[House Report 106-693]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-693
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
_______
June 23, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Packard, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4733]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page Number
Bill Report
Introduction...............................................
4
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
Introduction...............................
5
General Investigations..................... 2
6
Construction, general...................... 3
31
Flood control, Mississippi River and
tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee................ 5
45
Operation and maintenance, general......... 5
48
Regulatory program......................... 6
64
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program................................ 8
65
General expenses........................... 8
65
Revolving Fund............................. 9
65
Administrative provisions.................. 9
General Provisions......................... 9
66
II. Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project completion account............ 10
67
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and related resources................ 11
67
Bureau of Reclamation loan program account. 13
77
Central Valley Project restoration fund.... 14
79
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
79
Policy and administration.................. 14
80
Administrative provision................... 15
General Provisions......................... 15
80
III. Department of Energy:
Introduction.......................................
Energy supply...................................... 16
Non-defense environmental management............... 17
91
Uranium enrichment decontamination and
decommissioning fund...........................
91
Uranium facilities maintenance and remediation..... 17
91
Science............................................ 17
93
Nuclear waste disposal............................. 18
97
Departmental administration........................ 20
98
Office of the Inspector General.................... 21
100
Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration...
100
Weapons activities......................... 21
101
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........... 21
104
Naval reactors............................. 22
110
Defense environmental restoration and waste
management............................. 22
111
Defense facilities closure projects........ 23
115
Defense environmental management
privatization.......................... 23
117
Other defense activities................... 24
117
Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 24
120
Power marketing administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration............ 24
121
Southeastern Power Administration.......... 25
123
Southwestern Power Administration.......... 26
123
Western Area Power Administration.......... 27
124
Falcon and Amistad operating and
maintenance fund....................... 28
124
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............... 28
125
General Provisions................................. 29
136
IV. Independent agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.................... 33
139
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............ 33
139
Delta Regional Authority...........................
139
Denali Commission..................................
140
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................... 34
140
Office of Inspector General........................ 35
141
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............... 35
142
V. Rescissions............................................. 36
143
VI. General provisions..................................... 36
145
House reporting requirements...............................
147
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations
The Committee has considered budget estimates which are
contained in the Budget of the United Stats Government, 2001.
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year
2000, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill
for fiscal year 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 recommendation compared with--
2000 2001 estimate 2001 ---------------------------------------
recommendation 2000 appropriation 2001 estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil............... 4,126,560,000 4,063,700,000 4,123,607,000 (2,953,000) 59,907,000
Title II--Department of the Interior................ 805,802,000 840,973,000 770,468,000 (35,334,000) (70,505,000)
Title III--Department of Energy..................... 16,606,924,000 18,146,243,000 17,293,425,000 686,501,000 (852,818,000)
Title IV--Independent Agencies...................... 128,510,000 177,166,000 107,500,000 (21,010,000) (69,666,000)
Title V--Rescissions................................ (20,749,000) (85,000,000) (85,000,000) (64,251,000) ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 21,647,047,000 23,143,082,000 22,210,000,000 562,953,000 (933,082,000)
Scorekeeping adjustments............................ (450,078,000) (448,238,000) (467,000,000) (16,922,000) (18,762,000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total of bill........................... 21,196,969,000 22,694,844,000 21,743,000,000 546,031,000 (951,844,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee
recommendation for programs within its jurisdiction for fiscal
year 2001 totals $21.7 billion, which is $546 million above the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000, and $951.8 million
below the President's budget request. However, for fiscal year
2001, the subcommittee has received separate section 302b
allocations for defense and non-defense activities. Therefore,
an analysis of the bill requires that these functions be looked
at separately.
For non-defense activities within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction, the 302b allocation of $8.85 billion is
approximately $210 million below the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 2000 and $761 million below the President's budget
request. Under these constrained conditions, the Committee
believes that funding priority must be given to the following
areas: maintaining the existing inventory of Corps of Engineers
and Bureau of Reclamation water resources projects; continuing
the construction of ongoing water resources projects to avoid
contract termination costs and the increased costs associated
with stretching out project schedules; protecting the basic
science programs of the Department of Energy; providing
sufficient funds for the Department of Energy to make a
recommendation on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a
repository for the Nation's nuclear waste; and providing for
the cleanup of Department of Energy non-defense facilities such
as the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky and
Portsmouth, Ohio. In order to achieve those goals, the
Committee has been unable to provide funds for new projects,
both studies and construction projects, within the water
resources programs of the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
Reclamation, and has been unable to provide funds for the new
and exciting science initiatives or the increases in solar and
renewable energy research proposed by the Administration for
the Department of Energy.
For atomic energy defense activities, the subcommittee's
302b allocation of $12.893 billion is a decrease of $191
million from the budget request, and an increase of $755.5
million over fiscal year 2000. This funding includes $6.2
billion for the new National Nuclear Security Administration
that maintains the nuclear weapons stockpile, supports
international nonproliferation programs, and funds the naval
nuclear program. In addition, $5.86 billion is provided for
environmental cleanup programs throughout the nation; $592
million is provided for security and emergency operations,
intelligence and counter-intelligence activities, and
environment, safety and health programs; and $200 million is
provided for the defense contribution to the nuclear waste fund
program in support of a final geologic repository for high-
level nuclear waste.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Introduction
The Committee has been and remains very concerned about the
amount of time and effort it takes the Corps of Engineers and
the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army to review and
approve project decision documents and project cooperation
agreements. In light of that concern, the Committee last year
directed the Chief of Engineers to provide to the Committee, by
February 1, 2000, a report outlining plans for improved and
streamlined project decision, review, and agreement processes.
That report still has not been received by the Committee. At
our hearing this year on the Corps of Engineers fiscal year
2001 budget, the Committee learned that the Chief of Engineers
had completed the required report, but that it was being held
in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works. The Committee wishes to repeat that finding ways to
streamline the project review process and project cooperation
agreement process is one of its highest priorities. Therefore,
the Committee strongly urges the Assistant Secretary to release
the report prepared by the Corps of Engineers so the Congress
can begin a dialog with the Administration on ways to improve
these processes.
Earlier this year, allegations were raised that certain
Corps of Engineers officials acted improperly by manipulating
data in connection with the ongoing study of navigation
improvements on the upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway in order to manufacture a rationale for the
construction of improvements to the system. The Committee views
these charges very seriously and a number of independent
investigations of these charges are underway. Because those
investigations have not yet been completed, the Committee
believes it would be premature to take any specific actions
regarding the allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the
Upper Mississippi River/Illinois Waterway study.
The Corps of Engineers has also been accused of improperly
trying to ``grow'' its Civil Works program. While the Committee
agrees that any efforts by senior Corps of Engineers officials
to pressure planners and engineers to inappropriately justify
projects is unacceptable, the Committee believes that it is a
proper role of the Chief of Engineers to advise the
Administration, the Congress, and the Nation of the level of
investment in water resources infrastructure that he believes
is needed to support the economy and improve the quality of
life for our citizens. The Chief of Engineers testified that
its backlog of critical deferred maintenance will grow from
$329 million in fiscal year 2000 to over $450 million in fiscal
year 2001. At current funding levels, the backlog could grow to
$1 billion in 10 years. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works testified that an additional $700
million per year would be required to permit projects to move
forward on their most efficient schedules. Inefficient
construction schedules lead to increased costs, and perhaps
more importantly, result in forgone benefits that the projects
are designed to provide. The Committee hopes that the increased
awareness of this problem brought about by the statements of
the Chief of Engineers will cause the Administration and the
Congress to recognize that there may be a need for increased
investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure.
Last year, the Committee noted that the Corps of Engineers
had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in pursuit of
opportunities to promote the conservation of fish, wildlife,
and plants, in accordance with applicable law. The National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is a private, non-profit,
501(c)(3) organization, established by Congress in 1984. The
Committee continues to look favorably upon future cooperative
efforts of the Corps and NFWF.
General Investigations
Appropriation, 2000................................... $161,994,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 137,700,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 153,327,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -8,667,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +15,627,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Coosa River, Alabama and Georgia.--The Committee has
provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to update the
economic evaluation for the Coosa River navigation project in
Alabama and Georgia.
Saint George Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility
study of navigation improvements at Saint George Harbor,
Alaska.
Colonias Along the U.S./Mexico Border, Arizona and Texas.--
The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers
to continue to provide technical assistance to the Old Nogales
Highway in Pima County, Arizona, and $60,000 to provide
technical assistance for four identified colonias in Cameron
County, Texas.
Pima County, Arizona.--The Committee recommendation
includes $175,000 for a feasibility study to evaluate
opportunities for environmental restoration projects that
fulfill the objectives of the Pima County Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan, and for a Special Management Plan for Pima
County, Sonoran Desert Area, Gila River and Tributaries.
Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.--The Committee
recommendation includes $375,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Rio de
Flag project in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Rio Salado, Oeste, Arizona.--The Committee has provided
$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility
phase studies for the Rio Salado, Oeste, Arizona, project.
Santa Cruz River (Gila River and Tributaries), Arizona.--
The Committee has provided $300,000 for feasibility phase
studies of flooding problems along the Santa Cruz River from
Grant Road to Ft. Lowell Road.
Santa Cruz River (Paseo de las Iglesias), Arizona.--The
Committee has provided $335,000 to continue the feasibility
study of the Santa Cruz River (Paseo de las Iglesias), Arizona,
project.
Tres Rios, Arizona.--The Committee has provided $500,000 to
continue the preconstruction engineering and design effort for
the Tres Rios, Arizona, project.
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.--The Committee has provided
$368,000 above the budget request to continue preconstruction
engineering and design for the Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona,
project.
Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas.--The Committee has
provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake
preconstruction engineering and design for the rehabilitation
of levees along the Arkansas River as authorized by section 110
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990.
Southeast Arkansas, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided
$900,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continues the Southeast
Arkansas feasibility study, which will examine flooding,
agricultural water supply, and environmental problems in the
Boeuf-Tensas and Bayou Bartholomew areas of Arkansas.
White River Navigation, Arkansas.--The Committee has
included $300,000 to continue general reevaluation studies for
the White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas, project.
Aliso Creek Mainstem, California.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
reconnaissance study and initiate the feasibility phase for the
Aliso Creek Mainstem project.
Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study, Los
Angeles, California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for
the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of the
Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave study in Los Angeles
County, California.
Hamilton Airfield Wetlands Restoration, California.--The
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
identify the Federal interest in incorporating the Bel Marin
Keys into the Hamilton Airfield Wetlands Restoration project.
Huntington Beach, Blufftop Park, California.--The Committee
has provided $211,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete
the feasibility study for the Huntington Beach, Blufftop Park,
project.
Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening, California.--The
Committee has provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
initiate and complete preconstruction engineering and design of
the Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel Deepening project.
Malibu Creek, California.--The Committee has provided
$400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility
study of the potential for environmental restoration in the
Malibu Creek Watershed, including the potential for the removal
of Rindge Dam.
Mare Island Straight, California.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a
General Reevaluation Report to study the current and potential
future uses of the Mare Island channel.
Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek, California.--The bill
includes $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
sediment control plan component of the Marina del Rey and
Ballona Creek project and expand the study to include the
investigation of additional alternatives for Ballona Creek.
Murrietta Creek, California.--The Committee has provided an
additional $450,000 for the Murrietta Creek, California,
project. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use
the additional funds to develop a comprehensive plan for flood
control, environmental restoration, and recreation-related
activities for Murrietta Creek through the communities of
Murrieta and Temecula.
Newport Bay (LA-3 Site Designation Study), California.--The
Committee has provided $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue the designation study for the LA-3 offshore dredged
material disposal site.
Northern California Streams, Lower Cache Creek,
California.--The Committee has provided funding above the
budget request to continue the feasibility phase of the
Northern California Streams, Lower Cache Creek, California,
study.
Orange County Coast Beach Erosion, California.--The
Committee has provided $475,000 to complete the reconnaissance
report and initiate the feasibility study for the Orange County
Coast Beach Erosion project, which includes the coastline at
San Clemente, California.
Peninsula Beach (City of Long Beach), California.--The bill
includes $250,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the
study of ongoing beach erosion along the shoreline in Long
Beach, California.
Poso Creek, California.--The Committee has provided funding
above the budget request to continue and advance completion of
the Poso Creek, California, feasibility study.
Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive
Study, California.--The Committee has provided funding of
$1,500,000 above the budget request to continue feasibility
studies and advance completion of the Sacramento River and San
Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study, California.
San Diego County Shoreline, California.--The Committee has
provided $325,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
reconnaissance phase and initiate the feasibility study for the
San Diego County Shoreline project.
San Francisco Bay, California.--The Committee has provided
an additional $450,000 to continue feasibility studies of the
San Francisco Bay, California, project.
San Gabriel River to Newport Bay, California.--The
Committee has provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
complete the reconnaissance study and initiate the feasibility
phase for the San Gabriel River to Newport Bay, California,
project.
San Joaquin River Basin, Frazier Creek, California.--The
Committee has provided $250,000 to complete the reconnaissance
report and initiate the feasibility study for the San Joaquin
River Basin, Frazier Creek, California, project.
San Joaquin River Basin, Tuolumne River, California.--The
Committee has provided $300,000 to continue the feasibility
phase of the San Joaquin River Basin, Tuolumne River,
California, study.
San Juan Creek Watershed Management, California.--The
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
complete the San Juan Creek Watershed Management feasibility
study.
Solana Beach, California.--The Committee has provided
$350,000 to complete the reconnaissance study and initiate the
feasibility study of the southern California coastline in the
cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach, California.
Southern California Special Area Management Plans,
California.--The Committee has provided $1,882,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to continue the process of developing
Special Area Management Plans for southern California. This
work will result in comprehensive plans that allow for
protection of aquatic resources while considering reasonable
economic growth. The amount provided includes $882,000 to
continue the Orange County Special Area Management Plan, and
$500,000 each for the plans in San Diego and Riverside
Counties. These Special Area Management Plans shall be
conducted in coordination with the existing southern California
Natural Community Conservation Plan.
Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, California.--The
Committee has provided $300,000 to continue the feasibility
phase study for Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, California.
Tijuana River Environmental Restoration, California.--The
Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
broaden the scope of the Tijuana River Environmental
Restoration study to identify the need for a regional water
supply infrastructure that would integrate existing surface
water storage and potential groundwater storage and recovery
projects in the United States and Mexico, and to explore the
opportunity to improve water quality for San Diego County and
the Tijuana region through desalting shared groundwater basins
and imported water supplies.
Whitewater River Basin, California.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate
preconstruction engineering and design for the Whitewater River
Basin project.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Broadkill Beach, Delaware.--The
bill includes $304,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete
preconstruction engineering and design of the Delaware Bay
Coastline, Broadkill Beach project.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet/Lewes Beach,
Delaware.--The Committee has provided $124,000 to complete
preconstruction engineering and design of the Delaware Day
Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet/Lewes Beach project.
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island,
Bethany Beach to South Bethany, Delaware.--The Committee
recommends $33,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and
design of the Bethany Beach to South Bethany element of the
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island project.
Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois.--The Committee has
provided $325,000 to negotiate a design agreement and initiate
preconstruction engineering and design for the project at
Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois.
Kankakee River Basin, Illinois and Indiana.--The Committee
has provided $300,000 above the budget request to continue and
advance completion of the Kankakee River Basin, Illinois and
Indiana, feasibility study.
Des Plaines River and Tributaries, Phase II, Illinois and
Wisconsin.--The Committee has provided $500,000 above the
budget request to advance studies associated with the
feasibility phase of the Des Plaines River and Tributaries,
Phase II, Illinois and Wisconsin, study.
Indiana Harbor Environmental Dredging, Indiana.--The
Committee has provided $500,000 for the feasibility phase of
the study of the need to perform environmental dredging in
Indiana Harbor, Indiana.
Little Calumet River (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana.--The bill
includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans
and specifications for the Little Calumet River (Cady Marsh
Ditch), Indiana, project.
Ohio River Greenway Public Access, Indiana.--The Committee
has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to
undertake preconstruction engineering and design for the Ohio
River Greenway Public Access project in Indiana.
White River, Muncie, Indiana.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility
phase studies of flooding problems along the White River in
Muncie, Indiana, including rehabilitation of the White River
Dam.
Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.--The Committee has
provided an additional $200,000 to continue the feasibility
study, including the study of environmental remediation of
brownfields sites adjacent to the Racoon River.
Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky.--The Committee has
included $400,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and
design for rehabilitation of flood control structures at
Paducah, Kentucky.
Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided an additional $200,000 for the Ascension Parish
portion of the Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, study.
Calcasieu River Basin, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $300,000 to continue the Calcasieu River Basin,
Louisiana, feasibility study.
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an
additional $285,000 to advance completion of preconstruction
engineering and design for the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana,
project.
Orleans Parish, Louisiana.--The bill includes $300,000 for
preconstruction engineering and design of the Orleans Parish,
Louisiana, project.
St. Bernard Parish Urban Flood Control, Louisiana.--The
Committee has provided $500,000 to initiate and advance
completion of the St. Bernard Parish Urban Flood Control,
Louisiana, feasibility study.
West Shore, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee
is aware of concerns expressed by St. John the Baptist Parish
regarding proposed levee alignments north of Interstate 10. The
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to work with parish
officials to determine a mutually acceptable levee alignment
for this project.
Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.--The
Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue its review of flood control and environmental
restoration needs for the Muddy River in Brookline and Boston,
Massachusetts.
Detroit River Environmental Dredging, Michigan.--The
Committee has provided $250,000 to complete the reconnaissance
study and initiate the feasibility study for the Detroit River
Environmental Dredging, Michigan, project.
Muskegon Lake, Michigan.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 to initiate feasibility level studies for the Muskegon
Lake, Michigan, project.
Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi.--The Committee has
provided $50,000 to resume the Pearl River Watershed,
Mississippi, flood damage prevention feasibility study.
Lower Platte River and Tributaries, Nebraska.--The
Committee has provided the budget request of $217,000 for the
Lower Platte River and Tributaries study. These funds may also
be used to conduct studies authorized by section 503 (d)(11) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--The
Committee recommendation includes $450,000 to continue
preconstruction engineering and design of the Barnegat Inlet to
Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey, project.
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet (Brigantine
Island), New Jersey.--The Committee recommendation includes
$391,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design,
including plans and specifications, for the Brigantine Island,
New Jersey, project.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Oakwood Beach, New Jersey and
Delaware.--The Committee recommendation includes $222,000 to
complete preconstruction engineering and design of the Oakwood
Beach element of the Delaware Bay Coastline project.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Reeds Beach to Pierces Point, New
Jersey and Delaware.--The Committee recommendation includes
$135,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design of
the Reeds Beach to Pierces Point element of the Delaware Bay
Coastline project.
Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey and
Delaware.--The Committee recommendation includes $155,000 to
complete plans and specifications for the Villas and Vicinity
element of the Delaware Bay Coastline project.
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.--The
Committee has provided $150,000 to negotiate and execute a
design agreement and to initiate plans and specifications for
the Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet project.
Lower Cape May Meadows to Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The
Committee recommendation includes $345,000 to complete
preconstruction engineering and design for the Lower Cape May
Meadows to Cape May Point project.
Lower Saddle River, New Jersey.--The Committee has included
$100,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design of
the Lower Saddle River project.
Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to initiate
preconstruction engineering and design of the Manasquan Inlet
to Barnegat Inlet project.
Passaic River, Harrison, New Jersey.--The Committee
recommendation includes $300,000 to prepare a final feature
design and decision document for the Passaic River, Harrison,
New Jersey, project.
Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.--The Committee has included language in the bill
which provides that in conducting the Southwest Valley Flood
Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study, the Corps of
Engineers shall include an evaluation of flood damage reduction
measures that would otherwise be excluded from feasibility
analysis based on restrictive policies regarding the frequency
of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of runoff.
Atlantic Coast of New York Monitoring Program, New York.--
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue the
monitoring program directed at addressing post-storm actions
and long-term shoreline erosion control along the south shore
of Long Island.
Bronx River Basin, New York.--The Committee has provided
$450,000 for continuation of the feasibility study, including a
brownfields assessment at the Cement Plant site and an analysis
of the best public access plan for Soundview Park which shall
consider provision of a bridge and walkways between Hunts Point
and Soundview Park. The results of the Cement Plant site
assessment shall be made available prior to completion of the
overall feasibility report.
Buffalo Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 to initiate a feasibility study of environmental
dredging at Buffalo Harbor, New York.
Lake Montauk Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for a feasibility study of navigation improvements at
Lake Montauk Harbor, New York.
Montauk Point, New York.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 to continue the Montauk Point, New York, feasibility
study.
Saw Mill River and Tributaries, New York.--The Committee
has provided an additional $50,000 to continue the Saw Mill
River and Tributaries feasibility study.
Sawmill River at Elmsford/Greenburgh, New York.--The
Committee has included $750,000 to continue preconstruction
engineering and design of the project at Sawmill River,
Elmsford and Greenburgh, New York.
South Shore of Staten Island, New York.--Within the funds
provided for the South Shore of Staten Island study, the
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to examine the
feasibility of reconstructing the Crescent Beach seawall.
Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York.--The Committee has
included $50,000 to initiate the feasibility study of the Upper
Susquehanna River Basin, New York.
Bogue Banks, North Carolina.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 to initiate the feasibility phase of the Bogue Banks,
North Carolina, study.
Dare County Beaches, Hatteras and Ocracoke Island, North
Carolina.--The Committee has provided $500,000 to initiate the
feasibility phase of the study at Dare County Beaches, North
Carolina.
Devils Lake, North Dakota.--The Committee has provided an
additional $2,000,000 to continue feasibility phase studies of
measures to control flooding caused by the high lake levels of
Devils Lake, North Dakota. The study should include all
relevant requirements to serve as basis for project
authorization, including economic and environmental analyses,
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other
environmental statutes, and compliance with the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909.
Mahoning River Environmental Dredging, Ohio and
Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000
to continue feasibility studies of the need for environmental
dredging of the Mahoning River in Ohio.
Ohio River Commodity Flow Study, Ohio.--The Committee has
included $200,000 for completion of a system wide commodity
flow study on the Ohio River.
Steubenville, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $175,000
for a feasibility level master plan study of a public port site
on the Ohio River at Steubenville, Ohio.
Southeast Oklahoma Water Resources Study, Oklahoma.--The
Committee has included $700,000 for the Southeast Oklahoma
Water Resources Study, which will advance the study completion
by 4 years.
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Matagorda Bay, Texas.--The
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for preconstruction
engineering and design of modifications of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway at Matagorda Bay, Texas.
Hunting Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $337,000
for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor
for a portion of the Federal share of the project costs for the
Hunting Bayou, Texas, project.
Lower Colorado River Basin, Texas.--The Committee has
provided an additional $900,000 to accelerate completion of the
study of flooding problems in the Lower Colorado River Basin of
Texas.
Raymondville Drain, Texas.--The Committee has provided
$700,000 for continued preparation of a general reevaluation
report to solve flooding problems at Raymondville, Texas.
Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.--The Committee has
provided $1,100,000 for continuation of the Upper Trinity River
Basin, Texas, feasibility study. The amount provided above the
budget request is to expedite completion of the Dallas Floodway
study and continue the feasibility of the Trinity River
Environmental Enhancement/Fort Worth Floodway component of the
project.
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia.--The Committee
recommendation includes $170,000 to continue feasibility phase
studies for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline project at Hampton,
Virginia.
Lake Merriweather, Goshen Dam and Spillway, Virginia.--The
Committee has provided $150,000 for a final decision document,
a design agreement, and initiation of plans and specifications
for upgrading Goshen Dam.
New River Basin, Virginia, North Carolina and West
Virginia.--The Committee has included $200,000 to continue the
New River Basin study.
Centralia, Washington.--The Committee has provided $500,000
to continue preparation of a general reevaluation report and
environmental impact statement for the project at Centralia,
Washington.
Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.--The
Committee has included $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
proceed with preconstruction engineering and design for the
Erickson/Wood County Public Port, West Virginia.
Weirton Port, West Virginia.--The Committee recommendation
includes $750,000 for preconstruction engineering and design of
the Weirton Port, West Virginia, project.
Fox River, Wisconsin.--The Committee recommendation
includes $250,000 to continue the Fox River, Wisconsin, study.
Coastal Field Data Collection Program.--Within the amount
provided for the Coastal Field Data Collection program, the
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to work with the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography to determine wave characteristics
along the California coastline to aid in the prediction of
coastal processes.
