A rare veto of the Energy and Water appropriations bill led to late-session maneuvering for FY2001funding. After President Clinton vetoed H.R. 4733 over a provision (ï¿½103) regarding control of the Missouri River (see Title I, Army Corps of Engineers, below),the House voted 315-98 to override the vetoon October 11. On October 12, the Senate attached the H.R. 4733 conference bill, minus ï¿½103 and with a fewother water provisions, to H.R. 4635 , the appropriations bill for Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and then passedthat bill by a vote of 87-8. OnOctober 18, H.R. 5483 was introduced in the House, containing the Energy and Water appropriationsprovisions included in the Senate-passedversion. On the same day the conference report to H.R. 4635 was filed, including the provisions of H.R. 5483 . The House and theSenate agreed to the conference report on October 19, and the President signed the bill October 27 ( P.L. 106-377 ). Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Appropriations,FY2001 * H.R. 4733 was vetoed October 7. The House voted 315-98 October 11 to override the veto, but theSenate attached the conference bill, minus theprovision provoking the veto, to H.R. 4635 , funding VA/HUD, and passed that bill October 12. H.R. 5483 , containing the Senate'sEnergy and Water provisions, was included in the conference report on H.R. 4635 , filed October 18 ( H.Rept.106-988 ) and passed by the House andthe Senate October 19. The President signed H.R. 4635 October 27. The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill includes funding for civil projects of the Army Corpsof Engineers, the Department of the Interior'sBureau of Reclamation (BuRec), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies,including the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The Administration requested $22.7 billionfor these programs for FY2001, comparedwith $21.2 billion appropriated for FY2000. For the Corps of Engineers, the Administration sought $4.06 billion in FY2001, about $78 million less than the amount appropriated for FY2000. The final billappropriated $4.54 billion. The Administration requested $841 million for FY2001 for the Department of theInterior programs included in the Energy and Waterbill -- the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. This would have been an increase of $32.3 million. The final bill appropriated $816.4 million, anincrease of $10.4 million over FY2000. The request for DOE programs was $18.1 billion, about 8% above theprevious year. The major activities in the DOEbudget are energy research and development, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weaponsprograms. The final bill appropriated $18.3 billion. (Funding of DOE's programs for fossil fuels, energy efficiency, and energy statistics is included in the Interior andRelated Agencies appropriations bill. TheFY2001 net appropriations request for these programs was $865 million.) For the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionand other independent agencies funded in TitleIV of the Energy and Water bill, the net appropriations requested for FY2001 was $177.2 million. The final billappropriated $171.9 million. Table 2. Energy and Water Development Appropriations, FY1994 to FY2001 (budget authority inbillions of current dollars) * *These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions. Table 2 includes FY2001 budget request figures and budget totals for energy and water appropriations enacted for FY1994 to FY2000. Tables 3-7 provide budgetdetails for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department of the Interior), Title III (Department of Energy) andTitle IV (independent agencies) for FY2000 -FY2001. The final Energy and Water bill ( P.L. 106-377 ) included $4.54 billion for the civil projects of the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (Corps) for FY2001,approximately $481 million more than requested by the Administration and approximately $403 more than enactedfor FY2000. The Administration requested$4.06 billion for FY2001, slightly less (2%) than the $4.14 billion enacted for FY2000. The House-passed billincluded $4.12 billion; the Senate-passed versionincluded $4.11 billion; the earlier conference version ( H.R. 4733 , vetoed by the President) had included $4.52billion. The final version includes$21.5 million more for the Corps' construction budget. Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Corps of Engineers (in millions ofdollars) Funding for Corps of Engineers civil programs is often a contentious issue between the White House and the Congress, with final appropriations bills typicallyproviding more funding than requested. For FY1998, for example, the Congress added $270 million (7%) to the$3.63 billion requested by the Administration. Similarly, the FY1999 bill as passed included a total of $3.86 billion for the Corps, $638 million more (20%) thanrequested, and for FY2000, Congress providedapproximately $250 million more (6%) than requested. The story continued in FY2001. The conference report for H.R. 4733 , which the President vetoed over another issue (see below), included nearly$460 million more (11.3%) than requested. The final version ( P.L. 106-377 ) added $21.5 million to the Corps'construction budget, bringing the total toapproximately $481 million more than requested, about 11.8%. The late additions included $6.9 million more foran Elba, Alabama, flood control project; $10.3million more for the Geneva, Alabama, flood control project; $0.5 million more for the Metropolitan Louisville,Beargrass Creek, Kentucky, project; $2.8 millionmore for the St. Louis, Missouri, environmental infrastructures project; and $1 million more for the Black Fox,Murfree and Oaklands Springs Wetlands,Tennessee, project. The final bill also includes $0.8 million more for the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, NewYork, project under the General Investigationsaccount; however, this amount is offset by an increase of $0.8 million in the line item for reductions and anticipatedsavings, slippage, and carryover balanceswithin that account. Corps Management Reforms. The House Appropriations Committee noted in report language concerns about the Corps' project review process and indicatedits desire for a more streamlined process. The Committee also mentioned recent allegations that agency officialshave improperly manipulated a study ofnavigation improvements on the upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway; however, the Committee noted thatbecause these allegations are still underinvestigation, it is recommending no specific action to address the alleged behavior. On a related matter, theCommittee addressed accusations of the Corps'efforts toward "improperly trying to 'grow' its Civil Works program." It noted that while pressure on planners andengineers to "inappropriately justify projects"is clearly unacceptable, it viewed it the "proper role of the Chief of Engineers to advise the Administration, theCongress, and the Nation of the level of investmentin water resources infrastructure ... needed to support the economy and improve the quality of life for our citizens." The Senate Appropriations Committee report also noted criticisms of the Corps' operations and the Committee'sdissatisfaction with the Administration'sproposed management reforms. While the Committee initially did not include language prohibiting such reforms,it put the Administration on notice that it wouldcontinue to "assess the need for such language as the process moves forward." No mention of such language wasincluded in the conference bill or the statementof conference managers. However, language directing the Corps to contract with the National Academy of Sciencesto study the feasibility of establishing anindependent review panel for Corps project studies is included in the conference report for the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 2000 ( S. 2796 ,Section 216). Missouri River Water Flows. The final version of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill deleted Section 103 of the original conference reporton H.R. 4733 . Section 103 would have prohibited, under certain circumstances, the use of funds to revisethe Corps' Missouri River Master WaterControl Manual. Floor consideration of H.R. 4733 stalled in the Senate on July 21 over the language, and a Senate amendment to strike theprovision was defeated 45-52 during floor consideration September 7. The Administration said it would veto thebill if such language remained, and indeed,when the conference left Section 103 in, the President did veto the bill on October 7. The issue involves the controversial subject of how to operate mainstem dams along the Missouri River, given the diverse statutes potentially affecting the Corps'river management activities. Upper basin states generally contend that the current master manual, which has beenunder review for many years, does not reflectchanges in demand along the river. This is especially true, they argue, of increased demand for water and waterreleases to meet fish and wildlife and recreationaluses, particularly water to support the pallid sturgeon, and other threatened and endangered species. Downstreamstates generally fear that changes in theoperations manual to accommodate upstream concerns may result in an inadequate supply of water to meet fullseason navigational uses.