,631,000 less than

fiscal year 2001. This includes $33,357,000 for ANL-West operations, $38,439,000 to implement the permanent deactivation of the

Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), and $8,733,000 for Test Reactor

Area (TRA) landlord costs. No funds are provided for initiation of

conceptual design for a remote-handled facility for transuranic

waste at ANL-West. Included within the TRA landlord appropriation is $500,000 for fire and life safety improvements and $950,000

for the electrical utility upgrade.

Nuclear facilities management.—The Committee recommendation

is $30,250,000, a reduction of $207,000 from the budget request

108

and $4,600,000 from the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The recommendation includes $4,200,000 for EBR-II shutdown,

$16,200,000 for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel and legacy materials, and $9,850,000 for disposition technology.

Program direction.—The Committee is concerned that the Department proposes to increase program direction funding by 8.8

percent at the same time it proposes to reduce the total program

funding by 8.4 percent. Such a disproportionate increase in program direction funding is not supportable. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation for program direction funding is

$20,500,000, a reduction of $1,500,000 from fiscal year 2001 and

$4,562,000 from the budget request.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation is $31,500,000, a reduction of

$4,000,000 from the budget request and $4,498,000 from fiscal year

2001.

As directed in section 308 of the General Provisions part of this

Act, the Department is to prepare for the transition to external regulation of nuclear safety and worker health and safety for the nondefense science laboratories. The effective date for the transition to

external regulation of these facilities will be October 1, 2002. The

Department should transfer $4,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) to cover NRC’s costs to prepare for the transition to external regulation. The Department should transfer

$720,000 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA), $120,000 for external regulation preparations and

$600,000 for worker health and safety at those sites transferred to

non-Federal entities and for the Department’s non-nuclear facilities

not covered under the Atomic Energy Act.

The Department should plan on reducing its current headquarters staffing levels by at least 10 percent upon the implementation of external regulation in fiscal year 2003, and should determine whether reductions in field staffing are appropriate as well.

The Department should also take steps to reduce its reliance on

support contractors for the environment, safety, and health function.

The Committee supports the efforts of the Department and its

contractors on the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). Modeled

after a successful OSHA program, VPP encourages the Department’s contractors to apply industry best practices for health and

safety.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation for the Technical Information

Management program is $7,870,000, a reduction of $1,100,000 from

the budget request and $730,000 from the enacted level for fiscal

year 2001. Funding for program support is $1,400,000, and funding

for program direction is $6,470,000. The Committee is concerned

that the Department is duplicating technical information services

that are already available from the private sector. The Department

should carefully review its information services such as

PubSCIENCE to be sure that such efforts remain focused on approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
109

priate scientific journals and do not compete improperly with similar services available from the private sector.

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $277,200,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 228,553,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 227,872,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥49,328,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥681,000

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 activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination

which requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of action. The major activities are: Site Closure for cleanup projects to

be completed by the end of fiscal year 2006, and for which no further DOE mission is anticipated; Site/Project Completion for cleanup projects that will be completed by 2006, but where DOE programs will continue; Post 2006 Completion for cleanup projects

that will extend beyond 2006; and Excess Facilities for final disposition of excess contaminated facilities. The Committee recommendation is $227,872,000, a decrease of $681,000 from the

budget request.

The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill contains

additional funding of $11,950,000 for this program. An additional

$10,000,000 was provided for cleanup activities at the Brookhaven

National Laboratory and $1,950,000 to study remediation options

at the former Atlas Corporation’s uranium mill tailings site near

Moab, Utah.

SITE CLOSURE

The recommendation for site closure is $43,000,000, the same as

the budget request, which will maintain the Weldon Spring Site

cleanup for completion in 2002.

SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION

The recommendation for site/project completion is $64,119,000,

the same as the budget request.

POST 2006 COMPLETION

The recommendation for post 2006 completion is $115,753,000, a

decrease of $4,300,000 from the budget request of $120,053,000.

Additional funding of $3,700,000 has been provided to maintain the

cleanup activities at the Energy Technology Engineering Center in

California consistent with fiscal year 2001.

Atlas.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for

stabilization activities at the Atlas uranium mill tailings site in

Moab, Utah. The budget requested no funding for this activity. The

Committee also provided funds in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental budget request to prepare a remediation plan for the Atlas

in Moab, Utah. The Department is required to prepare this remediation plan, with the assistance of the National Academy of

110

Sciences, by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2001 (P.L. 106–398) before it can proceed with site remediation.

West Valley.—The Committee recommendation for the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York is $85,115,000, a reduction

of $10,000,000 from the budget request of $95,115,000. This recommendation includes $38,000,000 for high-level waste vitrification

and tank heel high activity waste processing and $3,000,000 for

spent nuclear fuel, both funded at the same level as the budget request. The amount for site transition, decommissioning, and project

completion is $44,115,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the

budget request, but only $271,000 less than fiscal year 2001. The

Department is to spend these funds performing the most critical

activities necessary to maintain the West Valley site in a safe and

stable condition.

The Committee is concerned about the impasse in negotiations

between the Department and the State of New York over a number

of critical issues, including the scope of Federal cleanup activities

at the site, the duration of the Federal presence at the site, nonFederal funding for disposition of vitrified high level waste and

spent nuclear fuel, and the respective Federal and non-Federal cost

shares. The lack of agreement does not impede completion of vitrification at West Valley, and the Department has indicated that certain other decontamination and waste management activities can

proceed absent a final agreement with the State of New York. However, some site transition, decommissioning, and project completion

activities are deferred pending resolution of this impasse.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed an

analysis of the situation in a report entitled ‘‘Nuclear Waste:

Agreement Among Agencies Responsible for the West Valley Site is

Critically Needed’’ (GAO–01–314). This report identified the lack of

agreement between the Department of Energy and the State of

New York as the most significant impediment to completing cleanup of the West Valley site. The GAO found the differences between

the Department and the State so serious that agreement is unlikely without Congressional intervention.

The Department may submit a reprogramming request for additional funds for remaining site transition, decommissioning, and

project completion activities only upon successful conclusion of an

agreement with the State of New York. Such agreement must be

consistent with the project scope and cost-sharing requirements as

defined in the West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980, and

with the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, regarding the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level

waste. Any proposal by the Department to exceed the constraints

of existing law must be transmitted in advance to the Committee

with an explanation of why such a proposal is in the Federal interest. Offers made by the Department on behalf of the Federal government may not be protected from Congressional oversight by a

confidentiality agreement.

EXCESS FACILITIES

The environmental management program is responsible for final

disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout the Department. Funds are currently being expended only for surveillance

111

and maintenance of most excess facilities, and these costs will continue until decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) is completed. The Committee strongly urges the Department to seek new,

innovative, and less costly ways to accomplish final D&D of these

facilities.

The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the excess facility program, an increase of $3,619,000 over the budget request. The

budget requested only surveillance and maintenance costs for the

excess facilities transferred to the program in fiscal year 2002. In

addition to these surveillance and maintenance costs, the recommendation includes $3,619,000 to initiate a program to begin

the actual D&D of excess facilities already owned by the environmental management program. These funds must be used to dispose

of those facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing

long-term costs and risk.

URANIUM FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $392,502,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 363,425,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 393,425,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +923,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +30,000,000

Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate the programs previously funded in two separate accounts: one set of activities funded by the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund and managed by the Office of Environmental Management, and the other set of related uranium activities that had

been managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. The consolidated Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account is managed by the Office of Environmental Management and includes two subaccounts, the Uranium Enrichment

Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and Other Uranium

Activities. The Committee recommendation is $393,425,000, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request and $923,000 more

than fiscal year 2001.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fund.—This fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992

(P.L. 102–486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation’s three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio, and at

Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also authorized use of

a portion of the Fund to reimburse private licensees for the Federal

government’s share of the cost of cleaning up uranium and thorium

processing sites.

The Committee recommends $272,641,000 for activities funded

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request

and a reduction of $72,397,000 compared to fiscal year 2001. Funding for the depleted uranium hexaflouride (DUF6) conversion facilities is shifted to the Other Uranium Activities subaccount, as it

was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and DecommisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
112

sioning Fund includes a portion of the funds necessary to provide

for winterization and cold standby at the Portsmouth plant; the

balance of the funds are provided under Other Uranium Activities.

The net increase over the budget request, $30,000,000 in consideration of the shift of DUF6 activities to Other Uranium Activities,

is to be divided with $10,000,000 to the Paducah site and

$20,000,000 to the East Tennessee Technology Park.

The Committee recommendation includes the requested amount,

$1,000,000, for uranium and thorium reimbursements as authorized by Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Because of significantly increased funding for this activity in fiscal year 2001, the

Department indicates that the backlog of reimbursements has been

eliminated and $1,000,000 will be sufficient for anticipated claims

in fiscal year 2002.

Other Uranium Activities.—The Committee recommendation is

$120,784,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request.

This $10,000,000 reflects the transfer of DUF6 activities from the

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

subaccount to the Other Uranium Activities subaccount. In addition to funds for the DUF6 conversion project at Portsmouth and

Paducah, the Other Uranium Activities subaccount includes maintenance of enrichment facilities and inventories, financial liabilities

arising prior to the privatization of the United States Enrichment

Corporation, and the balance of the winterization and cold standby

activities for the Portsmouth plant. These are funded at the Administration’s requested levels: $99,000,000 for maintenance of facilities and inventories, including the winterization/cold standby

work at Portsmouth; $11,784,000 for pre-existing liabilities; and

$10,000,000 for the DUF6 conversion facilities (transferred from

the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fund).

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $3,180,341,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 3,159,890,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,166,395,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥13,946,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +6,505,000

The Science account funds the Department’s work on high energy

physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental sciences,

basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, energy research analyses, facilities support for the multiprogram energy laboratories, fusion energy sciences, safeguards and security, and program direction. The Committee is very supportive of most of the research conducted by the Department’s Office of Science, but funding constraints preclude significant increases this fiscal year. The

Committee recommendation is $3,166,395,000, an increase of

$6,505,000 over the budget request and $13,946,000 less than the

fiscal year 2001 funding level.

113

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $716,100,000 for high energy physics, the same as the budget request and $10,030,000 less than fiscal year 2001.

Research and technology.—The Committee recommendation for

research and technology in high energy physics is $247,870,000,

the same as the budget request and $13,150,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2001.

Facility operations.—The Committee recommends $456,830,000

for facility operations, the same as the budget request and

$2,180,000 less than fiscal year 2001. This amount includes

$244,739,000 for Fermilab and $125,078,000 for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center to provide for full operation of these facilities.

Construction.—The Committee recommendation for construction

of the Neutrinos at the Main Injector project at Fermilab is

$11,400,000, the same as the budget request.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is

$361,510,000, $1,000,000 more than the budget request, but

$8,380,000 less than provided in fiscal year 2001. Additional funds

are provided for university research in nuclear physics.

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for biological and environmental

research is $445,880,000, an increase of $2,910,000 over the budget

request but $55,380,000 less than in fiscal year 2001.

This amount includes $19,470,000, the same as the budget request, to continue the Microbial Cell Project and to initiate the

Genomes to Life program. The National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC), which is integrated throughout the

Environmental Processes subaccount, is funded at the requested

funding level of $8,763,000.

Joint Genome Institute.—The Committee recommendation provides the requested amount for the Joint Genome Institute,

$57,200,000. The Committee encourages the Joint Genome Institute to utilize its sequencing capacity to provide sequences and

draft sequences of the gene-rich regions of plant and microbial organisms of economic importance to agriculture, such as corn,

wheat, and plant pathogens.

Construction.—The Committee recommendation includes

$11,405,000, an increase of $1,405,000 over the budget request, to

complete the construction of the Laboratory for Comparative Functional Genomics at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The total

project cost for this facility is only $14,420,000. By completing construction in two rather than three fiscal years, this will enable beneficial occupancy of the new facility in May 2003 instead of May

2004. This accelerated project completion will save the costs of utilities and maintenance for the old facility, plus the site usage fee

at the Y–12 site, yielding a total net savings to the Federal government of approximately $800,000.

114

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is

$1,006,705,000, $2,000,000 more than the budget request and a reduction of $6,665,000 from fiscal year 2001. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2002, the Department may allocate

funding among all operating accounts within basic energy sciences.

Spallation Neutron Source.—The Committee recommends the requested amount for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source

(SNS), $276,300,000. This represents an increase of $16,800,000

compared to fiscal year 2001. The Committee appreciates the recent improvements made in the management of this project, but

cautions the Department to maintain a close watch on the various

components of the SNS being produced by other national laboratories.

Intense Pulsed Neutrino Facility.—The Committee recognizes the

value of such a facility in conjunction with the Spallation Neutron

Source, but budget constraints preclude funding an intense pulsed

neutrino facility in fiscal year 2002.

Nanoscale Science Research.—The Committee supports the creation of several regional nanoscale science research centers consistent with the September 1999 recommendations of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council. The Committee also supports the efforts of the Department to seek the active involvement of the academic community in the development of

these centers. However, the Committee reminds the Department

that its efforts to involve universities must reach broadly and openly rather than selectively. Consistent with existing policies for current user facilities, discussions regarding the characteristics and

equipment to be provided in these planned nanoscience user facilities should be open to all U.S. universities via published notice,

workshops, and other formal mechanisms. The external users of

the Department’s resources must be determined through the competitive peer-review process. Any partnership arrangements between the involved national laboratories and academic institutions,

or any other non-federal partners, must follow procedures to ensure

full and open competition, as required by section 309 of this Act.

The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to initiate

project engineering and design (PED) for three nanoscale science

research centers in fiscal year 2002. This is a reduction of

$1,000,000 from the budget request of $4,000,000. Any additional

centers should be requested as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget

request. The detailed budget justification for fiscal year 2003

should also provide more accurate cost estimates for the three centers receiving PED funds in fiscal year 2002. The Committee expects the Department to maintain tight cost and schedule controls

on these three facilities.

