81–857

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–681 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2003

SEPTEMBER 24, 2002.—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 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5431]

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, 2003, and for other purposes.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Introduction ................................................................................................ ........ 5

I. Department of Defense—Civil: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

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

General investigations ................................................................. 2 8

Construction, general .................................................................. 3 38

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

Tennessee .................................................................................. 6 62

Operation and maintenance, general ......................................... 6 66

Regulatory program ..................................................................... 8 88

Revolving fund ............................................................................. ........ 88

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................... 8 89

General expenses ......................................................................... 8 90

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

General provisions ....................................................................... 9 92

II. Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project completion account ......................................... 11 93

2

Page Number 

Bill Report 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and related resources ....................................................... 11 93

Bureau of Reclamation loan program account .......................... ........ ...........

Central Valley Project restoration fund ..................................... 13 107

California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration .............................. ........ 108

Policy and administration ........................................................... 14 108

Administrative provision ............................................................. 14 ...........

General provisions ....................................................................... 14 109

III. Department of Energy: 

Introduction ......................................................................................... ........ 111

Energy supply ...................................................................................... 18 116

Non-defense environmental management ......................................... 18 124

Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation ............................ 19 127

Science ................................................................................................. 19 128

Nuclear waste disposal ....................................................................... 19 134

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

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

Atomic energy defense activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ....................................................................... 22 141

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ............................................... 24 149

Naval reactors .............................................................................. 24 155

Office of the administrator .......................................................... 25 155

Environmental and Other Defense Activities: 

Defense environmental restoration and waste management ... 25 156

Environmental management cleanup reform ............................ 25 159

Defense facilities closure projects ............................................... 26 160

Defense environmental management privatization .................. 26 161

Other defense activities ............................................................... 27 162

Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................. 27 165

Power marketing administrations: 

Bonneville Power Administration ............................................... 27 166

Southeastern Power Administration .......................................... 28 167

Southwestern Power Administration ......................................... 28 168

Western Area Power Administration ......................................... 29 168

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............. 30 169

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ........................................... 30 169

General provisions .............................................................................. 31 184

IV. Independent agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................... 36 187

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................... 37 187

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................... ........ 188

Denali Commission ............................................................................. ........ 188

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................... 37 188

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 38 191

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ........................................... 38 191

V. General provisions ................................................................................. 39 193

House reporting requirements .................................................................. ........ 195

Additional Views of Honorable David R. Obey ........................................ ........ 213

3

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee has considered budget estimates which are contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2003. The 

following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 2002, the 

budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal 

year 2003.

[In thousands of dollars] 

2002 2003 estimate 2003 recommendation 

2003 recommendation compared with—

2002 appropriation 2003 est

Title I—Department of Defense—Civil ........................................................... 4,657,096 4,172,954 4,765,712 108,616 Title II—Department of the Interior ................................................................ 951,520 881,149 947,520 (4,000) Title III—Department of Energy ...................................................................... 19,966,226 20,894,976 20,675,871 709,645 Title IV—Independent Agencies ...................................................................... 220,517 214,378 151,897 (68,620) 

Subtotal .............................................................................................. 25,795,359 26,163,457 26,541,000 745,641 

Scorekeeping adjustments ............................................................................... (490,000) (286,476) (514,000) (24,000) 

Grand Total of bill .............................................................................. 25,305,359 25,876,981 26,027,000 721,641 

5

INTRODUCTION

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2003 totals $26,027,000,000, which is $857,041,000 above the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002 (excluding supplemental 

appropriations), and $150,019,000 above the President’s budget request. 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 Department of Energy to continue work to 

ready Yucca Mountain to receive the nation’s nuclear waste; maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile; and accelerating 

the cleanup of contaminated Department of Energy sites. 

Title I of the bill provides $4,765,712,000 for the programs of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of $279,616,000 over fiscal year 2002 and $592,758,000 over the budget request of 

$4,172,954,000. The Committee has provided a modest increase 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 also included funds for 

a limited number of new studies and construction projects. 

Title II provides $947,520,000 for the Department of Interior and 

the Bureau of Reclamation, $33,259,000 over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002 and $66,371,000 over the budget request 

of $881,149,000. The Committee has not provided funding for the 

California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending 

the enactment of authorizing legislation. 

Title III provides $20,675,871,000 for the Department of Energy, 

an increase of $806,045,000 over fiscal year 2002 and $219,105,000 

below the budget request of $20,894,976,000. Basic research and 

science programs are supported at a level consistent with fiscal 

year 2002. In addition, $7.5 billion is provided for environmental 

cleanup programs to remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout the nation, and $524.7 million is provided 

for the nuclear waste 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 

$7,908,417,000, an increase of $317,952,000 over fiscal year 2002 

and a decrease of $114,932,000 from the budget request. For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee has provided $1,167,630,000, 

an increase of $138,044,000 over fiscal year 2002 and $54,000,000 

over the budget request. 

Title IV provides $151,897,000 for several Independent Agencies, 

a decrease of $68,620,000 from fiscal year 2002 and a decrease of 

$62,481,000 below the budget request of $214,378,000. Funding is 

provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

6

its Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board. 

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT

HEALTH BENEFITS

The President’s Budget included a legislative proposal under the 

jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government Reform to 

charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal year 2003, the fully 

accrued costs related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian 

employees. The Budget also requested an additional dollar amount 

in each affected discretionary account to cover these accrued costs. 

Without passing judgment on the merits of this legislative proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the President’s request shown in the ‘‘Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority’’ and other tables in this report to exclude the accrual 

funding proposal. The disposition by Congress of the legislative 

proposal is unclear at this time. Should the proposal be passed by 

Congress and enacted, the Committee will make appropriate adjustments to the President’s request to include accrual amounts. 

The Committee further notes that administration proposals requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. Should such 

a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally modifying the 

President’s appropriation request for discretionary funding is then 

transmitted to the Congress. 

The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has always 

worked effectively for both Congress and past administrations, was 

not followed for the accrual funding proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided to include accrual 

amounts in the original discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts are based on legislation that has yet to be 

considered and approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to numerous misunderstandings both inside and 

outside of Congress of what was the ‘‘true’’ President’s budget request. The Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-established procedures with respect to discretionary 

spending proposals that require legislative action. 

(7)

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Committee views with growing concern the continuing low 

levels 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 for fiscal year 2003 is 

about $450 million below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 

2002. At the level of funding recommended by the Administration 

for fiscal year 2002 and 2003, many ongoing construction projects 

would be negatively impacted. In addition, the budget does not request funds for any new studies and only a single new construction 

project. The Committee is concerned that the Administration has 

not yet come to realize 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 in property damage, to say nothing of the incalculable value of lives saved, 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 2003, the Committee has recommended $4,615,712,000 for the Civil Works functions of the Corps of Engineers, $583,056,000 over the amount requested by the Administration (the total amount of $4,765,712,000 recommended for the 

Corps of Engineers includes $150,000,000 for the Formerly Uses 

Sites Remedial Action Program). Even at this level, the CommitVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
8

tee’s recommendation funds many ongoing projects at well below 

their optimum levels. The Committee has included a number of 

new construction projects and studies in the belief that the water 

resources development needs of the Nation are growing and cannot 

be met with just the projects currently underway.

Finally, the Committee reminds the Administration that it has 

made every reasonable effort to undertake a dialog to learn the 

reasons why our Nation’s infrastructure needs are of such low priority to the Administration. The Committee stands ready to engage 

in that dialog at any time.

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $154,350,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 102,483,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 143,680,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥10,670,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +41,197,000 

Note: The original budget request of $108,000,000 for General Investigations included $5,517,000 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request for General 

Investigations has been reduced by this amount. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

9


Insert graphic folio 9 HR681.001
10


Insert graphic folio 10 HR681.002
11


Insert graphic folio 11 HR681.003
12


Insert graphic folio 12 HR681.004
13


Insert graphic folio 13 HR681.005
14


Insert graphic folio 14 HR681.006
15


Insert graphic folio 15 HR681.007
16


Insert graphic folio 16 HR681.008
17


Insert graphic folio 17 HR681.009
18


Insert graphic folio 18 HR681.010
19


Insert graphic folio 19 HR681.011
20


Insert graphic folio 20 HR681.012
21


Insert graphic folio 21 HR681.013
22


Insert graphic folio 22 HR681.014
23


Insert graphic folio 23 HR681.015
24


Insert graphic folio 24 HR681.016
25


Insert graphic folio 25 HR681.017
26


Insert graphic folio 26 HR681.018
27


Insert graphic folio 27 HR681.019
28


Insert graphic folio 28 HR681.020
29


Insert graphic folio 29 HR681.021
30


Insert graphic folio 30 HR681.022
31


Insert graphic folio 31 HR681.023
32

Navajo Nation, Arizona.—The Committee has provided an addi- tional $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake flood delineation studies on the Navajo Nation. 

White River, Navigation to Newport, Arkansas.—The Committee 

is aware of the extensive coordination involved in preparing the reevaluation report for the White River, Navigation to Newport, Arkansas, project, and has, therefore, provided $100,000 for the Corps 

of Engineers to continue activities with the project sponsor and 

other interest groups and to continue work on the reevaluation and 

the Environmental Impact Statement. 

City of Inglewood, California.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate planning and design 

for replacement of water transmission pipelines for the City of 

Inglewood, California. 

City of Norwalk, California.—The bill includes $200,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers to provide design assistance for the City of Norwalk environmental infrastructure project authorized in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001. 

Desert Hot Springs, California.—The bill includes $300,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to provide technical design assistance for 

the Desert Hot Springs, California, resource protection and wastewater infrastructure project. 

Eastern Municipal Water District, California.—The Committee 

has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide technical assistance to the Eastern Municipal Water District for a regional water-related infrastructure project. 

Folsom Dam, California.—The Committee has provided $100,000 

for the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a second municipal and industrial water supply outlet 

through Folsom Dam. 

Los Angeles County Drainage Area (Cornfields), California.—The 

Committee has provided $100,000 for a study of ecosystem restoration and recreation needs for the Cornfields area of the Los Angeles 

River in California. 

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

Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 

continue the LA–3 Ocean Disposal Site Designation Study. 

San Jacinto River, California.—The Committee has included an 

additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to expand the ongoing San Jacinto River study to include an analysis of the feasibility 

of redesigning the existing flood control basin to include water recharge capability. 

Solana Beach—Encinitas, California.—The bill includes $500,000 

for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility study for the 

Solana Beach—Encinitas, California, project. 

Tujunga Wash Restoration, California.—The bill includes 

$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of improvements to maintain flood control and enhance environmental and 

recreation benefits in the Tujunga Wash, a tributary of the Los Angeles River. 

Upper Guadalupe River, California.—The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 

preconstruction engineering and design for the Upper Guadalupe 

River, California, project.

33

Whitewater River Basin, California.—The Committee has pro- vided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 

preconstruction engineering and design for the Whitewater River 

Basin project. 

Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound, Connecticut.—The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of 

Engineers to initiate a demonstration program for the use of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredged material from 

Long Island Sound as authorized by section 345 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. 

Hagatna River Flood Control, Guam.—The Committee has included $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 

preconstruction engineering and design for the Hagatna River 

Flood Control project in Guam. 

Waikiki Beach Erosion Control, Hawaii.—The Committee has 

provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 

preconstruction engineering and design for the Waikiki Beach Erosion Control project in Hawaii. The Committee directs that any recommendation for further action on this project shall consider the 

economic feasibility of the project based on National Economic Development benefits regardless of the type of benefit and shall consider recreational benefits equivalent to any other form of benefits. 

Keith Creek, Rockford, Illinois.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance 

study to reevaluate flood protection along Keith Creek in Rockford, 

Illinois. 

Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Navigation Study, Illinois, 

Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.—The bill includes 

$3,685,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the 

Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Navigation Study. While encouraged by the progress being made since the study was restructured and resumed in August of last year, the Committee strongly 

desires to have the Corps of Engineers complete this feasibility 

study as soon as possible. The Committee also believes that, to prevent further delay and additional cost, the Corps should be prepared to begin preconstruction engineering and design activities for 

work envisioned in the feasibility study at the earliest practicable 

time.

Fort Wayne, Indiana.—The Committee has provided $150,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to provide technical and design assistance 

for the Camp Scott Wetlands Treatment Project in Fort Wayne, Indiana. 

Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.—The Committee has 

provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to revise the Master 

Plan for the Central Indianapolis Waterfront in Indianapolis, Indiana. 

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

Corps of Engineers to continue the study of the impacts of a 2–4 

foot pool raise on the Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, Iowa. 

Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, Kentucky.—The Committee 

has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 

feasibility study of water resources problems and opportunities for 

the Southwest Louisville, Kentucky, Flood Damage Reduction 

Project located in Jefferson County, Kentucky. 

34

Williamstown Lake, Kentucky.—The bill includes $100,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study of the 

need to expand the existing Williamstown Lake in Grant County, 

Kentucky. 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.— The Committee has provided $300,000 to continue the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Restoration feasibility study, including funds to address the erosion along Bayou Sorrell in Iberville 

Parish. The Committee expects the study to provide solutions to 

the problems of flooding of property and erosion of land beyond the 

banks of the waterway. 

West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.—The bill includes $500,000 

for the Corps of Engineers to proceed to preconstruction engineering and design for the waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement project in West Baton Rouge Parish, 

Louisiana, pursuant to section 517 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. 

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

provided $200,000 for the West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain project. 

The Committee remains concerned about the inability of the Corps 

of Engineers and St. John Parish to resolve the levee alignment adjacent to Interstate 10. For the third year, the Committee urges immediate resolution of this issue. 

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, Maryland, Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion project, including $150,000 to 

initiate the shoreline erosion portion of the feasibility study. 

Middle Potomac River Basin, Maryland, District of Columbia, 

and Virginia.—The Committee has provided $550,000 for the Mid- dle Potomac River Basin study, $200,000 more than the budget request. The additional funds will enable the Corps of Engineers to 

initiate the feasibility phase of the study. The Committee is aware 

that the Middle Potomac River Basin study will include a comprehensive investigation of the Holmes Run watershed in Virginia. 

Lansing, Michigan.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to initiate preparation of a riverfront master plan for Lansing, Michigan. 

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

has provided $120,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the 

management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair authorized by section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999. 

Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Pearl River Watershed study in Mississippi, 

and directs the Corps of Engineers to investigate all potentially 

feasible alternatives, including plans similar to the plan currently 

referred to as the Lefleur Lakes Flood Control Project. 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue a separate feasibility study of ecosystem restoration opportunities in the Hackensack Meadowlands in New Jersey. 

Southwest Valley Flood Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—The bill includes $450,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue, on an expedited basis, the feasibility phase of the Southwest 

35

Valley Flood Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico. In addition, the Committee has included language in the bill which directs 

the Corps of Engineers to include in the study an evaluation of 

flood damage reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded 

from the feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of runoff.

East River Seawall, Queens County, New York.—The Committee 

has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of the need to restore shoreline protection 

measures in the Queensbridge area along the East River. 

Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Restoration and Low 

Flow Management, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.—The 

bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a comprehensive study to develop solutions to the water resources problems of the Susquehanna River Basin, including flow management, 

environmental restoration, and water security. 

Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York.—The Committee 

has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue feasibility study efforts to investigate tributary restoration potential on 

the West and East Branches of the Upper Delaware River and the 

Beaverkill River. 

Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York.—The Committee 

has provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to investigate solutions to water resources problems in the vicinity of the Village of 

McGraw, Cortland County, New York. 

Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York and Pennsylvania.— The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers 

to continue work on the Upper Susquehanna River Basin study, including work on the Catatonk Creek Watershed Initiative. 

Catawba River Watershed, North Carolina.—The Committee has 

provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide technical 

assistance for the development of a storm water management plan 

for Gaston County, North Carolina. 

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

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

monitoring and prepare plans and specifications for the Manteo 

(Shallowbag) Bay project in North Carolina. 

Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio and Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for a 

study of the need for environmental dredging of the Mahoning 

River within the State of Pennsylvania. 

Wheeling Creek, Ohio.—The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps 

of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance level investigation of the 

Wheeling Creek Basin in Belmont County, Ohio, with a focus on 

acid mine drainage abatement and ecosystem restoration. 

Woodtick Peninsula and Toledo Harbor, Ohio.—The bill includes 

$100,000 for a study of a project to use material dredged from Toledo Harbor to provide erosion protection and ecosystem restoration 

at Woodtick Peninsula in western Lake Erie. 

Grand Lake Comprehensive Study, Oklahoma.—The Committee 

is aware that the Corps of Engineers has completed the draft report entitled Grand Lake, Oklahoma, Preliminary Analysis of Flood 

Control Operation, dated August 2002, which determined that Federal action has been a significant cause of the backwater effects to 

36

the lands upstream and adjacent to the reservoir. To that end, the 

Committee has provided $300,000 to initiate feasibility studies to 

identify feasible measures to address the flooding upstream and adjacent to the reservoir. The study is to be implemented in accordance with the provisions of Section 449 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. 

Spavinaw Creek, Oklahoma.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for a study of water quality problems in the Spavinaw 

Creek Watershed. 

Walla Walla River Watershed, Oregon and Washington.—The 

Committee has provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of 

Engineers to expand the Walla Walla River Watershed study and 

work with the Walla Walla Watershed Alliance to investigate restoration of riparian habitat and river flow improvements in the 

basin. 

Tununguant Creek, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance 

study of flooding problems and ecosystem restoration opportunities 

in the Tununguant Creek watershed in the vicinity of Bradford, 

Pennsylvania, and Limestone, New York. 

Upper Ohio River Navigation Systems Study, Pennsylvania.—The 

Committee has provided $400,000 for a feasibility level study of improvements to Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Locks and 

Dams on the Ohio River. 

Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preconstruction 

engineering and design for the Chickamauga Lock replacement 

project. 

Greens Bayou, Texas.—The Committee has provided $410,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Greens Bayou, 

Texas, project. The additional funds will enable the Corps to complete the General Reevaluation Report and initiate plans and specifications. 

Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, Texas.—The Committee has 

provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on 

the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers project, including hydrologic studies to update flood plain mapping in Goliad, Karnes, and 

Wilson Counties. 

Harris Gully, Texas.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of flood control measures 

for Harris Gully in Houston, Texas. 

Lower Sabine River, Texas.—The bill includes $100,000 for a 

study of ways to increase the ability of the Lower Sabine River to 

move floodwaters to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Rio Grande Basin, Texas.—The Committee is aware of the significant water resources issues along the Rio Grande with the State 

of Texas. Due to the complexity of the issues, and the number of 

non-Federal interests that must be coordinated with, the Committee has provided $300,000 for an expanded reconnaissance 

study to investigate the opportunities for flood damage reduction, 

ecosystem restoration, water supply, and other related purposes 

within the Rio Grande Basin in Texas. 

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

$1,800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the Upper TrinVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
37

ity River Basin study, including $300,000 for the Dallas Floodway 

portion of the study and funds to continue the Trinity Visions 

project. 

Duwamish and Green River Basin, Washington.—The Committee 

has provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to advance completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the 

Duwamish and Green River Basin project in Washington. 

Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue preconstruction engineering and design activities for the 

Erickson/Wood County Public Port project. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps to reprogram $300,000 previously appropriated for the Monongahela River, Fairmont, West Virginia, study 

to accelerate work on this project. 

Little Kanawha River, West Virginia.—The Committee has pro- vided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility 

phase of the Little Kanawha River, West Virginia, study. 

Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park, West Virginia.—The bill includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 

preconstruction engineering and design for the Parkersburg/Vienna 

Riverfront Park project in West Virginia. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps to reprogram $45,000 previously appropriated for the Monongahela River, Fairmont, West Virginia, study 

to accelerate work on this project. 

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

the Coastal Field Data Collection program, $1,000,000 more than 

the budget request. The additional funds are to be used for the 

Southern California Beach Process Study. 

Flood Plain Management Services.—The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services program, including $2,981,000 for completion of the foundational geographic 

information system for flood plain management in East Baton 

Rouge Parish in Louisiana. 

Within the amount provided for the Flood Plain Management 

Services program, $100,000 is to be used by the Corps of Engineers 

to develop an initial analysis of ways to address drainage and 

flooding problems at the College of Mount Saint Vincent in Riverdale, New York. 

Within the amount provided for Flood Plain Management Services, $200,000 is provided to assist the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, in planning and designing use of the Fall Creek flood plain 

for flood compatible activities. 

Other Coordination Programs.—The amount provided for Other 

Coordination Programs includes $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide additional programmatic support to Lake Tahoe 

Basin restoration activities, including coordination with the Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency, to implement the Environmental Improvement Program. 

Planning Assistance to States.—The amount recommended for 

the Planning Assistance to States program includes $500,000 for 

the development of a statewide watershed management assessment 

plan for the State of Alabama, and $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide technical assistance to the State of New Jersey to 

implement a comprehensive watershed management plan in the 

38

North Jersey Water Supply Area. The amount provided for the 

Planning Assistance to States program also includes $50,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to assist Gwinnett County, Georgia, in the 

development of a mitigation instrument. 

The Committee also urges the Corps of Engineers to use 

$100,000 for the preparation of a comprehensive drainage plan for 

Cayuga Creek and its tributaries in Niagara County, New York, 

and $150,000 to continue work related to remediation of 

brownfields near the Union Ship Canal in Buffalo, New York. In 

addition, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use 

$250,000 to continue the project to upgrade the Daily Flow Model 

for the Delaware River Basin in New York. 

The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States program includes $425,000 to provide assistance in the State of Oklahoma, including work on: an update of the Oklahoma comprehensive plan; the Kaw Reservoir regional water supply study, phase II; 

the Lake Texoma regional sewer study, phase II; the Spring Creek 

water availability study; and the Mangum Lake geotechnical study, 

phase V. 

The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use funds provided for the Planning Assistance to States program to participate 

with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the development of a 

comprehensive water management study for the lower Susquehanna River Basin. 

The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States Program includes $85,000 for the development of alternatives to restore the capacity of Cross Lake in Shreveport, Louisiana. 

The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States program includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to work with 

the officials of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to develop a 

comprehensive plan for restoration of the historic Delaware Canal 

from Easton to Bristol, Pennsylvania. 

The amount provided for the Planning Assistance to States program includes $250,000 for the development of a master plan of the 

storm drainage system in the City of Danbury, Connecticut. 

Stream Gaging (U.S. Geological Survey).—The Committee has 

provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to cooperate with the U.S. Geological Survey in maintaining stream 

gages on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and AlabamaCoosa-Tallapoosa River systems. 

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $1,715,951,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 1,415,612,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,831,030,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +115,079,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +415,418,000 

Note: The original budget request of $1,440,000,000 for Construction, General included $24,388,000 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request for Construction, General has been reduced by this amount. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

39


Insert graphic folio 39 HR681.024
40


Insert graphic folio 40 HR681.025
41


Insert graphic folio 41 HR681.026
42


Insert graphic folio 42 HR681.027
43


Insert graphic folio 43 HR681.028
44


Insert graphic folio 44 HR681.029
45


Insert graphic folio 45 HR681.030
46


Insert graphic folio 46 HR681.031
47

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

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to execute the agreements 

necessary for Federal assistance in construction of the Duck River 

water supply project in Cullman, Alabama, as authorized in section 

108 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001. 

Huntsville Watershed Master Plan, Alabama.—The Committee is 

aware that a project to develop a master plan for the watershed of 

downtown Huntsville, Alabama, will be considered for authorization in this session of Congress. Should this project be authorized, 

the Committee will consider including funding at a later point in 

the appropriations process. 

Mobile Harbor, Alabama.—The Committee has provided 

$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a Limited Reevaluation Report to determine the feasibility of constructing portions of the authorized project for Mobile Harbor, Alabama, including a passing lane and a turning basin, and initiate construction 

of those features pending completion of the reevaluation report. 

Montgomery Waterfront, Alabama.—The Committee is aware 

that a project for revitalizing the Montgomery, Alabama, waterfront will be considered for authorization in this session of Congress. Should this project be authorized, the Committee will consider including funding at a later point in the appropriations process. 

Southern Alabama Environmental Infrastructure, Alabama.—The 

Committee is aware that a project for assisting in the improvement 

of environmental infrastructure in southern Alabama will be considered for authorization in this session of Congress. Should this 

project be authorized, the Committee will consider including funding at a later point in the appropriations process. 

Seward Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee has provided 

$3,253,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the breakwater 

project at Seward Harbor, Alaska. 

Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, Arizona.—The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Rio Salado project, including $5,000,000 

for the Tempe portion of the project. 

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

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

perchlorate removal within the Eastern Santa Clara River Basin in 

the City of Santa Clarita, California. 

Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, California.—The Committee has 

provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on 

the reevaluation report for the Coyote and Berryessa Creeks 

project in California. 

Los Angeles Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided 

$15,000,000 for the Los Angeles Harbor, California, project. The 

Committee understands that the Corps of Engineers could utilize 

$20,000,000 to maintain optimum progress. The Committee also 

understands that the local sponsor, the Port of Los Angeles, desires 

to advance funds for this project in accordance with section 11 of 

the River and Harbor Act of 1925 to achieve the most efficient construction schedule. The Committee, therefore, has included language in the bill which directs the Secretary of the Army to accept 

48

advance funds from the non-Federal sponsor as needed to maintain 

the project schedule. 

Murrieta Creek, California.—The bill includes $1,000,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction engineering and design and initiate construction for the Murrieta Creek project in 

California. 

Newport Bay Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided 

$972,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 

engineering and design and execute a Project Cooperation Agreement for the Newport Bay Harbor project. 

Sacramento Area, California.—The Committee has provided 

$4,200,000 for the Sacramento Area, California, project authorized 

by section 502 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. 

The amount provided includes: $1,000,000 for the project to replace 

water meters and water lines, and undertake canal lining for the 

Placer County Water Agency; $750,000 for development of the next 

phase of the Regional Water Master Plan managed by the Regional 

Water Authority; $1,000,000 for conjunctive use projects in cooperation with the San Juan Water District; $1,000,000 for the 

City of Roseville’s water meter replacement program; and $450,000 

for the effluent pipeline project in the City of Lincoln. 

South Perris, California.—The Committee has provided 

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate design for the 

South Perris Water Supply Desalination project authorized by section 108(d)(52) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001. 

Yuba River Basin, California.—The Committee has provided 

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 

engineering and design and initiate construction for the Yuba River 

Basin project in California. 

Broward County, Florida.—The Committee has provided 

$3,700,000 for the Federal share of beach renourishment costs for 

the Broward County, Florida, project. In addition, the Committee 

has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare a General Reevaluation Report for implementation of Segment I of the 

Broward County, Florida, Shore Protection Project. 

Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.—The Committee has provided 

$3,543,000 for the Corps of Engineers to renourish the northern 1.3 

miles of the Fort Pierce Beach project and construct a groin field. 

Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided an 

additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans 

and specifications for the proposed extension of the channel. 

Manatee County, Florida.—The Committee has provided 

$3,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the non-Federal 

sponsor for the Federal share of the cost of renourishing the Manatee County, Florida, project. 

Miami Harbor Channel, Florida.—The Committee has included 

$15,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 

dredging in the Miami Harbor Channel and initiate 

preconstruction engineering and design for further improvements 

to the Miami Harbor channel. 

Nassau County, Florida.—The bill includes $400,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications for the Nassau County, Florida, shore protection project. 

49

Palm Beach County (Boca Raton Segment), Florida.—The bill includes $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the City 

of Boca Raton for the cost of preparing a design memorandum 

needed to support construction of the project. 

Palm Beach County (Delray Beach Segment), Florida.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to complete reimbursement of the 

Federal share of renourishing the Delray Beach Segment of the 

Palm Beach County project. 

Palm Beach County (Jupiter/Carlin Segment), Florida.—The 

Committee has provided $2,300,000 to complete reimbursement of 

the Federal share of renourishing the Jupiter/Carlin Segment of 

the Palm Beach County project.

Panama City Beaches, Florida.—The Committee is aware that 

section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized construction of the Panama City Beaches, Florida, shore 

protection project by the local project sponsor in accordance with 

the provisions of section 206 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992. In addition, section 506(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized periodic nourishment of the 

project for a period of 50 years. However, before the project can 

proceed, it is necessary for the Secretary of the Army to execute a 

Project Cooperation Agreement with the project sponsor. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to enter 

into the required Project Cooperation Agreement for the Panama 

City Beaches, Florida, project within six months of enactment of 

this Act. 

St. Johns County, Florida.—The Committee has provided 

$300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to monitor the current beach 

nourishment project to determine its performance and environmental impacts. 

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

$500,000 for the operation and maintenance of the aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier in the Chicago and Sanitary Ship 

Canal. 

Grand Calumet River Remedial Action Plan, Indiana.—The Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a pilot project to remediate contaminated sediments in the 

Grand Calumet River in Indiana as authorized by section 401 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1990. 

Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.—The Committee has provided $8,000,000 for the Corps of 

Engineers to accelerate work on the L–385 Unit of the Missouri 

River Levee System project. 

Louisville Waterfront Park, Phases II and III, Kentucky.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue with the detailed design of recreation and access features of the Louisville Waterfront, Phases II and III, Kentucky. 

McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided $21,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate work on 

the McAlpine Lock and Dam project, including the cofferdam/lock 

demolition contract and the boat mooring contract, and to allow for 

more efficient execution of the lock construction contract. 

50

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 new efforts to address the potential impacts on 

vehicular traffic as a result of the construction of a new lock on the 

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. The Committee reemphasizes the 

report language included in House Report 107–258 regarding this 

issue. 

Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the Leon Theriot floodgate and remains 

very concerned over the delay in completion of the post authorization change report. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers 

to expedite completion of the report. 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (Reevaluation Study), Louisiana.— The Committee recognizes the severe environmental problems 

caused by the construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

project, including the erosion of banks in excess of 1,000 feet in 

some cases, and is very concerned that funds were not requested 

to continue this study. Therefore, the Committee has provided 

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Mississippi 

River Gulf Outlet reevaluation study. 

Red River Below Denison Dam, Louisiana.—The bill includes 

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

rehabilitate levees in Louisiana, which includes the installation of 

gravel surfaces on the levees. 

Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $52,000,000 for the Southeast Louisiana project. These funds are to 

be used to continue engineering, design, and construction of 

projects to provide for flood control and improvements to rainfall 

drainage systems in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes, Louisiana, in accordance with reports of the New Orleans 

District Engineer that are within the scope of the authorization 

and authorized for construction by Public Law 104–46, as amended. 

Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete design and initiate construction of the Muddy River environmental ecosystem and flood damage reduction project in Brookline 

and Boston, Massachusetts. 

Clinton River Spillway, Michigan.—The Committee has provided 

$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications for the project to remove accumulated silt and repair the 

banks at the Clinton River Spillway. 

Genesee County Environmental Infrastructure, Michigan.—The 

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

construction of a rain gauge system in cooperation with the Office 

of the Genesee County Drain Commissioner as authorized in section 219(f)(59) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. 

Desoto County, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided 

$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of 

the DeSoto County, Mississippi, wastewater treatment facility. 

Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, Mississippi.—The bill 

includes $2,000,000 for the Mississippi Environmental InfrastrucVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
51

ture program authorized by section 592 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to use the funds to address the most critical water resources 

needs within the State of Mississippi. 

Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri.—The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue its work to correct the design deficiency on the Bois Brule 

Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project, and $700,000 under 

the Section 205 program to increase the level of protection from 50 

to 100 years. 

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

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

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

City of Conrad, Montana.—The Committee has provided 

$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide design assistance to 

the City of Conrad, Montana, for work associated with a new water 

intake and transmission lines. 

Rural Nevada, Nevada.—The Committee has provided 

$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to provide assistance under the Rural Nevada project, including work in cooperation with the City of Mesquite and the Moapa Valley Water District. 

Delaware River Main Channel, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.—

The Committee is aware that the General Accounting Office has 

identified serious problems with the Corps of Engineers economic 

analysis of the Delaware River Main Channel deepening project 

and has found that it does not provide a reliable basis for a decision to proceed with the project. The Committee is further aware 

that the Corps of Engineers has initiated a comprehensive reanalysis of the project. Accordingly, the Committee has deleted the funds 

included in the budget request for construction of the project. The 

Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps to complete the reanalysis of the project. 

Newton, New Jersey.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 

for the Corps of Engineers to provide assistance to the Town of 

Newton, New Jersey, for a project to construct a water filtration 

plant. 

Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York.—The Committee 

has provided $5,000,000 for the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point 

project, including $3,170,000 for the reformulation study, $980,000 

for the interim project for Shinnecock Inlet, and $820,000 for work 

related to the Westhampton Beach interim project. 

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

supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to satisfy requirements in fiscal year 2003. 

New York State Canal System, New York.—The bill includes 

$2,550,000 for the Corps of Engineers to participate in maintenance and rehabilitation of the New York State Barge Canal as authorized by section 553 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996. 

52

Mill Creek, Ohio.—The Committee has provided additional funds 

for the Corps of Engineers to accelerate work on the General Reevaluation Report for the Mill Creek, Ohio, project. 

Ohio Environmental Assistance, Ohio.—The Committee has pro- vided $4,500,000 for the Ohio Environmental Assistance program 

authorized by section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act 

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

Springfield wastewater treatment and sewer improvement project; 

$2,000,000 for wastewater improvements in the City of Toledo; and 

$1,000,000 for water lines along River Road in Madison Township. 

Yukon, Oklahoma.—The Committee is aware that the City of 

Yukon, Oklahoma, has limited financial ability to rehabilitate its 

water infrastructure. Therefore, the Committee has provided 

$4,125,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide design and construction assistance to the City for rehabilitation of its municipal 

water infrastructure. 

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

previously appropriated for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon, project 

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

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

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

remove a section of the dam for fish passage. 

Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration, Oregon and Washington.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Lower Columbia Ecosystem Restoration project, the same as the budget request. These funds are intended only to help fulfill the estuary restoration actions required by the 2000 Federal Columbia River 

Power System Biological Opinion and for no other purpose. 

Kehly Run Dam No. 5, Pennsylvania.—The bill includes $150,000 

for the Corps of Engineers to provide assistance to improve the 

safety at Kehly Run Dam No. 5 in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. 

South Central Environmental Improvement Program, Pennsylvania.—The Committee recommendation for the South Central Environmental Improvement Program includes funds to undertake 

spillway improvements at Dalton Run Dam, Cambria County, 

Pennsylvania. 

Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has 

provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate design for 

environmental and infrastructure improvements in the Cobbs and 

Mill Creek Watershed in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Athens, Tennessee.—The Committee is aware that a project to restore the aquatic ecosystem of Oostanaula Creek by addressing the 

primary cause of impairment will be considered for authorization 

in this session of Congress. Should this project be authorized, the 

Committee will consider including funding at a later point in the 

appropriations process. 

Cumberland County Water Supply, Tennessee.—The Committee 

has provided $800,000 for the design of water supply projects in 

Cumberland County, Tennessee.

Brays Bayou, Houston, Texas.—The recommendation of the Committee includes $6,000,000 to reimburse the sponsor for completed 

53

discrete segments of the Detention Element scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2003. The Committee encourages the Secretary 

of the Army to expeditiously amend the existing Project Cooperation Agreement with the Harris County Flood Control District to 

include construction of all features of the Detention and Downstream Elements, and to reimburse the sponsor for any completed 

discrete segments of the project. The Committee encourages the 

Secretary to continue budgeting for reimbursement of completed 

discrete segments for the project. Consistent with existing authority, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to designate 

the Detention Element and the Diversion Element, or an approved 

alternative to the Diversion Element, as upstream and downstream 

components of a single combined project designated the Brays 

Bayou, Houston, Texas, Project. Subject to the Secretary’s approval 

of the General Reevaluation Review Report for the downstream 

component, the Secretary of the Army is directed to use a portion 

of the funds appropriated for the Brays Bayou, Texas, Project to 

negotiate and execute an amendment to the existing Project Cooperation Agreement to include both upstream and downstream 

components as one project, and for reimbursement of the non-Federal sponsor for completed and approved discrete segments of work. 

Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.—The Committee has provided 

$9,744,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of 

the Dallas Floodway Extension project in Texas. The Committee 

has also included language in the bill which directs the Corps to 

proceed with the project in accordance with the report of the Chief 

of Engineers, dated December 7, 1999. 

Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas.—The bill includes 

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate final design efforts 

for the Wichita River Basin chloride control project and continue 

environmental monitoring efforts. 

Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the rehabilitation of the Bowie County Levee in Texas. The Committee has included language in the bill which provides that the project to be 

constructed is defined as Alternative B in the Corps of Engineers 

document entitled ‘‘Bowie County Flood Protection Project, Red 

River, Texas, Project Design Memorandum No. 1’’, April 1997, and 

that cost sharing shall be in accordance with the Flood Control Act 

of 1946. 

San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.—The bill includes 

$4,000,000 for the San Antonio Channel Improvement project in 

Texas. The funds provided above the budget request are to be used 

to complete flood plain mapping and hydraulic performance studies 

on the remainder of the San Antonio River and its tributaries. 

Waco Lake, Texas.—The Committee has provided $4,500,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to initiate a program to upgrade the recreational facilities at the Waco Lake, Texas, project. Deficiencies at 

the project include restroom facilities that are not ADA compliant, 

insufficient parking, dilapidated roads, and aging electrical systems. 

Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.—The Committee has provided 

$3,000,000 for the Mud Mountain Dam project in Washington, of 

54

which $1,500,000 shall be used to complete fish passage design 

work initiated in fiscal year 2002. 

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.—The bill includes a total of $42,050,000 for the Levisa and Tug Forks of the 

Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River project. The amount 

provided includes: $5,500,000 for the Clover Fork, Kentucky, element of the project; $3,000,000 for the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project; $8,000,000 for the Town of Martin, 

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

Kentucky, element of the project, including $1,500,000 for implementation of work along the tributaries of the Tug Fork and continuation of a Detailed Project Report for the Levisa Fork; 

$5,200,000 for the Martin County, Kentucky, element of the 

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

project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Harlan County, 

Kentucky, element of the project; $1,500,000 for continued studies 

along the tributaries of the Cumberland River in Bell County, Kentucky; $250,000 for additional studies along the Levisa Fork in 

Johnson County, Kentucky; and $12,400,000 to continue construction of the Grundy, Virginia, element of the project. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to amend the 

Pike County, Kentucky, Project Cooperation Agreement and implement the project described in the Pike County, Kentucky, Tug Fork 

Tributaries Detailed Project Report Supplement, dated January 

2002. 

Continuing Authorities Programs.—The Committee is aware that 

the Administration has proposed that no new projects be initiated 

in fiscal year 2003 under the various Continuing Authorities Programs. The Committee can find no justification for such a proposal 

as these are small projects that can provide significant benefits at 

relatively low cost. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corps of 

Engineers to initiate new studies and construction projects under 

the Continuing Authorities Programs, as appropriate. 

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

provided $5,000,000 for the Section 103 program. Within the 

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $10,000 to initiate 

and complete an initial appraisal for the West Beach, Santa Barbara, California, project; $300,000 to continue preparation of a detailed project report for the Carpinteria Beach, California, project; 

$100,000 to complete the feasibility report for the Whiting Shoreline, Indiana, project; $100,000 for planning and design for the 

Nantasket Beach, Massachusetts, project; $100,000 to complete the 

feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Luna 

Pier, Michigan, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for 

the Krull Park, Newfane, New York, project; $100,000 to continue 

the feasibility study for the Crescent Beach, New York, project; and 

$100,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Lake Erie Islands 

Beach, Ohio, project.

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

provided $11,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the 

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Point Mallard Park, Decatur, Alabama, project; $125,000 to complete the detailed project report for 

55

the Pillar Point Harbor, California, project; $2,875,000 to initiate

and complete construction of the Port Hueneme, California, project;

$300,000 for the Hernando Beach, Florida, project; $200,000 to

complete the feasibility report for the Whiting Shoreline, Indiana,

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

the Greenup Slackwater Harbor, Kentucky, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Ocean City Inlet and Harbor, Maryland,

project; $2,000,000 to initiate construction of the Rockhold Creek,

Maryland, project; $125,000 to complete the feasibility study for

the Rouge River, Michigan, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the City of Mackinac Island Harbor Breakwall,

Michigan, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility report for the

Tri-County Port, Iuka, Mississippi, project; $100,000 to continue

the feasibility report for the Lake Ontario Commercial Port, New

York, project; $234,000 to complete plans and specifications for the

Buffalo Inner Harbor, New York, project; $234,000 to continue the

feasibility report for the Lake Erie at Sturgeon Point, New York,

project; $250,000 to prepare plans and specifications for the Port of

Rochester, Hojack Swing Bridge, New York, project; $100,000 to

initiate a study at the Syracuse Inner Harbor and Onondaga

Creek, New York; $100,000 to prepare an initial appraisal for the

Swift Creek, Virginia, project; and $150,000 to continue the Saxon

Creek, Wisconsin, project.

Within the amount provided for the Section 107 program, the Committee recommends $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study at Knife Harbor, Minnesota, and $1,650,000 to continue construction of the Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota, project. In addition, the recommendation includes $400,000

for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications and

initiate construction of the Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota,

project. In carrying out the Grand Portage Harbor project, the

Committee expects the Corps to use procedures similar to those

used for the Silver Bay and Taconite Harbor projects, including

using existing feasibility and other study documents and designs

prepared by the State of Minnesota and the Grand Portage Band,

and to construct the project in cooperation with the state and the

band.

Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects (Section

111).—The Committee has provided $1,900,000 for the Section 111

program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $500,000 to investigate problems at Dauphin Island, Alabama; $295,000 to initiate and complete construction for the Herring Creek, Maryland, project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of

the Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Maine, project; and $100,000

to continue the feasibility study for the Mattituck Inlet, New York,

project.

Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment

(Section 1135).—The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the

Section 1135 program. Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $130,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility report for the Ditch 28, Mississippi County, Arkansas,

project; $100,000 to complete planning and design for the Horseshoe Lake, Arkansas, project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of

the Rillito/Swan Wetlands, Arizona, project; $200,000 for the feasibility study for the San Gabriel River Basin, Los Cerritos WetVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:17 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX pfrm13 PsN: HR681
56

lands, California, project; $1,000,000 for the Sepulveda Flood Control Basin (Bull Creek Channel) in California; $200,000 to initiate 

and complete the environmental restoration report for the sites 38 

and 38A sand removal project on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, 

and Flint Rivers system in Florida; $200,000 to initiate and complete the environmental restoration report for the site 39 sand removal project on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers 

system in Florida; $90,000 to initiate planning and design for the 

Honey Creek Wetlands, Iowa, project; $398,000 to initiate plans 

and specifications for the Sand Creek, Kansas, ecosystem restoration project; $350,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the New River Restoration project in Louisiana; $450,000 

to initiate the feasibility study for the Lake Fausse Point Ecosystem Restoration project in Louisiana; $500,000 to complete 

plans and specifications and initiate construction of the Houghs 

Neck Salt Marsh, Massachusetts, project; $221,000 to complete the 

feasibility study for the Lower Rouge River Restoration, Michigan, 

project; $259,000 to complete the feasibility report for the Upper 

Rouge River Restoration, Michigan, project; $75,000 to complete 

the feasibility study for the Duck Creek, Stoddard County, Missouri, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Kansas City 

Riverfront Habitat Restoration project in Missouri; $270,000 to 

complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications 

for the Brush Creek, Missouri, project; $400,000 to initiate plans 

and specifications for the Times Beach, New York, project; $30,000 

to complete plans and specifications for the Little Sugar Creek 

Habitat Restoration project in North Carolina; $150,000 to continue 

the feasibility for the Sheldon’s Marsh Nature Preserve project in Ohio; $350,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Allin’s 

Cove, Barrington, Rhode Island, project; $460,000 to initiate and 

complete construction of the Boyd’s Marsh Restoration project in Rhode Island; and $60,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for the Lower Obion River and Vicinity, Dyer County, 

Tennessee, project. 

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

Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the Section 14 program. 

Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes: 

$500,000 to initiate construction of the project on the Alabama 

River in Montgomery, Alabama, from Molton to Coosa Streets; 

$700,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Ditto Landing 

Marina, Huntsville, Alabama, project; $500,000 to initiate and complete design and initiate construction of the Lake Wedowee, Randolph County, Alabama, project; $105,000 to initiate and complete 

design and initiate construction of the Farm Creek, City of Washington, Illinois, project; $400,000 to complete construction of the 

Melvina Creek, Illinois, project; $500,000 to complete phase 2 of 

the Kansas River, Eudora Bend Bridge, Kansas, project; $600,000 

to complete planning and design and initiate construction of the 

Detroit River Shoreline, Michigan, project; $100,000 to complete 

planning and design and initiate construction of the Belle Isle 

South Shore, Michigan, project; $500,000 to initiate and complete 

construction of the Belle Isle Park, Michigan, project; $525,000 for 

construction of the Marquette, Michigan, project; $260,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Middle Fork, Grand River, 

57

Missouri, project; $400,000 to initiate and complete construction of 

the Newton Creek, New York, project; $300,000 for planning and 

design of the DeLaval Bulkhead, Hudson River, Poughkeepsie, New 

York, project; $700,000 to initiate construction of the Minersville, 

Ohio, project; $98,000 for construction of the Heathcott Road, Lauderdale County, Tennessee, project; $98,000 for construction of the 

Steelman Road, Lauderdale County, Tennessee, project; $100,000 

for planning and design of the Bogachiel River, Washington, 

project; and $500,000 for construction of the Kinnickinnic River, 

Wisconsin, project. 

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: $1,000,000 for construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, project; 

and $70,000 to initiate and complete plans and specifications for 

the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black project 

in Louisiana. 

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: $500,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Jasper, Alabama, project; 

$1,500,000 to initiate construction of the locally preferred plan for 

the Pinhook Creek, Alabama, project; $1,000,000 for the Indian 

Bayou, Arkansas, project; $60,000 to initiate and complete plans 

and specifications for the Spring Creek, St. Francis County, Arkansas, project; $130,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate 

plans and specifications for the Higginson, Arkansas, project; 

$300,000 to initiate and complete a detailed project report for the 

Desert Hot Springs, California, project; $500,000 for the City of 

Twentynine Palms, California, project; $3,000,000 to initiate construction of the Magpie Creek, California, project; $200,000 for the 

Magpie Creek (McClellan AFB), California, project; $460,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Anaverde Creek, Palmdale, 

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

Santa Venetia, California, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Plant City, Florida, project; $2,000,000 to initiate construction of the Deer Creek, Village of Ford Heights, Illinois, project; $2,000,000 to continue construction of the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $60,000 for the a feasibility study for the Harrisburg, Illinois, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study 

for the Red Mill Pond Dam, Indiana, project; $449,000 to complete 

plans and specifications and initiate construction of the Sumava 

Resorts, Indiana, project; $200,000 to continue preparation of plans 

and specifications for the Mad Creek, Muscatine, Iowa, project; 

$300,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Cowskin Creek 

Basin, Wichita, Kansas, project; $125,000 to continue the feasibility 

study for the Mayfield Creek and Tributaries, Kentucky, project; 

$40,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Bayou DeChien, 

Kentucky, project; $500,000 to initiate and complete plans and 

specifications for the Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 

project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Rosethorn Basin, 

Jean Lafitte, Louisiana, project; $1,000,000 to continue construction of the Fisher School Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana, project; 

$500,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the Goose Bayou 

58

Basin, Jefferson, Louisiana, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Armenco Canal, Iberia Parish, Louisiana, 

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

construction of the Elkton, Maryland, project; $700,000 to continue 

construction of the Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District project 

in Missouri; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of flooding problems in Lilbourn, New Madrid County, Missouri; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; 

$100,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Williams Creek, 

Missouri, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study for the 

Goose Creek, Missouri, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility 

study for the Blacksnake Creek Basin, Missouri, project; $100,000 

to continue the feasibility study for the City of Richland, Mississippi, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems in North Natchez, Mississippi; $2,000,000 for the Wahpeton, 

North Dakota, project; $240,000 to complete the feasibility study 

and initiate plans and specifications for the Ridgewood Addition, 

Fargo, North Dakota, project; $1,000,000 to complete the feasibility 

study and initiate plans and specifications for the Jackson Brook, 

New Jersey, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility report for 

the Poplar Brook, New Jersey, project; $221,000 to continue the 

feasibility study for the Fulmer Creek, New York, project; $130,000 

to continue the feasibility study for the Moyer Creek, New York, 

project; $160,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Steele 

Creek, New York, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study 

for the Delaware Canal and Brock Creek, Pennsylvania, project; 

$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Barceloneta, Puerto 

Rico, project; $75,000 for engineering and design of the Rossville, 

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

specifications and execute a project cooperation agreement for the 

Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee, project; $200,000 to complete 

plans and specifications for the Shoal Creek, Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee, project; $100,000 to initiate 

a study of flooding problems along Sandy Creek in Jackson, Tennessee; $100,000 to initiate a study of flooding problems along Anderson Creek in Jackson, Tennessee; $200,000 to prepare plans and 

specifications and initiate construction of the Baxter Bottom, Tipton County, Tennessee, project; $230,000 for the Stroubles Creek 

Watershed, Virginia, project; and $200,000 to continue the feasibility of the Wind Lake, Wisconsin, project. 

The Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for the Corps 

of Engineers to complete the feasibility study for the Augusta, Kansas, project. The Committee is aware of the devastation that occurred at Augusta during the Halloween flood of 1998, which resulted in millions of dollars in property damage to more than 600 

homes and businesses. Therefore, the Committee encourages the 

Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility study. 

In addition, the Corps of Engineers is directed to use previously 

appropriated funds to prepare plans and specifications and initiate 

construction of the flood control project along the Cass River in 

Spaulding Township, Michigan. 

The Committee is aware that the Cedar Hammock Wares Creek 

project in Manatee County, Florida, has been 15 years in the makVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
59

ing and now has a scheduled completion date of July 2006. The 

Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to take all steps necessary to meet that date. 

The amount provided for the Section 205 program includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a project for the 

Pennypack Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania. In conducting that 

project, the Committee urges the Corps to work with the Director 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop 

procedures that will lead to rapid and effective flood damage reduction measures, both structural and non-structural, with a goal of 

maximizing the reduction of flood damages through the application 

of each agency’s planning and design guidelines. Not later than 180 

days after the enactment of this Act, the Corps should submit a report to the Committee which describes the status of its cooperative 

efforts with FEMA, including recommended procedures for conducting joint studies, estimates of cost savings associated with conducting combined flood control studies for watersheds, and recommendations for legislation necessary for the Corps and FEMA to 

carry out joint flood control studies. The report should include the 

comments of local interests as to their evaluation of such a program. 

The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use previously 

appropriated funds to proceed with construction of the Flomar flood 

control project in Whittier, California. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).—The Committee 

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

amount provided, the recommendation includes: $875,000 for the 

Mobile Delta Initiative; $100,000 to initiate a study of ecosystem 

restoration opportunities at Mirror Lake, Spring Hill College, Alabama; $500,000 to update the environmental impact statement for 

the Theodore Industrial Canal, Mobile Harbor, Alabama; $500,000 

to continue the feasibility study for the Agua Caliente Wash project 

in Arizona; $100,000 to continue studies on the Carpinteria Sand 

Dunes Restoration project in California; $10,000 for the 

Carpinteria Creek Park, California, project; $400,000 to continue 

preparation of a detailed project report for the City of Santa 

Clarita, Arundo Donax Control project in California; $800,000 to 

complete the detailed project report and initiate plans and specifications for the Upper York Creek Dam, California, project; 

$200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Lower Boulder 

Creek, Colorado, project; $2,800,000 to continue work on the Stevenson Creek, Florida, project; $400,000 to continue the feasibility 

study for the Gwinnett County, Beaver Ruin Creek, Georgia, 

project; $400,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Gwinnett 

County, Jackson Creek, Georgia, project; $250,000 to complete 

plans and specifications and execute a project cooperation agreement for the Squaw Creek Watershed, Illinois, project; $200,000 to 

initiate a feasibility study for the Sequoit Creek, Illinois, project; 

$110,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Kankakee 

River aquatic ecosystem restoration project in Kankakee County, 

Illinois; $600,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate 

construction of the Hoffman Dam, Illinois, project; $150,000 to complete the ecosystem restoration report for the Illinois and Michigan 

Canal project in Illinois; $500,000 to initiate construction of the 

60

Koontz Lake, Marshall and Stark Counties, Indiana, project; 

$1,200,000 to complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for the Wolf Lake, Indiana, project; $185,000 to complete 

feasibility phase studies for the Chariton River/Lake Rathbun Watershed, Iowa, project; $100,000 to prepare an aquatic restoration 

report for the Clear Lake, Iowa, project; $114,000 to complete the 

planning and design analysis for the Duck Creek-Fairmont Park 

Wetland Restoration project in Iowa; $189,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Iowa 

River and Clear Creek, Iowa, project; $119,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Buras Marina, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, project; $100,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts, project; $60,000 to continue the feasibility study for the 

Milford Pond, Massachusetts, restoration project; $200,000 for a 

feasibility study of restoration needs for the Fitchburg Urban Park 

in Massachusetts; $115,000 to complete plans and specifications for 

the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton, Massachusetts, project; 

$180,000 to complete plans and specifications for the Dog Island 

Shoals, Maryland, project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility 

study for the Easton Tanyard Branch, Maryland, project; $275,000 

to continue plans and specifications for the Anacostia River and 

Tributaries, Maryland, project; $100,000 to initiate a feasibility 

study for the Quanicassee Wildlife Area, Bay County, Michigan, 

project; $40,000 for land acquisition and easements for the Little 

Sugar Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration project in North Carolina; $200,000 to initiate a feasibility for the West Cary Stream 

Restoration project in North Carolina; $150,000 to complete the 

feasibility phase of the David City Wetlands, Butler County, Nebraska, project; $250,000 for an aquatic restoration report for 

McCarter Pond in Fair Haven, Monmouth County, New Jersey; 

$500,000 to continue the project to restore Grover’s Mill Pond in 

West Windsor, Mercer County, New Jersey; $400,000 to initiate 

and complete construction of the Eaton Brook Reservoir, New York, 

project; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Oriskany 

Wildlife Management Area, New York, project; $50,000 for a preliminary restoration report for the restoration of Mill Pond in Bay 

Shore, New York; $50,000 to develop a preliminary restoration report for the West Shore of Penataquit Creek, Bay Shore, New York 

project; $250,000 to initiate an ecosystem restoration report for the 

Sheldrake Lake/Goodlife Pond, New York, project; $250,000 for the 

Gardens Lake, Mamaroneck, New York, project; $50,000 for an initial assessment for the Edith Read Natural Park and Wildlife 

Sanctuary in Rye, New York; $50,000 for an initial assessment for 

the Rye, New York, Nursery Wetland; $50,000 for an initial assessment for Harbor Island Park, Mamaroneck, New York; $50,000 for 

an initial assessment for the Bronx River Streambank Stabilization 

and Channel Restoration, New York, project; $250,000 for the City 

of Cortland, New York, Dry Creek aquatic restoration project; 

$50,000 for an initial assessment for Crossway Field, Village of 

Scarsdale, New York; $200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for 

the Jamesville Reservoir, New York, project; $100,000 to initiate a 

preliminary restoration report for aquatic restoration of the Syracuse lakefront along Onondaga Lake, the New York State Canal 

61

System and Onondaga Creek in New York; $500,000 to complete 

the feasibility study for the Lake Carl Blackwell Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration project in Oklahoma; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Springfield Millrace, Oregon, project; $3,445,000 to 

initiate construction of the Eugene Delta Ponds, Oregon, project; 

$160,000 to initiate and complete planning and design of the 

Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Pennsylvania, project; 

$350,000 to complete a feasibility study of a multi-objective solution to water resources problems on Loyalsock Creek in Dushore, 

Pennsylvania, that addresses restoration of stream channels and 

wetlands while also addressing flooding problems; $1,000,000 to 

complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the 

Nanticoke Creek, Pennsylvania, project; $960,000 to initiate construction of the Lonsdale Drive-In Wetlands, Rhode Island, Restoration project; $200,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the 

Applewhite Site, San Antonio, Texas, project; $500,000 for design 

and construction of the Powell River, Ely and Pucketts Creek, Virginia, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for the Tangier Island, Virginia, project; $1,900,000 to initiate construction of the 

Middle and South Forks of the Nooksack River, Washington, 

project; $74,000 to initiate plans and specifications for the 

Koshkonong Creek, Wisconsin, project; $185,000 to initiate plans 

and specifications for the Token Creek, Wisconsin, project; $81,000 

for planning and design of the Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin, 

project; $362,000 for the Lake Belle View, Wisconsin, project; and 

$50,000 for a feasibility study for the Pike River, Wisconsin, 

project. 

The Committee is aware of the on-going ecosystem restoration 

project at Long Lake, Indiana, and is inclined to address the matter at a later date. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Within the amount provided for 

the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $100,000 is to continue the 

aquatic plant control program on the Potomac River, including efforts to address nuisance aquatic plants near Mount Vernon, Virginia, and $400,000 is for aquatic plant control in Caddo Lake, the 

Lavaca, Navidad and Rio Grande Rivers, and other high priority 

sites in Texas. 

The Committee strongly encourages the Corps of Engineers to 

purchase a new milfoil machine for use on the Pend Oreille River 

in Washington State. 

Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program.—The Committee has provided $8,300,000 for the Shoreline 

Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program, the 

same as the budget request. Of the funds provided, $500,000 is for 

the Corps of Engineers to prepare detailed design documents and 

plans and specifications for a shoreline erosion abatement project 

in North San Diego County, California, and $2,300,000 is for the 

continuation of work at the Miami Beach, Florida, demonstration 

site. In addition, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to 

use up to $1,000,000 to demonstrate the effectiveness of a passive 

permeable groin system to reverse the erosion which is threatening 

the road which provides access to Alligator Point, Florida. 

62

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

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

AND TENNESSEE

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $345,992,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 280,671,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 342,071,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥3,921,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +61,400,000 

Note: The original budget request of $288,000,000 for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries included $7,329,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the 

accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget 

request for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries has been reduced by this amount. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

63


Insert graphic folio 62 HR681.032
64


Insert graphic folio 63 HR681.033
65

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

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

need to complete the reevaluation of the Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, project, which was conditionally authorized by section 363(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Committee 

has, therefore, included $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 

continue the general reevaluation report and preconstruction engineering and design for the project. 

CONSTRUCTION

Channel Improvement.—The Committee recognizes the critical 

need to maintain navigation along the Mississippi River and the efficiency of dikes in reducing dredging requirements. Therefore, the 

Committee has provided $38,340,000 for the Channel Improvement 

program, including $250,000 for the Basket Bar, Arkansas, dike; 

$300,000 for the Porter Lake, Arkansas, dike; $700,000 for the 

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

Point, Missouri, dike; and $200,000 for the Island 7 & 8, Missouri, 

dike. 

Mississippi River Levees.—The bill includes $47,385,000 for continued construction of the Mississippi River levees feature of the 

Mississippi River and Tributaries project, including $2,300,000 to 

construct the Nash Road, Missouri, relief wells; $2,325,000 for the 

Birds Point-New Madrid, Missouri, levee closure and box culvert; 

and $400,000 to provide wave wash protection along a portion of 

the main line levee near Tiptonville, Tennessee. 

