[House Report 108-212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 108-212
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004
_______
July 16, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hobson, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2754]
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, 2004, 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...............................
7
General investigations..................... 2
9
Construction, general...................... 3
36
Flood control, Mississippi River and
Tributaries............................ 4
55
Operation and maintenance, general......... 5
59
Regulatory program......................... 6
80
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program................................ 6
81
Flood control and coastal emergencies...... 6
81
General expenses........................... 6
82
Administrative provisions.................. 7
General provisions......................... 7
82
II. Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project completion account............ 9
85
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and related resources................ 9
87
Bureau of Reclamation loan program account. 11
104
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.
105
Central Valley Project restoration fund.... 11
105
Policy and administration.................. 12
106
Working Capitol Fund....................... 13
106
Administrative provision................... 13
General provisions......................... 13
107
III. Department of Energy:
Introduction.......................................
109
Energy supply...................................... 16
115
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion........... 17
123
Non-defense environmental Services................. 17
123
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund........................... 18
124
Science............................................ 18
125
Nuclear waste disposal............................. 18
130
Departmental administration........................ 21
136
Office of Inspector General........................ 22
138
Atomic energy defense activities:.................. 23
139
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities......................... 23
141
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........... 23
152
Naval reactors............................. 24
159
Office of the administrator................ 24
159
Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
Defense site acceleration completion....... 24
162
Defense environmental services............. 25
163
Other defense activities................... 25
164
Defense nuclear waste disposal............. 26
168
Power marketing administrations:
Cerro Grande Fire Activities............... 26
168
Bonneville Power Administration............ 26
169
Southeastern Power Administration.......... 26
170
Southwestern Power Administration.......... 27
170
Western Area Power Administration.......... 28
171
Falcon and Amistad operating and
maintenance fund....................... 29
171
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............... 29
172
General provisions................................. 30
189
IV. Independent agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.................... 35
193
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............ 36
193
Delta Regional Authority........................... 36
193
Denali Commission..................................
194
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................... 36
194
Office of Inspector General........................ 37
195
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............... 38
196
V. General provisions...................................... 38
197
House reporting requirements...............................
199
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations
The Committee has considered budget estimates which are
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 2004.
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year
2003, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill
for fiscal year 2004.
[in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 recommendation compared with--
2003 2004 estimate 2004 recommendation ---------------------------------------------------
2003 appropriation 2004 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil......................... 4,638,827 4,194,000 4,482,328 (156,499) 288,328
Title II--Department of the Interior.......................... 972,294 922,208 947,904 (24,390) 25,696
Title III--Department of Energy............................... 20,834,432 22,163,367 22,016,347 1,181,915 (147,020)
Title IV--Independent Agencies................................ 206,642 147,921 138,421 (68,221) (9,500)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 26,652,195 27,427,496 27,585,000 932,805 157,504
Scorekeeping adjustments...................................... (514,000) (481,332) (505,000) 9,000 (23,668)
Grand Total of bill..................................... 26,138,195 26,946,164 27,080,000 941,805 133,836
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2004 totals $27,080,000,000, $133,836,000 above the
President's budget request, and $941,805,000 above the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has placed a high
priority on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
program. While the Department of Energy maintains that its
fiscal year 2004 funding request is sufficient to meet its next
major milestone, the submission of the License Application to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 2004, it is clear
that chronic funding shortfalls have forced the Department to
delay work related to the acceptance and transport of spent
nuclear fuel to support initial repository operations in 2010.
The Committee believes that it is essential for safety and
security to begin shipments of spent nuclear fuel, which is
presently stored at commercial power plants and DOE sites
around the country, to the repository site at the earliest
possible date. Accordingly, the Committee has funded the budget
request of $591,000,000 to ensure the License Application is
submitted on schedule, and, in addition, has provided an
additional $174,000,000 for transportation and supporting
infrastructure development in Nevada, for national waste
acceptance and transportation planning, and for other related
purposes.
Title I of the bill provides $4,482,328,000 for the
programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a decrease of
$156,499,000 below fiscal year 2003 and $288,328,000 over the
budget request of $4,194,000,000. Due to the severe budgetary
constraints, the Committee has only been able to provide a
modest increase for the civil works program and has not
provided funds for new studies and construction projects. By
concentrating resources on traditional missions such as flood
control and navigation which yield the greatest economic
benefits for the nation, the Committee seeks to ensure the
highest possible payback on taxpayer investment.
Title II provides $947,904,000 for the Department of
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, $24,390,000 below the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and $25,696,000 over
the budget request of $922,208,000. The Committee has not
provided funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration
program in California pending the enactment of authorizing
legislation.
Title III provides $22,016,347,000 for the Department of
Energy, an increase of $1,181,915,000 over fiscal year 2003 and
$147,020,000 below the budget request of $22,163,376,000. The
Committee recognizes the importance of basic research and
science programs and has provided an increase of over $200
million above the fiscal year 2003 level. In addition, $7.2
billion is provided for environmental cleanup programs to
remediate contaminated defense and non-defense sites throughout
the nation.
Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
which includes nuclear weapons activities, defense nuclear
nonproliferation, naval reactors, and the office of the
administrator is $8,508,184,000, an increase of $330,617,000
over fiscal year 2003 and a decrease of $326,391,000 from the
budget request. For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee has
provided $1,280,195,000, an increase of $259,335,000 over
fiscal year 2003.
The Committee views with skepticism the large increases
that DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons
Activities account has received over the past three years.
Since FY 2000, the weapons account grew by an average of 9.8
percent a year, increasing from $4.5 billion in fiscal year
2000 to $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2003. In the fiscal year
2004 budget request, DOE proposes an additional 6.6 percent
increase. The Department has consistently justified these large
increases as necessary to meet nuclear weapons requirements
established by the Department of Defense. Each year, the
Committee is confronted with a flawed budget process in which
the NNSA Weapons Activities request is determined by DoD
requirements but funded by DOE. Absent in such an arrangement
are the usual tradeoffs that any agency must perform in setting
its budget priorities and reaching a reasonable balance among
competing priorities. In this case, DoD sets requirements for
DOE to maintain a Cold War stockpile and nuclear weapons
complex, at no cost to DoD, and DOE has little option but to
budget to meet those requirements. In its fiscal year 2004
recommendations, the Committee has balanced the Weapons
Activities request against the other important Energy and Water
Development funding needs and adjusted funding levels to
reflect the Committee's priorities.
Title IV provides $138,421,000 for several Independent
Agencies, a decrease of $68,621,000 from fiscal year 2003 and a
decrease of $9,500,000 below the budget request of
$147,921,000. Funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional
Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta
Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its
Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, this Committee has expressed a growing
concern about a series of inadequate budget requests by the
Administration for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. This year's request does nothing to relieve
our concern. Once again, the Administration, particularly the
Office of Management and Budget, demonstrates by the numbers it
submits that it has a fundamental misunderstanding of the value
of the Civil Works program to the Nation's well-being. Much of
that value is expressed in the stewardship of the Corps of
Engineers over an inadequate national infrastructure which
supports much of the Nation's commerce and provides a physical
safety net against natural disaster for many of our citizens.
In the budget submission, the Administration highlights the
need to reduce the growing backlog of construction projects
within the Civil Works program. The Committee agrees that this
requires attention. However, the Committee believes that the
way the Administration proposes to deal with this backlog is
somewhat myopic. The Office of Management and Budget appears to
believe that the way to reduce the existing construction
backlog is to keep the Civil Works budget static at a little
over $4 billion while not initiating any new projects already
authorized for construction, and by cutting off the flow of new
commitments by intentionally slowing down projects that are
currently in the study process and not initiating any new
studies.
The Committee believes that this is ill-advised and
counterproductive for a variety of reasons. The foremost of
these is that the water resources needs of the Nation are
growing and cannot be adequately addressed with just the
projects currently under construction. Our Nation's water
resources infrastructure is already over-taxed. In order for
the Nation to remain competitive in the world economy, we will
continue to have to make improvements to our harbors and inland
navigation system. As the population of the country continues
to grow, more and more of our citizens will inevitably be
placed in danger from floods and coastal storms. In addition,
in recent years, the Congress has also assigned to the Corps of
Engineers the responsibility of dealing with the problems of
aging water supply systems and inadequate sewage treatment
systems. To meet all of these National needs, we need to
increase our investment in our water resources infrastructure,
not allow it to stagnate.
The second reason why the budget request is wrong for the
future of the Nation is that the amount proposed by the
Administration is inadequate to meet the funding needs of the
projects included in the budget request. The Administration has
chosen a handful of projects for full funding and appears to be
content to have the others flounder, after which, most likely,
it will call for their removal from the authorized backlog. The
third reason is that there appears to be no sound scientific or
economic basis for the selection of the Administration's
favored projects, since it omits or shortchanges many of the
projects which objective analysis would identify as producing
the greatest benefit to the nation, its citizens, and its
economy.
Accordingly, the Committee has included an additional $288
million over the budget request for the Corps of Engineers
Civil Works program. Even with these additional funds, the
Corps will not be able to carry out projects on their most
efficient schedules. Though the Committee has provided no funds
for new studies and construction projects, the added funds are
inadequate for needed work on ongoing projects, including those
included in the budget request and those for which the
Administration chose not to request funds. The Committee has
also reluctantly made minor reductions in some of the
Administration's favored projects described above, believing
that these reductions will not adversely affect these projects
given the total amount appropriated for the Construction
account and the Corps' ability to reprogram funds.
Like many other Federal agencies, the Corps of Engineers is
an organization confronted with the need to change in order to
meet the challenges of the 21st century, including new
responsibilities which will not respond readily to old methods
and old management structures. The Committee is aware that the
Corps is in the midst of a serious, thorough effort to
modernize its vision, skills and culture, and wants to
encourage these actions. Re-hashing the events of the past,
even with the clearest of hindsight, is a waste of time and
money in an atmosphere of rapid change and the Corps is to be
congratulated on its courage and resolve.
The Committee reminds that Administration that it has made
every reasonable effort to undertake a dialog to learn the
reasons why our Nation's infrastructure needs are of low
priority to the Administration, and why the Administration
appears to reject the premise that the Congress is entitled to
at least an equal role in the formulation and funding of the
Corps of Engineers budget. The Administration has not responded
to our requests. It is the position of the Commission that
coming to an understanding on these issues is worth the time
and effort it would require and we renew our request to begin
that conversation.
We want to urge upon the Administration another issue, as
well. There is no better time than the present to begin the
process of laying out a roadmap for the role of infrastructure
and its stewards for the rest of this new century. Several
areas of cooperation need to be resolved in order to optimize
the Nation's infrastructure. Which of our old harbors, locks,
and dams are essential and must be rehabilitated, and which no
longer serve a worthwhile purpose and can be retired, saving
the cost of their operation and upkeep? Which emerging
opportunities for the good of our economy and our people are to
be the responsibility of the Congress and the Administration
and which will be left to States and communities? We need to
stop talking past each other and begin to answer these
questions so that the Corps of Engineers can be given clear and
unmistakable instructions on its role in a prosperous and
secure future for our Nation.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriation, 2003................................... $134,141,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 100,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 117,788,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -16,353,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +17,788,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Matanuska River, Alaska.--The Committee has provided
$250,000 to complete a reconnaissance report and initiate a
feasibility study addressing erosion in the Matanuska River
Watershed.
Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.--The bill
includes $250,000 to continue technical assistance as
authorized by section 520 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999.
Arkansas River Navigation Study, Arkansas and Oklahoma.--
The Committee is aware of the extensive coordination involved
in preparing the reevaluation for this project and the need to
continue the work. The Committee, therefore, has included
$1,200,000 in the bill for the Corps of Engineers to continue
work on this study.
Hot Springs, Arkansas.--The committee has provided $31,000
to complete reconnaissance studies for the purpose of
identifying flood damage reduction measures and improved
drainage in the Hot Springs, Arkansas, area.
Red River, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The
bill includes $100,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering
and design of navigation alternatives between Shreveport,
Louisiana, and Index, Arkansas.
White River Minimum Flows, Arkansas and Missouri.--The
Committee has included $200,000 to initiate preconstruction
engineering and design of project modifications needed to meet
minimum flows criteria if the pending reallocation report is
favorable.
White River Navigation, Arkansas.--The bill includes
$150,000 to continue coordination with the sponsor, local
interests, and resource agencies, and to continue work on the
project reevaluation and environmental documentation.
California Coastal Sediment Master Plan, California.--The
committee has provided $300,000 to execute a feasibility cost
sharing agreement and begin the feasibility phase of this
study.
San Diego County Special Area Management Plan,
California.--The bill includes $250,000 for continuation of a
special area management plan study for balancing aquatic
resources protection and development in San Diego County.
San Francisco Bay, California.--The bill does not include
the $420,000 included in the budget request for a study of
navigation hazards in the San Francisco Bay. The local sponsor,
California State Lands, decided to terminate the study.
Solana Beach--Encinitas, California.--The Committee has
provided $944,000 to complete the feasibility study and report
for the Solana Beach--Encinitas shoreline protection project.
Tujunga Wash, California.--The bill includes $300,000 to
continue the feasibility phase of the Tujunga Wash
environmental restoration project in Studio City.
Adams County, Colorado.--The Committee has included
$100,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase and begin a
feasibility study of an ecosystem restoration project on the
South Platte River.
Hagatna River, Guam.--The bill includes $150,000 to
complete a reconnaissance study and initiate a feasibility
study on the Hagatna River project. The Committee is aware that
this project has previously been authorized and deauthorized,
and that reauthorization would be required prior to the
initiation of construction.
Waikiki Beach, Oahu, HI.--The Committee has included
$250,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design of
an erosion control project.
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River Navigation
Study, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--The
Committee has provided $3,216,000 to complete the feasibility
study on this vital waterway system. The Committee is aware of
the need for hearings and reviews prior to completion, but
urges that these take place as expediently as possible, so that
the Division Commanders Notice may be published before the end
of fiscal year 2004, as scheduled.
Fort Dodge, Iowa.--The bill includes $217,000 for the
completion of the feasibility phase of an ecosystem restoration
project on the Des Moines river at Fort Dodge.
Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri.--The
Committee has provided $205,000 for preconstruction engineering
and design of a tunnel upgrade project.
West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.--The Committee
has included $200,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering
and design for a hurricane protection project.
Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland and District of
Columbia.--The bill includes $200,000 to develop work begun in
the early 1990's into a Comprehensive Plan to prioritize
restoration activities in the Anacostia River basin.
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion, Maryland, New York,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided
$400,000 for the study of shoreline erosion in the area of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including the management of
sediment at dams on the Lower Susquehanna River.
Eastern Shore--Mid Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland.--The
Committee has provided $1,000,000 to initiate the feasibility
phase of this study, which will focus on the use of dredged
material to restore and expand the habitat of a variety of
animal life. It is the intent of the Committee that this
funding be for the identification and study of existing islands
in need of restoration, and not artificial islands.
Middle Potomac Watershed, Maryland, District of Columbia,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.--The bill includes
$250,000 to initiate one or more of a number of feasibility
studies identified in the reconnaissance phase. It is the
intent of the Committee that the Holmes Run watershed in
Virginia continues to be within the scope of this study.
Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue work on a
supplement to the reconnaissance report.
Sand Creek Environmental Restoration Project, Nebraska.--In
order to optimize needed coordination with highway work being
performed by the State of Nebraska, the Committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to work closely with the local sponsor on
the Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project, accepting
advance funds offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits
and reimbursements, as appropriate, for work done by the
sponsor, including work performed in connection with the design
and construction of seven upstream detention storage
structures.
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.--The
Committee has provided $625,000 to complete preconstruction
engineering and design of a shoreline protection program for
this portion of the New Jersey coastline.
Mid-Delaware River Basin Comprehensive Study, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate
feasibility studies.
Passaic River Environmental Restoration, New Jersey.--The
Committee has renamed the Lower Passaic River study as the
Passaic River Environmental Restoration study and has included
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study, conduct public
scoping activities, and collect survey data.
Southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.--The bill includes $100,000 to initiate
preconstruction engineering and design for a flood damage
reduction project in the southwest valley of the city of
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Ohio Riverfront Study, Cincinnati, Ohio.--The Committee has
provided $350,000 to continue the Riverfront Study in
Cincinnati, Ohio. The Committee has also included language in
the bill which provides that the non-Federal sponsor shall
receive credit towards project costs for work it has performed.
Susquehanna & Delaware River Basin, Pennsylvania.--The bill
includes $75,000 to complete the reconnaissance phase of a
study addressing aquatic system restoration, acid mine drainage
abatement, floodplain management, flood control and water
supply in the Southern Anthracite Region.
Abilene, Texas.--The Committee has included $250,000 to
reactivate a feasibility study for Elm Creek, in Taylor County
and the city of Abilene, Texas. The City has requested that the
Corps re-study this area in response to recent flooding.
Colonias--Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.--The bill includes
$250,000 to provide technical and design assistance for rural
communities, along the U.S.-Mexican border, which lack basic,
adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure.
Crown Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.--The
Committee has provided $400,000 to complete preconstruction
engineering and design for a project to improve the commercial
harbor just west of downtown Charlotte Amalie, USVI.
Skagit River, Washington.--The bill includes $1,000,000 to
continue and accelerate the feasibility phase of a flood damage
reduction project in the Skagit River Basin, north of Seattle.
South Charleston Port, West Virginia.--The Committee has
provided $164,000 to complete the feasibility study and
initiate the master plan study for an inland port development
in the Kanawha Valley of West Virginia.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The bill includes
$3,500,000 for the Coastal Field Data Collection program. The
additional funds are to be used for the Southern California
Beach Process Study.
Flood Plain Management Services.--The Committee has
provided $7,200,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services
program, including $500,000 to initiate mapping of areas of the
Kenai Peninsula of Alaska which were heavily flooded in
November 2002. Also provided is $100,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to assist the Town of Rye, New York, in developing
local floodplain management plans for Crawford Park.
Other Coordination Programs.--Funding provided for Other
Coordination Programs includes $150,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to provide programmatic support to Lake Tahoe
restoration activities, including coordination with the Federal
Interagency Partnership and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
to implement the Environmental Improvement Program.
Planning Assistance to States.--The amount recommended for
the Planning Assistance to States includes $100,000 for a study
to identify problems and potential solutions relating to
current and future water treatment and conveyance in Butler,
Kansas. For the study of a Conduit Hydroelectric Project at El
Dorado Lake, on the Walnut River, in Butler County, Kansas,
$50,000 is provided.
The amount recommended for the Planning Assistance to
States program includes $100,000 to begin a New Jersey Marine
Fish Evaluation Study. The Corps of Engineers is urged to
consider using the Save the Fish Foundation to carry out this
investigation. To address the problem of sump pump discharges
into the sanitary sewage system of the Township of Ewing, in
Mercer County, New Jersey, $100,000 is provided in the amount
for Planning Assistance to States.
The Committee also urges the Corps of Engineers to use
$400,000 to continue the project to upgrade the Daily Flow
Model for the Delaware River Basin in New York.
Provided a sponsor can be found, and matching funds made
available, within the amount provided for the Planning
Assistance to the States program, $100,000 is to be used by the
Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a comprehensive
watershed plan to protect the Indian Brook Reservoir watershed,
Ossining, New York.