The additional $3,000,000 included over the budget request is to

be made available for university research in nanoscale science and

engineering.

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

(EPSCoR).—The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000

115

within available funds for EPSCoR, an increase of $2,315,000 over

the budget request and $3,185,000 over fiscal year 2001.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $163,050,000, the same as

the budget request and $6,950,000 less than the funding in fiscal

year 2001. The Committee is supportive of the objectives of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, but is concerned that the effort not duplicate the work already being done on

the defense side of the Department in the Advanced Scientific Computing Initiative (ASCI). The Department should submit a report

not later than December 31, 2001, that specifically outlines the differences between the objectives and current and proposed work activities of ASCR and ASCI. The Department is also directed to

maximize the involvement of universities in the ASCR program, so

that both the Department and the academic community can share

in the latest technology developments in this field.

ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSES

The Committee recommendation for energy research analyses is

$1,000,000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal year

2001 funding level.

MULTI-PROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT

The multi-program energy laboratories facilities support program

provides funding to support the infrastructure at the five multi-program national laboratories under the direction of the Office of

Science. This program also provides funding for landlord costs for

the centralized Oak Ridge Operations Office. The Committee recommendation is $30,175,000, the same as the budget request but

$3,755,000 less than in fiscal year 2001. This amount includes the

requested funds of $3,183,000 for project engineering design for

three new projects: Phase I of the mechanical and control systems

upgrade at Argonne National Laboratory—East, laboratory systems

upgrades at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the research support center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (project

02–SC–001). Also included is $18,613,000, the same as the budget

request, for various infrastructure improvement projects at the five

multi-program national laboratories (project MEL–001).

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is

$248,495,000, $6,505,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 funding

level but the same as the amended budget request. The Committee

concurs with the National Energy Policy’s assessment of the potential for fusion energy, but funding constraints prevent additional

research funding at this time. The Committee has also provided

$25,000,000 in the inertial confinement fusion program for high average power lasers which is complementary to the work performed

in fusion energy sciences.

116

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for a new Facilities and

Infrastructure program to improve the facilities and infrastructure

at the Department’s science laboratories. The Administration’s

budget proposal included no funding for this program. These funds

should be used to reduce the backlog of maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess facilities.

The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities and

infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department does not

have in place a facilities management structure to ensure the funds

are used to address those items which will have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. The Department is to

provide a semi-annual report to the Committee on the status of the

facilities and infrastructure program. The report should include the

current priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure

projects including cost and schedule requirements. For each site,

the report is to include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to

meet its missions and to address its long-term operational costs

and return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and

infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding for

maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through other

parts of the budget; and the current status of each facilities and

infrastructure project compared to the original baseline cost, schedule, and scope.

The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the facilities

and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of excess facilities

that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs

and risk. New and innovative decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) practices must be implemented to reduce costs and

expedite site cleanups. There are clearly savings to be realized

throughout the complex as evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats site that reduced the cost of D&D for a

building from an estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial

practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also been

identified at other sites through the use of standard commercial

practices for D&D.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the cost of safeguards and security

activities at the multi-program and single-purpose science laboratories are now direct funded in the Science appropriation. The

Committee recommends $55,412,000, the same as the budget request and $5,594,000 more than fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $134,980,000, a reduction of

$4,265,000 from fiscal year 2001 and $7,405,000 less than the

amended budget request. The control level for fiscal year 2002 is

at the program account level of program direction.

117

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $190,654,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 134,979,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 133,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥57,654,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥1,979,000

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established

the Federal government’s responsibility for the permanent disposal

of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and established the statutory framework to guide the selection and development of a site for a permanent repository. This law also created the

Nuclear Waste Fund to finance the disposal of commercially generated spent nuclear fuel through the collections of fees from the

owners and generators of such spent fuel. The costs for disposal of

high-level radioactive waste generated from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy, and the spent nuclear

fuel generated by the Department of Defense, are funded by the

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation.

The Department was required by statute to accept commercial

spent nuclear fuel for disposal beginning on January 31, 1998, and

has entered into legally enforceable contracts with utilities to execute that obligation. It is now anticipated that the Department will

submit the Site Recommendation to the President in early fiscal

year 2002. Assuming the President and the Congress accept the

Department’s recommendation, the Department will then submit a

License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in fiscal

year 2003. This will, at best, lead to initial repository operations

beginning in 2010, twelve years after the Department was supposed to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for disposal. During

that time, the liability of the Federal government for its failure to

meet its statutory and contractual obligation to accept commercial

spent fuel beginning in January 1998 will continue to grow. The repository is also essential to the ability of the Department to remove

defense-related high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel

from other sites in the DOE complex, and the delay in repository

completion may affect the government’s ability to meet legally enforceable cleanup milestones at those sites.

The Committee is disappointed with the latest slippage in the

Department’s schedule for submission of the Site Recommendation

from fiscal year 2001 into fiscal year 2002, and the consequent

delay in the License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003. Nevertheless, it

is critical for the Department to complete the site selection process

in fiscal year 2002 so that it can move forward expeditiously with

the design, licensing, and construction of the repository.

The Committee recommends $133,000,000 from the Nuclear

Waste Fund in fiscal year 2002. Combined with the appropriation

of $310,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account,

this provides a total of $443,000,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $1,979,000 from the budget request. When coupled with the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

appropriation, this represents a total increase of $48,074,000 over

118

the funding provided to the Department for nuclear waste disposal

in fiscal year 2001.

State and local government funds.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000 for the affected units of local government

and $2,500,000 for the State of Nevada to conduct their respective

external oversight responsibilities. These are the same funding levels as provided in fiscal year 2001. After being reassured that prior

problems with improper use of Federal funds provided to the State

of Nevada had been corrected, the Committee restored funding to

the State in fiscal year 2001. These funds were provided through

the Department to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management, for use in executing appropriate scientific and technical oversight activities. The State is prohibited from using these external

oversight funds to pay the salaries and expenses of State employees, nor can it use Federal funds to engage in lobbying against the

repository. Unfortunately, the Department has not yet conducted

an audit to confirm whether this new funding arrangement is

working as intended and is not repeating the problems of past

years. The Committee is aware of the State’s request for additional

external oversight funding as the critical site selection decision will

be made in early fiscal year 2002. The Committee is also aware

that the State legislature has approved the Governor’s request for $4,000,000 in State funds for use in lobbying and litigation to block

the repository. In the absence of an independent audit to verify

that funding provided in fiscal year 2001 has been spent properly

by the State, the Committee recommends no increase in State

funding for fiscal year 2002. The Department is directed to audit

the Federal funds provided to Nevada at the earliest opportunity

to confirm that these funds have been used in a manner consistent

with Congressional guidance.

The Administration proposed changing the recipient of the external oversight funds for the State of Nevada from the Nevada Division of Emergency Management to the Nevada Office of Science,

Engineering and Technology. In the absence of any justification

from the Department for this change, and without an audit or

other evidence to show that the present recipient (i.e., the Division

of Emergency Management) is using the fiscal year 2001 Federal

funds improperly, the Committee does not make the requested

change in recipient.

Future program funding.—The Department has acknowledged

that the current funding arrangement will not provide sufficient

funds for design and construction of the repository. The one mil fee

paid by the consumers of electricity generated by nuclear power

yields annual collections in the $600 to $700 million range. With

the improved operating efficiency of reactors in recent years and

the extension of several reactor licenses, this collection is expected

to exceed $700 million in fiscal year 2001. The Nuclear Waste Fund

presently has a balance of over $10 billion from collections of this

one mil fee in prior years.

The balance in the Waste Fund and the annual revenue generated by the one mil fee, coupled with the contribution from the

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation for defense-generated waste and spent fuel, should provide more than sufficient

funds for the design, construction, and operation of the repository.

119

In recent years, an annual appropriation of $300 to $400 million

has been sufficient to cover the expenses of the program for site

characterization work. Once the program moves out of the study

phase and into the design and construction phases, the annual

funding requirements will increase significantly, exceeding $1 billion annually for several fiscal years. This will exceed the annual

collections from the one mil fee, requiring either a major increase

in the defense contribution or expenditure from the balance in the

Nuclear Waste Fund, which would be scored as a new outlay. The

Committee expects that the Department’s budget request for fiscal

year 2003 will include a specific legislative proposal to resolve future funding requirements for this program.

Waste acceptance.—Because of concerns about the Department’s

commitment to the timely removal of spent nuclear fuel, the Committee in fiscal year 2001 directed the Department to submit its

plan for the fabrication and deployment of waste acceptance capabilities. In January 2001, the Department submitted a report entitled ‘‘Plan for Transportation Cask Fabrication and Deployment of

Waste Acceptance Capability.’’ This report merely confirms that the

Department’s strategy is to defer any concrete actions on waste acceptance pending final site selection. The Committee remains concerned that the Department will not be ready to fulfill its waste acceptance responsibilities consistent with the repository schedule,

particularly for spent fuel from reactors presently undergoing decommissioning. The Committee recommendation includes

$1,800,000 within available funds to initiate the procurement of

one transportation cask for each of the six reactor sites presently

undergoing dismantlement and decommissioning. Such procurement does not constitute a settlement or fulfillment of the Secretary’s obligation to take acceptance of spent nuclear fuel.

Transportation planning and readiness.—The United States has

an exemplary safety record in shipping commercial and naval spent

nuclear fuel. Nevertheless, a major point of public concern about

the permanent repository is the perceived risk of such shipments.

As with waste acceptance, the Department has opted to defer serious transportation planning until after completion of the final site

selection. With the site recommendation now scheduled for completion in early fiscal year 2002, the Department needs to take a more

aggressive approach in educating the public and working with state

and local governments to develop safe transportation routes to the

repository. One of the first steps should be to work with the State

of Nevada to specify the transportation modes and routes that will

avoid the Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Department should use

available funds in fiscal year 2002 to initiate the selection of transportation routes in Nevada and other States, in cooperation with

the States, and to begin planning for construction of a rail line to

the repository site.

Alternatives to the repository.—The National Research Council’s

Committee on Disposition of High-Level Radioactive Waste

Through Geological Isolation recently completed a report entitled

‘‘Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: The

Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges.’’ The National Research Council found that ‘‘geological disposition and surface storage are the only options that the committee found to be feasible

120

now or in the foreseeable future . . . ’’. The National Research

Council also makes clear that neither reprocessing nor transmutation of spent nuclear fuel, while having the potential to reduce the

total volume of radioactive wastes and especially the volume of

long-lived radionuclides, eliminates the need for a repository. Not

only does the accelerator transmutation of waste approach still require a repository, but the National Research Council cites data

provided by the Department of Energy showing that transmutation

will cost significantly more and take longer than the current geologic repository program. The West Valley Demonstration Project,

now estimated to cost $4.5 billion and take 40 more years to clean

up, is testimony to the fact that spent fuel reprocessing is not without its own environmental impacts and waste streams. Accordingly,

the Committee does not provide any funds in this bill for the Department to pursue these so-called alternatives to the repository.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $225,942,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 221,618,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 209,611,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥16,331,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥12,007,000

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ ¥$151,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... ¥137,810,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥137,810,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +13,190,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administra- tion is $209,611,000, a decrease of $12,007,000 from the budget request of $221,618,000. Funding recommended for Departmental

Administration provides for general management and program support functions benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy

and the National Nuclear Security Administration. The account

funds a wide array of activities not directly associated with program execution. Funding for many offices has been reduced due to

funding constraints and the availability of prior year carryover balances.

The Committee has provided bill language allowing the Department to transfer funds previously appropriated for Year 2000 (Y2K)

activities to the Departmental Administration account. In conjunction with Y2K conversion efforts begun in late 1998, the Department initiated full-scale modernization of its core financial systems

under the on-going Business Management Information System

(BMIS). BMIS is replacing out-of-date financial and budgeting systems and requires substantially greater federal support to assure

operational reliability by 2003. Balances remaining from funds

made available in the Departmental Administration, Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, and Defense Facilities Closure Projects accounts, estimated to total $1,480,000, are

transferred to and merged with the funding in this account. These

121

funds, which otherwise would expire on September 30, 2001, will

remain available until expended for the Federal costs associated

with the success of these continuing information technology enhancement activities.

Engineering and Project Management.—The Committee recommendation includes a separate account for the personnel and activities of the Office of Engineering and Construction Management

in line with the recommendation that the Office be provided greater authority within the Department’s organizational structure.

Funding for the facilities and infrastructure group has also been

transferred to this office. The Committee recommendation of

$7,600,000 does not include the budget proposal to fund central

project management activities through a tax on other organizations.

Working Capital Fund.—The Department is using a charge-back

program similar to a working capital fund which charges benefiting

programs and organizations with 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.

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 2002, 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 $71,837,000, 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 recommendation for revenues is $137,810,000,

the same as the budget request.

122

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. Consistent with the

budget request, the Committee has distributed these costs more equitably in fiscal year 2002 and provided $25,000,000 from national

security programs.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $31,430,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 31,430,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 32,430,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +1,000,000

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement.

The audit function provides financial and performance audits of

programs and operations. The inspection 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. During fiscal year 2001, the Department has received payments exceeding $10 million from Inspector General investigations which resulted in settlements in favor of the Government.

The Committee recommendation is $32,430,000, an increase of

$1,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee is aware that

additional duties assigned to the Office of the Inspector General by

Congress have not been fully funded in prior years. This funding

increase addresses that concern.

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, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator;

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 Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology and reducing the global danger from the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department, carries out these responsibilities. Established in March

2000 pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization

123

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), NNSA is responsible

for the management and operation of the Nation’s nuclear weapons, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities. Three

offices within the NNSA carry out the Department’s national security mission: the Office of Defense Programs, the Office of Defense

Nuclear Nonproliferation, and the Office of Naval Reactors.