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

provided $2,070,000 to continue construction of the St. Francis 

Basin project in Arkansas and Missouri, including $100,000 for 

constructing channel stabilization measures in Stoddard and 

Dunklin Counties in Missouri. 

Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided 

$20,873,000 for the Atchafalaya Basin project. These funds should 

be used to continue flood proofing efforts on the waterfronts of Morgan City and Berwick, Louisiana, and for repairs to the levee system. The Committee also supports construction of the Amelia and 

Chacahoula pumping stations as a portion of the Barrier Plan. The 

Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite these features 

of the Barrier Plan and other plan components that will immediately address backwater flooding issues. 

Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.—The 

Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Yazoo Basin Demonstration Erosion Control Program in Mississippi. The work to 

date by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service has shown positive results in reduction of flood 

damages, decreased erosion and sedimentation, and improvements 

to the environment. These positive results show that continued 

funding for the program is important, and that the program should 

be completed to realize 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 

funds included in the bill are for the Corps of Engineers to continue design, real estate acquisition, monitoring of completed work, 

66

and initiation of continuing contracts. The Committee expects the 

Administration to request funds for this important program until 

it is completed. 

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

Committee has provided $5,100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 

continue construction of St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid 

Floodway project in Missouri. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Mississippi River Levees.—The Committee has provided 

$7,350,000 for maintenance of Mississippi River levees, including 

$1,350,000 for graveling of the mainline levees at Osceola, Arkansas; O’Donnell Bend, Arkansas; and the levee below Helena, Arkansas. 

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

provided $11,180,000 for the St. Francis Basin project in Arkansas 

and Missouri, including $500,000 for channel cleanout at Ditch 290 

in Missouri, and $100,000 for levee setbacks at the Elk Chute East 

Levee in Missouri. 

Wappapello Lake, Missouri.—The bill includes $9,393,000 for the 

Wappapello Lake, Missouri, project. The additional funds will permit the Corps of Engineers to continue the ongoing highway relocation project. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $1,874,803,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 1,913,760,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,990,280,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +115,477,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +76,520,000 

Note: The FY 2002 amount does not include $139,000,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 107–117 and $32,000,000 enacted in Public Law 107–206. The original budget request of $1,979,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, General included $65,240,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the 

agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. 

Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request for Operation and Maintenance, General has been 

reduced by this amount. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

67


Insert graphic folio 66 HR681.034fiMDNMfl
68


Insert graphic folio 67 HR681.035fiMDNMfl
69


Insert graphic folio 68 HR681.036fiMDNMfl
70


Insert graphic folio 69 HR681.037fiMDNMfl
71


Insert graphic folio 70 HR681.038fiMDNMfl
72


Insert graphic folio 71 HR681.039fiMDNMfl
73


Insert graphic folio 72 HR681.040fiMDNMfl
74


Insert graphic folio 73 HR681.041fiMDNMfl
75


Insert graphic folio 74 HR681.042fiMDNMfl
76


Insert graphic folio 75 HR681.043fiMDNMfl
77


Insert graphic folio 76 HR681.044fiMDNMfl
78


Insert graphic folio 77 HR681.045fiMDNMfl
79


Insert graphic folio 78 HR681.046fiMDNMfl
80


Insert graphic folio 79 HR681.047fiMDNMfl
81


Insert graphic folio 80 HR681.048fiMDNMfl
82


Insert graphic folio 81 HR681.049fiMDNMfl
83

Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers and Alabama-Coosa River, 

Alabama.—The amounts provided for the Black Warrior and 

Tombigbee Rivers and Alabama-Coosa River projects include 

$250,000 and $50,000, respectively, for the Corps of Engineers to 

perform maintenance dredging of backwater areas. 

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.—The 

Committee is concerned with the lack of competition and industry 

response to annual dredging requirements on the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway. Therefore, in order to insure the continued 

reliability of the waterway for commercial navigation, the Committee has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of 

Engineers to investigate a full range of alternatives, including, but 

not limited to, the lease, lease/purchase, or purchase of a commercially manufactured dredge and ancillary equipment, for maintenance of the waterway, and to implement within two years the alternative which allows the reliable operation of the waterway in 

the most economic manner. It is the Committee’s intent that any 

such plant acquired shall be operated by contractor personnel. 

Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.—The bill includes $4,616,000 for operation and maintenance of the Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, project, 

including $1,000,000 for the completion of a modeling study to determine sedimentation rates, volumes, and patterns. 

Cook Inlet, Alaska.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers to initiate a modeling study of the Upper 

Cook Inlet navigation channel in conjunction with the ongoing 

modeling for the Anchorage Harbor project. 

Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee has provided $750,000 

for the removal of sediment and rubble deposits in the north and 

south entrance channels. 

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

$8,584,000 for operation and maintenance of the Los Angeles County Drainage project, including $3,660,000 for the construction of additional recreational facilities within the Hansen Dam Basin, and 

$500,000 for additional maintenance on the Compton Creek segment of the project. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to contract with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy of 

the State of California, or its local designee, for the work to be undertaken at Hansen Dam, and to enter into a management agreement or memorandum of understanding with the Santa Monica 

Mountains Conservancy or its local designee for the management 

and development of natural areas within the Hansen Dam Recreation Area. 

Pillar Point Harbor, California.—The Committee has provided 

$200,000 to complete repair of the east breakwater. 

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

continue the San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy, 

including $200,000 for the Oakland Harbor operation and maintenance 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. 

84

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. The Committee has provided an additional $30,000 for the Corps 

of Engineers to reimburse the City of Chesapeake City, Maryland, 

for the costs of installing water supply connections on two streets 

and continue the preparation of a decision document regarding additional damage to the City’s water supply system. In addition, the Committee has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a decision document to determine if the groundwater near the 

West View Shores community in Cecil County, Maryland, is being 

contaminated by leachates from the Pearce Creek disposal area. 

Apalachicola Bay, Florida.—The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for maintenance dredging of the East Point Channel 

segment of the Apalachicola Bay, Florida, project. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.—The 

Committee has provided $4,000,000 for maintenance dredging on 

the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Ponce De Leon Inlet, 

Florida. 

Palm Beach Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to perform the sand tightening of the south jetty and undertake repairs to the north jetty. 

Calumet Harbor and River, Illinois.—The Committee has pro- vided $4,840,000 for operation and maintenance of the Calumet 

Harbor and River project, including $900,000 for additional maintenance dredging and $750,000 for design, engineering and rehabilitation of the stone dock. 

Carlyle Lake, Illinois.—The Committee has provided $6,106,000 for operation and maintenance of Carlyle Lake, including $250,000 

for rehabilitation of the Dam West Campground. 

Kaskaskia River, Illinois.—The Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance 

dredging at the mouth of the river and reestablish the channel to 

Fayetteville, Illinois. 

Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.—The Committee has provided 

an additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to analyze and 

implement alternatives to eliminate or minimize maintenance costs 

related to scouring and shoaling from propeller wash. 

El Dorado Lake, Kansas.—The bill includes $610,000 for operation and maintenance of the El Dorado Lake project including 

$150,000 to replace the gate hoist cylinders. 

Fall River Lake, Kansas.—The Committee has provided 

$1,879,000 for operation and maintenance of the Fall River Lake 

project, including $355,000 to repair the stilling basin and $320,000 

to repair the sluice gates. 

Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky.—To initiate additions and improvements to recreation facilities at the Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, 

project, the Committee has provided an additional $500,000. 

Rough River Lake, Kentucky.—The Committee has provided an 

additional $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to upgrade recreational facilities at the Axtel and North Fork Campgrounds at 

Rough River Park. 

85

Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.—The Committee 

has provided $700,000 for the purchase and use of a skimmer boat 

to remove trash and debris from the lake.

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $14,681,000 for operation 

and maintenance of the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, 

Boeuf, and Black project, the same as the budget request. The 

Committee remains concerned about safe navigation on the project 

for vessels with drafts up to 20 feet. The Committee commends the 

Corps of Engineers for its efforts to address the ‘‘fluff’’ problem in 

the channel and directs the Corps to continue to make the safe 

transit of this waterway a priority. 

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

Waterway project. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers 

to give priority to dredging contracts that will improve access to 

the Port of Grand Isle. 

Bayou Teche, Louisiana.—The bill includes $2,000,000 for the 

Bayou Teche, Louisiana, project. The Committee expects the Corps 

of Engineers to expedite its maintenance dredging efforts on the 

project and complete the refurbishment of the Keystone Lock. Further, the Committee expects the Administration to request funds 

for this project in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

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

provided $9,297,000 for operation and maintenance of the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway project. The additional funds will enable 

the Corps of Engineers to perform needed maintenance dredging of 

the project. 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.—The Committee has 

provided an additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to repair the north bank foreshore rock dike. 

Penobscot River, Maine.—The bill includes $100,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers to evaluate disposal options, prepare an environmental impact statement, and continue coordination with the 

State of Maine in preparation for maintenance dredging of the Penobscot Harbor, Maine, project. 

Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.—The Committee has provided 

$175,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the reevaluation 

report for the Grand Marais Harbor project in Michigan and initiate design for a replacement for the existing breakwater. 

Clearwater Lake, Missouri.—The Committee has provided 

$4,860,000 for the Clearwater Lake, Missouri, project. The additional funds are to be used for the preparation of a new Water Control Plan ($675,000), the continuation of the design and construction of additional high water recreational facilities ($1,125,000), 

and to reduce the operation and maintenance backlog at the project 

($1,200,000). 

Table Rock Lake, Missouri.—The Committee has provided 

$7,261,000 for operation and maintenance of the Table Rock Lake 

project for the Corps of Engineers to address the maintenance 

backlog at the project and modernize recreational facilities. 

Conchas Dam, New Mexico.—The bill includes additional funds 

for the Corps of Engineers to address the dangerous traffic situation on the road across Conchas Dam. 

86

Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.—The Committee has provided 

$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the rehabilitation 

work on the Plattsburgh Harbor Breakwater in Plattsburgh, New 

York. 

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

has provided an additional $100,000 for mosquito control in the vicinity of Williston, North Dakota. 

Clarence J. Brown Dam, Ohio.—The Committee has provided an 

additional $400,000 for enhancements to the Buck Creek Trail. 

Deer Creek Lake, Ohio.—The Committee has provided an additional $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to upgrade the recreational facilities at Deer Creek Lake. 

Muskingum River Lakes, Ohio.—The Committee has included 

$7,183,000 for operation and maintenance of the Muskingum River 

Lakes project in Ohio, including $800,000 to conduct a system operations study and develop a flood warning system, and $250,000 to 

conduct a water quality study of selective withdrawal concepts at 

Tappan Lake. 

Toledo Harbor, Ohio.—The bill includes $4,425,000 for operation 

and maintenance of the Toledo Harbor, Ohio, project, including 

$200,000 for additional dredging and $700,000 for dewatering and 

additional work on the confined disposal facility. 

Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma.—The Committee has provided additional funds for the Eufaula Lake project in Oklahoma to address 

the maintenance backlog, and for work associated with the proposed transfer of abandoned land at Hickory Point to the Choctaw 

Nation. 

Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon.—The Committee has provided $7,632,000 for the Columbia River at the Mouth project, of 

which $1,000,000 is for the Corps of Engineers to continue to study 

the proposed placement of dredged material in the surf area at 

Benson Beach, Washington, at the mouth of the Columbia River. 

Specifically, the Corps should work collaboratively with State and 

local stakeholders to determine the effectiveness of this solution to 

dredged material disposal problems, monitor potential impacts to 

the region, and determine whether this dredged material disposal 

practice is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and cost 

effective. 

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

$300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and specifications for repair and restoration of the jetties at the Tillamook Bay 

and Bar project.

Conemaugh River Lake and Loyalhanna Lake, Pennsylvania.—

The Committee has provided an additional $50,000 each for the 

Conemaugh River Lake and Loyalhanna Lake projects for the 

Corps of Engineers to determine if the releases schedule for each 

project can be modified to permit greater use of the downstream 

rivers during summer months without adversely impacting other 

authorized project purposes. 

East Branch Clarion River Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee 

has provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 

upgrade the sewer and septic system at the East Branch Clarion 

River Lake project. 

87

Johnstown, Pennsylvania.—The bill includes $1,500,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers to continue the major rehabilitation of the 

Johnstown, Pennsylvania, local flood protection project. 

Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.—The bill 

includes an additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide angler/visitor access that is ADA compliant and to modernize 

the visitor center. 

Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to improve the road 

leading to the Susquehanna Campground at Raystown Lake. 

Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has pro- vided an additional $100,000 for additional improvements to recreational facilities at the Tioga-Hammond Lakes project. 

Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.—The Committee has provided an additional $950,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the upgrade to the campground at the Tionesta Lake project. 

Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.—The Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to 

make a lump sum payment to the South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources for operation of the fish lift. 

Belton Lake, Texas.—The bill includes $3,407,000 for the Belton 

Lake, Texas, project. The additional funds will enable the Corps of 

Engineers to address the maintenance backlog at the project, including repairs to roads and dilapidated recreational equipment. 

Denison Dam, Lake Texoma, Texas.—The Committee has pro- vided $6,832,000 for the Denison Dam, Lake Texoma, project. The 

additional funds are for the Corps of Engineers to study the proposed reallocation of storage at the lake to water supply, to address 

critical maintenance needs at the project, and for work associated 

with the proposed transfer of land at the project to private interests. 

North San Gabriel Dam and Lake Georgetown, Texas.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to be used for upgrading park facilities. 

Stillhouse Hollow Dam, Texas.—The Committee has provided 

$2,005,000 for the Stillhouse Hollow Dam, Texas, project. The additional funds will enable the Corps of Engineers to address the 

maintenance backlog at the project. 

Waco Lake, Texas.—The Committee has provided $3,158,000 for 

the Waco Lake, Texas, project. The additional funds are to be used 

to make recreation improvements associated with raising the level 

of the lake. 

Philpott Lake, Virginia.—The Committee directs that no funds be 

used to operate the campground and other facilities for overnight 

use at the Goose Point Recreation Area at Philpott Lake if day use 

for picnicking, swimming, and use of the boat ramp is prohibited 

at the Goose Point Recreation Area. 

Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.—The bill includes $10,481,000 for operation and maintenance of the Grays 

Harbor and Chehalis River project in Washington, including 

$1,700,000 to complete rehabilitation of the north jetty. 

Neah Bay, Washington.—The Committee has provided $1,200,000 

for emergency rehabilitation of the breakwater at the Neah Bay 

project in Washington. 

88

Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.—The Committee has provided $3,149,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the drift and debris initiative being undertaken at Bluestone Lake, West Virginia. 

Fox River, Wisconsin.—The bill includes $7,372,000 for the Fox 

River project in Wisconsin, including $6,000,000 to complete the 

transfer of the locks on the river to the State of Wisconsin. 

Facility Protection.—The budget request included $64,000,000 to 

provide for additional security guards at Corps of Engineers critical 

infrastructure projects. The Committee has been advised that the 

Corps now estimates that security guard costs in fiscal year FY 

2003 will be approximately $35,000,000. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $35,000,000 for this activity. 

Hydropower Maintenance.—The budget includes a proposal for 

the Power Marketing Administrations (excluding the Bonneville 

Power Administration) to provide direct funding from power sale 

revenues for the operation and maintenance of Corps’ hydropower 

facilities. Currently, hydropower operation and maintenance costs 

are appropriated from the General Fund. The Administration has 

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

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

more than the amount normally recommended. Due to budgetary 

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

enact the proposal.

Inland Waterways Navigation Charts.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the development of an electronic 

navigation charting data system on the Black Warrior-Tombigbee 

Rivers system in Alabama. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $127,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 144,252,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 134,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +7,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥10,252,000 

Note: The original budget request of $151,000,000 for the Regulatory Program included $6,748,000 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request for the Regulatory Program has been reduced by this amount. 

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 2003, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $134,000,000, $10,252,000 below the budget request and 

$7,000,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002. 

REVOLVING FUND

Replacement of Corps of Engineers Aircraft.—In the years since 

the Corps of Engineers was originally authorized to acquire airplanes for the use of some Divisions, profound changes have occurred in transportation and communications. Therefore, the Corps 

of Engineers may neither replace the Mississippi Valley Division 

89

and Northwestern Division aircraft nor acquire additional aircraft 

until the practicability and economic benefits of such ownership 

has been re-evaluated and proved to have merit when compared 

with options including military air, lease sharing, 

vidoeconferencing, other alternatives, and a combination of all 

other available means. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $140,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 140,298,000 

Recommended, 2002 ........................................................................... 150,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +10,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +9,702,000 

Note: The original budget request of $141,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program included $702,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share 

of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the 

budget request for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program has been reduced by this amount. 

The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $150,000,000, an increase 

of $9,702,000 over the budget request and $10,000,000 more than 

fiscal year 2002 funding. The additional funds are provided to accelerate cleanup at existing FUSRAP remediation sites, with emphasis on those sites that are nearing completion, and to prepare 

for the new sites that have recently been added into the program. 

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

projects; reprogramming of amounts equal to or greater than 

$1,000,000 require Committee approval. 

Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy 

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

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

real property interests, which remain with DOE. The Committee 

expects DOE to continue to provide its institutional knowledge and 

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

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

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

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ ¥$25,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 20,227,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +45,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥227,000 

Note: The original budget request of $22,000,000 for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies included 

$1,773,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies has been reduced by this amount. 

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies appropriation funds 

flood emergency preparation, flood fighting and rescue operations, 

90

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

distressed areas, provides for adequate supplies of water for human 

and livestock consumption. 

For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended $20,000,000, $227,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee is aware that a number of innovative systems 

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

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

protection barrier. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to invest in the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall technology to 

evaluate the improvement in flood fighting that would occur with 

its use and its cost effectiveness. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $153,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 155,651,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 154,651,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +1,651,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥1,000,000 

Note: The original budget request of $161,000,000 for General Expenses included $5,349,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement 

for certain Federal employees. Since no legislation has been enacted, the budget request for General Expenses has been reduced by this amount. 

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 $154,651,000, $1,000,000 below the budget request and $1,651,000 

above the fiscal year 2002 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. This language has been included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act since 

fiscal year 2000. The Committee still believes that an office of congressional affairs is unnecessary for the effective management of 

the Civil Works program by the Corps’ headquarters, and the efficient coordination of Civil Works issues with Members of Congress 

and committee staff. The Committee is concerned that, despite the 

language carried in this Act, the Office of Congressional Affairs has 

been involved in the exchange of Civil Works information between 

the headquarters and the Congress, at times causing delays in 

scheduling meetings and providing answers to Congressional inquiries. The Committee believes that the technical knowledge and 

managerial expertise needed for the Corps’ headquarters to effectively address Civil Works authorization, appropriations, and policy 

matters reside in its Civil Works organization. Therefore, the Committee directs that the Office of Congressional Affairs not be part 

of the process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to the Congress. 

In 1998, the Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive 

transferring the oversight and management of the General Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this funcVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
91

tion, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource Management Office. The oversight and management of the Civil Works 

program lies solely with the Directorate of Civil Works, and it is 

funded through the General Expenses account to perform those duties. The Committee is very concerned that the lack of oversight by 

the Director of Civil Works over the General Expenses account may 

be having a detrimental impact on the performance of the Civil 

Works mission. Therefore, the Chief of Engineers is directed to provide to the Committee, by September 15, 2002, an assessment of 

the adequacy and distribution of allocations of the General Expenses account. The Committee needs to be assured that General 

Expenses funds are appropriately allocated in order for the Civil 

Works Directorate to adequately perform its mission. 

Tulsa District Restructuring.—The Committee is aware that the 

Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers has proposed a restructuring of its field offices. The Committee is also aware that the District has postponed acting on that proposal until it has been fully 

coordinated with local interests and members of the Oklahoma 

Congressional delegation. The Committee supports that decision. 

Reprogramming of Funds.—Over the years, Committee has 

granted the Corps of Engineers great latitude to reprogram funds 

from studies, construction projects, and maintenance activities 

which are either delayed or are being terminated to those where 

the funds can be effectively used to keep projects moving and accelerate completion. The Committee believes that the ability to reprogram funds is essential to the Corps’ ability to effectively manage 

its program. Accordingly, the Committee was very concerned to 

learn that the Corps of Engineers has not been reprogramming 

funds from a number of projects which are obviously not moving 

forward. It has been and continues to be the intent of the Committee that when any project is not moving forward, the Corps of 

Engineers look to reprogram the funds appropriated for that 

project to one where the funds can be effectively utilized unless explicitly instructed not to do so by the Committee on Appropriations. 

Gavins Point Dam, Nebraska and South Dakota.—The Committee is aware that on March 6, 2002, the State of Nebraska filed 

a lawsuit seeking a judgment against the United States in the 

amount of $33,300,000. This represents the State’s estimated cost 

of correcting damage to Nebraska State Highway 12, which has 

been undermined and weakened due to flooding and erosion 

brought about by the operation of the Corps of Engineers Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River. The Committee is also aware that the Justice Department has determined 

that use of the Judgment Fund is not appropriate for this type of 

case. Without commenting on the merits of the case or the terms 

of a possible settlement, the Committee wishes to remind the Corps 

of Engineers that current law provides that appropriations shall be 

applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made 

except as otherwise provided by law (31 U.S.C. 1301(a)), and that 

no appropriations have been made relative to this case. In addition, 

no funds have been requested for this purpose for fiscal year 2003. 

The committee believes that the appropriate course of action in this 

situation is for the Administration to submit a fiscal year 2003 

budget amendment if funds are required in fiscal year 2003, or to 

92

include a request for funds as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget 

submission. The Committee directs that the Corps of Engineers not 

expend funds to settle this case without consulting the Committee 

on Appropriations. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration which places a limit on credits and reimbursements 

allowable per project and annually for all projects. The Administration also proposed that this provision be made permanent law; 

however, the Committee has elected not to make that change. 

Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which provides 

that the Secretary of the Army may expend funds under normal 

competitive procedures for renovations of the dredge McFARLAND 

authorized by section 563 of Public Law 104–303 provided that the 

dredge McFARLAND is operated in the manner recommended in 

the report of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to 

Congress dated June 12, 2000, and is operated using the same procedures as those established to operate the dredge WHEELER. 

Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which provides 

that none of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act may 

be used by the Corps of Engineers to undertake activities related 

to the Chicago Harbor, Illinois, Visitors Center. 

Sec. 104. The Committee has included language which directs 

the Secretary of the Army to reduce by thirty-seven percent the full 

time employees in the Corps of Engineers Chicago District. 

(93)

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $36,228,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 36,228,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 36,228,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $36,252,000 for the Central Utah Project Completion Account included $24,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing 

cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Therefore, the budget request for the Central Utah Project 

Completion Account has been reduced by this amount. 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II—VI of Public 

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the Central Utah 

Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in 

the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a 

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and 

prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 to carry out 

the provisions of the Act is $36,228,000, the same as the budget request and the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $762,531,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 726,147,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 807,518,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +44,987,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +81,371,000 

Note: The FY 2002 amount does not include $30,259,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 107–117, and $7,000,000 enacted in Public Law 107–206. The original budget request of $739,705,000 for Water and Related Resources included $13,558,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to 

pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Therefore, 

the budget request for Water and Related Resources has been reduced by this amount. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

94


Insert graphic folio 92 HR681.050fiMDNMfl
95


Insert graphic folio 93 HR681.051fiMDNMfl
96


Insert graphic folio 94 HR681.052fiMDNMfl
97


Insert graphic folio 95 HR681.053fiMDNMfl
98


Insert graphic folio 96 HR681.054fiMDNMfl
99


Insert graphic folio 97 HR681.055fiMDNMfl
100


Insert graphic folio 98 HR681.056fiMDNMfl
101


Insert graphic folio 99 HR681.057fiMDNMfl
102


Insert graphic folio 100 HR681.058fiMDNMfl
103

Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and California.—The Committee has provided $5,450,000 for the Colorado 

River Front Work and Levee System project. Of the total provided, 

$2,000,000 is for planning and design of two regulating reservoirs 

near the All-American Canal. 

South/Central Arizona Investigations Program, Arizona.—The 

bill includes $2,097,000 for the South/Central Arizona Investigations Program. The amount provided includes $100,000 for the 

Southern Arizona Regional Water Management study and $175,000 

for the Upper Gila River Watershed study, as requested by the Administration. In addition, the Committee has provided $300,000 for 

the West Salt River Valley Water Management study. These funds 

will enable the Bureau of Reclamation to continue its work with 

state and regional officials to finalize a plan for a regional solution 

to increasing renewable water supplies and reducing groundwater 

dependence. 

The Committee is concerned about a potentially serious pollution 

threat on the Lower Colorado River below Hoover Dam that could 

adversely impact the drinking water of more than 20 million Americans. This threat remains notwithstanding the extraordinary financial commitments at the local level by members of the Colorado 

River Regional Sewer Coalition. The Committee recognizes that 

there is also a Federal responsibility to address the related water 

supply and quality issues, and it directs the Bureau of Reclamation 

to act as lead agency in conducting a study of the remaining technical, structural, and intergovernmental steps that must be taken 

to protect the River. The Bureau is instructed to work expeditiously 

with appropriate Federal, state, local, and private parties, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Colorado River Regional Sewer Coalition. 

The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for this purpose. 

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

bill includes $17,101,000 for the American River Division of the 

Central Valley Project. Of the total, $500,000 is for work associated 

with the construction of a parallel pipeline to serve customers of 

the City of Roseville and the San Juan Water District, and 

$900,000 is for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate construction 

of a temperature control device on the El Dorado Irrigation District 

water intake. In addition, $3,500,000 is to reimburse the City of 

Folsom, California, for costs associated with the replacement of the 

Natoma Pipeline System. The Committee is aware of the need to 

relocate the road that currently crosses over Folsom Dam and intends to address this issue at a later point in the appropriations 

process. 

Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.—The Committee has provided $21,418,000 for the Delta Division of the Central Valley Project. Of the total, $5,000,000 is for the Bureau of 

Reclamation to complete design and initiate construction of an 

intertie between the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct to restore the capacity and flexibility lost in the Central Valley Project’s Delta delivery system due to subsidence along the 

Delta-Mendota Canal. 

Central Valley Project, East Side Division, California.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,400,000 for the Bureau of 

104

Reclamation to continue the work to upgrade the water and sewer 

systems at New Melones Lake and perform a visitor capacity study 

at New Melones Lake. 

Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, California.—The bill includes $15,053,000 for Miscellaneous Project 

Programs of the Central Valley Project. Of the total, $300,000 is for 

post construction hydraulic evaluations and biological testing and 

monitoring for the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District Fish Screen 

project, and $500,000 is for an investigation of the resource problems and needs of the Mokelumne River Watershed. The Committee has also provided $500,000 to continue Phase II of the 

Kaweah River Delta Corridor Enhancement Study. 

Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, California.—

The Committee has provided $9,601,000 for the Sacramento River 

Division of the Central Valley Project. Of the total, $2,000,000 is 

for the continuing evaluation of water diversion and fishery protection options at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, and $400,000 is to 

complete planning and design of flood control and watershed enhancement elements of the Colusa Basin Integrated Resources 

Management Plan. In addition, $2,000,000 has been provided for 

the Bureau of Reclamation to help support work carried out by the 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and the Tehama-Colusa 

Canal Authority to accelerate investigations associated with determining the feasibility of constructing Sites Reservoir, and for carrying out other water resources planning and management activities pursuant to the so-called Phase 8 settlement agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California. The 

investigations related to Sites Reservoir shall include an evaluation 

of the utilization of both the GCID Main Canal and the TehamaColusa Canal as a means to convey water to the proposed reservoir. 

The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate with Butte County, California, in development 

of a integrated resource management plan. 

City of Needles, California.—The Committee is aware that the 

Bureau of Reclamation has been negotiating with the City of Needles, California, to finalize a lease for approximately 25 acres of the 

33 acres at the Bureau’s dredge yard located in Needles, California. 

The lease would provide for development of the property by the 

City to accommodate summer and winter recreation, and provide 

Colorado River access. The Bureau would retain a portion of the 

property for dredge launching and operations, and would exchange 

the 25 acres of their existing yard for 10 acres of City-owned property located south of the yard. The Committee directs the Bureau 

of Reclamation to provide a report on the status of said lease before 

December 2002. The report shall include the particulars and time 

schedule for completing the Recreation and Public Purpose lease 

with the City of Needles, recommendations for eventual fee simple 

transfer of leased property, and a Memorandum of Understanding 

developed to insure continued access of the bay by both agencies. 

Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development, California.—The 

Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 

to continue design and construction of the Lake Tahoe Regional 

Wetlands Development project. 

105

Long Beach Desalination Project, California.—The Committee 

has provided $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue 

to participate in the development of a desalination pilot project in 

cooperation with the City of Long Beach, California. 

North San Diego County Water Recycling Project, California.— The Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the North San Diego 

County Water Recycling Project, including $100,000 for the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s share of the San Elijo component of the project. 

San Diego Area Water Reclamation Program, California.—The 

bill includes $6,500,000 for the San Diego Area Water Reclamation 

Program, of which $500,000 is for the North River Groundwater 

Production Project feasibility study. 

San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, California.—The bill includes language which provides that $12,000,000 of the funds appropriated for Water and Related Resources shall be deposited in 

the San Gabriel Restoration Fund to continue the program to design, construct, and operate projects to contain and treat the 

spreading groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins in California. 

Southern California Investigations Program, California.—The 

Committee has provided $1,542,000 for the Southern California Investigations Program. Of the funds provided, $200,000 is for the 

Bureau of Reclamation to work with the Antelope Valley—East 

Kern Water Agency to undertake an appraisal level investigation 

of possible alternatives to storing and delivering its California 

State Project water allocation, including constructing a storage reservoir known as the Antelope Buttes Reservoir, and $500,000 is for 

the Bureau of Reclamation to participate with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority in the Chino Basin Conjunctive Use Program. 

Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, Kansas.—The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the Equus 

Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges the Bureau 

of Reclamation to work with the impacted communities and the 

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

Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project, Nevada.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Las Vegas Wastewater Reclamation project in Nevada. 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water Reclamation and Reuse 

Project, New Mexico.—The bill includes $400,000 for the second 

phase of the non-potable surface water reclamation project for the 

City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.—The Committee is concerned that the continuing Endangered Species Act controversy regarding the silvery minnow is diverting resources from essential 

maintenance needs of the Middle Rio Grande project. Accordingly, 

the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to report back to the Committee by February 1, 2003, with a determination if this is the 

case, and, if so, a list of the maintenance requirements that are not 

being met. 

Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, New Mexico.—

The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the feasibility report and NEPA compliance activities for the Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse project. 

106

Norman Project, Oklahoma.—The bill includes $683,000 for the 

Norman Project, including $250,000 for a study of measures to augment water supplies at Lake Thunderbird in cooperation with the 

Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District. 

Oklahoma Investigations Program, Oklahoma.—The Committee 

has provided $907,000 for the Oklahoma Investigations Program, 

including $700,000 for a hydrology and water resources management study of the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer. 

El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the continuation of work on the 

Central El Paso feature of the project, which will reclaim water 

from the Haskell R. Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement, Texas.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the 

Bureau of Reclamation to carry out activities authorized in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000, Section 4, Public Law 106–576. 

Washington Investigations Program, Washington.—The Committee has provided $818,000 for the Washington Investigations 

Program. Of the total provided, $300,000 is to provide technical assistance and undertake appraisal level studies for the creation of 

additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin, with specific 

emphasis on the proposed Black Rock Reservoir. 

Colorado River Storage Project, Section 5.—The Committee has 

provided an additional $100,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to 

examine the potential for transferring the San Juan-Chama project 

in New Mexico to the project beneficiaries. 

Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.—The Committee has 

provided $3,350,000 for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program. Of the total, $750,000 is for the Uncompahgre Valley Water 

Users Association selenium remediation demonstration project in 

Colorado. 

Drought Emergency Assistance Program.—The Committee has included $4,128,000 for the Drought Emergency Assistance Program. 

The amount provided includes $479,000 for drought emergency 

planning in the State of Nebraska, and $750,000 to rehabilitate 

and replace existing wells and construct new wells to address the 

current drought conditions in the City and County of Santa Fe, 

New Mexico. In addition, $1,000,000 is provided for a regional 

weather modification program in the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, 

and Texas. 

Site Security.—The Committee has provided $28,440,000 for the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s site security program, the same as the 

budget request. The Committee is aware that on April 4, 2002, the 

Commissioner of Reclamation issued policy guidance on the 

reimbursability of counter-terrorism funding which stated that security costs associated with the increased security of Bureau of 

Reclamation facilities in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, would be nonreimbursable. The Committee is very 

supportive of this decision, and understands that it applies to funds 

appropriated in Public Law 107–117, and funds appropriated in 

this Act. 

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.—The Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the Title XVI Water ReclamaVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
107

tion and Reuse Program, of which $2,000,000 is to provide continued support to the WateReuse Foundation’s research program. In 

addition, $125,000 is provided for the Bureau of Reclamation to 

conduct an appraisal level investigation and feasibility study to determine the viability of recycling in the Desert Hot Springs area of 

California. 

Water Management and Conservation Program.—The Committee 

is aware of the significant efforts being made by the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California and its member agencies to 

conserve water through the development and demonstration of innovative water conservation technologies. These efforts are a critical component of the State of California’s plan to reduce its dependence on the Colorado River. Therefore, the Committee urges 

the Bureau of Reclamation to continue urban water conservation 

programs within the service area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

Wetlands Development.—The bill includes $3,617,000 for the 

Wetlands Development Program. The additional funds will enable 

the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate work on the Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $55,039,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 48,904,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 48,904,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥6,135,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... —

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 2003, the Committee has provided $48,904,000, 

the same as the budget request. 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement 

Project.—The Committee directs that any portion of the $2,000,000 

provided under this heading in fiscal year 2002 for the GlennColusa Irrigation District Fish Screen Improvement Project that 

has not been used for that project shall be made available for work 

carried out by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to accelerate investigations associated with determining the feasibility of constructing Sites Reservoir and for carrying out other water resources 

planning and management activities pursuant to the so-called 

Phase 8 settlement agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation 

and the State of California. 

108

Anadromous Fish Screen Program.—The Committee directs that 

an additional $5,382,000 be provided 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. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ —

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... $15,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... —

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... —

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥15,000,000 

The purpose of the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration 

account is to fund the Federal share of ecosystem restoration and 

other activities being developed for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership 

(CALFED). Federal participation in this program was authorized in 

the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act 

enacted in the fall of 1996. That Act authorized the appropriation 

of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal 

years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Attempts to reauthorize the program 

have thus far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in support of the CALFED effort through this account. 

The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that have 

been taken in the State of California to develop this program, 

which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water system for millions of people while improving the environment. However, for fiscal year 2003, 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, 2002 ............................................................................ $52,968,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 54,870,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 54,870,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +1,902,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... —

Note: The original budget request of $66,238,000 for Policy and Administration included $11,368,000 to 

fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Therefore, the budget request for Policy and Administration has been 

reduced by this amount. 

The Policy and Administration account provides for the executive 

direction and management of all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional offices. The Denver office 

and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical 

costs. These charges are covered under other appropriations. 

109

For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended $54,870,000, the same as the budget request, and $1,902,000 above 

the fiscal year 2002 amount. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 201. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to continue the program 

of providing grants to institutions of higher learning to support the 

training of Native Americans to manage their water resources. This 

language was included in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act. 

Sec. 202. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 

Reservoir in California. This language has been included in Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Acts for several years. 

Sec. 203. The Committee has included language which amends 

section 212 of the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act related to the conveyance of the Sly Park Unit in 

California. 

Sec. 204. The Committee has included language which clarifies 

that the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund may be used to reimburse the Central Basin Municipal Water District for expenditures 

made between February 11, 1993 and December 21, 2000 in connection with the San Gabriel Basin Restoration project authorized 

in Public Law 106–554. 

(111)

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 supports the Administration’s 

budget request for the Department of Energy and adjusts funding 

for some programs to reflect specific Congressional interests. Total 

funding for the Department of Energy is $20,675,871,000, an increase of $806,045,000 over fiscal year 2002 and $146,995,000 over 

the budget request. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION

Over the past year, the Department has disregarded the Congressional direction provided by this Committee in House Reports 

107–112 and 107–258 which accompanied the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2002. Required reports to Congress have not been delivered in a timely manner, if at all; directed 

fund transfers have not been accomplished; legislative drafting requests have gone unanswered; and projects have not been executed 

in a timely manner. 

Beginning not less than 30 days after enactment of this bill into 

law, the Secretary is required to submit to the House Committee 

on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, a monthly report on the status of all projects, reports, fund 

transfers, and other actions contained in this House report, in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2003, and in the conference report accompanying that Act. As this 

status report must address Congressional directives applicable to 

both the National Nuclear Security Administration and the rest of 

the Department, the Secretary may not delegate the responsibility 

for submitting this monthly report. The Department should work 

with the Committee on the content of this report. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

The fiscal year 2003 budget from the Department included several budget structure changes that were not discussed in advance 

with the Committee as is the accepted procedure for proposed 

budget structure changes. The Committee has not approved these 

112

changes. The Committee wants to make very clear to the Department that any budget structure changes proposed for fiscal year 

2004 must be approved in advance by the Committee. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget justifications submitted by the Department must include the following: (1) a section identifying the 

last year that authorizing legislation was provided by Congress for 

each program; (2) funding within each construction project data 

sheet for elimination of excess facilities at least equal to the square 

footage of the new facilities being requested; and (3) funding to 

eliminate excess facilities at least equal to the square footage of 

new facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP). 

The Department should work with the Committee on the specific 

information needed for each requirement. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY FUNDING

Heightened security concerns have necessitated a substantial increase in safeguards and security funding to ensure there is minimal risk to Department sites in the face of potential terrorist 

threats. The Department must ensure, however, that such funding 

is used for its stated purpose and not as an indirect source for 

other site services or activities, especially those unrelated to safeguards and security. As much as half of the safeguards and security funding at some sites appears to have been allocated to support indirect costs. Therefore, the Committee directs that all Departmental sites adhere to strict guidelines on utilizing these funds 

solely for safeguards and security, eliminating the use of standard 

formula-based overhead rates, and restricting indirect charges only 

to those that specifically and proportionately benefit safeguards 

and security programs. 

The Committee expects the Secretary to inform all Departmental 

organizations that these funds are to be used directly and demonstrably for safeguards and security emergency measures. In no case 

should indirect charges on these funds exceed 15 percent, unless 

granted an exception by explicit waiver from the Secretary. The 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are to be notified 

of any waivers granted by the Secretary. Also, the Committee directs the Office of the Inspector General to oversee and advise Congress on the appropriate expenditure of these funds. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee continues to strongly support the Department’s 

Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM), and 

the effort being made to establish DOE’s Project Management 

Order 413.3. The Committee expects every Departmental program 

and facility, including all elements of the National Nuclear Security Administration, to comply with these project management requirements. 

The Committee has consistently emphasized the need for the Department to improve project management essential to cost effective 

and time efficient construction projects. While some progress has 

been made, further steps must be taken. The Committee directs 

the Department to include funding for project management integration and technical support programs in each project data sheet included in the budget request. These funds should be itemized as 

113

part of the Other Project Costs line item and include project management excellence programs necessary to achieve internationally 

accepted professional standards and best practices. Such project 

management costs should support integrated project teams including: risk development, assessment, and execution; university and 

industry project management training, consulting, and mentoring; 

project-conducted independent project reviews; subject matter experts; and project management technical support for federal project 

managers. 

The Committee is also concerned that a large number of new facilities are being requested and funded, particularly in the National 

Nuclear Security Administration, with no plans to tear down the 

buildings that are being replaced. The Committee directs the Department to include the costs of tearing down the facilities that are 

being replaced in the costs of all construction projects and identified clearly in the construction project data sheets. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee is well aware of the deterioration of the Department’s facilities and of the Department’s inability to evaluate and 

address the readiness and maintenance status of its facilities. The 

Committee is encouraged by the Office of Management, Budget and 

Evaluation’s efforts to strengthen and standardize management of 

the Department’s facilities and infrastructure (F&I) program and to 

address management of all F&I assets. The Committee fully supports current efforts to develop a directive establishing requirements for Department-wide implementation of an F&I program, 

also to be complied with on a corporate basis. 

The F&I directive should establish a comprehensive program for 

the corporate management of all Departmental assets throughout 

their entire life-cycle and require appropriate data be provided to 

ensure that funds budgeted and spent on F&I assets can be 

tracked and outcomes measured. The F&I policy must also address 

the large inventory of excess facilities maintained throughout the 

complex and ensure that these facilities are decontaminated, decommissioned, and demolished as quickly and as cost-effectively as 

possible. The Committee also expects the Department to assign 

Federal staff at each site and Headquarters to provide oversight of 

this activity and ensure accountability. 

One of the primary reasons the capital assets in the Department 

have been allowed to deteriorate to an unacceptable degree is insufficient funding for maintenance. Preventative and corrective 

maintenance is funded indirectly through overhead accounts and is 

always the first thing eliminated when higher priority needs arise. 

The Committee is now providing huge amounts of funding to restore the capital assets to an acceptable condition and wants to ensure that these assets remain in good working order. To do this, 

the Committee directs the Department to provide direct funding of 

all maintenance as a key component of its F&I policy and to initiate this direct funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget. 

EXCESS FACILITIES

A recent Inspector General report ‘‘Disposition of the Department’s Excess Facilities’’ found the Department’s program to disVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
114

pose of excess facilities was not fully satisfactory. Facility disposition activities were not prioritized to balance mission requirements, 

reduce risks, and minimize life-cycle costs. In some cases, disposition plans were in conflict with requirements for new facilities, 

while in others, facilities posing little risk were decommissioned 

while the Department failed to dispose of buildings representing a 

substantially greater risk. The Committee expects the Department 

to quickly implement the Inspector General’s recommendations to 

develop a corporate approach to disposition activities; collect and 

report reliable data on costs; and provide sufficient funding to carry 

out an effective disposition program. 

The Committee expects the Department to decontaminate and 

decommission (D&D) and dispose of excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk. New 

and innovative disposal practices must be implemented to reduce 

costs and expedite site cleanups. Anecdotal evidence indicates that, 

for a variety of reasons, the Department is not always procuring 

services to demolish excess facilities in the most cost effective manner. Thus, the Committee directs that none of the funds for disposal of excess facilities may be used to D&D or demolish excess 

facilities at any site unless the services are procured though an 

open-competitive process which allows experienced contractors 

throughout the country the opportunity to bid on each project. 

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 2002, and the Committee expects the Department not to 

exceed 200 in fiscal year 2003. 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 2002 

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 or elsewhere in the Washington 

metropolitan area (for example, the Congress, the Executive Office 

of the President, and other Federal agencies). The report should 

also include detailed information on the cost of maintaining each 

M&O office in the Washington metropolitan area. This report is to 

include actual data for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2003. 

115

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, 2001 through 

September 30, 2002, and is due to the Committee on January 31, 

2003. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 

inform the Committee when a change in program execution and 

funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided for programs 

and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, or activity described in the 

agency’s budget justification as presented to and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the 

reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the 

justifications to another or a significant change in the scope of an 

approved project. 

Criteria for Reprogramming.—A reprogramming should be made 

only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if delay of 

the project or the activity until the next appropriations year would 

result in 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 2003, 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. 

116

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, 2002 ............................................................................ $666,726,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 693,934,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 633,909,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥32,817,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥60,025,000 

Note: The original budget request of $696,690,000 for Energy Supply included $2,756,000 to fund proposed 

legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by 

this amount. 

The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; and Environment, 

Safety and Health (non-defense). Technical Information Management, which had formerly been included in the Energy Supply appropriation but is managed by the Office of Science, is transferred 

to the Science appropriation. As in fiscal year 2002, the Committee 

recommends that the funds for Energy Supply activities remain 

available until expended. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

The total committee recommendation for renewable energy re- sources is $396,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2002 funding and 

a decrease of $11,000,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee is disappointed with the Department’s slow pace 

in executing projects directed in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. In part, this delay is 

due to the fact that certain parts of the Renewable Energy Resources program are, for historical reasons, being executed by a 

wide variety of field offices and laboratories, some not within the 

chain of command of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. While the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has made a significant effort to streamline its headquarters 

organization, it has not yet done the same with the field structure 

that executes its programs. Accordingly, the Department is directed 

to concentrate its Renewable Energy Resources work at the field offices and laboratories that are subject to the authority, direction, 

and control of the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The Assistant Secretary should also 

review, as recommended in the Strategic Program Review, the cost 

of doing business at the three weapons laboratories. 

In the House report accompanying the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, the Committee directed the Department 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. The 

Department was directed to submit these as part of the detailed 

budget justification for Renewable Energy Resources in the fiscal 

year 2003 budget request, but has failed to do so. While the Department deserves credit for preparing a Strategic Program Review 

117

that attempts to quantify the historic performance of various renewable technologies, this Strategic Program Review does not provide the kind of metrics specifically requested by the House. The 

Committee renews its direction to the Department to provide Congress with a set of quantitative measures that can be used to 

evaluate the potential costs and benefits of various renewable technologies. Absent such metrics, the Congress has no objective basis 

for supporting the changes in research emphasis proposed in the 

fiscal year 2003 budget request. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels energy 

systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen research, 

hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems. 

Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems.—The Committee recommendation for integrated research and development on biomass 

and biofuels, which includes both biopower energy systems and 

biofuels energy systems, is $86,005,000, the same as the budget request and a decrease of $6,995,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level. Within this amount is included $3,000,000 for initiatives 

on corn bioproduct research and $2,000,000 for the Consortium for 

Plant Biotechnology Research. 

Geothermal technology development.—The Committee provides 

$26,500,000 for geothermal technology development, the same as 

the budget request and a decrease of $2,500,000 compared to the 

fiscal year 2002 funding level. Despite a strong statement of support by the Committee in last year’s House report for university research on geothermal energy, the Department proposes to reduce 

university research under the Geoscience and Supporting Technologies subprogram to only $1,200,000 in fiscal year 2003. The 

Committee recommendation provides $2,600,000 for university research in geothermal technologies in fiscal year 2003, the same as 

in fiscal year 2002, with a corresponding reduction of $1,400,000 

for geothermal research conducted at DOE laboratories. 

Hydrogen research.—The Department’s budget request emphasizes the potential of hydrogen for stationary and vehicular fuel cell 

applications, and proposes a significant increase in research on 

technologies for the generation and storage of hydrogen, as well as 

the demonstration of hydrogen infrastructure and stationary fuel 

cell applications. The Committee recommends $35,476,000 for hydrogen research, a decrease of $4,405,000 from the budget request 

and an increase of $4,476,000 over fiscal year 2002 funding. The 

Committee generally concurs with the Department’s assessment of 

hydrogen’s potential, but funding constraints preclude funding the 

full request. Also, the Committee is concerned that the Department 

not duplicate work already done in the U.S. and elsewhere on hydrogen generation and storage technologies. The Committee encourages the Department to explore the transition to a methane 

economy as an intermediate step to the eventual shift to a hydrogen economy. Within available funds for Utilization and Distributed/Remote Power, $4,000,000 is provided for the continued development and validation of advanced proton exchange membrane fuel 

cells and metal membrane fuel purification technologies. 

118

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends $6,489,000 for hydropower research, an increase of $1,189,000 over fiscal year 2002 and 

$1,000,000 less than the budget request for fiscal year 2003. The 

Department should use this reduced funding to complete a limited 

program of testing and demonstration of new turbine technologies 

and then ‘‘graduate’’ this program within the next two fiscal years. 

Solar Energy.—Solar energy technologies include: concentrating 

solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and solar building technology research. As in fiscal year 2002, these subprograms are combined into a single account for solar energy. The total Committee 

recommendation for solar energy in fiscal year 2003 is $87,625,000, 

the same as the budget request and a decrease of $7,375,000 compared to fiscal year 2002. Of these funds, $5,000,000 is provided for 

industry-based 20–25kW Dish-Stirling and 20kW Dish-PV development. The control level for fiscal year 2003 continues at the solar 

energy program account level. 

Wind energy systems.—The Committee recommends $44,000,000 

for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request and 

$3,000,000 more than fiscal year 2002. The Committee concurs 

with Department’s emphasis on technologies that will be effective 

in low wind speeds. 

ELECTRIC ENERGY SYSTEMS AND STORAGE

Under the electric energy systems and storage program, the Department conducts research and development on advanced technologies for the generation, transmission, storage, and distribution 

of electric power. The electric energy systems and storage program 

is funded at $70,447,000, the same as the fiscal year 2003 budget 

request and $7,447,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 funding 

level. Within the funds available for transmission reliability, the 

Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the Department to continue field testing of advanced aluminum matrix composite conductors. 

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. Due to 

funding constraints, the Committee recommendation for renewable 

support and implementation is $19,866,000, $4,000,000 less than 

the budget request and an increase of $5,366,000 compared to the 

fiscal year 2002 funding level. This recommendation provides 

$1,500,000 for departmental energy management, $4,000,000 for 

international renewable energy, including $2,000,000 for International Utility Efficiency Partnerships, $6,000,000 for the renewable energy production incentive program, $6,307,000 for renewable Indian energy resources, and $2,059,000 for renewable program support, of which $1,000,000 is to support the National Alliance of Clean Energy Incubators. 

119

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 as the fiscal year 2002 funding 

level. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

Due to fiscal constraints, the Committee recommendation for program direction is $14,592,000, a reduction of $1,595,000 from the 

budget request and a decrease of $4,608,000, or 24 percent, compared to fiscal year 2002 funding. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs is 

$213,698,000, a decrease of $36,100,000 from the budget request 

and $36,758,000 from the fiscal year 2002 funding level. The reduction from the budget request reflects the transfer of the Fast Flux 

Test Facility to the Non-Defense Environmental Management account. 

The Department’s fiscal year 2003 budget request for Nuclear 

Energy assumed two major changes to the existing budget structure: the consolidation of various programs into the new Radiological Facilities Management account, and the merger of the previous Nuclear Facilities Management program with the Advanced 

Accelerator Applications program. The Committee does not concur 

with the changes as proposed by the Department. Any future proposals to change the current budget structure must be approved, 

in advance, by the House and Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees before inclusion in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request. 

Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems.—The Committee recommendation is $26,450,000, the same as the budget request and 

$2,550,000 less than fiscal year 2002. The requested amount is contained within the Department’s proposed Radiological Facilities 

Management program. To maintain visibility on the Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program, the Committee continues to 

fund this as a separate program in fiscal year 2003. As recommended by the Inspector General in audit report DOE/IG–0540, 

the Department should act promptly to develop memoranda of understanding with the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to recover mission-specific, safety-related costs from those agencies. 

Isotope Support and Production.—The Committee recommendation is $13,818,000, the same as the budget request and $3,359,000 

less than fiscal year 2002. The requested amount is contained within the Department’s proposed Radiological Facilities Management 

program. This amount represents a net appropriation, with a total 

program level of $20,218,000 and offsetting collections of 

$6,400,000. Included within this program amount is $1,721,000 for 

construction of the Isotope Production Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee supports the Department’s Nuclear Energy Protocol for Research Isotopes (NEPRI), which should 

120

provide the basis for more rational planning for the production and 

distribution of research isotopes. 

The Committee has approved a phased approach to the extraction of medically valuable isotopes from excess uranium–233 stored 

in Building 3019 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, beginning 

with the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) in fiscal year 

2002. Under this project, the uranium–233 will be processed to extract thorium–229, which yields the radioisotopes actinium–225 

and bismuth–213, the latter of which is undergoing clinical trials 

as cancer treatments. The Committee reiterates its direction to the 

Department that the processing of the uranium–233 and the extraction of thorium–229 must be done in a manner that does not 

increase the ultimate decontamination and decommissioning costs 

for Building 3019. Unfortunately, the program plan submitted by 

the Department in May 2002 did not provide adequate information 

on the baseline costs for Building 3019 and the disposal costs for 

uranium–233 to enable a valid comparison against the proposed 

thorium–229 extraction alternative. Therefore, the Department is 

authorized at this time to proceed only with Phase I for detailed 

project planning, design, and cost estimating. The Department is 

directed to report back to the Committee when it has evaluated the 

responses to the RFP and prior to the award of the Phase I contract, upon completion of the external independent review and the 

should-cost analysis, and upon completion of the business case supporting award of the Phase II contract. Pending the possible implementation of this new process for producing actinium–225, the Department is encouraged to consider offers of private funding to increase the production of actinium–225 above current levels. 

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.—The Committee 

recommendation is $17,500,000, the same as the budget request 

and as fiscal year 2002. Although funding constraints do not allow 

the Committee to provide additional funds for this activity, the 

Committee remains concerned about the recent decline in the number of graduates specializing in nuclear science and engineering. 

The need to add more nuclear generation capacity to the national 

grid underscores the need for skilled scientists and engineers who 

can design, build, and operate these new reactor designs. The Committee, therefore, continues to provide funding for both a reliable 

source of fuel to operate the university reactors and for the grants 

and fellowships that support nuclear science and engineering education. 

Research and Development.—The Committee supports continued 

research and development to make the current generation of nuclear power plants safer and more efficient, and to resolve the technical, institutional, and regulatory barriers to deployment of the 

next generation of reactors. The total Committee recommendation 

for nuclear energy research and development is $71,500,000, the 

same as the budget request and an increase of $20,500,000 relative 

to fiscal year 2002. 

Given the importance of maintaining and optimizing the generating capacity of existing nuclear reactors, and the strong industry 

participation in this program, the Committee does not concur with 

the Administration’s proposal to terminate funding for the nuclear 

energy plant optimization (NEPO) program in fiscal year 2003. For 

121

NEPO, the Committee provides $5,000,000, $2,000,000 less than in 

fiscal year 2002 and $5,000,000 more than the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation for the nuclear energy research initiative (NERI) is $25,000,000, the same as the budget request 

and a decrease of $7,000,000 compared to fiscal year 2002. The 

Committee notes that the Department is carrying a very large unobligated balance in this account in fiscal year 2002. The Committee provides $41,500,000 for nuclear energy tech- nologies, $5,000,000 less than the budget request and $29,500,000 

more than the fiscal year 2002 funding level. The funding reduction 

reflects the transfer of $5,000,000 to provide funding for the NEPO 

program. 

On May 23, 2002, U.S. President Bush and Russian Federation 

President Putin signed a declaration establishing a joint task force 

to study advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies. 

Within the amount provided for nuclear energy technologies is included $5,000,000 to pursue the recommendations of this joint task 

force, to include but not limited to thorium-uranium and thoriumplutonium fuel cycles and the gas turbine-modular helium reactor. 

This amount is not fenced pending the outcome of the repository 

siting approval resolution. Any research and development efforts on 

advanced reactor designs and fuel cycles, including this $5,000,000 

for the joint U.S.-Russian task force and including the reprocessing 

or transmutation of spent nuclear fuel, should be cost-shared with 

private industry. While a 50–50 cost share may not be appropriate 

for the early phases of research, requiring the financial participation of the nuclear industry is a simple way of ensuring that the 

Department is pursuing technologies that have some likelihood of 

being implemented by the private sector. As with NERI, any research and development on advanced reactors, advanced fuel cycles, reprocessing, and transmutation should be conducted on a 

competitive, peer-reviewed basis. 

Domestic Enrichment Capability.—On June 17, 2002, the Department signed an agreement with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) which, in part, requires USEC to deploy an advanced uranium enrichment technology at either the Portsmouth or 

Paducah sites by 2010 or 2011, respectively. While the Committee 

supports making the technical expertise and facilities of the Department available to USEC on a reimbursable basis, the Committee is concerned about the commitments, both explicit and implicit, made by the Department in this agreement regarding assistance to USEC in the development of advanced enrichment technology. The Department is directed to submit to Congress by May 

31, 2003, a program plan that clearly identifies the actions to be 

taken by the Federal government under this June 2002 agreement 

with respect to development and deployment of advanced enrichment technology. 

The Department is also directed to contract with the National 

Academy of Sciences to review and evaluate plans for the deployment of advanced enrichment technology in the United States, including: (1) an assessment of the need for additional domestic enrichment capacity; (2) USEC plans for demonstration and deployment of advanced enrichment technology; (3) the role of DOE in 

meeting these demonstration and deployment objectives; and (4) an 

122

assessment of the technical capabilities of the public and private 

sector to meet these enrichment technology objectives. This review 

should identify what role, if any, there is for continued research 

and development by the Department to support the private sector 

deployment of advanced enrichment technology. The Department is 

directed to transfer promptly $600,000 to the National Academy of 

Sciences for this review, which should be completed by December 

31, 2003. 

Fast Flux Test Facility.—The Committee transfers the Fast Flux 

Test Facility (FFTF) and its associated funding to the Non-Defense 

Environmental Management account. 

Radiological Facilities Management.—The fiscal year 2003 budget request proposed a new Radiological Facilities Management account, merging the elements from the Advanced Radioisotope 

Power Systems, Isotope Support and Production, ANL-West operations, and Test Reactor Area (TRA) landlord costs. The Committee 

supports only the merger of the ANL-West operations and TRA 

landlord costs under this new program. Advanced Radioisotope 

Power Systems and Isotope Support and Production are maintained as separate programs so that Congress and the Department 

have continued visibility on the funding necessary to support these 

primarily reimbursable functions. The Committee recommendation 

for Radiological Facilities Management is $42,770,000, the same as 

the budget request for ANL-West operations and TRA Landlord 

costs. This amount includes $31,615,000 for ANL-West operations 

and $11,155,000 for TRA Landlord costs. The control level is at the 

Radiological Facilities Management account level. 

Spent Fuel Pyroprocessing.—The Committee recommendation is 

$18,221,000, the same as the budget request, including $15,450,000 

for EBR–II spent fuel treatment and $2,771,000 for research and 

development on pyroprocessing of sodium-bonded spent fuel. The 

focus of these activities should be on treating the sodium-bonded 

spent fuel presently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory, and preparing those materials for shipment to the permanent repository in accordance with the terms of 

the 1995 settlement agreement with the State of Idaho. The Department is directed to submit to Congress by March 31, 2003, a 

detailed program plan, identifying specific actions with associated 

costs and milestone schedules, to show how the Department intends to meet the settlement agreement deadline for removing this 

spent fuel from the site. Further, the Department should consider 

approaches that would allow it to accelerate the treatment and removal of this spent fuel. 

The Administration did not request, nor did the Committee provide, any funds for reprocessing and transmutation activities in fiscal year 2003. The Department has not yet submitted its report on 

these technologies, which was due to Congress on May 1, 2002. Absent this report evaluating the costs and benefits of the various reprocessing and transmutation technologies, the Committee has no 

technical or policy basis for appropriating any funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2003. Under the Research and Development program, the Committee does provide $5,000,000 for the Department 

to pursue the recommendations of the joint U.S.-Russia task force 

on advanced reactor and fuel cycle technologies. 

123

Program direction.—The Committee recommends $23,439,000, 

the same as the budget request and $439,000 more than fiscal year 

2002. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation is $26,211,000, a reduction of 

$3,000,000 from the budget request and $4,289,000 from fiscal year 

2002. A review by the General Accounting Office of external regulation of other government laboratories and private sector companies 

found that DOE requires significantly more staff to execute its 

safety responsibilities, without any measurable gain in overall performance to justify the additional resources required by DOE. 

The conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the Department to prepare an implementation plan for external regulation of nuclear and 

worker safety at the Department’s Science laboratories. Instead of 

submitting a serious and comprehensive implementation plan, 

which was due to Congress by May 31, 2002, the Department submitted on July 1, 2002, a proposal calling for more studies of external regulation. One of the Department’s stated reasons for recommending further study is the lack of information on the cost of 

bringing these Science laboratories into compliance with the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The experience 

in transitioning the gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth and Paducah from DOE self-regulation to external regulation by NRC and 

OSHA revealed that the majority of transition costs derived, not 

from NRC and OSHA having markedly different standards than 

DOE, but from the fact that these facilities were substantially out 

of compliance with DOE’s own safety orders and regulations. Under 

the Science portion of this report, the Department is directed to 

submit to the House and Senate Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Subcommittees a report providing a detailed estimate of the cost of bringing the ten Science laboratories (named in 

House Report 107–112) into compliance with NRC and OSHA 

standards for nuclear safety and worker safety. To support this 

task, the Department is directed to transfer $2,500,000 to the NRC 

and $1,500,000 to OSHA. In addition, the Department is directed 

to transfer $1,000,000 to OSHA to cover the costs of OSHA regulation of worker health and safety at the Department’s non-nuclear 

facilities not covered under the Atomic Energy Act. 

TECHNICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The Committee moves the Technical Information Management 

program from the Energy Supply account to the Science account. 

The Technical Information Management program is presently managed by the Office of Science, and this transfer will align program 

resources with program management. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

A general reduction of $2,000,000 has been applied to the Energy 

Supply account.

124

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $236,372,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 166,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 213,259,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥23,113,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +47,259,000 

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; Fast Flux Test Facility; Long-Term 

Stewardship; and Excess Facilities for final disposition of excess 

contaminated facilities. The Committee recommendation is 

$213,259,000, an increase of $47,259,000 over the budget request. 

SITE CLOSURE

The recommendation for site closure is $90,000,000, an increase 

of $90,000,000 over the budget request. The $90,000,000 represents 

the funding requested for the accelerated cleanup of the West Valley Demonstration Project, which is transferred from the Post 2006 

Completion account to the Site Closure account. 

Bill language from the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002, required the Department to either reach agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development 

Authority (NYSERDA) on the final scope of Federal activities at 

the West Valley site and on the respective Federal and State cost 

shares for those activities, or reduce funding to the minimum necessary to keep the site in a safe and stable condition. Unfortunately, the Department ignored this statutory requirement and requested the same funding level as in fiscal year 2002, without having reached agreement with NYSERDA on the key issues in disputes. The parties have made no apparent progress toward resolving their differences, although both have issued clear written statements of their respective positions. 

The Department has recently developed an accelerated cleanup 

plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project that will allow 

DOE to complete its statutorily-required cleanup responsibilities by 

2005, with only long-term surveillance and monitoring in subsequent years. The Committee is encouraged by this proposal to reduce risks and accelerate cleanup at West Valley. However, before 

proceeding to implement this acceleration plan in fiscal year 2003, 

the Department is directed to submit a site performance management plan at the same level of detail, and agreed to by the appropriate state regulator, as is being required at other acceleration 

sites in the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform program. 

The Committee encourages the Department and NYSERDA to 

continue to attempt to resolve their differences, but the DepartVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
125

ment is reminded that any proposed agreement with NYSERDA 

must be in full compliance with all relevant Federal statutes and 

is in the best interest of the Federal government. 

SITE/PROJECT COMPLETION

The recommendation for site/project completion is $42,425,000, a 

reduction of $8,847,000 from the budget request of $51,272,000. 

The budget request of $8,847,000 for long-term stewardship activities has been transferred to a new program to provide greater visibility for long-term stewardship activities. 

POST 2006 COMPLETION

The recommendation for post 2006 completion is $17,554,000, a 

reduction of $95,333,000 from the budget request of $112,887,000. 

Funding of $90,000,000 for the West Valley Demonstration Project 

has been transferred to the site closure account; $1,000,000 for 

packaging certification activities has been transferred to Defense 

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; $5,333,000 for 

long-term stewardship activities has been transferred to a new program to provide greater visibility for these activities; and an additional $1,000,000 has been provided for the Atlas site in Moab, 

Utah. 

Atlas site in Moab, Utah.—The Department requested $966,000 

for remediation activities at the Atlas uranium mill tailings site at 

Moab, Utah, on the assumption that the Department possesses a 

valid plan for the remediation of this site. However, the National 

Academy of Sciences Board on Radioactive Waste Management recently completed a review of the Department’s October 2001 Draft 

Preliminary Plan for Remediation of the Moab Site and concluded 

that the Department lacks sufficient technical basis at this time to 

make an informed decision among remediation alternatives. The 

Department is directed to follow the specific recommendations 

made by the Board on Radioactive Waste Management in its June 

11, 2002, report and prepare a revised remediation plan for this 

site addressing the specific deficiencies identified in the Board’s report. The Committee recommendation is $1,966,000, an increase of 

$1,000,000 over the budget request. These additional funds are to 

be used to prepare a scientifically-sound remediation plan for the 

site. 

FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY

The Committee recommendation includes $44,100,000, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget request of $36,100,000, for the 

permanent deactivation, decontamination, and decommissioning of 

the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at Richland, Washington. The 

budget request for the FFTF was included in the Office of Nuclear 

Energy, but the Committee has transferred responsibility and 

funding for the program to the Office of Environmental Management. The Committee expects the Department to expedite closure 

by choosing the most cost-effective method for decontaminating and 

decommissioning of this reactor. This must involve an open competitive contracting process to attract a wide range of experienced 

companies to submit proposals. 

126

LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP

The Committee recommendation includes $14,180,000 for a new 

Long-Term Stewardship program. This consists of $8,847,000 

transferred from the site/project completion program and 

$5,333,000 transferred from the post 2006 completion program. 

Long-term stewardship activities will continue to grow as the Department completes cleanup and closure of sites, and the Committee wants to ensure visibility of these efforts. 

Weldon Springs, Missouri.—The Committee understands there 

will be approximately $5,000,000 of prior year funds available to 

the Weldon Springs, Missouri, site for final closeout activities to 

prepare regulatory documents and complete records disposition 

during fiscal years 2003 and 2004. In addition, funds are available 

in fiscal year 2003 to begin routine long-term stewardship activities 

associated with a closed site. Weldon Springs is one of the first 

sites to complete cleanup. The Committee understands that completion of cleanup requires establishing a different working relationship with the site, but expects the Department to ensure that 

long-term stewardship activities continue to protect the health and 

safety of the community. 

National Academy of Science Study.—The Committee directs the 

Department to ask the National Academy of Science to review the 

long-term stewardship program and to work with the Committee to 

define the parameters of the study. The long-term stewardship program will have responsibility for managing those sites that will not 

achieve cleanup levels to allow release for unrestricted use. This 

program could eventually have responsibility for over 100 sites to 

ensure the continued protection of public and environmental 

health. Moreover, its responsibilities may grow in the future because cleanup goals are being reassessed as part of the accelerated 

cleanup effort and a variety of stewardship arrangements (e.g., reindustrialization, formation of wildlife refuges) are being considered. 

The Committee believes that it would be helpful to have the National Academies’ views on the technical and institutional requirements for an effective long-term stewardship organization, particularly with respect to the following questions: 

—What are the technical and institutional characteristics of an 

effective long-term stewardship organization? 

—Are there existing organizations within the Federal government, especially those with land or property management responsibilities, that possess these characteristics? If so, which ones are 

they, and what additional capabilities, if any, would these organizations require to take on this long-term stewardship mission? 

—If the long-term stewardship program were transferred out of 

the Department, what additional technical and institutional measures would be needed to ensure effective execution and coordination of both the clean-up and stewardship missions? 

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 

127

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 facilities program, an increase of $3,159,000 over the budget request of 

$1,841,000. 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 $3,159,000 for 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, 2002 ............................................................................ $418,425,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 382,154,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 382,154,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥36,271 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

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 $382,154,000, the 

same as the budget request and $36,271,000 less than fiscal year 

2002. 

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 $235,523,000 for activities funded 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, the same as the budget request and a reduction of 

$64,118,000 compared to fiscal year 2002. This amount includes 

$234,523,000 for decontamination and decommissioning activities 

and $1,000,000 for uranium and thorium reimbursements. Should 

pending legislation be enacted to raise the current ceiling on thorium reimbursements, the Department should meet its additional 

128

thorium reimbursements obligations in fiscal year 2003 from available carryover funds. 

Other Uranium Activities.—The Committee recommendation is 

$146,631,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of 

$22,847,000 over fiscal year 2002. In addition to providing the requested $10,000,000 for the conversion project for depleted uranium hexaflouride (DUF6), 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 maintenance of the 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in cold standby. 

SCIENCE

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $3,233,100,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 3,279,456,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 3,271,233,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +38,133,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥8,223,000

Note: The original budget request of $3,285,088,000 for Science included $5,632,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain 

Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this 

amount. 

The Science account funds the Department’s work on high energy 

physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental sciences, 

basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing, maintenance 

of the laboratories’ physical infrastructure, fusion energy sciences, 

safeguards and security, science workforce development, and 

science program direction. The Committee is very supportive of the 

research conducted by the Department’s Office of Science, but funding constraints preclude significant increases for fiscal year 2003. 

The Committee recommendation is $3,271,233,000, a decrease of 

$8,223,000 compared to the budget request, but $38,133,000 more 

than fiscal year 2002. 

As are many others, the Committee is concerned about the growing imbalance in the Federal investment in research in the physical sciences versus the life sciences. The recent emphasis on 

science research with direct applications to homeland security 

needs only exacerbates the under-investment in basic research in 

the physical sciences. Strength in the physical sciences is essential 

for the future well-being of the Nation because these sciences play 

a critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and global 

economic leadership. The physical sciences provide the foundation 

of knowledge for many fields of scientific endeavor, including the 

life sciences, and have many possible applications, including but 

not limited to national security and homeland defense. 

The Committee hopes that the Department submits a fiscal year 

2004 budget request that will support a robust physical sciences research program in the Office of Science. In addition to funding the 

capabilities that already exist at the national laboratories, the next 

budget request should also invest in the future by supporting the 

development of the next generation of scientists and engineers and 

the next generation of research instruments. The Committee will 

support future growth in the Science budget if the Department is 

able to present a rational scheme for setting priorities among the 

various research areas and among the wide range of possible new 

129

projects (e.g., Next Linear Collider, Rare Isotope Accelerator, etc.), 

can improve its program and project management, and takes tangible and aggressive steps to implement external regulation at its 

Science laboratories. Continued self-regulation of these laboratories 

does not yield any measurable improvement in safety performance 

as compared to external regulation, and consumes resources that 

could be better spent on scientific research. The Committee firmly 

believes that a shift to external regulation would improve public 

trust and understanding of Office of Science activities, resulting in 

stronger Congressional support for its research programs. 

The Committee encourages the Office of Science to streamline its 

field structure along the lines of the model being implemented by 

the National Nuclear Security Administration. The Committee also 

strongly encourages the Office of Science to focus its resources on 

the laboratories and field offices that are subject to the authority, 

direction, and control of the Director of the Office of Science. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $724,990,000 for high energy physics, the same as the budget request and $8,890,000 more than fiscal year 2002. The previous subaccounts within the High Energy 

Physics account—research and technology and facility operations—

are consolidated into a single account for fiscal year 2003, with the 

control level at the High Energy Physics level. The Committee is 

concerned about the difficulties being experienced with the luminosity upgrade of the Tevatron and with the Neutrinos at the Main 

Injector, both projects at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. 

The Committee expects the Department and the laboratory to exercise aggressive project management to bring these projects back on 

schedule, and to do so within the funds available for High Energy 

Physics. The Committee encourages the Department to work with 

the Office of Management and Budget to remove the existing limit 

on funding that may be spent for planning and research and development in support of the Next Linear Collider. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is 

$382,370,000, the same as the budget request and $21,860,000 

more than provided in fiscal year 2002. The Committee hopes the 

Department will move expeditiously through the project approval 

process for the 12 GeV upgrade for the Continuous Electron Beam 

Accelerator Facility. The Committee recommendation includes the 

requested amount of $3,500,000 for research and development and 

pre-conceptual design activities in support of the Rare Isotope Accelerator. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation for biological and environmental research is $504,215,000, the same as the budget request but 

$23,190,000 less than in fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommendation includes the requested level of funding, $5,841,000, 

for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. The Committee encourages the Department to explore technologies for the preservaVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
130

tion and recovery of frozen mouse gametes, which have the potential to reduce significantly the cost of developing and transporting 

strains of live mice around the country. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 

$1,019,600,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of 

$15,895,000 from fiscal year 2002. For purposes of reprogramming 

during fiscal year 2003, the Department may allocate funding 

among all operating accounts within Basic Energy Sciences. 

Research.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$547,883,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and 

$220,146,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences, both the same as the budget request. Included within the 

material sciences and engineering account is $7,685,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), 

the same as the budget request and as the fiscal year 2002 funding 

level. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends the requested 

amount of $251,571,000, which includes $210,571,000 for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), $11,000,000 for 

project engineering and design of Nanoscale Science Research Centers at Oak Ridge, Lawrence Berkeley, and Sandia National Laboratories, $24,000,000 to initiate construction of the Center for 

Nanophase Materials Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

and $6,000,000 for project engineering and design of the Linac Coherent Light Source at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation is $174,625,000, an increase of 

$5,000,000 over the budget request and $16,575,000 more than the 

funding in fiscal year 2002. The Committee is very concerned about 

the recent Japanese advances in scientific supercomputing, specifically with the Earth Simulator computer that is more capable by 

one or two orders of magnitude than the most advanced U.S. supercomputers. The Japanese advances suggest not only that the DOE 

approach to stimulating U.S. industry to produce high-performance 

computers using commodity components may not be working as 

well as hoped, but also means that U.S. scientists will be relegated 

to using second-class computing resources to support their research 

projects in the near future. The Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research Advisory Committee, and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program deserve credit for 

acting promptly to develop a U.S. response to the challenge posed 

by the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer. The Committee 

provides additional funds for the Department’s efforts to re-evaluate the U.S. approach to advanced scientific computing and to explore whether alternative approaches such as topical computing 

may be more successful. 

ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSES

This program is transferred as a subprogram under Science Program Direction. 

131

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

This program combines the previously separate Multiprogram 

Energy Laboratories—Facilities Support program and the Facilities 

and Infrastructure program, which were funded in fiscal year 2002 

at $30,175,000 and $10,000,000, respectively. For the combined 

Science Laboratories Infrastructure program, the Committee recommends $47,680,000, an increase of $4,945,000 over the budget 

request and $7,505,000 over fiscal year 2002. Within this amount 

is included an additional $1,500,000 to modernize outdated infrastructure at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The Committee recommendation also provides $10,000,000 for excess facilities disposal. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is 

$248,495,000, the same as the fiscal year 2002 funding level and 

$8,815,000 less than the budget request. The Committee notes that 

the fiscal year 2002 funding level included $19,604,000 for the completion of decontamination and decommissioning of the Tokamak 

Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), leaving $228,891,000 available for fusion research and facility operations in fiscal year 2002. By comparison, the Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 makes 

this $19,604,000 available for fusion research and facility operations, including initiation of fabrication of the National Compact 

Stellarator Experiment (NCSX), an increase of 8.5 percent over the 

comparable amount available in fiscal year 2002. 

Within the funding available for fusion energy sciences, the Committee recommendation provides an additional $1,000,000 for National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) research, an additional 

$500,000 for NSTX operations, and an additional $1,000,000 for 

preliminary design for the National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX). 

The Committee acknowledges the significant scientific and engineering advances accomplished both in magnetic and inertial fusion. The Department is directed to prepare an updated program 

plan for fusion energy sciences, with particular attention to improving the integration of the magnetic fusion energy program and the 

work on inertial fusion funded primarily under the National Nuclear Security Administration. This updated program plan should 

also identify and evaluate the logical next steps in the U.S. fusion 

energy program, including the possibility of re-engaging in the 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The 

program plan should also address the specific concerns with fusion 

power that were identified in the August 2002 draft report by the 

Rand Corporation entitled ‘‘Energy Technologies for 2050: A Methodology for Determining Research and Development Directions’’ and identify research actions to resolve those concerns. The Department should submit this updated program plan to Congress not 

later than March 31, 2003. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $48,127,000, the same as the budget 

request and $7,285,000 less than fiscal year 2002. Within this 

132

amount is included an additional $2,100,000 for essential safeguards and security upgrades at the Princeton Plasma Physics 

Laboratory. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The national laboratories under the Office of Science represent a 

unique national asset, both in terms of state-of-the-art research facilities and expert scientists and engineers. The Department is encouraged to expand on existing programs to make these capabilities 

available to teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Not only will these opportunities help to raise the level of 

teaching in the classroom in the near term, but improving science 

education is directly relevant to the quality of the future workforce 

available to the Department. The Committee recommendation is 

$5,460,000, the same as the budget request for Science Education 

and an increase of $1,000,000 over fiscal year 2002. This new program is intended to refocus the activities previously funded in the 

Science Education subprogram within Program Direction. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation is $134,310,000 for Science pro- gram direction. This amount includes: $125,540,000 for program direction at DOE headquarters and field offices, a reduction of 

$2,847,000 from the budget request and $9,960,000 less than fiscal 

year 2002; $7,770,000 for Technical Information Management; and 

$1,000,000 for Energy Research Analyses. The Technical Information Management program is transferred from the Energy Supply 

account to the Science account, so that program management will 

be aligned with program resources. It is included as a subprogram 

within the Science Program Direction program as the information 

management and program management functions are integrally related. The Committee recommendation for Technical Information 

Management is $7,770,000, the same as fiscal year 2002 and 

$155,000 less than the budget request. The Energy Research Analyses program is also transferred as a subprogram within Science 

Program Direction. The Committee recommendation provides 

$1,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2002 and $20,000 less than the 

budget request. The control level for fiscal year 2003 is at the program account level of Science Program Direction. 

External Regulation of DOE Science Laboratories.—The conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the Department 

to prepare a detailed implementation plan for external regulation 

of nuclear and worker safety at the Department’s Science laboratories. The Committee is very disappointed in the response of the 

Office of Science and of the Department as a whole to this direction. With the concept of external regulation strongly supported by 

this Committee and by the directors of these ten laboratories, the 

Committee expected the Office of Science to take an aggressive role 

in developing and promoting this implementation plan within the 

Department. Instead, the Office of Science produced a weak initial 

draft plan and then failed to champion it effectively against the 

forces of bureaucratic inertia that plague the rest of the Department. 

133

The implementation plan that was finally completed by the Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation, and which was submitted one month after it was due to the Committee, remains 

grossly inadequate. The funding levels for Science Program Direction, as well as for Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) 

and Departmental Administration, reflect the level of Committee 

dissatisfaction with this product. The question of external regulation has been studied extensively over the past decade, not only by 

the Department itself, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 

and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 

but also by outside experts including the National Academy of Public Administration and the General Accounting Office (GAO). A recent GAO review of safety regulation at other government laboratories, major private sector companies, and European energy laboratories found that these other entities are all externally regulated, requiring consistently fewer resources than self-regulation by 

DOE and with no loss in safety performance. 

Unfortunately, from that mass of available information, including 

external regulation pilot projects already completed at several DOE 

laboratories, the best that the Department could produce for a detailed implementation plan is a 17-page report calling for more 

studies. In many instances, including the tasking to provide the 

changes needed in statutory language and the estimate of reductions in funding and staffing at DOE headquarters, the Department merely repeated the questions posed by the Committee instead of making any attempt to answer those questions. The plan 

submitted by the Department proposes a number of additional 

studies but provides neither cost estimates nor completion dates for 

those efforts. Despite statements made at hearings before this 

Committee, it is clear that the leadership of the Department is 

more interested in preserving the status quo of self-regulation than 

in making a serious effort to improve the safety and efficiency of 

its laboratory operations. It is also clear that the Department cannot be relied upon to provide accurate and objective information in 

response to Committee requests for information on this issue. 

There is a legitimate question on the cost of bringing the ten 

Science laboratories into compliance with NRC and OSHA regulations. The Department is, therefore, directed to submit to the 

House and Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Subcommittees, not later than September 30, 2003, a report providing a detailed estimate of the cost of bringing the ten Science 

laboratories named in House Report 107–112 into full compliance 

with NRC and OSHA standards for nuclear safety and worker safety. Funds to execute this task are provided under the Environment, 

Safety, and Health (non-defense) account. The NRC and OSHA are 

to conduct comprehensive compliance audits at the ten Science laboratories; from this information, the laboratories are to develop estimates of the costs necessary to correct the safety deficiencies 

identified by NRC and OSHA and bring their facilities and operations into compliance with NRC and OSHA standards. As part of 

this estimate, the laboratories should also isolate those costs for 

corrective measures that are needed to meet DOE’s own safety 

standards, separate from those required to meet NRC and OSHA 

standards. The Department is to provide the results of these comVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
134

pliance audits and compliance cost estimates directly to the Committee without delay or modification by DOE staff. To support the 

fiscal year 2004 appropriations process, NRC and OSHA, in consultation with the laboratories, should select an agreed-upon subset 

of four Science laboratories for which the compliance audits and 

compliance cost estimates can be completed not later than May 31, 

2003. This subset should include one multiprogram laboratory with 

a nuclear reactor, a multiprogram laboratory with an accelerator, 

and two of the single-purpose laboratories. Of the laboratories in 

this subset with accelerators, at least one should be in an NRC 

agreement state and at least one in a non-agreement state. Further, the NRC and OSHA should select laboratories for this subset 

that were not studied previously under the external regulation 

pilot projects. The Committee expects the NRC and OSHA to enter 

into a Memorandum of Agreement, or modify an existing agreement, to define their respective responsibilities for radiation safety. 

This agreement should be provided to the Committee not later than 

May 31, 2003. 

An additional question posed by the Committee but left unanswered by DOE is the cost savings that will result from staff and 

funding reductions at DOE headquarters and field offices once external regulation is in place. The Department is unable to answer 

this question because it does not know how much it presently 

spends on self-regulation of these ten Science laboratories. The 

Committee intends to task the General Accounting Office (GAO) to 

develop objective estimates of current resources expended by DOE 

and the potential savings from external regulation. 

The Committee expects the Department to provide full support 

for the afore-mentioned efforts of the NRC, OSHA, GAO, and the 

ten Science laboratories. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The budget request included an offset of $4,383,000 for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work. The Committee 

has provided direct funding for this activity and eliminated the 

funding offset. A general reduction of $18,639,000 has been applied 

to the Science account. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $95,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 275,802,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 209,702,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +114,702,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥66,100,000

Note: The original budget request of $212,045,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal included $2,343,000 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been 

reduced by this amount. 

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-genVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
135

erated spent nuclear fuel through the collection 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 Nuclear Waste Policy Act also established an expedited procedure for final approval of repository siting. The President formally recommended the Yucca Mountain site to Congress on February 15, 2002, and the Governor of Nevada subsequently submitted a notice of disapproval to Congress on April 8, 2002. As provided for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, this State disapproval 

may be overcome if a joint resolution of siting approval is passed 

by both chambers of Congress within 90 days of continuous session 

after receipt of the notice of disapproval and is subsequently enacted into law. The House passed the resolution of repository siting 

approval on May 8, 2002, by a vote of 306–117. 

The Committee recommends $209,702,000 from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund in fiscal year 2003. Combined with the appropriation 

of $315,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, 

this provides a total of $524,702,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2003, the same as the budget request and an 

increase of $149,702,000 from fiscal year 2002. On August 2, 2002, 

the Administration submitted an amended budget request for an 

additional $66,100,000 for Nuclear Waste Disposal. Due to the late 

submittal of this amended request and the fact that the Administration did not identify an offset for the amount of the amendment, 

the Committee recommendation does not include this additional 

$66,100,000. 

License application.—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. Until the repository is open 

and the Department can begin accepting spent fuel, the liability of 

the Federal government for its failure to meet its statutory and 

contractual obligation to accept commercial spent fuel will continue 

to grow. With the submission of the Site Recommendation in February 2002, the Department now plans to submit the license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in late 2004 and 

begin repository operations, at the earliest, in 2010. Any delay in 

repository opening will not only increase the Federal government’s 

liability on commercial spent fuel, but will also impact the ability 

of the Department to remove defense-related high level radioactive 

waste and spent nuclear fuel from other sites in the DOE complex, 

and may affect the government’s ability to meet legally enforceable 

cleanup milestones at those sites. Given the importance of timely 

repository opening, the Department should take all reasonable 

steps to accelerate submission of the license application into early 

fiscal year 2004. 

State and local government funds.—The Committee recommendation includes an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for the affected 

units of local government and an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 

for the State of Nevada to conduct their respective external oversight responsibilities. These are the same funding levels as proVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
136

vided in fiscal year 2002 and as requested for fiscal year 2003. The 

Department is reminded to ensure that these Federal funds are audited annually. 

Future program funding.—The Committee was disappointed that 

the Department failed to submit with its fiscal year 2003 budget 

request a long-term budget plan for the repository program. As the 

program moves out of the site characterization phase and into license application, design, and construction phases, the funding requirements will increase significantly in coming fiscal years. Therefore, it is even more critical that the Department develops an integrated long-term budget plan for this program, and submits the 

legislative proposal necessary to secure future funding for the repository. The Committee reiterates its direction that the Department should submit its long-term budget plan for the repository 

program, including the necessary changes to existing law, as part 

of its next budget submission to the Congress. 

Waste acceptance, storage, and transportation.—As the program 

moves into the license application phase, the Committee continues 

to be concerned that the Department will not be ready to fulfill its 

waste acceptance, storage, and transportation responsibilities consistent with the repository schedule. The Department should move 

aggressively to initiate work with state and local governments to 

develop safe transportation routes to the selected repository site, 

beginning with the development of transportation routes and 

modes in Nevada that will avoid the Las Vegas metropolitan area. 

The Department should also reinitiate its activities to obtain proposals from the private sector for the procurement of transportation casks for reactor sites presently undergoing dismantlement 

and decommissioning. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $210,853,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 299,220,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 208,672,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥3,819,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥90,548,000 

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ ¥$137,810,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... ¥137,524,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... ¥80,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +57,810,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +57,524,000 

Note: The original net budget request of $169,635,000 for Departmental Administration included 

$7,939,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget 

request has been reduced by this amount. 

The Committee recommendation for Departmental Administra- tion is $208,672,000, a decrease of $90,548,000 from the budget request of $299,220,000. 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 

137

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 been disappointed in the response of the Department to Committee direction included in the reports accompanying the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill; to additional requests for information in support of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation; and to the submission of reports required by the fiscal year 

2002 appropriations bill. 

Engineering and Construction Management Reviews.—The Committee believes that project management at the Department is 

being improved through the actions of the Office of Engineering 

and Construction Management and continues to strongly support 

this office and its leadership. The Committee expects the Office of 

Management, Budget and Evaluation to ensure sufficient staffing 

and support for improved project management activities, expanded 

facilities and infrastructure activities, and increased training programs for project managers. The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for external independent reviews of proposed 

projects and programs. 

Cybersecurity, Secure Communications, and Corporate Management.—The budget request for Departmental Administration included $32,027,000 for cybersecurity and secure communications 

and $20,420,000 for the corporate management information program. These are corporate activities that contribute substantially 

to both the defense and non-defense programs of the Department. 

For cybersecurity and secure communications, the recommendation 

provides $15,000,000 in this account and $15,000,000 in the Other 

Defense Activities appropriation account. For the corporate management information program, the recommendation provides 

$10,000,000 in this account and $10,000,000 in the Other Defense 

Activities appropriation account. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Department uses 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 expect that: no salaries or other expenses of Federal 

employees are to be charged to the fund; Departmental representation on the Board establishing the policies must be broad-based 

and include smaller organizations; pricing policies must be sound 

and defensible and not include added factors for administrative 

costs; 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 acVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
138

counts, and the Committee expects to be apprised of any recommendations to improve the charge-back system.

Cost of Work for Others.—The recommendation for the cost of 

work for others program is $29,916,000, a reduction of $40,000,000 

from the budget request. The budget request included $40,000,000 

for safeguards and security reimbursable activities in several program accounts. The Committee has provided direct funding for 

these program activities and will not require a reimbursable offset 

in Departmental Administration. 

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. 

Use of Prior Year Balances.—The recommendation includes the 

use of $10,000,000 from prior year funds to be carried over from 

fiscal year 2002 to offset the fiscal year 2003 funding requirements. 

Revenues.—The recommendation for revenues is $80,000,000, a 

reduction of $57,524,000 from the budget request. The budget request included $40,000,000 in revenues to be received from safeguards and security reimbursable activities. The Committee has 

provided direct funding for these activities and will not require revenues to offset this cost. The recommendation also includes a reduction of $17,524,000 based on the Congressional Budget Office’s 

current estimate of the Department’s revenue collections during fiscal year 2003. 

Transfer from Other Defense Activities.—For many years, full 

funding for all corporate and administrative activities of the Department has been provided in the energy portion of this bill despite the fact that over 70 percent of the Department’s funding is 

provided in the national security programs. The Committee recommendation distributes these costs more equitably in fiscal year 

2003 and provides $30,587,000 from national security programs, an 

increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request of $25,587,000. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $32,430,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 37,671,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 37,671,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +5,241,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $38,872,000 for the Inspector General included $1,201,000 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been 

reduced by this amount. 

The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. 

The audit function provides financial and performance audits of 

programs and operations. The inspections function provides independent inspections and analyses of the effectiveness, efficiency, 

and economy of programs and operations. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

During fiscal year 2001, Office of Inspector General reviews resulted in $13,600,000 being returned to the Department of the 

139

Treasury. In addition, the Inspector General’s audits have identified significant opportunities to improve Departmental operations 

and increase program efficiency. 