Within the funds provided for Planning Assistance to
States, the Committee expects the Corps to use $100,000 to
initiate an Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan study in the
State of Oklahoma. Also provided is $200,000 for a study of
water needs in Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South
Carolina, specifically as relates to the viability of relieving
the effects of drought with a desalination facility. The
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to use $100,000 to
initiate a study of the development of the riverfront in
Memphis, Tennessee. In addition, the Corps is urged to use
$100,000 on a study of the Oliver Creek watershed, Shelby
County, Tennessee.
Within the funds provided for Planning Assistance to
States, $100,000 should be used to identify a plan for regional
water and wastewater development for Denison and Pottsboro,
Texas, and to support environmentally sustainable economic
development at Lake Texoma.
Research and Development.--The bill includes $23,000,000
for research and development, including $1,000,000 to be used
for a continuation of a study of urban flooding by the Desert
Research Institute of Nevada.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Appropriation, 2003................................... $1,744,598,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 1,350,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 1,642,911,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -101,687,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +292,911,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to continue assisting the Cullman-Morgan Water
District with contract administration and construction
management activities on its water supply infrastructure
upgrade project.
Nogales Wash, Arizona.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to
continue construction of this flood warning and damage
reduction project in Southern Arizona.
Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for modernization of the Dam Site Park to a more
current standard and to make facilities accessible to the
handicapped.
Petaluma River, California.--The bill includes $7,300,000
for completion, including required reimbursements, of the flood
control project within the city of Petaluma, California.
Sacramento Area, California.--The bill includes $8,600,000
for the Sacramento Area, California, project authorized by
section 502 of the Water Resources Act of 1999. The amount
provided includes: $1,000,000 for the project to replace water
meters and water lines, and undertake canal lining for the
Placer County Water Agency; $1,000,000 for the City of
Roseville Water Meter Retrofit Program; $4,600,000 for
Technical Design and Construction Assistance on the El Dorado
Irrigation District, Deer Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant;
$800,000 for the Redundant Water Supply Intake at Folsom
Reservoir; and $1,200,000 for the El Dorado Irrigation District
Sly Park Recreation Area water system.
Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The Committee has
provided $25,700,000 for continued construction of the Santa
Ana River Mainstem project, including $10,000,000 for the
acceleration of work on the San Timoteo Creek element.
Everglades Restoration, Florida.--The recent enactment of
certain laws in Florida is widely perceived to presage or to
permit a decline in support for Everglades restoration by non-
Federal interests crucial to the success of the entire
restoration effort. Under these circumstances, the Committee is
naturally concerned about the wisdom of making full Federal
funding available without additional safeguards over these
funds. The Committee has, therefore, included language in the
bill which will allow funds appropriated for Everglades
restoration to be freed for other worthwhile uses if non-
Federal participants do not meet their agreed-upon
responsibilities under the governing consent decree.
Pinellas County, Florida.--The bill includes $2,500,000 for
the renourishment of Long Key and Treasure Island in Pinellas
County, Florida.
Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $225,000
to initiate a general reevaluation study of the existing shore
protection project to identify needed modifications and to
determine the feasibility of including the north end of Tybee
Beach.
Rural Idaho, Idaho.--The Committee has provided $4,450,000
for environmental infrastructure projects as authorized in
section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as
amended, in rural Idaho. Funds are to be used as follows: City
of Burley, Idaho, $2,000,000; Coolin Sewer District, Idaho;
$1,900,000; City of Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, $300,000; Upper St.
Joe Distribution Line, Idaho, $250,000.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The bill
includes $800,000 for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
dispersal barrier demonstration project which is intended to
prevent the movement of invasive aquatic nuisance species
between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. Of the amount
provided, $500,000 is intended for operating of the existing
barrier, and $300,000 is to be used to initiate the design work
necessary to make this barrier permanent. In addition, $750,000
is provided in a section 1135 ``continuing authorities
project'' to continue work on a second barrier.
Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, Iowa.--The Committee
has provided $500,000 to continue the major rehabilitation of
Mississippi River Lock and Dam 19, in Keokuk, Iowa.
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes
$3,000,000 for development and upgrade of wastewater facilities
in southern and eastern Kentucky, as authorized by section 531
of the Water Resources Development Act, as amended.
Mississippi River--Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.--The bill
includes $813,000 to complete the reevaluation study, including
the investigation of ecosystem restoration issues, of the
Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet project.
George W. Kuhn Drain, Michigan.--The Committee has provided
$388,000 to initiate design of Phase 2 of the George W. Kuhn
Drain, previously known as the Twelve Towns Drain Retention
Treatment Facility, Oakland County, Michigan.
DeSoto County, Mississippi.--The bill contains $8,000,000
to complete currently authorized wastewater treatment work in
DeSoto County, in northeast Mississippi.
Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Mississippi
Environmental Infrastructure program authorized by section 592
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Committee
expects the Corps of Engineers to continue to address the most
critical water resources needs within the State of Mississippi.
Of the funds provided, $100,000 is for a study of an
alternative water supply for the Northeast Mississippi Regional
Water Supply District.
Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri.--The bill
includes $1,200,000 for continuation of the design deficiency
on the Bois Brule Levee and Drainage District, Missouri,
project. The sponsor has decided that the Section 205 project
to increase the level of protection is not presently feasible
and should be placed on hold.
St. Louis, Missouri.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers to continue to work in coordination
with the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to address
critical water contamination problems in St. Louis, Missouri.
Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The bill contains $2,500,000
for the Corps of Engineers to modernize facilities at its
Campbell Point, Cape Fair, Indian Point, and Baxter Parks, at
Table Rock Lake, Missouri.
Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as
authorized in section 595 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999, as amended, in rural Montana. Funds are to be used
as follows: City of Conrad, Montana, $1,000,000; City of
Laurel, Montana, $1,000,000.
Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee has provided
$2,050,000 for environmental infrastructure projects as
authorized in section 595 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999, as amended, in rural Nevada. Funds are to be used
as follows: Boulder City, Nevada, $750,000; City of Mesquite,
Nevada, $1,000,000; and Tonopah, Nevada, $3,00,000.
Passaic River, New Jersey.--The bill contains $4,000,000 to
accelerate the Passaic River Preservation of Natural Flood
Storage Areas, in the Central Basin of the Passaic River, New
Jersey.
Central New Mexico, New Mexico.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for design and construction assistance to non-
Federal interests as authorized under section 593 of the Water
Resources and Development Act of 1999. Of these funds,
$,1,000,000 is to be used for the Black Mesa, New Mexico, Area
Flood Management Project.
Long Beach Island, New York.--The Committee remains fully
supportive of the Long Beach Island, New York, project and
understands that sufficient carryover funding is available to
satisfy requirements in fiscal year 2004.
New York and New Jersey Harbors, New York and New Jersey.--
The Committee is aware of the difficulty posed by the
requirement that a second shipper be in place on the Port
Jersey element of the project before the construction may
begin, and has included language in the bill to change the
requirement to allow work to proceed whenever the sponsor has
identified and secured commitments to ship from a second user.
In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to
use $2,000,000 of the funds provided for the project to plan
for and enter into an agreement with a state or non-Federal
sponsor to develop a dredged material processing facility that
would accomplish the objectives of reducing the cost of dredged
material management in the port, preparing dredged material for
beneficial uses, and implementing innovative dredged material
management technologies.
Dare County, North Carolina.--The bill includes $1,000,000
for preconstruction monitoring and real estate acquisition on
the Bodie County element of the Dare County, North Carolina,
beaches project.
Holes Creek, West Carrollton, Ohio.--The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 for floodwall completion and relocations,
to complete the Holes Creek, Ohio, flood damage reduction
project.
Ohio Environmental Assistance, Ohio.--The bill contains
$17,000,000 for the Ohio Environmental Assistance program
authorized by section 592 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999. The amount provided includes: $1,500,000 for the
City of Chardon, Geauga County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Toledo, Ohio; $3,000,000 for Clark
County and Lower Mad River Valley Sewer Infrastructure, Ohio;
$2,000,000 for Clark County & Lower Mad River Valley Storm
Water Management Infrastructure, Ohio; $1,500,000 for the
Dayton International Airport Sites Sewer & Drainage, Ohio;
$200,000 for a Drain Line Replacement, Lafayette Township,
Coshocton County, Ohio; $300,000 for the Oxbow and Sand Road
Pond Water Pollution Control Facility, City of Fremont, Ohio;
$1,000,000 for a Sanitary Sewer Collection and Wastewater
Treatment System, Village of Hartford, Hartford Township,
Licking County, Ohio; $1,000,000 for a Sanitary Sewer Line
Extension, City of Wellston, Jackson County, Ohio; $1,000,000
for Hospital Site Preparation, Springfield, Ohio; $268,000 for
the State Route 285 Water Line Project, Noble County, Ohio;
$2,500,000 for Environmental Restoration, Tech Town, Ohio;
$375,000 for design of a project for Mason Run, Turkey Run &
Walnut Creek, Ohio; and $1,000,000 for the Water Line Project,
Guernsey County, Ohio.
Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.--Funds provided in this Act and
funds previously appropriated for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon,
project are available to plan and implement long-term
management measures at the project to maintain the project in
an uncompleted state, including design and construction of a
permanent trap-and-haul facility to replace the existing,
interim facility. Funds may not be used for any further work on
the Corps of Engineers proposal to remove a section of the dam
for fish passage.
Conemaugh River, Nanty Glo, Pennsylvania.--The bill
includes $1,000,000 to complete construction of the Nanty Glo,
Pennsylvania, Environmental Restoration project.
South Central Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee
has provided $15,000,000 for environmental improvement in South
Central Pennsylvania. When executing this program, the Corps of
Engineers is encouraged to consider the needs of Pleasantville,
Pennsylvania; Union Township, Pennsylvania; Juniata Terrace
Borough, Pennsylvania; and the Industrial Park in Mifflin
County, Pennsylvania.
Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has
provided $750,000 to continue work on the Cobbs Creek and Mill
Creek watersheds in West Philadelphia, as authorized by section
566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.--The bill includes $1,072,000 to
complete all remaining authorized work at the Black Fox,
Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Environmental Restoration project
in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas.--The Committee has
provided $9,280,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue
construction of the Dallas Floodway Extension project in Texas.
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, Texas.--Consistent
with existing project authorities for the San Antonio Channel
Improvement Project in Texas, with specific reference to
Section 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000,
which modified the project to include environmental restoration
and recreation as project purposes, the Committee directs the
Secretary of Army to designate all components of the project
for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation as
one integral and combined project. The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to continue construction of such project. Subject to
the Secretary's approval of the General Reevaluation Report,
the Secretary of Army is directed to use a portion of these
funds and subsequent funding appropriated for the San Antonio
Channel Improvement Project to design and subsequently
construct these combined improvements.
James River, Virginia.--The bill includes $1,150,000 to
initiate preconstruction engineering and design for
improvements to the turning basin on the James River, Virginia,
navigation project.
Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia.--The Committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to use open and unrestricted bidding
in prosecuting all construction of the Roanoke River Upper
Basin, Virginia, project.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.--The
Committee has provided a total of $50,400,000 for the Levisa
and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River
project. This amount includes $17,000,000 for the City of
Grundy, Virginia, element of the project; $1,500,000 for the
Bell County, Kentucky, element of the project; $3,500,000 for
the City of Cumberland, Kentucky, element of the project;
$6,500,000 for the Clover Fork, Harlan County, Kentucky,
element of the project; $2,000,000 for the Levisa Fork in Floyd
County, Kentucky, element of the project; $4,500,000 for the
Harlan County, Kentucky, element of the project; $900,000 for
the Johnson County, Kentucky, element of the project;
$1,000,000 for the Knox County, Kentucky, element of the
project; $4,300,000 for the Tug Fork in Martin County,
Kentucky, element of the project; $200,000 for the Levisa Basin
in Pike County, Kentucky, element of the project; $4,000,000 in
the Tug Fork in Pike County, element of the project; and
$5,000,000 in the Town of Martin, Floyd County, element of the
project.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--Within the amount provided
for the Aquatic Plant Control program, $200,000 is for aquatic
plant control at high priority sites in Texas, and $100,000 is
for the control of Hydrilla in the Potomac and Tributaries,
Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia. The Committee is
aware of the growing aquatic invasive plant infestation problem
around the country and supports efforts of the Corps, and the
private sector, to develop new management and control
technologies. The Committee further believes that success in
the management of these invasive species is dependent upon a
strong, stable research program.
Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the Section 14 program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes:
$100,000 for construction of the Addison Creek, North
Riverside, Illinois, project; $200,000 for construction of the
Village of Riverside (Groveland Avenue Berm), Illinois,
project; $60,000 to complete the planning and design analysis
for the Ohio River, Rockport, Indiana, project; $200,000 to
initiate and complete construction of the Ohio River, South
Harrison County, Indiana, project; $100,000 for planning and
design of the U.S. Highway 83 Bridge project in Garden City,
Kansas; $330,000 for construction of the Nicholas County,
Licking River, Kentucky, project; $31,000 for completion of
plans and specifications for the Holmes Bay, Whiting, Maine,
project; $24,000 for completion of plans and specifications for
the Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, project; $100,000 to
initiate construction of the Belle Isle Park, Michigan,
project; $61,000 to complete planning and design of the Belle
Isle South Shore, Michigan, project; $750,000 to initiate
construction of the Marquette, Michigan, project; $150,000 to
initiate and complete construction of the County Road 228
Bridge, Hubble Creek, Missouri, project; $40,000 for planning
and design of the Borough of Rumson bulkhead replacement
project in New York; $300,000 to initiate and complete
construction of the Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York,
project; $250,000 to complete the feasibility study and plans
and specifications for the Northport, Huntington, New York,
project; $100,000 for planning and design for the Engel Park,
Town of Ossining, New York, project; $40,000 for plans and
specifications for the Losee Park, Village of Tarrytown, New
York, project; $40,000 for plans and specifications for the
Scarborough Park, Village of Briarcliff Manor, New York,
project; $75,000 for plans and specifications for the Ottawa
River, Shoreland Drive project in Toledo, Ohio; $40,000 for
plans and specifications for the Hocking River, Athens, Ohio,
project; $40,000 for plans and specifications for the Green
River, Waynesboro, Tennessee, project; $40,000 for plans and
specifications for the Hurricane Creek Road, Waynesboro,
Tennessee, project; $175,000 to complete plans and
specifications for the Hollywood Interceptor project in
Memphis, Tennessee; $293,000 to complete plans and
specifications and initiate construction for the Mount Moriah
Culvert project in Tennessee; $100,000 to complete plans and
specifications for the Terminal Road, Chattanooga, Tennessee,
project; $100,000 to complete plans and specifications for the
Town of Dandridge, Tennessee, project; $100,000 to complete
plans and specifications for the Bogachiel River, Clallam
County, Washington, project; and $40,000 for planning and
design of the Concordia University, City of Mequon, Wisconsin,
project.
Shoreline Protection Project (Section 103).--The Committee
has provided $3,500,000 for the Section 103 program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $100,000 to
complete the initial appraisal report for the City of Solano
Beach, California, project; $100,000 to complete the
feasibility study for the Whiting Shoreline, Indiana, project;
$100,000 to complete plans and specifications and execute a
project cooperation agreement for the Nantasket Beach, Hull,
Massachusetts, project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility
study for the Lake Erie Islands project in Ottawa County, Ohio;
and $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the
Sandusky, Ohio, Lakefront Restoration project.
Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has
provided $8,000,000 for the Section 107 program. Within the
amount provided, the recommendation includes: $200,000 to
complete the feasibility study for the Point Mallard Park,
Decatur, Alabama, project; $640,000 to initiate and complete
plans and specifications for the Blytheville Harbor, Arkansas,
project; $850,000 for construction of the Russellville
Slackwater Harbor project in Arkansas; $2,825,000 to complete
construction of the Port Hueneme, California, project; $100,000
for the feasibility study for the Port Tobacco River/Goose
Creek, Maryland, project; $50,000 to complete design and
execute a project cooperation agreement for the Bass Harbor,
Tremont, Maine, project; $20,000 to continue the feasibility
study for the Bucks Harbor, Machiasport, Maine, project;
$50,000 to continue the feasibility for the Lubec Harbor,
Maine, project; $86,000 to complete the feasibility study for
the Detroit River project in Michigan; $75,000 to continue the
feasibility study for the Mackinac Island Harbor, Michigan,
project; $100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the
Grand Marais Harbor, Minnesota, project; $50,000 to complete
the feasibility study for the Knife River Harbor, Minnesota,
project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Duluth
(McQuade Road) Harbor, Minnesota, project; $500,000 to initiate
construction of the Two Harbors, Minnesota, project; $583,000
to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and
specifications for the Tri-State Commerce Park, Iuka,
Mississippi, project; $200,000 to complete plans and
specifications for the Buffalo Inner--South Basin Navigation
Project in New York; $225,000 to initiate and complete the
feasibility study for the Oconto, Wisconsin, project; and
$305,000 to initiate and complete the feasibility study for the
Olde Stone Quarry Park, Door County, Wisconsin, project.
Mitigation Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects
(Section 111).--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the
Section 111 program. Within the amount provided, the
recommendation includes: $125,000 to complete the feasibility
study for the Grand River, City of Grand Haven, Michigan,
project; and $100,000 to continue the feasibility study for the
Mattituck Inlet, Southold, New York, project.
Beneficial Use of Dredge Material (Section 204).--The
Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 204 program.
Within the amount provided, the recommendation includes $70,000
to continue the feasibility study for the Atchafalaya River,
Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, project; and
$100,000 for plans and specifications for the Ottawa River,
Ohio, project.
Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee
has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $50,000 to
initiate a feasibility study for the Grubbs, Arkansas, project;
$25,000 to complete the feasibility study for the Higginson,
Arkansas, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the
Indian Bayou, Arkansas, project; $75,000 to complete the
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the
Spring Creek, Arkansas, project; $100,000 for a feasibility
study of flooding problems in Yucca Valley, California;
$460,000 to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans
and specifications for the Anaverde Creek, Palmdale,
California, project; $100,000 for the Santa Venetia,
California, project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study
for the Flint River, City of Albany, Georgia, project;
$1,000,000 to continue construction of the Deer Creek, Village
of Ford Heights, Illinois, project; $1,500,000 to continue
construction of the East Peoria, Illinois, project; $100,000 to
initiate plans and specifications for the Oak Forest and
Midlothian (Natalie Creek), Illinois, project; $100,000 to
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for
the Stoney Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois, project; $100,000 to
initiate the feasibility study for the Olney, Illinois,
project; $85,000 to complete the feasibility study for the
Pankey Branch, Harrisburg, Illinois, project; $150,000 to
initiate the feasibility study for the Shelly Creek, Montgomery
County, Indiana, project; $200,000 to continue work on the
Kankakee River (Sumava Resorts), Indiana, project; $115,000 to
complete the feasibility study for the Cowskin Creek, Wichita,
Kansas, project; $50,000 to initiate plans and specifications
for the Whitewater and Walnut Rivers project in Augusta,
Kansas; $175,000 to complete plans and specifications for the
Lockport to Larose, Louisiana, project; $125,000 to continue
plans and specifications for the Rosethorn Basin, Jean Lafitte,
Louisiana, project; $145,000 to complete the feasibility study
and initiate plans and specifications for the Winchester,
Massachusetts, project; $100,000 for a study of flooding
problems in Benton County, Minnesota; $250,000 for a study of
flooding problems in Delano, Minnesota; $50,000 to complete the
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the
Ada, Minnesota, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for
the Borup, Minnesota, project; $325,000 to initiate the
feasibility study for the City of Roseau, Minnesota, project;
$100,000 for a feasibility study for the Marsh Creek, Site 6,
floodwater retention project in Minnesota; $350,000 to complete
the feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for
the Hidden Valley Storm Drainage project in Greene County,
Missouri; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study for the
Goose Creek, Missouri, project; $50,000 to continue the
feasibility study for the Hubble Creek, Missouri, project;
$75,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Lilbourn,
Missouri, project; $200,000 to initiate construction of the
Little River Diversion project in Dutchtown, Missouri; $50,000
to continue the feasibility study for the Williams Creek,
Missouri, project; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study
for the Greens Mill Run, Greenville, North Carolina, project;
$500,000 to continue construction of the Wahpeton, North
Dakota, project; $250,000 to complete plans and specifications
for the Jackson Brook, New Jersey, project; $1,150,000 to
complete construction of the McKeel Brook, New Jersey, project;
$200,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Poplar
Brook, Monmouth, New Jersey, project; $200,000 for plans and
specifications for the Hatch, New Mexico, project; $100,000 to
continue the feasibility study for the Hobbs, New Mexico,
project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility study for the
Fulmer Creek, New York, project; $45,000 to continue the
feasibility study for the Great Gully Creek, Springport, New
York, project; $300,000 to complete the feasibility study and
initiate plans and specifications for the Moyer Creek, Village
of Frankfort, New York, project; $238,000 to complete the
feasibility study for the Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New
York, project; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems in
Highland Falls, New York; $100,000 for a study of flooding
problems along Moodna Creek in New Windsor, New York; $100,000
for a study of flooding problems in the Town of Warwick, New
York; $100,000 for a study of flooding problems along Blind
Brook in the City of Rye, New York; $200,000 for plans and
specifications for the Irondequoit Creek, Monroe County, New
York, project; $1,000,000 for the Zimber Ditch, Stark County,
Ohio, project; $75,000 to continue the feasibility study for
the Little Mill and Mill Creeks, Pennsylvania, project;
$100,000 for a study of flooding problems in Surfside Beach,
South Carolina; $115,000 to continue plans and specifications
for the Beaver Creek, Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol,
Virginia, project; $165,000 to complete plans and
specifications and initiate construction for the Baxter Bottom,
Tennessee, project; $55,000 to complete the feasibility study
for the Dresden, Tennessee, project; $70,000 for a study of
flooding problems along Jones Creek in Jackson, Tennessee;
$250,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems at the
KellyUSA site in Bexar County, Texas; and $30,000 to continue
coordination activities on the Estate La Grange, Estate Mon
Bijou, Savan Gut, and Turpentine Run projects in the United
States Virgin Islands.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--The Committee
has provided $18,050,000 for the Section 206 program. Within
the amount provided, the recommendation includes: $235,000 to
complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and
specifications for the Spring Creek, Tuscumbia, Alabama,
project; $90,000 to complete the feasibility study for the
Brownsville Branch, Arkansas, project; $100,000 to initiate the
Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Carpinteria Creek Park,
California, project; $60,000 to complete plans and
specifications for the Upper Sulphur Creek restoration project
in California; $300,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report for
the City of Lodi, California, White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facility; $100,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report
for the Thompson Creek project in Santa Clara County,
California; $200,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration Report for
the Santa Paula Creek, California, project; $175,000 for the
Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Sweetwater Reservoir
Wetlands project in California; $100,000 for a Preliminary
Restoration Plan for the English Creek, California, project;
$200,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration Report for the Arroyo Los
Positas, California, project; $360,000 for an Ecosystem
Restoration Report for the St. Helena Napa River restoration
project in California; $400,000 for the Ecosystem Restoration
Report for the Upper York Creek Dam removal project in
California; $40,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the
South Boulder Creek, Colorado, project; $250,000 for plans and
specifications for the Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut,
project; $2,800,000 for the Stevenson Creek project in Pinellas
County, Florida; $253,000 to complete the feasibility study for
the Columbus Dam removal project in Georgia; $100,000 for a
Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Mountain Park Dam project
in Georgia; $200,000 to initiate construction of the Squaw
Creek Basin project in Lake County, Illinois; $700,000 to
continue construction of the Butler Lake, Illinois, project;
$150,000 for plans and specifications for the Hofmann Dam,
Illinois, project; $50,000 to continue the feasibility study
for the Illinois and Michigan Canal, Willow Springs, Illinois,
project; $111,000 to initiate and complete plans and
specifications for the State Line Kankakee River project in
Illinois; $850,000 to initiate construction of the South Bend
dam removal project in South Bend, Indiana; $300,000 to
complete the detailed project report for the Cedar Lake,
Indiana, project; $500,000 to initiate construction of the Wolf
Lake, Indiana, project; $200,000 to initiate construction of
the Grass Lake, Illinois, project; $100,000 for plans and
specifications for the Buras Marina, Louisiana, project;
$200,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Paint Branch
fish passage and stream restoration project in Prince Georges
County, Maryland; $125,000 for plans and specifications for the
Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts, project; $232,000 for
plans and specifications for the Milford Pond, Milford,
Massachusetts, project; $717,000 to initiate and complete
construction of the Nashawannuck Pond, Easthampton,
Massachusetts, project; $50,000 for the planning and design of
the New Boulevard, Detroit River, Michigan, project; $180,000
for plans and specifications for the Belle Isle Piers project
in Detroit, Michigan; $72,000 to complete the feasibility study
and initiate plans and specifications for the Secord and
Smallwood Lakes project in Secord Township, Michigan; $296,000
to initiate and complete construction of the Wiswall Dam, New
Hampshire, project; $110,000 for an Ecosystem Restoration
Report for the Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey,
project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility phase of the
Bottomless Lakes State Park project in New Mexico; $300,000 to
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction for
the Las Cruces Wetlands Restoration, New Mexico, project;
$50,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Alley Creek,
Queens, New York, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility
study phase of the Mud Creek, East Patchogue, New York,
project; $100,000 to complete design and initiate construction
of the Chenango Lake wetlands restoration project in Chenango
County, New York; $300,000 to continue the feasibility study
for the Oriskany Wildlife Management Plan in New York; $245,000
for construction of the Greenwood Lake project in the Village
of Greenwood, New York; $10,000 for a Preliminary Restoration
Plan for the Kowawese Area in New Windsor, New York; $200,000
for the feasibility study for the Echo Bay project in New
Rochelle, New York; $200,000 to continue the feasibility study
for the Sheldrake Lake/Goodlife Pond project in New York;
$200,000 for the feasibility phase of the Concord Streams
restoration project in Concord, North Carolina; $75,000 to
continue work on the Little Sugar Creek, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, project; $100,000 to continue the feasibility
phase of the West Cary Stream restoration project in North
Carolina; $100,000 for a study of ecosystem restoration and
other improvements along the Lake Erie waterfront in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio; $65,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for
the Sandusky, Ohio, beach restoration project; $250,000 to
continue the feasibility study for the Lake Carl Blackwell
aquatic ecosystem restoration project in Oklahoma; $175,000 to
complete the feasibility study for the Westmoreland Park,
Oregon, project; $1,000,000 to initiate construction of the
Springfield Millrace ecosystem restoration project in Oregon;
$300,000 to initiate construction of the Southampton Creek,
Pennsylvania, project; $250,000 for a feasibility study for the
Canonsburg Lake, Pennsylvania, project; $90,000 to complete
planning and design of the Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers
Creek restoration project in Pennsylvania; $100,000 for a
Preliminary Restoration Plan for the Upper Chartiers Creek,
Pennsylvania, project; $800,000 to complete construction of the
Lonsdale Drive-In Wetlands project in Rhode Island; $200,000 to
complete the feasibility study for the Town of Jonesborough,
Washington County, Tennessee, project; $700,000 to continue
construction of the Ely/Pucketts Creek project in Virginia;
$100,000 for a Preliminary Restoration Plan for Lake Anna,
Virginia; $200,000 to continue the Walla Walla River project in
Washington; $112,000 for plans and specifications for the Lake
Koshonong, Wisconsin, project; $50,000 each for the Pike River,
Trinity Creek, and Wolf River projects in Wisconsin; and
$515,000 for the Cheat River Basin acid mine drainage project
in West Virginia.
The Committee recognizes that innovative technologies can
provide time and cost savings and encourages the use of the
rapid dewatering system for the Stevenson Creek project in
Florida.
Project Modifications for the Improvement of the
Environment (Section 1135).--The Committee has provided
$16,000,000 for the Section 1135 program. Within the amount
provided, the recommendation includes: $85,000 to continue the
feasibility study for the Ditch 28 project in Arkansas; $85,000
to complete the feasibility study and initiate plans and
specifications for the Horseshoe Lake, Arkansas, project;
$100,000 to initiate the feasibility study for the Millwood,
Grassy Lake, Arkansas, project; $2,000,000 to initiate
construction of the Rillito/Swan Wetlands project in Pima
County, Arizona; $300,000 to initiate the feasibility study for
the Sand Cove Park, Sacramento River, California, project;
$1,000,000 to initiate construction of the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Illinois, second dispersal barrier; $50,000 to
complete plans and specifications for the Indian Ridge Marsh
project in Chicago, Illinois; $150,000 to complete the
ecosystem restoration report and initiate plans and
specifications for the Spunky Bottoms Ecosystem Restoration in
Brown County, Illinois; $250,000 to complete the feasibility
report and initiate plans and specifications for the Sand Creek
Ecosystem Restoration project in Newton, Kansas; $500,000 to
continue construction of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Plaquemine Lock, Louisiana, project; $50,000 to initiate plans
and specifications for the Houma Navigation Channel, Mile 12 to
Mile 31.4, Louisiana, project; $200,000 to complete plans and
specifications for the Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy,
Massachusetts, project; $50,000 for a feasibility study of
restoration opportunities in Cohasset, Massachusetts; $200,000
to complete planning and design for the Nashua River, Fitchburg
Urban Park, Massachusetts, project; $34,000 to complete the
feasibility study and initiate plans and specifications for the
Hennepin Marsh, Grosse Ile Township, Michigan, project; $50,000
for plans and specifications for the Duck Creek, Stoddard
County, Missouri, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study of
the Old Number 7 Chute, Missouri, project; $150,000 for the
Kansas City Riverfront Habitat Restoration project in Missouri;
$150,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Pecos River
Restoration project in Chavez, New Mexico; $500,000 to initiate
construction of the Whitney Point Lake, Broome County, New
York, project; $200,000 to complete the feasibility study and
initiate plans and specifications for the Northport,
Huntington, New York, project; $25,000 to complete the
feasibility study for the Times Beach, New York, project;
$50,000 to continue the feasibility for the Conneaut Harbor,
Ohio, project; $250,000 to continue the feasibility study for
the East Harbor State Park project in Marblehead, Ohio; $50,000
to continue the feasibility study for the Sheldon's Marsh
Nature Preserve project in Ohio; $125,000 to initiate
construction of the Allin's Cove, Barrington, Rhode Island,
project; $750,000 for construction of the Boyd's Marsh project
in Portsmouth, Rhode island; $100,000 to initiate plans and
specifications for the Lower Obion River, Tennessee, project;
$200,000 to complete the feasibility study of fish passage
improvements on the Walla Walla River in Washington; $80,000 to
initiate and complete plans and specifications for the Lake
Poygan, Wisconsin, project; and $533,000 for Sea Lamprey
barriers at Black Mallard Creek, Michigan, Carp Lake River,
Michigan, Kid's Creek, Michigan, Paw Paw River, Michigan,
Schmidt Creek, Michigan, Conneaut Creek, Ohio, South Branch
Galien River, Michigan, St. Marys River, Michigan, and Trail
Creek, Indiana.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee
Appropriation, 2003................................... $342,334,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 280,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 301,054,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -41,280,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +21,054,000
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Southeast Arkansas, Arkansas.--The Committee has included
$350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the cost-shared
feasibility study for the Southeast Arkansas, project to
address flooding, agricultural water supply, and environmental
problems and needs.
Germantown, Tennessee.--The bill includes $61,000 to
complete the feasibility phase of the flood control study in
Germantown, Tennessee.
Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.--The bill includes
$200,000 to continue the reformulation of the Memphis Harbor
project.
CONSTRUCTION
Channel Improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee
recognizes the critical need to provide navigation along the
Mississippi river, and the efficiency in the construction of
dikes for the reduction of dredging requirements. Therefore,
the Committee has included $41,742,000 for the Channel
Improvement program, including $80,000 for the Below Williams,
Kentucky, dike; $500,000 for the Caruthersville-Linwood Bend,
Missouri, dike; $200,000 for the Moore Island, Missouri, dike;
and $1,400,000 for the Drivers Bar, Tennessee, dike.
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee
recognizes the critical need of advancing much needed work in
this project to ensure the integrity of the levee system and to
protect people and property from flooding. Therefore the
Committee has included $45,939,000 for Mississippi River
Levees, including $500,000 for the initiation of Birds Point-
New Madrid, Missouri, flowage easements; $450,000 to initiate
St. Johns-New Madrid, Missouri, mitigation lands, box culverts,
and levee closure; and $2,070,000 for Nash, Missouri, relief
wells.
St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--The Committee is
aware of frequent and prolonged flooding along the uncompleted
portions of the St. Francis Basin project. The bill includes
$5,985,000 for this project, including $610,000 to continue 10
& 15 Mile Bayous, Arkansas, relocations; $400,000 to initiate
construction on 10 & 15 Mile Channel improvement in Arkansas;
$225,000 to construct Ditch 13 Channel Enlargement in Arkansas;
$685,000 to complete construction on the Buffalo Island Outlet,
Arkansas; $500,000 to initiate construction on Piggott Seepage,
Item 1, Arkansas; $400,000 to construct Steele Bypass Weir,
Missouri; and $800,000 to continue project engineering & design
and supervision & administration.
Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Mississippi and
Tennessee.--The bill includes $200,000 to continue the
reevaluation phase of the Horn Lake Creek project.
Yazoo Basin Mississippi, Delta Headwaters Project,
Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the
continuation of this project, formerly known as the
Demonstration Erosion Control Program. The Committee continues
to feel that this project offers great value on the investment,
and that its results represent some of the most effective seen
in reduction of flood damages, decreased erosion and
sedimentation, and improvements to the environment. The
Committee once again urges the Administration to request
adequate annual funding for this project until it is finished.
St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.--The
Committee has provided $5,000,000 to continue construction of
the St. Johns Bayou-New Madrid Floodway in the vicinity of East
Prairie, Missouri.
Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.--The bill
includes $3,018,000 for the Nonconnah Creek project. Additional
funds are for the purpose of accelerating originally authorized
work.
West Tennessee Tributaries, Tennessee.--The Committee has
added $100,000 to initiate a reevaluation of an alternative
demonstration project.
Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee.--The bill includes $350,000
for continuation of the restoration work on this project.
MAINTENANCE
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee
is aware of the backlog of critical maintenance items in this
project and has included $11,690,000 in the bill. The
additional funds include $750,000 to repair or replace culverts
at Mound Creek, Illinois and New Madrid, Missouri; $500,000 to
repair the Cairo, Missouri floodwall; $600,000 to provide
gravel surfacing to selected levee-top roads in Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Louisiana; $2,000,000 to provide levee crown
surfaces in Louisiana, and $1,500,000 to repair the Birds
Point-New Madrid, Missouri, levee setback with lime injection.
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower River, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $670,000 for routine operation and
maintenance and to continue preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement on work to restore the project
to design capacities.
Wappapello Lake, Missouri.--The bill includes $5,765,000
for Wappapello Lake, Missouri. Additional funds are for the
continuation of road relocation work on Highway D.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Appropriation, 2003................................... $1,966,556,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 1,939,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 1,932,575,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -33,981,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -6,425,000
Note: The FY 2003 amount includes $39,000,000 in emergency
appropriations enacted in Public Law 108-11.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Mobile Harbor, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an
additional $3,500,000 to continue the environmental restoration
project at Garrows Bend.
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The bill
includes $6,931,000 for operation and maintenance of the Los
Angeles County Drainage Area project, including $2,000,000 to
support Corps of Engineers assistance in local activities to
revitalize the project areas for public safety, environmental
restoration, recreation, aesthetics, community improvement, and
related purposes.
Pillar Point Harbor, California.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for repair of the east breakwater.
San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy,
California.--The bill includes $2,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers to continue the San Francisco Bay Long Term
Management Strategy, including evaluation of the effects of
mercury in wetland restoration projects using dredged material
and preparation of the Regional Dredged Material Management
Plan and accompanying National Environmental Policy Act
documentation.
Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound,
Connecticut.--The Committee has provided $750,000 for the Corps
of Engineers to continue the demonstration program for the use
of innovative technologies for the treatment of dredged
materials at Bridgeport, Connecticut, in Long Island Sound.
Potomac River Below Washington, District of Columbia.--The
Committee has provided $320,000 for the Corps of Engineers to
continue investigations of alternatives for placement of
dredged material including upland placement sites and
beneficial uses of dredged material.
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000
for operation and maintenance activities, including $3,500,000
for annual dredging of the river system.
West Point Dam and Lake, Georgia and Alabama.--The
Committee has provided $6,900,000 for the West Point Dam and
Lake, Georgia and Alabama, project. The additional funds will
enable the Corps of Engineers to accomplish maintenance
dredging of access channels and at recreational boat launch
areas at the project in Troup County, Georgia.
Illinois Waterway (MVR portion), Illinois and Indiana.--The
bill includes $25,726,000 for operation and maintenance of the
Rock Island District portion of the Illinois Waterway, Illinois
and Indiana, including $1,000,000 for the Sangamon River
(Beardstown) Sediment Trap.
Kaskaskia River Navigation, Illinois.--The Committee has
provided $2,188,000 for the Kaskaskia River Navigation,
Illinois, project, including $500,000 for lock maintenance and
maintenance dredging.
Council Grove Lake, Kansas.--The Committee is aware that
the Council Grove reservoir is flooding privately owned land at
several sites and that a beneficial land exchange with the
owner has been proposed. The Committee has provided $1,840,000
for the Council Grove Lake, Kansas, project, including $80,000
for administrative and environmental costs associated with the
land exchange or land transfer.
John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas.--The bill includes
$2,100,000 for the John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kansas,
including $75,000 to complete the reallocation study of raising
the conservation pool at the project.
Perry Lake, Kansas.--The Committee has provided an
additional $800,000 for the completion of repairs to the four
flood control gates at Perry Lake, Kansas.
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $19,367,000 operation
and maintenance of the Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf
and Black, Louisiana project. For the past two years, the
Committee has included report language directing the Corps to
``make the safe transit of this waterway a priority'', however,
the ``fluff'' issue remains and the Corps has failed to
maintain the authorized depth. The Committee directs the Corps
to utilize these funds to ensure the proper depth is maintained
for access to the Port of Morgan City and other facilities
throughout this fiscal year.