Flood Plain Management Services.--Within the amount
provided for the Flood Plain Management Services Program, the
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to undertake a flood
plain management study for the Yellowstone River at Glendive,
Montana.
Planning Assistance to States.--Within the amount provided
for the Planning Assistance to States program, the Committee
urges the Corps of Engineers to update the daily flow model for
the Delaware River Basin.
Stream Gaging.--Within the amount provided for the Stream
Gaging program, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to
replace and maintain the stream flow gages on Pescadero and
Pilarcitos Creeks in California.
Research and Development.--Within the amount provided for
Research and Development, $2,000,000 is for the National
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program
authorized by section 227 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996.
Construction, General
Appropriation, 2000................................... $1,385,032,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 1,346,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 1,378,430,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -6,602,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +32,430,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas.--The Committee has
provided an additional $5,000,000 for construction of the
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam project in Arkansas.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, and Texas.--The bill includes $2,000,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to continue work on revetments within the
state of Arkansas.
Berryessa Creek, California.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to continue the General Reevaluation Report for the
Berryessa Creek, California, project.
Imperial Beach, California.--The Committee has provided
$800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and
specifications for the Imperial Beach, California, project.
Kaweah River, California.--The Committee has provided
$3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction
of the Kaweah River project in California.
Sacramento River Bank Protection, California.--The bill
includes additional funds to advance completion of the
Sacramento River Bank Protection project in California.
San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.--The Committee
has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete
the General Reevaluation Report of the feasibility of
constructing a turning basin near Avon, California.
Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The bill includes an
additional $5,000,000 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem project
in California for the continued construction of the San Timoteo
Creek feature of the project.
Stockton Metropolitan Area, California.--The bill includes
$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the local
sponsor for construction costs on the Stockton Metropolitan
Area, California, project under the authority of section 211 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, California.--The bill
includes $5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake
periodic nourishment of the Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach
project in California.
Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island,
Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware.--The bill includes
$3,000,000 to continue construction of the Rehoboth Beach and
Dewey Beach element of the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to
Fenwick Island project.
Brevard County, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction
of the North Reach of the Brevard County, Florida, project.
Central and Southern Florida, Florida.--The Committee has
been advised by the Corps of Engineers that the amount
requested for fiscal year 2001 for the Central and Southern
Florida is excess to currently anticipated needs. This is due
to delays in completing the General Reevaluation Report for the
C-111 project and the fact that the amount requested for
engineering and design for the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan was based on a cost sharing formula of 75%
Federal/25% non-Federal. Cost sharing for engineering and
design will actually be 50/50, reducing the requirement for
Federal funds in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the Committee
has reduced the amount requested for the project by
$12,000,000.
Dade County, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$8,000,000 for the Dade County, Florida, project for the Corps
of Engineers to complete renourishment of the Sunny Isles
reach, and initiate work on north Miami and Haulover reaches.
Palm Valley Bridge, Florida.--The Committee has provided an
additional $3,500,000 to accelerate construction of the Palm
Valley Bridge project in Florida.
St. Johns County, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction
of the St. Johns County project in Florida.
St. Lucie Inlet, Florida.--The Committee recommendation
includes $5,000,000 for construction of the remaining
authorized elements of the St. Lucie Inlet, Florida, project.
Sarasota County, Florida.--The Committee directs the Corps
of Engineers to use available funds to reimburse the City of
Venice, Florida, the Federal share of the construction costs of
an artificial reef that is to be considered an integral part of
the Sarasota County beach nourishment project as well as the
Federal share of the costs of constructing and/or relocating
any stormwater outfall whose primary purpose is to drain storm
water from public property.
Tampa Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided $300,000
for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a General Reevaluation
Report of navigation problems in Tampa Harbor, with particular
emphasis on the need for a deep draft anchorage area.
East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control,
Illinois.--The Committee has provided $150,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to continue the General Reevaluation Report for the
East St. Louis and Vicinity Interior Flood Control project in
Illinois.
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee
has provided an additional $5,000,000 to accelerate
construction of the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs project in
Illinois.
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The bill includes
$1,000,000 for renourishment of the beach at the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore and for continued monitoring of the project.
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.--The bill
includes $7,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
construction of the Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana,
project.
Little Calumet River, Indiana.--The Committee has provided
an additional $3,500,000 to accelerate construction of the
Little Calumet River project in Indiana.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The
Committee has provided additional funds for the Corps of
Engineers to accelerate construction of the Kentucky Lock and
Dam project.
McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky.--The
Committee has provided an additional $4,000,000 for
construction of the McAlpine Locks and Dam project. The
Committee is interested in the development of more cost-
effective methods of lock and dam construction and
rehabilitation. Roller compacted concrete has been used in
several Corps of Engineers projects, yet minimal research has
been done to test the long term durability and shear strength
of roller compacted concrete and grout enriched roller
compacted concrete. Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of
Engineers to use funds provided for the McAlpine Locks and Dam
project to undertake research on roller compacted concrete and
grout enriched roller compacted concrete in connection with
construction of the McAlpine Locks and Dam project.
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and
construction of selected environmental infrastructure projects
in southern and eastern Kentucky.
Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the
economic analysis and investigate the environmental benefits of
the Grand Isle and Vicinity project.
J.Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided an additional $3,000,000 for the construction of
additional features needed to ensure the reliability of the
navigation channel.
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection),
Louisiana.--The Committee is very concerned by the budget
request submitted for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity
project. The Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers to continue the construction of
parallel protection and other features of the Lake
Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana, project and urges the
Corps of Engineers to carefully evaluate its fiscal year 2002
request.
Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Larose to Golden
Meadow hurricane protection project. The Committee recognizes
the life-threatening situations that have occurred several
times by the closing of the Golden Meadow floodgates to protect
its ``interior'' citizens from storm surges. While the
Committee supports the use and operation of this flood control
system, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite
to the fullest extent completion of the Leon Theriot lock to
allow for the unimpeded passage of mariners seeking safe harbor
north of the floodgates on Bayou Lafourche.
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The Committee
has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
the investigation of need to modify the existing project
channel.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.--The
bill includes $500,000 for the preparation of a long-term
master plan for the restoration of oyster habitat in Chesapeake
Bay.
Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $1,400,000 to accelerate
construction of the Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska,
project.
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet (Absecon
Island), New Jersey.--The bill includes $5,000,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the Absecon
Island feature of the Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor
Inlet project in New Jersey.
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel,
New Jersey.--The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000
to accelerate construction of the Port Jersey Channel, New
Jersey, project.
Passaic River Streambank Restoration, New Jersey.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,300,000 to continue
construction of the Passaic River Streambank Restoration
project in Newark, New Jersey.
Ramapo River at Mahwah, New Jersey and Suffern, New York.--
The bill includes $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to resume
engineering and design of the Ramapo River at Mahwah project.
Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, New York.--The Committee
has recommended an additional $1,000,000 for additional
dredging of Fire Island Inlet with the placement of sand on
Gilgo and Tobay Beaches.
Long Beach Island, New York.--The Committee remains fully
supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and
understands that sufficient carryover funds are available to
satisfy program requirements in fiscal year 2001.
New York City Watershed, New York.--The bill includes
$3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work on the
New York City Watershed project.
Onondaga Lake, New York.--The Committee has provided
$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to implement
projects to carry out the Onondaga Lake Management Plan.
Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina.--The Committee
has provided $4,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete
construction of the Ocean Isle Beach segment of the Brunswick
County Beaches project in North Carolina.
West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, North Carolina.--The
Committee has provided $330,000 for a General Reevaluation
Report of the currently authorized project and the remaining
shoreline at Topsail Beach.
Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.--The bill includes $1,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers to continue the project to
rehabilitate Lower Girard Lake Dam in Girard, Ohio, as
authorized by section 507 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996.
West Columbus, Ohio.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,000,000 to advance completion of the West Columbus, Ohio,
flood control project.
South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement
Program, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has included $20,000,000
to continue the South Central Pennsylvania Environmental
Improvement Program.
Williamsport (Hagerman's Run), Pennsylvania.--The Committee
has provided $446,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete
repairs to the Hagerman's Run flume and conduit, which are
features of the existing Federal flood control project.
Rio Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico.--The bill includes an
additional $2,800,000 to accelerate construction of the Rio
Puerto Nuevo flood control project.
Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.--The Committee
has provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
work on the project for water supply and distribution for
Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeberg, and
Sumter Counties in South Carolina which has been initiated
using other Federal funds.
Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands,
Tennessee.--The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 to
continue construction of the Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands
Springs ecosystem restoration project.
Hamilton County, Tennessee.--The bill includes $1,500,000
for completion of the Hamilton County, Tennessee, streambank
stabilization project authorized by section 574 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996.
Brays Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $6,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor
for a portion of the Federal share of the project costs for the
Brays Bayou, Texas, project.
Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas and Oklahoma.--The
Committee has provided $1,300,000 to complete the reevaluation
report and continue the environmental monitoring program for
the Red River Basin Chloride Control program.
Red River below Denison Dam Levees and Bank Stabilization,
Texas.--The bill includes $900,000 for rehabilitation of the
Bowie County Levee along Red River. The Committee has included
language in the bill which directs that this levee be
rehabilitated to the same standard as levees in Arkansas to
ensure the integrity of the entire levee system.
Environmental Remediation, Front Royal, Virginia.--The
Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue work on the environmental remediation project in Front
Royal, Virginia. The Committee is aware that the Corps of
Engineers will award the contract for this project in fiscal
year 2000 using Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used
Defense Sites funds as provided for in the project
authorization. The funds provided in this bill will enable the
Corps of Engineers to complete this environmental remediation
project.
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Hurricane Protection).--The
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue the
Virginia Beach, Virginia, hurricane protection project.
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Reimbursement).--The Committee
has included $1,100,000 to reimburse the non-Federal project
sponsor for the Federal share of annual renourishment costs of
the Virginia Beach, Virginia, project.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho.--The amount provided for the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation program does not include funds for engineering and
design, or other post-feasibility phase activities, associated
with breaching Lower Snake River dams.
Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to continue design and
complete a detailed project report for the Marlington element
of the Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia, project.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--In
addition to the amounts provided in the budget request, the
bill includes $4,000,000 for the Clover Fork, Kentucky, element
of the project; $4,800,000 for the Middlesboro, Kentucky,
element of the project; $700,000 for the Town of Martin,
Kentucky, element of the project; $4,200,000 for the Pike
County, Kentucky, element of the project, including $1,400,000
for additional studies along the tributaries of the Tug Fork
and a Detailed Project Report for the Levisa Fork; $3,500,000
for the Martin County, Kentucky, element of the project;
$1,200,000 for additional studies along the tributaries of the
Cumberland River in Bell County, Kentucky; $800,000 to continue
the detailed project report for the Buchanan County, Virginia,
element of the project; and $700,000 to continue the detailed
project report for the Dickenson County, Virginia, element of
the project as generally defined in Plan 4 of the Huntington
District Engineer's Draft Supplement to the Section 202 General
Plan for Flood Damage Reduction dated April, 1997, including
all Russell Fork tributary streams within the County and
special consideration as may be appropriate to address the
unique relocation and resettlement needs of floodprone
communities within the County.
West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia
and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to
complete detailed project reports for Philippi and Belington,
West Virginia, and complete the emergency flood warning system
for the Tygart River Basin in West Virginia, and $1,000,000 to
continue work on projects within Pennsylvania.
Southern West Virginia, West Virginia.--The Committee has
provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue work
on the Southern West Virginia environmental infrastructure
project.
LaFarge Lake, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.--The Committee has
included $2,000,000 to continue the project at LaFarge Lake,
Wisconsin.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee
has provided $14,500,000 for the Section 206 program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $500,000 to
complete the ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans
and specifications for the Clear Lake Basin Watershed
Restoration, California, project; $300,000 for the Delta
Science Center project in California; $500,000 for the Lake
Natoma Pond Study and Remediation, California, project;
$300,000 for the Pacific Flyway Center, California, project;
$100,000 to initiate an ecosystem restoration report to address
aquatic restoration including control of non-native weeds in
the Santa Clara River Basin, California; $203,000 to complete
the ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and
specifications for the Upper Truckee River, California,
project; $300,000 for the Turtle Bay Museums, Redding,
California, project; $100,000 to complete a preliminary
restoration plan and intiate an ecosystem restoration report
for the Hayden Diversion, Colorado; $100,000 for the Panama
City Harbor (East Pass), Florida, project; $2,000,000 for the
Stevenson Creek Estuary, Florida, project; $50,000 for a study
of Butler Creek Detention Pond, Cobb County, Georgia; $261,000
to initiate and complete a feasibility study for Iowa River and
Clear Creek, Iowa; $1,000,000 for the Chicago Botanical Garden,
Illinois, project; $300,000 for the Kankakee River, Illinois,
project; $150,000 to initiate a feasibility study of Squaw
Creek Basin, Illinois; $100,000 for a study to evaluate aquatic
ecosystem restoration along Spy Run Creek in Fort Wayne,
Indiana; $110,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility
phase and plans and specifications for the Wabash River, West
Lafayette, Indiana, project; $3,000,000 for the Lower
Cumberland River, Kentucky, project; $126,000 to initiate the
feasibility study for Belle Isle Piers, Detroit, Michigan;
$40,000 to complete the preliminary restoration plan and
initiate the feasibility report for LeMay Wetlands Restoration,
St. Louis County, Missouri; $250,000 for the Little Sugar Creek
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, North Carolina, project;
$210,000 to prepare a preliminary restoration plan and an
ecosystem restoration report for Lake Weamaconk, New Jersey;
$100,000 to initiate a preliminary restoration plan for Silvery
Minnow Habitat, Rio Grande, New Mexico; $200,000 to initiate
the feasibility phase for Port Jefferson Harbor Oyster Habitat
Restoration, Brookhaven, New York; $10,000 for a Preliminary
Restoration Plan for Weir Creek, New York; $1,000,000 for the
Nine Mile Run, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, project; $133,000 to
initiate and complete construction of the North Fork Obion
River, Tennessee, project; $500,000 to complete the ecosystem
restoration report and initiate plans and specifications for
the project at West Jordan, Utah; $500,000 to initiate and
complete plans and specifications for Upper Jordan River
Restoration, Utah; and, $1,516,000 to complete construction of
the Goldsborough Creek, Mason County, Washington, project.
The Committee is aware that since the 1960s, the Mill Creek
watershed in Bryan County, Georgia, has been substantially
degraded due to a combination of factors, including a Natural
Resources Conservation Service channelization project and
effluent discharges from a municipal sewage treatment facility.
Therefore, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use
funds available under the section 206 program for an Ecosystem
Restoration Report for Mill Creek.
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).--The
Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Section 204 program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $55,000
to complete the feasibility phase of the Twenty First Avenue
West Channel, Duluth, Minnesota, project.
Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The
Committee has provided $6,000,000 for the Section 14 program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
$480,000 for the South Fork Coeur d'Alene River at Wallace,
Idaho, project; $184,000 for the project at Bellevue, Iowa;
$50,000 for the English Park at Owensboro, Kentucky, project;
$40,000 to initiate the planning and design analysis for the
Belle Isle South Shore, Detroit, Michigan, project; $40,000 for
the planning and design analysis for Middle Ground Island, Bay
City, Michigan; $600,000 to complete the planning and design
analysis and to initiate construction on the Lake Michigan
Center, Muskegon, Michigan, project; $40,000 to prepare a
planning and design analysis for repair of erosion endangering
the roads and bridge on Bayou Pierre, Mississippi; $700,000 to
continue construction of the Fargo, North Dakota, project;
$160,000 to complete the planning and design analysis and
initiate construction on the Little Miami River, Anderson
Township, Ohio, project; $250,000 for the Bogachiel River near
La Push, Washington, project.
Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee
has provided $30,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $98,000 to
complete plans and specification for the project along Dallas
Branch and Pinhook Creek in Huntsville, Alabama; $500,000 for
the Alhambra Valley Estates and Nancy Boyd Park Area Drainage
and Flood Control, California, project; $203,000 to continue
the feasibility study for the Coyote Creek at Rock Springs,
California, project; funds to continue the Mission Zanja Creek,
California, project; $600,000 to complete the detailed project
report and initiate and complete plans and specifications for
the City of Folsom, Willow and Humbug Creek, California,
project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Magpie
Creek, Sacramento, California, project; $500,000 to initiate
and complete a general reevaluation report for Mare Island,
California; $200,000 to initiate and complete a detailed
project report and plans and specifications on North Cache
Creek Slide, Lake County, California; $260,000 to complete a
detailed project report on the Westside Storm Water Retention
Facility, Lancaster, California, project; $100,000 to complete
a feasibility study on a project at Farm River, North Brandford
and East Haven, Connecticut; $100,000 to complete a feasibility
study on Harbor Brook, Meriden, Connecticut; $100,000 to
initiate a reconnaissance study of a project at Plant City,
Florida; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility phase for a
project on the Weiser River, Idaho; $412,000 to continue
construction of the Deer Creek, Illinois, project; $862,000 to
initiate construction on the East Peoria, Illinois, project;
$50,000 to complete the Grafton, Illinois, project feasibility
study; $100,000 to initiate the Matteson, Illinois, feasibility
study; $300,000 to continue construction of the Stoney Creek,
Illinois, project; $50,000 to initiate the feasibility phase on
the Willow Creek Drainage District, Illinois, project; $50,000
to complete the Mad Creek at Muscatine, Iowa, feasibility
study; $100,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems
along Spy Run Creek in Fort Wayne, Indiana; $500,000 for the
Jean Lafitte, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, project; $20,000 to
initiate a study of flood protection at Ell Pond, Melrose,
Massachusettes; $70,000 to continue study of the Yellowstone
River at Glendive, Montana; $500,000 to continue the project at
Wahpeton, North Dakota; $2,600,000 to complete plans and
specifications and initiate construction on the project at
McKeel Brook, Dover and Rockaway Township, New Jersey; $100,000
to initiate the feasibility phase on the Medford, Oregon
project; $100,000 for the Wissahickon Watershed, Pennsylvania,
project; $140,000 for design and construction of the Baxter
Bottom project in Tipton County, Tennessee; $300,000 to
complete the feasibility study for Beaver Creek, Bristol,
Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia; $175,000 for a feasibility
study of flooding problems in Erwin, Tennessee; $500,000 to
complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and
specifications for the First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee,
project; $75,000 for engineering and design of the Rossville,
Tennessee, project; $300,000 to continue work on the City of
Renton, Washington, project; $1,717,000 to complete plans and
specifications and initiate construction of the Snoqualmie
River project at Snoqualmie, Washington; and, $50,000 to
continue feasibility studies of flood damage reduction on the
Snoqualmie River at North Bend, Washington.
In addition, the Committee is aware of the devastation that
occurred at Augusta, Kansas, during the Halloween flood of
1998, which resulted in millions of dollars in property damages
to more than 600 homes and businesses. Therefore, the Committee
strongly encourages the Corps of Engineers to expeditiously
complete the feasibility study for the project using funds
available for the section 205 program so that construction may
begin as soon as possible.
The Committee is also aware that the Corps of Engineers
will use available fiscal year 2000 funds to complete plans and
specifications for the Pipe Creek, Alexandria, Indiana, and
White River, Anderson, Indiana, projects. The Committee expects
the Corps to expeditiously move to the construction phase of
these projects.
The Committee understands that the cost of the flood
control project being constructed on the Petaluma River in
California under the authority of section 205 has increased
dramatically since the initial cost estimate was made by the
Corps of Engineers and an agreement between the City of
Petaluma and the Corps was entered into for construction of the
project. Because the City entered into the agreement based on
the Corps' cost estimate, the Committee is concerned that the
inaccuracy of that estimate and the Corps' management of the
project have contributed significantly to the increase in the
City's financial obligation. Recognizing the importance of the
project to the health, safety, and economic well-being of the
community, and that the project is nearing completion, the
Committee believes that it is important that the project be
completed and encourages the Corps of Engineers to use
available funds to continue the project.
Shoreline Protection Projects (Section 103).--The Committee
has provided the requested amount of $2,500,000 for the Section
103 program. Within the amount provided $75,000 is recommended
for use in continuing the Lake Erie at Old Lakeshore Road,
Hamburg, New York, feasibility study, and $1,500,000 is
recommended for the Sylvan Beach, New York, project.
Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has
provided $9,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $2,000,000 to
initiate construction of the Ouzinkie Small Boat Harbor,
Alaska, project; $30,000 for the Blytheville Slackwater Harbor,
Arkansas, project; $1,000,000 for Russellville Slackwater
Harbor, Arkansas; $100,000 for the project at Oyster Point
Harbor, California; $2,700,000 to initiate and complete
construction at Port Hueneme, California; $600,000 to initiate
and complete plans and specifications for the San Diego Harbor,
California, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study of the
Whiting Shoreline Waterfront project in Whiting, Indiana;
$205,000 to complete the feasibility phase on Westport River,
Massachusettes; $100,000 for the Detroit River Navigation
Improvement, Michigan, feasibility study; $735,000 to initiate
and complete construction of the New Madrid County Harbor,
Missouri, project; $50,000 for design of the Northwest
Tennessee Regional Harbor project; and, $200,000 to initiate
and complete plans and specifications and construction for the
Lake Shore State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, project.
Project Modifications for the Improvement of the
Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided
$18,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount
provided, the recommendation includes: $340,000 to complete the
environmental restoration study for Rillito River Riparian and
Wetlands Restoration, Arizona; $3,300,000 to complete
construction of the Tucson Detention Basin Wetlands
Development, Arizona project; $765,000 to initiate and complete
construction of the Ballona Wetlands Tide Gate, California,
project; $1,400,000 to continue construction of the Gunnerson
Pond, Lake Elsinore, California, project; $2,000,000 to
complete construction of the Pine Flat Turbine Bypass,
California, project; $1,500,000 to initiate construction of the
Colfax Reach, South Platte River, Colorado, project; $200,000
to complete the study and initiate plans and specifications for
the Chicopit Bay, Florida, project; $800,000 for preliminary
restoration reports and ecosystem restoration reports for Sea
Lamprey Control within the Great Lakes Basin; $150,000 for the
Lake Calumet, Illinois, project; $4,000,000 to complete plans
and specifications and initiate construction on the Sea Turtle
Habitat Restoration, Long Beach, North Carolina, project;
$167,000 to prepare an ecosystem restoration report for the
Rahway River Environmental Restoration, New Jersey, project;
$100,000 to initiate and complete construction of the Buffalo
River Habitat Restoration, New York, project; $500,000 to
prepare plans and specifications and initiate construction on
the Rochester Harbor Habitat Restoration, New York, project;
$210,000 to initiate the feasibility study on the Times Beach
Environmental Improvement, Buffalo, New York, project; $176,000
to complete the feasibility phase for the Town of Brookhaven,
New York Hard Clam Restoration project; $720,000 to complete
the feasibility phase, initiate and complete plans and
specifications, and initiate construction on the Pasco
Shoreline Restoration, Washington, project; and, $250,000 to
complete a preliminary restoration plan and initiate
feasibility phase studies on the Dry Slough Restoration, Skagit
County, Washington, project.
Snagging and Clearing (Section 208).--The Committee has
provided $600,000 for the Section 208 program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes $500,000 for the
San Joaquin River and Tributaries, California, project; and,
$80,000 for the Farrenburg Ditch, Missouri, project.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided
for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, the Committee directs
the Corps of Engineers to use $100,000 to continue to cooperate
with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland on
the control and tracking of aquatic plants in the Potomac
River.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee
Appropriation, 2000................................... $309,416,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 309,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 323,350,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +13,934,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +14,350,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee and Kentucky.--The Committee has
provided an additional $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
perform an analysis of potential flooding impacts associated
with the construction of the proposed new spillway and its
operation. None of the funds provided may be used for
construction of the proposed new spillway.
Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided
$22,800,000 for the Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas, project,
the same as the budget request. Within the amount provided, the
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use $2,000,000 for
an engineering review of additional water sources. None of the
funds provided for the project may be used for construction of
features to withdraw water from the White River until the
engineering review of other water sources is completed and a
specific appropriation of funds is made by Congress for
construction of those features. In addition, the Committee
directs the Corps of Engineers to work with large industrial
users of groundwater to develop alternative sources of water,
including the Arkansas River.