The Committee recommendation is $37,671,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security Administration which consists of Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management programs which include Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Defense 

Environmental Management Cleanup Reform, Defense Facilities 

Closure Projects, and 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 

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. 

The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is $7,908,417,000, 

a decrease of $114,932,000 from the budget request of 

$8,023,349,000, but an increase of $317,952,000 over fiscal year 

2002. 

Response to Inspector General Report.—The Inspector General 

issued a report ‘‘Nuclear Materials Accounting Systems Modernization Initiative’’ which concluded that the Department of Energy’s 

efforts to redesign or modernize its nuclear materials accounting 

systems were not adequate. The Department appears to spend over 

$200,000,000 annually to operate over 50 separate nuclear materials tracking systems and perform other activities pertaining to its 

nuclear materials inventory. The Inspector General recommended 

that the NNSA, the Office of Security, and the Chief Information 

Officer develop a coordinated approach, select a final alternative for 

modernizing nuclear accounting information systems that is consistent, and impose a moratorium on development efforts to minimize redundancy during development and selection of an alternative. 

The NNSA non-concurred with this recommendation by stating 

that ‘‘While we appreciate the efforts the IG made Departmentwide, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), as a 

140

separately organized agency, will evaluate the programmatic requirements for each site and then will make a determination if a 

common system is beneficial to the NNSA. This approach has 

caused some confusion on the part of DOE staff offices regarding 

the interrelationships between the two organizations.’’ While the NNSA may believe there is confusion regarding the 

interrelationships between the two organizations, the Committee 

does not. The NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency, but still part of 

the Department of Energy. It would better serve the nation’s interests if the NNSA chose to help further overall Department-wide objectives for efficiencies. Very few ‘‘NNSA sites’’ are funded 100 percent by the NNSA—the Department of Energy’s energy efficiency 

and renewable energy, nuclear energy, science, environmental 

management, and fossil energy programs provide funding to almost 

all NNSA sites. Unless the NNSA chooses to eliminate all other 

Departmental sources of funding at its sites, it will always be necessary to consider corporate-wide needs. 

Future Years Nuclear Security Program.—The Committee had 

hoped that the NNSA’s first Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) issued in March 2002 would represent the effective 

use of multi-year programming and budgeting information, including realistic resource constraints, which forces meaningful decisions 

on potential tradeoffs between programs. However, the FYNSP has 

several fundamental weaknesses that limit its usefulness for Congressional oversight. The actual funding NNSA needs to carry out 

its mission is not clearly delineated in the FYNSP. There is a significant amount of funding ($700 million in fiscal year 2004) identified as ‘‘Additional DOD funding for NNSA Nuclear Posture Review 

activities’’ which is apparently contained somewhere in the Department of Defense’s (DOD) budget structure. 

The NNSA budget and the FYNSP are built around activities 

rather than programs and products. The principal deliverables are 

the work products associated with the nine warhead types in the 

nuclear weapons stockpile, yet it is impossible to determine the 

total costs associated with any warhead. The FYNSP includes a 

laundry list of performance targets—few of which are the same as 

an identifiable program—and there is no specific funding associated with any of the performance targets. Thus, it is impossible to 

determine how a specific resource allocation will impact performance. 

Much of the funding is not well justified. Many weapons-related 

activities justify their need for funding in the name of the Nuclear 

Posture Review. However, the Nuclear Posture Review is a conceptual document that covers considerably more than the NNSA’s activities. Moreover, what discussion the Nuclear Posture Review 

does contain about NNSA is at a very high level—no specific costs 

associated with NNSA are contained in the Nuclear Posture Review. Since NNSA is expecting to require an additional $3.75 billion from DOD’s budget for Nuclear Posture Review activities, a 

more detailed description of how these additional funds will be 

used would be expected. 

It is difficult for the Congress to determine what NNSA proposes 

to accomplish with these funds. Performance targets for each activity are not presented in a consistent format. While some activities 

141

contain milestones that are measurable, many more activities, such 

as the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, use only general 

broad descriptions. These deficiencies indicate that the FYNSP was 

not created with the benefit of a sound, fully developed planning, 

programming, and budgeting system. When the NNSA develops an 

adequate planning, programming, and budgeting system, it should 

be able to produce a FYNSP that is: (1) shaped by high-level, 

prioritized program and budgetary guidance that is consistent with 

Administration’s policies and outyear budget projections; (2) built, 

consistent with this guidance, from the ‘‘bottom-up’’ by the NNSA 

programs, and (3) reviewed by NNSA’s senior leadership to ensure 

that the FYNSP is responsible, doable, and congruent with previously established program and budgetary guidance. 

It is not possible to develop a credible future-year national security program plan without the basic foundation provided by a robust planning, programming, and budgeting system (PPBS). The 

Committee directs the Department to conduct an independent assessment of the NNSA’s PPBS process and structure, including its 

comparability to that of the Department of Defense. The review 

should also determine whether the NNSA’s PPBS is capable of 

being used as the central decision-making process for current and 

future resource allocation decisions and the extent to which it has 

been incorporated into the operational systems of the NNSA management and operating contractors. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $5,560,238,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 5,867,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 5,772,068,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +211,830,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥94,932,000 

Note: The original budget request of $5,869,379,000 for Weapons Activities included $2,379,000 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. The budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

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 $5,772,068,000, a decrease of $94,932,000 

from the budget request of $5,867,000,000, but an increase of 

$211,830,000 over fiscal year 2002. 

Availability of funds.—Consistent with the provisions of H.R. 

4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, 

as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds in this account are available until September 30, 2005. 

Strategic Weapons Modernization.—The Administration’s Nuclear 

Posture Review has created great uncertainty within the Department of Energy and in Congress on the exact nature, rationale, 

scope, and duration of every strategic nuclear weapons modernization program. It does not appear that cost or cost-effectiveness were 

criteria considered during the review. The National Nuclear Security Administration has not been able to reconcile the recently anVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
142

nounced dramatic reductions planned for deployed operational nuclear warheads to its strategic weapons modernizations plans, some 

of which will cost billions of dollars each, and which are currently 

structured to upgrade the maximum number of warheads. Without 

a more definitive understanding of the nature of the suggested nuclear reserve force, and the investments that would be required to 

implement it, there is great risk that the Department of Energy 

will needlessly spend funds on weapons that will never be used. 

Meanwhile, NNSA has great infrastructure and other needs that 

are unmet, as does the nation as a whole. The Committee believes 

that much more work needs to be done during the next year by the 

Nuclear Weapons Council, a joint Departments of Defense and Energy organization, to better rationalize and articulate the requirements for future strategic weapons modernization. 

The Committee is concerned that no one has a clear understanding of what the nation needs to have a robust yet cost-effective strategic weapons modernization program. The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy in conjunction with the Secretary of 

Defense to provide a report to the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of Congress providing a specific inventory-objective for each nuclear weapon systems by year and in total through 

2012: an indication of the likely number of warheads that must be 

modernized and why; an estimate of the cost in then-year dollars 

to perform such modernization; and a certification that the Departments of Defense and Energy future years defense funding plans 

accompanying the fiscal year 2004 President’s budget are completely synchronized. This report is due to the Congressional defense committees not later than January 1, 2003. 

Selected Acquisition Reports.—The conference report for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002, directed 

the Administrator of the NNSA to submit Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) once a year to the Armed Services and Appropriations 

Committees of Congress to accompany the annual submission of 

the President’s Budget. The conferees directed that these reports be 

similar in content and format to those submitted to Congress by 

the Department of Defense for its weapon systems pursuant to section 2432 of Title 10 of United States Code. The SAR reporting system developed by the Department of Defense has been in place for 

decades and is well defined. Conversely, the Department of Energy’s weapon system reporting process atrophied, and no reports 

have been submitted from 1991 until this year. 

This year NNSA submitted reports on three weapon systems, 

each of whose acquisition cost is expected to exceed $1 billion, 

using the title ‘‘Nuclear Weapons Acquisition Report’’ rather than 

‘‘Selected Acquisition Report’’. However, NNSA used a decade-old 

format that is not responsive to the conference report direction, 

does not conform to reporting standards used by the Department 

of Defense, omits a significant amount of information required by 

Congress, and uses the different name. 

The General Accounting Office (GAO) in a report entitled 

‘‘NNSA: Nuclear Weapons Reports Need to be More Detailed and 

Comprehensive’’ examined the Department’s acquisition reports 

submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2003 and found major weaknesses. First, GAO questions why NNSA chose to report costs beVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
143

ginning with Phase 6.3 (Development Engineering) rather than 

Phase 6.2 (Design Definition and Cost Study) of weapons system 

acquisition. The Committee agrees with GAO that once weaponspecific research and development costs are approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council, they should be reported in annual SARs. 

Second, NNSA was specifically directed to report on all blocks of 

weapons to be refurbished in blocks, but this was ignored. GAO observes that DOE has ‘‘block’’ information in its Weapon Design and 

Cost Report, but it elected not to share it with the Congress. Third, 

GAO notes that NNSA’s reports are less detailed, less comprehensive, and omit significant cost components when compared to the 

Defense SARs. Unlike the Department of Defense, NNSA uses 

varying program baselines, has no written guidance, has no link to 

the budget or the Future Years Nuclear Security Program plan, 

and does not include all system-related costs. GAO cites ADAPT 

support for modifying Y–12 capabilities and ACORN production 

line expansion at the Kansas City plant as two examples of known 

costs that are being underreported. NNSA failed to include non-directed stockpile work costs such as system-specific construction, 

campaign work directly related to a refurbishment or life extension 

program, and readiness in technical base and facilities work directly related to a life extension program. GAO further notes that 

while NNSA did provide information on overall program milestones, it provided no information on contractor performance, and 

provided no cost and schedule variance analysis data in its fiscal 

year 2003 reports. Fourth, GAO indicates that NNSA has over-classified the documents by marking them as classified in their entirety rather than specifically portion-marking each section as is 

routinely done by the Department of Defense. 

The Committee notes that acquisition decisions affecting nuclear 

weapon refurbishment and life extension are made by the joint Departments of Defense and Energy Nuclear Weapons Council. A 

member of the Council is the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology who is charged with the responsibility for submitting defense Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress. The Council therefore, by virtue of its membership, has sufficient expertise to ensure that Congressional Selected Acquisition 

Reporting requirements can be met. 

The Committee directs NNSA to submit Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress in fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years 

in an identical manner to those submitted by the Department of 

Defense. NNSA shall use the title ‘‘Selected Acquisition Report’’, 

use the Department of Defense standard format and classification 

methodology, and include identical types of information on program 

cost, schedule, and contractor performance. The Committee has included a provision requiring that after March 1, 2003, none of the 

funds for Weapons Activities may be obligated or expended for activities of the Nuclear Weapons Council until the Council certifies 

to the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of Congress 

that Selected Acquisition Reports submitted to Congress in the fiscal year 2004 budget by the Department of Energy are identical in 

format, content, and security classification to those submitted by 

the Department of Defense. 

144

Budgeting and Accounting for Nuclear Weapons Systems.—A December 2000 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) entitled ‘‘Improved Management Needed to Implement Stockpile Stewardship Program Effectively’’ discusses weaknesses in the National 

Nuclear Security Agency’s budgeting system and other management systems for nuclear weapons. Title 32 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) which 

established the NNSA included section 3252 which responded to 

criticisms voiced by GAO and others by mandating establishment 

of a planning, programming and budgeting system that comports 

with sound financial and fiscal management principles. Despite 

this requirement, deficiencies continue to exist. For example, a 

March 2002 report to Congress by the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile 

says that NNSA must create a multi-year program that describes 

program deliverables, allocates resources to those deliverables, 

makes budget categories transparent, and clearly identifies direct 

and indirect charges. An April 2002 report to the Secretary of Energy by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on 

Science and Security in the 21st Century recommends that the Department install a rigorous multi-year budget process modeled on 

the planning, programming, and budgeting system at the Department of Defense. It is apparent that external reviewers find the 

NNSA’s current budgeting and accounting system inadequate. 

While NNSA is now implementing a planning, programming, and 

budgeting system, its approach is substantially different from the 

Department of Defense model and has yet to yield the quality of 

information envisioned in Title 32. 

Before a credible planning, programming, and budgeting system 

can be implemented, the Department of Energy (like all major corporations) must have meaningful cost and accounting information 

on which to base such systems. In response to questions raised during a hearing this year, the Administrator of the NNSA acknowledged that the Department of Energy’s official budget and accounting systems do not track the cost of each nuclear weapon system. 

Information provided to the Committee also indicates that the cost 

estimate for refurbishment of the W–80 warhead for air launched 

cruise missiles grew 27 percent-over $210 million in less than one 

year-before Congress had even approved the start of the program. 

GAO found similar cost overruns with the W87 life extension program. Obviously, the Department’s budgeting and accounting for 

nuclear weapons costs, and its ability to estimate costs accurately, 

is suspect. 

The conference report for the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act, 2002, required NNSA to budget by weapon system. The Department’s fiscal year 2003 budget did not adequately 

respond to that requirement; it contains a one page list of weapon 

system costs, but no detailed budget justification for programs 

which cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. In addition, nearly $500,000,000 was not allocated to any weapon system. 

During his testimony before the Committee this year, the Secretary 

of Energy acknowledged shortcomings in the Department’s systems 

for budgeting and accounting for nuclear weapons. 

145

The Committee has also included bill language to require the Department of Energy to improve its budget and accounting systems 

and to have such improvements in place by the time the fiscal year 

2005 President’s budget is submitted to the Congress. The Committee further recommends that $10,000,000 be provided only for 

that purpose. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The conference agreement provides 

limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in 

advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The reprogramming thresholds will be as follows: directed stockpile 

work, science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion, advanced simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in technical base and facilities. This should 

provide the needed flexibility to manage these programs. 

In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these categories and each construction 

project subject to the following limitations: only one transfer may 

be made to or from any program or project; the transfer must be 

necessary to address a risk to health, safety or the environment or 

to assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a 

site; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress has 

specifically denied funds or for a new program or project that has 

not been authorized by Congress. 

Congressional notification within 15 days of the use of this reprogramming authority is required. Transfers during the fiscal 

year which would result in increases or decreases in excess of 

$5,000,000 or which would be subject to the limitations outlined in 

the previous paragraph require prior notification and approval 

from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, and certification activities. The 

Committee recommendation is $1,234,467,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

The fiscal year 2003 budget request identified specific funding 

amounts by weapons system. The Committee is to be notified in advance if the proposed funding levels for any weapons system 

change from the estimate provided in the fiscal year 2003 budget 

justification. 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.—The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $15,000,000 to initiate a study 

for a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This three-year study will 

evaluate the feasibility and costs associated with modifying one of 

the two candidate existing nuclear weapons to improve its utility 

against hard and deeply buried targets. The study will involve simulation, sub- and full system impact testing, and analysis and 

prototyping of components. Congressional approval will be required 

before any actual modifications are initiated. 

146

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production plants, 

and selected external organizations to address critical capabilities 

needed to achieve program objectives. The Committee recommendation is $2,088,917,000, an increase of $21,083,000 over the budget 

request of $2,067,834,000. 

From within funds provided for the various campaigns, 

$4,300,000 is for the University Research Program in Robotics. 

As part of its review of the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the 

Committee asked the Department to provide project baseline data 

for each campaign to include a brief description of the campaign 

with planned completion dates, the total estimated cost of each 

campaign, the costs by fiscal year for each major component of the 

campaign, and a list of major milestones by year. The Department 

failed to provide most of the requested information. This lack of 

project definition and budget plans makes it very difficult to determine how the campaigns are actually contributing to the overall 

goals of the stockpile stewardship programs and whether they are 

doing it on a timely basis. The Committee expects the Department 

to provide detailed project baseline data for each campaign showing 

the annual and five-year costs, schedule, scope, and deliverables for 

individual project activities as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget 

request. 

Science campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for science 

campaigns in $213,949,000, a reduction of $21,519,000 from the 

budget request. The dynamic materials properties campaign was 

reduced by $5,594,000, and the advanced radiography campaign 

was reduced by $15,925,000 due to slower than anticipated costing 

rates. 

Engineering campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

engineering campaigns is $239,410,000, the same as the budget request. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion.—The Committee recommends 

$498,793,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an increase of $47,000,000 over the budget request of $451,793,000. 

The recommendation includes $25,000,000 to continue development of high average power lasers and supporting science and 

technology, and an additional $4,000,000 for development of 

petawatt laser capabilities. 

The Committee recommendation also includes the budget request of $10,000,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory, and $54,200,000 

for the University of Rochester, an increase of $18,0000,000 over 

the budget request. This additional funding has been provided to 

the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics for 

the OMEGA Extended Performance Facility in support of the nation’s stockpile stewardship program. 

The Committee recommendation provides $214,045,000 for construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same as the 

budget request. The Committee is disturbed to see that NNSA is 

changing the focus from the specific goal of ignition to a generalized physics research program. Ignition now appears to be only one 

of several objectives for the NIF. At this stage in the construction 

147

project, the Committee expects that confidence in achieving the ignition objective should be increasing, not receding. The Committee 

directs NNSA to re-establish ignition as the primary objective and 

justification for the NIF. 

The Committee chose not to change the name of the Inertial Confinement Fusion program to High Energy Density as proposed by 

the Department. 

Advanced simulation and computing.—The Committee recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is 

$724,862,000, the same as the budget request.

Pit manufacturing and certification.—The Committee recommendation for pit manufacturing readiness is $194,484,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

Readiness campaigns.—The Committee recommendation for 

readiness campaigns is $217,419,000, a reduction of $4,398,000 

from the budget request. The non-nuclear readiness campaign was 

reduced by $4,398,000 due to slower than anticipated costing rates. 

Tritium readiness.—The Department continues to maintain a 

schedule to produce tritium by 2006. Anticipated changes in the 

nuclear weapons stockpile will extend the date by which tritium is 

needed. In striving to meet this deadline, the cost of the Tritium 

Extraction Facility has increased by 25 percent. The Committee 

urges the Department to work with the Department of Defense to 

determine a more realistic schedule for starting production of tritium which will not require additional funding nor lead to operating 

new facilities which will then be contaminated and shutdown for 

an extended period of time due to lack of need for the tritium. 

The Department recently acknowledged that the Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina has experienced serious cost overruns and schedule delays. Once again 

lax Federal project management oversight and poor contractor performance have resulted in a project that will cost substantially 

more than planned and fail to meet deadlines for performance. The 

Department should submit to the Committee a detailed report 

identifying the steps being taken to correct the problems on this 

project and to ensure that similar problems are not occurring on 

other projects. 

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 $1,738,229,000, an increase of $50,000,000 over 

the budget request of $1,688,229,000. 

Additional funding of $25,000,000 has been provided for the 

Pantex plant in Texas and $20,000,000 for the Y–12 Plant in Tennessee to meet facility needs. 

Enhanced test readiness.—As part of the Nuclear Posture Review, the NNSA was directed to refine test scenarios and evaluate 

cost/benefits to determine the optimum test readiness time to support the stockpile stewardship mission. Pending completion of that 

study and a specific policy change, the recommendation provides 

the budget request of $15,000,000. The Department is directed to 

148

notify the Committee before any of these funds are obligated in fiscal year 2003. 

Material recycle and recovery.—The Committee recommendation 

for material recycle and recovery is $103,816,000, an increase of 

$5,000,000 over the budget request. Additional funding of 

$5,000,000 has been provided for activities at the Y–12 Plant in 

Tennessee. 

Construction projects.—Project 03–D–103, Project engineering 

and design (PE&D), has been increased by $1,500,000 to 

$17,039,000. Funding for the LIGA Technologies Facility that was 

included in the fiscal year 2002 PE&D project has been transferred 

to fiscal year 2003 since design is currently scheduled to being in 

fiscal year 2003. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure 

Recapitalization program (F&I) is $242,512,000, the same as the 

budget request. The Committee is encouraged by the execution of 

this program to date and expects the NNSA to ensure that the results of this funding are quantifiable and quickly show measured 

improvements at each site. 

This is a corporate program to restore, rebuild, and revitalize the 

physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. It is to 

stem the downward trend in the condition of the complex and address the backlog of maintenance, repair, and upgrade projects. 

Base maintenance and infrastructure efforts at NNSA sites are primarily funded within the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program and through site overhead allocations. These efforts 

ensure that facilities necessary for immediate programmatic workload activities are maintained to support that workload. The Committee directs NNSA to ensure that funds for recapitalization are 

not diverted to fund ongoing maintenance and programmatic needs. 

The Committee directs that at least 25 percent of the facilities 

and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2003 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. Anecdotal evidence indicates that 

for a variety of reasons the Department is not always procuring 

services to demolish excess facilities in the most cost effective manner. Thus, the Committee directs that none of these funds may be 

used to D&D or demolish excess facilities unless the services are 

procured though an open-competition allowing experienced contractors throughout the country to bid on each disposal project. 

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 $152,989,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

149

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

This program provides for all safeguards and security requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee recommendation is 

$509,954,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase of 

nearly 14 percent over fiscal year 2002. Physical safeguards and security measures are only part of the solution to address security 

concerns throughout the weapons complex. With program needs 

going unmet and infrastructure deteriorating, the Committee 

strongly encourages the NNSA to review these growing costs and 

seek smarter and more efficient ways to meet security needs. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation for Weapons Activities includes the use of 

prior year balances of $195,000,000. The budget request included 

an offset of $28,985,000 for the safeguards and security charge for 

reimbursable work. The Committee has provided direct funding for 

this activity and eliminated the funding offset.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $1,029,586,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 1,113,630,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,167,630,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +138,044,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +54,000,000 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes funding 

for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development; 

Nonproliferation and International Security; Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International Materials Protection, 

Control, and Cooperation, Russian Transition Initiative, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety, Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium 

Production; Fissile Materials Disposition; and Program Direction. 

Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below. 

Availability of funds.—Consistent with the provisions of H.R. 

4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, 

as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds in this account are available until September 30, 2005. 

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 $283,407,000, the same as 

the budget request, and includes $121,500,000 for proliferation detection; $89,395,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, of which 

$20,160,000 is for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring; 

150

$69,000,000 for chemical and biological national security; and 

$3,512,000 for supporting activities. 

The Committee has continuing concerns with the management of 

the research and development program. The Department needs to 

involve the end users in the project proposal process, not allow laboratories and Headquarters program managers to come up with 

ideas and then shop them around to end users. While funds for research and development are increasing, there is a gap not being 

filled between long-term laboratory research and development and 

what private industry is currently developing. The potential users 

of these technologies are looking for short-term improved products, 

not long-term research and development projects. The need to 

quickly bring incrementally-improved technologies to the marketplace has never been more urgent. 

An additional concern is the lack of integrated program plans 

that ensure projects are complementary and not duplicative and a 

lack of metrics to evaluate project performance. Effective mechanisms are not in place to ensure efforts are not duplicating the 

work of other Federal agencies, and there is limited coordination 

of Federal research with private and academic research. 

Competitive Research.—The Committee directs the Department 

to provide additional opportunities for open competition in 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 believes there 

are numerous private companies, non-DOE laboratories, and universities that have products, expertise and abilities to offer in the 

development of tools to strengthen the United States’ response to 

threats to national security. The Committee directs the Department to provide a free and open competitive process for at least 

$113,000,000 which is 40 percent of the nonproliferation and 

verification research and development activities during fiscal year 

2003. The competitive process should be open to all Federal and 

non-Federal entities. 

Annual Report Requirement.—The Committee directs the Department to prepare an annual report of each project with the baseline 

cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, lab performing the research 

and development, and the proposed user and submit this with the 

fiscal year 2004 budget. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The nonproliferation and international security program (formerly the Arms Control program) seeks to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials, 

technology, and expertise. The major functional areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy; international safeguards; export control; and treaties and agreements. The Committee recommendation for nonproliferation and international security is 

$92,668,000, the same as the budget request. 

Within the nonproliferation policy program is the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) program to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by minimizing and possibly 

eliminating the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in civilian 

151

nuclear programs worldwide. The RERTR program develops the 

technologies needed to substitute LEU for HEU in research and 

test reactors, and this is to be completed by 2009. The recommendation includes the budget request of $5,500,000.

Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the Russian Foreign Research Reactor Fuel Return (RFR) initiative to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by repatriating to Russia civilian 

HEU fuel from Russian-supplied research reactors in various countries including those located in regions of proliferation concern. The 

recommendation includes the budget request of $9,500,000. 

NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA

The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian nuclear 

weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific expertise from 

Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons materials, and help 

downsize the Russian nuclear weapons complex. 

Limitation on Russian Program Funds.—The Department is still 

not adequately addressing the problem 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, 2002, on the steps being taken to meet the 25 percent limitation. 

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND COOPERATION

The International Materials Protection, Control and Cooperation 

program, (formerly called the International Materials Protection, 

Control and Accounting program), is designed to work cooperatively 

with Russia to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material. The focus is to improve the physical security at facilities that 

possess or process significant quantities of nuclear weapons-usable 

that are of proliferation concern. Activities include installing monitoring equipment, inventorying nuclear material, improving the 

Russian security culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. 

The Committee recommendation is $243,077,000, an increase of 

$10,000,000 over the budget request of $233,077,000. 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. 

152

RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition Initiative program is $39,334,000, the same as the budget request. 

This includes the Initiative for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI) to develop projects 

to employ Russian weapons scientists and downsize the Russian 

weapons complex. 

HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION

The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency implementation program develops and implements mutually-agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement between the 

United States and the Russian Federation. This agreement, which 

has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers the purchase over 20 

years of low enriched uranium (LEU) derived from 500 metric tons 

of HEU removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under 

the agreement, conversion of HEU components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The Committee recommendation is 

$17,229,000, the same as the budget request. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION

With the completion in fiscal year 2003 of the Soviet-designed reactor safety program, the international nuclear safety and cooperation program will reorient its activities to address critical nuclear 

safety issues worldwide in countries of concern. The Committee recommendation is $11,576,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from the 

budget request of $14,576,000. The Committee notes that other 

Federal and international entities already have nuclear safety as 

a primary mission. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program will be transferred from the Department of Defense to the 

Department of Energy in fiscal year 2003. This is a cooperative effort with the Federation of Russia to stop plutonium production at 

three nuclear reactors still in operation in Russia, two located at 

Seversk and one at Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors have approximately 15 years of remaining lifetime and could generate an 

additional 25 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also 

provide heat and electricity required by the surrounding communities. The current approach is to shutdown these three reactors 

within six years by providing alternate fossil-fueled energy plants 

to supply heat and electricity to the surrounding communities. The 

total estimated cost to shutdown the three nuclear reactors and 

build two new fossil-fuel plants is $470,000,000. The Committee 

recommendation is $49,339,000, the same as the budget request. In 

addition to the budget request, $74,000,000 in unobligated balances 

is being transferred from the Department of Defense’s Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program to DOE.

The Committee is quite concerned about execution of this very 

complicated program which involves substantial contributions and 

coordination with the Russian Government. The Department has 

been so anxious to move forward on this program that it non-comVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
153

petitively assigned the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

(PNNL) to serve as lead U.S. contractor, at a time when the program still officially belonged to Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA) and not to DOE. While PNNL may be a logical choice for 

the reactor safety upgrade tasks, PNNL has limited expertise and 

experience in the design and construction of large-scale civil construction projects in Russia, especially in the closed cities. Also, the 

Department proposes to contract through PNNL with 

Rosatomstroy, an unproven subsidiary of the Ministry for Atomic 

Energy of the Russian Federation (MINATOM), for management 

and integration of the fossil fuel projects. In so doing, the Department ignores at its peril the lessons learned by the U.S. Government on the Fissile Material Storage Facility at Mayak. 

The Department is rushing forward with neither a sound acquisition strategy nor a management approach designed to ensure the 

success of this $470 million program. Accordingly, the Committee 

directs the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA 

to require the application to the fossil fuel projects of the Department’s established directives on project management, to include acquisition planning, alternative analysis, and critical decision approvals of these products at the levels prescribed by the Department’s directives, before expenditure of funds appropriated for this 

program can begin. The Department is required to provide to the 

Committee, not later than January 31, 2003, a revised project management plan for the two fossil fuel plants, including a revised 

baseline schedule and cost estimate developed with the assistance 

of the Office of Engineering and Construction Management in the 

Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation. 

Further, the Department is directed to explore alternative means 

of accomplishing the design and construction of the fossil fuel 

plants in Russia. One option the Committee supports exploring is 

for the Department to use the services of the Army Corps of Engineers on a reimbursable basis, with the Department designating 

the Corps as the project manager for the fossil fuel plants. PNNL 

would remain as the project manager for the reactor safety upgrades. For purposes of the various agreements between the United 

States of America and the Russian Federation, and between the 

U.S. Department of Energy and MINATOM, concerning the cessation of plutonium production at the operating reactors in Seversk 

and the reactor in Zheleznogorsk, the Department would need to 

designate the Army Corps of Engineers as DOE’s technical representative for matters relating to the design, analyses, procurement, construction, acceptance testing, startup, equipment, property, materials, personnel, training, and technical services required 

to implement the fossil fuel provisions of these agreements. The 

Department of Energy would maintain its official status as the Executive Agent for the United States for these agreements. 

Misuse of Funds.—The Committee is aware that the Department 

allowed its contractor to initiate program activities in advance of 

receiving funds for the elimination of weapons-grade plutonium 

production program. Almost $1,000,000 of funding was diverted 

from other programs to begin activities that had neither been approved nor funded by Congress. The Committee directs that none 

of the fiscal year 2003 funding provided herein be used to repay 

154

any program expenditure made before October 1, 2002. The Committee also directs the Chief Financial Officer to prepare a report 

explaining how the Department’s contracting and financial controls 

allowed this expenditure in advance of an appropriation. This report is due to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

by October 15, 2002. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The fissile materials disposition program is responsible for the 

technical and management activities to assess, plan and direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally sound longterm storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to national defense 

needs. 