Mermentau River, Louisiana.--The Committee has provided
$3,651,000 for the Mermentau River, Louisiana navigation
project, including $1,000,000 for dredging between Grand
Cheniere and the Gulf of Mexico.
Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland and West Virginia.--The
Committee has provided $2,687,000 for Jennings Randolph Lake,
including $913,000 for repair of the West Virginia access road
and repair of the West Virginia outlet tunnel.
Parish Creek, Maryland.--The Committee has provided $80,000
to initiate engineering and design for maintenance dredging of
the Parish Creek, Maryland, navigation project.
Reservoirs at Headwaters of Mississippi River, Minnesota.--
The Committee has provided $5,196,000 for Reservoirs at
Headwaters of Mississippi River, Minnesota, including $750,000
to continue the Reservoir Operating Plan Evaluation and
$250,000 to continue rehabilitation of the stop log system at
Winnibigoshish Dam.
Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided
$2,634,000 for Clearwater Lake Missouri, including $675,000 to
prepare a new Water Control Plan for this reservoir project.
Stockton Lake, Missouri.--The bill provides an additional
$339,000 for continued investigations of the pre-historic Big
Eddy archeological site at Stockton Lake, Missouri.
Table Rock Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided an
additional $1,500,000 to modernize boat launch facilities and
day use areas at Cape Fair and Campbell Point Parks.
Comprehensive Upland Dredged Material Disposal Site
Evaluation, New Hampshire.--The Committee has provided $250,000
for a study to identify and evaluate upland disposal sites for
dredged material from Federal navigation channels in New
Hampshire.
Albiquiu Dam, New Mexico.--The bill includes $2,312,000 for
Albiquiu Dam, New Mexico, including $600,000 to address safety
issues associated with bank stabilization at the dam.
Oak Orchard Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
$200,000 for maintenance dredging at Oak Orchard Harbor (Point
Breeze), New York.
Plattsburgh Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided
an additional $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate
repair of the remaining deteriorated segments of the breakwater
in Lake Champlain, Plattsburgh, New York.
Rochester Harbor, New York.--The Committee has provided an
additional $300,000 for maintenance dredging of the Rochester
Harbor, New York project to improve access to Coast Guard
facilities, and for other commercial users on the Genesee
River.
Shinnecock Inlet, New York.--The Committee has provided
$1,216,000 for the Shinnecock Inlet, New York, project. This
includes funding to complete repairs to the western jetty and
an additional $800,000 to initiate maintenance dredging of the
navigation inlet.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The
Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 to accomplish
maintenance dredging on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
North Carolina, from the Neuse River to the South Carolina
State line.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee
has provided an additional $100,000 for mosquito control and
prevention at Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.
Muskingum River Lakes, Ohio.--The Committee has provided
$9,399,000 for the operation and maintenance at all Muskingum
River Lakes projects, including $1,600,000 to correct the
seepage problem at the Magnolia Levee at Bolivar Dam to ensure
the project's safety.
Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers below Vancouver,
Washington, and Portland, Oregon.--The Committee has provided
an additional $1,600,000 to complete the rehabilitation of the
breakwater at the East Astoria Boat Basin.
Depoe Bay, Oregon.--The Committee has provided $350,000 to
continue repair and stabilization of the harbor seawall and
local landslide at Depoe Bay, Oregon.
Siuslaw River, Oregon.--The Committee has provided $100,000
to continue monitoring of the north and south jetties and to
continue to study alternatives to repair these damaged
structures.
Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.--The bill includes an
additional $500,000 to initiate repair and restoration of the
jetties at the Tillamook Bay and Bar project.
Francis E Walter Dam, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has
provided $1,181,000 for the operation and maintenance of
Francis E Walter Dam, including $500,000 to continue relocation
of the access road to improve safety and provide permanent
access to vehicles.
Johnstown, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $2,497,000 for
the Corps of Engineers to continue the major rehabilitation of
the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, local flood protection project.
Monongahela River, PA.--The bill includes $700,000 for
additional maintenance at the Hildebrand, Morgantown, and
Opekiska locks on the Monongahela River.
Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided
$6,074,000 for operation and maintenance of Raystown Lake,
including $400,000 to install a data automation system.
Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has
provided $4,352,000 for operation and maintenance of Tioga-
Hammond Lakes, including $500,000 to complete engineering and
design and initiate construction of a new access road to the
Lambs Creek Recreation Area.
Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an
additional $550,000 to complete campground and facility
upgrades at Tionesta Lake, Pennsylvania.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the
State and Tribes for approved cultural resource investigations
and stewardship plans.
Belton Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided $4,613,000
for operation and maintenance of the Belton Lake, Texas,
project including $1,314,000 to refurbish and improve
facilities at White Flint Park and for other backlog
maintenance.
Town Bluff Dam, B.A. Steinhagen Lake, Texas.--The Committee
has provided an additional $925,000 to modernize and renovate
recreation facilities at Camper's Cove Park and to modernize
and renovate recreation facilities and reduce shoreline erosion
to protect existing recreation facilities at Sandy Creek Park.
Wright Patman Dam and Lake, Texas.--The bill includes
$3,464,000 for scheduled operation and maintenance at Wright
Patman Dam and Lake, Texas, including $60,000 to determine the
feasibility of a second marina.
Appomattox River, Virginia.--The Committee has provided
$150,000 for an assessment of the suitability of the proposed
dredged material placement site for the Appomattox River,
Virginia, navigation channel.
Deep Creek, Newport News, Virginia.--The Committee has
provided $500,000 for maintenance dredging to remove hazardous
shoals along the waterway.
Pagan River, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $400,000
for preparation of plans and specifications to remove hazardous
shoals along the waterway.
Tyler's Beach, Virginia.--The Committee has provided
$100,000 for an assessment of the suitability of the dredged
material placement site.
Waterway on the Coast of Virginia, Virginia.--The bill
includes $1,785,000 for continued maintenance dredging of the
Waterway on the Coast of Virginia project, including $500,000
to remove additional shoals in the waterway.
Columbia River between Chinook and the Head of Sand Island,
Washington.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for
maintenance dredging for the Columbia River between Chinook and
the Head of Sand Island, Washington.
Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The bill
includes $9,377,000 for operation and maintenance of the Grays
Harbor and Chehalis project in Washington, including $1,000,000
to further protect against breaching at the South Jetty near
Half Moon Bay.
R. D. Bailey Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has
provided an additional $150,000 to relocate a permanent trash
boom and construct a drift and debris staging area.
Coastal Inlet Research Program.--The Committee has provided
$3,050,000 for the Coastal Inlet Research Program, including
$300,000 to continue the development of applied hydrodynamic
and sediment transport change models for existing navigation
projects. Specifically, the Corps Engineering Research
Development Center-Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory will use
this additional funding to work with the Corps Portland
District to apply these models to the Grays Harbor Navigation
Study and identify operations and maintenance changes to reduce
annual maintenance dredging costs. The Committee recognizes
that high quality data of tidal inlet processes and the
associated response are essential to development of these
models and will maximize their utility for Corps navigation
projects nationwide.
Hydropower Maintenance.--The budget includes a proposal for
the Power Marketing Administrations (excluding the Bonneville
Power Administration) to provide direct funding from power sale
revenues for the operation and maintenance of Corps' hydropower
facilities. Currently, hydropower operation and maintenance
costs are appropriated from the General Fund. The
Administration has submitted the necessary legislation to
authorize this change. In anticipation of this change, the
budget request includes $149 million for hydropower operation
and maintenance, about $49,000,000 more than the amount
normally recommended. Due to budgetary constraints, the
Committee has not provided this additional funding pending
action by the appropriate authorizing committees to enact the
proposal.
Inland Waterway Navigation Charts.--The Committee
encourages the Corps of Engineers to continue upgrades and
conversions of electronic navigation charting for important
secondary waterways in our nation's inland navigation system,
such as the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, and related
waterways, and the Illinois, Cumberland and Arkansas Rivers.
Regulatory Program
Appropriation, 2003................................... $138,096,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 144,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 144,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +5,904,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
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 2004, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $144,000,000, the same as the budget request
and $5,904,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2003.
St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.--The Committee is aware of a
reported lack of enforcement actions taken by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for barge fleeting permit violators in the
vicinity of St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, and directs the
Corps to immediately ensure barge fleeting activities in the
vicinity of St. Charles Parish are consistent with permitted
activities. Within 90 days from the enactment of this
legislation, the Corps shall provide a report to the committee
on enforcement actions taken in the most recent fiscal year for
which complete data is available.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Appropriation, 2003................................... $144,057,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 140,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 140,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -4,057,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the
same as the budget request and $4,057,000 below fiscal year
2003 funding. The Corps may reprogram up to $1,000,000 among
FUSRAP projects; reprogramming of amounts equal to or greater
than $1,000,000 require Committee approval.
Congress transferred FUSRAP from the Department of Energy
(DOE) to the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1998. In
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
FUSRAP sites where DOE had not completed cleanup. The Committee
did not intend to transfer to the Corps ownership of and
accountability for real property interests, which remain with
DOE. The Committee expects DOE to continue to provide its
institutional knowledge and expertise to serve the Nation and
the affected communities to ensure the success of this program.
The Committee renews its guidance to the Corps to prepare a
bi-annual report that provides a brief summary on the status of
remediation efforts ongoing at all FUSRAP sites. Copies of this
report should be made available to Congress, local
stakeholders, and appropriate local, state, and Federal
officials.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Appropriation, 2003................................... $14,902,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 70,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 40,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +25,098,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -30,000,000
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies appropriation
funds flood emergency preparation, flood fighting and rescue
operations, and repair of flood control and Federal hurricane
or shore protection works. It also provides funds for emergency
supplies of drinking water where the source has been
contaminated, and, in drought distressed areas, provides for
adequate supplies of water for human and livestock consumption.
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has recommended
$40,000,000, $25,089,000 above the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 2003 and $40,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is aware that a number of innovative systems
have been developed for use in flood fights. One such system is
the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall, which utilizes a series of
interconnecting plastic cells which, when filled with sand,
form a flood protection barrier. The Committee continues to
encourage the Corps of Engineers to invest in the Rapid
Deployment Flood Wall technology to evaluate the improvement in
flood fighting that could be achieved through the use of this
technology.
General Expenses
Appropriation, 2003................................... $154,143,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 171,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 164,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +9,857,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -7,000,000
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
$164,000,000, $7,000,000 below the budget request and
$9,857,000 above the fiscal year 2003 amount.
The Committee is concerned that the budget request included
$7,000,000 for an audit of the Corps of Engineers, and has not
included the requested funds in the bill. The requirement that
the Corps of Engineers be audited on an annual basis is not
new; only the requirement that the audit be done be
accomplished by expensive private-sector practitioners at a
cost to the taxpayer of millions of dollars is new. The
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to continue to produce
the same audit-ready reports as in previous years, and urges
the Secretary of the Army to make every reasonable effort to
arrive at a suitable arrangement for having the Corps audited
by government auditors.
The recommendation also includes bill language prohibiting
the use of funds to support a congressional affairs office
within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. This
language has been included in Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act since fiscal year 2000.
Reprogramming of Funds.--Over the years, Committee has
granted the Corps of Engineers great latitude to reprogram
funds from studies, construction projects, and maintenance
activities which are either delayed or are being terminated to
those where the funds can be effectively used to keep projects
moving and accelerate completion. The Committee believes that
the ability to reprogram funds is essential to the Corps'
ability to effectively manage its program. Accordingly, the
Committee was very concerned to learn that the Corps of
Engineers has not been reprogramming funds from a number of
projects which are obviously not moving forward. It has been
and continues to be the intent of the Committee that when any
project is not moving forward, the Corps of Engineers look to
reprogram the funds appropriated for that project to one where
the funds can be effectively utilized unless explicitly
instructed not to do so by the Committee on Appropriations.
General Provisions
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by
the Administration which places a limit on credits and
reimbursements allowable per project and annually for all
projects. The Administration also proposed that this provision
be made permanent law; however, the Committee has elected not
to make that change.
Sec. 102. The Committee has included language prohibiting
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
Sec. 103. The Committee has included language prohibiting
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
Stark County, Ohio.
Sec. 104. The Committee has included language renaming Lock
and Dam 3 on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2003................................... $35,992,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 44,191,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 38,191,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +2,199,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -6,000,000
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (Titles II--VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the Central
Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also: authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation;
establishes an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these
funds and of other contributions for mitigation and
conservation activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in
that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities for
carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and
prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 to carry
out the provisions of the Act is $39,191,000, $6,000,000 below
the budget request and $2,199,000 above the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 2003.
Section 402(b)(3)(B) of the Central Utah Project Completion
Act directed that the Secretary of Energy, out of funds
appropriated to the Western Area Power Administration,
contribute funds annually to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Fund. The amount to be contributed is
currently $6,000,000. On May 9, 2003, the Administration
submitted a budget amendment proposing to transfer that
responsibility to the Secretary of the Interior and requesting
an additional $6,000,000 in this account for that purpose. The
Committee believes that this matter should be addressed by the
appropriate authorizing committee and has not, therefore,
included the proposed amendment to the Central Utah Project
Completion Act. The Committee has also not included the
additional funds requested by the Administration.
Bureau of Reclamation
In May of this year, the Secretary of the Interior
announced a new initiative--Water 2025: Preventing Water Crises
and Conflict in the West. The fiscal year 2004 budget request
for the Bureau of Reclamation includes $11,000,000 to initiate
this effort, the purpose of which is to prevent water supply
problems from reaching the crisis stage.
The Committee supports this effort and has provided the
funds requested by the Administration. However, the Committee
is troubled by other actions taken in the fiscal year 2004
budget request that seem to contradict the goals of the Water
2025 program.
One of the ways the Department proposes to meet the
challenge of inadequate water supplies is through improved
technology. The Department states, ``Wastewater, salty and
other impaired water can be purified to increase their
utility.'' In fact, while additional research in this area is
important, the technology already exists to make use of
wastewater and other impaired waters. Title 16 of Public Law
102-575 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to ``to
undertake a program to investigate and identify opportunities
for reclamation and reuse of municipal, industrial, domestic,
and agricultural wastewater, and naturally impaired ground and
surface waters, for the design and construction of
demonstration and permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse
wastewater, and to conduct research, including desalting, for
the reclamation of wastewater and naturally impaired ground and
surface waters.'' Under this program, 25 individual water
reclamation and reuse projects have been authorized for
construction. These projects directly accomplish the goals of
the Water 2025 program by developing new sources of usable
water through the use of state-of-the-art technology. In
addition, the overwhelming majority of the cost of these
projects is borne by local interests. However, for some reason,
the Administration has determined that continued funding for
these projects is not a high priority. For fiscal year 2004,
the Administration has requested $12,680,000 for water
reclamation and reuse projects, $17,770,000 below the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2003 in spite of the fact that the
Administration recognizes that ``these water reuse and
recycling projects help expand water supplies in areas that
routinely face severe water shortages, and are especially
important in helping to shift California from its dependence on
Colorado River water.'' While obviously not the solution to all
of the water problems in the West, these projects make an
important contribution, and the Committee urges the
Administration to reconsider its lack of support for this
program.
The Committee is also very troubled by the by the lack of
funding requested for rural water supply projects. The purpose
of the Water 2025 program is to address water supply problems
before they reach the crisis stage; however, there are areas of
the west, particularly in the upper Great Plains, where a
crisis already exists because of the poor quality of available
groundwater supplies. As the Department of the Interior has
stated, ``In some rural communities and Indian reservations,
this salty groundwater is unusable for human consumption,
limiting growth and prosperity.'' In fact, the poor quality
groundwater does more than limit growth and prosperity, it
causes significant health problems. To address this problem,
the Congress has authorized Federal participation in a number
of projects that will replace impaired groundwater with clean
surface water supplies from a variety of sources. Some of these
projects have been under construction for a number of years.
The Committee is particularly concerned that the
Administration's budget request would essentially halt
construction on those projects, resulting in increased costs,
and more importantly, forcing people to continue to drink
unhealthy water. Accordingly, the Committee has provided funds
to allow ongoing projects to continue and urges the
Administration to do the same in future budget requests.
Water and Related Resources
Appropriation, 2003................................... $833,203,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 771,217,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 817,913,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -15,290,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +46,696,000
Note: The fiscal year 2003 amount includes $25,000,000 in supplemental
appropriations enacted in Public Law 108-11.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
Central Arizona Project, Arizona.--The Committee is aware
that under the proposed Gila River Indian Community Water
Rights Settlement, the Federal government has agreed to forgo
over $158 million in debt to agricultural subcontractors who
voluntarily relinquish their long-term Central Arizona Project
water contracts. The Committee believes that pending the
enactment of the legislation to enact the settlement, those
contractors should not be forced to repay that debt. As the
bill moves through the appropriations process, the Committee
will consider adding language to the bill which permits the
Secretary of the Interior to extend, on an annual schedule, the
repayment schedules for that debt.
Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, Arizona and
California.--The Committee has provided an additional
$1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue planning
and design of regulating reservoirs near the All-American
Canal.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I,
Arizona.--The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of
Reclamation is having to make excess releases of more than
100,000 acre-feet of water per year from storage in Colorado
River reservoirs in order to meet the delivery requirements of
the 1944 Treaty with Mexico. This is due to not counting
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District drainage flows
that are bypassed to the Cienega de Santa Clara as part of the
1.5 million acre-feet required to satisfy the Treaty. This loss
of water has become particularly acute due to the drought in
the Colorado River Basin. The loss of more than 100,000 acre-
feet per year robs all seven basin states of badly needed
water.
Title I of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
identified construction and operation of the Yuma Desalting
Plant as the solution to the agreement between the United
States and Mexico preferred by all the parties. However, except
for a six-month test period beginning in late 1992 when the
plant was operated at one-third capacity, the plant has not
been operated and has been maintained in a ready reserve
status. The test operation identified a number of design
deficiencies that need to be corrected in order for the plant
to be placed in operation. In addition, certain environmental
compliance activities would need to be undertaken before the
plant can be operated. The Bureau of Reclamation currently
estimates that one-third operation could be accomplished in 24
to 30 months and full operation could be accomplished in 60
months. The Committee believes the ability to operate the plant
is critical and, therefore, directs the Bureau of Reclamation
to expedite its modifications of the plant to accomplish state
of the art operation, and accelerate the permitting and
environmental compliance activities needed for operation of the
plant. The Bureau of Reclamation is directed to report to the
Committee on the status of those activities by December 31,
2003.
The artificial environmental conditions of the Cienega de
Santa Clara are an inadvertent environmental benefit of the
facilities constructed pursuant to Title I of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act. As noted above, delivery of
water to the Cienega is not currently counted as the delivery
of water under the Treaty. Using funds provided for this
project, the Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to
work with the United States Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission, in consultation with the seven
Basin states, to identify alternatives for operation of the
Yuma Desalting Plant recognizing the need to maintain the
unique ecology of the Cienega, including the capability of
Mexico to maintain the Cienega with its share of Treaty waters.