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided
$26,000,000 for continuing construction of Atchafalaya Basin
project, the same as the budget request. Though very concerned
about escalating costs for this element, the Committee urges
the Corps of Engineers to continue floodproofing efforts in the
waterfronts of Morgan City and Berwick. In addition, the
Committee expects that these funds will be used to complete the
refurbishment of the Bayou Yokely pumping stations, and conduct
repairs to the west guide levee sloughing/sliding as necessary
to restore the integrity of the levees. The Committee supports
the construction of the Amelia and Chacahoula pumping stations
as a portion of the Barrier Plan and urges the Corps of
Engineers to expedite these components of the plan as well as
other plan components that will immediately address backwater
flooding issues in the area.
Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided the budget request to perform operation and
maintenance activities in the Mississippi Delta Region,
Louisiana. It is the Committee's understanding that the Davis
Pond pumping station will be operated with construction funds
until the diversion project feature is completed. Additionally,
the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue to work
with the oyster fishing industry to resolve any impacts
resulting from the construction and operation of this project.
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee
has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to advance the construction of project elements
within the state of Missouri.
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The
Committee has provided $5,000,000 for St. Johns Bayou and New
Madrid Floodway project for the Corps of Engineers to proceed
with the next two items of construction, the New Madrid Pumping
Station, and the St. Johns channel enlargement.
Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--
The Committee has provided $15,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to continue the Yazoo Basin Demonstration Erosion
Control Program. The work done to date by the Corps of
Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service has
shown positive results in reduction of flood damages, decreased
erosion and sedimentation, and improvements to the environment.
These positive results show that continued funding for the
program is important and that the program should be completed
so the total benefits are realized. This may well be a case
where the complete program yields results that are much greater
than the sum of the individual items of work. The funds
provided are to continue design, acquire real estate, monitor
completed work, and initiate continuing contracts for new items
of work. The Committee hopes that the next Administration is
better able to recognize the value of this program and expects
it to request funds to continue this important work.
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee
has provided an additional $1,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to address the maintenance backlog that continues to
threaten the integrity of floodway levees.
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided
$9,482,000 for operation and maintenance of the Atchafalaya
Basin project, the same as the budget request. The Committee
recognizes the need to resolve flooding problems in the Bayou
Portage-Guidry drainage area. In an effort to address these
issues, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to expedite
their efforts to dredge Catahoula Lake.
Yazoo Basin Lakes, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided
an additional $1,000,000 each for the Arkabutla Lake, Enid
Lake, Grenada Lake, and Sardis Lake projects to address the
maintenance backlog at those projects.
Operation and Maintenance, General
Appropriation, 2000................................... $1,853,618,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 1,854,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 1,854,000,000
Comparison.
Appropriation, 2000............................... +382,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--The Committee
has provided an additional $1,000,000 for engineering and
design of replacements for the Bankhead Lock gates.
Mobile Area Digital Mapping and Geographic Information
System, Alabama.--The Committee has provided $150,000 for the
Corps of Engineers to develop criteria for a comprehensive
Geographic Information System database of the Mobile, Alabama,
area.
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama.--The Committee has
provided additional funds for the Corps of Engineers to address
the maintenance backlog on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway
project.
Bodega Bay, California.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Dredge
Material Management Plan for the Bodega Bay project in
California.
Crescent City Harbor, California.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake the
studies necessary to identify a permanent ocean disposal site
for material dredged from the Crescent City Harbor project.
Isabella Lake, California.--The Committee expects the Corps
of Engineers to use funds appropriated in this Act to conduct
the measures required by the April 18, 1997, Biological Opinion
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to
the long-term operation of Isabella Reservoir, Kern County,
California. The Committee further expects the Corps of
Engineers to identify the least costly actions available,
including, whenever possible, the utilization of partnerships
with other Federal and non-Federal agencies and organizations,
so that the Corps can continue to operate and maintain Isabella
Dam and Reservoir for flood control and water conservation
purposes as provided in the October 23, 1964, contract among
the United States of America and various public agencies.
Jack D. Maltester Channel (San Leandro Marina),
California.--The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for
maintenance dredging of the Jack D. Maltester channel.
Moss Landing Harbor, California.--The Committee has
provided $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare a
management plan for future disposal of dredged material from
the Moss Landing Harbor, California, project.
Oceanside Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided
an additional $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers for removal
of the submerged groin at the Oceanside Harbor project.
Redwood City Harbor, California.--The Committee has
provided $400,000 to allow the Corps of Engineers to conduct
sediment testing prior to the start of maintenance dredging
scheduled for fiscal year 2002 at Redwood City Harbor.
San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy,
California.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps
of Engineers to continue the development of a long term
strategy for the disposal of dredged material in San Francisco
Bay area.
Ventura Harbor, California.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to repair the
breakwater at the Ventura Harbor, California, project.
Cherry Creek Lake, Colorado.--None of the funds provided
for operation and maintenance of the Cherry Creek Lake project
in Colorado may be used to undertake a study of dam safety at
the project.
Intracoastal Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake
Bay, Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee has not provided the
funds requested for the demolition of the St. Georges Bridge.
The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to use $50,000 of
the funds provided for a study to determine the adequacy and
timing for maintaining good and sufficient crossings over the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to address the
maintenance dredging backlog on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee
and Flint Rivers project.
Miami River, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$4,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Miami River,
Florida, project.
Pensacola Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for maintenance dredging of the Pensacola Harbor and
Bayou Chico Channels, Florida, project.
Port St. Joe Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 to initiate a dredged material management plan for the
Port St. Joe Harbor, Florida, project.
St. Petersburg Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided
an additional $3,300,000 for the St. Petersburg Harbor,
Florida, project.
Savannah Harbor, Georgia.--The Committee has provided an
additional $500,000 enable the Corps of Engineers to conduct a
study of sediment disposal in nearshore areas and adjacent
beaches as part of continuing maintenance of the Savannah
Harbor, Georgia, project.
West Point Dam and Lake, Georgia and Alabama.--The
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to address the
maintenance backlog at the West Point Dam and Lake, Georgia and
Alabama, project.
Red Rock Dam and Lake, Iowa.--The Committee has provided
funds above the budget request for repair and replacement of
various features of the Red Rock Dam and Lake, Iowa, project.
Illinois Waterway, Illinois.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,000,000 for the acquisition of dredged material
disposal sites as authorized by section 102 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992.
Mississippi River between the Missouri River and
Minneapolis, Illinois.--The Committee has provided an
additional $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to address the
critical maintenance backlog within the Rock Island District
portion of the Mississippi River between the Missouri River and
Minneapolis navigation project.
Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee has provided
funds above the budget request for critical maintenance of the
Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, project.
Michigan City Harbor, Indiana.--The Committee has provided
an additional $800,000 to complete dredging of the entrance
channel, the turning basin, and Trail Creek at Michigan City
Harbor, Indiana.
John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas.--The Committee has
provided an additional $345,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
complete the ongoing reallocation study, which will determine
an equitable distribution of sediment storage between the
conservation and flood control pools and to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the appropriate reallocation at John
Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kanasa.
Kentucky River Locks and Dams 5-14, Kentucky.--The
Committee has provided $750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
complete dam stabilization repairs at Locks and Dams 13 and 14.
Of this amount, funds are provided for additional construction
activities at Lock and Dam 14 (including fencing, landscaping,
and user facilities), in conjunction with local interests.
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
Louisiana.--The Committee is aware of safety and navigation
problems on the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and
Black caused by ``fluff'' on the channel bottoms. The Committee
is very concerned about this issue and directs the Corps of
Engineers to take immediate steps necessary to resume safe,
unimpeded navigation to the true authorized 20 foot depth. In
addition, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the
Waterways Experiment Station to determine the cause of this
phenomenon and to develop and implement long term solutions to
this problem.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided an additional $2,000,000 to the budget request to
allow additional critical maintenance and repair at the J.
Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana, project.
Union River, Maine.--The Committee has provided $900,000
for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance dredging of
the Union River, Maine, project.
Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 above the budget request to allow
completion of the Tolchester Channel S-Turn straightening
project.
Port of Baltimore Dredged Material Disposal, Maryland.--The
Committee has previously expressed concern about the limited
analysis and consideration given to alternatives to the
proposed open water dredge material disposal site known as Site
104. It is the Committee's understanding that in response to
the concerns of the Committee and others, the Corps of
Engineers will release a Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Statement this summer. Once again, the Committee underscores
its intent that the Environmental Impact Statement contain full
consideration and thorough evaluation of practicable
alternatives to Site 104.
New Buffalo Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee has provided
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance
dredging and condition surveys at the New Buffalo Harbor,
Michigan, project.
Cedar River Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to continue the west breakwater repairs at Cedar
River Harbor, Michigan.
Duluth Alternative Technology Study, Minnesota.--The
Committee has provided $320,000 to continue the development of
plans and the testing of techniques to process dredged
materials from Duluth-Superior Harbor.
New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.--The Committee has provided
funding above the budget request to provide for adequate
maintenance dredging at New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided
an additional $2,000,000 to provide for increased maintenance
dredging at the Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi, project.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee
recommendation includes funding above the budget request to
carry out management activities for mosquito control near the
City of Williston.
Broken Bow Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee expects the Corps
of Engineers to give due consideration to any request from the
State of Oklahoma to further development of marina operations
on Broken Bow Lake in McCurtain County, Oklahoma.
Wister Lake, Oklahoma.--The Committee has included $500,000
above the budget request for studies associated with
identification of water quality problems and management goals
to improve water quality at the Wister Lake, Oklahoma, project.
Cowanesque Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 above the budget request to provide for updating the
Cowanesque Lake, Pennsylvania, project master plan, including
an analysis of recreation and natural resource management
needs.
Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,250,000 for construction of facilities and
structures at Raystown Lake Pennsylvania, to interpret and
understand environmental conditions and trends.
Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has
provided $970,000 above the budget request to provide for
updating the Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania, project master
plan, including an analysis of recreation and natural resource
management needs, and to provide for the design of a new ranger
station and visitor center at the entrance to the Ives Run
recreation area.
Occoquan River, Virginia.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to provide for maintenance dredging of the Occoquan
River, Virginia, project.
Willapa River and Harbor, Washington.--The Committee has
provided $650,000 for a study of navigation conditions at the
Willapa River and Harbor, Washington, project.
Quillayute River Navigation Project, Washington.--The
Committee has provided $970,000 above the budget request to
provide necessary minimum maintenance at the Quillayute River
Navigation Project, Washington.
Grays Harbor, Washington.--The Committee has included
$650,000 above the budget request to complete the basic work on
the South Jetty major maintenance contract at Grays Harbor,
Washington.
Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided
funds above the budget request for dam modifications and
actions necessary to manage drift and debris at the Bluestone
Lake, West Virginia, project.
Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for continued development of sediment
transport models for high priority tributaries to the Great
Lakes.
Hopper Dredges.--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for
the Corps of Engineers to maintain the hopper dredge WHEELER in
ready reserve status, the same as the amount provided in fiscal
year 2000. This is consistent with the amount estimated to be
needed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
in his report to the Congress dated June 12, 2000. The
Committee strongly supports the report recommendation that the
hopper dredge McFARLAND also be placed in ready reserve status.
The Committee is aware that the Corps is currently evaluating
the extent to which the McFARLAND needs to be rehabilitated to
serve in the ready reserve fleet. The Committee directs the
Corps of Engineers to report to Congress on the extent of
repairs needed before making expenditures to rehabilitate the
McFARLAND.
Regulatory Program
Appropriation, 2000................................... $117,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 125,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 125,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +8,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
This appropriation provides for salaries and related costs
to administer laws pertaining to the regulation of navigable
waters and wetlands of the United States in accordance with the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act of 1977,
and the Marine Protection Act of 1972.
For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $125,000,000, the same as the budget request
and $8,000,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2000. The Committee has not included language proposed by the
Administration that would direct the Secretary of the Army to
change the current fee structure for the Regulatory Program.
The Committee has included language to improve the analysis
and public and congressional notification of the costs of
regulatory program nationwide permit modifications and permit
processing time requirements. The language directs the Corps of
Engineers to: (1) revise a cost analysis of modified nationwide
permits based on promulgated rules rather than proposed rules;
(2) prepare a plan to manage and reduce backlog associated with
new and replacement permits issued on March 9, 2000, and
develop criteria to measure progress in reducing the backlog;
(3) provide quarterly reporting on program performance based on
the above criteria; (4) provide quarterly reporting, on a one
year pilot basis, of all Regulatory Analysis and Management
System data for South Pacific Division; (5) publish in Division
Office websites decisions rendered under the administrative
appeals process and allow any appellant to keep a verbatim
record of the appeals conference; and (6) record in its data
base the dates of initial permit application or notification.
The Committee is aware of on-going staffing issues in the
San Diego office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
Committee is concerned that these staffing issues will result
in a further backlog of work and delays for many in the San
Diego area who rely on timely and appropriate responses and
approvals of projects by the Corps. The Corps of Engineers is,
therefore, directed to report to the Committee within 60 days
of enactment of this Act on these staffing problems, including
any proposed remedies.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Appropriation, 2000................................... $150,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 140,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 140,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -10,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the
same as the budget request. In fiscal year 1998, Congress
transferred responsibility for cleanup of contaminated sites
under FUSRAP to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide the
institutional knowledge and expertise needed to best serve the
Nation and the affected communities in executing this program.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee intends for the Corps expertise be used in the
same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP,
and expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for
FUSRAP as part of the civil works program.
General Expenses
Appropriation, 2000................................... $149,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 152,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 149,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -2,500,000
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office of
the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain
research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers.
The Committee recommendation for General Expenses is
$149,500,000, the same as the fiscal year 2000 level and
$2,500,000 below the budget request. The recommendation also
includes bill language prohibiting the use of funds to support
a congressional affairs office within the executive office of
the Chief of Engineers.
Revolving Fund
The Committee has included language in the bill which
provides that funds available in the Corps of Engineers
Revolving Fund may be used for the costs of relocating the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers headquarters to office space in the
General Accounting Office headquarters building in Washington,
D.C.
General Provisions
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund.--The Committee has
included language in the bill proposed by the Administration
which extends the authorization for spending Coastal Wetlands
Restoration Trust Fund receipts through fiscal year 2001.
Joe Pool Lake, Texas.--Section 102 provides for the
transfer of responsibility of local sponsorship of recreation
development at Joe Pool Lake, Texas from the Trinity River
Authority to the City of Grand Prairie, Texas.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriation, 2000................................... $39,233,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 39,940,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 39,940,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +707,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2001 to carry
out the provisions of the Act is $39,940,000, the same as the
budget request, and $707,000 more than the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 2000.
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and Related Resources
Appropriation, 2000................................... $605,992,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 643,058,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 635,777,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +29,785,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -7,281,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Central Arizona Project, Indian Distribution Division,
Arizona.--The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000
to accelerate work on the Gila River Indian Community
distribution system.
Central Arizona Project, Native Fish Protection, Arizona.--
The bill includes $1,510,000 for native fish protection
activities on the Central Arizona Project, $200,000 below the
budget request.
San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona.--The Committee is
concerned with accountability in the Federal management of San
Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP) electric power resources. The
Committee is aware that management of SCIP resources affects
customer financing of operation and maintenance costs and could
impact the economics of the pending Gila River Community Indian
water rights settlement. Therefore, the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, is
directed to review electric power programs (including relevant
power, allocation, contract, delivery, and scheduling data and
associated values) and policies related to the San Carlos
Irrigation Project. The Administrator of the Western Area Power
Administration is directed to cooperate in this review, which
should further address, and not be limited to, the following
issues: the role of any current or potential Federal agency
power management programs in SCIP operations; the role and
oversight of any non-Federal consultants in SCIP management;
and compliance with applicable Federal law. The Secretary shall
provide this collaborative review to the Committee no later
than 90 days after enactment of this Act. The report shall
include recommendations for SCIP power management services.
South Central Arizona Investigations Program, Arizona.--The
Committee has provided an additional $200,000 for the West Salt
River Valley Water Management Study.
California Investigations Program, California.--The
Committee has provided an additional $500,000 to expand the
ongoing California Investigations Program to include studies of
ways to increase the reliability of water supplies in southern
Orange County, California, which includes the Central Pool
Augmentation Program.
Central Valley Project, American River Division,
California.--The Committee has provided an additional
$5,300,000 for the construction of a permanent pumping facility
for the Placer County Water Agency. The Committee has also
included language in the bill which provides that none of the
funds appropriated in the Act may be used by the Bureau of
Reclamation for closure of the Auburn dam diversion tunnel or
restoration of the American River channel through the Auburn
Dam construction site. In addition, the Committee has provided
$200,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare plans and
specifications and undertake the environmental review needed
for a temperature control device on the El Dorado Irrigation
District's intake at Folsom Reservoir.
Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division,
California.--The Committee has provided an additional
$2,000,000 for the fish passage improvement project at the Red
Bluff Diversion Dam. The Committee has also provided an
additional $520,000 to continue the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon
Captive Broodstock Program.
Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division, San Luis
Unit, California.--The Committee has provided an additional
$1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to obtain flowage
easements in the vicinity of the Arroyo Pasajero and continue
to participate in the studies of the flooding problems.
Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration
Program, California.--The Committee has provided $503,000 to
continue the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting
Demonstration Program.
North San Diego Area Water Recycling Project, California.--
The Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 to advance
completion of the North San Diego County Water Recycling
Project.
Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The Committee has
provided an additional $4,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
to undertake pilot projects to explore various methods of
harvesting salt from the Salton Sea, including enhanced
evaporation system technology. Of the funds provided, up to
$1,000,000 may be used to continue the program for the
development of wetlands and other activities designed to
improve the water quality in the New River and Alamo River.
Minidoka Area Projects, Idaho.--The Committee has provided
an additional $300,000 to continue the study of erosion
problems on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project,
Kansas.--The pilot project for the Equus Beds is complete. As
final reports are assembled, the Committee strongly encourages
the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the affected communities
and the State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-
scale project.
Pick Sloan Missouri River Basin, North Loup Division,
Nebraska.--The Committee has provided $1,750,000 for the Bureau
of Reclamation to repair the Twin Loups Reclamation District's
Mirdan Canal.
Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project, New Mexico.--The
Committee has provided $250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
to continue work on the Eastern New Mexico Water Supply study.
Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee is
aware that the budget request for the Middle Rio Grande project
includes $830,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to lease water
and work cooperatively with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District to make flows available during the irrigation season
in support of the silvery minnow, a Federally-listed endangered
species. The Committee is very supportive of these efforts and
expects the Bureau of Reclamation to work cooperatively with
the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service in
implementing the recovery plan for the silvery minnow.
Texas Investigations Program, Texas.--The Committee has
provided an additional $250,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
to undertake a study to identify potential mechanisms to
enhance water supplies in Mills County, Texas.
Drought Emergency Assistance Program.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,400,000 for the acquisition of water
for the San Carlos Reservoir on the Gila River in Arizona.
Efficiency Incentives Program.--From within funds available
for the Efficiency Incentives Program, the Committee urges the
Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $750,000 to support the
Navajo Nation in its efforts to implement conservation measures
on the Ganado Irrigation Project.
Environment and Interagency Coordination.--Within the
amount provided for Environment and Interagency Coordination,
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to use up to
$50,000 to expand regional cooperation on issues related to the
Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy
Act in southern Arizona.
Technical Assistance to States.--Within the amount provided
for Technical Assistance to States, the Committee urges the
Bureau of Reclamation to use up to $150,000 to participate in a
pilot project to investigate the technical feasibility and
associated costs of using slowsand as a pretreatment for
reverse osmosis treatment of Central Arizona Project water.
Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The
Committee is aware of the WateReuse Research Foundation'
ongoing efforts to conduct research on the science and
technological aspects of water reclamation. After more than 30
years, the Committee recognizes a need exists to ensure that
the framework governing the use and application of reclaimed
water supplies, including risk assessments and technology
assessments, requires review and updating. The effective and
efficient use of this important resource will continue to
encounter unsubstantiated impediments because of a reliance on
outdated science and technologies. Accordingly, the Committee
has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to support the WateReuse Foundation's research
program under the authority of section 1605 of Public Law 102-
575.
In addition, of the funds provided for the Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program, the Committee directs the Bureau
of Reclamation to use $300,000 to continue the Phoenix
Metropolitan Water Reclamation and Reuse (Aqua Fria) project in
Arizona.
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account
Appropriation, 2000................................... $11,577,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 9,369,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 9,369,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -2,208,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants may be made to non-Federal
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment
of small water resource projects. As required by the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records the subsidy
costs associated with the direct loans, as well as
administrative expenses of this program.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
Appropriation, 2000................................... $42,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 38,382,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 38,382,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -3,618,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding
from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement
and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California.
Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and
from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include
several required by the Act (Friant Division surcharges, higher
charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water
prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations Acts,
additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
Within the funds made available through the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, the Committee intends that $5,000,000
be made available for the San Joaquin River Restoration
program, which is being developed and implemented jointly by
water users in the Friant Division of the Central Valley
Project and environmental interests.
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration
Appropriation, 2000................................... $60,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 60,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -60,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -60,000,000
The California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account
funds the Federal share of ecosystem restoration and other
activities being developed for the San Francisco Bay/
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership
(CALFED). Federal participation in this program was authorized
in the California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security
Act enacted in the fall of 1996. That Act authorizes the
appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration
activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
The Committee has been and continues to be very supportive
of the Bay-Delta program and the CALFED process. However, in
light of the fact that the authorization for this program ends
in fiscal year 2000, the Committee has recommended no new
funding for fiscal year 2001. Should the program be
reauthorized before work is completed on the fiscal year 2001
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, the Committee
will reconsider its recommendation. The Committee expects that
the remaining unobligated balances in this program will be used
equally for ecosystem restoration activities and other
authorized activities, such as projects to promote or develop
water use efficiency, water quality, groundwater storage,
surface storage, levees, conveyance systems, and watershed
management. Since this has been and continues to be a state-
wide program, the Committee also expects that there will be an
equitable balance of work between northern California, the
delta region, and southern California.
policy and administration
Appropriation, 2000................................... $47,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 50,224,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 47,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. -3,224,000
The general administrative expenses program provides for
the executive direction and management of all Reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional
offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge
individual projects or activities for direct beneficial
services and related administrative and technical costs. These
charges are covered under other appropriations.
For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has recommended
$47,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2000 level, and
$3,224,000 below the budget request.
General Provisions
Middle Rio Grande/Carlsbad Projects, New Mexico.--Section
201 provides that none of the funds appropriated by this or any
other act may be used to purchase or lease water in the Middle
Rio Grande or Carlsbad projects in New Mexico unless the
purchase or lease is in compliance with the requirements of
section 202 of Public Law 106-60.
Trinity County, California.--Section 202 provides authority
to the Secretary of the Interior to make an annual assessment
upon Central Valley Project water and power contractors for the
purpose of making an annual payment to the Trinity Public
Utilities District.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of
Energy programs relating to: Energy Supply, Non-Defense
Environmental Management, Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal, Departmental
Administration, the Inspector General, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, Defense Environmental Management,
Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the
Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Due to severe funding constraints, funding recommendations
for many of the Department of Energy programs in fiscal year
2001 are significantly below the Department's fiscal year 2001
budget request.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Department has established an Office of Engineering and
Construction Management to strengthen its project management
capabilities. The Committee strongly supports this effort. The
Department has also proposed a new budget line item for
preliminary project engineering and design (PED) which would be
used to achieve a 30 to 35 percent level of design for new
construction projects before the projects are submitted to
Congress for authorization and appropriations. This should
provide a more mature technical and cost baseline and a greater
likelihood of achieving the project cost and schedule. As part
of the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Department should
submit a PED line item for each program area which anticipates
funding new construction projects in future budgets.
The Committee will not require that an external,
independent assessment of the baseline cost and schedule of all
fiscal year 2001 construction projects be performed before
funds can be obligated. However, the Committee directs the
Department to identify and document the process that will be
used to determine which projects will require an external
independent review and at which phase of the project the review
should be conducted. The report should also identify how the
use of PED will be incorporated into construction project
development. This report should be provided to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 31, 2000.
AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF
The Committee continues to believe that there is too much
reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal
employees throughout the Department of Energy. The Department
reduced the number of management and operating (M&O) contractor
employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan area to 277
in fiscal year 2000. The Committee directs the Department to
reduce the number to no more than 220 contractor employees in
fiscal year 2001.
The Department is to provide a report to the Committee at
the end of fiscal year 2000 on the use of all support service
contractors (those funded directly by Headquarters, and those
funded by M&O contractors and assigned to Headquarters) and M&O
contractor employees assigned to the Washington metropolitan
area.