The Committee recommendation is $438,000,000, a reduction of 

$10,000,000 from the budget request. Funding of $350,000,000 is 

provided for U.S. surplus materials disposition and $88,000,000 for 

the Russian plutonium disposition program. The $10,000,000 reduction is to be applied to the Russian program for support and 

oversight in the United States, which has increased to more than 

one-third of the funding for this 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. 

Construction projects.—Based on needs identified in the latest 

project review, the Committee recommendation transfers 

$2,000,000 to Project 99–D–141, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, from the operating expenses associated with this 

project. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recognizes that program activities managed by 

the Department’s Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation have 

continued to increase. The Committee has previously directed the 

Office to reduce the number of contractors at Headquarters by converting these positions to Federal employees and expects the Office 

to move promptly. Thus, the Committee directs that a minimum of 

250 Federal employees be fully funded in the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in fiscal year 2003 to allow for increased program oversight by the Federal employees. 

The Committee recommendation provides $57,000,000 for salaries and other expenses for the Federal employees in the Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation organization. Funding for this activity 

was included in the budget request for the Office of the Administrator for NNSA, but no amount was specified. This funding provides for Federal employees and supporting activities at Headquarters, field offices, and international offices.

None of these funds may be taxed by the NNSA for any purpose 

without prior notification and approval by the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations. 

155

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation includes the use of $64,000,000 

of prior year balances, the same as the budget request. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $688,045,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 706,790,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 706,790,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +18,745,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $708,020,000 for Naval Reactors included $1,230,000 to fund proposed 

legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. The budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion—from technology development through 

reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. The program 

provides for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants and to developing the next generation 

reactor. 

The Committee recommendation is $706,790,000, the same as 

the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $312,596,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 335,929,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 261,929,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥50,667,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥74,000,000 

Note: The original budget request of $347,705,000 for the Office of the Administrator included $11,776,000 

to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of 

retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has 

been reduced by this amount. 

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 

$261,929,000, a reduction of $74,000,000 from the budget request. 

Funding of $54,000,000 has been transferred to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program to allow greater management flexibility for that office in hiring and supporting Federal employees. 

The NNSA has been in existence for more than two years, but 

the management efficiencies and economies that Congress expected 

to result from this new organization have so far failed to materialize. The Committee is still waiting for the streamlined processes 

and redefined roles in the management of the nation’s nuclear 

weapons complex that will lead to reduced staffing needs. The 

Committee has also been disappointed in the response of the NNSA 

to Committee direction included in the reports accompanying the 

fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill; to additional requests for information in support of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation; and to the 

submission of reports required by the fiscal year 2002 appropriaVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
156

tions bill. Consistent with the direction provided in the Housepassed Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization bill, a reduction of $20,000,000 has been applied to this account. 

The Committee urges the Administrator of NNSA to provide at 

least $5,000,000 for the NNSA Office of Project Management and 

Engineering Support to continue its project oversight work and to 

provide training and mentoring programs to improve the skills of 

NNSA project managers. The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as 

the budget request, for official reception and representation expenses for the NNSA. 

Availability of funds.—Consistent with the provisions of H.R. 

4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, 

as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds in this account are available until September 30, 2003. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $5,242,776,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 4,544,133,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 4,543,661,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥699,115,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥472,000 

Note: The original budget request of $4,558,360,000 for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management included $14,227,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not 

been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

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. These responsibilities include facilities and areas at 114 geographic sites. These sites are located 

in 30 states and one territory and occupy an area equal to that of 

Rhode Island and Delaware combined—or about two million acres. 

Environmental management activities are budgeted under the 

following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Environmental Management Cleanup 

Reform; Defense Facilities Closure Projects; Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Non-Defense Environmental 

Management; and Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Restoration and Waste Management is $4,543,661,000, a reduction 

of $472,000 from the budget request. Details of the recommended 

funding levels follow. 

GENERAL

The Committee strongly supports the Department’s reform initiatives and hopes to realize significant life-cycle cost savings and program efficiencies from new and innovative cleanup strategies 

throughout the complex. Efforts should continue to focus on reducVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
157

ing risk, accelerating cleanup, and eliminating activities that do 

not contribute to risk reduction and cleanup.

Budget Justifications.—The Environmental Management program budget justifications need to be revised to more fully identify 

the effects of the accelerated cleanup program. With the current 

budget structure, it is difficult to tie specific resources to measurable outcomes; complete project baseline data including the total 

cost, scope and schedule is not available; overhead costs are not 

transparent; and numerous activities that have no direct relevance 

to cleanup are buried throughout the budget. The Office of Environmental Management is directed to work with the Committee to 

identify specific changes to be made in the fiscal year 2004 budget 

submittal. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for some flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at former defense sites which are undergoing remedial 

cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2003, 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 funds projects that will be 

completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or facilities where a DOE 

mission will continue beyond the year 2006. This account focuses 

management attention on completing specific environmental 

projects at sites where the Department anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes these projects from the long-term cleanup 

activities such as those associated with high level waste streams. 

The Committee recommendation is $787,950,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

POST 2006 COMPLETION

Environmental Management projects currently projected to require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post 2006 

completion account. This includes a significant number of projects 

at the largest DOE sites—the Hanford site in Washington; the Savannah River site in South Carolina; the Oak Ridge Reservation in 

Tennessee; and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory in Idaho—as well as the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Nevada Test Site, and the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. A variety of multi-site activities are also funded in this account. 

158

From within available funds provided to the Richland site, funding is available to support the Hazardous Materials Management 

and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training and education center during fiscal year 2003. The Committee understands that this 

facility will seek another source of funding and be moved from the 

environmental management program after fiscal year 2003.

Health Effects Studies.—The Committee recommendation does 

not include any funding for worker and public health effects studies. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

(D&D) FUND CONTRIBUTION

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102–486, created the 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund 

to pay for the cost of cleanup of the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes the budget 

request of $442,000,000 for the defense contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as 

authorized in Public Law 102–486. These funds were included in 

the budget request for multi-site activities, but the recommendation has provided the funding in a separate program to provide 

greater visibility for this expenditure. 

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 $103,000,000, an increase of 

$11,000,000 over the budget request of $92,000,000. 

While the Committee supports the effort to restructure the 

science and technology program to focus on core research and development functions to support intermediate and long-term needs 

for cleanup and closure, failure to fund multi-year agreements 

hurts the Department’s credibility as a reliable partner. The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 to continue the fiveyear cooperative agreement with the Florida International University’s Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology and 

$4,000,000 to continue the five-year AEA Technology International 

Agreement. 

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. 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 

159

$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 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 longterm costs and risk. 

MULTI-SITE ACTIVITIES

Multi-site activities provide management and direction for various crosscutting initiatives, establish national and departmental 

policies, and conduct analysis and integrate actions across the complex. The Committee recommendation is $47,352,000 for multi-site 

activities, a reduction of $432,519,000 from the budget request of 

$479,871,000. The following funding adjustments are included: 

$442,000,000 requested for the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund 

Contribution has been transferred to a separate program; 

$1,000,000 requested for packaging certification in the non-defense 

account has been transferred here; and $8,481,000 has been provided for the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program. 

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 $228,260,000, the same as the budget request. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $344,000,000 for program direction, 

the same as the budget request. 

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 use of prior year balances of 

$34,000,000. The budget request included an offset of $4,347,000 

for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work. The 

Committee has provided direct funding for this activity and eliminated the funding offset. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP REFORM

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ ............................

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... $1,100,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +1,100,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

160

The Environmental Management Cleanup Reform appropriation 

is designed to enable the Department, the States, and the American taxpayer to begin realizing the benefits immediately of alternative cleanup approaches that will produce more real risk reduction, accelerate cleanup, and achieve much needed cost and schedule improvements. This new account is critical to beginning implementation of the recent top-to-bottom review of the Department’s 

environmental management programs. 

These funds will be made available only when the Department 

enters into revised agreements that have the potential for significant life-cycle cost savings over the current baseline cleanup approach. When the Department reaches agreement with regulatory 

officials, establishes a new funding profile, and estimates the cost 

savings for the alternate cleanup strategy, these funds will be 

transferred to the existing cleanup accounts to fund the new 

projects or supplement funding for ongoing projects. 

The Administration’s original budget request indicated that an additional $300,000,000 would be requested in a budget amendment if the approved agreements exceeded the available funding of 

$800,000,000. From the accelerated cleanup agreements reached to 

date which total more than $750,000,000, it is apparent that the 

initial request of $800,000,000 will be exceeded during fiscal year 

2003. Thus, the Committee has provided a total of $1,100,000,000. 

[Note: The Administration submitted a budget amendment for the 

additional $300,000,000 on August 2, 2002.] 

The Committee directs that none of the funds be released until 

the execution of a site performance management plan and upon its 

submission to the congressional defense committees. The site performance management plan is defined as a plan, agreed to by the 

applicable Federal and State agencies with regulatory jurisdiction 

with respect to the site, that provides for the performance of activities that will accelerate the reduction of environmental risk and accelerate cleanup at the site. Upon transfer and merger of the funds, 

all funds in the merged account are available only to carry out the 

site performance management plan at the site. 

DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $1,092,878,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 1,091,314,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 1,091,314,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥1,564,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

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. Sites in this account include the 

Rocky Flats Closure Project in Colorado, and several sites in 

Ohio—Ashtabula, Columbus, Fernald, and Miamisburg. Fiscal year 

2003 funding for each closure site is discussed below. 

Rocky Flats Closure Project.—The Committee has provided fiscal year 2003 funding of $664,000,000, the same as the budget request, 

for the Rocky Flats site in Colorado. The Committee is aware that, 

161

to meet the 2006 deadline for closure, 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. It is only through 

successful site closures that funds will be made available to support expensive future cleanup projects at Hanford and Idaho. 

Ohio Sites.—The Committee is encouraged that the Department 

is seeking to ensure that the 2006 closure date for each of these 

sites is met. 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 2003, 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 $427,314,000, the same as 

the budget request, for the following Ohio sites: Ashtabula— $16,000,000; Columbus Environmental Management Project— $16,100,000; Miamisburg—$96,028,000; and Fernald— $299,186,000. 

A recent Inspector General report ‘‘Cost Sharing at the Ashtabula Environmental Management Project’’ raised concerns that 

the Department was accepting full financial responsibility for remediating the site when a portion of the work performed by the 

contractor was for commercial customers. In addition, the Inspector 

General questioned the fees paid for work that is taking place on 

contractor-owned sites. The Committee expects the Department to 

address this issue, assure an equitable allocation of site cleanup 

costs, and report to the Committee on the resolution of this issue 

by December 15, 2002. 

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 at closure 

sites is $37,161,000, the same as the budget request. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $153,537,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 158,399,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 158,399,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +4,862,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental 

Management Privatization program is $158,399,000, the same as 

the budget request. The recommendation includes $105,000,000 for 

the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project and $53,399,000 for 

the Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage Facility, both located in Idaho. 

162

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $547,544,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 468,664,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 485,076,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥62,468,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +16,412,000 

Note: The original budget request of $472,156,000 for Other Defense Activities included $3,492,000 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been 

reduced by this amount. 

This account provides funding for Energy Security and Assurance; the Office of Security; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Worker and Community Transition; National Security Programs Administrative Support; and the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs are 

provided below. 

ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE

The Energy Security and Assurance program supports the national security by working to protect the Nation against severe energy supply disruptions. Though protecting our energy 

vulnerabilities will largely be accomplished through the private 

sector, there is a strong national coordinating and analytical role 

to be filled by the Federal government. This effort in fiscal year 

2003 will provide resources to enhance energy assurance critical assessment and response capabilities, conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments, analyze energy systems and infrastructure security, respond to energy emergencies, and support the National 

Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC). 

The Committee recommendation for energy security and assurance is $27,686,000, the same as the budget request, for energy security and assurance activities to coordinate with the States and 

industry and to lead the Federal government’s effort to ensure a secure flow of energy. Funding of $19,311,000, the same as the budget request, has been provided for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center which is proposed for transfer to the 

new Office of Homeland Security. The Committee expects the focus 

of NISAC to remain on critical energy infrastructure vulnerabilities 

during fiscal year 2003. 

The Committee strongly supports the development of critical energy infrastructure vulnerability assessments and expects the Department to provide a detailed project plan by November 30, 2002, 

that includes the cost, schedule, scope and milestones for this effort. The plan should address how each State will be involved in 

the program, and describe the training program to be used for state 

emergency planning. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY

The Office of Security provides a domestic safeguards and security program for protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, 

nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified information 

against sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any loss or unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national security or 

163

disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation for security 

and emergency operations is $210,515,000, an increase of 

$25,000,000 over the budget request of $185,515,000.

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to fund a 

portion of the Department’s corporate management information 

program which is the same amount as fiscal year 2002, and 

$15,000,000 to fund a portion of the Department’s cybersecurity 

and secure communications activities. In fiscal year 2002 the conference agreement allocated these costs between the defense and 

non-defense accounts of the Department, but the fiscal year 2003 

budget request included all costs in the Departmental Administration account. The Committee recommendation once again apportions these costs between programs. 

In fiscal year 2003, the Department of Energy will spend over $1 

billion on safeguards and security activities at Headquarters and 

field locations. The $210,515,000 provided to the Office of Security 

is for Headquarters activities only. Funding for safeguards and security activities at Departmental facilities and laboratories in the 

field is included within each program budget. 

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 

$41,246,000, the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and implement 

an effective counterintelligence program throughout the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to identify, neutralize, 

and deter foreign government or industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department’s facilities, personnel, information, and 

technologies. The Committee recommendation is $45,955,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

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, environment, safety and health, and 

cyber security. The Committee recommendation is $22,430,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops programs 

and policies to protect the workers and the public, and funds health 

effects studies. The Committee recommendation is $94,041,000, a 

reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request of $99,041,000, 

due to funding constraints. With a significant Headquarters staff 

164

of Federal employees, the Committee continues to believe that outside contractor assistance can be reduced. 

The recommendation for health effects studies is $48,160,000, the 

same as the budget request. The recommended level of funding is 

the same as the prior fiscal year after eliminating the special purpose projects of $8,750,000 that were included in the fiscal year 

2002 appropriation. The Department funds several programs for occupational medicine, public health studies, and epidemiologic monitoring. The Committee expects the Department to review all these 

activities to achieve efficiencies through consolidation. 

WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

The Committee’s recommendation for the worker and community 

transition program is $19,683,000, a reduction of $6,000,000 from 

the budget request of $25,683,000, due to funding constraints. 

Funding has remained stable or increased in many Departmental 

programs, and there are no significant contractor reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2003. 

The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for infrastructure improvements at the former Pinellas weapons plant. 

The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for this 

program be used for additional severance payments and benefits 

for Federal employees. 

The worker and community transition program was established 

to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of contractor 

workforce reductions as a result of the end of the Cold War. Funds 

are provided for enhanced severance payments to employees at 

former defense sites, and for assisting community planning for defense conversion through Federal grants. However, the cost of this 

program has not been insignificant and now exceeds $1 billion. 

With program funds increasing in fiscal year 2003 at NNSA and 

environmental cleanup sites, the Committee sees no need to increase funding for severance benefits above the fiscal year 2002 

level. 

Program direction.—The Committee recommendation of 

$2,000,000 for program direction, a reduction of $718,000 from the 

budget request, is the same as fiscal year 2002. 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $30,587,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the budget request of $25,587,000, to provide administrative support for national security programs. This 

will fund Departmental activities performed by offices such as the 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary, the General 

Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, Congressional 

Affairs, and Public Affairs which organizations support the organizations funded in the atomic energy defense activities accounts.

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for all 

of the Department’s adjudicatory processes, other than those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The 

165

Committee recommendation is $2,933,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments in- cludes the use of $10,000,000 in prior year balances, an increase 

of $3,300,000 over the budget request of $6,700,000. The budget request also included an offset of $712,000 for the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work. The Committee has provided 

direct funding for this activity and eliminated the need for this 

funding offset. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $280,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 315,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 315,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +35,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

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 2001, the balance owed by the Federal government to 

the Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,350,039,000 (including principal 

and interest). The Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation 

was established to ensure payment of the Federal government’s 

contribution to the nuclear waste repository program. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $1,693,129,000 has been appropriated to 

support nuclear waste repository activities attributable to atomic 

energy defense activities. The Committee recommendation is $315,000,000, the same as 

the budget request. Combined with the budget request of 

$209,702,000 from the Nuclear Waste Fund, this will provide a 

total of $524,702,000 for nuclear waste fund activities at the Yucca 

Mountain site in Nevada in fiscal year 2003. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 

transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of 

Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95–

91). These functions include the power marketing activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and all other 

functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville 

Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated 

funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 does not support the 

Administration proposal to continue the phase-out of federal fiVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
166

nancing of the customers’ purchase power and wheeling expenses 

for the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern 

Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does not at this time incorporate the Administration proposal for the Power Marketing Administrations to fund directly from revenues the costs of operation 

and maintenance of federal hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams, as this proposal is presently under consideration by 

the authorizing committees. 

Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). Under this Act, the Bonneville 

Power Administration is authorized to use its revenues to finance 

the costs of its operations, maintenance, and capital construction, 

and to sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any additional capital program requirements. 

Purchase power and wheeling.—The Committee is eliminating 

the phase out by the end of fiscal year 2004 of the use of receipts 

by the Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern 

Power Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration for purchase power and wheeling. This approach was originally 

proposed in the Administration’s fiscal year 2001 budget request 

and endorsed in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 106–377). In recognition of the 

Western energy crisis during the previous year, Congress did not 

adhere to the P.L. 106–377 limitations on purchase power and 

wheeling in fiscal year 2002. The budget request for fiscal year 

2003 proposed resuming the phase-out of purchase power and 

wheeling along the schedule contained in P.L. 106–377. However, 

the Committee finds that there is no compelling reason to continue 

the phase out of purchase power and wheeling, particularly since 

this activity is budget neutral. The Committee recommendation for 

fiscal year 2003 maintains purchase power and wheeling activities 

at the fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee will continue to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for purchase power and wheeling, and also establish the amount of offsetting collections. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada 

and California. 

Borrowing Authority.—Bonneville Power Administration pres- ently has available $3,750,000,000 in permanent borrowing authority, authorized by the Transmission System Act (P.L. 93–454). For 

fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommendation includes an estimate of use of $630,800,000 of authorized borrowing authority, the 

same as the budget request and $256,300,000 more than fiscal year 

2002. This borrowing authority is available for capital investments 

in power systems (including fish and wildlife measures), transVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
167

mission systems, and capital equipment. Bonneville forecasts that 

it will fully utilize its remaining borrowing authority during fiscal 

year 2004. 

The Administration has submitted a legislative proposal to in- crease the current Bonneville borrowing authority by $700,000,000, 

for new total borrowing authority of $4,450,000,000. The Committee recommendation does not include this additional borrowing 

authority at this time because the matter is presently committed 

to the House-Senate conference on energy legislation. 

Northwest Power Planning Council.—The Northwest Power Act 

of 1980 established the Northwest Power Planning Council to be an 

independent regional body to provide oversight on Columbia River 

Basin energy, fish, and wildlife issues. It is the Committee’s view, 

however, that the Council has not exercised as much independence 

as Congress intended on major capital funding decisions by Bonneville, including the ill-fated Tenaska power plant project, energy 

conservation, and recent efforts by Bonneville to increase its permanent borrowing authority for transmission system upgrades. The 

Committee reminds the Council that Bonneville’s historic record on 

resource acquisition decisions is fraught with mistakes, and that a 

full measure of critical thinking by an independent body is a prudent safeguard to help ensure the Northwest an adequate, efficient, 

economical and reliable power supply. Because the Council’s operational funding comes from Bonneville’s electricity revenues, and 

the Bonneville Administrator has oversight authority over the 

Council’s statutory funding limitation, the Committee is concerned 

that a potential conflict of interest exists, which has diminished the 

Council’s independence. To help ensure that such a conflict is 

avoided, the Committee directs Bonneville and the Council to submit to the Committee by November 1, 2002, the most recent information pertaining to the formulation of the Council’s budget as it 

pertains to the Council’s capability to carry out its responsibilities 

with the independence and objectivity that Congress intended. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $4,891,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 4,534,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 4,534,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥357,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $4,784,000 for the Southeastern Power Marketing Administration in- cluded $250,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the 

accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the 

budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

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 $4,534,000, the same as the budget request and a 

$357,000 decrease compared to fiscal year 2002. The total program 

level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2003 is $39,141,000, with 

$34,463,000 for purchase power and wheeling and $4,606,000 for 

168

program direction. The purchase power and wheeling costs will be 

offset by collections of $34,463,000. With the use of $72,000 of prior 

year balances, this results in a net appropriation of $4,534,000. 

The offsetting collections total of $34,463,000 includes $20,000,000 

made available in Public Law 106–377 for use in fiscal year 2003, 

plus an additional $14,463,000 provided in this Act. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $28,038,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 27,378,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 27,378,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥660,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $28,444,000 for the Southwestern Power Marketing Administration included $1,066,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the 

accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the 

budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

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 $27,378,000, the same as the budget request and 

$660,000 less than the fiscal year 2002 funding level. The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2003 is $29,578,000, including $3,814,000 for operating expenses, $1,800,000 for purchase 

power and wheeling, $17,933,000 for program direction, and 

$6,031,000 for construction. The offset of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling, plus $400,000 from use of 

prior year balances, yields a net appropriation of $27,378,000. The 

offsetting collections total of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made 

available in Public Law 106–377 for use in fiscal year 2003, plus 

an additional $1,512,000 provided in this Act. The Committee recommendation also increases the authority for Southwestern to accept an additional $8,043,000 of non-Federal reimbursable funding 

to fulfill Southwestern’s obligation under the Southwest Power Pool 

Open Access Transmission Tariff to upgrade designated Southwestern transmission facilities. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $171,938,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 162,758,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 162,758,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥9,180,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $168,788,000 for the Western Area Power Administration included 

$6,030,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget 

request has been reduced by this amount. 

169

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 $162,758,000, the same as the budget request and 

$9,180,000 less than the fiscal year 2002 funding level. The total 

program level for Western in fiscal year 2003 is $350,082,000, 

which includes $17,784,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 

$37,796,000 for system operation and maintenance, $186,124,000 

for purchase power and wheeling, and $108,378,000 for program direction. Consistent with the budget request, no funds are provided 

for Utah mitigation and conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power and wheeling total $186,124,000; with the use of 

$1,200,000, this requires a net appropriation of $162,758,000. The 

offsetting collections total of $186,124,000 includes $30,000,000 

made available in Public Law 106–377 for use in fiscal year 2003, plus an additional $156,124,000 provided in this Act. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes 

$4,000,000 for upgrades to substations and transmission lines for 

the South of Phoenix portion of the Parker-Davis project.

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $2,663,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 2,734,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 2,734,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +71,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

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 

Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner of the 

U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. 

The Committee recommendation is $2,734,000, the same as the 

budget request and $71,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 funding 

level. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $184,155,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 192,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 192,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +7,845,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

170

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ ¥$184,155,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... ¥192,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... ¥192,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥7,845,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $199,928,000 for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission included $7,928,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget 

request and the corresponding revenues have been reduced by this amount. 

The Committee recommendation is $192,000,000, the same as 

the budget request and an increase of $7,845,000 over the fiscal 

year 2002 funding level. Revenues for FERC are established at a 

rate equal to the budget authority, resulting in a net appropriation 

of $0. 

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has underway an analysis 

of the land rents charged by FERC for non-federal hydropower 

projects located on federal lands. Preliminary results from GAO indicate that the fee schedule presently used by FERC significantly 

underestimates, possibly by as much as two orders of magnitude, 

the fair market value of these project lands used for non-federal 

hydropower. The Committee directs FERC to submit a proposal to 

Congress that will revise the existing fee schedule to a new methodology that will capture more of the real market value of these 

federal lands. This proposal should be submitted as part of the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request. 

The Committee is very concerned about the possible impact on 

regional electricity prices of FERC’s proposed rule for Standard 

Market Design (SMD). Not less than 90 days prior to finalizing the 

SMD rule, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations an independent analysis of 

the impact of the SMD rule that FERC proposes to finalize. This 

independent analysis must compare wholesale and retail electricity 

prices in the major regions of the country both under existing conditions and under the proposed new rule. This analysis must also 

address the proposed SMD rule’s: 

(a) costs and benefits, including its impacts on energy infrastructure development and investor confidence; 

(b) impacts on state utility regulation; 

(c) financial impact on retail customers; 

(d) impact on the reasonableness of electricity prices; and 

(e) impact on the safe, reliable, and secure operation of the 

Nation’s generation and transmission facilities. 

The Committee intends to address this issue in more detail at 

conference. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendations for programs 

in Title III are contained in the following table:

171


Insert graphic folio 169 HR681.059
172


Insert graphic folio 170 HR681.060
173


Insert graphic folio 171 HR681.061
174


Insert graphic folio 172 HR681.062
175


Insert graphic folio 173 HR681.063
176


Insert graphic folio 174 HR681.064
177


Insert graphic folio 175 HR681.065
178


Insert graphic folio 176 HR681.066
179


Insert graphic folio 177 HR681.067
180


Insert graphic folio 178 HR681.068
181


Insert graphic folio 179 HR681.069
182


Insert graphic folio 180 HR681.070
183


Insert graphic folio 181 HR681.071
184

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 a contract for environmental remediation or 

waste management in excess of $100 million in annual funding at 

a current or former management and operating contract site or facility, or award a significant extension or expansion to an existing 

management and operating contract, or other contract covered by 

this section, 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 

granting such a waiver, 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 specificity, 

the reasons for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude extensions of a contract awarded using competitive procedures, but does 

establish a presumption of competition unless the Secretary invokes the waiver option. 

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. 

The waiver for non-competitive awards or extensions should be invoked only in truly exceptional circumstances, not as a matter of 

routine. A non-competitive award or extension may be in the taxpayers’ interest, but the burden of proof is on the Department to 

make that case in the waiver request. 

Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.—Section 302 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to prepare 

or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide enhanced 

severance payments and other benefits and community assistance 

grants for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under 

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 1993, Public Law 102–484. The Committee has provided no 

funds to implement workforce restructuring plans which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy 

which are not available to other Federal employees of the United 

States Government. This provision was included in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002. 

Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.—Section 303 

provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to augment 

the $19,683,000 made available for obligation in this Act for enhanced severance payments to contractors and other benefits and 

community assistance grants authorized under the provisions of 

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 1993, Public Law 102–484. This provision was included in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002. 

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 

185

which have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not yet been approved and funded 

by Congress. This provision was included in the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2002. 

Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.—Section 305 permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

This provision was included in the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act, 2002. 

Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.—Section 306 

provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be 

used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration 

to perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined 

Bonneville service territory unless the Administrator certifies in 

advance that such services are not available from private sector 

businesses. This provision was included in the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2002. 

User Facilities.—Section 307 establishes certain notice and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of universities in Department of Energy user facilities. 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 to other DOE programs, including those of 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 all universities, as well as other potential users, have an 

equal opportunity to take advantage of the Department’s unique 

research facilities. 

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 

as broadly as possible. 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 input regarding the features needed in a proposed new 

user facility, the Department must provide broad notice of the opportunity to provide such input. 

In certain instances other than maintenance 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 and 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 

186

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. The Department 

may not redesignate a facility as something other than 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. 

Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.—Section 

308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national security plant 

funding to be used for research, development, and demonstration 

activities. This provision was included in the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2002. 

Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.—Section 

309 provides authority for up to 2 percent of Nevada Test Site national security funding to be used for research, development, and 

demonstration activities. This provision was included in the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002. 

Repeal of Section 310 of Public Law 106–60.—Section 310 repeals 

section 310 of Public Law 106–60, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2000, which required submission of funding plans from Department of Energy laboratories. 

Authorization of Intelligence Activities.—Section 311 authorizes 

intelligence activities of the Department of Energy for purposes of 

section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 during fiscal year 

2003 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 

fiscal year 2003. 

(187)

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $71,290,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 66,290,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 71,290,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ............................

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... +5,000,000 

Note: The original budget request of $66,400,287 for the Appalachian Regional Commission included $110,287 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing 

cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

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 and research center at the University of Alabama. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $18,500,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 19,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 19,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +500,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $19,494,000 for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board included 

$494,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing 

cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the 

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The Board, 

composed of five members appointed by the President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy regarding 

public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear 

facilities. The Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the 

content and implementation of the standards relating to the design, 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. 

The Committee recommendation is $19,000,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

188

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $10,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥10,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥10,000,000 

Note: The original budget request of $10,017,170 for the Delta Regional Authority included $17,170 to fund 

proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been 

reduced by this amount. 

The Committee recommends no funding for the Delta Regional 

Authority in fiscal year 2003. The Delta Regional Authority was established by Congress in fiscal year 2001, but it has not yet been 

fully organized. Prior year funds of approximately $24,000,000 will 

be carried over from fiscal year 2002 and prior years and will be 

available for expenditure in fiscal year 2003.

In addition, the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 

2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed 

the Authority to submit quarterly financial reports providing detailed accounting data on the expenditure of funds during fiscal 

year 2002 and thereafter. The Authority has not complied with this 

requirement. The conference report also directed the Authority to 

submit a detailed budget justification if funds were requested in 

fiscal year 2003. The Authority did not comply with this requirement. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $38,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 29,939,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... ............................

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥38,000,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥29,939,000 

Note: The original budget request of $29,959,604 for the Denali Commission included $20,604 to fund proposed legislation to require the agency to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement 

for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the budget request has been reduced by this amount. 

The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali 

Commission in fiscal year 2003 due to funding constraints. 