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $5,006,153,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 5,300,025,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,123,888,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +117,735,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥176,137,000

The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain confidence in the safety, security, reliability and performance of the

Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain

and refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety

and reliability indefinitely under the nuclear testing moratorium

and arms reduction treaties. The Committee’s recommendation for

Weapons Activities is $5,123,888,000, a decrease of $176,137,000

from the budget request of $5,300,025,000, but an increase of

$117,735,000 over fiscal year 2001.

The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill contains

additional funding of $140,000,000 for weapons activities. An additional $54,000,000 was provided for directed stockpile work,

$9,000,000 for campaigns, and $47,000,000 for readiness in technical base and facilities. In addition, $30,000,000 was provided to

establish a new program, Facilities and Infrastructure, to reduce

maintenance backlogs and dispose of excess facilities.

Strategic Review.—The Administration is currently conducting a

review of the Nation’s nuclear weapons strategy, but the results of

this review are not yet known. The Committee is aware that the

outcome of this review could significantly change the weapons activities funding requirements for fiscal year 2002 and will make appropriate adjustments as needed during the appropriations process.

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee recommends limited

reprogramming authority within weapons activities for the production plants to provide flexibility to achieve cost savings and programmatic efficiencies during the year. In fiscal year 2002, each

plant may transfer between programs up to $5,000,000 or 10 percent of the funding, whichever is lower, if it can be shown that cost

savings and efficiencies will result. This reprogramming authority

is not to be used to cover cost overruns and schedule slips for any

project or program. 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 30

days of the use of this reprogramming authority.

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

124

Committee recommendation is $1,043,791,000, the same as the

budget request, and an increase of $133,188,000 over fiscal year

2001.

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 $1,945,413,000, a decrease of

$51,000,000 from the budget request of $1,996,413,000.

Inertial Confinement Fusion.—The Committee recommends

$492,943,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an increase of $25,000,000 over the budget request of $467,943,000. The

recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue development of

high average power lasers and supporting science and technology.

The Committee is disappointed that the Department has not yet

supported this activity despite recommendations by the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee and the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board and the continuing progress of the research. The Committee recommendation also includes the budget request of

$10,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory and $33,450,000 for

the University of Rochester.

The Department is also directed to initiate a study to determine

the programmatic need for a Petawatt laser facility.

The Committee recommendation provides $245,000,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the

budget request. While the Department has stated that the NIF is

back on track, a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) follow-up

review of NIF expressed some continuing concerns. GAO notes

that, while past internal reviewers have concluded that NIF’s milestones are challenging but doable, most major performance milestones will not occur until 2004, and some reviewers have recommended that more near-term milestones be added to assess laser

performance. Other issues that GAO believes continue to place NIF

at risk are: persistent DOE oversight problems (i.e., the same people have performed oversight since 1999 when NIF’s cost and

schedule grew unnoticed); the NIF project does not manage about

$700 million in research and development that directly support

NIF; and NIF still lacks an independent external review process.

The Committee expects the Department to address these concerns

in an expeditious manner.

Advanced simulation and computing.—The Committee recommendation for the Advanced Simulation and Computing program is $638,032,000, a reduction of $100,000,000 from the budget

request of $738,032,000. The Committee has consistently supported

this program, but believes that recent events could require a modification to the proposed program strategy. While the Department’s

schedule for a 100 trillion operations per second (100 TeraOPS)

computer has slipped beyond the original date of 2004, a private

company has begun an effort to increase computing capability with

the goal of achieving 100 TeraOPS by 2004. In addition, the Committee is funding the Advanced Scientific Computing Research proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
125

gram at a level in excess of $160,000,000 in the DOE non-defense

laboratories. The Department must ensure that the current program strategy takes into full account these changes which have occurred since the program was initiated in 1996.

Pit manufacturing and certification.—The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing readiness is $128,545,000, the

same as the budget request. The Department is currently unable

to demonstrate that it has a viable plan to manufacture and certify

pits on the schedule dictated by national security needs. The Department’s management and the national laboratory’s execution of

this project have been quite deficient—the project is years behind

schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over the original cost

estimate. The NNSA has established a separate project office to

oversee pit manufacturing and certification. The Committee will

base its judgment on the success of the NNSA on how well this

project succeeds. At this time the proposed certification date is

years away and does not meet national security requirements for

a new pit. The Department is directed to submit to the Committee

a comprehensive report on the status of this project on a quarterly

basis beginning October 1, 2001.

Secondary readiness.—The Committee has provided an additional

$24,000,000 in secondary readiness for the Y–12 Plant in Oak

Ridge, Tennessee. These additional funds are for direct support to

the stockpile life extension program, demonstration of technologies

for the Special Materials Complex facility, and modernization planning.

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 $1,481,988,000, an increase of $35,000,000 over

the budget request of $1,446,988,000. Additional funding of

$25,000,000 has been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and

$10,000,000 for the Y–12 Plant in Tennessee to meet facility needs.

Construction projects.—Funding of $9,500,000 has been provided

for Project 02–D–101, the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences

Applications (MESA) Complex at Sandia National Laboratories, an

increase of $7,500,000 over the budget request. Funding of

$7,500,000 for infrastructure activities has been transferred to the

MESA line item construction project from Project 01–D–103,

Project Engineering and Design (PE&D). The budget request of

$45,5379,000 for Project 01–D–103, PE&D, has been reduced accordingly to $37,879,000. In its fiscal year 2003 budget request for

MESA, the Department is directed to revise the project data sheet

to include the cost of disposing of excess facilities that are equal

to or greater than the new space that will be created by this

project.

Underground Nuclear Testing.—The Department of Energy was

slow to provide detailed justification for its supplemental appropriations funding request for fiscal year 2001 to the Committee.

The information it provided to the Committee was informal and on

an ad-hoc rather than a formal basis. After the Committee had

made its funding recommendations for the bill, DOE submitted forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.001 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
126

mal justification material to justify its request. The formal material

mentions funding to increase the state of readiness of underground

nuclear testing.

If the Nation were to decide to invest funds to restore underground nuclear testing to a higher level than presently, this could

only be done: (1) once the Secretary of Defense concluded his strategic review; (2) once the President made a recommendation to the

Congress; (3) once it was approved by the Armed Services Committees of the House and the Senate; and (4) only if it were subsequently approved by Congress. None of these activities has occurred. It is not the Committee’s intent to provide funding in this

Act, the supplemental appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, or

any prior Act for activities to increase the readiness for underground nuclear testing. None of the funds in such Acts may be

used for that purpose.

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Facilities and

Infrastructure program to address the serious shortfall in maintenance throughout the nuclear weapons complex. The Administration’s budget proposal included no funding for this program. These

funds should be used to reduce the backlog of maintenance and infrastructure upgrades and dispose of excess facilities. Funding of

$30,000,000 was also provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental

appropriations bill.

The Committee is aware of the need for funding a facilities and

infrastructure program, but is concerned the Department does not

have in place a facilities management structure to ensure the funds

are used to address those items which will have the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. The Department is to

provide a semi-annual report to the Committee on the status of the

facilities and infrastructure program. The report should include the

current priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure

projects including cost and schedule requirements. For each site,

the report is to include: a current ten-year site plan that demonstrates the reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to

meet its missions and to address its long-term operational costs

and return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and

infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding for

maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through other

parts of the budget; and the current status of each facilities and

infrastructure project compared to the original baseline cost, schedule, and scope.

The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the facilities

and infrastructure funding be used to dispose of excess facilities

that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs

and risk. New and innovative decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) practices must be implemented to reduce costs and

expedite site cleanups. There are clearly savings to be realized

throughout the complex as evidenced by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats site that reduced the cost of D&D for a

building from an estimated $3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial

practices. Potential cost savings of this magnitude have also been

127

identified at other sites through the use of standard commercial

practices for D&D.

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the safe,

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials,

and non-nuclear weapon components between military locations

and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the United States.

The Committee recommendation is $121,800,000, the same as the

budget request.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee recommendation is

$448,881,000, the same as the budget request, but an increase of

nearly 14 percent over fiscal year 2001. Physical safeguards and security measures are only part of the solution to address security

concerns throughout the weapons complex. With program needs

going unmet and infrastructure deteriorating, the Committee

strongly encourages the NNSA to review these growing costs and

seek smarter and more efficient ways to meet security needs.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation of $250,000,000 for program direction is a reduction of $21,137,000 from the budget request of

$271,137,000, and $566,000 below fiscal year 2001. Congress assumed that creation of the NNSA would lead to efficiencies and

streamlined management. However, the result has been an increase in staff at Headquarters and in the field. The conference report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106–398) decreased program direction funding for

fiscal year 2001 because the conferees believed the Office of Defense Programs to be overstaffed. The conferees urged the Department to eliminate duplicative efforts and streamline management

control and directed the Department to reorganize and realign

headquarters and field offices roles and responsibilities. The Committee expects the NNSA to address this issue during fiscal year

2002 and seek additional efficiencies throughout the Headquarters

and field organizations during fiscal year 2003.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation includes an adjustment of $184,985,000. This consists of a $28,985,000 security charge for reimbursable

work as included in the budget request and a general reduction of

$156,000,000.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $872,273,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 773,700,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 845,341,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥26,932,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +71,641,000

128

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development,

Arms Control, International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting, Russian Transition Assistance, HEU Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety, Fissile Materials Disposition, and Program Direction. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below. The Department requested $7,000 for official reception and representation expenses in this account. The Committee recommendation transfers this funding and combines it with the request of

$5,000 for official reception and representation expenses in the Office of the Administrator for a total of $12,000.

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 Committee recommendation is $216,102,000, an increase of

$10,000,000 over the budget request of $206,102,000. The recommendation provides an additional $10,000,000 for ground-based

systems for treaty monitoring which was reduced from $22,510,000

in fiscal year 2001 to $12,510,900 in the budget request.

Competitive Research.—Concerns have been raised repeatedly

that there should be more opportunity for open competition in certain areas of the nonproliferation and verification research and development program. A report by an outside group established by

the Department to review the Office of Nonproliferation Research

and Engineering included a similar recommendation. The Committee expects the Department to act in good faith on the recommendations provided by the external review group and directs

the Department to continue a free and open competitive process for

25 percent of its research and development activities during fiscal

year 2002 for ground-based systems treaty monitoring. The competitive process should be open to all Federal and non-Federal entities.

ARMS CONTROL

The Committee recommendation has restructured the Arms Control program to provide more visibility for program activities. The

arms control and nonproliferation program seeks to detect, prevent,

and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials, technology, and expertise. The major functional areas of the

program include: policy analysis; reduced enrichment research and

test reactor (RERTR); international safeguards; export control operations; treaty agreements; New Independent States (NIS) nonproliferation; and international security.

The Committee recommendation for Arms Control is $75,741,000,

a reduction of $25,759,000 from the budget request of

129

$101,500,000. Funding of $4,000,000 included in the Arms Control

program for Second Line of Defense activities has been transferred

to the International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting

program. Funding of $28,759,000 included in the budget request in

the NIS nonproliferation program for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) programs has been transferred to a new program, ‘‘Russian Transition

Assistance.’’ Within Arms Control, total funding of $15,945,000, an increase of $7,000,000 over the budget request, has been provided

to maintain the schedule for completing the spent fuel activities in

Kazakhstan.

NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian nuclear

weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific expertise from

Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons materials, and help

downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex.

In January of this year, ‘‘A Report Card on the Department of

Energy’s Nonproliferation Programs with Russia’’ was released by

the Russian Task Force co-chaired by Howard Baker and Lloyd

Cutler. The Committee has reviewed this report and supports the

major recommendation which states that, ‘‘The President, in consultation with Congress and in cooperation with the Russian Federation, should quickly formulate a strategic plan to secure and/or

neutralize in the next eight or ten years all nuclear weapons-usable

material located in Russia and prevent the outflow from Russia of

scientific expertise that could be used for nuclear or other weapons

of mass destruction.’’ The Task Force further notes that, ‘‘While

emphasizing that enhanced efforts are needed from the U.S., the

Task Force underscores that enhanced efforts are also required

from Russia. Ultimately, Russia will be responsible for securing its

remaining nuclear arsenal.’’ Within available funding, the Committee has sought to support the recommendations of this Task

Force.

Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement.—Several external

reviews have urged that excess quantities of Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) be reduced as quickly as possible. Excess

Russian HEU is currently being managed under the auspices of the

HEU Purchase Agreement established in 1994. This agreement authorized the U.S. to purchase 500 metric tons of Russian HEU that

was to be converted to low enriched uranium for commercial uses

over 20 years at a cost of $12 billion. While more than 110 metric

tons of HEU have been down-blended, implementation of the HEU

Purchase Agreement has been slower and more difficult than anticipated. The Committee strongly urges the Department to work

with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to explore

ways to accelerate the current purchase agreement.

With the continued downsizing of the Russian nuclear weapons

stockpile, more HEU is becoming available. The Administration is

urged to expand the amount of HEU purchases included in the

original agreement, which covers less than half of Russia’s total

HEU stockpile. The Committee is aware of the concerns that additional purchases could adversely impact the world market for uraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
130

nium. The Administration should explore options such as securing

a second U.S. executive agent for the purchase; down-blending the

material but leaving it in Russia until it can be sold onto international markets without adverse impacts; and working with the

international community to purchase additional blended-down Russian HEU. The Committee understands that much of the Russian

funding for its nuclear weapons complex conversion programs

comes from the HEU purchase agreement, so any increase in purchases should also ensure that the additional revenue is used for

these conversion initiatives.