The report is to include for each support service contract:
the name of the contractor; the program organization (at the
lowest organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a
descriptive and detailed list of the tasks performed; the
number of contractor employees working on the contract; and the
annual cost of the contract.
The report is to identify all M&O contractor employees who
work in the Washington metropolitan area, including the name of
the employee, the name of the contractor, the organization to
which he or she is assigned, the job title and a description of
the tasks the employee is performing, the annual cost of the
employee to the Department, the program account funding that
employee, and the length of time the employee has been detailed
to the Department. The report should also include detailed
information on the cost of maintaining each M&O office in the
Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include actual
data for the period October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000,
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2001.
CONTRACTOR TRAVEL
The Committee has retained in fiscal year 2001 the
limitation of $150,000,000 for contractor travel. The
Department is expected to ensure that critical mission
assignments are funded first and administrative travel to
Washington is limited.
Contractor travel funding was limited in fiscal year 2000
to $150,000,000 after a General Accounting Report identified
significant travel abuses including one national laboratory
that was averaging over 80 trips a week to Washington. Even
with the reduction in funding in fiscal year 2000, data
provided through February 2000 on contractor travel indicates
that the same laboratory is still averaging 70 trips a week to
Washington. The Committee strongly urges the Department to
review the need for this many trips to Washington and ensure
that contractor travel for specific program needs throughout
the nuclear weapons complex is not being curtailed by an excess
of management trips to Washington.
LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee has retained the limitation of four percent
on laboratory directed research and development (LDRD) that was
included in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. This
program allows each laboratory director to use four percent of
all operating funds provided to the laboratory to conduct
research and development projects selected at the discretion of
the laboratory directors. For fiscal year 2001, the Department
estimates that the laboratories will spend $300,000,000 on LDRD
and additional funds on Director's Discretionary Research and
Development (DDRD). The Committee recommendation would provide
approximately $200,000,000 for LDRD, the same level as fiscal
year 2000.
Rather than allowing each laboratory to tax all operating
dollars that are sent to the laboratory, the Committee directs
the Department to submit a separate line item for LDRD funding
in each appropriation account in the fiscal year 2002 budget
request. This will provide the visibility and accountability
for this type of funding that the Committee believes has been
lacking in prior years. It also addresses another concern of
the Committee that LDRD funding is automatically taken off the
top of each program performed at the laboratory. This has the
effect of placing LDRD funding in a completely protected
funding category at the expense of all other programs in the
Department. The Committee supports some LDRD funding, but
believes it should be placed on equal terms with other
important programs. The Department is directed to submit a
specific request for laboratory directed research and
development funding in each program in the annual budget
submission.
INDEPENDENT CENTERS
The Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act required the Department to identify all
independent centers at each laboratory or facility, the annual
cost, number of employees, and the source of funding. As a
result of this requirement, the Department identified 183
centers that were funded through various programs, laboratory
directed research and development funds, and overhead accounts.
The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committee
by January 15, 2001 on all centers funded in fiscal year 2001.
The report should be at the level of detailed included in the
fiscal year 2000 report to Congress. All centers should be
specifically identified in the fiscal year 2002 budget
submission and should be funded in program accounts, rather
than overhead.
OVERHEAD COSTS
The Committee is aware the Department is reviewing costs
included in the overhead charges of the management and
operating contractors and expects to be kept informed of the
progress made during this review. Changes made by the
Department to remove safeguards and security costs from
overhead accounts will improve accountability and oversight for
that activity. The Committee's recommendation to move LDRD and
independent center funding from overhead accounts in fiscal
year 2002 will also improve this accountability and oversight.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully
inform the Committee when a change in program execution and
funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the
Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided
for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or
any significant departure from a program, project, or activity
described in the agency's budget justification as presented to
and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a
reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one
construction project identified in the justifications to
another or a significant change in the scope of an approved
project.
Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if
delay of the project or the activity until the next
appropriations year would result in detrimental impact to an
agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be
considered if the Department can show that significant cost
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere
convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained
and justified.
Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines,
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2001, unless
specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference
reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority
or prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees
in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee's recommendations for Department of Energy
programs are described in the following sections. A detailed
funding table is included at the end of this title.
Energy Supply
Appropriation, 2000................................... $637,962,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 752,895,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 576,482,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -61,480,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -176,413,000
The Energy Supply account includes the following programs:
renewable energy resources; nuclear energy; environment, safety
and health; and technical information management. In prior
fiscal years, Congress has provided one year funding for this
appropriation account. However, for fiscal year 2001, the
Committee is recommending that the funds remain available until
expended.
As requested by the Administration, statutory language is
included allowing for the receipt of royalties to compensate
the Department for its participation in the nuclear energy
First-of-a-Kind Engineering program.
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
The Committee recommendation for renewable energy resources
is $350,519,000, a reduction of $106,081,000 from the budget
request, and $11,721,000 less than fiscal year 2000. This
program consists of renewable energy technologies, electric
energy systems and storage, renewable support and
implementation, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and
program direction.
National Academy of Public Administration Review.--A recent
review of the management and organization of the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) by the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) identified four
principal themes: fragmentation of EERE, emphasis on process
rather than product, poor communications, and weak decision-
making processes. One of the most important issues discussed in
the report is EERE's fragmentation: ``. . . its different parts
operate as independent entities without common purpose and
synergy. EERE speaks with different voices, and it is hard to
derive a clear picture of its programs and priorities.''
The report further notes that, ``. . . EERE has not had a
formal program and budget formulation process, supported by an
independent analytic capability, to insure clarification of
mission, setting of priorities, identification of cross-
functional goals and objectives, creation of an integrated
program of work linked to goals and priorities, and
establishment of milestones and anticipated results.'' The
current renewable energy resources budget request reflects the
NAPA findings. All of the renewable programs are requesting
increases of 30 to 50 percent with no clear integration or
explanation of why such increases are warranted in all programs
simultaneously. The budget request reflects little integration
or prioritization, and the Committee cannot support the large
increases. However, the Committee is aware that the Assistant
Secretary is working to address the concerns raised by the NAPA
review and strongly supports this effort.
Coordination of Basic Research.--The Committee is concerned
that there is scant cooperation and coordination between the
Office of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy on the fundamental research needed to improve
renewable energy technologies. Each year the Committee provides
funding for the Office of Science to support basic research in
energy programs, including renewable programs. There appears to
be little coordination or consultation between the two offices
on the synergies among these programs. The Committee directs
these two offices to identify ways in which coordination can be
improved and research conducted which is mutually beneficial,
and to inform the Committee how coordination will be improved.
Renewable energy technologies
Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels
energy systems, geothermal, hydrogen, hydropower, solar energy,
and wind. To more accurately reflect the total funding being
spent by the Department on these renewable technologies, the
Committee also includes the funding spent on basic research in
support of these technologies by the Office of Science.
Biomass/biofuels energy systems.--The Committee
recommendation for biomass/biofuels energy systems is
$101,000,000, including $26,740,000 for related research
conducted by the Office of Science. This is a reduction of
$28,181,000 from the budget request of $129,181,000. The
recommendation includes $32,000,000 for the power systems
program and $42,260,000 for the transportation program. The
Committee strongly supports the basic research and maintenance
of a Federal role in promising biomass/biofuels programs.
Geothermal.--The Committee recommendation is $24,000,000, a
reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request of $27,000,000.
The Committee supports geothermal energy, but believes that
other technologies are a higher priority when resources are
limited.
Hydrogen.--The Committee recommendation is $24,970,000,
including $2,970,000 for related research conducted by the
Office of Science. This is a reduction of $1,000,000 from the
budget request of $25,970,000 due to funding constraints.
Hydropower.--The Committee recommendation includes
$3,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request
of $5,000,000, due to severe funding constraints. However, the
Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 in the
Bonneville Power Administration to support this program.
Solar energy.--Solar energy technologies include
concentrating solar power, photovoltaics, solar building
technology research, and the Office of Science contribution in
basic research for solar photoconversion. The Committee
recommendation for solar energy is $92,107,000, a reduction of
$26,500,000 from the budget request of $118,607,000.
The recommendation for concentrating solar power is
$6,000,000, a reduction of $9,000,000 from the budget request
of $15,000,000. A recent programmatic review of the
Department's renewable energy programs by the National Research
Council indicated that the overall commercial prospects for
concentrated solar power technologies were not very promising.
The Council's report, Renewable Power Pathways, recommended
that the Department ``limit or halt its research and
development on power-tower and power-trough technologies
because further refinements would not lead to deployment.'' The
review further stated that the Department ``should reassess the
market prospects for the solar/dish engine technologies to
determine whether continued research and development would
result in a technology that warrants further expenditures.''
Consistent with this recommendation, the Committee has provided
funding for solar/dish engine technologies, but eliminates
funding for power-tower and power-trough technologies.
The photovoltaic energy systems program is funded at
$69,847,000, a reduction of $15,000,000 from the budget request
due to funding constraints, but the same funding as the current
year. This includes $2,847,000 for related research conducted
by the Office of Science.
Funding of $2,000,000, the same as fiscal year 2000, is
provided for solar building technology research, and
$14,260,000, the same as the budget request, is provided for
solar photoconversion energy research.
Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommendation is
$33,283,000, a reduction of $17,500,000 from the budget
request, but the same level as last year. The recommendation
includes $283,000 for related research conducted by the Office
of Science.
Electric energy systems and storage
The Committee recommendation for electric energy systems
and storage is $37,000,000, a reduction of $11,000,000 from the
budget request of $48,000,000. The Committee supports the
Department's efforts to continue its work with electric
utilities to facilitate voluntary, cost-effective means to
reduce emissions from power generation and the use of up to
$100,000 for this purpose.
The Committee recommendation includes $28,000,000 for high
temperature superconducting research and development,
$4,000,000 for energy storage systems, and $5,000,000 for
transmission reliability. The recommendation includes the
budget request of $3,000,000 for the distributed power program.
The distributed power program supports efforts to integrate
distributed resources into the power system; develop new
interconnection hardware, software, and operational concepts;
and develop regulatory and institutional approaches to remove
existing market barriers.
The Committee notes that Real Energy of California and
Nextek Power Systems of New York are participating in a
consortia that is privately funding public-private pilot
programs in distributed energy resources (DER), such as solar
panels, fuel cells, or micro-turbines that are installed at or
near their point of use. Deployment of these technologies has
significant public benefits including environmental protection
and support for the nation's burdened electrical grid systems.
The Committee requests that DOE report back no later than
October 1, 2001 with recommendations on how the Federal
government can facilitate increased private funding, and what
steps can be taken to coordinate local, state, and federal
regulations to more effectively deploy DER.
Renewable support and implementation
The renewable support and implementation program includes
departmental energy management, international renewable energy,
the renewable energy production incentive (REPI) program,
renewable Indian energy resources, and renewable program
support. The Committee recommendation is $13,000,000, a
reduction of $19,000,000 from the budget request of
$32,000,000. The recommendation provides $2,000,000 for the
Departmental energy management program; $4,000,000 for
international renewable energy; $1,000,000 for the renewable
energy production incentive program; $2,000,000 for renewable
Indian energy resources; and $4,000,000 for renewable program
support.
The Committee encourages the Department to fully utilize
the Departmental energy management program to strengthen the
energy management programs and achieve energy savings at DOE
facilities.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
The Committee recommendation is $4,000,000 for the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, an
increase of $2,100,000 over the budget request. The Committee
is concerned that the Department continues to under-fund
infrastructure improvements and maintenance at its
laboratories. The additional funding for NREL will prevent
further deterioration of these facilities. The Department
should submit a budget request that adequately funds the
existing infrastructure.
Program direction
The Committee recommendation for program direction is
$18,159,000, the same as the budget request.
nuclear energy programs
The Committee recommendation is $231,815,000, a decrease of
$76,630,000 from the budget request of $308,445,000. This
reduction reflects the transfer of $53,400,000 for uranium
programs to a new appropriation account as well as funding
constraints. The nuclear energy programs represent a commitment
to ensure that nuclear power remains an important contributor
to the Nation's electricity generating capability. These
programs address the entire spectrum of nuclear issues
including safety, efficiency, advanced fuels, and long-term
safe storage of wastes.
Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The Committee
recommendation is $29,200,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from
the budget request. Due to severe funding constraints, the
Committee did not fund the new initiative for special purpose
fission power technology.
Isotopes.--The Committee recommendation for isotope support
and production is $15,215,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from
the budget request. Total isotope funding in fiscal year 2001
is estimated to be $23,215,000 which includes a direct
appropriation of $15,215,000 and the use of $8,000,000 in
offsetting collections to be received from the sale of isotopes
and other services in fiscal year 2001. Due to severe fiscal
constraints, the Committee has provided only $500,000 for the
Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative, a reduction of $2,000,000
from the budget request of $2,500,000.
The recommendation includes the budget request of $900,000
to process uranium material to obtain alpha-emitting isotopes
that will be used in medical research and human clinical trials
for the cure of various cancers.
University reactor fuel assistance and support.--The
Committee recommendation is $12,000,000, the same as the budget
request. This program provides support for university research
reactors and supports education, training, and innovative
research at U.S. universities.
Research and development.--The research and development
program includes programs to support continued use of nuclear
energy. The Committee recommendation is $5,000,000 for the
nuclear energy plant optimization (NEPO) program, the same as
the budget request. The Committee strongly supports this
initiative to help ensure that existing nuclear power plants
are operated as safely and efficiently as possible. The
Committee directs that all awards be matched dollar for dollar
from industry contributions.
The Committee recommendation is $22,500,000 for the nuclear
energy research initiative (NERI) program, a reduction of
$12,500,000 from the budget request of $35,000,000, but the
same as last year. The Committee strongly supports this program
which awards grants to laboratories, universities and consortia
using a formal peer-review process.
Infrastructure.--The Committee has modified the
Department's proposed budget structure to consolidate the
facilities and infrastructure which support the nuclear energy
programs. This includes facilities at Argonne National
Laboratory-West in Idaho, the Test Reactor Area at Idaho, and
the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at Richland, Washington.
The Committee recommendation for ANL-West operations
infrastructure is $39,150,000, the same as the budget request,
which was originally included in the termination costs program.
The recommendation for the FFTF is $39,000,000, a reduction of
$5,010,000 from the budget request due to severe funding
constraints. The recommendation for the Test Reactor Area at
Idaho is $9,000,000, the same as the budget request.
Termination costs.--Funding of $74,000,000 requested for
termination costs has been split between two program accounts.
Funding of $39,150,000 for ANL-West Operations has been moved
to ``Infrastructure''. Funding of $34,850,000 for EBR-II
shutdown, disposition of spent nuclear fuel and legacy
materials, and disposition technology activities has been
included in ``Termination Activities''.
Termination activities.--Funding for EBR-II shutdown,
disposition of spent nuclear fuel and legacy materials, and
disposition technology activities has been moved to this
program. The Committee recommendation is $34,850,000, the same
as the budget request, for these activities. The recommendation
includes $8,800,000 for EBR-II shutdown activities; $16,200,000
for disposition of spent fuel and legacy materials; and
$9,850,000 for disposition technology activities.
The Department will soon decide whether to proceed with
further application of electrometallurgical technology (EMT) to
the remaining inventory of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel.
However, considerable work is yet to be done on qualifying and
characterizing waste products, particularly from the post-
demonstration work. A recent National Research Council
committee recommended that the Department review the options
for disposal of recovered uranium so that the overall impacts
of the process can be assessed.
In order to ensure that there is a clear and final disposal
option for all the waste forms resulting from EMT and that no
further treatment will be required, the Committee directs the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the Office of
Environmental Management, and the Office of Nuclear Energy to
prepare a complete report on all waste forms generated through
the use of EMT. This will include: ceramic waste forms
(actinide elements and fission products in a glass-ceramic
matrix), the metal waste forms (noble metal fission products in
a fuel-cladding matrix), and the recovered uranium streams. The
report should describe the volumes of waste generated,
radioactive content, waste forms created, and lifecycle costs
in annual increments of processing 25 MT of Experimental
Breeder Reactor II fuel. The final disposition path for each
waste form should be identified, along with applicable storage
and disposal costs. This report is due to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 31, 2001.
The Committee is also concerned that the Department is
considering application of this technology to other spent fuels
before it has been fully demonstrated. The Committee is to be
notified before the Department expands this program to spent
fuel outside the current Sodium-bonded Fuel Environmental
Impact Statement.
Uranium programs.--The Committee has transferred
$53,400,000, the same as the budget request, for the uranium
programs to a new appropriation account, Uranium Facilities
Maintenance and Remediation.
Program direction.--The recommendation includes
$25,900,000, a reduction of $1,720,000 from the budget request,
but an increase of $1,200,000 over fiscal year 2000.
environment, safety and health
The Committee recommendation is $35,000,000, a reduction of
$5,000,000 from the budget request of $40,000,000. The
reduction should be applied to lower priority items and a
reduction in the reliance on contractors who provide policy
guidance to other Department of Energy contractors and Federal
employees.
The recommendation for environment, safety and health also
includes $1,000,000 to be transferred to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). These funds are to be
used to ensure the safety and health of non-Federal employees
who are working in Departmental facilities which have been
transferred to non-Federal entities for economic development
purposes and for those Department of Energy non-nuclear
facilities that are not covered by the Atomic Energy Act.
energy support activities
Technical information management.--The Committee
recommendation is $8,600,000, a reduction of $702,000 from the
budget request, and the same funding level as fiscal year 2000.
funding adjustments
The recommendation for Energy Supply includes several
funding adjustments. The $47,100,000 adjustment represents the
funding provided for renewable energy research programs managed
by the Office of Science and funded in the Science account. The
recommendation also includes an offset of $2,352,000 from
royalties to be received to compensate the Department for its
participation in the first-of-a-kind-engineering program for
nuclear reactors. The Department's proposal to transfer
$12,000,000 from the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund
has been included in the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation account.
Non-Defense Environmental Management
Appropriation, 2000................................... $332,350,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 286,001,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 281,001,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -51,349,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -5,000,000
The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy
research, and non-defense related activities. These past
efforts resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste
contamination which requires remediation, stabilization, or
some other type of action. The three major activities are: Site
Closure where cleanup will be completed by the end of fiscal
year 2006, and no further DOE mission is anticipated; Site/
Project Completion where cleanup will be completed by 2006, but
DOE programs will continue; and Post 2006 Completion where
cleanup activities at the site will extend beyond 2006.
The Committee recommendation is $281,001,000, a reduction
of $5,000,000 from the budget request. The recommendation
includes an additional $5,000,000 to expedite environmental
cleanup at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Since Congress has not passed legislation authorizing the
Department of Energy to initiate cleanup of the Atlas site in
Moab, Utah, the Committee has not provided the $10,000,000
requested in the budget. Also, as proposed by the Department,
no funds have been provided for the National Low-Level Waste
Program in fiscal year 2001.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriation, 2000................................. $249,247,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................... 303,038,000
Recommended, 2001................................... ..................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................. -249,247,000
Budget Estimate, 2001........................... -303,038,000
The Committee recommendation has transferred funding for
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
(D&D) Fund to a new appropriation account, Uranium Facilities
Maintenance and Remediation. The new account consolidates
uranium programs formerly funded in the Energy Supply account
and the Uranium Enrichment D&D fund.
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation
Appropriation, 2000................................... $
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. ................
Recommended, 2001..................................... 301,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +301,400,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +301,400,000
The Committee has recommended a new appropriation account,
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation, to include
funding for uranium programs. Uranium programs are currently
funded in the Energy Supply appropriation account which is
managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
appropriation account which is managed by the Office of
Environmental Management. The funding split between two program
organizations and two appropriation accounts makes it difficult
to coordinate and manage remediation work performed at the
uranium enrichment facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio.
To provide more visibility within the budget for uranium
programs, the Committee has combined the funding into a single
appropriation account in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommendation for Uranium Facilities
Maintenance and Remediation is $301,400,000, a reduction of
$43,038,000 from the budget request of $344,438,000 due to
funding constraints. Of this amount, $260,000,000 will be
derived from the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund and $12,000,000
will be transferred from the United States Enrichment
Corporation Fund.
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.--The Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Fund, established by
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, supports D&D, remedial actions,
waste management, and surveillance and maintenance associated
with preexisting conditions at sites leased and operated by the
United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), as well as
Department of Energy facilities at these and other uranium
enrichment sites. The sites covered by this D&D Fund include
the operating uranium enrichment facilities at Portsmouth,
Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, and the inactive K-25 site in
Tennessee, formerly called the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion
Plant. Environmental restoration efforts at these three sites
are supported from the D&D Fund established by a tax on
domestic utilities and by annual appropriations. In fiscal year
2001 the Department of Energy will transfer $420,000,000 into
this Fund.
Due to severe funding constraints, the Committee recommends
$260,000,000, a reduction of $43,038,000 from the budget
request for activities funded from the Uranium Enrichment D&D
Fund. The Committee is aware of the substantial cleanup
requirements at each of the uranium enrichment sites, but is
unable to provide the requested increase in fiscal year 2001.
Uranium/thorium reimbursements.--The Committee
recommendation includes $30,000,000, the same as the budget
request, to implement the reimbursement program authorized
under Title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act, for active
uranium and thorium processing sites which sold uranium and
thorium to the United States Government. This program is to
assist site owners by compensating them on a per ton basis for
the restoration and disposal costs of those mill tailings
resulting from sale of materials to the government.
Uranium programs.--This program funds the government's
activities related to the Federal uranium enrichment programs
which were not transferred to the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC). This includes management and remediation of
leased and non-leased facilities at the gaseous diffusion
plants in Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio; funding pre-
existing liabilities such as post retirement life and medical
costs for contractor employees prior to the establishment of
USEC; management of the Department's inventory of depleted
uranium hexafluoride (DUF6); and management of other surplus
uranium inventories. The Committee recommendation for uranium
programs requested in the Energy Supply appropriation account
is $53,400,000, the same as the budget request.
Depleted UF6.--Funding of $24,877,000, the same as the
budget request, is included for activities associated with the
depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) management and conversion
project. This includes $12,877,000 in appropriated funds in
this program and an additional $12,000,000 from funds obtained
under the Memoranda of Agreement with the United States
Enrichment Corporation.
Domestic uranium industry.--The Committee is concerned
about the protection of the public interest in maintaining a
reliable and economical domestic source of uranium mining,
enrichment and conversion services, as such interest is stated
in the United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act
and Executive Order 13085. The Committee reminds the Secretary
of the responsibilities delegated by the President to take
action or propose to take action to prevent or mitigate any
material adverse impact on such industries and expects the
Secretary to work with the President and other parts of the
Administration toward those ends with sharply and swiftly
renewed vigor.
Science
Appropriation, 2000................................... $2,787,627,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 3,151,065,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 2,830,915,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +43,288,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -320,150,000
The Science account includes the following programs: high
energy and nuclear physics; biological and environmental
research; basic energy sciences; advanced scientific computing
research; energy research analysis; multi-program energy
laboratories facility support; fusion energy sciences; and
program direction. Due to severe funding constraints, the
Committee was unable to provide the significant budget
increases requested by the Department in fiscal year 2001. It
has been necessary to defer many on-going programs and new
initiatives which the Committee views very favorably and
regrets being unable to fund.
Statutory language proposed by the Administration to
provide advance appropriations through fiscal year 2005 for the
Spallation Neutron Source has not been included.
Coordination of Basic Research.--The Committee is concerned
that there is scant cooperation and coordination between the
Office of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy on the fundamental research needed to improve
renewable energy technologies. Each year the Committee provides
funding for the Office of Science to support basic research in
energy programs, including renewable programs. There appears to
be little coordination or consultation between the two offices
on the synergies among these programs. The Committee directs
these two offices to identify ways in which coordination can be
improved and research conducted which is mutually beneficial,
and to inform the Committee how coordination will be improved.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
The high energy physics program of the Department of Energy
has the lead responsibility for Federal support of high energy
physics research. The program is directed at understanding the
nature of matter and energy at the most fundamental level and
the basic forces which govern all processes in nature.
Fundamental research provides the necessary foundation that
ultimately enables the Nation to progress in its science and
technology capabilities, to advance its industrial
competitiveness, and to discover new and innovative approaches
to our energy future.
The Committee's recommendation for high energy physics is
$714,730,000, the same as the budget request, and an increase
of $6,840,000 over fiscal year 2000.