The Bureau of Reclamation should submit a joint report with the
United States Section on the results of those investigations to
the Committee on Appropriations by April 1, 2004.
Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.--The Committee
has provided $630,000 for the Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration
project in Arizona, the same as the budget request. The
Committee believes that the data being generated by this
program is essential to support construction of the Tres Rios
environmental restoration project being undertaken by the Corps
of Engineers, and directs the Bureau of Reclamation to continue
its research and development activities at this project beyond
fiscal year 2004.
Central Valley Project, American River Division,
California.--The Committee is aware that there is a need to
construct a temperature control device on the El Dorado
Irrigation District water intake at Folsom Dam in California
and that legislation has been introduced to provide the
necessary increase in the authorized funding level that is
needed for the project to be completed. Should the
authorization be enacted, the Committee will consider funding
for this project as the bill moves through the appropriations
process. The Committee is also aware that legislation has been
introduced to authorize the construction of a parallel water
supply line from Folsom Dam to serve the City of Roseville and
the San Juan Water District. The Committee will also consider
providing funding for this project as the bill moves through
the appropriations process.
Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The
Committee has provided an additional $1,400,000 for the Bureau
of Reclamation to continue work on the Delta Mendota Canal-
California Aqueduct Intertie project.
Central Valley Project, Friant Division, California.--The
Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau
of Reclamation to continue the Upper San Joaquin River Basin
storage investigation.
Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs,
California.--The bill includes an additional $400,000 to
continue the Kaweah River Delta Corridor Enhancement study. The
Committee has also provided an additional $5,000,000 for the
continuation of work on the Natomas Mutual Water Company,
Reclamation District 108, and Sutter Mutual Water Company fish
screen projects.
Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division,
California.--Within the amount provided for the Sacramento
River Division, $400,000 is to continue the Colusa Basin
Integrated Resources Management Plan.
The Committee has also provided $2,422,000 for the Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District fish passage improvement project,
including an additional $2,000,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to reimburse the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
for costs incurred by the District in excess of its non-Federal
cost-sharing requirement.
In addition, the Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) and the Tehana-Colusa
Canal Authority to continue to carry out, in coordination with
the Bureau of Reclamation, detailed, site specific
environmental assessment and permitting work with respect to
Sites Reservoir, including an evaluation of the utilization of
both the GCID Main Canal and the Tehama-Colusa Canal as a means
to convey water to the proposed reservoir.
Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division,
California.--The bill includes an additional $1,000,000 for
implementation of the Westside Regional Drainage Plan. The
Committee has not provided the funds requested for payment of
settlement costs in the case of Sumner Peck Ranch v. Bureau of
Reclamation.
Long Beach Water Reclamation Project, California.--The
Committee has provided $700,000 to continue work on the
Alamitos Barrier Reclaimed Water Project unit of the Long Beach
Water Reclamation Project.
Salton Sea Research Project, California.--The bill includes
$5,500,000 for the Salton Sea Research Project, including
$1,000,000 to continue environmental restoration efforts at the
New and Alamo Rivers, $1,000,000 to continue the Imperial
Valley groundwater assessment in cooperation with the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, and $2,500,000 for additional
work needed to prepare for the construction of pilot
desalination demonstration facilities.
San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, California.--The bill
includes language which provides that $10,000,000 of the funds
appropriated for Water and Related Resources shall be deposited
in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund to continue the
program to design, construct, and operate projects to contain
and treat the spreading groundwater contamination in the San
Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins in California.
Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project, California.--The
Committee has provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
to continue the Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project, which
will provide additional water supplies to Camp Pendleton, and
the Fallbrook Public Utilities District.
Southern California Investigations Program, California.--
The Committee has provided $2,235,000 for the Southern
California Investigations Program, including $500,000 to
continue the Chino Basin Conjunctive Use Project, and an
additional $600,000 for the Los Angeles Basin Watershed Water
Supply Augmentation study.
Boise Area Projects, Idaho.--The Committee has provided an
additional $270,000 to offset costs associated with water
service contract renewals from Lucky Peak Reservoir in Idaho.
The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to not seek
reimbursement of these funds from water users.
Columbia and Snake Rivers Salmon Recovery Project, Idaho.--
The budget request includes $19,000,000 for the Columbia and
Snake Rivers Salmon Recovery Project. Of the total requested,
$4,000,000 is for construction activities that require
additional authorization. The Committee has not provided those
funds.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project,
Kansas.--The Committee is aware that the pilot program for the
Equus Beds project is complete. The Committee strongly urges
the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the impacted communities
and the State of Kansas on design and engineering of the full-
scale project.
Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The
Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Fort Peck Dry Prairie
Rural Water System project in Montana. These funds will permit
the completion of the pipeline which will bring treated water
from Culbertson to Medicine Lake, where the existing treatment
plant is inoperable.
North Central Montana Rural Water Supply System, Montana.--
The bill includes $915,000 for the completion of the Final
Engineering Report, Environmental Assessment, and Water
Conservation Plan for the North Central Montana Rural Water
Supply System project.
Santee Sioux Reservation Water System, Nebraska.--The
Committee is aware that the Santee Sioux Tribe and the Bureau
of Reclamation have completed a needs assessment of water
resources on the Santee Sioux Reservation. The Committee has
provided $500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to determine
the most feasible method of developing a safe and adequate
municipal, rural and industrial water system for the Santee
Sioux Reservation and the surrounding communities.
Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, New Mexico.--
The Committee has provided $500,000 for the continuation of
work on the Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse project. The
Committee supports the efforts by the City and County of Santa
Fe to mitigate present drought effects and to achieve water
supply reliability and sustainability for the future through
comprehensive, regional water development and management. The
funds provided are intended to help the City and County address
short-term drought relief needs, and longer-term drought
protection and water supply reliability and stenvironmental
protection needs. The Committee expects the Bureau of
Reclamation, to the greatest degree practicable, to build upon
the design work and environmental evaluation currently being
undertaken by the City and County to meet these objectives.
Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota.--The Committee has
provided additional funds for the continuation of work on the
Tribal and State municipal, rural, and industrial water supply
programs.
Oklahoma Investigations Program, Oklahoma.--The Committee
has provided an additional $700,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to continue studies of ways to better manage the
resources of the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer.
Klamath Project, Oregon and California.--The Committee has
provided an additional $3,000,000 for the Klamath Project water
bank program, and an additional $500,000 for long-term planning
for the Klamath and Tulelake Wildlife Refuges. In addition, the
Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the reimbursement of
operation and maintenance expenses incurred by those who did
not receive project water.
Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.--The Committee has
provided $20,000,000 for the continued construction of the Mni
Wiconi project in South Dakota, including additional funds for
construction of the core pipeline system to the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation.
El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, Texas.--The
Committee has provided $370,000 to continue the Haskell Street
feature of the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project in
Texas.
Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and
Improvement, Texas.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 to
continue work on the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources
Conservation and Improvement Program authorized by Public Laws
106-576 and 107-351.
Yakima River Basin Water Storage, Washington.--The
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
to continue work on the feasibility study of options for
additional water storage in the Yakima River Basin, with an
emphasis on the feasibility of the storage of Columbia River
water in the potential Black Rock Reservoir.
Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program.--The Committee
has provided an additional $750,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to continue to participate with the Uncompahgre
Valley Water Users Association in a project to reduce salinity
and selenium loading to the Colorado River.
Drought Emergency Assistance Program.--The Committee has
provided an additional $1,000,000 for drought emergency
assistance in Nebraska and an additional $1,000,000 for drought
emergency assistance on the Navajo Nation in Arizona and New
Mexico.
Efficiency Incentives Program.--The bill includes $350,000
for the continued work on the Ganado Irrigation Water
Conservation Project in Arizona. The Committee understands that
these funds will complete the Bureau of Reclamation's
participation in this effort.
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.--The
Committee has provided $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
to continue to participate in an endangered species recovery
implementation program for the Platte River Basin in Wyoming,
Colorado, and Nebraska, $1,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is very concerned about the lack of clear
authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in this
large, multi-year effort. Although the cost of the first
increment of this program is currently estimated at
$75,000,000, the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that costs
could be as much as $150,000,000. In addition, there are no
estimates of the cost of the program beyond the first
increment. However, the budget states that the only authority
for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in this effort is
the Endangered Species Act, which would seem to limit
Reclamation's participation to addressing impacts of operation
of its projects on the species at risk. In response to a
question from the Subcommittee, the Commissioner of Reclamation
testified that a specific authorization for the program would
provide clearer guidance for the expenditure of funds. The
Committee agrees with that assessment and urges the
Administration to work with the states and other Federal
agencies to develop a specific authorization for this multi-
year, multi-million dollar undertaking.
Lower Colorado River Investigations Program.--The Committee
is concerned about a potentially serious pollution threat on
the Lower Colorado River below Hoover Dam that could adversely
impact the drinking water of more than 20 million Americans.
This threat remains notwithstanding the extraordinary financial
commitments at the local level by members of the Colorado River
Regional Sewer Coalition. The Committee recognizes that there
is also a Federal responsibility to address the related water
supply and quality issues, and directs the Bureau of
Reclamation to act as the lead agency in conducting a study of
the remaining technical, structural, and intergovernmental
steps that must be taken to protect the River. The Bureau is
instructed to work expeditiously with appropriate Federal,
state, local, and private parties, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and
the Colorado River Regional Sewer Coalition in conducting this
study. The Committee has provided $200,000 for this purpose.
Science and Technology Program.--The Committee has provided
an additional $1,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to enter
into a strategic alliance with the International Center for
Water Resources Management at Central State University in Ohio,
the Ohio View Consortium, and Colorado State University for the
development of advanced remote sensing technologies for use in
operational decisions to deal with the current drought
conditions, and to develop optimal strategies for managing
water resources to deal with future constraining events.
Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.--The
Committee has provided $3,930,000 for the Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program. The amount provided includes
$2,500,000 to continue support to the WateRuse Foundation's
research program.
Western Water Initiative.--The Committee has provided
$11,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the Western
Water Initiative proposed by the Administration. Within the
Enhanced Water Management and Conservation program element, the
Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake a
pilot project for innovative water conservation measures within
the Klamath Basin Project.
Wetlands Development.--The bill includes $1,500,000 for the
Bureau of Reclamation to continue work on the East Wetlands
Restoration project in Yuma, Arizona.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriation, 2003................................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. $200,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 200,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +200,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
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.
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided $200,000
for the administration of existing loans, the same as the
budget request.
California Bay-Delta Restoration
Appropriation, 2003................................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. $15,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -15,000,000
The purpose of the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem
Restoration account is to fund the Federal share of ecosystem
restoration and other activities being developed for the San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by a State and
Federal partnership (CALFED). Federal participation in this
program was authorized in the California Bay-Delta
Environmental and Water Security Act enacted in the fall of
1996. That Act authorized the appropriation of $143,300,000 for
ecosystem restoration activities in each of fiscal years 1998,
1999, and 2000. Attempts to reauthorize the program have thus
far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, no funds were provided in
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 in support of the CALFED
effort through this account.
The Committee remains very supportive of the efforts that
have been taken in the State of California to develop this
program, which will provide a safe, clean, and reliable water
system for millions of people while improving the environment.
However, for fiscal year 2004, the Committee has again
recommended no funding in the absence of authorizing
legislation for this multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort.
Should this program be reauthorized, the Committee reconsider
funding as the bill moves through the appropriations process.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriation, 2003................................... $48,586,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 39,600,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 39,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -8,986,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. ................
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding
from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement
and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California.
Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and
from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include
several required by the Act (Friant Division surcharges, higher
charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water
prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations Acts,
additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided
$39,600,000, the same as the budget request, and $8,986,000
below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
Within the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, the
Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to use $500,000 to
participate with the Orange Cove Irrigation District to
evaluate fishery restoration opportunities in the Mill Creek
watershed.
The Committee has included language in the bill which
provides that none of the funds made available from the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund may be used for the acquisition
or leasing of water for in-stream purposes if the water is
already committed to in-stream purposes by a court adopted
decree or order.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriation, 2003................................... $54,513,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 56,525,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 56,525,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +2,012,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Policy and Administration account provides for the
executive direction and management of all Reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional
offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge
individual projects or activities for direct beneficial
services and related administrative and technical costs. These
charges are covered under other appropriations.
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee recommends $56,525,000,
the same as the budget request, and $2,012,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 amount.
The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation
is not adhering to its guidelines, described in the ``Corrosion
Prevention Criteria and Requirements'', with respect to the use
of ductile iron pipe and steel pipe. With respect to both
products, the Bureau of Reclamation should be attempting to
establish good engineering practices which address the long-
term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed
over time. The Committee recognizes that additional work is
needed to develop a more definitive corrosion standard on which
to decide the best product for a particular application.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Commissioner of
Reclamation to conduct a study on the current corrosion
criteria and to report to the Committee on Appropriations by
March 1, 2004, on its recommendations for a more definitive
standard. Until a more appropriate standard is in place, which
reflects the basic principle of long-term cost effectiveness,
the current criteria should continue to be used.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
(RESCISSION)
Appropriation, 2003................................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. -$4,525,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... -4,525,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -4,525,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has proposed a
one-time cancellation of $4,525,000 in unobligated balances
available in the Working Capital Fund. These balances are the
result of savings related to information technology reforms.
The Committee has agreed with this proposal.
General Provisions
Department of the Interior
Section 201. The Committee has included language proposed
by the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the
Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been
included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts
for several years.
Section 202. The Committee has included language which
prohibits the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease
in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico
unless the acquisition is in compliance with existing State law
and administered under State priority allocation.
Section 203. Section 206 of Public Law 101-514 authorized
and directed the Secretary of the Interior to enter into water
supply contracts with the Sacramento County Water Agency and
the San Juan Suburban Water District. The Committee has
included language which amends Section 206 by removing the
requirement that the contracts include an annual needs
determination.
Section 204. The Committee has included language which
authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to amend
the Central Valley Project water supply contracts for the
Sacramento County Water Agency and the San Juan Suburban Water
District by deleting a provision requiring a determination of
annual water needs.
Section 205. The Committee has included language which
provides that funds in the Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund shall not be diverted to the General Fund of
the Treasury pending the completion of an omnibus Arizona water
rights settlement agreement.
Section 206. The Committee has included language which
provides that funds provided to the Bureau of Reclamation may
be used for the payment of claims not exceeding $5,000,000.
The Committee has not included language proposed by the
Administration authorizing the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to continue the
program of providing grants to institutions of higher learning
to support the training of Native Americans to manage their
water resources. The fiscal year 2003 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act made this provision permanent.
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 Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning, Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal,
Departmental Administration, the Inspector General, the
National Nuclear Security Administration, Defense Environmental
Management, Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear Waste
Disposal, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation generally supports the
Administration's budget request for the Department of Energy
and adjusts funding for some programs to reflect specific
Congressional interests and priorities. Total funding for the
Department of Energy is $22,016,347,000, an increase of
$1,181,915,000 over fiscal year 2003 and $147,020,000 below the
budget request.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION
The Committee modifies the direction provided in House
Report 107-681 requiring the Secretary to submit to the House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, a quarterly report on the status of all projects,
reports, fund transfers, and other actions directed in this
House bill and report, in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, and in the conference
report accompanying that Act.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The fiscal year 2005 budget justifications submitted by the
Department must include the following: (1) a section
identifying the last year that authorizing legislation was
provided by Congress for each program; (2) funding within each
construction project data sheet for elimination of excess
facilities at least equal to the square footage of the new
facilities being requested; and (3) funding to eliminate excess
facilities at least equal to the square footage of new
facilities being constructed as general plant projects (GPP).
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY FUNDING
Starting in fiscal year 2001, the Department began
providing direct funding for safeguards and security costs by
including a separate line item for these costs within the major
programs, as opposed to the prior practice of funding these as
an indirect cost within each program. This Committee was
instrumental in encouraging this change, believing that direct
funding would provide increased visibility for safeguards and
security funding and would prevent the programs from
underfunding this important activity. However, safeguards and
security costs have increased dramatically since the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, and these costs vary
significantly as the threat level changes during the course of
a fiscal year. Under these circumstances, direct funding of
safeguards and security has functioned more like a funding
ceiling, rather than a funding floor as originally intended.
Having direct line item funding for safeguards and security
requires frequent reprogramming actions to adjust to changing
threat levels and security requirements.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to resume
indirect funding of safeguards and security costs beginning in
fiscal year 2005. The Department should include in the fiscal
year 2005 budget request an addendum identifying the proposed
funding levels for all safeguards and security activities by
site, and the Department should establish a mechanism to ensure
that the safeguards and security costs are tracked separately
within the indirect accounts. Also, the Department is to inform
promptly the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of any
significant deviations (i.e., increases or decreases in excess
of $1,000,000) from these estimates during the course of the
fiscal year.
HOMELAND SECURITY-RELATED WORK
Many of the Department's contractors are performing
homeland security-related activities and establishing centers
for homeland security. The Committee wants to ensure that funds
appropriated for Department of Energy missions are not diverted
to homeland security activities. The Department is directed to
provide a report to the Committee on March 31, 2004, and
annually thereafter, on all homeland security activities being
performed by the Department's contractors. This report should
provide by contractor and facility, a brief description of each
homeland security activity being performed, the annual cost of
the activity, and the specific source of funds (including
direct funding through Department of Energy programs, work for
others from the Department of Homeland Security or other
Federal or State agencies, laboratory directed research and
development, or overhead charges).
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The National Research Council's Committee for Oversight and
Assessment of U.S. Department of Energy Project Management
recently completed its assessment of DOE's progress in
improving project management. This report highlights the
importance of DOE's Project Management Order 413.3 to changing
the project management culture within DOE, and stated that
``DOE needs to maintain the project management policies and
procedures it has defined long enough to convince both DOE and
contractor personnel that the changes are permanent.'' This
report also recognizes the value of the Project Management
Career Development Program (PMCDP) and recommends central
funding of PMCDP training to ensure broad implementation of the
PMCDP throughout DOE.
One of most salient points made in this National Research
Council report deals with initial project selection and
justification. According to the NRC committee, ``[p]erhaps the
most important single point that the committee has stressed,
and continues to stress, is the absolute need for DOE
management to develop the strategic plans that define the need
for capital improvement projects.'' Several program offices in
the Department have made significant improvements in this area
in the last several years. The National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has issued its Future Years Nuclear
Security Plan, its Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Plan, and its Construction Management Plan,
all designed to provide a more rational basis for NNSA's future
capital investments. Similarly, the Office of Science is
preparing a Twenty Year Facility Outlook, and the Office of
Environmental Management has revised its facility plans in
conjunction with its accelerated cleanup initiative. There is
room for improvement in the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science,
and Technology, particularly now that it has responsibility for
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
The Committee is pleased with the Department's issuance of
the Project Management Manual 413.3-1 for capital asset
acquisition, and strongly supports the principles and
requirements this manual contains. The Committee expects all
that elements of the Department, including the NNSA, will
comply with the Manual's requirements. The Committee also urges
all elements of the Department, including the NNSA, to apply
the project planning and management principles identified in
the Manual in the management of the entire programmatic
portfolio in addition to specific capital assets.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee continues to be concerned about the
deterioration of the Department's facilities and the
Department's inability to evaluate and address the readiness
and maintenance status of its facilities. The Committee
strongly supports the efforts of the Office of Management,
Budget and Evaluation to strengthen and standardize management
of the Department's facilities and infrastructure (F&I) program
and to improve management of all F&I assets. The Committee
supports current efforts to develop a directive establishing
requirements for Department-wide implementation of an F&I
program, and expects all the elements of the Department to
comply with such corporate guidance. The F&I directive should
establish a comprehensive program for the corporate management
of all Departmental assets throughout their entire life-cycle
and require appropriate data be provided to ensure that funds
budgeted and spent on F&I assets can be tracked and outcomes
measured. The F&I policy must also address the large inventory
of excess facilities maintained throughout the complex and
ensure that these facilities are decontaminated and
decommissioned (D&D) as quickly and as cost-effectively as
possible. The Committee also expects the Department to assign
Federal staff at each site and Headquarters to provide
oversight of this activity and ensure accountability.