Limitation on Russian Program Funds.—The Department is still

not adequately addressing the concern that too much of the money

for Russian programs is being spent in the U.S. at the Department’s own national laboratories rather than going to the facilities

in Russia. The Department’s contracting mechanisms are resulting

in excess funds going to pay laboratories for contract administration and oversight that would be better performed by Federal personnel. The Department’s national laboratories should be used to

provide technical oversight and programmatic guidance in those

areas where they have special expertise.

The Committee directs that not more than 25 percent of the

funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States.

The Department is not adequately reviewing the types of administrative and programmatic guidance that are needed for these programs and choosing the proper contractual mechanism. This leads

to excessive costs for administration and less funding going to Russia. The Department should report to the Committee by December

15, 2001, on the steps being taken to meet the 25 percent limitation.

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING

The International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting

(MPC&A) activities are designed to work cooperatively with Russia

to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus

is to improve the physical security at facilities that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable that are of proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the Russian security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure.

The Committee recommendation is $190,000,000, an increase of

$51,200,000 over the budget request of $138,800,000, and

$16,144,000 over fiscal year 2001. Funding of $4,000,000 is provided for the Second Line of Defense program which was transferred from the Arms Control program. The Committee has provided a significant increase in funding for fiscal year 2002. This increase should be targeted toward projects to consolidate materials

and reduce the number of buildings and facilities holding nuclear

materials. The Committee also directs the Department to increase

the level of program funding that goes to employing Russian workers and purchasing Russian-made equipment and reduce the

amount of funding that is spent in the United States.

131

RUSSIAN TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

The Committee has transferred the Initiatives for Proliferation

Prevention (IPP) and the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) programs

from Arms Control and established a new program, ‘‘Russian Transition Assistance.’’ The Committee recommendation is $40,000,000

for projects to employ Russian weapons scientists and downsize the

Russian weapons complex. The Committee recommendation provides $30,000,000 for IPP and $10,000,000 for NCI.

A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report suggested several areas of improvement for the NCI program and recommended

combining the NCI and IPP programs since they share a common

goal—employing Russian weapons scientists in nonmilitary work—

and, in many cases, are implementing similar types of projects. At

this time, the Committee has maintained the two separate programs, but expects the Department to provide a single program

manager responsible for both. The program manager should also

ensure close coordination with other Federal agencies that direct

money to scientists working in closed cities, such as the State Department’s International Science and Technology Center.

Management of the IPP program has improved considerably in

recent years, while the NCI program appears to be suffering the

same problems that IPP has overcome. The NCI program could be

strengthened significantly by using the same standards, applications, and approval procedures already in place in the IPP program. While the Committee believes that non-proliferation projects

should continue to take place within the closed cities, such projects

should be guided by an emphasis on private sector involvement

using the commercialization principles inherent in the IPP program.

To ensure that the appropriate amount of funding goes to facilities in Russia and the NIS, the Committee directs that not more

than 25 percent of the funds be spent at the Department of Energy

laboratories and that these funds be used by the laboratories only

for technical validation of projects. The Committee also recommends that the Department direct the United States Industry

Coalition (USIC) to assume responsibility for all business-related

activities including structuring contracts and intellectual property

rights arrangements.

A near-term measure of success for this program will be the

number of technologies that are commercialized, the number of jobs

created in Russia, and the amount that the Russian weapons complex is downsized. The ultimate measure of success will be elimination of U.S. aid to support these commercialization ventures. The

Committee expects the program to increase the amount of cost

sharing required from U.S. industry participants, and directs the

Department to establish a revolving fund to support the program,

and ultimately, eliminate Federal government funding of projects.

The Department is directed to report to the Committee by January 15, 2002, on the level of coordination with other Federal agencies and the implementation of the GAO recommendations to:

evaluate all ongoing NCI projects; establish quantifiable goals and

milestones for jobs creation and downsizing the weapons complex;

and strengthen efforts to reduce national laboratories’ costs to imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
132

plement the program. The report should also address whether the

two programs should be consolidated into a single effort and

whether cost savings and other programmatic and administrative

efficiencies would be possible through consolidation.

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 $13,950,000, 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

$10,000,000, a reduction of $3,800,000 from the budget request of

$13,800,000, due to funding constraints. The Committee expects

U.S. participation in this program to be completed by 2005.

From within available funds, $1,500,000 is to be used to transfer

and implement the proven U.S.-developed Mechanical Stress Improvement Process technology requested by the Russian Federation. The Department is to provide a status report on the progress

of this project by March 31, 2002.

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 include 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.

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The fissile materials disposition program is responsible for the

technical and management activities to assess, plan and direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally sound longterm storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to national defense

133

needs. The Committee recommendation is $290,089,000, the same

as the budget request, and an increase of $40,640,000 over fiscal

year 2001. Funding of $130,089,000, the same as the budget request, is provided for U.S. surplus materials disposition and

$57,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the Russian plutonium disposition program. The U.S. portion of the fissile materials

disposition program is not to be counted in the 25 percent limitation on funds for Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.

The Department’s budget request for fissile materials disposition

is insufficient to proceed with the simultaneous design and construction of three key plutonium disposition facilities. To accommodate the shortfall, DOE proposes to move ahead with the development of a mixed oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility while delaying work on the other two U.S. facilities until closer to the time

when they are needed. At the same time, DOE is examining various technical alternatives to make greater use of existing facilities

at Savannah River to reduce the costs of plutonium disposition.

The Department’s approach is understandable in light of the fact

that irradiating MOX fuel in nuclear reactors is key to working

with Russia to dispose of stocks of surplus Russian plutonium.

However, the Committee wants to remind DOE that it is essential

to provide an unambiguous and timely pathway out of Savannah

River for plutonium brought there from other sites for disposition.

Should unanticipated problems make proceeding with the irradiation of MOX fuel infeasible, the Department should proceed

promptly with immobilization to dispose of surplus U.S. plutonium.

Only in this manner does the Committee believe that DOE can

honor commitments to South Carolina, avoid billions of dollars in

long-term storage costs, and assure that Savannah River does not

become the de facto dumping ground for stockpiles of surplus U.S.

weapons plutonium.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation of $51,459,000 for program direction is the same as the budget request.

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $688,645,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 688,045,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 688,045,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥600,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of

naval nuclear propulsion—from technology development through

reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to the continued success of over 97 reactors in operating nuclear-powered submarines and surface ships and to development of the next generation reactor.

The Committee recommendation is $688,045,000, the same as

the budget request.

134

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $9,978,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 15,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 10,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +22,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥5,000,000

The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and oversight

for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and

Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field offices in New Mexico,

Nevada, and California. The Committee recommendation is

$10,000,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request,

and $22,000 more than fiscal year 2001.

The Committee recommendation provides $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. This combines

the request of $7,000 included in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account with the $5,000 requested in this account.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $4,963,533,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 4,548,708,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,174,539,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +211,006,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +625,831,000

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.

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for environmental management activities was not adequate to maintain cleanup progress at

each of the Department’s sites. While the Committee strongly supports the Secretary’s internal review of these programs, certain ongoing cleanup projects must be funded.

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management is $5,174,778,000, an increase

of $625,831,000 over the budget request of $4,548,708,000. Additional funding of $100,000,000 was provided in the fiscal year 2001

supplemental appropriations bill to support a variety of cleanup activities in this account. Details of the recommended funding levels

follow.

135

GENERAL

The Secretary has ordered a top-to-bottom review of the environmental management programs. The Committee supports this effort

and hopes to realize significant cost savings and program efficiencies from new and innovative cleanup strategies throughout the

complex.

Low level waste disposal costs.—The Department expects to generate 10.6 million cubic meters of low level radioactive waste

(LLW) and mixed low level waste (MLLW) needing disposal; of this

amount, only 1.2 million cubic meters is projected for disposal at

commercial facilities. The Committee is concerned that the Department is relying too heavily on the use of Federal on-site and offsite disposal cells, effectively inhibiting the development of a viable

and competitive commercial disposal industry. Commercial off-site

disposal facilities may offer the Department the lowest overall lifecycle cost for disposal of this waste, particularly if the Department

can foster some competition for its disposal business. The General

Accounting Office (GAO), in its report entitled ‘‘Nuclear Cleanup:

DOE Should Reevaluate Waste Disposal Options Before Building

New Facilities,’’ (GAO–01–441, May 2001), investigated three sites

which had decided to build on-site disposal facilities. The GAO

found that the Department had not used the latest estimates of

waste volumes and transportation costs when deciding between onsite and off-site disposal. The Committee is further concerned that

the Department has implemented a rate structure for the disposal

of low-level waste and mixed low-level waste disposal at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) which understates the true life-cycle cost of

disposal at NTS, thus making a fair comparison with commercial

disposal alternatives impossible.

The Committee expects the Department, where cost-effective, to

use existing Federal contracts for the disposal of low-level and

mixed low-level waste at commercial off-site disposal sites. The Department is directed to prepare an objective analysis of the lifecycle costs of LLW and MLLW disposal for the various Federal and

commercial disposal options. This cost analysis should include the

specific costs (on a unit volume of waste basis) for: preparation of

the waste; packaging of the waste for transport; transportation of

the waste to the disposal site; actual disposal of the waste at the

disposal site; long-term closure and stewardship costs at the disposal site; and the means and timing (as measured in cost of

money) for payments for disposal. The Department is directed to

submit a report to the Committee by February 1, 2002, with the

detailed cost data as specified above.

Project Changes.—The Department is directed to provide a report

by January 30, 2002, showing the initial funding allocation by site

for each individual project. After that date, 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

136

cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2002, each site manager may

transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program activities such as site/project

completion, 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 of the use of this reprogramming authority.

Economic development.—None of the environmental management

funds are available for economic development activities.

SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION

The site/project completion account provides funding for projects

that will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities

where a DOE mission will continue beyond the year 2006. This account focuses management attention on completing specific environmental projects at sites where the Department anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes these projects from the longterm cleanup activities such as those associated with high level

waste streams.

The Committee recommendation for site/project completion ac- tivities is $1,041,996,000, an increase of $130,010,000 over the

budget request of $911,986,000. Additional funding of $95,000,000

is provided for the Idaho site to support activities necessary to

meet deadlines for shipping waste out of the State; $20,000,000 for

the Savannah River Site for plutonium packaging and stabilization

activities and restoration of infrastructure funding; and

$34,300,000 for the Hanford site to support the River Corridor Initiative. Funding for Project 01–D–414, Project Engineering and De- sign, has been reduced by $3,500,000, and Project 92–D–140, F&H

Canyon Exhaust Upgrades, has been reduced by $15,790,000 due

to deferral and elimination of some activities.

The Committee is extremely concerned that projects previously

scheduled for completion by 2006 are slipping beyond that date.

The Department should be very careful not to underestimate the

strong interest of the Committee that site/project cleanups remain

on schedule. The Department must demonstrate that it is capable

of completing projects on schedule and within cost. It appears that

the Department is much too quick to slip the schedule rather than

pursue creative solutions to maintain the schedule within cost.

Problems that arise during the course of project execution must be

dealt with quickly to ensure project completion. During fiscal year

2002, the Department is to notify the Committee in writing of any

project that slips beyond 2006 and provide a detailed explanation

of the cause of the delay as well as proposed solutions for getting

the project back on schedule for 2006 completion.

POST 2006 COMPLETION

Environmental Management projects currently projected to require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post 2006

137

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 $3,393,472,000, an increase of $473,271,000 over the budget request of $2,920,201,000. Additional funding is provided to support

current cleanup schedules and fiscal year 2001 levels of funding at

the following sites: $109,290,000 for Savannah River; $105,200,000

for Hanford; $16,700,000 for Idaho; and $12,600,000 for the Waste

Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico.

From within available funds for the Savannah River Site, funding of $8,000,000 has been provided for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request

of $6,000,000.

Funding of $8,481,000 has been provided for the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program, an increase of $7,481,000 over

the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2001.

Consistent with the recommendations contained in the GAO report on low-level waste disposal, the Department should perform

an updated cost comparison of on-site versus off-site disposal costs

before committing to construction of a new CERCLA waste disposal

cell at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

For the Office of River Protection, an additional $56,000,000 is

provided for tank farm operations. Additional funding of

$165,000,000 has been provided for Project 01–D–416, the Hanford

Waste Treatment Plant, for a total of $665,000,000 in fiscal year

2002. This funding is necessary to maintain the current schedule

for operations.

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 $226,850,000, an increase of

$30,850,000 over the budget request of $196,000,000.

One-year funding agreements.—It is a continuing source of frustration to the Committee that the Department signs agreements

138

with universities and other entities committing to five years of

funding at a specified level and then fails to request funding in the

budget to support these agreements. This leads to much frustration

among the entities which believe that the agreement was a legitimate contract and the Committee which receives numerous requests to add funds to meet these commitments. The Committee

has no role in making these agreements and should not be put in

the position each year to correct the failures of the Department.

Thus, the Department is directed to sign no funding agreement

with any entity that commits more than one year of funding for

science and technology activities.

Technology deployment.—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 bear on 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 2002, but the Committee has provided $4,000,000, the same

as fiscal year 2001.

Environmental management science program.—The Committee is

disappointed that the Department was again unable to provide

funding for new grants in fiscal year 2002. This is a collaborative

program between the Department’s Office of Environmental Management and the Office of Science 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 $5,000,000 for the next round

of new and innovative research grants in fiscal year 2002.

Idaho validation and verification program.—The Committee has

provided $20,000,000 for basic research activities at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Department had requested no funds to continue this program.

University Research Program in Robotics.—The Committee has

provided $4,350,000 for the university research program in robotics, an increase of $1,850,000 over the budget request of $2,500,000

and the same as fiscal year 2001.

Florida International University.—Funding of $5,000,000 has

been provided for the Department’s cooperative agreement with the

Florida International University to support environmental cleanup

technologies. This is an increase of $2,500,000 over the budget request and the same as fiscal year 2001.