Research and technology.--The Committee recommendation for
research and technology is $224,820,000, a reduction of
$12,900,000 from the budget request of $237,720,000. For fiscal
year 2001 the Department requested $19,200,000 for research and
development on the Next Linear Collider and $8,700,000 for
research and development on the Muon-Muon Collider. Due to
severe funding constraints, the recommendation limits funding
for these two activities to a total of $15,000,000. With the
funding constraints on operating existing facilities and the
need to fund major science projects currently under
construction, the Committee is not anxious at this time to fund
designs for expensive new facilities.
Facility operations.--The Committee recommendation for
facility operations is $489,910,000, an increase of $12,900,000
over the budget request of $477,010,000. The Department
requested $207,031,000 in fiscal year 2001 for facility
operations at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in
Batvia, Illinois. This level of funding would severely impact
on-going operations at Fermi, so the Committee has provided
$230,931,000, an additional $23,900,000, for Fermi operations
in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommendation for the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) is $59,000,000, a reduction of $11,000,000 from the
budget request of $70,000,000. Funding is available since
obligations for the LHC have been slower than anticipated, and
there will be no negative impact on the project.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The goal of the nuclear physics program is to support basic
research scientists, develop and operate the facilities, and
foster the technical and scientific activities needed to
understand the structure and interactions of atomic nuclei, and
the fundamental forces and particles of nature as manifested in
nuclear matter. The Committee recommendation for nuclear
physics is $369,890,000, the same as the budget request, and an
increase of $17,890,000 over fiscal year 2000.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The biological and environmental research program provides
fundamental science to develop the knowledge needed to
identify, understand, anticipate, and mitigate the long-term
health and environmental consequences of energy production,
development, and use.
The Committee recommendation is $404,000,000, a reduction
of $41,260,000 from the budget request of $445,260,000, and
$37,500,000 below fiscal year 2000. Due to severe funding
constraints, the Committee was unable to provide the requested
level of funding for this program. While this appears to be a
significant reduction from fiscal year 2000, it is actually
comparable when funding is adjusted for the additional projects
which were added to the program in fiscal year 2000.
Construction and infrastructure.--The Committee has
deferred without prejudice funding to initiate construction of
the Laboratory for Comparative Functional Genomics at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. The Committee has also deferred
funding to develop facilities and infrastructure at the
University of South Carolina School of Public Health.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is
$791,000,000, a reduction of $224,770,000 from the budget
request, and an increase of $7,873,000 over fiscal year 2000.
Due to severe funding constraints, the Committee was unable to
provide the requested level of funding for this program. It has
been necessary to defer funding for many new initiatives which
the Committee views very favorably.
For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2001, the
Department may reallocate funding among all operating accounts
in basic energy sciences. The recommendation includes
$6,815,000, the same as last year, for the Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program, and
provides an increase of $7,873,000 to fund new waste management
activities transferred to the program in fiscal year 2001.
Spallation Neutron Source.--The Committee recommendation
provides $100,000,000, a reduction of $161,900,000 from the
budget request of $261,900,000, and the same level as fiscal
year 2000 for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source.
The Committee is aware that the Department has made significant
progress in improving the management of the project in the past
year. The funding reduction does not reflect concern with the
current status of the project, but rather the severe funding
constraints under which the Committee is operating in fiscal
year 2001.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The goal of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research
(ASCR) program is to discover, develop, and deploy the
computational and networking tools that enable researchers in
the scientific disciplines to analyze, model, simulate, and
predict complex phenomena.
The Committee recommendation is $137,000,000, a reduction
of $44,970,000 from the budget request, but an increase of
$5,000,000 over fiscal year 2000. The Committee is aware that
the Department has worked hard to develop an advanced computing
program to meet the needs of the science programs and
laboratories. However, severe funding constraints make it
impossible to fund a large new computing program in fiscal year
2001. The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for computer
equipment upgrades at the National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center (NERSC) at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
ENERGY RESEARCH ANALYSIS
The energy research analysis program assesses research
projects and programs and seeks to identify undesirable
duplications and gaps. The Committee recommendation for energy
research analysis is $1,000,000, the same as the budget
request.
MULTI-PROGRAM ENERGY LABORATORIES FACILITIES SUPPORT
The multi-program energy laboratories facilities support
program provides funding for general purpose facilities to
support the infrastructure of the five Office of Science multi-
program national laboratories and Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
landlord costs. The Committee recommendation for multi-program
energy laboratories facilities support is $33,930,000, the same
as the budget request.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
$255,000,000, an increase of $7,730,000 over the budget
request, and the same as fiscal year 2000. Additional funding
of $25,000,000 has been provided in the inertial confinement
fusion program in the Weapons Activities appropriation account
to support work on the development of high average power
lasers.
Funds for this program should be allocated in accordance
with the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee's (FESAC)
report on Balance and Priorities. The Committee is pleased that
the FESAC review process seems to be positioning the U.S.
program to take advantage of the much larger international
fusion research effort with the resources available and also
positions the program to accelerate the development of fusion
energy.
The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
$19,600,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the
Tokomak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR).
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation for program direction is
$138,000,000, a reduction of $3,245,000 from the budget
request. Funding of $4,500,000, the same as last year, has been
provided for the science education program.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The recommendation for Science includes a general reduction
of $13,635,000 due to funding constraints.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2000................................... $ 239,601,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 325,500,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 213,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000................................. -26,601,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................... -112,500,000
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended,
established the Federal government's responsibility and
statutory framework to provide for the permanent geologic
disposal of commercially generated spent nuclear fuel and the
high-level radioactive waste generated by the Nation's nuclear
defense activities. This law also established the Nuclear Waste
Disposal Fund to finance disposal activities through the
collection of fees from the owners and generators of nuclear
waste.
The Committee recommends $213,000,000 to be derived from
the Fund in fiscal year 2001. Combined with the appropriation
of $200,000,000 to the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account,
a total of $413,000,000 will be available for program
activities in fiscal year 2001. This is a reduction of
$24,500,000 from the budget request of $437,500,000, but the
Committee believes the Department can meet its objectives in
fiscal year 2001 with this level of funding.
Sufficient funding for this program is critical in fiscal
year 2001. In fiscal year 2001, an investment of approximately
$4 billion and almost 18 years of site investigations will
culminate in a series of decisions on whether the repository
should be sited at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. If the
site is determined to be suitable and the Secretary of Energy
decides to recommend the site for repository development, a
Site Recommendation Report will be prepared and submitted to
the President in fiscal year 2001. If the President, and then
Congress, accept the site recommendation, a license application
will be prepared and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in fiscal year 2002.
State and local government funds.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,887,000 for the affected units of
local government, the same as the budget request, and
$2,500,000 for the State of Nevada, a reduction of $2,148,000
from the budget request, to conduct oversight responsibilities.
The Committee has been reluctant in prior years to provide
funding to the State of Nevada in view of the documented abuses
by State employees, but believes it is important for the State
of Nevada to oversee the program at this crucial stage in the
site characterization process. The Committee has provided
statutory language directing that the State funds be provided
to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management for program
management and execution. The Committee expects the Governor of
Nevada to ensure that appropriated funds are expended according
to Federal law and Congressional intent and that State
employees fully comply with the law and Congressional
directives. Statutory language is included prohibiting the
payment of salaries and expenses of State employees.
Report requirement.--The Department is directed to update
the report required by Section 303 of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act regarding alternative approaches to financing and managing
this program. In conducting these studies, the Department shall
consult with other Federal agencies and with financial and
organizational management experts who would provide salient
input to this study. As part of the study, the Department
should identify models of effective organizations that might
benefit the operation of the program. An updated report
regarding alternative means of financing and managing this
program shall be submitted to the Congress by June 30, 2001.
Statutory language.--The Committee has included statutory
language proposed by the Administration that would allow the
use of proceeds and recoveries from the sale of assets.
Proceeds estimated at approximately $1,000,000 are anticipated
in fiscal year 2001.
Waste acceptance and transportation.--The Committee is
concerned about the steady erosion of Administration support
for activities associated with the waste acceptance and
transportation functions of the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management. The Department needs to demonstrate its
ability to remove spent fuel from utility sites for Federal
management, and, in particular, its commitment to the timely
removal of spent fuel. Accordingly, the Department should
submit to the Committee by December 31, 2000, a plan for the
timely fabrication and deployment of waste acceptance
capabilities. The plan should be developed after consultation
with affected contract holders and consider currently licensed
transportation systems and other transportation.
Departmental Administration
Gross Appropriation
Appropriation, 2000................................... $205,581,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 213,339,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 153,527,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -52,054,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -59,812,000
Miscellaneous Revenues
Appropriation, 2000................................... -$106,887,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. -128,762,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... -111,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -4,113,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +17,762,000
The funding recommended for Departmental Administration
provides for general management and program support functions
benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy. The
account funds a wide array of activities not directly
associated with program execution. In fiscal year 2001, the
Committee has provided funding for Departmental Administration
activities in two appropriation accounts. The Committee has
provided $153,527,000 in this account, and $51,000,000 in the
Other Defense Activities appropriation account, for total
funding of $204,527,000, a reduction of $8,812,000 from the
budget request. Funding for many offices has been reduced due
to funding constraints and the availability of prior year
carryover balances.
Office of Ombudsman.--The recommendation of $5,100,000 for
the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity includes all
funding for salaries and expenses associated with the newly
established Office of Ombudsman.
Working Capital Fund.--The Committee has included statutory
language prohibiting the Department from including the salaries
and expenses for Federal employees in this account. The
Committee appropriates funds separately for all Federal
employees and will continue to do so.
The Department is using a charge back program similar in
nature to a working capital fund which charges benefiting
programs and organizations with certain administrative and
housekeeping activities traditionally funded in a central
account. The Committee continues to support this, but wants to
reiterate its expectations that: no salaries or other expenses
of Federal employees may be charged to the fund; Departmental
representation on the Board establishing the policies should be
broad based and include smaller organizations; the pricing
policies used must be sound and defensible and not include
added factors for administrative costs; the advanced payments
at any time may be no more than the amount minimally required
to adequately cover outstanding commitments and other
reasonable activities; and a defined process must be
established to dispose of excess advance payments (accumulated
credits). Additionally, it is the Committee's expectation that
the fund manager will ensure that the fund will neither be
managed in a manner to produce a profit nor allow the program
customers to use the fund as a vehicle for maintaining
unencumbered funds.
The working capital fund should be audited periodically by
the Department's Inspector General to ensure the integrity of
the accounts, and the Committee expects to be apprised of any
recommendations to improve the charge back system.
Reprogramming guidelines.--The Committee has provided
reprogramming authority of $500,000 or five percent, whichever
is less, within the Departmental Administration account without
submission of a reprogramming to be approved by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations. No individual program
account may be increased or decreased by more than this amount
during the fiscal year using this reprogramming authority.
Congressional notification within 30 days of the use of this
reprogramming authority is required.
Use of Prior Year Deobligations and Construction Project
Reserves.--Throughout the fiscal year, funds often become
available as projects are completed and contracts closed out
throughout all of the Department's appropriation accounts.
These funds become available for reuse and are retained by the
Controller as either prior year deobligations or transferred to
construction project reserve accounts. During fiscal year 2001
these funds are not available for reallocation within the
Department unless approved by Congress as part of a
reprogramming or specifically identified in the budget request.
Cost of Work for Others.--The recommendation for the cost
of work for others program is $34,027,000, the same as the
budget request. The Committee recognizes that funds received
from reimbursable activities may be used to fund general
purpose capital equipment which is used in support of those
activities.
Revenues.--The Department's revenue estimate for fiscal
year 2001 is $128,762,000. However, the Committee
recommendation is $111,000,000, a decrease of $17,762,000 from
the budget request. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
estimated that the Department's revenues will be less than the
budget request in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has included
the CBO recommended level of revenues.
Transfer from Other Defense Activities.--For many years,
full funding for all corporate and administrative activities of
the Department has been provided in the energy portion of this
bill despite the fact that over 70 percent of the Department's
funding is provided in the national security programs. The
Committee has distributed these costs more equitably in fiscal
year 2001 and provided $51,000,000 from national security
programs.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, 2000................................... $29,500,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 33,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 31,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +2,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -1,500,000
The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit,
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct
management and administrative deficiencies which create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and
operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
The Committee recommendation is $31,500,000, a reduction of
$1,500,000 from the budget request due to funding constraints.
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security
Administration which consists of Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors; Defense
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Defense
Facilities Closure Projects; Defense Environmental Management
Privatization; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear
Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are
provided below.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000, Public Law 106-65, established within the Department of
Energy a separately organized agency to be known as the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and to become
effective on March 1, 2000. The Committee's recommendations for
funding in fiscal year 2001 reflect this new organization and
budget structure.
Weapons Activities
Appropriation, 2000................................... $4,427,052,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 4,594,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 4,625,684,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +198,632,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +31,684,000
The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain
confidence in the safety, security, reliability and performance
of the Nation's enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The program
seeks to maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain
confidence in their safety and reliability indefinitely under
the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction treaties. The
Committee's recommendation for Weapons Activities is
$4,625,684,000, an increase of $31,684,000 over the budget
request of $4,594,000,000.
Authorization of appropriations.--Consistent with the
guidance in the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization
bill passed by the House of Representatives, appropriations for
Weapons Activities are being made available for obligation only
until October 1, 2003.
Organization and Management Structure.--The Committee
continues to believe that the Department's internal
organization and management structure at Headquarters and in
the field does not efficiently support the Department's current
mission in the post Cold War environment. The Committee
encourages the new Administrator for Nuclear Security and the
Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to review the urgent
need for organization and management changes in the NNSA
headquarters and field structure. Simply renaming the same
employees, the same organizational structure, and the same
management culture as the ``National Nuclear Security
Administration'' will not address the fundamental problems that
Congress sought to address by creating this new entity. The
Committee does not need to outline the problems with
overlapping, duplicative responsibilities and lack of
accountability. There are numerous reports outlining these
issues and offering solutions. The Committee strongly urges the
new Administrator and Deputy Administrator to use this
opportunity to make bold and strategic improvements.
Performance measures.--In fiscal year 1999, the Department
identified 11 performance measures to be accomplished by
Defense Programs. The Department met only six of these goals
successfully while failing to meet five of the goals. Weapons
alteration schedules were missed; construction of the National
Ignition Facility was delayed; upgrades to key operations
facilities fell behind schedule; and there were fewer warheads
dismantled than scheduled. While the Department can explain why
each of these delays occurred, the overall trend is disturbing.
If the Department expects to retain credibility that it is
capable of meeting critical national security goals, it would
do well to focus more strongly on its core nuclear weapons
mission.
Land conveyance and transfer.--The Department has
identified ten tracts of land in the vicinity of the Los Alamos
National Laboratory to be conveyed to the County of Los Alamos
and the Department of Interior. Costs associated with this
transfer include environmental and remediation activities and
landlord activities. While the Committee supports the transfer,
some of the landlord costs associated with this activity appear
to be quite excessive. In order to track these costs, the
Department is directed to include a specific funding request
for the land conveyance and transfer program in the annual
budget submission for Environmental Management and Weapons
Activities.
directed stockpile work
Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including
maintenance, research, development, engineering, and
certification activities. The Committee recommendation is
$856,603,000, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget
request of $836,603,000. For stockpile maintenance, an
additional $5,000,000 has been provided for the Kansas City
plant in Missouri and $4,000,000 for the Y-12 plant in
Tennessee. For stockpile evaluation, an additional $5,000,000
has been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and $6,000,000
for the Y-12 plant in Tennessee.
campaigns
Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production
plants, and selected external organizations to address critical
capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. Campaigns
have definitive milestones, specific work plans, and specific
end dates. The Committee recommendation is $1,958,014,000, an
increase of $653,775,000 over the budget request of
$1,304,239,000. Most of this increase reflects a restructuring
of the Department's budget request. For some campaigns, the
recommendation incorporates funding which was requested by the
Department in the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
program. The Committee has moved this funding to more
accurately portray the cost of these campaigns.
Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee recommends
$364,600,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an
increase of $169,700,000 over the budget request of
$194,900,000. The recommendation includes $144,700,000 which
has been transferred to inertial confinement fusion from the
readiness in technical base and facilities program, and
$25,000,000 to further the development of high average power
lasers.
Last year the Committee requested the Secretary of Energy
to complete and certify a new cost and schedule baseline for
the National Ignition Facility (NIF). This certification was to
be submitted by June 1, 2000. If the Department was unable to
provide such a certification, the Department was to prepare an
estimate of the costs necessary to terminate the project. The
Department has not been able to certify a new cost and schedule
baseline, but has submitted an interim report calculating the
total project cost at approximately $3.26 billion. The
Committee does not believe that the information provided to
date is an adequate basis for additional appropriations in
fiscal year 2001. The Committee will reserve judgment on this
project until the final report is submitted in September.
Although completion of the NIF project in a timely and cost
effective manner is a high priority for the stockpile
stewardship program, it is important that the Department
continue to support and maintain the work at other inertial
fusion facilities, and efforts in diagnostics, target
fabrication, and cryogenic target development. These elements
of the inertial confinement fusion program not only enable the
goals of NIF, but have important roles in meeting the overall
goals of stockpile stewardship. With significant delays in NIF,
increased use of existing facilities and the continued
development of the supporting activities are essential to the
long term success of the program. The Committee recommendation
includes the budget request of $9,750,000 for the Naval
Research Laboratory and $32,150,000 for the University of
Rochester.
Defense computing and modeling.--The budget request
includes $776,175,000 for defense computing and modeling, an
increase of $457,075,000 over the request of $319,100,000. The
increase reflects the transfer of $477,075,000 for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) from the
readiness in technical base and facilities program. Funding for
ASCI is then reduced by $20,000,000 from the budget request.
Pit manufacturing readiness.--The Committee recommendation
for pit manufacturing readiness is $110,038,000, an increase of
$2,000,000 over the budget request. To address concerns that
the NNSA lacks a robust capability for replacement of plutonium
pits and the difficulties currently being experienced in
producing pits in a laboratory environment, the Committee has
provided $2,000,000 to initiate conceptual design work on a pit
manufacturing facility.
Tritium.--The Committee recommendation for the tritium
program is $177,000,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the
budget request of $152,000,000. The Department requested no
funding for Project 98-D-126, the Accelerator Production of
Tritium project, but the Committee has provided $25,000,000 to
continue design activities.
readiness in technical base and facilities
The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program
supports the physical and operational infrastructure at the
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the production plants.
The Committee recommendation is $1,483,883,000, a decrease of
$608,775,000 from the budget request of $2,092,658,000. Most of
this reduction is due to transferring funds to other programs.
Funding of $144,700,000 was transferred to the inertial
confinement fusion program and $477,075,000 was transferred to
the defense computing and modeling program for a total transfer
out of the account of $621,775,000. The Committee
recommendation also provides an additional $10,000,000 for
infrastructure at the Y-12 plant in Tennessee; $10,000,000 for
infrastructure at the Pantex plant in Texas; and $10,000,000
for infrastructure at the Kansas City plant in Missouri.
Consistent with the recommendations contained in the Fiscal
Year 2001 National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee
has not provided $17,000,000 requested for educational
activities associated with the national weapons laboratories.
Uranium-233.--The Committee recommends that the Department
process Uranium-233 stored in Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in a manner that
would retain and make available isotopes for beneficial use.
Isotopes such as Thorium-229 and its decay products have
significant potential for the treatment of cancer. Efforts
should be made to expedite processing of the Uranium-233 while
considering the radiological and criticality hazards, safeguard
limitations and environmental regulations associated with this
material. The Committee recommends that the Department procure
a well-qualified contractor for this project with a proven
track record of meeting safety, quality, cost and schedule
requirements.
Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation
includes $14,500,000 for the preliminary project engineering
and design (PE&D) project. The Department is directed to notify
the Committee when PE&D funds are allocated for a specific
project.
transportation safeguards division
The Transportation Safeguards Division provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the
United States. The Committee recommendation is $115,673,000,
the same as the budget request.
program direction
The Committee recommendation of $216,871,000 for program
direction is a reduction of $7,200,000 from the budget request
of $224,071,000. The Committee expects the Department to
initiate a five percent reduction in Federal staffing,
consistent with the guidance contained in the Fiscal Year 2001
National Defense Authorization bill.
funding adjustments
General reduction.--The Committee recommends a general
reduction of $26,116,000 in fiscal year 2001. This reflects a
reduction in the use of Laboratory Directed Research and
Development funds from six percent as requested in the budget
to four percent as recommended by the Committee.
defense nuclear nonproliferation
Appropriation, 2000................................... $729,100,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 906,035,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 861,477,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +132,377,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -44,558,000
Consistent with the legislation establishing the National
Nuclear Security Administration, the Committee has provided a
separate appropriation account for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation. This account includes funding for
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development,
Arms Control, International Materials Protection, Control, and
Accounting, the Long-term Nonproliferation Program for Russia,
HEU Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety,
Fissile Materials Disposition, and Program Direction.
Descriptions of each of these programs are provided below.
general
Strategic Planning and Analysis.--U.S. engagement with the
Russian nuclear complex has grown over the past few years
resulting in securing nuclear materials and promoting
nonproliferation strategies. This rapid growth of activities
has contributed to multitudes of DOE federal employees, U.S.
contractors, and national laboratory employees visiting Russia
and the Newly Independent States (NIS). In addition, new
programs such as the Administration's proposed $100 million
initiative seek to expand this engagement. The Committee is
deeply concerned with the sporadic appearance of initiatives
and programs with ill defined scope, lack of an understanding
of U.S. out-year financial obligations, and lack of documented
commitments that these ``joint'' U.S./Russian initiatives are
even supported by the Russians.
The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) needs
to demonstrate that its Russian programs are integrated,
support the most urgent security needs, and clearly meet a
strategic, measurable policy goal within a disciplined
budgetary profile. The Committee strongly recommends that the
Deputy Administrator form a long-range strategic planning group
for Russian programs that can integrate DNN activities, such as
treaty negotiations, DOE on-the-ground work in Russia, and
advances in nonproliferation and verification research. Absent
this integration, the current stove-piping of program offices
has resulted in multitudes of DOE staff and representatives
visiting Russia and the NIS, and often the same Russian
officials, with duplicative or conflicting agendas. The
Committee requests that a 5-year plan (FY 2001-2005) on U.S./
Russian nonproliferation and arms control programs at DOE be
submitted concurrent with the submittal of the fiscal year 2002
budget, that demonstrates how DNN programs are using an
integrated approach to address urgent security needs in Russia.
Consistent with this 5-year plan, corresponding funding
profiles for each program should be provided, noting total
life-cycle cost and end dates for each program.
Regional Threat Reduction.--The Department of Energy has a
unique role in regional security and arms control, with nuclear
experts that can analyze and understand nuclear weapons
development programs. While significant DNN resources are
targeted for Russian nuclear initiatives, the Committee is
concerned that the Department has neglected proliferation
concerns in other regions of nuclear instability. This
important analysis can allow the U.S. to predict nuclear
weapons development in proliferant states and form the basis
for U.S. and international efforts to impede, prevent, and
roll-back proliferation. The Committee urges the Department to
focus resources, with experienced, credible leadership for
regional security programs.
Competitive Research.--The Committee is concerned that the
Department of Energy has not followed the language included in
last year's conference report directing the Department to
initiate a free and open competitive process for 25 percent of
its research and development, including 25 percent of the
treaty monitoring program. The Committee directs the Department
to provide a report immediately describing the status of
competition in these programs. Furthermore, the Committee
directs the Department to have a competitive, peer-reviewed
program with outside experts by October 2000, for 25 percent of
the Non-proliferation and National Security programs, including
25 percent of the Department's Treaty Monitoring program.
Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Committee remains
concerned about the amount of funding for Russian programs
which goes to the Department's own national laboratories rather
than going to the facilities in Russia. The Committee directs
that not more than 20 percent of the funding for any of these
programs may be spent in the United States.
nonproliferation and verification research and development
The nonproliferation and verification research and
development program conducts applied research, development,
testing, and evaluation of science and technology for
strengthening the United States response to threats to national
security and to world peace posed by the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials. Activities
center on the design and production of operational sensor
systems needed for proliferation detection, treaty
verification, nuclear warhead dismantlement initiatives, and
intelligence activities.