The Committee renews its direction that funds provided for
the disposal of excess facilities should be competed to the
maximum extent practicable, so that contractors with experience
in the efficient decontamination, decommissioning, and
demolition of facilities have the opportunity to bid on this
work. The Committee is also concerned that a large number of
new facilities are being requested and funded, particularly in
the National Nuclear Security Administration, with no plans to
eliminate the excess buildings that are being replaced. The
Committee directs the Department to include the costs of D&D
for the facilities that are being replaced in the costs of all
construction projects and identify such D&D costs clearly in
the construction project data sheets.
SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES
Improving safety at the Department's laboratories, sites,
and plants continues to be one of this Committee's top
priorities. In fiscal year 2003, this Committee provided
funding and directed a series of compliance audits to identify
the backlog of safety deficiencies at the Department's non-
defense Science laboratories; additional funding is provided in
fiscal year 2004 to begin correcting these deficiencies. For
DOE's defense facilities under the NNSA and the Environmental
Management program, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB) serves as the independent safety overseer. The
involvement of the DNFSB gives the Committee greater confidence
that safety problems will be identified early. Resolving those
safety problems, however, remains the sole responsibility of
the Department. The Committee is concerned to learn that the
Department is unable to quantify the backlog of safety-related
deficiencies in its defense facilities and sites. The
Department tracks the number of DNFSB recommendations that
still need to be addressed, but does not obtain detailed
information on the estimated cost of the corrective actions.
Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Department is directed to
collect the necessary information and report to Congress
annually on the backlog of safety-related deficiencies at NNSA
and defense cleanup sites, and present an estimate and schedule
for the corrective actions.
LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (LDRD)
The Committee recognizes the value of conducting
discretionary research at DOE's national laboratories. Such
research provides valuable benefits to the Department and to
other Federal agencies, and is crucial to attracting and
retaining scientific talent at the laboratories. However, the
Committee continues to have concerns about the financial
execution of this program. One concern centers on the manner in
which DOE levies the LDRD ``tax'' on all DOE and Work for Other
programs, and then accumulates the funds into an overhead pool.
This Committee typically deals with defense and non-defense
allocations within the Energy and Water Development bill, and
the line between those two allocations is not easily crossed.
Under LDRD, however, the laboratory directors are able to pool
defense and non-defense appropriations at will. The only
obvious solution to this concern is to require DOE to establish
and track separate LDRD accounts for defense and non-defense
funding sources, and the Committee is not yet ready to direct
that change.
The other principal concern deals with the application of
LDRD to work being performed for other agencies (Work for
Others). The conference report accompanying the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-66)
directed the Secretary to ``include in the annual report to
Congress on LDRD activities an affirmation that all LDRD
activities derived from funds of other agencies have been
conducted in a manner that support science and technology
development that benefits the programs of the sponsoring
agencies and is consistent with the Appropriations Acts that
provided funds to those agencies.'' The Department has
implemented this guidance by including the following language
into its standard project proposal and funding acceptance
documents that it requires the funding WFO agencies to sign:
``The Department of Energy believes that LDRD efforts provide
opportunities in research that are instrumental in maintaining
cutting edge science capabilities that benefit all of the
customers at the laboratory. The Department will conclude that
by providing funds to DOE to perform work, you acknowledge that
such activities are beneficial to your organization and
consistent with appropriations acts that provide funds to
you.'' This is too facile a solution for the Department.
According to a review conducted by this Committee's
investigative staff, only a little more than half of the WFO
customers indicated they could reliably certify that DOE's LDRD
activities are consistent with the funding agencies'
appropriations acts. Nevertheless, most agencies sign the
required certification letter to DOE because they see no real
alternative. The Committee fully expects that there are terms
and conditions attached to the appropriations acts for these
other agencies that are being ignored through this so-called
``certification'' process for LDRD work.
The Committee is considering changing the arrangement by
which LDRD activities are funded to eliminate these concerns.
The results of an ongoing General Accounting Office review will
help to inform the Committee's choice. The Committee is
receptive to streamlining the annual LDRD report to Congress,
which is undoubtedly a significant burden for the Department to
prepare and is of little value to this Committee in resolving
the concerns identified above. The Department should work with
Committee staff to develop a simpler and more useful LDRD
report.
AUGMENTING FEDERAL STAFF
The Committee continues to believe there is too much
reliance on support service contractors and other non-Federal
employees throughout the Department of Energy, but particularly
in the Department's Washington operations. The number of
management and operating (M&O) contractor employees assigned to
the Washington metropolitan area in fiscal year 2004 shall not
exceed 220, the same as the fiscal year 2003 ceiling.
Report on M&O contractor employees.--The Department is to
provide a report to the Committee at the end of fiscal year
2003 on the use of M&O contractor employees assigned to the
Washington metropolitan area. The report is to identify all M&O
contractor employees who work in the Washington metropolitan
area, including the name of the employee, the name of the
contractor, the organization to which he or she is assigned,
the job title and a description of the tasks the employee is
performing, the annual cost of the employee to the Department,
the Headquarters program organization sponsoring each M&O
employee, the program account funding that employee, and the
length of time the employee has been detailed to the Department
or elsewhere in the Washington metropolitan area (e.g., the
Congress, the Executive Office of the President, and other
Federal agencies). The report should also include detailed
information on the cost of maintaining each M&O office in the
Washington metropolitan area. This report is to include actual
data for the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003,
and is due to the Committee on January 31, 2004.
Report on support service contractors.--The report is to
include for each support service contract at Headquarters: the
name of the contractor; the program organization (at the lowest
organization level possible) hiring the contractor; a
descriptive list of the tasks performed; the number of
contractor employees working on the contract; and the annual
cost of the contract. This report is to include actual data for
the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003, and is
due to the Committee on January 31, 2004.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
The Department's Inspector General recently completed an
audit (DOE/IG-0601) of one DOE laboratory in which it found
that the laboratory improperly used a Strategic Initiative
Fund, financed as an indirect cost allocation on all direct-
funded programs, to supplement Laboratory Directed Research and
Development (LDRD) activities and to pay for advertising and
marketing activities. The Committee shares these concerns
regarding augmentation of LDRD funds and concurs with the
Inspector General's recommendation that the Department needs to
establish a clear policy defining the appropriate uses of
mission development funds, segregating those funds from program
funds, and prohibiting the use of such funds for advertising,
marketing, and other activities designed to benefit the
contractor rather than the Department.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee requires the Department to inform the
Committee promptly and fully 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 project or a significant change in the scope of an
approved project.
Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if
delay of the project or the activity until the next
appropriations year would result in a detrimental impact to an
agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be
considered if the Department can show that significant cost
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere
convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
Act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained
and justified.
Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines,
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 2004, 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, 2003................................... $696,858,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 748,329,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 691,534,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -5,324,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -56,795,000
The Energy Supply account includes the following programs:
Renewable Energy Resources; Nuclear Energy; and Environment,
Safety and Health (non-defense). In support of the Secretary's
decision to establish a separate office in the Department of
Energy with responsibility for electricity transmission and
distribution, the Committee provides a separate program line
within the Energy Supply account dedicated to Electricity
Transmission and Distribution activities. Also, in recognition
of the assignment of landlord responsibilities for the Idaho
site to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology,
these landlord costs are now funded in the Energy Supply
account and in the Other Defense Activities account. As in
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends that the funds for
Energy Supply activities remain available until expended.
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
The total committee recommendation for renewable energy
resources is $330,144,000, a decrease of $114,063,000 compared
to the budget request. Of this change, $77,047,000 is due to
the transfer of activities to the new Electricity Transmission
and Distribution program.
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
recently released its preliminary observations on the recent
reorganization of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) and generally found the new organization to be a
``reasonable structure for managing EERE.'' The Committee
expects the Department to pay attention to the NAPA
recommendations to facilitate full implementation of this new
organizational model. The Committee also notes that the budget
request for fiscal year 2004 includes estimates of the
potential benefits of various renewable energy technologies, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act. These
estimates, while falling short of the metrics that this
Committee in House Reports 107-112 and 107-681 directed the
Department to submit, are at least a step in the right
direction. The Committee renews its guidance to the Department
to submit with the next budget request a clear set of
quantitative measures that can be used by the Congress and the
Administration to compare the effectiveness of the federal
investment in alternate energy sources. These metrics should
include the Federal investment to date in each renewable energy
technology and an estimate of the cost per kilowatt-hour that
is forecast to be achievable with these technologies, with
information on the comparable costs of other energy sources.
Lastly, the Committee is appreciative of the efforts by the
Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
and his staff to improve the execution of Congressionally
directed projects during this fiscal year.
RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
Renewable Energy Technologies include biomass/biofuels
energy systems, geothermal technology development, hydrogen
research, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy systems.
Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems.--The Committee
recommendation for integrated research and development on
biomass and biofuels is $69,750,000, the same as the budget
request. Within this amount, the Committee includes $2,000,000
for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research.
Geothermal technology development.--The Committee provides
$25,500,000 for geothermal technology development, the same as
the budget request. The Department is directed to maintain
funding for university research at the fiscal year 2003 funding
level.
Hydrogen research.-- The FY2004 budget request proposes a
new initiative to focus on the infrastructure for the
generation, storage, and delivery of hydrogen. The
Administration's budget request proposes $87,982,000 for
hydrogen research, more than double the funding level provided
in fiscal year 2003. The Committee recommends $67,982,000 for
hydrogen research, a decrease of $20,000,000 from the budget
request but an increase of $28,242,000 over fiscal year 2003
funding. The Committee reminds the Department that the
requirements for competition and industry cost sharing, as
specified in the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-271, 42
U.S.C. 12403), apply to this research. The Committee is
troubled by the Department's stated intent to engage in ``pre-
competitive R&D carried out by national laboratories'' and
directs the Department to compete the hydrogen research program
to the fullest extent possible.
Hydropower.--The Committee recommends $5,489,000 for
hydropower research, $2,000,000 less than the budget request
for fiscal year 2003. As directed in the previous fiscal year,
the Department should focus its efforts on completing a limited
program of testing and demonstration of new turbine
technologies and then transfer these technologies to other
federal agencies and private sector firms for deployment.
Solar Energy.--Solar energy technologies include:
concentrating solar power; photovoltaic energy systems; and
solar building technology research. As in fiscal year 2003,
these subprograms are combined into a single account for solar
energy. The total Committee recommendation for solar energy in
fiscal year 2004 is $79,683,000, the same as the budget
request. The Committee notes that the Department recently
commissioned an outside energy consultant to prepare an
independent analysis to reconcile conflicting forecasts of the
potential for Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies.
This independent analysis found that Concentrating Solar Power
(CSP) is a proven technology for energy production that can be
cost-competitive with other technologies. Given the potential
for CSP as a source of hydrogen as well as a source of
electricity, the Committee expects the Department to take this
latest information into account and to fund the CSP research
program at no less than the fiscal year 2003 funding level. The
control level for fiscal year 2004 continues at the solar
energy program account level.
Zero energy buildings.--The Committee recommendation does
not include the requested $4,000,000 for this activity. The
Committee believes this activity should be funded as part of
the Building Technologies program under the Interior and
Related Agencies appropriation.
Wind energy systems.--The Committee recommends $41,600,000
for wind energy systems, the same as the budget request.
Electricity reliability.--The Department requested
$76,866,000 for Electricity Reliability in fiscal year 2004;
this program had been titled Electric Energy Systems and
Storage in previous fiscal years. In support of the Secretary's
decision to establish a new office for Electricity Transmission
and Distribution, the Committee transfers $72,866,000 of the
requested $76,866,000 into a new program line entitled
Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy
Supply account. The remaining $4,000,000 of the requested funds
is for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI)
program; these funds are transferred to the Intergovernmental
Activities program.
Intergovernmental activities.--The Committee recommends
$16,500,000 for intergovernmental activities. This amount
includes the requested $6,500,000 for the international
renewable energy program, including $2,000,000 for the
International Utility Electricity Partnership (IUEP) program,
the requested $6,000,000 for tribal energy, and $4,000,000 for
the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) transferred
from the Electricity Reliability program.
DEPARTMENTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Committee recommendation for Departmental Energy
Management is $2,300,000, the same as the budget request.
NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
The Department requested $15,000,000 for the Renewable
Energy Resources portion of the Department's National Climate
Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). This funding was to be
coupled with $2,279,000 from Nuclear Energy and $22,700,000
from the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation to issue a
competitive solicitation for new technologies to address
climate change. The Committee supports the competitive approach
to acquiring innovative climate change technologies from
academia and the private sector, but does not support the
pooling of funds from two separate appropriations bills into a
single new program. The Committee does not provide any funds
for NCCTI activities in fiscal year 2004, but does direct the
Department to apply the competitive approach to the other
funding already being spent on climate change within the
Department. The Department's request for fiscal year 2004
includes over $1.6 billion for research and development
activities related to climate change, of which over $1.1
billion is funded in the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill. The Committee directs the Department to
report on the amount of Energy and Water-funded climate change
work that was competitively awarded in fiscal year 2003, and to
increase that amount by $100 million for fiscal year 2004.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommendation for renewable energy
Facilities and Infrastructure is $9,100,000, an increase of
$4,150,000 over the budget request. The Committee funds the
recommended amount of $4,200,000 for the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, and includes an
additional $4,900,000 to initiate construction of the new
Science and Technology facility at NREL (project 02-EERE-001),
for which project engineering and design is to be completed in
the third quarter of the current fiscal year. The budget
request of $750,000 for a new Energy Reliability and Efficiency
Laboratory (project 04-E-TBD) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
is funded but is transferred to the new program line entitled
Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy
Supply account.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation for program direction is
$12,230,000, a reduction of $4,347,000 from the budget request
reflecting the reduction in Renewable Energy program activities
and a transfer of $3,431,000 to the new program line entitled
Electricity Transmission and Distribution, under the Energy
Supply account.
ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
The Secretary recently decided to establish a new office
for Electricity Transmission and Distribution to serve as a
focal point for these issues within the Department. Because
this decision was made subsequent to the fiscal year 2004
budget submission, the Department has proposed adjustments to
the fiscal year 2004 request to provide a total of $77,377,000
for this new office. The Committee recommendation provides the
requested amount, $77,377,000, drawn from the following
accounts and programs: $72,866,000 from electric reliability in
Renewable Energy Resources, $750,000 for the new Energy
Reliability and Efficiency Laboratory (project 04-E-TBD) at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory from the facilities and
infrastructure account within Renewable Energy Resources,
$3,431,000 for program direction drawn from the program
direction account within Renewable Energy Resources, and an
additional $330,000 for program direction from policy and
international affairs within the Departmental Administration
account. The Committee recommendation removes the requirement
for a fifty percent industry partner cost share for the Energy
Reliability and Efficiency Laboratory at Oak Ridge as proposed
in the budget request. The Committee interprets the National
Transmission Grid Study language on industrial cost share as
intended for research only and directs future budget requests
to provide full funding for design, construction, and operation
of this facility. Within available funds, the Department is
directed to use up to $4,000,000 to continue field testing of
aluminum matrix composite conductors.
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS
The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy programs is
$268,016,000, a decrease of $9,109,000 from the budget request.
The budget request for nuclear energy programs increased
significantly compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level,
but much of this increase is tied to the designation of the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology as the lead
office with landlord responsibilities for the Idaho site. Note
that $112,306,000 of the funding proposed in the Nuclear Energy
request represent costs allocated to the 050 budget function
(i.e., defense activities); these costs are direct funded under
the Other Defense Activities account.
UNIVERSITY REACTOR FUEL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $19,500,000, an increase of
$1,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee remains
concerned about the need for more graduates specializing in
nuclear science and engineering, and provides additional
funding to increase DOE's ability to support existing
university reactors and for grants and fellowships that support
nuclear science and engineering education. The Committee is
also aware of proposals for a DOE laboratory or site to host a
next-generation research reactor to serve the university
community, and encourages the Department to continue
exploration of such an option.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee supports research and development to make the
current generation of nuclear power plants safer and more
efficient, to assist with the development of the next
generation of reactor designs, and to develop advanced fuel
cycles to minimize waste and proliferation concerns. However,
the Committee continues to believe that this country will not
build another nuclear power plant until the Yucca Mountain
repository is licensed and operational, and the Committee has
focused its limited resources to keeping the nuclear waste
repository program on schedule. The total Committee
recommendation for nuclear energy research and development is
$117,746,000, a decrease of $9,279,000 from the budget request.
The Committee also notes that the Secretary has recently
designated the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Laboratory (INEEL) as the Nation's leading laboratory for
nuclear energy research and development. To be consistent with
this designation, the Committee expects the Secretary will re-
align the distribution of fiscal year 2004 funding by site
under the Nuclear Energy Research and Development program so
that the majority of laboratory-expended funds for nuclear
energy research and development will be allocated to INEEL.
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization.--As in the previous
fiscal year, the Committee does not concur with the
Administration's proposal to terminate funding for the nuclear
energy plant optimization (NEPO) program in fiscal year 2004.
For NEPO, the Committee provides $4,000,000, $4,000,000 more
than the budget request. The Committee recognizes the
improvements to the safety of existing reactors that have
resulted from application of the Mechanical Stress Improvement
Process (MSIP) in Russia, and provides $1,000,000 for AEA
technology to expand the transfer of MSIP to other countries in
the former Soviet Union.
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation for the nuclear energy research initiative
(NERI) is $10,000,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 from the budget
request due to funding constraints.
Nuclear energy technologies.--The Committee provides
$42,721,000 for nuclear energy technologies, $5,279,000 less
than the budget request. The Committee generally supports the
Nuclear Power 2010 and Generation IV Nuclear Energy initiatives
under nuclear energy technologies, subject to having the
repository operational in 2010. As noted in the discussion
under Renewable Energy Resources, the Committee does not
support the pooling of funds from different appropriations
bills for the National Climate Change Technology Initiative,
and does not provide the requested $2,279,000 for this
activity.
Nuclear hydrogen initiative.--The Committee provides
$2,500,000 for the nuclear hydrogen initiative, a reduction of
$1,500,000 from the budget request. The requirements for
competition and industry cost sharing, as outlined above in the
discussion of the Hydrogen program under Renewable Energy
Resources, should apply here as well.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is
$58,525,000, a reduction of $4,500,000 from the budget request
but comparable to the amount provided in fiscal year 2003.