EXCESS FACILITIES

The environmental management program is responsible for final

disposition of excess contaminated facilities throughout the Department. Funds are currently being expended for surveillance and

maintenance of these excess facilities, and these costs will continue

until decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) is completed.

139

The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the excess facilities

program, an increase of $8,700,000 over the budget request. The

budget requested only surveillance and maintenance costs of

$1,300,000 for the excess facilities transferred to the program in

fiscal year 2002. In addition to these surveillance and maintenance

costs, the recommendation includes $8,700,000 to initiate a program to begin the actual D&D of excess facilities already owned by

the environmental management program. These funds should be

used to dispose of those facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk.

The Committee directs the Department to implement new D&D

practices to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. There are

clearly savings to be realized throughout the complex as evidenced

by a recent contractor innovation at the Rocky Flats site that reduced the cost of D&D for a building from an estimate of

$3,500,000 using existing DOE practices and procedures to approximately $700,000 using commercial practices. Potential cost savings

of this magnitude have also been identified at other sites through

the use of standard commercial practices. The Department is to

keep the Committee informed of the D&D projects that are to be

performed and the cost of each project.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate levels

of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile acts that may impact

national security or the health and safety of DOE and contractor

employees. The Committee recommendation for the safeguards and

security program is $205,621,000, the same as the budget request.

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $355,761,000 for program direction,

the same as the budget request. However, within this amount, the

Committee has reduced salaries and benefits by $3,000,000 and

provided funding only for the current on-board staff. No additional

funding is provided for staff increases proposed at any site; increased site staffing needs must be met from within current staffing levels. In reviewing site staffing levels, there appear to be

many discrepancies in the size of the Federal staff, the amount of

contractor funding at the site, and the complexity of the cleanup.

The Department is urged to see if there are greater efficiencies

that can be made particularly at sites slated for closure.

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 the following funding adjustments;

prior year balances of $36,770,000 and a security charge for reimbursable work of $5,391,000 as requested in the budget, and a general reduction of $17,000,000.

140

DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $1,080,331,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 1,050,538,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,092,878,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +12,547,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +42,340,000

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 in this account 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 2002 funding is $1,092,878,000, an increase of $42,340,000

over the budget request. Additional funding of $21,000,000 was

provided in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to

support the Ohio closure sites. Fiscal year 2002 funding for each

closure site is discussed 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 must ensure that complex-wide policy and funding issues are addressed as

they relate to the closure of the Rocky Flats Site. The development

of the Rocky Flats Integrated Closure Project Baseline is an important step in meeting this commitment. It is only through successful

site closures 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 2002 funding of

$620,504,000, a reduction of $8,073,000 from the budget request.

Funding for some safeguards and security activities was incorrectly

included in the Rocky Flats project and has been transferred to the

safeguards and security account.

OHIO SITES

The Committee is aware that each of the Ohio cleanup sites is

in danger of slipping beyond the 2006 closure date. While it is not

surprising that cleanups are encountering some unexpected conditions, it is very discouraging that the Federal program managers

and contractors appear to be unable to maintain the schedules—

rather than meeting challenges with innovations, the solution always seems to be increase the cost and slip the schedule. The Committee has consistently provided the funding requested by the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
141

partment to maintain these projects on a 2006 closure schedule and

has provided additional funding in fiscal year 2002 to maintain

constant funding levels.

The Committee expects the Department to aggressively review

the baseline closure plans for each Ohio cleanup site and take all

steps necessary to meet the 2006 closure date. If during fiscal year

2002, it appears that any of these projects will not meet the 2006

closure date, the Department is to notify the Committee immediately, reduce site funding to the minimum necessary to maintain

safe surveillance and maintenance conditions, and submit a reprogramming to remove the site from the Defense Facilities Closure Project account. The Committee recommendation is $418,399,000 for the four

Ohio sites, an increase of $52,061,000 over the budget request, in

an attempt to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2001 levels.

Funding for the Ashtabula site is $16,000,000, an increase of

$6,279,000 over the budget request of $9,721,000. Funding for the

Columbus Environmental Management Project is $16,100,000, an

increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request of $10,100,000.

Fernald.—The Fernald site in Ohio is now operating under a recent contract modification that assumes closure of the site by 2010.

Cleanup at the site has been slowed by the failure of several

projects; however, there are contract incentives for closing the site

by 2006. Additional funding of $20,000,000 has been provided in

the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support

this accelerated closure schedule. The Committee expects the Department and the contractor to demonstrate during fiscal year 2002

that the site schedule can actually be accelerated to 2006. Significant cost savings can be achieved with early closure, and the Committee strongly supports this approach. The Committee recommendation for the Fernald site is $295,299,000, an increase of

$10,000,000 over the budget request.

Mound.—The Committee is very concerned with the delays in the

cleanup of the Mound site in Miamisburg, Ohio. Cleanup of the site

is continuing to slip and now appears to extend significantly beyond fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects the Department to

develop a baseline closure plan that supports the 2006 closure date.

There are clearly many steps that can be taken at this site to accelerate cleanup activities and reduce managerial, bureaucratic, and

worker inefficiencies while still protecting the health and safety of

the workers and the community. The Committee strongly encourages the Department to explore alternative approaches to the

cleanup that are truly innovative and will restore the schedule and

reduce overall costs. The Committee also believes the Department

should consider other health and safety regulatory oversight processes that could reduce costs and accelerate cleanup of the site. The

Committee understands that increased resources over current levels may be needed to meet the 2006 closure date, but will not consider additional funding until the Department demonstrates that

substantial changes have been made to current operations to ensure successful cleanup by 2006. The Committee recommends

$91,000,000, an increase of $20,061,000 over the budget request of

$70,939,000, and consistent with fiscal year 2001 funding levels.

Additional funding of $1,000,000 has been provided in the fiscal

142

year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support the closure

activities.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The safeguards and security program ensures appropriate levels

of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion, or destruction of Departmental assets and hostile acts that may impact

national security or the health and safety of DOE and contractor

employees. The Committee recommendation for the safeguards and

security program is $53,975,000, an increase of $8,073,000 over the

budget request. This funding for safeguards and security activities,

incorrectly included in the Rocky Flats project, has been transferred to this account.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $65,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 141,537,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 143,208,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +78,208,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +1,671,000

The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental

Management Privatization program is $143,208,000, an increase of

$1,671,000 over the budget request. The recommendation includes

$52,000,000 for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at

Idaho, an increase of $12,000,000 over the budget request of

$40,000,000. Additional funding of $27,472,000 has been provided

in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill to support

this project.

Funding for two new projects has been provided in fiscal year

2002: $3,000,000 for the Paducah Disposal Facility, a reduction of

$10,329,000 from the budget request, and $2,000,000 for the Portsmouth Disposal Facility, the same as the budget request. In light

of the recent General Accounting Office report on low-level waste

disposal practices at the Department, the Committee directs the

Department to perform a detailed cost and risk assessment to compare on-site versus off-site disposal to determine whether off-site

disposal at a commercial facility would be more cost-effective in

view of long-term stewardship costs and risks before proceeding

with either of these projects.

Consistent with the budget request, $49,332,000 has been provided for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage at Idaho, $26,050,000 for

the Environmental Management/Waste Treatment Facility at Oak

Ridge, and $10,826,000 for the Transuranic Waste Treatment Facility at Oak Ridge.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $582,466,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 527,614,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 487,464,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥95,002,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥40,150,000

143

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 safeguards 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 $249,927,000, a reduction of $19,323,000 from the budget request

of $269,250,000.

The Department’s safeguards and security programs seem to careen from one incident to another—alleged loss of nuclear weapons

secrets, misplaced computer hard drives with classified information, and alleged discriminatory actions toward visitors. The Department of Energy spends over $1 billion annually on safeguards

and security activities, but none of these security incidents were

caused by lack of funding. The Committee urges the new Administration to review the underlying basis for each of the Department’s

security practices to determine if current procedures result in excessive costs without commensurate protection for employees, facilities, and national security programs.

Public access to DOE facilities.—The Committee is concerned

about the practice used by the Department of Energy to require

identification of citizenship as a security screening tool. The Committee notes that the Department of Defense, whose security needs

are no less important than those of the Department of Energy, does

not use this procedure at the Pentagon. The Department of Energy’s practice to require identification of citizenship for entry into its

facilities, even for unclassified visits in non-secure areas, fosters

the perception of racial profiling no matter how well intended. In

a recent alarming incident, admittance to DOE headquarters was

refused to a Chinese-American Member of Congress, who was participating in a DOE celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage

Month. The Congressman was asked three times if he was an

American, and two guards refused to accept his congressional identification for admittance or that of an Asian American aide who accompanied him. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Energy review security procedures for access to DOE facilities to determine whether the use of identification of citizenship is a proper,

effective, and sensitive method and is consistent with procedures at

other Federal facilities where classified information is kept. The

Secretary shall report his findings to the Appropriations Committees of Congress by September 1, 2001.

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 ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
144

mittee recommendation is $108,000,000, a reduction of $13,188,000

from the budget request of $121,188,000. Funding for outside contractor assistance has been reduced. The Committee has also included $2,000,000 to continue the 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 $44,927,000, the same as the budget request.

Corporate Management Information Program.—The Committee

recommendation is $20,000,000, the same as the budget request.

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation is

$77,000,000 for program direction, a decrease of $6,135,000 from

the budget request of $83,135,000. With a Headquarters staff of

329 Federal employees, the Committee believes that funding for

technical assistance and expertise from outside contractors should

be reduced.

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

$36,059,000, a reduction of $4,785,000 from the budget request,

and the same as fiscal year 2001.

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, a reduction of $1,189,000 from the budget request, and the same as fiscal year 2001.

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 $14,904,000, the same as the budget request,

and $33,000 below fiscal year 2001.

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops programs

and policies to protect the workers and the public, conducts indeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
145

pendent oversight of performance, and funds health effects studies.

The Committee recommendation is $105,293,000, a decrease of

$9,307,000 from the budget request of $114,600,000.

Oversight.—Funding for additional contractor support for over- sight activities has been reduced by $3,369,000 to $6,000,000. With

a Headquarters staff of almost 300 Federal employees, the Committee believes that outside technical assistance can be significantly reduced.

Health Effects Studies.—The recommendation for health effects

studies is $50,000,000, a decrease of $3,438,000 from the budget request of $53,438,000. The Department funds several programs for

occupational medicine, public health studies, and epidemiologic

monitoring. The Committee expects the Department to review all

these activities to achieve efficiencies through consolidation.

Marshall Islands.—For over 40 years, the DOE has provided a

Congressionally-mandated program of medical monitoring to the

residents of Rongelap and Utrik atolls in the Marshall Islands who

were exposed to high levels of radioactive fallout from a U.S. nuclear test, Castle Bravo, that occurred on March 1, 1954. The program managed by the Pacific Heath Research Institute of Honolulu

through a cooperative agreement currently provides care for the remaining 123 of the original 253 individuals who enrolled in the

program in 1954.

The U.S. government is currently renegotiating its diplomatic,

defense and economic relationship with the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). In those negotiations, the

Committee believes it is time for the U.S. government to provide

a single, combined package of assistance to support the medical

and public health infrastructure needs of the Marshall Islands.

This support should be managed by the U.S. Public Health Service,

the Federal agency that has the greatest experience in providing

public health care in the U.S. and abroad.

DOE’s radiological monitoring, dose assessment and mitigation

strategy research will conclude by 2006 and will complete over 30

years of scientific effort to thoroughly characterize the extent and

nature of radiological contamination from U.S. atmospheric testing

in the northern atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik.

With completion of this task, the responsibility for the use of these

assessments and mitigation strategies now falls to the RMI government in making decisions regarding resettlement and land use in

the northern atolls. The Committee directs the Department to transition the environmental monitoring program to a program of direct

support to the RMI. This will allow the RMI to conduct its own assessments and reach its own conclusions about which mitigation

strategies to use in making resettlement and land use decisions.

The Committee recommendation for the Marshall Islands is

$6,300,000, the same as the budget request.

Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF).—Through the

RERF program, the United States has supported studies for more

than 50 years on the health effects of radiation on the survivors of

the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. The Committee recommendation is $13,500,000, the same as the budget request.

Energy Employees Compensation Initiative.—Title 36 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 106–398) established

146

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program

to provide benefits to DOE contractor workers made ill as a result

of exposures from nuclear weapons production. The Department is

responsible for establishing procedures to assist workers in filing

compensation claims. The Committee recommendation is

$15,000,000, the same as the budget request.

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation for program direction is $20,793,000, a reduction of $2,500,000 from the

budget request. This amount of funding will support employees currently on board through fiscal year 2002.

WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

The Committee’s recommendation for the worker and community

transition program is $21,900,000, a reduction of $2,546,000 from

the budget request of $24,446,000, due to funding constraints.

Funding has been restored to many programs which the Department had proposed to reduce so there should be no significant contractor reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee has provided $900,000 for infrastructure improvements at the former Pinellas weapons plant. The Committee expects the Department to adequately fund and fulfill the commitment that was made to the Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation, and to grant priority to those communities

which received no funds in fiscal year 2001. The Committee directs

that none of the funds provided for this program be used for additional severance payments and benefits for Federal employees.

The worker and community transition program was established

to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of contractor

workforce reductions as a result of the end of the Cold War. Funds

are provided for enhanced severance payments to employees at

former defense sites, and for assisting community planning for defense conversion through Federal grants. However, the cost of this

program has not been insignificant. Through fiscal year 2000, enhanced severance payments and benefits to workers and grants to

communities have totaled more than $1 billion.

Program direction.—The Office of Worker and Community Transition currently has 19 employees at Headquarters. The budget

proposed to reduce the staff to 18 employees, but provided $207,000

for additional support service contractor assistance to offset the reduction. The Committee recommendation of $2,900,000 for program

direction, a reduction of $300,000 from the budget request, allows

the staff reduction, but does not provide the additional support

service.