The nonproliferation and verification research and
development program consists of hundreds of projects executed
primarily at the nuclear weapons laboratories. The Committee
has consistently expressed concern that this appears to be an
unfocused, level of effort activity performed at DOE
laboratories. Last year the Committee directed the Department
to implement an external, peer-review process to examine each
of the projects, their progress, and their value to the overall
needs of the program. The Committee also requested a report
identifying the value of the individual research and
development projects, and how the individual projects relate to
an overriding program plan or technology roadmap. The
Department has not submitted this information to the Committee.
In lieu of providing the specific information requested by
the Committee, the Department established a panel to look at
the quality of the research, technology transfer, and the
balance of work and budgets across nonproliferation programs.
While this information is helpful, it did not directly address
the Committee's concerns and did not provide an external review
of individual projects.
The Committee recommendation is $222,000,000, a decrease of
$10,990,000 from the budget request of $232,990,000. This
provides the budget request of $42,138,000 for chemical and
biological nonproliferation, and the budget request of
$7,000,000 for the Nonproliferation and International Security
Center.
arms control
The arms control and nonproliferation program supports the
Nation's arms control and nonproliferation policies; limiting
weapons-usable fissile materials; establishing transparent and
irreversible nuclear reductions; and controlling nuclear
exports. The Committee has moved the International Materials
Protection, Accounting, and Control program from arms control
and has established a stand-alone program for these activities.
The Committee recommendation is $141,514,000, an increase
of $18,500,000 over the budget request of $123,014,000. The
recommendation includes $17,500,000 for the Nuclear Cities
Initiative and $22,500,000 for Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention. Within the Nuclear Cities Initiative, $10,000,000
is to fund the Accelerated Closure of Serial Production
Facilities initiative for Avangard and Penza-19. The increase
of $18,500,000 will fund long-term nonproliferation initiatives
for Russia: $15,000,000 for spent fuel dry storage at Mayak;
$500,000 for the plutonium registry at Mayak; $2,500,000 for
geologic repository cooperation research and planning; and
$500,000 for research reactor spent fuel acceptance.
international materials protection, control and accounting
The International Materials Protection, Control and
Accounting (MPC&A) activities are designed to work
cooperatively with Russia to protect the direct use of nuclear
materials. The focus is to improve the physical security at
facilities that possess or process significant quantities of
nuclear weapons-usable that are of proliferation concern.
Activities include installing monitoring equipment,
inventorying nuclear material, improving the Soviet security
culture, and establishing a security infrastructure. The
Department had included funding for this program in Arms
Control, but the Committee has created a separate program for
these activities.
The Committee recommendation is $169,856,000, an increase
of $20,000,000 over the budget request of $149,856,000. The
increase reflects the amount requested in the long-term
nonproliferation program for Russia for expanded MPC&A
activities at Russian naval sites and plutonium storage at
Mayak.
long-term nonproliferation program for russia
The Department of Energy proposed nine new initiatives to
respond to previously recognized, but unaddressed threats to
U.S. security. The initiatives are intended to supplement
ongoing Department programs with Russia and seek to establish
new and accelerated solutions. DOE requested $100,000,000 in
fiscal year 2001 for these initiatives. The Committee has
provided $48,500,000 for these initiatives, but has transferred
the funding to the appropriate existing programs.
The Committee has provided $20,000,000 as requested for the
Russian Naval Sites and the Mayak plutonium storage initiatives
in the International Materials Protection, Control and
Accounting program, and $10,000,000 as requested for
accelerating the closure of serial production facilities,
Avangard and Penza-19 in the Arms Control program. According to
a General Accounting Office review of all nine initiatives, for
these three programs, the scope of the project is defined,
Russian commitments are in place, and a spending plan for
fiscal year 2001 has been developed.
A review of the remaining initiatives found varying degrees
of scope definition, incomplete or inadequate documentation on
how requested funds will be spent, and lack of a firm
commitment by the Russian Federation to participate in them. In
particular, the $20,000,000 requested for Proliferation
Resistant Reactors and Fuels Research Program, and $2,000,000
Situation and Crisis Center appeared to be lacking in all three
review categories. As such, the Committee provides no funding
for these initiatives.
The Committee has provided partial funding for the
following initiatives in the Arms Control program: $15,000,000
for spent fuel dry storage at Mayak, a decrease from the budget
request of $38,000,000; $500,000 for the plutonium registry at
Mayak, a decrease from the budget request of $2,000,000;
$2,500,000 for geologic repository cooperation research and
planning, a decrease from the budget request of $5,000,000; and
$500,000 for research reactor spent fuel acceptance, a decrease
from the budget request of $3,000,000.
highly enriched uranium transparency implementation
The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency
implementation program is responsible for ensuring that the
nonproliferation aspects of the February 1993 agreement between
the United States and the Russian Federation are met. This
agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched
uranium (LEU) derived from at least 500 metric tons of HEU
removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the
agreement, conversion of HEU components into LEU is performed
in Russian facilities. The purpose of the program is to put
into place those measures agreed to by both sides that permit
the U.S. to have confidence that the Russian side is abiding by
the agreement.
The Committee recommendation is $15,190,000, the same as
the budget request.
international nuclear safety
The international nuclear safety program is designed to
reduce the threats posed by the operation of unsafe and aging
Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in Russia and the Newly
Independent States. The Committee recommendation for this
program is $20,000,000, the same as the budget request, and an
increase of $5,000,000 over fiscal year 2000.
A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) review of the
Department of Energy's nuclear safety assistance activities
``found that the Department of Energy had funded several
projects that may have worthwhile objectives but are not
directly related to improving the safety of Soviet-designed
nuclear reactors and do not meet the Department's project
selection criteria. For example, environmental centers in
Russia and the United States--established by the Department to
address nuclear waste issues--are not directly related to
improving the reactors' safety. Similarly, GAO questions
whether nine joint research projects being performed at nuclear
safety centers in the United States and Russia are directly
improving the safety of currently operating nuclear power
plants.''
The Committee believes the Department needs to focus its
efforts on improving the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear
reactors, and eliminate extraneous projects that do not
contribute directly to this goal. As such, the Committee
directs the Department to provide an annual report showing the
status of each of the Soviet-designed reactors, the work to be
accomplished, the total estimated cost for each reactor, the
cost of completing the upgrades to each of the reactors, the
schedule by fiscal year for accomplishing this work, and the
cost of each task by fiscal year.
In addition, the report should provide summary tables of
total annual resources expended and planned at each reactor and
each project/activity receiving funding outside explicit
reactors for fiscal years 1993-2005, which total to the annual
amount provided and projected to complete the program. The
report should add a strategic plan outlining the most urgent
and pressing safety priorities that remain and need to be
addressed in order to close out the program by 2005 within
current funding levels.
fissile materials disposition
The fissile materials disposition program is responsible
for the technical and management activities to assess, plan and
direct efforts to provide for the safe, secure, environmentally
sound long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials
and the disposition of fissile materials declared surplus to
national defense needs. The Committee recommendation is
$241,449,000, an increase of $18,014,000 over the budget
request of $223,435,000.
Funding of $139,517,000, an increase of $4,000,000 over the
budget request, is provided for U.S. surplus materials
disposition. This reflects an increase of $7,000,000 in
operating dollars transferred from environmental management to
the fissile materials disposition program for the highly
enriched uranium blend down facility, and a decrease of
$3,000,000 in operating dollars transferred to the MOX fuel
fabrication facility project.
The Committee has provided $40,000,000, the same as the
budget request, for the Russian plutonium disposition program.
Within this amount $10,000,000, the same as the budget request,
is for the support of the joint U.S./Russian program to develop
the GT-MHR for the purpose of destroying surplus Russian
plutonium. The Committee believes that monetary support of
other governments is essential to the success of this program.
Report requirement.--The Committee is concerned that the
cost estimate for the fissile materials disposition program has
increased substantially. The estimated cost of the U.S. program
is approximately $4,000,000,000, and the estimated cost of the
Russian program is now in excess of $2,000,000,000. These
estimated costs are significantly higher than the cost
estimates provided to the Committee when the program was
initiated. The Committee directs the Department to provide a
detailed report on the full costs of this program with a cost
and schedule baseline by year through completion of the
program. The report should also provide detailed information by
year on the funding to be contributed by Russia and other
countries in support of this initiative. This report is due to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February
15, 2001.
The report should also address the Committee's concerns
that the U.S. program is being conducted at a faster pace than
the Russian program. The design of several expensive new
facilities in the United States is underway while funding for
comparable Russian facilities is still uncertain. The
Department should include in the report the process by which
parity between the two countries will be maintained throughout
execution of the program.
Construction.--Funding of $20,932,000 for Project 01-D-407,
the highly enriched uranium blend down facility, at the
Savannah River Site has been included in this program. The
Department requested funding for this project in the
Environmental Management program, but it is more appropriately
funded in the fissile materials disposition program.
The Committee has provided $18,000,000, an increase of
$3,000,000 over the budget request of $15,000,000, for Project
99-D-143, the MOX fuel fabrication facility project. This
funding was transferred from the operating account.
Program direction.--No program direction funds are provided
in the fissile materials disposition program. Funds for
salaries and expenses are included in the overall program
direction account for defense nuclear nonproliferation.
program direction
The Committee recommendation of $51,468,000 for program
direction combines the budget request of $41,550,000 for
defense nuclear nonproliferation and the request of $9,918,000
for fissile materials disposition.
Naval Reactors
Appropriation, 2000................................... $677,600,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 677,600,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 677,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
Consistent with the legislation establishing the National
Nuclear Security Administration, the Committee has recommended
a separate appropriation account for the Naval Reactors
program. The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all
aspects of naval nuclear propulsion-from technology development
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal.
This program provides for the design, development, testing, and
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to the continued
success of over 99 reactors in operating nuclear-powered
submarines and surface ships and to development of the next
generation reactor.
The Committee recommendation is $677,600,000, the same as
the budget request. The Administration has once again under-
funded the successful environmental cleanup program being
executed by the Naval Reactors program. The Committee is aware
that additional funds could be used to continue test reactor
inactivation efforts and preclude inefficiencies due to
delaying environmental cleanup activities that are scheduled to
be completed in fiscal year 2002. Unfortunately, the Committee
is unable to accommodate this additional requirement.
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Appropriation, 2000................................... $4,467,308,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 4,551,527,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 4,522,707,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +55,399,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -28,820,000
The Environmental Management program is responsible for
identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites
where the Department carried out nuclear energy or weapons
research and production activities which resulted in
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring
remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup
action. Environmental management activities are budgeted under
the following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure
Projects; Defense Environmental Management Privatization; Non-
Defense Environmental Management; and Uranium Facilities
Maintenance and Remediation.
Statutory language proposed by the Administration is
included providing that any amounts appropriated for economic
assistance under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land
Withdrawal Act shall be used to reimburse costs of financial
assurances required of a contractor by the State of New Mexico.
The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management is $4,522,707,000, a decrease
of $28,820,000 from the budget request of $4,551,527,000, and
$55,399,000 over fiscal year 2000. Details of the recommended
funding levels follow.
general
The Committee is concerned that some projects scheduled for
completion by 2006 are slipping. The Department should be very
careful not to underestimate the strong intent of the Committee
that site cleanups remain on schedule for completion by 2006.
The Department must demonstrate that it is capable of
completing a project on schedule and within cost. Problems that
arise during the course of project execution must be dealt with
quickly to ensure project completion.
The Department should also begin to address the next round
of cleanup projects to be completed within ten years. The
current emphasis on project closure by 2006 has been very
helpful in focusing the attention of the Department and its
contractors on completing projects on time and within cost. The
Committee now believes it is time to begin the next round of
focused site and project cleanups by 2010 and that particularly
the larger cleanup sites should identify discrete projects
which can be completed within the next ten years. The
Department is directed to include in the fiscal year 2002
budget submission a program for all sites and projects which
can be completed by 2010. The Department should work with the
Committee on the appropriate budget structure.
Purchase of motor vehicles.--The Committee has limited to
30 the number of motor vehicles that can be purchased in fiscal
year 2001, a reduction of 37 from the request for 67 new
vehicles. An audit by the Department's Inspector General of
vehicle usage at the Idaho site found that 45 percent of the
vehicles were underused, and the fleet was larger than
necessary. Despite this audit, the Department has requested 62
replacement vehicles for Idaho. The Department appears to seek
replacement of dozens of vehicles without assessing the actual
need and ignoring guidance from the Inspector General audit
reports. The Committee believes this is unnecessary and directs
the Department to review the process used to evaluate the
number of motor vehicles needed by field operations.
Project Changes.--The Department is directed to provide a
report by January 30, 2001, showing the initial funding
allocation by site for each individual project. After that, the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must be notified
of any change that increases or decreases funding for any
project by more than 25 percent. The Department should work
with the Committee to establish the level of detail required in
the initial report.
Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to
support the need for some flexibility to meet changing funding
requirements at former defense sites which are undergoing
remedial cleanup activities. In fiscal year 2001, each site
manager may transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program
activities such as site/project completion and post-2006
completion, and construction projects to reduce health or
safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no program or
project is increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 once
during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be
used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied,
limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. The
Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be
notified within thirty days after the transfer of funds occurs.
Economic development.--None of the environmental management
funds are available for economic development activities.
National monument designation.--The Committee has provided
no funding for the Department to use for the coordination,
integration, or implementation of a management plan or any
other activity related to a national monument designated under
the 1906 Antiquities Act in the State of Washington.
site/project completion
The site/project completion account provides funding for
projects that will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at sites or
facilities where a DOE mission will continue beyond the year
2006. This account focuses management attention on completing
specific environmental projects at sites where the Department
anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes these
projects from the long-term cleanup activities such as those
associated with high level waste streams.
The Committee recommendation for site/project completion
activities is $941,711,000 a reduction of $29,240,000 from the
budget request of $970,951,000. Additional funding of
$10,000,000 is provided for the H-area stabilization project
and $1,000,000 for the F-area stabilization project at the
Savannah River Site. These funds will be used to support
stabilization of plutonium materials and americium/cesium
solutions as well as acceleration of authorization basis work.
Funding for the Highly Enriched Uranium Blend Down Project at
the Savannah River Site has been transferred to the Fissile
Materials Disposition Program. This included a reduction of
$27,932,000 to Project 01-D-407 and a reduction of $10,000,000
in operating expenses associated with the project. In addition,
$2,308,000 that was provided for the Idaho validation and
verification program has been transferred to Science and
Technology.
post 2006 completion
Environmental Management projects currently projected to
require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post
2006 completion account. This includes a significant number of
projects at the largest DOE sites--the Hanford site in
Washington; the Savannah River site in South Carolina; the Oak
Ridge Reservation in Tennessee; and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho--as well as
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Nevada
Test Site, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New
Mexico. A variety of multi-site activities are also funded in
this account.
The Committee recommendation for Post 2006 completion is
$3,067,765,000, a reduction of $40,692,000 from the budget
request of $3,108,457,000. Funding requirements for the
Savannah River Site have changed since the budget request was
submitted, and the recommendation makes the following
adjustments: an additional $3,000,000 for transuranic waste
activities; an additional $3,000,000 for low level waste
activities; a reduction of $10,000,000 for environmental
remediation of the four mile branch project; and a reduction of
$18,000,000 since operation of the Consolidated Incinerator
Project will be suspended for an indefinite period. In
addition, funding of $18,692,000 for validation and
verification activities at Idaho has been transferred to the
Science and Technology program where it has been funded
previously.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).--The interim report on
``Improving Operations and Long-Term Safety of the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant'' by the National Research Council found
that the current system for managing transuranic waste does not
``send DOE TRU waste to WIPP at a minimum risk (from all
sources of risk, including radiological exposure and highway
accidents) and cost.'' The report recommends that the
Department review and revise waste management procedures with
reduction of risk and cost as guiding principles. The Committee
expects the Department to respond promptly to the guidance
provided in this report. Improving the safety and cost
effectiveness of WIPP operations would offer great benefits to
many of the Department's cleanup sites.
National Programs.--The Committee is concerned with the
fragmentation of funding related to the national programs such
as Nuclear Criticality Safety Training, Transportation and
Packaging Management, National Analytical Management, and
Pollution Prevention in the budget request. The Department is
directed to manage these programs centrally through the multi-
site account.
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Contribution.--The Committee
recommendation includes the budget request of $420,000,000 for
the defense contribution to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in
Public Law 102-486, the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Health Effects Studies.--The Committee recommendation does
not include any funding for worker and public health effects
studies.
science and technology
The Office of Science and Technology conducts a national
program that provides a full range of resources and
capabilities--from basic research through development and
demonstration, and technical and deployment assistance--that
are needed to deliver scientific and technological solutions to
cleanup and long-term environmental stewardship problems. The
Committee recommendation for science and technology is
$242,548,000, an increase of $46,000,000 over the budget of
$196,548,000.
Technology Deployment.--The Committee has provided
$10,000,000 for technology deployment activities in fiscal year
2000 to continue the Department's efforts to deploy cost-
effective new technologies. The Administration had requested no
funding for this program. Deployment of new technologies is a
strategic activity affecting virtually all environmental
management programs and sites and should be strongly supported
as a complex-wide program to help meet compliance agreement
milestones within a resource constrained budget. This funding
should be used to accelerate the use of new technologies and
leverage funding already available for deployment activities.
The Committee urges the Department to make every effort to
seek alternative cost effective cleanup technologies from
outside the Department in cleaning up its legacy waste. The
Committee is aware that the international agreement with AEA
Technology has been very successful in bringing cheaper and
more efficient technologies to the Department's cleanup
problems and urges the Department to renew this agreement. The
budget request included $2,000,000 for this agreement in fiscal
year 2001, but the Committee has allocated $4,000,000 from
within available funds.
Environmental Management Science Program.--The Committee is
disappointed that the Department was unable to provide funding
for new grants in fiscal year 2001. This is a collaborative
program between the Department's Office of Environmental
Management and the Office of Energy Research that identifies
long-term, basic science research needs and targets the
research and development toward critical cleanup problems. This
program has been given high marks by the National Research
Council and the Department's Environmental Management Advisory
Board. The Committee believes it is critical to provide
continuity of funding for this research program and has
provided $10,000,000 for the next round of new and innovative
research grants in fiscal year 2001.
Idaho Validation and Verification Program.--The Committee
has transferred $18,692,000 for the Idaho validation and
verification program from the Post 2006 completion account and
$2,308,000 from the site/project completion account to science
and technology where it has been funded in prior years.
Long-Term Stewardship Program.--The Committee has
recommended $5,000,000 to support the long-term stewardship
program. No funds were requested by the Administration. This
program is required to protect human health and the environment
from hazards remaining after cleanup is complete. Complete
restoration to levels acceptable for unrestricted use cannot be
accomplished at many sites. Long-term stewardship will be
needed to ensure that the selected remedies will remain
protective for future generations.
Oversight of Environmental Management Laboratories.--The
Department should ensure that proper management and oversight
is provided for each laboratory reporting to the Office of
Environmental Management. This should include a review by the
Headquarters' Office of Environmental Management of all
research projects to assure mission relevancy and compliance
with all applicable orders and regulations, as well as a review
and evaluation of the institutional planning process for the
program's national laboratory.
Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--The
Committee recommendation includes the use of up to four percent
of environmental management funds provided to government-owned,
contractor-operated laboratories for Laboratory Directed
Research and Development (LDRD) activities. However, the
Department must ensure proper management and oversight of these
funds. These funds must be applied only to environmental
research and will be selected based on a rigorous proposal and
review process to be established by the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management. This process must include review and
approval by the Headquarters' Office of Science and Technology
to assure all research projects achieve mission relevancy and
scientific merit. The Department is to provide the Committee
with a report outlining the review process to be used.
program direction
The Committee recommends $355,000,000 for program
direction, a decrease of $4,888,000 from the budget request of
$359,888,000. This reduction should be applied to lower
priority activities.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--
The Committee expects the Department to fulfill its
responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial
actions to be performed by the Corps.
funding adjustments
The recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management includes two funding adjustments requested
in the budget. Prior year balances of $34,317,000 and a pension
refund of $50,000,000 will be used to offset current year
funding requirements.
Defense Facilities Closure Projects
Appropriation, 2000................................... $1,060,447,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 1,082,297,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 1,082,297,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +21,850,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The Defense Facilities Closure Projects account includes
funding for sites which have established a goal of completing
cleanup by the end of fiscal year 2006. After completion of
cleanup, no further Departmental mission is envisioned, except
for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance, and the
sites may be available for some alternative use. Sites to be
completed by 2006 include the Rocky Flats Closure Project in
Colorado, and several sites in Ohio--Ashtabula, Columbus,
Fernald and Miamisburg.
This account is intended to highlight those sites where
cleanup can be accelerated and substantial savings achieved by
reducing long-term program costs and ongoing support costs. The
Committee strongly supports this program, and the
recommendation for fiscal year 2001 funding is $1,082,297,000,
the same as the budget request. Funding levels for each of the
sites are addressed below.
Rocky Flats Closure Project.--The Department has prepared a
baseline schedule showing closure of the Rocky Flats Site in
Colorado by 2006. The Committee is aware that to meet the 2006
deadline, stable funding will be required over several years,
and critical path work activities must be successfully
completed, not only at Rocky Flats, but at other sites
throughout the Department's complex. The Department should
ensure that complex-wide funding issues are addressed as they
relate to the closure of the Rocky Flats Site. It is only
through the closure of smaller sites like Fernald and Rocky
Flats that funds will be made available to support expensive
future cleanup projects like the vitrification plants needed at
Hanford and Idaho.
The Committee has provided fiscal year 2001 funding of
$664,675,000, the same as the budget request.
Ohio Sites.--The Committee recommendation is $417,622,000
for the four Ohio sites. Funding for the Ashtabula site which
will achieve complete cleanup by fiscal year 2003 is
$16,248,000, the same as the budget request. The budget request
of $94,000 is provided for Ohio Field Office activities.
The Columbus Environmental Management Project consists of
two geographic sites in Columbus, Ohio. Activities at one of
the sites were completed in 1998, and at the remaining site
will be completed by fiscal year 2005. The budget request of
$16,134,000 has been provided.
The Fernald site in Ohio has implemented an accelerated
cleanup schedule which provides for site closure with the
completion of all currently established in-situ contaminant
source remediation and risk mitigation by fiscal year 2006.
Follow-up activities for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 include
finalizing treatment and disposal of the silo wastes and
structures. The site is currently seeking to complete all of
these activities by 2006, and the Committee strongly supports
these efforts. Significant cost savings can be achieved with
early closure. The Committee recommendation for the Fernald
site is $290,793,000, the same as the budget request.
Cleanup at the Miamisburg, Ohio, site is scheduled for
completion in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is concerned that
the cleanup date has slipped from 2005 and expects the
Department to do everything possible to maintain the closure of
this site by 2006. The Committee has made accelerated closure
of cleanup sites a very high priority and expects the
Department to do the same. The Committee recommends the budget
request of $94,353,000.
Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Appropriation, 2000................................... $188,282,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 515,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 259,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +70,718,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -256,000,000
The Committee recommendation for the Defense Environmental
Management Privatization program is $259,000,000, a reduction
of $256,000,000 from the budget request. The recommendation
includes a total of $370,000,000 for the Tank Waste Remediation
System at Richland--$194,000,000 in new budget authority and
the use of $176,000,000 of previously appropriated funds. The
recommendation also includes the budget request of $65,000,000
for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at Idaho,
$25,092,000 for Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage at Idaho, and
the use of $25,092,000 in prior year balances.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 2000................................... $309,199,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 555,122,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 592,235,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +283,036,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +37,113,000
This account provides funding for Security and Emergency
Operations; Intelligence; Counterintelligence; Independent
Oversight and Performance Assurance; Environment, Safety and
Health (Defense); Worker and Community Transition; National
Security Programs Administrative Support; and the Office of
Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions of each of these programs
are provided below.
SECURITY AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
Security and emergency operations provides a domestic
safeguard and security program for protection of nuclear
weapons, nuclear materials, nuclear facilities, and classified
and unclassified information, including cyber systems, against
sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities, or any loss or
unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the national
security or disrupt operations. The Committee recommendation
for security and emergency operations is $332,376,000, a
reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget request of
$340,376,000.
The Committee recently received a budget amendment to
consolidate safeguards and security funding throughout the
Department. However, the amendment was received too late in the
process to incorporate all the changes into the Committee's
recommendation. The Committee will address these changes at a
later date in the appropriations process.
Nuclear Safeguards and Security.--The nuclear safeguards
and security program provides policy, programmatic direction,
and training for the protection of the Department's nuclear
weapons, nuclear materials, classified information, and
facilities. The Committee recommendation is $116,409,000, a
reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget request of
$124,409,000.