Within the funds available for AFCI, the Department is directed
to provide $3,000,000 for the Idaho Accelerator Center. Of the
funding requested for transmutation science education, the
Committee recommendation funds only the $3,000,000 requested
for the competitive award of fellowships in advanced fuel cycle
research. The Committee is still awaiting the detailed program
plan for the treatment of sodium-bonded spent fuel presently
stored at the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Laboratory, which the Department was directed to submit to
Congress by March 31, 2003. The Committee is also awaiting the
annual AFCI comparison report, which was due May 31, 2003.
Absent these two reports, the Committee has no basis to provide
an increase in funds for the AFCI effort.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management
program is to maintain the critical infrastructure necessary to
support users from the defense, space, and medical communities.
The outside users fund DOE's actual operational, production,
and research activities on a reimbursable basis.
Space and defense infrastructure.--The Committee
recommendation is $36,230,000, the same as the budget request.
This includes the requested amounts for the transfer of
radioisotope power systems capabilities from Mound to the Idaho
National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, the Pu-238
facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Np-237
storage facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Medical isotopes infrastructure.--The Committee
recommendation is $26,425,000, the same as the budget request.
Included within this program amount is the requested funding
for Phase I of the U-233 project at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and for various facility costs at Brookhaven, Los
Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Sandia national laboratories.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
This program funds the activities at the Idaho National
Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL), including
ANL-West operations and Test Reactor Area Landlord activities,
as well as the Idaho landlord activities previously funded
under the Environmental Management program. The Committee
provides $44,145,000 for Idaho Facilities Management, the same
as the budget request. This amount represents the portion of
Idaho Facilities Management that is allotted to the 270 budget
function; the balance, allotted to the 050 function, is funded
under Other Defense Activities.
ANL-West operations.--The Committee recommends $31,615,000,
the same as the budget request, for ANL-West operations.
INEEL Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$10,190,000, the same as the budget request. An additional
$21,415,000 is provided under Other Defense Activities.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $2,340,000 for
Idaho facilities construction, the same as the budget request.
This includes the requested amounts of $500,000 for project 95-
E-201 and $1,840,000 for project 99-E-200, both at the Test
Reactor Area.
IDAHO SITEWIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
Consistent with the budget request, this activity is funded
at the requested level of $56,654,000 as an 050 defense
activity under the Other Defense Activities account..
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends a total funding level of
$58,207,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request
due to reduced program levels. The requested amount increased
significantly over the fiscal year 2003 funding level because
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology is
assuming lead responsibility for the Idaho site and the Idaho
Operations Office. Of this amount, $23,970,000 is funded here
under budget function 270, and $34,237,000 is funded as budget
function 050 under Other Defense Activities.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
The Committee recommendation is $24,000,000, a reduction of
$6,000,000 from the budget request but an increase of
approximately $1,500,000 over the fiscal year 2003 funding
level. Within this amount, the Department is directed to
transfer $2,000,000 to OSHA for the costs of OSHA regulation of
worker health and safety at the Department's non-nuclear
facilities not covered under the Atomic Energy Act and to
complete the compliance audits of the ten Science laboratories
that were initiated in fiscal year 2003. It is the Committee's
intention that the funds appropriated in FY03 and transferred
to OSHA and NRC for these compliance audits shall remain
available until expended. Based on the results of the audits
completed to date, NRC and OSHA should focus their efforts in
the remaining audits on identifying major hazards that would
require significant capital investments to remedy. Given the
late start on these audits in fiscal year 2003, the Committee
revises the completion date for the audits and associated cost
estimates to May 31, 2004.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
A general reduction of $5,000,000 has been applied to the
Energy Supply account, and the recommendation includes an
offset of $3,003,000 for the safeguards and security charge for
reimbursable work, as proposed in the budget request.
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy
research, and non-defense related activities. These past
activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste
contamination that requires remediation, stabilization, or some
other type of action. The Department has restructured its
budget for Non-Defense Environmental Management to focus on
activities that support the primary goals of site cleanup and
closure. Activities that had previously been funded under the
Non-Defense Environmental Management account are now funded in
two separate accounts: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion
for accelerated cleanup and closure activities, and Non-Defense
Environmental Services for those activities that indirectly
support and closure activities, or that support other missions
of the Department. Activities previously funded under the Other
Uranium Activities subaccount of the Uranium Facilities
Maintenance and Remediation, including the depleted uranium
hexaflouride plants at Portsmouth and Paducah, are also
transferred into the new Non-Defense Environmental Services
account.
Economic development.--None of the Non-Defense
Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion, Non-Defense
Environmental Services, and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic
development activities.
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion
Appropriation, 2003................................... $158,846,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 170,875,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 170,875,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +12,029,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Site
Acceleration Completion is $170,875, the same as the budget
request.
2006 Accelerated Completions.--The recommendation provides
$48,677,000, the same as the budget request, including
$38,840,000 for soil and water remediation and graphite
research reactor decommissioning at Brookhaven National
Laboratory, $3,272,000 for soil and water remediation at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and $2,416,000 for soil
and water remediation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center. The budget request indicates that the spent nuclear
fuel presently stored at the West Valley Demonstration Project
will be shipped to the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory by the end of fiscal year 2004; the
Committee expects the Department to adhere to this schedule
with no further slippages.
2012 Accelerated Completions.--The recommendation provides
$119,750,000, the same as the budget request, including
$99,558,000 for solid waste stabilization and disposition and
nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at the
West Valley Demonstration Project, and $18,467,000 for nuclear
facility decontamination and decommissioning for the Energy
Technology Engineering Center.
2035 Accelerated Completions.--The recommendation provides
$2,448,000, the same as the budget request. This amount
includes the requested $2,000,000 to continue stabilization
measures and complete the Environmental Impact Statement for
remediation of the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at
Moab, Utah, and $448,000 for decontamination and
decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at
Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Non-Defense Environmental Services
Appropriation, 2003................................... $144,510,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 292,121,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 320,468,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +175,958,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +28,347,000
The committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental
Services is $320,468,000 an increase of 28,347,000 above the
budget request. This amount includes the requested funding of
$12,394,000 for East Tennessee Technology Park, $45,000,000 for
the depleted uranium hexaflouride conversion facility and
$4,267,000 for nuclear material stabilization and disposition
at Paducah, $45,000,000 for the depleted uranium hexaflouride
conversion facility and $16,523,000 for nuclear material
stabilization and disposition at Portsmouth, $20,000,000 for
accelerated decontamination and decommissioning of the GCEP
facilities at Portsmouth, and $102,082,000 to maintain the
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in cold standby and to
continue with deposit removal. The Committee recognizes the
additional cleanup needs at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant to support deployment of an advanced uranium enrichment
technology and will work with the Senate in conference to
determine if additional funding can be made available for this
purpose. The committee recommendation also includes the
requested funding of $43,842,000 for decontamination and
decommissionings of the Fast Flux Test Facility. The additional
$28,347,000 in the Committee's recommendation represents the
nondefense share for legacy management, the balance of which is
funded under Other Defense Activities.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriation, 2003................................... $338,117,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 418,124,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 392,002,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +53,885,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -26,122,000
Congress created the Uranium Facilities Maintenance and
Remediation account in fiscal year 2001 to consolidate two
previously separate programs. The consolidated Uranium
Facilities Maintenance and Remediation account was managed by
the Office of Environmental Management and included two
subaccounts, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, and Other Uranium Activities. As
explained above, beginning in fiscal year 2004 the activities
previously funded under the Other Uranium Activities subaccount
are transferred into the new Non-Defense Environmental Services
account.
The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L.
102-486) to carry out environmental remediation at the nation's
three gaseous diffusion plants, at the East Tennessee
Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at Portsmouth, Ohio,
and at Paducah, Kentucky. Title X of the 1992 Act also
authorized use of a portion of the Fund to reimburse private
licensees for the Federal government's share of the cost of
cleaning up uranium and thorium processing sites.
The Committee recommends $392,002,000 for activities funded
from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund, a reduction of $26,122,000 from the budget request. This
amount includes $341,002,000 for decontamination and
decommissioning activities at the gaseous diffusion plants and
$51,000,000 for uranium and thorium reimbursements. In fiscal
year 2003, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed to,
an accelerated cleanup initiative for DOE sites. Sites would
receive additional funding in the near term in order to
accelerate cleanup and reduce funding requirements in the
outyears. The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget request
assumed that it would reach agreement with all of the involved
State regulators on accelerated cleanup plans. Where such
agreement has not been reached, the Committee does not provide
the additional increment of funding that was requested for
accelerated cleanup. The $26,122,000 reduction reflects the
failure to reach agreement on accelerated cleanup for the
Paducah site.
Science
Appropriation, 2003................................... $3,272,328,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 3,310,935,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 3,480,180,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +207,852,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +169,245,000
The Science account funds the Department's work on high
energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental
sciences, basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing,
maintenance of the laboratories' physical infrastructure,
fusion energy sciences, safeguards and security, science
workforce development, and science program direction. The
Committee recommendation is $3,480,180,000, an increase of
$169,245,000 compared to the budget request.
The Committee has provided additional funding for the
Office of Science to address the following Committee
priorities: high performance computing; additional operating
time, equipment upgrades, and staffing to support increased
research opportunities at the Office of Science user
facilities; remediation of safety deficiencies at DOE Science
laboratories; and restoration of domestic fusion funding
displaced by the new international fusion initiative. The
Committee also provides additional funding to perform essential
research and development and preconcept design for one new
project (i.e., the Rare Isotope Accelerator). The Committee may
consider different or additional priorities for new research
facilities once the Office of Science releases its Twenty Year
Facility Outlook.
External Regulation of DOE Science Laboratories.--In July
2002, the Department produced a Committee-directed
implementation plan for external regulation. The Department
identified several key unresolved questions about external
regulation, specifically the unknown costs of transitioning to
external regulation and the unknown cost savings that might
result from such a transition. However, the Department stated
that it ``believes that these issues can be resolved'' and
``favors the prospect of a transition to external regulation .
. .'' The Committee has subsequently taken steps to resolve
these questions, tasking the General Accounting Office (GAO) to
identify the current costs of DOE's self-regulation of the
Science laboratories and the potential savings that might
result under external regulation. In its report (GAO-03-633R),
the GAO found that the Department could save as much as $41
million annually by shifting to external regulation of its
Science laboratories. To address the question of transition
costs, the Committee in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2003, directed the transfer of funds from
the Department of Energy to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) to conduct compliance audits of the ten DOE Science
laboratories. The audits are to be completed for four
laboratories by September 30, 2003, and for all ten labs by
March 31, 2004. Upon completion of these audits, the
laboratories are also to prepare estimates of the costs to
correct the identified deficiencies and bring these ten
laboratories into compliance with NRC and OSHA safety
standards. In recognition of the late start on these audits in
fiscal year 2003, the Committee revises the completion date for
the audits and associated cost estimates to May 31, 2004.
In response to the Committee's concerns about continued
self-regulation, the Office of Science in November 2002
directed its ten laboratories to conduct their own assessment
of the potential costs of bringing those laboratories into
compliance with NRC and OSHA standards. The Committee
recognizes the crude nature of this estimate, particularly as
it was conducted without the participation of the NRC and OSHA.
Nevertheless, this self-assessment by the Science laboratories
represents the only existing estimate of the costs of
transitioning the laboratories to external regulation. These
laboratories estimated their transition costs to be
approximately $75 million. This estimate, approximate as it is,
reveals the existence of a significant backlog of safety
deficiencies at these laboratories. The existence and
persistence of such a backlog is one of the unfortunate
consequences of the Department's adherence to its current
scheme of self-regulation. The Department is able to identify
safety problems but is unable or unwilling to dedicate the
necessary resources to correct these problems.
The Committee believes it is important to the health and
safety of laboratory employees, of visiting researchers, and of
the population in the surrounding communities that these safety
deficiencies be corrected expeditiously. Therefore, the
Committee has transferred $25,000,000 from the Departmental
Administration account to the Science Laboratories
Infrastructure subaccount to address these safety deficiencies
at the ten Science laboratories; these funds may not be
reprogrammed for other purposes. In addition, the Committee
directs the Department to request sufficient funding in the
budget requests for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to correct the
remainder of these safety deficiencies over the next two fiscal
years. The completion of the NRC and OSHA compliance audits
should permit the preparation of a more accurate estimate of
these costs. Regardless of whether the Department continues to
regulate itself or makes the overdue transition to external
regulation, this backlog of unresolved safety deficiencies must
be addressed promptly.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
The Committee recommends a total of $747,978,000 for high
energy physics, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget
request. The control level is at the High Energy Physics level.
The additional funds are provided to increase operating time
and enhance user support at the user facilities located at the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center. The Committee recommendation includes the
requested amount, $12,500,000, for construction of the
Neutrinos at the Main Injector project at Fermilab. The
Committee recognizes the efforts of the staff from the Office
of Science, Fermilab, and the other laboratories to bring the
Tevatron luminosity upgrade back on schedule. The Committee
also encourages the Department to accelerate progress on the
Supernova/Accelerator Probe (SNAP), which will provide an
important tool to advance our understanding of the history of
the universe.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Committee recommendation for nuclear physics is
$399,430,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget
request. An additional $7,500,000 is provided to increase
operating time and enhance user support at the user facilities
located at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Thomas
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The Committee
recommendation includes $6,000,000 for research and development
and pre-conceptual design activities in support of the Rare
Isotope Accelerator, an increase of $2,500,000 over the
requested amount for this project. The Committee strongly
encourages the Department to make a prompt CD0 decision for the
12 GeV upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
and to include adequate PED funding for this project in the
fiscal year 2005 budget request.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The Committee recommendation for biological and
environmental research is $562,035,000, an increase of
$62,500,000 over the budget request. The additional funds are
provided to increase operating time and enhance user support at
the user facilities located at various DOE laboratories that
support the biological and environmental sciences user
community, and to provide for additional university research
grants for biological and environmental research.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is
$1,016,575,000, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget
request. For purposes of reprogramming during fiscal year 2004,
the Department may allocate funding among all operating
accounts within Basic Energy Sciences.
Research.--The Committee recommendation includes
$575,711,000 for materials sciences and engineering, and
$220,914,000 for chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy
biosciences. The additional $8,000,000 in the material sciences
and engineering account is provided to increase operating time
and enhance user support at Basic Energy Sciences user
facilities. Also included within this account is $7,673,000 for
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR), the same as the budget request.
Construction.--The Committee recommendation includes
$219,950,000 for construction, the same as the requested
amount. The Committee recommendation provides the requested
funding of $124,600 for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS),
$35,000,000 for the Molecular Foundry, $29,850,000 for the
Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, $20,000,000 for the
Center for Nanophase Material Sciences, $7,500,000 for PED for
the Linac Coherent Light Source, and $3,000,000 for PED for the
Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National
Laboratory.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Committee continues to support efforts to advance U.S.
supercomputing technology and is encouraged that the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget identifies supercomputing
as a critical component of its Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development program. The Committee
views the Department of Energy as a key player in the Federal
government's efforts in supercomputing. At the same time, the
Committee recognizes that a number of other Federal agencies
are involved with the development of, and have critical needs
for, more advanced computing capabilities. The Committee notes
that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) has recently established the multi-agency High End
Computing Revitalization Task Force (HEC RTF). This task force,
of which the Department is a participant, has been charged with
developing a coordinated, interagency plan for supercomputing
research and development that addresses issues of capability,
capacity, and accessibility for scientific applications. The
Committee strongly supports this interagency HEC RTF effort,
and expects the Department to participate fully and to follow
the HEC RTF plan for ongoing and future research and
development, facility operations, and hardware procurement of
its advanced scientific computing resources.
The Committee recommendation is $213,490,000, an increase
of $40,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee provides
these funds for the Department to acquire additional advanced
computing capability to support existing users in the near term
and to initiate longer-term research and development on next
generation computer architectures. The Committee directs the
Department to use these funds in a manner fully consistent with
the recommendations of the HEC RTF. The Committee also expects
that, to the maximum extent practicable, these funds will be
awarded using a merit-based, competitive process.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommendation provides a total of
$71,535,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure, an
increase of $27,945,000 over the budget request. The majority
of this increase, $25,000,000, is transferred from the
Departmental Administration account to correct safety
deficiencies at the Science laboratories. The funding provided
for Science Laboratory Safety Measures may not be reprogrammed
for other purposes. The Committee recommendation also provides
an additional $2,945,000 for excess facilities disposition,
bringing this account total to $8,000,000, comparable to the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Committee is disappointed
that the Department's budget request recommended closing the
88-inch cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory yet
failed to provide any funding for the decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) of this facility. Once a particular
Science facility is no longer useful, the Department should
take prompt action to reduce its landlord costs and make that
space available for other purposes. The added increment of
funding for excess facilities is to be applied to D&D of the
88-inch cyclotron. The Committee recommendation provides the
requested funding of $1,520,000 for infrastructure support,
$5,079,000 for Oak Ridge landlord costs, $2,000,000 for Science
Laboratories Infrastructure 04-SC001, specifically to initiate
PED for project MEL-001-36 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center, and $29,936,000 for construction of various subprojects
under the MEL-001 infrastructure project.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommendation for fusion energy sciences is
$268,110,000, an increase of $10,800,000 over the budget
request. The Committee is cautiously supportive of the
Administration's proposal to re-engage in the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, but is
disappointed that the budget request provides $12,000,000 in
funding for the U.S. ITER effort only at the expense of
displacing ongoing domestic fusion research. The additional
$10,800,000 includes $4,000,000 for burning plasma experiments,
including support for ITER and for the domestic FIRE project,
$5,200,000 for fusion technology, and $1,600,000 for advanced
design and analysis work. If the Department intends to
recommend ITER participation in the fiscal year 2005 budget
request, the Committee expects the Department will do so
without harm to domestic fusion research or to other programs
in the DOE Science budget.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $51,887,000, an increase of
$3,760,000 over the budget request, to meet additional
safeguards and security requirements.
SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
The Department requested $6,470,000 for Science Workforce
Development in fiscal year 2004, including $1,000,000 to
initiate a pilot program at Argonne National Laboratory
providing intensive, hands-on training for approximately 60
science, engineering, and mathematics teachers. The Committee
is very supportive of this initiative, but would like to see it
applied at all five multiprogram Science laboratories. The
Committee recommendation provides $7,470,000, including
$2,000,000 for the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional
Development initiative, to be distributed among all five
multiprogram laboratories.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommendation is $147,053,000 for Science
program direction. This amount includes: $80,102,000 for
program direction at DOE field offices, $58,157,000 for program
direction at DOE headquarters, $7,774,000 for Technical
Information Management; and $1,020,000 for Energy Research
Analyses. The request for program direction for field offices
was reduced by $3,720,000 and the amount transferred to the
Safeguards and Security line. The control level for fiscal year
2004 is at the program account level of Science Program
Direction.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommendation includes an offset of
$4,383,000 for the safeguards and security charge for
reimbursable work, as proposed in the budget request. A general
reduction of $1,000,000 has been applied to the Science
account.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2003................................... $144,058,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 161,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 335,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +190,942,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +174,000,000
The Federal government has a clear statutory
responsibility, assigned by Congress in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to provide for the permanent
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. The Department of Energy was required by statute to
accept commercial spent nuclear fuel for disposal beginning on
January 31, 1998, and entered into legally enforceable
contracts with utilities to execute that obligation.