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 to provide

administrative support for national security programs. This will

fund Departmental activities performed by offices such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs,

which support the activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

147

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 $2,893,000, the same as the budget

request.

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments is

$13,712,000, an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request. Adjustments include the use of $13,000,000 in prior year balances

which is an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request, and a

reduction of $712,000 for a security charge for reimbursable work

as proposed in the budget.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $199,725,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 310,000,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 310,000,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +110,275,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

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 2000, the balance owed by the Federal government to

the Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,385,000,000 (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 2000, a total of $1,216,400,000 has been appropriated to

support the nuclear waste repository activities attributable to

atomic energy defense activities.

The Committee recommendation is $310,000,000, the same as

the budget request. Eliminating the outstanding balance owed by

the Federal government 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.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Management of the Federal power marketing functions was

transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department

of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95–

91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and all other

functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of RecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
148

lamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power

Administration.

All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville

Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated

funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2002 includes the Administration proposal to fund purchase power and wheeling from power

revenues for the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration.

Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the Bonneville

Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance

the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction,

and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements.

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest.

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the

power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well

as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada

and California.

Borrowing Authority.—Bonneville Power Administration has

available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing authority, authorized by the Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). For fiscal

year 2002, the Committee recommendation includes an estimate of

use of $374,500,000 of authorized borrowing authority, the same as

the budget request and $50,000,000 more than fiscal year 2001.

This borrowing authority is available for capital investments in

power systems (including fish and wildlife measures), transmission

systems, and capital equipment. With this borrowing authority,

Bonneville forecasts that it will have a total of $834,000,000 in borrowing available in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee is aware that Bonneville has recently proposed

a $2 billion increase in its borrowing authority to address infrastructure needs arising from an anticipated increase in generation

from a variety of sources in the Bonneville service area. The Committee does not at this time have enough information to support

such an increase. Consistent with the recommendation contained in

the National Energy Policy, the Secretary of Energy has already

been tasked to examine the national grid, identify transmission

bottlenecks, and identify measures to remove such bottlenecks. The

National Energy Policy also recommends a review of Bonneville’s

capital and financing requirements to determine if additional Federal financing or an increase in borrowing authority is warranted.

Bonneville’s proposal for increased borrowing authority must be

considered within the context of all of the Administration’s proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
149

posed actions for the power marketing administrations and in view

of the combined impact on the various regions of the country.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $3,891,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 4,891,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 4,891,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +1,000,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Southeastern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects in eleven

states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or operate any

transmission facilities, so it contracts to ‘‘wheel’’ its power using

the existing transmission facilities of area utilities.

The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power Administration is $4,891,000, the same as the budget request and a

$1,000,000 increase over fiscal year 2001. The total program level

for Southeastern in fiscal year 2002 is $39,354,000, with

$34,463,000 for purchase power and wheeling and $4,891,000 for

program direction. The purchase power and wheeling costs will be

offset by collections of $34,463,000, leaving a net appropriation of

$4,891,000. The offsetting collections total of $34,463,000 includes

$26,463,000 made available in Public Law 106–377 for use in fiscal

year 2002, plus an additional $8,000,000 provided in this Act.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $28,038,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 28,038,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 28,038,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Southwestern Power Administration markets the hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects in the

six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma

and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380 miles of

transmission lines, with the supporting substations and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the sale of its

power to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities.

The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power Administration is $28,038,000, the same as the budget request and

the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The total program level for

Southwestern in fiscal year 2002 is $29,838,000, including

$3,339,000 for operating expenses, $1,800,000 for purchase power

and wheeling, $18,668,000 for program direction, and $6,031,000

for construction. The offset of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling yields a net appropriation of

$28,038,000. The offsetting collections total of $1,800,000 includes

$288,000 made available in Public Law 106–377 for use in fiscal

year 2002, plus an additional $1,512,000 provided in this Act.

150

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE,

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $165,465,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 169,465,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 172,165,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +6,700,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +2,700,000

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation,

the Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western states over a service area of 1.3

million square miles.

The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power Administration is $172,165,000, an increase of $2,700,000 over the

budget request and $6,700,000 more than the fiscal year 2001

funding level. The total program level for Western in fiscal year

2002 is $358,289,000, which includes $18,764,000 for construction

and rehabilitation, $37,796,000 for system operation and maintenance, $186,124,000 for purchase power and wheeling,

$114,378,000 for program direction, and $1,227,000 for Utah mitigation and conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power

and wheeling total $186,124,000, leaving a net appropriation of

$172,165,000. The offsetting collections total of $186,124,000 includes $33,500,000 made available in Public Law 106–377 for use

in fiscal year 2002, plus an additional $152,624,000 provided in

this Act.

The amount for construction and rehabilitation includes

$2,700,000 to fund high priority portions of the South of Phoenix

portion of the Parker-Davis Project transmission system. The Federal share of the upfront costs is to be recovered through the transmission rates of the Parker-Davis Project. Western should pursue

additional funds from those utilities requiring additional transmission capacity, and the Committee expects that any funding received will be used to offset future appropriations requirements.

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $2,663,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 2,663,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 2,663,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water

projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these two dams

is sold to public utilities through the Western Area Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years

1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad Operating and

Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of operation, maintenance,

and emergency activities. The Fund is administered by the Western

151

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The Committee recommendation is $2,663,000, the same as the

budget request and as the fiscal year 2001 funding level.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $175,200,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 181,155,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 181,155,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +5,955,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ ¥$175,200,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... ¥181,155,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥181,155,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥5,955,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommendation is $181,155,000, the same as

the budget request and an increase of $5,955,000 over the fiscal

year 2001 funding level. Revenues for FERC are established at a

rate equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation

of $0.

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 Commission, in this context, use

a methodology that contains a recovery period sufficient to ensure

the recovery of all generating asset investments included in states

approved rates used to serve the departing customers.

The Committee has included language in the bill which prohibits

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using the funds

provided in this or any other Act to complete the remaining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs

in Title III are contained in the following table.

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

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, or award a significant extension or expansion to an

existing 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, in detail, 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 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.

Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.—Section 302 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to prepare

or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide enhanced

severance payments and other benefits and community assistance

grants for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal

Year 1993, Public Law 102–484. The Committee has provided no

funds to implement workforce restructuring plans which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy

which are not available to other Federal employees of the United

States Government.

Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.—Section 303

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to augment

the $21,900,000 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 304

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate

requests for proposals or expressions of interest for new programs

which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet been approved and funded

by Congress.

165

Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.—Section 305 permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill.

Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.—Section 306

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.

Limitation on Funds Used for LDRD.—Section 307 provides that

none of the funds appropriated by Congress in any appropriation

act other than Energy and Water Development appropriations acts

may be used for Department of Energy laboratory directed research

and development (LDRD).

The Department of Energy’s laboratory directed research and development program allows laboratory directors to divert up to six

percent of funds they receive to other projects at the laboratories

at the sole discretion of the laboratory directors. The Department,

however, has implemented the program in a manner which extends

this policy to the funds received from other Federal agencies. The

Committee is concerned that the Department of Energy through

this policy has inadvertently allowed its laboratory directors to divert funds from the purpose for which they were appropriated in

other Appropriations Acts, unwittingly violating the statutory language of those acts. The Committee is particularly concerned about

funds that Congress has provided or added in defense appropriations acts for national missile defense and classified programs,

which were provided for specific high-priority national security purposes to meet specific objectives. Diversion of these funds to unrelated laboratory directed research does not contribute to the purpose for which Congress appropriated the funds, but rather detracts from it. The Committee, therefore, recommends section 307

which limits the Department of Energy’s laboratory directed research and development program to the funds provided by the Congress for the Department of Energy in this bill and ensures the integrity of funds provided to other Federal agencies in other appropriations bills.

External Regulation of Science Laboratories.—The Department of

Energy (DOE) is currently self-regulating with respect to nuclear

safety and worker safety at most of its facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 308 directs the DOE

to prepare an implementation plan to transition to external regulation of DOE’s non-defense science laboratories. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would assume responsibility for nuclear

safety at DOE’s non-defense science laboratories, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would assume responsibility for worker safety at these same sites. The Department

is directed in fiscal year 2002 only to prepare a plan for implementation of external regulation, with a proposed effective date for the

actual implementation of external regulation being October 1, 2002.

For purposes of the implementation plan required by this section,

external regulation will apply to the five multiprogram national

laboratories under the Office of Science: Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Pacific

166

Northwest National Laboratory. External regulation shall also

apply to the five single-purpose laboratories under the Office of

Science: Ames Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Stanford Linear Accelerator

Center; and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The

requirement to plan for the transition to external regulation is not

applicable to the nuclear weapons laboratories, plants, or test facilities, or to the Department’s environmental remediation sites or

other laboratories and research facilities.

The Department’s external regulation implementation plan is to

be prepared in consultation with the agencies that will assume regulatory responsibility from the Department, the NRC and OSHA.

The Department should transfer $4,000,000 to the NRC and

$120,000 to OSHA, from within the funds appropriated in fiscal

year 2002 for Environment, Safety, and Health to cover their respective costs to prepare for the transition to external regulation,

to coordinate with each other and with DOE, to conduct site visits

as necessary and to assist DOE in the preparation of the external

regulation implementation plan. Note that the transfer to OSHA

for external regulation planning is in addition to the $600,000

transferred to OSHA for worker health and safety at those sites

transferred to non-Federal entities and for the Department’s nonnuclear facilities not covered under the Atomic Energy Act.

The Department should complete the external regulation implementation plan by March 31, 2001, and should submit the completed plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House

Science Committee, the House Education and Workforce Committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Senate

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The implementation plan should address the specific details on how external

regulation will be implemented at the named Science laboratories,

including the estimated staffing and funding requirements for NRC

and OSHA as they assume their additional regulatory responsibilities, and the corresponding reduction in staffing and funding for

DOE as it loses this regulatory responsibility. The implementation

plan should identify any specific facilities or class of facilities for

which external regulation cannot be reasonably implemented on

October 1, 2002, and make recommendations on how to address nuclear and worker safety at those facilities. The implementation

plan should address the modifications needed to existing management and operating contracts to reflect the change in federal regulatory oversight. The Committee expects that the NRC will, upon

the effective date for external regulation, assume regulatory responsibility for regulating nuclear safety at accelerators in the

named DOE Science laboratories. The responsibility for regulating

accelerators located on Federal facilities is not to be delegated to

the NRC Agreement States. The implementation plan should identify any statutory changes needed and propose the necessary legislative language. The Committee expects the NRC and the OSHA to

enter into a memorandum of understanding prior to the effective

transition date of October 1, 2002, to define the respective responsibilities of the two agencies at the named DOE laboratories.

167

User Facilities.—The Committee is very supportive of the Department’s efforts to involve universities in the Department’s research

efforts. User facilities were created by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102–486) in order to make the Department’s

unique energy research capabilities available broadly to universities, industry, private laboratories, other Federal laboratories,

and others. The Department has adopted the user facility concept

and extended it successfully to other DOE programs, including the

National Nuclear Security Administration. The Department’s laboratories and research instruments represent a valuable asset to

the Nation, as well as a major investment of public funding. As

such, the Department must make certain that universities, as well

as other potential users, have an equal opportunity to take advantage of the Department’s unique research facilities.

This Committee believes the Department already has in place

procedures to ensure that the Department’s research funds are distributed through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. The Committee also believes that similar competitive, peer-reviewed procedures are in place with respect to research conducted at DOE facilities using non-DOE funds. This section addresses several related

parts of the process. When the Department makes a user facility

available to universities and other potential users, it must provide

notice of such availability in a manner that notifies the potential

user community to the greatest extent practicable. The Department

should publish its notices in the Commerce Business Daily as well

as the appropriate scientific and technical journals, and should

make use of workshops and other mechanisms to provide broad

public notice. Similarly, when the Department seeks the input of

universities and other potential users regarding significant changes

to an existing user facility, or seeks their input regarding the features needed in a proposed new user facility, the Department must

provide broad notice. The Committee is concerned that some of the

initial outreach for the proposed nanoscale science research centers

was conducted with select universities; other interested universities

may not have been aware of the opportunity to provide input to

DOE on these planned user facilities.

In certain instances other than management and operating contracts, the Department may choose to enter into a partnership arrangement with a university or other potential users to assist in

the establishment or operation of a user facility. In such instances,

this section requires the Department to conduct a full and open

competition to select such a partner or partners. The opportunity

to partner with one of the Department’s national laboratories in

the operation of a user facility is a valuable albeit limited opportunity. As such, the Department must take steps to ensure that potential partners have an equal chance to compete for that opportunity.

For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘user facility’’ includes, but

is not limited to: a user facility as described in section 2203(a)(2)

of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); a National

Nuclear Security Administration Defense Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility; and any other Department facility

designated by the Department as a user facility. Note that the Department may not redesignate a facility as something other than

168

a user facility in order to avoid the notice and competition requirements of this section. Whenever the Department opens its research

facilities to outside users, it must do so on a fair and equal basis.

Language not included by the Committee.—The Administration

requested language authorizing intelligence activities of the Department of Energy and amending the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The Committee recommendation does

not include this proposed legislation.

(169)

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $66,254,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 66,290,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 71,290,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +5,036,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +5,000,000

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of

the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a Federal CoChairman who is appointed by the President. The Committee recommendation is $71,290,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the

budget request. Funding of $5,000,000 has been provided for a

child development research center at the University of Alabama.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $18,459,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 18,500,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 18,500,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +41,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board,

composed of five members appointed by the President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding

public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear

facilities. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the

content and implementation of the standards relating to the design,

construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy.

The Committee recommendation is $18,500,000, the same as the

budget request.