The Administration requested $13,000,000 for a greatly
expanded critical infrastructure protection program. The
recommendation includes $3,000,000, an increase of $600,000
over fiscal year 2000, for this program. The Committee believes
that many of these proposed initiatives are already being
funded in other program areas of the Department and urges the
Department to coordinate the activities already being performed
in areas such as transmission and gas pipeline reliability and
infrastructure.
The Committee has included $2,000,000 for procurement of
security locks that meet the Federal specifications for
containers that hold sensitive classified material.
Security Investigations.--The security investigations
program funds background investigations for Department of
Energy and contractor personnel who, in the performance of
their official duties, require access to restricted data,
national security information, or special nuclear material. The
Committee recommendation is $33,000,000, the same as the budget
request. In fiscal year 2001 the program organizations which
request background investigations for contractors and non-
Federal employees will fund the investigations. This will
provide a $20,000,000 funding offset to the budget request of
$33,000,000.
Emergency Management.--The Office of Emergency Response
ensures that capabilities are in place to provide an
appropriate response to any Department of Energy facility
emergency and to any nuclear or radiological emergency within
the United States or abroad. The Committee recommendation is
$90,000,000, a reduction of $3,600,000 from the budget request
of $93,600,000. This funding has been transferred to the
program direction account. The Committee commends the program
for seeking cost savings and greater program accountability by
converting contractor positions to Federal employees and
encourages the program to continue this initiative.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation is
$92,967,000 for program direction, an increase of $3,600,000
over the budget request. These funds have been transferred from
the emergency management program and will be used to fund
Federal employees to do tasks previously performed by
contractor employees.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE
The intelligence program provides information and technical
analyses on international arms proliferation, foreign nuclear
programs, and other energy related matters to policy makers in
the Department and other U.S. Government agencies. The focus of
the Department's intelligence analysis and reporting is on
emerging proliferant nations, nuclear technology transfers,
foreign nuclear materials production, and proliferation
implications of the breakup of the Former Soviet Union. The
Committee recommendation is $38,059,000, the same as the budget
request.
OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and
implement an effective counterintelligence program throughout
the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to
identify, neutralize, and deter foreign government or
industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department's
facilities, personnel, information, and technologies. The
Committee recommendation is $45,200,000, the same as the budget
request.
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE
The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance
Assurance is the focal point for independent evaluation of
safeguards, security, emergency management, and cyber security.
The Committee recommendation is $14,937,000, the same as the
budget request.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)
The Office of Environment, Safety and Health develops
programs and policies to protect the workers and the public,
conducts independent oversight of performance, and funds health
effects studies. The Committee recommendation is $103,163,000,
a decrease of $5,887,000 from the budget request, but an
increase of $5,163,000 over fiscal year 2000. The Department is
directed to fund the requirements of the gaseous diffusion
plants within this allocation.
Health Effects Studies.--The recommendation for health
effects studies is $48,632,000, a decrease of $4,324,000 from
the budget request, but the same as fiscal year 2000.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for
program direction is $22,604,000, the same as the budget
request.
WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION
The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community
transition program is $24,500,000, the same as the budget
request. The Committee has provided $2,100,000 for
infrastructure improvements at the former Pinellas plant. The
Committee expects the Department to adequately fund and fulfill
the commitment which was made to the Miamisburg Mound Community
Improvement Corporation.
The worker and community transition program was established
to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of
contractor workforce restructuring by providing enhanced
severance payments to employees at defense sites, and assisting
community planning for defense conversion through Federal
grants. However, the cost of this program has not been
insignificant. Through fiscal year 1999, enhanced severance
payments and benefits have totaled $817,000,000, and Federal
grants to communities have totaled $220,000,000, for a total
cost of $1,037,000,000.
The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for
this program be used for additional severance payments and
benefits for Federal employees.
NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The Committee recommendation includes $51,000,000 to
provide administrative support for national security programs.
This will fund Departmental activities performed by offices
such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary,
the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources,
Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs. These funds also
support the new offices to be established in the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
office of hearings and appeals
The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for
all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than
those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Committee recommendation is $3,000,000, the same as the
budget request.
funding adjustments
The Committee recommendation includes an offset of
$20,000,000, the same as the budget request, from user
organizations which will fund security investigations through
other program accounts.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2000................................... $111,574,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 112,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 200,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +88,426,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. +88,000,000
Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for
activities related to disposal of high-level waste generated
from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of
Energy. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the balance owed by the
Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was approximately
$1,500,000,000 (including principal and interest). The Defense
Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation was established to ensure
payment of the Federal government's contribution to the nuclear
waste repository program. Through fiscal year 1999, a total of
$1,176,830,000 has been appropriated to support the nuclear
waste repository activities attributable to atomic energy
defense activities.
The Committee recommendation is $200,000,000, an increase
of $88,000,000 over the budget request of $112,000,000. The
budget request of $112,000,000 is not sufficient to reduce the
outstanding balance of $1,500,000,000 which is owed for the
defense portion of the repository. Eliminating this outstanding
balance will require a significant increase in the amount paid
each year and could require as much as $500,000,000 annually in
future years. Since shipment of defense high level waste to the
repository is contingent upon full payment of the balance owed
at the time the repository is opened, the Committee believes it
is prudent to address this funding shortfall sooner rather than
later.
ENERGY EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION INITIATIVE
The Committee recommendation does not include the
Administration's proposal to establish an account to fund the
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative. Legislation
establishing this program has not been enacted by Congress.
POWER MARKETING ACTIVITIES
Management of the Federal power marketing functions was
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department
of Energy as directed in the Department of Energy Organization
Act (Public Law 95-91). The functions include power marketing
activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act
of 1944 and all other functions of the Bonneville Power
Administration, Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern
Power Administration, and the power marketing functions of the
Bureau of Reclamation, now included in the Western Area Power
Administration.
All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are
funded annually with appropriated funds. Revenues collected
from power sales and transmission services have been deposited
in the Treasury. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee
recommendation includes the Administration's proposal to fund
purchase power and wheeling from power revenues for the
Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power
Administration, and Western Area Power Administration.
Bonneville operations are self-financed under authority of
Public Law 93-454, the Federal Columbia River Transmission
System Act of 1974, which authorizes Bonneville to use its
revenues to finance operating costs, maintenance and capital
construction, and sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to
finance any remaining capital program requirements.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's electric power marketing agency in the Pacific
Northwest, a 300,000 square-mile service area that encompasses
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and small portions
of adjacent western States in the Columbia River drainage
basin. Bonneville markets hydroelectric power from 29 Corps of
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects, as well as
thermal energy from non-Federal generating facilities in the
region. Bonneville also markets and exchanges surplus electric
power inter-regionally over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific
Southwest Intertie with California, and in Canada over
interconnections with utilities in British Columbia.
Bonneville constructs, operates and maintains the Nation's
largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of over
15,000 circuit-miles of transmission line and 324 substations
with an installed capacity of 22,500 MW. Public Law 93-454, the
Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, placed
Bonneville on a self-financed basis. With the passage in 1980
of Public Law 96-501, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Act, Bonneville's responsibilities
were expanded to include meeting the net firm load growth of
the region, investing in cost-effective, region-wide energy
conservation, and acquiring generating resources to meet these
requirements.
Borrowing Authority.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority.
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation for
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 2001, the
Committee recommendation includes an additional increment of
$331,200,000 in new borrowing authority, the same as the budget
request, for transmission system construction, power services,
conservation and energy efficiency, and capital equipment
programs.
Voluntary Separation Incentives.--The Committee did not
include language proposed by the Administration to extend
Bonneville's voluntary separation incentives authority until
2005. The Department of Energy has statutory buy-out authority
through fiscal year 2003 which can be utilized by Bonneville.
Energy Efficiency Services.--The Committee is concerned
that Bonneville is interpreting certain activities as
``inherently governmental functions'' to the detriment of the
private sector. For purposes of meeting energy efficiency
goals, as set by statute or executive order, for any federal
agency or department, federal funds may be used to contract
with the private sector. The provision of energy efficiency
products and services to federal agencies or departments shall
not be considered to be an ``inherently governmental function''
as defined under the Federal Acquisition Inventory Reform Act
of 1998. Such declaration of energy efficiency products and
services as an ``inherently governmental function'' by any
federal agency or department would limit that agency's or
department's ability to contract directly with the private
sector for such products and services.
Hydropower Technology.--The Department of Energy has been
funding research and development activities that will provide a
biological and engineering basis for a new generation of
hydropower turbines. Successful development will significantly
reduce turbine-induced fish mortality. Proof of concept testing
of innovative designs selected through a competitive bidding
process will be conducted in fiscal year 2001. Federal
taxpayers have been funding this program in prior years, and
the Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 in the
renewable energy technology program to continue this activity.
To reflect the benefits that will accrue to the region upon
successful demonstration of this project, the Committee
strongly encourages Bonneville to provide $2,000,000 to support
the testing of these turbine designs.
Budget revisions and notification.--The Committee expects
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess
of such amounts.
Repayment.--During fiscal year 2001, Bonneville plans to
pay the Treasury $620,000,000, of which $163,000,000 is to
repay principal on the Federal investment in these facilities.
Limitation On Direct Loans.--The Committee recommends that
no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 2001.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2000................................... $39,579,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 3,900,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 3,900,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -35,679,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11
southeastern states. There are 23 projects now in operation
with an installed capacity of 3,392 megawatts. Southeastern
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This
is accomplished through ``wheeling'' arrangements between
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver
specified amounts of Federal power to customers of the
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility
for the wheeling service performed.
The Committee recommendation is $3,900,000, the same as the
budget request. The total program level for Southeastern in
fiscal year 2001 is $39,463,000 which is offset by the use of
$1,100,000 in prior year balances and $34,463,000 in offsetting
collections. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, customer receipts
and net billing will pay for purchase power, transmission
wheeling, and ancillary services. Purchase power and wheeling
costs will be offset by receipts of $34,463,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2000................................... $27,891,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 28,100,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 28,100,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +209,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers'
hydroelectric plants in the six-state area of Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 46 microwave and VHF radio
sites, and 23 substations, and sells its power at wholesale
primarily to publicly and cooperatively owned electric
distribution utilities.
The Committee recommendation is $28,100,000, the same as
the budget request. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, Southwestern
will utilize purchase power and wheeling revenues in the amount
of $288,000 to finance purchase power and wheeling expenses
previously funded by direct appropriations.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriation, 2000................................... $192,602,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 164,916,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 160,930,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -31,672,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -3,986,000
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western operates hydropower
generating plants in 15 central and western states encompassing
a 1.3 million square-mile geographic area. Western is also
responsible for the operation and maintenance of 16,854 miles
of high-voltage transmission lines with 260 substations.
Western, through its power marketing program, must secure
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities, and
other expenses, in order to repay all of the power investment
with interest, and to repay that portion of the Government's
irrigation and other non-power investments which are beyond the
water users' repayment capability. Under the Colorado River
Basins Power Marketing Fund, which encompasses the Colorado
River Basin, Fort Peck, and Colorado River Storage Facilities,
all operation and maintenance and power marketing expenses are
financed from revenues.
Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee
recommendation is $160,930,000, a reduction of $3,986,000 from
the budget request, and a reduction of $31,672,000 from the
amount provided in fiscal year 2000. The use of prior year
balances has been increased by $2,986,000 for a total of
$8,969,000. The Committee has recommended $4,036,000 for
deposit in the Utah reclamation mitigation and conservation
account, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request.
In fiscal year 2001, revenues collected from purchase power
and wheeling sales will finance annual purchase power and
wheeling activities previously funded by direct appropriations.
Purchase power and wheeling costs will be offset by receipts of
$35,500,000.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriation, 2000................................... $1,309,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 2,670,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 2,670,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +1,361,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operation and
Maintenance Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995. This legislation
also directed that the Fund be administered by the
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration for use
by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission to defray
operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams in
Texas. Prior to fiscal year 1996, funds for Falcon and Amistad
were included in the appropriations of the Department of State.
The Committee recommendation is $2,670,000, the same as the
budget request, and $1,361,000 more than the current fiscal
year. Extensive rehabilitation to protect critical powerhouse
structures will be conducted in fiscal year 2001.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, 2000................................... $174,950,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 175,200,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 175,200,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +250,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
Revenues Applied
Appropriation, 2000................................... -$174,950,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. -175,200,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... -175,200,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -250,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
The Committee recommendation is $175,200,000, the same as
the budget request, and an increase of $250,000 over the
current year. Revenues are established at a rate equal to the
amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net
appropriation of zero.
The Committee understands that the Commission is
establishing precedent in implementing the stranded cost
provisions of Order 888 in the context of ``retail turned
wholesale'' customers. The Committee urges the Commission to
stand by its commitment to full cost recovery and directs that
the agency, in this context, use a methodology that contains a
recovery period sufficient to ensure the recovery of all
generating asset investments included in state approved rates
used to serve the departing customers.
committee recommendation
The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.
General Provisions
department of energy
Contract Competition.--Section 301 provides that none of
the funds in this Act may be used to award a management and
operating contract unless such contract is awarded using
competitive procedures, or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a
case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. At
least 60 days before such action, the Secretary of Energy must
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
report notifying the Committees of the waiver and setting forth
the reasons for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude
extensions of a contract awarded using competitive procedures.
The Committee's concerns regarding the Department's
contracting procedures result from the Department's history of
having management and operating contracts which have never been
bid competitively, in some cases for over four decades.
Ensuring competition for these situations in particular, and
establishing competition as the norm for the Department's
contracting, is imperative. However, the Committee is well
aware that there may be circumstances where the existing
contract has been competed in the past few years; the existing
contractor has been doing a good job; the mission at a specific
site has been scheduled to end in a limited amount of time; or
the time required for a full competitive procurement would
result in significant delays to an ongoing project. In those
instances where it is clearly in the taxpayers' interest, the
Committee would not object to a contract extension.
Use of Standard Contracting Clauses.--Section 302 provides
that none of the funds in this Act may be used to award, amend,
or modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy grants,
on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a
deviation. At least 60 days before such action, the Secretary
of Energy must submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the waiver
and setting forth the reasons for the waiver. The Committee
directs the Department, as contracts are awarded or
renegotiated, to standardize its contracts in accordance with
the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 303
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
prepare or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide
enhanced severance payments and other benefits and community
assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of
Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization
Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. The Committee has
provided no funds to implement workforce restructuring plans
which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the
Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal
employees of the United States Government.
Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section
304 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
augment the $24,500,000 made available for obligation in this
Act for severance payments and other benefits and community
assistance grants authorized under the provisions of section
3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year
1993, Public Law 102-484.
Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 305 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be
used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of
interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to
Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not
yet been approved and funded by Congress.
Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 306
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this
bill.
Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Section 307
provides that not more than four percent of the funds in this
Act may be used for Laboratory Directed Research and
Development (LDRD). The same limitation was enacted in fiscal
year 2000. Department of Energy laboratory directors are
allowed to take up to four percent from all operating funding
sent the laboratory to use for research and development of a
creative and innovative nature selected by the director of a
laboratory. They have the flexibility to use this funding with
little Congressional oversight. The Committee expects the
Department to exert substantial oversight over the use of these
funds.
Contractor Travel.--Section 308 provides that not more than
$150,000,000 of the funds provided in this Act for the
Department of Energy are available for reimbursement of
contractor travel expenses. Contractor travel funding was
limited in fiscal year 2000 to $150,000,000 after a General
Accounting Report identified significant travel abuses
including one national laboratory that was averaging over 80
trips a week to Washington. Even with the reduction in funding
in fiscal year 2000, data provided through February 2000 on
contractor travel indicates that the same weapons laboratory is
still averaging about 70 trips a week to Washington. The
Committee strongly urges the Department to review the need for
this many trips to Washington and ensure that contractor travel
for specific program needs throughout the nuclear weapons
complex is not being curtailed by excess management trips to
Washington.
Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 309
provides that none of the funds provided in this or any other
Act may be used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside
the legally defined Bonneville service territory.
Federal Salaries and Expenses.--Section 310 provides that
none of the funds provided to the Department of Energy's
Working Capital Fund in this or any previous Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act may be used to pay the salary
and expenses of any United States Government employee. The
Committee has made a strong effort to improve oversight and
accountability of Federal employee costs by requiring the
Department to consolidate all Federal salaries and expenses in
separate accounts in the budget. The Committee is concerned
that the Department is considering violating this provision by
taxing programs for Federal salaries. This provision prohibits
any taxing of program dollars to pay Federal salaries and
expenses.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2000................................... $66,149,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 71,400,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 63,000,000
Comparison:...........................................
Appropriation, 2000............................... -3,149,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -8,400,000
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed
of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a
Federal Co-Chairman who is appointed by the President. The
Committee recommends $63,000,000, a reduction of $8,400,000
from the budget request due to funding constraints.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, 2000................................... $16,935,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 18,500,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 17,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... 65,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -1,500,000
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President,
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the
standards relating to the design, construction, operation and
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department
of Energy.
Consistent with the recommendation in the Fiscal Year 2001
National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee recommends
$17,000,000, a decrease of $1,500,000 from the budget request
of $18,500,000.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriation, 2000................................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. $30,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -30,000,000
The Committee recommends no funding for the proposed Delta
Regional Authority. Congress has not passed legislation
authorizing establishment of this new Authority.
Denali Commission
Appropriation, 2000................................... $19,924,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 20,000,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -19,924,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -20,000,000
The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali
Commission in fiscal year 2001.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Gross Appropriation
Appropriation, 2000................................... $464,913,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 481,900,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 481,900,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +16,987,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. ................
Revenues
Appropriation, 2000................................... -$442,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. -447,958,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... -457,100,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -15,100,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -9,142,000
net appropriation
Appropriation, 2000................................... $22,913,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 33,942,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 24,800,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... +1,887,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -9,142,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is $481,900,000, the same as the budget
request. This amount is offset by revenues of $457,100,000,
resulting in a net appropriation of $24,800,000. The
recommendation includes $21,600,000 to be made available from
the Nuclear Waste Fund to support the Department of Energy's
efforts to characterize Yucca Mountain as a potential site for
a permanent nuclear waste repository. An additional $3,200,000
is made available from the General Fund for assistance provided
to other Federal agencies and States including the Commission's
work related to the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System under
development by the Department of Energy.
The Committee congratulates the Commission for issuing the
first license renewal of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. this
year. The Committee notes that the Commission is making many
changes and has responded positively to a number of issues that
Congress has raised over the last few years. The Commissioners
individually, and the Commission staff, are to be commended for
the time and effort taken to implement a broad reform agenda.
Extension of authority to collect fees.--The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, requires that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission recover 100 percent of its budget
authority, less the appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund
and the General Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. The
Committee has included a statutory provision providing for a
one-year extension of this authorization. The extension of this
authority is necessary to provide the resources needed to fund
the activities of the Commission.
Revenues.--The Administration proposed to reduce the fee
recovery requirement from 100 percent to 98 percent in fiscal
year 2001, and further decrease the fee by an additional two
percent per year until the fee recovery requirement was reduced
to 90 percent in 2005. This proposal addressed fairness and
equity concerns relating to charging NRC licensees for agency
expenses which do not provide a direct benefit to them. While
the Committee sees the merit in this proposal, it is a
legislative issue which should be addressed by the authorizing
committee. Thus, the Committee has not provided for this
reduction in revenues.
Russian programs.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
provided valuable assistance in the U.S. nuclear safety
assistance program for Soviet-designed nuclear power reactors.
However, an April 2000 report by the General Accounting Office
found that ``the lack of coordination and communication between
different NRC offices'', and lack of a coherent planning
strategy contributed to large unobligated balances in the
program. The Committee understands that the Commission has
taken steps to consolidate these nuclear safety assistance
activities under one organization. The Committee emphasizes the
need to have a focused approach in mitigating safety issues
surrounding the Soviet-designed reactors, in order to
accomplish program goals and complete the program in a timely,
cost-effective manner.
Monthly report.--The Committee directs the Commission to
continue to provide monthly reports on the status of its
licensing and regulatory duties.
Office of Inspector General
Gross Appropriation
Appropriation, 2000................................... $5,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 6,200,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 5,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000................................... 500,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. -700,000
Revenues
Appropriation, 2000................................... $5,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. -6,076,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... -5,500,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... -500,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. 576,000
This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pursuant to law,
budget authority appropriated to the Inspector General must be
recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees.
Statutory language proposed by the Administration has been
included that identifies licensing fees, inspection services,
and other services and collections as the source of revenues to
be retained and made available until expended.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,500,000, a
reduction of $700,000 from the budget request. However, this is
$500,000 more than the current fiscal year, or a 10 percent
increase. The revenue estimate has also been reduced to
$5,500,000, a reduction of $576,000 from the budget request.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2214, this appropriation must be
recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees,
resulting in a net appropriation of $0.
nuclear waste technical review board
Appropriation, 2000................................... -$2,589,000
Budget Estimate, 2001................................. 3,200,000
Recommended, 2001..................................... 2,700,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2000............................... 111,000
Budget Estimate, 2001............................. -500,000
The Committee recommendation provides continued funding for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste
Policy Act Amendments Act of 1987 directs the Board to evaluate
the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,700,000, a
reduction of $500,000 from the budget request.
TITLE V
RESCISSION
Interim Storage Activities
(Rescission)
The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of
$85,000,000 as proposed by the Administration. In Public Law
104-46, the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, Congress set aside $85,000,000 in the
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriation account for
activities to support interim storage of civilian spent nuclear
fuel. These funds have remained unobligated and are now
available to be rescinded.
TITLE VI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommendation includes several general
provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Prohibition on Lobbying.--Section 601 provides that none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way,
directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on
any legislation or appropriation matters pending before
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
Buy American.--Section 602 requires that American-made
equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent
practicable.
Drainage of the San Luis Unit.--Section 603 provides
language clarifying the funding requirements for the San Luis
Unit.
Extension of Authority for Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
Collect Fees and Charges.--Section 604 provides a one-year
extension of the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to collect fees and charges to offset appropriated funds.
Kyoto Protocol.--Section 605 prohibits the use of funds to
take certain actions for the purpose of implementing, or in
contemplation of preparing to implement, the Kyoto Protocol.
Although the agency may under the current prohibition continue
to conduct educational seminars and activities, it should
ensure balance in those programs. Balance does not mean merely
that there is an acknowledgment of viewpoints different from
those of the Administration, but that qualified representatives
of those viewpoints are included in the programs and in numbers
roughly equal to the participants representing the
Administration's positions. One dissenting voice in what is
otherwise an obviously stacked or biased program does not
constitute balance.
The bill language is intended to prohibit funds provided in
this bill from being used to implement actions called for under
the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification. The bill
language prohibits the proposing or issuing of rules,
regulations, decrees, or orders, for the purpose of
implementing, or in preparation of implementing, the Kyoto
Protocol.
The Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which passed with a
vote of 95-0 in July 1997, remains the clearest statement of
the will of the Senate with regard to the Kyoto Protocol.
Through the prohibition contained herein, the Committee is
committed to ensuring that the Administration not implement the
Kyoto Protocol without prior Congressional consent, including
approval of any implementing legislation, regulation, programs,
or initiatives.
Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendment.--Section 606
amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by authorizing
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 and changing the expiration
date to September 30, 2001.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Constitutional Authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a public bill or public
joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A
statement citing the specific powers granted to
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)2 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars] .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary............................... 21,743 22,025 21,743 21,933
Mandatory................................... ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays scored in the House passed FY 2000 supplemental.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority in
the accompanying bill:
Millions
Budget Authority........................................ 21,743
Outlays:
2001................................................ 13,950
2002................................................ 6,678
2003................................................ 1,123
2004................................................ 9
2005 and beyond..................................... 14
Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to
State and local governments is as follows:
Millions
Budget authority........................................ 68
Fiscal year 2001 outlays resulting therefrom............ 12
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related
Resources:
* * * of which $1,916,000 shall be available for
transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
$33,667,000 shall be available for transfer to the
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund: of which
such amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the
Colorado River Dam Fund; and of which is not to exceed
$200,000 for financial assistance for the preparation
of cooperative drought contingency plans under Title II
of Public Law 102-250: Provided, That such transfers
may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriations under this heading: * * *
Under Title III, Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation:
* * * of which $12,000,000 shall be derived by
transfer from the United States Enrichment Corporation
Fund: * * *
Under Title, III, General Provisions:
Sec. 306. The unexpended balances of prior
appropriations provided for activities in this Act may
be transferred to appropriation accounts for such
activities established pursuant to this title. Balances
so transferred may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be
accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Under Title V, Rescissions, Interim Storage Activities:
Of the funds appropriated in Public Law 104-46 for
interim storage of nuclear waste, $85,000,000 are
transferred to this heading: * * *
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:
Rescission Recommended in the Bill
Department or Activity Amount
Department of Energy, Interim Storage Activities........ $85,000,000
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
title i--corps of engineers
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and
plans and specifications of projects prior to construction.