The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the Commission to submit quarterly financial reports providing detailed accounting data on the expenditure of funds during fiscal year 2002 

and thereafter. The Commission has not complied with this requirement. The conference report also directed the Commission to 

submit a detailed budget justification if funds were requested in 

fiscal year 2003. The Commission did not comply with this requirement. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $552,900,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 578,184,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 578,184,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +25,284,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

189

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $¥473,520,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... ¥492,545,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... ¥520,087,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥46,567,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥27,542,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $79,627,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 85,639,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 58,097,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥21,283,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ¥27,542,000 

Note: The original budget request of $598,405,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Salaries and 

Expenses included $20,221,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the Commission to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not 

been enacted, the budget request and the corresponding request for offsetting revenues have been reduced 

accordingly. 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is $578,184,000, the same as the budget request 

and an increase of $25,284,000 over fiscal year 2002 (including the 

$36,000,000 of emergency supplemental appropriations provided in 

Public Law 107–117). This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $520,087,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $58,097,000. 

The recommendation includes the requested amount of $24,900,000 

to be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund to support the 

Department of Energy’s effort to develop a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. 

Fee Recovery.—Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal year 

2001, the NRC is required in fiscal year 2003 to recover 94 percent 

of its budget authority, less the appropriation from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. 

Homeland Security Expenses.—The budget request includes $29,300,000 for additional security efforts related to the threat facing NRC-licensed facilities. The fiscal year 2003 budget request 

proposes that these expenses be funded from the General Fund and 

exempt from license fee revenues. In the Department of Defense 

and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from 

and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002, 

the Congress provided $36,000,000 to the NRC for ‘‘emergency expenses to respond to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on 

the United States, and for other expenses to increase the security 

of the Nation’s nuclear power plants.’’ The funds provided in the 

fiscal year 2002 supplemental were exempt from license fee revenues. Because of the urgency surrounding the events of September 

11, the Committee views this supplemental appropriation and the 

accompanying exemption from license fee revenues as a one-time 

exception to the general rule that NRC should recover the majority 

of its costs from revenues derived from license and annual fees. 

Therefore, the Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 includes the requested $29,300,000 for homeland security expenses, 

but makes that amount subject to the requirement that 94 percent 

of that budget authority be recovered through license and annual 

fee revenues. The FY2003 recommendation does provide a total of 

$33,197,000 from the general fund, exclusive of the Nuclear Waste 

190

Fund contribution; this amount is available to the Commission to 

fund its highest priority tasks, including the requested homeland 

security expenses. 

Enhanced Control of Radioactive Materials.—There have been 

numerous reports that terrorists organizations may be attempting 

to acquire radioactive materials to use in radiological dispersion devices (i.e., ‘‘dirty bombs’’). The Committee is concerned about this 

potential threat and believes the Commission and its licensees 

should take all prudent and reasonable actions to protect radioactive materials licensed by the NRC for medical, industrial, and 

academic uses. The Committee understands the NRC is already 

taking some actions to enhance the security of these materials, and 

the Committee has provided funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 

for NRC to do so. However, the Committee requests that the NRC 

provide a report to Congress within six months of enactment detailing the existing controls on these materials, identifying actions already underway to strengthen controls on these materials, and outlining additional steps that could be taken to protect the materials 

that are the most likely candidates for a radiological dispersion device. 

Repository Licensing.—Now that the Commission’s repository 

regulations have been completed, it is important that they be implemented effectively to ensure the protection of public health and 

safety while at the same time providing to timely and efficient licensing of the repository. The Committee expects that, in its review 

of any license application for construction of a repository and in 

keeping with NRC’s established regulatory framework, the Commission will apply the principles of ‘‘adaptive staging’’ being developed by the National Academy of Sciences. In particular, the timely 

development and consideration of new information at appropriate 

regulatory decision points, and a commitment to auditability, 

transparency, and integrity in the decision-making process, will ensure the creation of a well-founded public record upon which the 

Commission’s licensing decisions can be based. In addressing the 

technical uncertainties that still remain, the Commission should 

utilize the expertise of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 

as appropriate, and consider opportunities to gain additional 

knowledge through research conducted throughout the later steps 

of the licensing process. 

Davis-Beese Nuclear Power Plant.—Earlier this year, corrosion of 

the reactor vessel head caused the shutdown of the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio. The Committee is concerned that this corrosion problem was not detected earlier, either by the licensee or by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspectors. The NRC is presently considering a petition requesting an independent review of 

the problem at Davis-Beese. The Committee strongly encourages 

the NRC to give full consideration to this request. Given the severity of the corrosion at Davis-Beese, the burden of proof is quite 

high on the NRC and its licensee to demonstrate not only that the 

immediate technical problem has been corrected, but also that the 

institutional deficiencies that allowed this problem to develop undetected have also been corrected before the NRC approves the restart of the Davis-Besse reactor. 

191

Reports.—The Committee directs the Commission to continue to 

provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and other 

regulatory activities, including the status of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, as well as restart plans, a six-month review, 

one-year review, and eighteen-month review of that plant.’’

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $6,180,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 6,800,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 6,800,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +620,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

REVENUES

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $¥5,933,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... ¥6,392,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... ¥6,392,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... ¥459,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $247,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 408,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 408,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +161,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $7,152,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Office of Inspector General included $352,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the Commission to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not 

been enacted, the budget request and the corresponding request for offsetting revenues have been reduced 

accordingly. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,800,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of $620,000 over fiscal 

year 2002. The Commission is required by law to recover 94 percent of this budget authority in fiscal year 2003 through the assessment of license and annual fees. Therefore, the revenue estimate 

is $6,392,000, resulting in a net appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $408,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriation, 2002 ............................................................................ $3,100,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ....................................................................... 3,102,000 

Recommended, 2003 ........................................................................... 3,102,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2002 .................................................................... +2,000 

Budget Estimate, 2003 ............................................................... ............................

Note: The original budget request of $3,200,000 for the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board included 

$98,000 to fund proposed legislation to require the Commission to pay the full government share of the accruing cost of retirement for certain Federal employees. Since this legislation has not been enacted, the 

budget request has been reduced accordingly. 

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 DepartVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
192

ment approaches issuance of the final site recommendation for the 

repository site. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,102,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the budget request and an increase of $2,000 from fiscal year 2002 funding.

(193)

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee recommendation includes several general provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities funded in the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. 

Prohibition on Lobbying.—Section 501 provides that none of the 

funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, directly 

or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any legislation or 

appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of 

Title 18, United States Code. 

Buy American.—Section 502 requires that American-made equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent practicable. 

Transfer of Funds.—Section 503 provides that none of the funds 

made available in this Act may be transferred to any department, 

agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided 

in, this Act or any other appropriation Act. 

The purpose of this language is to ensure that any planned 

transfers from appropriated accounts to any new cabinet agency for 

homeland security are made in appropriations acts and not by 

transfer in an authorization bill. The Committee supports the creation of a new agency for homeland defense, but wants to ensure 

that all appropriated funds are used for the purposes for which 

they were provided. 

(195)

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 .......................................................... 26,027 25,642 26,027 25,641 

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: 

196

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 ................................................................................... 26,027

Outlays: 

2003 ................................................................................................. 16,765

2004 ................................................................................................. 7,718

2005 ................................................................................................. 1,379

2006 ................................................................................................. 100

2007 and beyond ............................................................................. 7

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows:

Millions 

Budget authority ............................................................................ 63

Fiscal year 2003 outlays resulting therefrom .............................. 6

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 $36,400,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 

$34,327,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 

Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such 

amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund;***

* * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased 

or decreased within the overall appropriations under this 

heading:***

* * * Provided further, That $12,000,000 of the funds 

appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San Gabriel 

Restoration Fund established by section 110 of division B, 

title I of Public Law 106–554, as amended***

Under Title III, Weapons Activities:

* * * Provided further, that not less than $10,000,000 

of the funds provided in this paragraph shall be transferred to the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of 

Energy for the sole purpose of upgrading the Department 

of Energy’s accounting and financial systems to track NaVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
197

tional Nuclear Security Administration costs by weapon 

system.

Under Title III, Environmental Management Cleanup Reform:

* * * Provided, That these amounts may be transferred 

to and merged with accounts under this title which fund 

specific cleanup activities only after the Secretary of Energy enters into an agreement satisfactory to the Secretary 

and the appropriate State and Federal regulators, for each 

site for which these funds may be used.

Under Title III, General Provisions:

Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may be transferred 

to appropriation accounts for such activities established 

pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be 

merged with funds in the applicable established accounts 

and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the 

same time period as originally enacted. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Language has been included under Corps of Engineers, General 

Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and specifications of projects prior to construction. Language is also included 

under General Investigations which 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 is included under General Investigations which 

directs the Secretary of the Army to use $800,000 to develop a plan 

to establish a Central Gulf Coast water resources management 

agency. 

Language has been included under Construction, General, permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also provided under Construction, General, which directs the Secretary of 

the Army to undertake design deficiency repairs to the Bois Brule 

Levee and Drainage District, Missouri, project; which directs the 

Secretary of the Army to use funds to continue construction of the 

Dallas Floodway Extension project in Dallas, Texas; which directs 

the Secretary of the Army to undertake the Bowie County Levee 

project in Texas; and which provides that cost sharing for the 

Bowie County Levee project shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1946. Language has been included 

under Construction, General, directing the Secretary of the Army 

to accept advance funds for the Los Angeles Harbor, California, 

project pursuant to Section 11 of the River and Harbor Act of 1925. 

198

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 

under Operation and Maintenance, General, which directs the Secretary of the Army to undertake recreation improvements at Waco 

Lake, Texas, associated with raising the pool level. Language has 

been included under Operations and Maintenance, General which 

directs the Secretary of the Army to investigate and implement alternative methods of maintaining the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project, and which directs the Secretary of the Army to use 

funds to expand and improve recreational facilities at the Hansen 

Dam Recreation Area in California. 

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 Provisions 

providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of motor 

vehicles. 

Language is included under General Provisions as follows: 

Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration which places a limit on credits and reimbursements 

allowable per project and annually for all projects. The Administration also proposed that this provision be made permanent law; 

however, the Committee has elected not to make that change. 

Sec. 102. The Committee has included language which provides 

that the Secretary of the Army may expend funds under normal 

competitive procedures for renovations of the dredge McFARLAND 

authorized by section 563 of Public Law 104–303 provided that the 

dredge McFARLAND is operated in the manner recommended in 

the report of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to 

Congress dated June 12, 2000, and is operated using the same procedures as those established to operate the dredge WHEELER. 

Sec. 103. The Committee has included language which provides 

that none of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act may 

be used by the Corps of Engineers to undertake activities related 

to the Chicago Harbor, Illinois, Visitors Center. 

199

Sec. 104. The Committee has included language which directs 

the Secretary of the Army to reduce by thirty-seven percent the full 

time employees in the Corps of Engineers Chicago District. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Language has been included under Water and Related Resources 

providing that funds are available for fulfilling Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing 

that such sums as necessary may be advanced to the Colorado 

River Dam Fund. Language is included under Water and Related 

Resources which permits fund transfers within the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower 

Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Language is 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. 4601–6a(i). Language is 

included under Water and Related Resources which provides that 

funds contributed by non-Federal entities shall be available for expenditure. Language is included providing that funds advanced for 

operation and maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and Related Resources account. Language is included under Water and Related Resources providing that 

$12,000,000 shall be deposited in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. Language is also included permitting the use of funds 

available for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program for 

site remediation on a non-reimbursable basis. Language is included 

under Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation 

States Emergency Drought Relief Act. 

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 as follows: 

Sec. 201. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration authorizing the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to continue its program 

of providing grants to institutions of higher learning to support the 

training of Native Americans to manage their water resources. This 

language was included in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act. 

Sec. 202. The Committee has included language proposed by the 

Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 

200

Reservoir in California. This language was included in the fiscal

year 2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.

Sec. 203. The Committee has included language which amends

section 212 of the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act related to the conveyance of the Sly Park Unit in

California.

Sec. 204. The bill includes language which clarifies that the San

Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund may be used to reimburse the Central Basin Municipal Water District for certain expenditures made

in connection with the San Gabriel Basin Restoration project in

California.

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 Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations. The appropriations

language for this account reflects the total estimated program

funding to be reduced as revenues are received. This language has

been carried in prior appropriations Acts.

Language has been included under Departmental Administration

providing that notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to cover increases

in the estimated amount of cost of work for others, as long as such

increases are offset by revenue increases of the same or greater

amounts.

Language has been included under Departmental Administration

providing not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

Language has been included under Weapons Activities providing:

that none of the funds may be obligated for the Nuclear Weapons

Council after March 1, 2003, until the council certifies that Selected Acquisition Reports submitted to Congress are identical in

format, content, and security classification to those submitted by

the Department of Defense; that none of the funds may be obligated or expended after February 1, 2004, until the Department of

Energy has a financial system that fully tracks costs by nuclear

weapons system and the President’s budget provides detailed justification for each weapon system; and that not less than

$10,000,000 shall be transferred to the Chief Financial Officer to

upgrade the financial systems to track costs by weapon system.

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.

201

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 not to exceed $1,500 for official reception

and representation expenses.

Language has been included under Construction, Rehabilitation,

Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration

providing that, not withstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302,

amounts collected to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as offsetting collections and

remain available until expended for the sole purpose of making

purchase power and wheeling expenditures.

Language has been included under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles,

to provide official reception and representation expenses, and to

permit the use of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as

revenues are received. This language has been included in previous

appropriation acts. Language has been included under the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) providing that no funds appropriated in the Act may be used by FERC to grant any public

utility the authority to use market-based rates until FERC has

issued a final order in all market-based rate cases that have been

pending before the Commission for more than 18 months.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that management and operating contracts and contracts for environmental restoration or waste management in excess of $100 million 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 unless a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or initiate

202

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, requiring the Department of Energy to ensure

broad public notice when it makes a national user facility available

to universities and other potential users or seeks input regarding

significant characteristics or equipment in a national user facility

or a proposed national user facility, and requiring competition

when the Department partners with a university or other entity for

the establishment or operation of a user facility.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, allowing the manager of a nuclear weapons production plant to engage in research, development, and demonstration

activities using no more than 2 percent of the amounts available

from national security programs.

Language has been included under Department of Energy, General Provisions, allowing the manager of the Nevada Operations

Office to engage in research, development, and demonstration activities using no more than 2 percent of the amounts available from

national security programs.

Language proposed by the Administration has been included

under Department of Energy, General Provisions, repealing section

310 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,

2000.

Language proposed by the Administration has been included

under Department of Energy, General Provisions, providing that

funds for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of

1947 during fiscal year 2003.

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use in recruiting new employees. Language is also included to permit the

NRC to utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.

Language has been included under 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

203

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 transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant to a transfer

made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other

Appropriation Act.

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law

102–250, the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of

1991, as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title (related

to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California), there is

authorized to appropriated not more than $90,000,000 in total for

fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, øand

2002¿ 2002 and 2003.

The accompanying bill would amend Section 212 of the Energy

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat.

1441B–13) as follows:

SEC. 212. (a) DEFINITIONS.—For the purpose of this section, the

term—

(1) ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior;

(2) ‘‘Sly Park Unit’’ means the Sly Park Dam and Reservoir,

Camp Creek Diversion Dam and Tunnel, and conduits and canals as authorized under the American River Act of October

14, 1949 (63 Stat. 853), including those used to convey, treat,

and store water delivered from Sly Park, as well as all real

and personal property rights and interests associated with such

conduits and canals, all water rights of whatever nature or

kind associated therewith, and all recreation facilities and improvements thereto; and

(3) ‘‘District’’ means the El Dorado Irrigation District.

(b) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, øas soon as practicable

after date of the enactment of this Act¿ by no later than June 30,

2003 and in accordance with all applicable law, transfer all right,

title, and interest in and to the Sly Park Unit to the District including all real and personal property rights, water rights, and facilities held by or appropriated to the United States.

(c) SALE PRICE.—øThe Secretary¿ (1) Subject to paragraph (2),

the Secretary is authorized to receive from the District $2,000,000

to relieve payment obligations and extinguish the debt under contract number 14–06–200–949IR3 and subsequentinterim renewal

contracts associated therewith, and $9,500,000 to relieve payment

obligations and extinguish all debts associated with contracts numbered 14–06–200–7734, as amended by contracts numbered 14–06–

204

200–4282A and 14–06–200–8536A. Notwithstanding the preceding

sentence, the District shall continue to make payments required by

section 3407(c) of Public Law 102–575 through year 2029.

(2) The amount the Secretary is authorized to receive under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by an amount equal to any payments received by the United States from the District under the contracts referred to in paragraph (1) in the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date of conveyance of the Sly

Park Unit under this section.

(d) CREDIT REVENUE TO PROJECT REPAYMENT.—Upon payment

authorized under subsection (b), the amount paid shall be credited

toward repayment of capital costs of the Central Valley Project in

an amount equal to the associated undiscounted obligation.

(e) FUTURE BENEFITS.—Upon payment, the Sly Park Unit shall

no longer be a Federal reclamation project or a unit of the Central

Valley Project, and the District shall not be entitled to receive any

further reclamation benefits.

(f) LIABILITY.—Except as otherwise provided by law, effective on

the date of conveyance of the Sly Park Unit under this Act, the

United States shall not be liable for damages of any kind arising

out of any act, omission, or occurrence based on its prior ownership

or operation of the conveyed property.

(g) COSTS.—All costs, including interest charges, associated with

the Project that have been included as a reimbursable cost of the

Central Valley Project are declared to be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.

The accompanying bill amend section 110(a)(3)(A) of Division B

of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act (as enacted into law by

section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106–554) as follows:

SEC. 110. SAN GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA. (a) SAN GABRIEL

BASIN RESTORATION.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—There shall be established

within the Treasury of the United States an interest bearing

account to be known as the San Gabriel Basin Restoration

Fund (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Restoration Fund’’).

(2) ADMINISTRATION OF FUND.—The Restoration Fund shall

be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation

with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority or its successor agency.

(3) PURPOSE OF FUND.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), the

amounts in the Restoration Fund, including interest accrued, shall be utilized by the Secretary—

(i) to provide grants to the San Gabriel Basin Water

Quality Authority and the Central Basin Municipal

Water District to reimburse such agencies for the Federal share of the costs associated with designing and

constructing water quality projects to be administered

by such agencies, including all expenditures made by

the Central Basin Municipal Water District between

February 11, 1993, and December 21, 2000; and

(ii) to provide grants to reimburse the San Gabriel

Basin Water Quality Authority and the Central Basin

Municipal Water District for the Federal share of the

205

costs required to operate any project constructed

under this section for a period not to exceed 10 years,

following the initial date of operation of the project.

(B) COST-SHARING LIMITATION.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not obligate

any funds appropriated to the Restoration Fund in a

fiscal year until the Secretary has deposited in the

Fund an amount provided by non-Federal interests

sufficient to ensure that at least 35 percent of any

funds obligated by the Secretary are from funds provided to the Secretary by the non-Federal interests.

(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.

(iii) CREDITS TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—For

purposes of clause (ii), the Secretary shall credit the

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority with the

value of all prior expenditures by non-Federal interests made after February 11, 1993, that are compatible with the purposes of this section, including—

(I) all expenditures made by non-Federal interests to design and construct water quality

projects, including expenditures associated with

environmental analyses and public involvement

activities that were required to implement the

water quality projects in compliance with applicable Federal and State laws; and

(II) all expenditures made by non-Federal interests to acquire lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, disposal areas, and water rights that

were required to implement a water quality

project.

(b) COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.—In carrying out the activities described in this section, the Secretary shall comply with

any applicable Federal and State laws.

(c) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ACTIVITIES.—Nothing in this section

shall be construed to affect other Federal or State authorities that

are being used or may be used to facilitate the cleanup and protection of the San Gabriel and Central groundwater basins. In carrying out the activities described in this section, the Secretary shall

integrate such activities with ongoing Federal and State projects

and activities. None of the funds made available for such activities

pursuant to this section shall be counted against any Federal authorization ceiling established for any previously authorized Federal project or activities.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to

the Restoration Fund established under subsection (a)

$85,000,000. Such funds shall remain available until expended.

206

(2) SET-ASIDE.—Of the amounts appropriated under para- graph (1), no more than $10,000,000 shall be available to carry

out the Central Basin Water Quality Project.

(e) ADJUSTMENT.—Of the $25,000,000 made available for San Gabriel Basin Groundwater Restoration, California, under the heading ‘‘Construction, General’’ in title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2001— (1) $2,000,000 shall be available only for studies and other

investigative activities and planning and design of projects determined by the Secretary to offer a long-term solution to the

problem of groundwater contamination caused by perchlorates

at sites located in the city of Santa Clarita, California; and (2) $23,000,000 shall be deposited in the Restoration Fund, of which $4,000,000 shall be used for remediation in the Central Basin, California.

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) 150,000

Department of Energy:

Energy Supply:

Biomass/Biofuels ................................................. 1993 (2) (4) 86,005

Geothermal Energy ............................................... 1993 23,000 (4) 26,500

Hydrogen .............................................................. 2001 40,000 27,000 35,476

Hydropower ........................................................... 1982 11,700 (4) 6,489

Solar Energy ......................................................... 1993 (2) (4) 87,625

Wind Energy Systems ........................................... 1993 (2) (4) 44,000

Electric energy systems & electric storage systems ................................................................. 1994 (3) (4) 70,447

Renewable Energy Production Incentive .............. 1995 (7) (4) 6,000

International Renewable Energy Program ........... 1996 (3) (4) 4,000

Departmental Energy Management ..................... 1984 (3) (4) 1,500

Renewable Program Support ............................... 1984 (3) (4) 2,059

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ............... 1984 (3) (4) 5,000

Program Direction ................................................ 1984 (3) (4) 14,592

Nuclear Energy:

Advanced Radioisotope Power System ................ 1992 (2) (4) 26,450

Isotopes ................................................................ 1974 (2) (4) 13,818

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support 1974 (2) (4) 17,500

Research and Development ................................. 1994 (7) (4) 71,500

Radiological Facilities Management .................... 1974 (2) (4) 42,770

Program Direction ................................................ 1992 (2) (4) 23,439

Environment, Safety and Health ................................... 1974 (2) (4) 26,211

Non-Defense Environmental Management ............................. 1984 (5) (5) 213,259

West Valley Demonstration Project ............................... 1981 5,000 5,000 90,000

Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation:

Other Uranium Activities .............................................. 1974 (2) (4) 146,631

Science ................................................................................... 1984 500,000 635,417 3,271,233

High Energy Physics ..................................................... 1984 (3) 477,947 724,990

Nuclear Physics ............................................................. 1984 (3) 155,220 382,370

Biological and Environmental Research ....................... 1994 (3) 388,298 504,215

Basic Energy Sciences .................................................. 1994 (3) 743,590 1,019,600

Advanced Scientific Computing Research .................... 1996 169,000 111,068 174,625

Science Laboratories Infrastructure .............................. 1994 (3) 39,327 47,680

207

[In thousands of dollars]

Agency/program Last year of

authorization

Authorization

level

Appropriations

in last year of

authorization

Appropriations

in this bill

Fusion Energy Sciences ................................................ 1994 380,000 322,277 248,495

Science Program Direction ............................................ 1984 (2) (4) 134,310

Energy Research Analysis .................................... 1994 (3) 3,507 1,000

Technical Information Management .................... 1981 (2) (4) 7,770

Nuclear Waste Disposal ......................................................... (8) (2) 190,654 209,702

Departmental Administration ................................................. 1984 246,963 185,682 128,672

Office of the Inspector General ............................................. 1984 (2) 14,670 37,671

Atomic Energy Defense Activities:

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons Activities ........................................................ 2002 5,343,567 5,560,238 5,772,068

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ................................. 2002 776,886 1,029,586 1,167,630

Naval Reactors .............................................................. 2002 688,445 688,045 706,790

Office of the NNSA Administrator ................................. 2002 312,596 312,596 261,929

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 2002 6,022,415 5,242,776 4,543,661

Environmental Management Cleanup Reform ....................... (6) (6) (6) 1,100,000

Defense Facilities Closure Projects ....................................... 2002 1,080,538 1,092,878 1,091,314

Defense Environmental Management Privatization ............... 2002 153,537 153,537 158,399

Other Defense Activities ........................................................ 2002 499,663 547,544 485,076

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................... 2002 280,000 280,000 315,000

Power Marketing Administrations:

Southeastern Power Administration .............................. 1984 24,240 39,463 39,141

Southwestern Power Administration ............................. 1984 40,254 29,288 29,578

Western Area Power Administration ............................. 1984 259,700 237,037 350,082

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund 1995 (2) 2,663 2,734

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................ 1984 275,000 175,200 192,000

Independent Agencies:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ...................... 2002 18,500 18,459 19,000

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................... 1985 460,000 448,200 578,184

Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Office of Inspector

General ..................................................................... 1985 (9) (9) 6,800

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 2003.

7 Such sums as necessary.

8 Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.

9 The first separate appropriation for the Office of the Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was in FY 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and appropriation for the NRC.

The Committee notes that the annual authorizing legislation for

many of these programs is in various stages of the legislative process. It is anticipated these authorizations will be enacted into law

later this year.

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.

208


Insert graphic folio 208 HR681.072
209


Insert graphic folio 209 HR681.073
210


Insert graphic folio 210 HR681.074
211


Insert graphic folio 211 HR681.075
212


Insert graphic folio 212 HR681.076
(213)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID R. OBEY 

As the fiscal year ends and we begin to look at the priorities we 

have addressed, those that we have failed to address and those 

that we are most likely to do anything about for the foreseeable future, we can only conclude that we are in a remarkable situation. 

Last year there was barely a week that went by that we were not 

passing yet another tax break. For the most part those tax breaks 

were tightly focused on a very small group of people who had already enjoyed a spectacular decade even after they paid their 

taxes. We were told time and time again that we could afford all 

of these tax cuts and still expect huge back to back surpluses in 

the years to come. 

Now we have deficits and we are told that we can’t respond to 

emergencies even when the lives of thousands, perhaps millions, of 

Americans may well be on the line. 

This bill is a perfect example, In the Supplemental Appropriations Act that we passed in July we included $235 million for securing nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in facilities operated 

by the U.S. Department of Energy that the President had not requested. We did it in response to an urgent request from Secretary 

Abraham and we did it on a broad bi-partisan basis. We did it because of the widespread concern among security experts about the 

prospect of terrorists getting the materials needed to construct a 

dirty bomb. 

Secretary Abraham said this in a March 2002 letter to OMB:

* * * we are storing vast amounts of materials that remain highly volatile and subject to unthinkable consequences if placed in the wrong hands. These materials 

permeate the Departmental complex including sites under 

the programmatic jurisdiction of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of Environmental Management, and the Office of Science * * * Although the initial supplemental and funds appropriated by Congress 

helped respond to the most urgent near-term security 

needs, the Department is now unable to meet the next 

round of critical security mission requirements * * * Failure to support these urgent security requirements is a risk 

that would be unwise.

The Secretary identified $380 million of immediate and critical 

security requirements in his letter, to ensure adequate security of: 

nuclear weapons, materials, and facilities; environmental management (former nuclear weapons) sites; and the Department’s worldclass science laboratories. 

These included enhanced security for the transportation of nuclear weapons. Many are not aware that our most powerful nuclear 

warheads are frequently being transported over our nation’s InterVerDate Sep 04 2002 05:24 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081857 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR681.XXX HR681
214

state Highways. The man in charge, the Secretary of Energy, says 

that the security arrangements with respect to those shipments are 

not adequate. Mitch Daniels, with the great concentration of expertise that he has assembled at OMB, says that the security is fine. 

The committee staff, on a bipartisan basis looked at this problem 

and concluded, without any question, that the Secretary was right. 

We put $18 million in the Supplemental Act—the full amount the 

Secretary said was needed. 

The Secretary also felt it was necessary to greatly enhance the 

physical security at nuclear weapons facilities. This is where we 

store thousands of actual nuclear weapons, thousands of weapons 

components, and large amounts of plutonium and other materials 

needed for the construction of a nuclear weapon. Again Mitch Daniels applied his vast expertise in these matters and concluded there 

was no problem. We reviewed the information and added $90 million over the budget for enhanced security. 

The Secretary also felt that we had a big problem with respect 

to the Department’s former weapons facilities and science laboratories, where we have yet to clear up low level radioactive materials that could be useful in the construction of dirty bombs. There 

are two choices. One is build more secure, permanent security at 

these facilities. The other is to clean them up and send all of this 

material to a centralized and secure facility that has already been 

designated and is available for such shipments. The Secretary recommended the latter and we gave him $94 million to go forward—

again, over Mitch Daniel’s objection. The Department also needs 

these funds to fully implement and sustain the heightened security 

posture of these sites that the Secretary mandated in response to 

the terrorist attacks. 

The Appropriations Committees are not the only ones who are 

dismayed by the remarkable insensitivity of this White House to 

the need to keep these materials out of the hands of terrorists. The 

Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Energy who was appointed by President Bush last May wrote in exasperation to several senior-level operatives at OMB to state:

We are disconcerted that OMB refused our security supplemental request. I would have much preferred to have 

heard this from you personally, and been given an opportunity to discuss, not to mention, appeal your decision.

The $235 million that we put in the Supplemental to deal with 

these problems was part of the $5.1 billion that the President is 

now refusing to spend. It ought to be put right back in this bill, 

along with the $108 million needed to protect our dams and other 

public facilities operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Denying the agencies funded in this bill the money required to 

insure that terrorists do not gain control of the most deadly weapons in the history of the world is mindless. This money is not provided within the regular allocation and the House majority leadership has made it clear that they will not allow the committee to 

provide these funds as an emergency. I think the leadership owes 

the full House the opportunity to make those choices. I will oppose 

any rule that does not allow the House to vote on this question and 

I challenge the Speaker to explain why he would prevent Members 

215

from the opportunity of voting on a matter of such grave importance to their constituents.

DAVE OBEY.

Æ