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $19,956,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 19,992,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥19,956,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥19,992,000

The Committee recommends no funding for the Delta Regional

Authority in fiscal year 2002. The Delta Regional Authority was esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
170

tablished by Congress in fiscal year 2001, but it has not yet been

organized. Prior year funds of at least $17,000,000 will be carried

over from fiscal year 2001 and will be available for expenditure in

fiscal year 2002.

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $29,934,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 29,939,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥29,934,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥29,939,000

The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali

Commission in fiscal year 2002 due to funding constraints.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $481,825,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 506,900,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 516,900,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +35,075,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... +10,000,000

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ ¥$447,958,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... ¥463,248,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥473,520,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥25,562,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥10,272,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $33,867,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 43,652,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 43,380,000

Comparison:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +9,513,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ¥272,000

Nuclear energy received a strong endorsement in the National

Energy Policy of May 2001, and serious industry interest has

emerged in building a new generation of nuclear power plants in

the United States to meet the nation’s electricity demands. Industry has recently indicated intent to submit at least one early site

permit application to the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) in fiscal year 2002, and several firms have already initiated preliminary

discussions with the NRC regarding new reactor designs. The NRC

needs to ensure that its regulatory infrastructure can be responsive

to these potential new applications, some of which may involve new

technologies not previously licensed by the NRC. Because these industry initiatives emerged only recently, the NRC’s budget request

does not include sufficient resources for these new activities. The

NRC estimates that it may need an additional $15,000,000 to

$18,000,000 in budget authority to be ready for these new activities. The Committee provides $10,000,000 in additional budget authority to the NRC so that it can adequately prepare for and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
171

spond to these new reactor initiatives without jeopardizing the

safety of operating facilities and without impeding ongoing initiatives on license renewals, power uprates, and moving toward a

more risk-informed regulatory environment. The remaining

$5,000,000 to $8,000,000 should be realized through implementing

internal efficiencies in the NRC.

The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $516,900,000, an

increase in budget authority of $10,000,000 over the budget request

and $35,075,000 over fiscal year 2001. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $473,530,000, resulting in a net appropriation

of $43,380,000. The recommendation includes $23,650,000 to be

made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support the Department of Energy’s effort to develop a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.

Fee Recovery.—Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal year

2001, the NRC is required to recover 96 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.

Monthly report.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and

other regulatory activities.

Repository licensing regulations.—As the Department of Energy

nears a determination on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as the

site for the Nation’s permanent geologic repository, the Committee

believes that it is important that every effort be made to support

the Department’s schedule for the final Site Recommendation. The

Environmental Protection Agency recently issued its final radiation

standards for the Yucca Mountain repository. The next step will be

for the NRC to conform its repository licensing regulations (10

C.F.R. part 963) to the newly-issued radiation standard. The NRC

is to issue these regulations later this summer, and the Committee

expects the NRC to adhere to this schedule. Timely issuance of

these NRC regulations will allow the Department of Energy to promulgate its own siting guidelines shortly thereafter.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $5,500,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 6,180,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 6,180,000

Comparisons:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +680,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ ¥$5,390,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... ¥5,933,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... ¥5,933,000

Comparisons:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... ¥543,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

172

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $110,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 247,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 247,000

Comparisons:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +137,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

By law, 96 percent of the budget authority appropriated to the

Inspector General of the NRC must be recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees. The Committee recommends

an appropriation of $6,180,000, the same as the budget request and

an increase of $680,000 over fiscal year 2001. The revenue estimate

is $5,933,000, resulting in a net appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $247,000.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2001 ............................................................................ $2,894,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ....................................................................... 3,100,000

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,100,000

Comparisons:

Appropriation, 2001 .................................................................... +206,000

Budget Estimate, 2002 ............................................................... ............................

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by

the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to

provide independent technical oversight of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The role of the Nuclear Waste

Technical Review Board becomes especially critical as the Department approaches issuance of the final site recommendation for the

repository site.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,100,000 for

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the budget request and an increase of $206,000 from fiscal year 2001 funding.

(173)

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee recommendation includes several general provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities funded in the

Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.

Prohibition on Lobbying.—Section 501 provides that none of the

funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, directly

or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or

appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of

Title 18, United States Code.

Buy American.—Section 502 requires that American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent practicable.

Drainage of the San Luis Unit.—Section 503 provides language

clarifying the funding requirements for the San Luis Unit.

(175)

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

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary .......................................................... 23,704 23,959 23,704 23,927

Mandatory ............................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:

176

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.

FIVE-YEAR 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 ................................................................................... 23,704

Outlays:

2002 ................................................................................................. 15,420

2003 ................................................................................................. 7,163

2004 ................................................................................................. 1,073

2005 ................................................................................................. 25

2006 and beyond ............................................................................. 16

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 .................................................................................... 74

Fiscal year 2002 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 $10,649,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and

$32,442,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower

Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such

amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; * * *

* * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased or

decreased within the overall appropriations under this

heading: * * *

Under Title III, Departmental Administration:

* * * That of the funds provided to the Department of

Energy under title III of Public Law 105–277 for activities

related to achieving Year 2000 conversion of Federal information technology systems and related expenses, remaining balances, estimated to be $1,480,000, may be transferred to this account, and shall remain available until expended, for continuation of information technology enhancement activities.

Under Title III, General Provisions:

177

SEC. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may be transferred

to appropriation accounts for such activities established

pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be

merged with funds in the applicable established accounts

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the

same time period as originally enacted.

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law.

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General

Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. Language is also included

under General Investigations which directs the Secretary of the

Army to use funds to continue preconstruction engineering and design of the Murrieta Creek, California, project; directs the Secretary of the Army to use a certain report as the basis for the Rock

Creek-Keefer Slough, California, project; and provides that the

Southwest Valley Flood Reduction Study in New Mexico shall include an evaluation of flood damage reduction measures that would

otherwise be excluded from the feasibility analysis based 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 and which provides that

$15,000,000 of the funds appropriated shall be deposited in the San

Gabriel Restoration Fund. Language is also provided under Construction, General, which directs the Secretary of the Army to modify the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project at full Federal expense,

which directs the Secretary of the Army to undertake design deficiency repairs to the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project, and which directs the Secretary of the Army to increase the level of protection for the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project. Language is also included which directs the Secretary of the Army to construct the locally preferred

plan for the Middlesex Borough element of the Raritan River

Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey, project.

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 is also included

178

under Operation and Maintenance, General, which directs the Secretary of the Army to perform cultural resource mitigation and

recreation improvements at Waco Lake, Texas; which directs the

Secretary of the Army to grade the basin Hansen Dam in California; and which directs the Secretary of the Army to investigate

the development of an upland disposal recycling program.

Language has been included under the Regulatory Program regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.

Language has been included under General Expenses regarding

support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center Activity, the

Institute for Water Resources and headquarters support functions

at the USACE Finance Center. Language is also included under

General Expenses prohibiting the use of other title I funds for the

Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices. Language

is also included prohibiting the use of funds to support an office of

congressional affairs within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.

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 as follows:

Sec. 101. The Committee has included language which amends

the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration, California,

program so that the San Gabriel Water Authority shall receive

credit for prior expenditures.

Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which provides

that the dredge McFARLAND may only be operated in a ready reserve status for urgent dredging, emergencies, and in support of

national defense.

Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which directs

the Secretary of the Army to include an alternatives analysis of a

multipurpose Auburn Dam as part of the American River watershed, California, long-term study.

Sec. 104. The Committee has included language directing the

Secretary of the Army to transfer property at Tuttle Creek Lake,

Kansas, to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue Township, Kansas.

Sec. 105. The Committee has included language which directs

the Secretary of the Army to carry out shore protection projects in

accordance with the cost sharing provisions contained in existing

Project Cooperation Agreements.

Sec. 106. The Committee has included language which provides

that none of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual if such revision provides for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in

States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the

Gavins Point Dam.

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Language has been included under Water and Related Resources

providing that funds are available for fulfilling Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and Indian tribes. LanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
179

guage 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 provided

under Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be

used for activities under Public Law 106–163. Language is included

under Water and Related Resources providing that funds may be

used for work carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing

that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 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 nonreimbursable basis. Language is included under Water and Related

Resources amending the Reclamation States Emergency Drought

Relief Act.

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 which provides that none of the funds appropriated in this Act

may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation to issue permits, either

directly or by making funds available to an entity under a contract,

for commercial rafting activities within the Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

are met. The Committee has included language in section 202

which amends the authorization for the American and Sacramento

Rivers, California, project.

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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.

Language has been included under Departmental Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95–238, to permit the Department of EnVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.002 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
180

ergy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations

language for this account reflects the total estimated program

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has

been carried in prior appropriations Acts.

Language has been included under Departmental Administration

providing that notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases

in the estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such

increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater

amounts.

Language has been included under Departmental Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

Language has been included under the Office of the Adminis- trator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

Language has been included under the Bonneville Power Admin- istration account 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, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C.

3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling

expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections

and remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making

purchase power and wheeling expenditures.

Language has been included under 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, not withstanding the provisions of 31

U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power and

wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and remain available until expended for the sole purpose

of making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.

Language has been included under the Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration account providing $1,227,000 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, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302,

amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and

remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making

purchase power and wheeling expenditures.

Language has been included under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles,

to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to

permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as

181

revenues are received. This language has been included in previous

appropriation acts.

Language has been included under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to prohibit the Commission from using funds

appropriated in this or any other Act to complete the reamining reviews and issue further authorizations to proceed with the Gulfstream Natural Gas Project.

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, 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, 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 laboratory directed research

and development from programs and/or funds that were appropriated by Congress in other than Energy and Water Development

Appropriations acts.

Language has been included that directs the Secretary of Energy

to submit a plan to Congress containing an implementation plan

for transferring from the Department of Energy the regulatory authority over nuclear safety and worker safety at the Department’s

science laboratories.

Language has been included requiring the Department of Energy

to ensure public notice when it makes a national user facility available to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a national user facility or a proposed national user facility, and requiring competition

when the Department partners with a university or other entity for

the establishment or operation of a user facility.

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use in recruiting new employees. Language is also included to permit the

182

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 V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Language has been included under General Provisions prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action

on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress.

Language has been included under General Provisions requiring,

to the greatest 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.

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 section 110(3)(B)(ii) of Division B, title I of Public Law 106–554 as follows:

(ii) Non-Federal Responsibility.—The San Gabriel Basin Water

Quality Authority shall be responsible for providing the non-Federal amount required by clause (i). The State of California, local

government agencies, and private entities may provide all or any

portion of such amount: Provided, That the Secretary shall credit

the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority with the value of all prior

expenditures by the non-Federal interests that are compatible with

the purposes of this Act.

The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law

102–250, 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, 2000,

øand 2001¿ 2001 and 2002.

The accompanying bill would amend section 101(a)(6)(C) of the

Water Resources Development Act as follows:

183

ø(C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control Operation.—The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or modify,

such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as may be

necessary in order that, notwithstanding any prior agreement or

provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed to make up for

any water shortage caused by variable flood control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in a significant impact

on recreation at Folsom Reservoir shall be replaced, to the extent

the water is available for purchase, by the Secretary of the Interior.¿

(C) Makeup of Water Shortages Caused By Flood Control Operation.—The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or modify,

such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, as may be

necessary, in order that, notwithstanding any prior agreement or

provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed to make up for any

water shortage caused by variable flood control operation during

any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in a significant impact to

the environment or to recreation shall be replaced, to the extent that

water is available, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior,

with 100 percent of the cost of such available water borne by the

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

[In thousands of dollars]

Agency/program Last year of

authorization

Authorization

level

Appropriations

in last year of

authorization

Appropriations

in this bill

Corps of Engineers:

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................ (1) (1) (1) 140,000

Department of Energy:

Energy Supply:

Biomass/Biofuels ......................................................... 1993 (2) (4) 88,960

Geothermal Energy ....................................................... 1993 23,000 (4) 27,000

Hydrogen ...................................................................... 2001 40,000 27,000 27,000

Hydropower ................................................................... 1982 11,700 (4) 3,000

Solar Energy ................................................................. 1993 (2) (4) 94,657

Wind Energy Systems ................................................... 1993 (2) (4) 40,000

Electric energy systems & electric storage systems ... 1994 (3) (4) 60,000

Renewable Energy Production Incentive ...................... 1995 (7) (4) 4,000

International Renewable Energy Program ................... 1996 (3) (4) 3,000

Departmental Energy Management ............................. 1984 (3) (4) 2,500

Renewable Program Support ....................................... 1984 (3) (4) 3,000

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ....................... 1984 (3) (4) 5,000

Program Direction ........................................................ 1984 (3) (4) 18,700

Nuclear Energy:

Advanced Radioisotope Power System ........................ 1992 (2) (4) 28,200

Isotopes ........................................................................ 1974 (2) (4) 16,177

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support ........ 1974 (2) (4) 15,895

Research and Development ......................................... 1994 (7) (4) 32,579

Infrastructure ............................................................... 1974 (2) (4) 80,259

Nuclear Facilities Management ................................... 1974 (2) (4) 30,250

Program Direction ........................................................ 1992 (2) (4) 20,500

Environment, Safety and Health ........................................... 1974 (2) (4) 31,500

Technical Information Management ..................................... 1981 (2) (4) 7,870

184

[In thousands of dollars]

Agency/program Last year of

authorization

Authorization

level

Appropriations

in last year of

authorization

Appropriations

in this bill

Non-Defense Environmental Management ..................................... 1984 (5) (5) 227,872

West Valley Demonstration Project ....................................... 1981 5,000 5,000 85,115

Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation:

Other Uranium Activities ...................................................... 1974 (2) (4) 120,784

Science ........................................................................................... 1984 500,000 635,417 3,166,395

High Energy Physics ............................................................. 1984 (3) 477,947 716,100

Nuclear Physics ..................................................................... 1984 (3) 155,220 361,510

Biological and Environmental Research ............................... 1994 (3) 388,298 445,880

Basic Energy Sciences .......................................................... 1994 (3) 743,590 1,006,705

Advanced Scientific Computing Research ............................ 1996 169,000 111,068 163,050

Energy Research Analysis ..................................................... 1994 (3) 3,507 1,000

Multiprogram Energy Laboratories ........................................ 1994 (3) 39,327 30,175

Fusion Energy Sciences ........................................................ 1994 380,000 322,277 248,495

Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................. (6) (6) (6) 10,000

Program Direction ................................................................. 1984 (2) (4) 134,980

Nuclear Waste Disposal ................................................................. (8) (2) 190,654 133,000

Departmental Administration ......................................................... 1984 246,963 185,682 209,611

Office of the Inspector General ..................................................... 1984 (2) 14,670 32,430

Atomic Energy Defense Activities:

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons Activities ................................................................ 2001 4,840,289 5,006,153 5,123,888

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................... 2001 877,467 872,273 845,341

Naval Reactors ...................................................................... 2001 694,600 688,645 688,045

Office of the NNSA Administrator ......................................... 2001 10,000 9,978 10,000

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management ...... 2001 5,973,692 4,963,533 5,174,539

Defense Facilities Closure Projects ............................................... 2001 (9) 1,080,331 1,092,878

Defense Environmental Management Privatization ....................... 2001 (10) 65,000 143,208

Other Defense Activities ................................................................ 2001 523,822 582,466 487,464

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ................................................... 2001 112,000 199,725 310,000

Power Marketing Administrations:

Southeastern Power Administration ...................................... 1984 24,240 39,463 39,354

Southwestern Power Administration ..................................... 1984 40,254 29,288 29,838

Western Area Power Administration ..................................... 1984 259,700 237,037 358,289

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ...... 1995 (2) 2,663 2,663

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................ 1984 275,000 175,200 181,155

Independent Agencies:

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................... 2001 70,000 66,254 71,290

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................. 2001 18,500 18,459 18,500

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................... 1985 460,000 448,200 516,900

Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Office of Inspector General ................................................................................... 1985 (11) (11) 6,180

1 Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.

2 No amount specified.

3 Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances.

4 Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified.

5 Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year of authorization was 1984. In

1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental management appropriation account. There has not been a separate

authorization for this account. 6 New program in FY 2002.

7 Such sums as necessary.

8 Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.

9 Authorization for defense facilities closure projects included within overall Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management authorization of $5,973,692,000. 10 Net authorization of $0 (authorization of $90,092,000 for FY2001 less $90,092,000 in prior year balances). 11 The first separate appropriation for the Office of Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was in FY 1990. Prior to that,

the NRC–IG was included within the overall authorization and appropriation for the NRC.

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules

of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on

an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names

of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

There were no rollcall votes.

186

187

188

189

190

191

(192)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

OVERVIEW

The Majority fully cooperated with the Minority to develop this

bill. It fairly represents the views of both. It is a bipartisan bill

that Democrats can and will support.

It is not a perfect bill since it overemphasizes funding for nuclear

weapons and does not contain sufficient funding to address the nation’s energy crisis. But given the constraints that are imposed on

the Committee by the Majority’s budget resolution, which preclude

the Committee from fully addressing the nation’s energy and water

needs in this bill, it is nonetheless a reasonable and prudent response to the Administration’s budget proposals. The Administration proposed unwarranted reductions to water programs, non-proliferation of nuclear materials in Russia, renewable energy technologies, and environmental cleanup of nuclear weapons production

sites. This bill rejects that approach, and instead restores funding

to these important programs near the funding levels appropriated

by Congress last year.

We commend the Majority for working with Democrats to fashion

another bipartisan appropriations bill this year. We appreciate the

many courtesies the Majority showed us as the bill was being developed, and the professionalism of the Majority staff.

RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY CRISIS

The major weakness of this bill is that it contains no significant

increase in funding to address the nation’s energy crisis or the

President’s recent National Energy Policy. It does not take a number of simple and straightforward steps that could be critical in

boosting the near term availability of electrical power, protecting

consumers from the extreme price gouging occurring in some segments of the industry and insulating the American economy from

further damage from rising energy prices. It also does not invest

a sufficient amount in developing renewable energy alternatives to

fossil fuels.

That is deeply disturbing since the recent House-passed Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 and this bill are the

best and—perhaps only—legislative vehicles that can put resources

in place quickly to mitigate the national energy crisis. The Majority

has missed the key opportunity to respond to the national energy

crisis by failing to properly address these issues in the appropriations bills.

THE ENERGY PROBLEM

The problems facing Americans today are in some respects quite

different from those the country faced last fall when Appropriations

were enacted for the current fiscal year. With gasoline prices up as

193

much as 50 cents a gallon over the last year, a typical two car family can expect to pay about $600 a year more to the oil companies

and see a similar increase in heating and electrical costs. This is

about a thousand or so dollars per household that won’t be available for replacing the family car, buying new clothes or saving for

college education. As a result many businesses are suffering and

the whole economy has gotten softer.

While higher energy prices have affected households in every

part of the United States, the impact on the West Coast has been

much more severe. Many Americans in other parts of the United

States are still not aware of how serious the situation is in the

West and how much it may impact the overall national economy.

Because more than one in eight Americans live in the three West

Coast states and because so much of our export oriented and high

tech industries are concentrated in those states, serious economic

disruptions on the coast are certain to have a big impact on the

economies of virtually all of the 47 other states.

Fluctuations in the cost of energy have played a major role in the

performance of the American economy since the early 1970s. Rising

fuel prices have contributed to at least three recessions over the

last three decades and falling fuel prices have caused dislocations

and bankruptcies in our own energy producing states and wreaked

serious havoc with the entire international financial system.

The current situation differs from those of the past in that it is

caused not only by an imbalance between the demand and supply

of fossil fuels but also by serious emerging structural problems in

the industries that generate and transmit electricity. While California and the West Coast provide the most obvious examples of

these problems they are not strictly West Coast problems.

The deregulation and restructuring of the electrical utility industry that began more than a decade ago has left investors with considerable uncertainty as to how far deregulation will eventually go

and how competitive the market for electricity will be. As a result

there has been little growth in capacity for either generating or

transmitting electrical power even though the economy has grown

at a remarkable pace for most of that same period. As demand for

electricity began to approach the capacity to generate it some producers came to realize that by withholding output they could force

significantly higher prices in the newly deregulated environment.

As a result, consumers are faced with a market that is neither

competitive nor regulated.

Western States

There are three fundamental reasons that this problem is more

severe in California and on the West Coast. First, California’s attempt at deregulation was particularly inept. Wholesale prices

were unleashed while retail prices remained regulated. That

worked only as long as the price of the oil and natural gas used

for generating electricity continued to fall. Once oil and gas prices

began to rise, retail suppliers were caught in an untenable squeeze

and consumers were given no incentive to conserve.

Second, the national power grid has never had significant capacity to transmit electricity from east of the Rockies to California and

the West Coast. As a result, there is much less competition in the

194

wholesale electricity market in the West than in other parts of the

country.

Third, the West has relied more heavily on hydroelectric power

than most other parts of the country. Hydroelectric power is dependent on rainfall and the Pacific Northwest where most of the

dams are located has been suffering from a severe drought.

The combination of these factors has produced not only dramatic

increases in the price of electricity but also in blackouts that jeopardize production and profitability in a wide array of industries.

Producers are typically charging between 10 and 30 times the historical rate for electricity and in some instances they have been

able to charge as much as 129 times the historical rate. Typical

homeowners in many parts of the state have seen their monthly

electricity bills go from $100 to more than $800. In some communities more than half of all small businesses are either in bankruptcy or in the process of applying for bankruptcy protection. A

significant number of larger employers have actually shut down operations. In total, electricity costs in California have gone from $7

billion a year to around $70 billion. Even in a state with a trillion

dollar a year economy, that is a huge diversion of GDP from other

sectors of the economy to the utility companies.

That means that states like Wisconsin that produce capital goods

have seen their California markets evaporate and now have surplus inventories. States like Michigan, Ohio and Missouri are seeing layoffs in the automobile industry. Sales are off in the publishing, recording and household products industries largely because of the bite the electricity market in California is taking out

of that state’s ability to grow and consume products from other

parts of the United States.

What can be done?

The United States faces both short-term and long-term problems

with respect to energy. Under existing technologies our growing

economy requires more and more energy, makes us more and more

dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, and therefore inevitably

more vulnerable to political disruptions in that part of the world.

At the same time it increases air and water pollution and jeopardizes the global climate. Finding ways to reduce our consumption of

energy will help control prices, improve the quality of our air and

water and reduce the vulnerability of our economy to events in

Southwest Asia. Finding alternative forms of energy will also help

achieve all three of those objectives. Those activities require the

kind of long term and high-risk investments that the private sector

is not likely to undertake and they should be funded in our regular

appropriation bills as the high priority investments which any sensible assessment of our economic and security needs indicate they

deserve.

The Democrats on the Committee have recently proposed initiatives dealing with separate portions of the energy crisis. These include temporary cost-of-service price limits in Western states; $350

million for national electric power grid improvement loans; and

$125 million for national hydroelectric power improvement loans.

None of them were considered for inclusion in this bill.

195

Alternative renewable energy sources

The Department of Energy leads the national research effort to

develop clean, competitive, and reliable renewable energy and

power delivery technologies for the 21st century.

The combination of environmental concerns, current and potential constraints of large system power transmission and distribution systems, and technological advances are all causing distributed and hybrid systems and technologies such as combined heat

and power system, fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind turbines, geothermal, and biomass systems to gradually augment and eventually replace conventional large-scale power generating technologies.

This is the best way to reduce pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from power generation within the United States in the long

term.

Although regulated utilities traditionally invested in power generation R&D, increased competitive pressures from the ongoing restructuring of the U.S. electric power industry has forced utilities

and other companies to reduce or eliminate their R&D budgets.

This makes federal R&D essential. This bill fails to make investments that are needed to address the national energy crisis in the

near term by getting R&D out of the lab and into use:

The bill includes no funds for the ‘‘Million Solar Roofs’’ initiative, which is a bipartisan cost-shared partnership between

the Department of Energy and states and local communities to

get solar technology out of the labs and into practical applications;

The bill includes no funds for the ‘‘Wind Powering America’’ initiative, which is a bipartisan cost-shared partnership between the Department of Energy and states and local communities to deploy advanced wind turbine technology’ The bill includes no funds for ‘‘Geopowering the West’’, which

is a bipartisan cost-shared partnership between the Department of Energy and states and local communities to deploy

geothermal power generation projects;

The bill contains very little for distributed energy resources,

an area that the Department of Energy has recently concluded

offers potentially high payoff in the future by reducing energy

loss over long transmission distances.

The bill also fails to start increased investments in R&D that are

needed to address the national energy crisis in the far term to meet

goals set by the Department of Energy to:

Triple installed U.S. electricity generation capacity of nonhydroelectric renewable energy resources by 2015;

Overcome barriers to distributed power to achieve a 20 percent market penetration of new generation capacity by 2012;

Maintain the high reliability of the Nation’s transmission

and distribution systems during a period of increased consumer demand for electricity, while enduring numerous constraints on siting and building new transmission and distribution systems; and

To launch an ethanol industry by having (A) at least one ethanol production facility using agricultural and/or municipal

solid wastes operational or under construction by 2004 and (B)

a demonstration at a commercial facility in 2005 using an enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:06 Jun 27, 2001 Jkt 073372 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR112.004 pfrm07 PsN: HR112
196

ergy crop or closely related biomass to demonstrate a tenfold

cost reduction for converting biomass to ethanol.

These are the things the Majority should have properly funded

in this bill for fiscal year 2002 if they believe the President when

he says there is an energy crisis.

AUBURN DAM

This bill contains legislation on Auburn Dam that should not be

adopted because it is not good public policy.

Section 103 of the bill directs the Army Corps of Engineers to include a multi-purpose detention dam in Auburn, California as part

of the Final Supplemental Plan Formulation Report for the American River Watershed which is currently estimated to be published

in August, 2001. Ongoing studies underway by the Corps of Engineers are limited only to flood control aspects of the American

River. The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers testified to the

Committee earlier this year that ‘‘Our belief is that carrying

through the study as it is presently designed is probably the best

way to go at this time.’’

This provision would delay the report and prevent Sacramento,

California from securing additional flood protection for up to 14 additional years. Sacramento has been identified by the Corps of Engineers as the city with the least amount of flood protection for a

city of its size in the nation. Over half a million people and more

than $40 billion in property and infrastructure would be impacted

by a flood in Sacremento, which is the capitol to the world’s sixth

largest economy.

Current estimates of the cost of a multipurpose Auburn dam are

roughly $2.5 billion. Construction of the dam was halted in the

mid-1970s after a regional earthquake revealed multiple fault lines

near the construction site. Auburn dam no longer enjoys support

from local, state, or federal agencies. Its construction would do

major environmental damage to a pristine part of California.

The bill contains other legislative provisions, relating to the use

of water within the region and to recreational rafting, that are

aimed at putting roadblocks in place to pressure certain groups to

support the Auburn dam project. These provisions are also improper, and should be removed from the bill.

CONCLUSION

It is a shame that this appropriations bill contains nothing of

substance to address the immediate needs of American citizens

who face a national energy crisis according to the President. The

citizens in Western States will endure more hardship as the summer unfolds. Democrats offer national initiatives for real near-term

solutions that could be implemented quickly on a bipartisan basis.

It is unfortunate that Republicans reject such proposals, and instead have produced this appropriations bill that fails to respond

to the national energy crisis in any meaningful way.

DAVID R. OBEY.

Æ