Language is also included under General Investigations which
provides that the Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study
in New Mexico shall include an evaluation of flood damage
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the
feasibility analysis bases on certain restrictive policies.
Language has been included under Construction, General,
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is
provided under Construction, General earmarking specific
amounts for the San Timoteo Creek, Indianapolis Central
Waterfront, Southern and Eastern Kentucky, and certain elements
of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River projects. Language has also been included
under Construction, General directing the Secretary of the Army
to proceed with the Town of Martin, Kentucky, project in
accordance with a specific plan and directing the Secretary of
the Army to undertake the Bowie County Levee, Texas, project in
accordance with a specific plan.
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
General, stating the following:
* * * including such sums as may be necessary for the
maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State,
municipality or other public agency, outside of harbor
lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce
and navigation; * * *
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
General, providing for construction, operation, and maintenance
of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of
funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language has been included under the Regulatory Program
regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands.
Language is included under the Regulatory Program which
directs the Corps of Engineers to: (1) revise a cost analysis
of modified nationwide permits based on promulgated rules
rather than proposed rules; (2) prepare a plan to manage and
reduce backlog associated with new and replacement permits
issued on March 9, 2000, and develop criteria to measure
progress in reducing the backlog; (3) provide quarterly
reporting on program performance based on the above criteria;
(4) provide quarterly reporting, on a one year pilot basis, of
all Regulatory Analysis and Management System data for South
Pacific Division; (5) publish in Division Office websites
decisions rendered under the administrative appeals process and
allow any appellant to keep a verbatim record of the appeals
conference; and (6) record in its data base the dates of
initial permit application or notification.
Language has been included under General Expenses regarding
support of the Coastal Engineering Research Board, the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Water Resources
Support Center and headquarters support functions at the USACE
Finance Center. Language is also included under General
Expenses prohibiting the use of other Title I funds for the
Office of the Chief of Engineers and the division offices.
Language is also included prohibiting the use of funds to
support an office of congressional affairs within the executive
office of the Chief of Engineers. Language is also included
prohibiting the use of funds to support an office of
congressional affairs within the executive office of the Chief
of Engineers.
Language has been included under the Revolving Fund which
provides that funds available in the Corps of Engineers
Revolving Fund may be used for the costs of relocating the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers headquarters to office space in the
General Accounting Office headquarters building in Washington,
D.C.
Language has been included under Administrative Provision
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of
motor vehicles.
Language is included under General Provisions in section
101 which extends the authorization for spending Coastal
Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund receipts through fiscal year
2001 and in section 102 which provides for the transfer of
responsibility of local sponsorship of recreation development
at Joe Pool Lake, Texas from the Trinity River Authority to the
City of Grand Prairie, Texas.
title ii--department of the interior
Language has been included under Water and Related
Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling
Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to
and cooperative agreements with State and local governments and
Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related
Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced
to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under
Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within
the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin
Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.
Language is included under Water and Related Resources
providing that funds are available for financial assistance for
the preparation of cooperative drought emergency plans.
Language is included under Water and Related Resources
providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund
or the special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i).
Language is included under Water and Related Resources which
provides that funds contributed by non-Federal entities shall
be available for expenditure. Language is included providing
that funds advanced for operation and maintenance of
reclamation facilities are to be credited to the Water and
Related Resources account. Language is also included permitting
the use of funds available for the Departmental Irrigation
Drainage Program for site remediation on a non-reimbursable
basis. Language is included under Water and Related Resources
amending the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act
and increasing the amount authorized for the Minidoka project
in Idaho. Language is included under Water and Related
Resources which provides that none of the funds appropriated in
the Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation for closure of
the Auburn Dam diversion tunnel or restoration of the American
River channel through the Auburn Dam construction site.
Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation
Loan Program providing that funds may be derived from the
Reclamation Fund.
Language has been included under the Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess
and collect the full amount of additional mitigation and
restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public
Law 102-575.
Language has been included under Policy and Administration
providing that funds may be derived from the Reclamation Fund
and providing that no part of any other appropriation in the
Act may be used for activities budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
Language has been provided under General Provisions in
section 201 prohibiting the use of funds to purchase or lease
water in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad projects in New
Mexico unless certain requirements are met and in section 202
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to assess and collect
funds from Central Valley Project water and power contractors
and remit the amount collected to the Trinity Public Utilities
District.
title iii--department of energy
Language has been included under Energy Supply providing
that royalties received to compensate the Department of Energy
for its participation in the First-Of-A-Kind-Engineering
program shall be credited to this account.
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal
providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall
be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management
for oversight activities, that within 90 days of completion of
the fiscal year the State and local entities must certify that
all funds were expended for authorized activities, and that
none of the funds may be used to influence legislation pending
before Congress or a State legislature.
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal
making any proceeds and recoveries from the sale of assets
estimated at $1,000,000 available for use in the program.
Language has been included under the Departmental
Administration account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and
consistent with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to
permit the Department of Energy to use revenues to offset
appropriations. The appropriations language for this account
reflects the total estimated program funding to be reduced as
revenues are received. This language has been carried in prior
appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under the Departmental
Administration account providing that notwithstanding the
provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts
as necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost
of work for others, as long as such increases are offset by
revenue increases of the same or greater amounts.
Language is included in Weapons Activities and Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation limiting the availability of funds
until October 1, 2003.
Language has been included under Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation providing not to exceed $7,000 for official
reception and representation expenses for national security and
nonproliferation activities.
Language has been included under Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management providing that amounts
appropriated for economic assistance shall be used to the
extent necessary to reimburse costs of financial assurances
required of a contractor by any permit or license of the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant issued by the State of New Mexico.
Language has been included under the Bonneville Power
Administration account approving the Nez Perce Tribe Resident
Fish Substitution Program and the Cour D'Alene Tribe Trout
Production facility; providing not to exceed $1,500 for
official reception and representation expenses; and precluding
any new direct loan obligations.
Language has been included under Southeastern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize
reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and to provide
not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and representation
expenses. This language has been carried in previous
appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Southwestern Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Language has been included under the Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration account providing $4,036,000 for deposit into
the Utah Reclamation mitigation and Conservation Account
pursuant to Title IV of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1992,
and not to exceed $1,500 for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration providing that, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Language has been included under the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor
vehicles, to provide official reception and representation
expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce
the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has
been included in previous appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing that management and operating
contracts must be awarded using competitive procedures unless
Congress is notified 60 days in advance.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, requiring 60 days notice to the Committees
on Appropriations if the Secretary of Energy awards, amends, or
modifies a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare
workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance
payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees
under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the
funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or
initiate requests for proposals for programs which have not yet
been funded by Congress.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior
appropriations may be transferred and merged with new
appropriation accounts established in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, limiting to 4 percent the use of funds for
Laboratory Directed Research and Development.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, limiting to no more than $150,000,000 the
funds available for reimbursement of contractor travel
expenses.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to
perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined
Bonneville service territory.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of Working Capital
Funds to pay the salaries of any United States Government
employee.
Title IV--Independent Agencies
Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission providing $15,000 for official representation
expenses, and excluding the costs for regulatory reviews and
assistance to other Federal agencies and States from license
fee revenues. Language is also included to permit the NRC to
utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried
in previous appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Inspector General, to utilize revenues
collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations
Acts.
Title VI--General Provisions
Language has been included under General Provisions
prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence
Congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions
requiring, to the greatest extent practicable, that all
equipment and products purchased should be American-made, and
prohibiting contracts with persons falsely labeling products as
``Made in America.''
Language has been included under General Provisions
prohibiting the use of funds to determine the point of
discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit until
development by the Secretary of Interior and the State of
California of a plan to minimize the impact of drainage waters,
and directing the Secretary of Interior to classify the costs
of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin
Valley Drainage Program as reimbursable or nonreimbursable.
Language has been included under General Provisions
providing a one-year extension of the authority of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to collect fees and charges to offset
appropriated funds.
Language has been included under General Provisions
providing that none of the funds shall be used to propose or
issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of
implementation or preparation of the Kyoto Protocol.
Language has been included under General Provisions
amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by authorizing
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 and changing the expiration
date to September 30, 2001.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply
Non-Defense Environmental Management
Science
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Departmental Administration
Office of the Inspector General
Weapons Activities
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Naval Reactors
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Defense Facilities Closure Projects
Defense Environmental Management Privatization
Other Defense Activities
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Power Marketing Administrations
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Inspector General
The Committee notes that the annual authorizing legislation
for many of these programs is in various stages of the
legislative process. It is anticipated these authorizations
will be enacted into law later this year.
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
The accompanying bill would amend 16 U.S.C. 777c(a) as
follows:
(a) Initial Distribution--The Secretary of the Interior
shall distribute 18 per centum of each annual appropriation
made in accordance with the provisions of section 777b of this
title as provided in the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection,
and Restoration Act (title III, Public Law 101-646) (16 U.S.C.
3951 et seq.). Notwithstanding the provisions of section 777b
of this title, such sums shall remain available to carry out
such Act through fiscal year [2000] 2001.
The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law
102-250, the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of
1991 as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title
(relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam,
California), there is authorized to be appropriated not more
than $90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996, 1999, [and 2000] 2000, and 2001.
The accompanying bill would amend Section 6101(a)(3) of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended:
Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2214(a)(3)), is amended by
striking ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting [``September 30,
2000''] ``September 30, 2001.''
The accompanying bill would amend Section 166 of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6246) as follows:
Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 such sums as may be necessary to
implement this part[, to remain available only through March
31, 2000].
The accompanying bill would amend Section 181 of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6251) as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, all
authority under any provision of this subchapter and any rule,
regulation, or order issued pursuant to such authority, shall
expire at midnight, [March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001, but
such expiration shall not affect any action or pending
proceedings, civil or criminal, not finally determined on such
date, nor any action or proceeding based upon any act committed
prior to midnight, [March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001.
The accompanying bill would amend Section 281 of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6285) as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, all
authority under any provision of this subchapter and any rule,
regulation, or order issued pursuant to such authority, shall
expire at midnight, [March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001, but
such expiration shall not affect any action or pending
proceedings, civil or criminal, not finally determined on such
date, nor any action or proceeding based upon any act committed
prior to midnight, [March 31, 2000] September 30, 2001.
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and those voting
against, are printed below:
rollcall no. 1
Date: June 20, 2000.
Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,
FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Visclosky.
Description of motion: To perfect an amendment offered by
Mr. Packard requiring Corps of Engineers Divisions to publish
on websites all findings, rulings, decisions, and opinions
rendered under the administrative appeals process by striking
``findings, rulings, decisions, and opinions rendered'' and
inserting ``key summary data and final appeal decision
documents''.
Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 32 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Dicks Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon Mr. Boyd
Mr. Farr Mr. Callahan
Mr. Forbes Mr. Cramer
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Dickey
Mr. Jackson Mr. Edwards
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Frelinghuysen
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Goode
Mrs. Lowey Ms. Granger
Mrs. Meek Mr. Hobson
Mr. Moran Mr. Kingston
Mr. Murtha Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver Mr. Latham
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Lewis
Mr. Price Mr. Miller
Mr. Sabo Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Serrano Mr. Packard
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Pastor
Mr. Porter
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and those voting
against, are printed below:
rollcall no. 2
Date: June 20, 2000.
Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,
FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Visclosky.
Description of motion: To replace language in the Committee
report regarding the Kyoto Protocol with new report language.
Results: Rejected 27 yeas to 28 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan
Mr. Dicks Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Edwards Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr Ms. Granger
Mr. Forbes Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Jackson Mr. Latham
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Lewis
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Miller
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Nethercutt
Mrs. Meek Mrs. Northup
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Packard
Mr. Moran Mr. Peterson
Mr. Murtha Mr. Regula
Mr. Obey Mr. Rogers
Mr. Olver Mr. Skeen
Mr. Pastor Mr. Sununu
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Taylor
Mr. Porter Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Price Mr. Walsh
Mr. Sabo Mr. Wamp
Mr. Serrano Mr. Wicker
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and those voting
against, are printed below:
rollcall no. 3
Date: June 20, 2000.
Measure: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill,
FY 2001.
Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
Description of motion: To increase the amount appropriated
for renewable energy programs by $106,000,000.
Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 32 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan
Mr. Dicks Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards Mr. DeLay
Mr. Farr Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode
Mr. Jackson Ms. Granger
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Meek Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Moran Mr. Latham
Mr. Obey Mr. Lewis
Mr. Olver Mr. Miller
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Price Mrs. Northup
Mr. Sabo Mr. Packard
Mr. Serrano Mr. Peterson
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Porter
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY AND HON. DAVID R. OBEY
We submit these additional views on the bill as reported by
the Committee on Appropriations. The bill includes substantial
funding for programs, projects, and initiatives within the
Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
While the bill maintains the status quo related to these two
agencies of the federal government, it fails to address the
fundamental problem of continued under-investment of federal
resources in science research and physical infrastructure.
These two areas are suffering considerably after years of
constrained budget levels.
Particular concern must be given to the failure of the
Congress and the Administration to provide new resources to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For example, in the thirty years
from the mid-1960s to the late 1990s, the average annual
funding (in 1999 dollars) for the general construction account
in the bill has eroded in value from $5.5 billion to $1.4
billion. Since 1965, the civil works budget has continually
become a smaller percentage of both the total federal budget
and the Gross Domestic Product. Since 1955, civil works
appropriations have not exceeded 1.1 percent of the budget.
Today, they represent about 0.2 percent of all federal outlays.
As Corps spending power has fallen, Congress has authorized
billions of dollars in new projects that have not been funded
through the appropriations process. Administration officials
testified earlier this year that $30 billion in authorized
water projects were on the books waiting for funding. These
projects, if funded by the government, would return two dollars
in new benefits for each dollar expended constructing the
project. We are also slipping behind maintaining our aging
water infrastructure. The Corps estimates that the backlog of
critical deferred maintenance at Corps facilities is expected
to grow to $450 million in fiscal year 2001.
We are extremely concerned about the ongoing efforts to
hamstring the Corps of Engineers regulatory program. On June 7,
2000, the Corps of Engineers made effective new nationwide
permits designed to ensure that federal regulations are in
compliance with the statutory requirements of the Clean Water
Act. These new permits have been criticized by some in the
regulated community as possibly extending the timeline for
permit approvals by the Corps. Given that concern, we fail to
see the reason the majority refused to include the funding the
Corps needs to prevent additional delays in permit approval
timelines. The Corps testified that it needed an additional $6
million over the budget request to prevent any delay in permit
approval timelines. The majority did not include this funding.
In addition, the majority has included several new
legislative provisions (unfunded mandates) directing the Corps
to change a number of its policies and procedures. Although we
are greatly concerned about how these new mandates will affect
Corps personnel and workload, we are particularly upset about
language in the bill arbitrarily ordering the Corps to
recalculate the way in which permit approval timelines are
calculated. The bill proposes to change the date on which a
permit application is considered filed with the government,
from the day in which all aspects of the application are fully
completed, to the day when a first-draft application is
initially sent to the Corps.
This provision will artificially cause it to appear that
the length of time a permit application is awaiting approval
from the government has substantially increased overnight. We
would not be surprised if members of the regulated community at
some future date attempt to argue that the new nationwide
permits are responsible for statistically higher permit
approval timelines. The simple fact is that if Congress (1)
arbitrarily changes the date permit applications are considered
to be in the system; (2) refuses to fully fund the regulatory
program at the needed level; and (3) imposes new unfunded
mandates on regulatory staff, then permit approval timelines
will inevitably lengthen. The problem will not be the new
nationwide permits but rather the failure of Congress to help
the Corps regulatory staff do its job and the statutory
language artificially changing the way timelines are
calculated.
During full committee consideration of the bill, the
majority offered an amendment, (Roll Call No. 1), to improve
bill language proposed by the majority imposing a new mandate
on the Corps regulatory program. The fact that the amendment
was rejected demonstrates to us that the majority is more
interested in imposing new burdens on the Corps than solving
the problem of wetlands destruction in the United States.
The bill also contains inadequate funding levels for basic
science research and an anti-environmental rider related to the
Kyoto Protocol. An amendment (Roll Call No. 2) was offered to
strike language in the report that the minority considered too
restrictive on the ability of the government to implement
programs and initiatives authorized under current U.S. laws.
The escalating emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
is an environmental issue that demands federal involvement. The
language in the report to which we object would instruct the
Department of Energy to refrain from working on any authorized
programs or initiatives designed to improve our environment or
reduce greenhouse gas emissions if similar measures or methods
are called for in any Kyoto Protocol document. The report
language is not acceptable to the minority.
The funding levels for basic science research are
inadequate to advance scientific endeavors in which the
government should be investing. In particular, nanotechnology
research (the manipulation of matter on the atomic and
molecular levels) represents a high-payoff field with potential
benefits rivaling those of the integrated circuit chip. The
bill fails to support the President's budget request for
nanotechnology, advanced supercomputer research, spallation
neutron source, renewable energy research, and other important
scientific initiatives.
We would also note our continued opposition to the
unrealistic and inadequate Congressional Budget Resolution and
the 302(b) allocations provided to the committee. The funding
levels contained in the bill do not provide the appropriate
level of investment needed for the critical national programs
encompassed in the bill.
Peter J. Visclosky.
Dave Obey.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID OBEY, HON. MARCY KAPTUR, AND HON.
CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK
Despite the best efforts of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee Chairman and Members to put together a bipartisan
bill reflecting the priorities of the nation as a whole, the
fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development appropriations
bill is yet another exercise in missed opportunities. At its
best, it is the Majority Party's latest effort to cover the
demands of national priorities with a fig leaf of budget
allocation--some items are indeed covered, but there are still
serious gaps. At its worst, it takes an inside-the-beltway
perspective on vital issues, failing to address real-world
concerns that will have to be dealt with before the bill is
signed into law. Two critical concerns that are largely
unaddressed in this bill are the soaring fuel prices in the
Midwest and the low water levels along the Great Lakes.
Asleep at the pump on gas prices
The price of gasoline remains high around the country, and
especially in the Midwest. It has topped $2 per gallon in many
places, and everyone is looking for answers. The national
average price for gas this week is $1.68 per gallon, up 5 cents
from the previous week. While the Federal government has
launched an investigation through the Federal Trade Commission
in hopes of uncovering the answer to what is behind the soaring
prices, there is still no question that the Republican-led
Congress fails to adequately address the roots of the gasoline
price problem. While there is no instant relief that this
Committee can provide, the failure of the Majority party in
this Congress to make even a minimal effort to deal with the
issue borders on gross negligence.
When oil prices plunged to $8-$10 per barrel in March 1999,
the Republicans took little action to protect domestic oil
producers. When gas prices across the nation neared $1 per
gallon, the Majority party leadership, including members of the
Appropriations committee started a push to eliminate the Energy
Department entirely. They ignored efforts by Members to
replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with oil from
struggling domestic producers, and twiddled their thumbs while
OPEC chose to cut production to boost prices. Had they acted,
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could have 115 million more
barrels of oil, and we might have a healthier domestic oil
industry, but they were asleep at the pump.
The Majority didn't do much of anything until March 2000,
when the price had risen to such levels that they decided that
political points could be scored by attacking the
Administration for a pennies-on-the-gallon tax that funds
highway safety programs. However, lobbying by the
Administration helped produce an increase in production by OPEC
countries, political opportunity subsided, and now they have
nodded off again.
The reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
itself gained much attention during that time, and the House
managed to pass a bill by a large margin to reauthorize the
Reserve. Once the political heat subsided slightly, the
leadership lost interest, however, and while they dozed, the
House-passed bill became tied up in political gamesmanship.
Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee has now given them
another opportunity to deal with this issue by approving (by
voice vote) an amendment by Ms. Kilpatrick and Ms. Kaptur to
reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on this bill.
Awakened once again by the prospect of political gain, the
Majority has been too busy pointing fingers to address the
long-term solution to this problem. The Republicans blast the
Administration for failing to have an energy policy, yet have
systematically shut down Administration initiatives to fund
energy research efforts that could help in finding a solution
to this problem. This bill is $106 million short of the
President's request in solar and renewable energy research,
stifling hope for developing marketable solutions to what
promises to be a perennial problem.
During consideration of this bill at Full Committee, Ms.
Kaptur offered an amendment (Roll Call No. 3) to restore the
line for Solar and Renewable Energy Research to the level
requested in the President's budget. The amendment, which was
rejected by the Committee on a party line vote, would have
solved a problem, which is not unique to this bill. The House
has just passed the VA/HUD appropriations bill, which slashes
the President's budget request for the National Science
Foundation by a half billion dollars. Floor action on the
Interior bill made a bad situation worse, by leaving the bill
$100 million below last year's level on energy efficiency
research and over $200 million below the President's request.
The debate in the full Committee markup of the bill featured
Majority party members reassuring us that there was support for
these programs in other bills, but the actions of the Majority
have ensured that no such support is available. As a result any
light at the end of the tunnel that represents a way out of
this situationhas been pushed that much further out of reach.
The Department of Energy and EPA have written the Federal
Trade Commission, asking them to look into whether price
gouging is taking place in the Upper Midwest, and people talk
about pipeline problems and reformulated gas adding to prices.
But these elements do not make up the crux of the problem--the
problem is that we are over-reliant on imported petroleum to
power our economy, and the big oil companies know it.
The Appropriations Committee does not have the ability or
the desire to set fuel prices, but we should have the good
sense to support research into ways to avoid the kind of shocks
high fuel prices can deliver to the economy, by encouraging the
development of alternative energy sources.
Great Lakes water levels
Just as the Majority has failed to recognize the impact of
their ongoing neglect of sound energy policy, the Committee
bill fails to reflect the growing crisis on the Great Lakes
regarding the impact of falling water levels on the environment
and on Great Lakes shipping.
The historic plunge in Great Lakes water levels over the
course of the last year has left the Army Corps of Engineers
struggling to cope with one of their core tasks: maintaining
the shipping channels. Maintenance of shipping channels in the
Great Lakes is conducted with an assumption that Lake levels
will not sink below a certain point, but on several Lakes, the
lake levels are forecast to go below this threshold or to come
dangerously close.
The decreasing water levels are resulting in higher demand
by the Corps for dredging services, additional needs for
disposal areas for dredge spoils, and an increase in the cost
of fulfilling of those contracts. The Corps will require
additional resources to meet the needs of the Great Lakes
community. Given that navigation on the Lakes by large vessels
has a small margin for error, and the increasing difficulty of
getting ships into port, especially along the upper Lakes, the
economic health of many of the port cities along the shores of
the Lakes is threatened. The light loading demanded by
shallower navigation channels puts a further strain on the
economics of ship traffic.
As the Corps works to maintain the Great Lakes availability
for shipping, they will also be called on to be sensitive to
possible environmental impacts of vessel operations on the
Great Lakes with significantly lower levels, as well as those
of deeper dredging in certain areas. The Great Lakes represent
a unique freshwater ecosystem as well as a transportation
resource, and the Corps should be funded at a level so that
Great Lakes operations are reflective of both the Corps
environmental and transportation missions.
The Committee has tried to deal with the many demands
placed upon it, that could never otherwise be met under the
existing allocation, by sticking closely to a series of rules
that have helped them be fair in allocation of resources to
projects. While this may be the right thing to do under these
circumstances, it is the circumstances themselves--the
Majority's slavish devotion to a tax cut for the wealthy and
the resultant discretionary spending allocations--that are
unacceptable. These shortcomings must be addressed before this
bill becomes law.
Conclusion
The fundamental problem with the process we are going
through this year is that the Majority is too wrapped up in
their game of budgetary hopscotch to move ahead on issues that
are national priorities. By leaving these issues aside in the
pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of America,
the Majority is threatening to simultaneously leave the economy
on an empty tank and in some parts of the country, literally on
the rocks.
Dave Obey.
Marcy Kaptur.
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick.