On February 20 the President signed an omnibus appropriations resolution for the rest ofFY2003 ( H.J.Res. 2 , P.L. 108-7 ) that included all 11 appropriations bills that hadfailed to pass during the 107th Congress. The final measure included funding for Energy and WaterDevelopment programs totaling $26.5 billion, compared to the Bush Administration request of $26.2billion. Table 1. Status of Energy and Water Appropriations,FY2003 *H.R. 5431 and S. 2784 did not reach the floor during the 107th Congress. The Energy and Water Development bill includes funding for civil worksprojects of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior's Bureau ofReclamation (BOR), most of the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number ofindependent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and theAppalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The Administration's request was $26.2billion for these programs for FY2003, compared with $25.8 billion appropriated forFY2002. The Energy and Water bill was one of 11 appropriations bills that did not pass in the 107th Congress, although both the House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees reported their versions of the bill. Funding for these programs wasprovided by a series of continuing resolutions, including two in the 108th Congress( H.J.Res. 1 , P.L. 108-2 , covering the period through January 31, 2003,and H.J.Res. 18 , P.L. 108-5 , through February 20). In the meantime theSenate took up H.J.Res. 2 , which passed the House January 8, adoptingan amendment in the nature of a substitute by Appropriations Chairman Stevens tofund programs in all 11 unpassed appropriations bills for the remainder of FY2003. After numerous amendments were considered on the Senate floor, the bill passed theSenate January 23. After a House-Senate conference the omnibus measure passedboth Houses February 12 and was signed by the President February 20. The Energy and Water programs are funded in Division D of H.J.Res. 2 . In this CRS report, funding levels of individual programsare given as requested by the Administration, as recommended by the House andSenate Appropriations Committees in the 107th Congress, as passed in H.J.Res. 2 by the Senate January 15, and as signed into law February 20. The appropriations tables include all these figures except last year's SenateAppropriations Committee figures. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senatecontained an offset across-the-board rescission of 2.9%, and the final measureprovides for an across-the-board cut of 0.65%. These across-the-board cuts are notreflected in the appropriations table figures or in the figures cited in the text of thereport. For the Corps of Engineers, the Administration requested $4.17 billion in FY2003, about $450 million less than the amount appropriated for FY2002. TheHouse Appropriations Committee recommended $4.76 billion, and the Senaterecommended $4.55 billion. The final bill funded the civil works of the Corps at$4.63 billion. The Administration asked for $881 million for FY2003 for the Department ofthe Interior programs included in the Energy and Water bill -- the Bureau ofReclamation and the Central Utah Project. This would have been a decrease ofapproximately $61 million from the FY2002 funding level. The Houserecommended $947.5 million for this title, the same as appropriated for FY2002. The Senate approved $956.2 million, and the final bill appropriated $953.5 million. The request for DOE programs was $20.89 billion, about $928 million more than the previous year. The major activities in the DOE budget are energy researchand development, general science, environmental cleanup, and nuclear weaponsprograms. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $20.68 billion forthese programs; the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $20.93 billion. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senate maintained the Senate figure. Thefinal bill appropriated $20.89 billion. (Funding of DOE's programs for fossil fuels,energy efficiency, and energy statistics is included in the Interior and RelatedAgencies appropriations bill. The FY2003 net appropriations request for theseprograms was $1.7 billion.) The request for funding the independent agencies in Title IV of the bill was $214.4 million, compared with $220.5 million in FY2002. The House bill wouldhave cut this funding to $151.9 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended $219.7 million. H.J.Res. 2 as passed by the Senatemaintained the Senate funding level, and the final bill appropriated $208.0 million. Table 2. Energy and Water DevelopmentAppropriations, FY1996 to FY2003 (budget authority in billions of current dollars*) *These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, andreflect rescissions. Table 2 includes budget totals for energy and water appropriations enacted for FY1996 to FY2002 and the Administration's request for FY2003. Tables 3-7provide budget details for Title I (Corps of Engineers), Title II (Department of theInterior), Title III (Department of Energy) and Title IV (independent agencies) forFY2002 - FY2003. The President's budget request for FY2003 included $4.173 billion for the civilworks projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), a decrease of $450million from the total enacted level for FY2002. (The Corps received $4.486 billionvia the annual Energy and Water appropriations bill for FY2002. An additional $139million was appropriated for Site Security/Counter Terrorism in the FY2002 Defenseand Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, P.L. 107-117 .) The HouseAppropriations Committee recommended funding of $4.76 billion for Corpsprograms; the Senate included $4.55 billion. The final bill ( P.L. 108-7 ) funded theCorps at $4.63 billion. The final legislation included appropriations for some of the Corps' controversial projects. The bill authorized and directed the Corps to use $5 millionfor construction of the emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, subject tonumerous provisions. One of the provisions was that no funds be used to carry outa feasibility study--a study that a tabled amendment by Senator McCain would haverequired before appropriations could be spent for outlet construction. The finalfunding level for the Yazoo Basin's Backwater Pumping Plant was $10 million;previous language had placed funding as high as $15 million, while another tabled amendment by Senator McCain would have reduced funding to $0.25 million. Thefinal appropriations bill contained no language related to the flow regime in theMissouri River, despite attempts by Senator Bond to include language restrictingactions by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Table 3. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Title I: Corps of Engineers (in millions ofdollars) *Figures do not include across-the-board recisions: 2.9% in Senate H.J.Res.2, 0.65% in P.L. 108-7 . Funding for the Corps' civil works program has often been a contentious issue between the Administration and Congress, with final appropriations typicallyproviding more funding than requested, regardless of which political party controlsthe White House and Congress. For FY2001, for example, Congress added $480million (12%) to the $4.08 billion requested by the Clinton Administration. Similarly, the FY2002 House bill funded the Corps at almost 15% more thanrequested by the Bush Administration, and the final act appropriated slightly morethan that. The FY2003 budget followed a similar pattern. The request as presented in February 27, 2002, testimony in the House recommended a cut from currentspending: approximately 4% overall, but 30% less for investigation/studies, and 16% less for construction - with virtually no "new starts" in these two accounts duringfiscal year 2003. Request priorities continued only projects with Administrationsupport - not congressionally added projects from FY2002 that lacked favorableexecutive branch review (such as water supply assistance). The SenateAppropriations Committee report ( S.Rept. 107-220 ) noted that four projectsaccounted for 30% of the Administration's proposed general construction budget. The budget proposal received considerable media attention in the wake of the March 2002 resignation of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (whosets policy for the Corps' civil activities). The resignation, or dismissal by someaccounts, was reportedly over a rift with the White House on the budget proposal. The Senate Committee report noted that the absence of a replacement for theAssistant Secretary resulted in the committee accepting written testimony from theAdministration in lieu of an oral statement. The House report did not comment onthe resignation per se , but both the Senate and House reports expressed displeasurewith the relatively low budget request. Project Construction & Maintenance Backlog. The Administration estimated the current project backlogfor ongoing work at $21 billion and used this backlog in part to justify its "no newstarts" stance on construction. The Senate Committee countered that theAdministration's request would cause the construction backlog to grow from $40billion to $44 billion and result in a critical maintenance backlog of $884 million (a$182 million increase from FY2002 levels).