Unfortunately, the Department has been unable to meet that
deadline, resulting in a number of lawsuits over the
Department's failure to meet its statutory and contractual
obligation and a growing financial liability over that failure.
The Court of Federal Claims has found the Department to be in
breach of its contractual obligations and is proceeding to
determine the extent of damages.
The primary consequence of the Department's failure to
begin accepting spent nuclear fuel is not, however, the
existence of lawsuits and damage claims; it is that vast
quantities of commercial spent nuclear fuel remain in temporary
storage at reactor sites scattered around the country, many
located near major population centers. The Committee is not
questioning the current safety and security of spent nuclear
fuel stored at commercial sites in accordance with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission criteria. The Committee does, however,
believe that the safety and security of these materials will be
enhanced the sooner they are placed in the underground
repository at Yucca Mountain. After the events of September 11,
2001, the Committee believes it is more essential than ever to
move aggressively to get the Yucca Mountain repository
licensed, built, and operating at the earliest possible date.
Chronic funding shortfalls, however, have starved the
program of the resources necessary to keep the repository
program on schedule. The Department's latest schedule calls for
opening the repository and beginning to accept spent fuel in
2010 at the earliest, over 12 years behind schedule. Most
recently, the Department requested a total of $591,000,000 for
the nuclear waste disposal program in fiscal year 2003, yet
received only $457,000,000, a funding shortfall of
$134,000,000. Such funding shortfalls have forced the
Department to concentrate its limited resources on preparing
the repository License Application, which is presently
scheduled for submission to the NRC in December 2004. The
Department's emphasis on the License Application has meant that
other activities, especially those relating to the
transportation of materials to the repository to support
initial operations in 2010, have suffered major delays.
The Committee recommends $335,000,000 for nuclear waste
disposal, an increase of $174,000,000 over the budget request
of $161,000,000. The intent of this funding level is to make
sure that the Department has the necessary funds to support a
timely and technically robust License Application, and to
provide additional funds for activities related to initial
repository operations in 2010, primarily for development of a
safe and secure transportation system in Nevada. Combined with
the appropriation of $430,000,000 from the Defense Nuclear
Waste Disposal account, this provides a total of $765,000,000
for Nuclear Waste Disposal activities in fiscal year 2004, an
increase of $174,000,000 over the budget request.
The Committee is also concerned about a number of delays in
the repository program that have been caused, not by shortfalls
in funding provided by Congress, but by internal legal and
policy decisions made within the Department. The Secretary, the
General Counsel, and the Director of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management are reminded that Congress expects
the Department to take all the actions necessary to keep this
repository on schedule for initial operations in 2010. Delaying
the resolution of pending litigation and avoiding potential
future litigation are not the objectives of this program. The
Department cannot minimize its legal exposure simply by taking
no new actions; the Department must make the decisions and take
the actions necessary to execute its nuclear waste disposal
responsibilities as mandated by law, and accept the legal
consequences of those actions. The Committee strongly believes
that the best way to minimize the liability of the Federal
government for spent nuclear fuel is to get on with the
repository program in an expeditious manner.
License application.--The Department is directed to submit
the License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
not later than December 31, 2004. Any delays in this submission
will cause unacceptable delays in the start of repository
operations, which will not only increase the Federal
government's liability on commercial spent fuel, but will also
impact the ability of the Department to remove defense-related
high level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from other
sites in the DOE complex, and may affect the government's
ability to meet legally enforceable cleanup milestones at those
sites. The Committee has provided sufficient resources to
ensure that the License Application can be submitted on
schedule by the Department and can withstand the technical and
legal challenges it will face in the licensing process.
License support network.--The Committee directs the
Department that Congressional communications between the
Members and staffs of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Department are not to be included in
documentation posted on the License Support Network.
Nevada transportation and site preparation activities.--The
Committee notes the concerns of the State of Nevada about the
selection of a transportation corridor within the State,
particularly about any corridor that runs through or near the
Las Vegas metropolitan area. The Secretary's continued delay in
issuing the Record of Decision to designate a preferred
transportation corridor within the State of Nevada has not been
helpful in resolving these concerns. The Committee does not
approve of any further consideration of alternative rail routes
that would transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste through the environs of metropolitan Las
Vegas. Therefore, the Committee includes bill language
providing that none of the funds in this or any other
appropriations Act may be used for the planning or development
of the Valley Modified Corridor and the Jean Corridor, and
variations thereof, as those corridors are delineated in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository
for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, dated
February 2002. Of the remaining alternatives that avoid the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Area, the information provided from the
Department leads the Committee to believe that the Caliente
Corridor, though not the cheapest, is the most feasible rail
corridor to implement. The Committee allows the Secretary
discretion in selecting the preferred rail corridor, as long as
the selected corridor does not pass through the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Area. The Committee includes bill language
requiring the Secretary to designate rail as the preferred mode
of transportation within Nevada and to select a Nevada rail
corridor within 60 days after enactment, and then to conduct
the full scale environmental and engineering analysis to select
a specific rail alignment within the selected rail corridor and
issue a final Record of Decision on the Nevada transportation
system designating the specific rail alignment by June 30,
2005.
The Committee directs the Department to focus its efforts
on accelerating the development of a rail line in Nevada, with
the objective of being ready to begin physical construction of
the rail line immediately after receipt of the construction
authorization for the repository, which is presently scheduled
for 2007. This means the Department should have all planning,
design, right-of-way acquisition, and land withdrawal actions
complete in time to support such a 2007 construction start. If
the Secretary selects the Caliente corridor as the preferred
rail corridor, the Secretary may spend up to $3,000,000 to
initiate planning and design activities to support the
construction of a rail-to-truck intermodal transfer facility to
be located at Caliente, Lincoln County, Nevada, to support
limited legal-weight truck transportation until the rail system
is fully operational. These funds for the Caliente intermodal
transfer facility are separate from the external oversight
funds provided to affected units of local government. The
Committee recommendation provides a total of $70,000,000 for
Nevada transportation activities. Development of this Nevada
rail corridor for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste will also benefits the safe transportation of low level
waste and transuranic waste to and from the State of Nevada.
Without prejudging the outcome of the NRC licensing
process, and recognizing that the repository might not be
licensed, the Secretary should perform all the necessary
planning, site preparation, and preliminary construction needed
to assure that, if construction authorization is received from
NRC on schedule in 2007, the construction of the underground
repository as well as the above-ground facilities and
supporting infrastructure can proceed on a schedule to support
the start of repository operations by 2010. The Committee views
this ``at-risk'' planning, site preparation, and preliminary
construction as necessary to support initial operations in 2010
if the NRC authorizes repository construction. The Committee
recommendation provides a total of $20,000,000 to initiate site
preparation activities.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Department shall
ensure that funds provided for the development of
infrastructure in the State of Nevada shall be spent through
contracts awarded to contractors and subcontractors who are
party to labor agreements applicable to all of its employees
who are residents of that State and who perform manual labor
and other work pursuant to such contract or subcontract.
Local Impact Assistance.--Section 116 of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, as amended, authorizes financial assistance
to the State of Nevada and affected units of local government
to mitigate any potential economic, social, public health and
safety, and environmental impacts of the repository. With the
repository siting decision having been made last year and
Nevada transportation decisions in process as directed in the
preceding paragraph, the Committee believes the time has come
to begin providing this impact assistance to the State and
affected local governments along the selected rail corridor.
The Committee recommendation makes available a total of up to
$30,000,000 for such impact assistance, contingent upon
submission of a plan and approval of the plan by the Director
of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The
Committee considers the transportation, emergency response, and
medical services measures proposed in the plan already prepared
by Nye County, Nevada, the ``Nye County, Nevada, Community
Protection Plan,'' dated August 2001, to be representative of
the kind of impact assistance contemplated under this section.
Comprehensive national acceptance and transportation
plan.--The Committee has previously expressed concerns about
the Department's inadequate preparation for waste acceptance,
storage, and transportation to the repository. Although the
Committee recognizes that funding shortfalls have forced the
Department to concentrate its limited resources on the License
Application, the Committee believes the Department must
maintain its focus on the actions necessary to support the
start of repository operations in 2010. The Department has
already stated that it will issue a National Transportation
Strategic Plan later this year to serve as a framework for
having a national transportation system operational by 2010.
While the Committee looks forward to receiving this National
Transportation Strategic Plan, the Committee believes the
Department should be working more actively with the contract
holders and the DOE sites that will be shipping spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste to the repository to develop a
detailed and comprehensive acceptance and transportation plan
for the years 2010-2020. The Department should submit this
comprehensive plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than December 31, 2004. This plan
should be developed to maximize efficient transportation and
minimize the costs of continued on-site storage at contract
holder and DOE sites. DOE should not allow the existence of
ongoing litigation over DOE's failure to begin accepting
commercial spent fuel on the statutorily mandated date to
preclude having the essential discussions with contract
holders. DOE should negotiate with contract holders to reach a
timely decision on the schedule for acceptance of spent nuclear
fuel stored in existing NRC-licensed storage and transport
systems. In addition, the Department should either ensure that
the detailed acceptance criteria that will be part of the
license application will include appropriate criteria and
specifications for greater-than-class-C waste, or present
Congress with a separate plan proposing an alternative disposal
path for greater-than-class-C waste. The comprehensive
acceptance and transportation plan shall ensure that spent
nuclear fuel and high-level waste from those reactor sites that
are undergoing decommissioning, including the Dairyland Power
Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, shall be accepted
and transported as soon as practicable to facilitate the
closure of these sites. Finally, the Committee expects the
Department to commence the institutional coordination and
procurement actions necessary to support a national
transportation campaign to begin shipping spent nuclear fuel
and high-level waste to the repository beginning in 2010. The
Committee recommendation provides $35,000,000 for comprehensive
national acceptance and transportation activities. The
Committee directs the Department to provide not less than
$20,000,000 to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL) to use the expertise developed at INEEL on
the handling, packaging, and transportation of spent fuel and
high-level waste to execute the tasks outlined in this section.
Updated Project Decision Schedule.--The Committee directs
the Department to submit an updated Project Decision Schedule
(PDS) as required by subsection 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Not later than December 31,
2003, the Department shall submit the updated PDS to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, and the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. The updated PDS shall identify all steps
required to initiate repository operations in 2010, including
but not limited to: all waste acceptance, storage, and
transportation elements; all surface and subsurface actions at
the repository, including supporting infrastructure; all
actions and decisions relating to federal and non-federal
casks; and all training and emergency response assistance
necessary for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The updated
PDS shall be fully resource-loaded and shall identify the
budgetary resources required in each fiscal year to support the
start of repository operations in 2010. As provided in
subsection 114(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, the PDS shall include a description of the objectives
and a sequence of deadlines for all Federal agencies to take
required actions related to repository construction and
operations. The PDS shall identify those actions by the
Department and by other Federal agencies that are on the
critical path and for which a delay in completion will cause a
delay in the start of repository operations. The Committee
expects the Department to use the updated PDS to move
aggressively to implement the provisions of paragraph (2) of
subsection 114(e) to identify and resolve differences with
other Federal agencies that could cause delays in the start or
conduct of repository operations. The Committee also directs
the Department to submit as part of its budget request for
fiscal year 2005 a comprehensive legislative package that
identifies all statutory language that will be necessary for
repository operations to begin in 2010, including but not
limited to: a proposal to ensure the availability of long-term
funding for the repository program; land withdrawal and right-
of-way acquisition for the repository site and for all
supporting infrastructure, including the Nevada rail corridor
and the Caliente intermodal transfer facility, and any other
required legislative actions. The Committee recommendation
provides $6,000,000 for the preparation of an updated and
resource-loaded project decision schedule.
Early acceptance of spent nuclear fuel.--Since the last
time that Congress considered authorizing the early acceptance
of spent fuel, there have been two major changes in national
circumstances. First, a majority of Members in both chambers of
Congress voted in 2002 to confirm Yucca Mountain as the site of
the nuclear repository. Second, the events of September 11,
2001, made clear that facilities we once assumed to be safe
from terrorist attack may no longer be so. The Committee
believes that the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at
reactor sites around the country, while in compliance with
Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, poses a greater safety
and security risk than previously assumed. The Committee
further believes that safety and security would be improved if
this spent fuel could be moved to a centralized surface storage
facility, located at the Yucca Mountain repository site, at the
earliest possible date. The Committee directs the Department to
prepare a plan for early acceptance of commercial spent nuclear
fuel presently stored at commercial power plants and storage
sites, and for early shipment of such spent fuel to a surface
storage facility at the Yucca Mountain repository site. This
plan should identify the budgetary resources needed and provide
the draft statutory language that would be required to initiate
such early shipments upon receipt of the construction
authorization for the underground repository. This plan should
also address the possibility of early shipment of spent fuel
and high-level waste presently stored at a variety of DOE
sites. The early acceptance plan should include a thorough
analysis of the casks that will be required for transport and
interim storage at the repository site, and should propose an
aggressive cask procurement strategy to allow for the movement
of significant quantities of spent nuclear fuel beginning in
2007, assuming the timely receipt of the construction
authorization. The plan should analyze the potential cost
savings that could result from placing cooled fuel, presently
stored in spent fuel pools, into dual use casks rather than
separate storage and transportation casks. The Department is
directed to submit this plan to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations not later than December 31, 2003. The
Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for early
acceptance activities.
External oversight funds.--The fiscal year 2004 budget
request did not include any external oversight funds for the
State of Nevada or affected units of local government. The
Committee recommendation provides an amount not to exceed
$2,500,000 for the State of Nevada and an amount not to exceed
$6,500,000 for the affected units of local government to
conduct their respective external oversight responsibilities,
essentially the same as provided in fiscal year 2003. The
Committee is aware that the Department of Energy Inspector
General conducted separate audits of the external oversight
funds provided to the State of Nevada (DOE-IG Audit Report CR-
C-02-01, dated August 2002) and to the affected units of local
governments (DOE-IG Audit Report DOE/IG-0600, dated May 2003),
and found irregularities in a number of expenditures. The
Committee lacks sufficient information to offer guidance on
whether the Department should seek to recover Federal funds
used for questioned oversight expenses; that judgment remains
with the Department. However, the Committee is concerned enough
about the problems identified by the Inspector General to
direct that the external oversight funds for fiscal year 2004
should not be released to the State of Nevada and affected
units of local government until the Director of the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management has reviewed and approved
in advance the State and local government oversight plans for
fiscal year 2004. The Department is reminded that it is
required to audit these funds annually to ensure that they are
spent consistent with the statutory restrictions and with the
approved oversight plans.
Long-term program funding.--The Committee was disappointed
that the Department failed to champion effectively the budget
cap adjustment that was proposed in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request. As the program moves out of the site characterization
phase and into license application, design, and construction
phases, the funding requirements will increase significantly in
coming fiscal years. Therefore, it is even more critical that
the Department develops an integrated long-term budget plan for
this program, and submits the legislative proposal necessary to
secure future funding for the repository. The Committee
reiterates its direction that the Department should submit its
long-term budget plan for the repository program, including the
necessary changes to existing law, as part of its next budget
submission to the Congress.
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2003................................... $205,280,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 326,306,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 224,329,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +19,049,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -101,977,000
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES
Appropriation, 2003................................... -$120,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. -146,668,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... -123,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -3,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +23,668,000
The Committee recommendation for Departmental
Administration is $224,329,000, a decrease of $101,977,000 from
the budget request of $326,306,000. Funding recommended for
Departmental Administration provides for general management and
program support functions benefiting all elements of the
Department of Energy including the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The account funds a wide array of headquarters
activities not directly associated with program execution.
After the changes in the use of prior year balances and the
transfer from Other Defense Activities are factored out, the
Department's gross budget request for Departmental
Administration amounts to an increase of $44,347,000, or
roughly 14 percent, over the fiscal year 2003 level. The
Committee does not concur with this large increase for DOE
headquarters functions and funds Departmental Administration at
roughly five percent over fiscal year 2003 levels, applying the
additional funds to other higher priority needs. In particular,
the Committee believes these requested funds would be better
applied to address the backlog of safety deficiencies at the
ten Science laboratories, a backlog which developed under the
nose of the DOE employees charged with establishing the
policies and regulating safety at DOE laboratories. This
backlog is an unfortunate byproduct of the Department's
continued reliance on self-regulation of nuclear and worker
safety at its Science laboratories. Therefore, the Committee
recommends transferring $25,000,000 from Departmental
Administration to the Science Laboratories Infrastructure
subaccount within the Science appropriation to protect the
health and safety of laboratory employees, visiting
researchers, and the population of the communities surrounding
these ten Science laboratories.
Within the available funds, the Department is directed to
conduct a study on how to increase the proportion of small
business participation in DOE contracts; the contract for such
a study should be awarded to a qualifying small business.
Chief Information Officer.--The Committee is generally
supportive of the I-MANAGE and cybersecurity initiatives of
this office, but does not concur with all of the requested 46
percent increase for this office. The Committee recommendation
provides an additional $6,000,000 over the fiscal year 2003
funding level for implementation of STARS and of the data
warehouse for the Department's financial data.
General Counsel.--The Committee disagrees with a number of
legal and policy positions taken recently by the Office of
General Counsel, and is concerned that the Secretary, the
Congress, and the American taxpayer are not being well-served
by this office. The Committee recommendation is $20,000,000, a
reduction of $2,879,000 from the budget request.
Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation.--The Committee
believes that the Office of Engineering and Construction
Management within the Office of Management, Budget and
Evaluation continues to provide a strong focal point for the
improvement of project management capabilities throughout the
Department. The Committee recommendation transfers $5,000,000
from other accounts (i.e., Weapons Activities and Defense Site
Acceleration Completion) to continue external independent
reviews of proposed projects and programs. To continue to train
and certify DOE project managers, the Committee directs the
Department to make available not less than $2,500,000 from the
Working Capital Fund to fund training under the Project
Management Career Development Program.
Working Capital Fund.--The Committee renews its guidance as
presented in House Report 107-681 regarding management of the
Working Capital Fund.
Cost of Work for Others.--The recommendation for the cost
of work for others program is $69,682,000, the same as in
fiscal year 2003.
Use of Prior Year Balances.--The recommendation does not
include the use of prior year funds to be carried over from
fiscal year 2003 to offset the fiscal year 2004 funding
requirements.
Revenues.--The recommendation for revenues is $123,000,000,
consistent with the estimate of revenues provided by the
Congressional Budget Office.
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 the Department's funding is provided
in the national security and defense-related cleanup programs
account for approximately 75 percent of the Department's total
budget. The Committee recommendation distributes these costs
more equitably in fiscal year 2004 and transfers $86,679,000
from Other Defense Activities for national security programs,
an increase of $61,679,000 over the budget request.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, 2003................................... $37,426,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 39,462,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 39,462,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +2,036,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit,
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct
management and administrative deficiencies that create
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and
operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
The Committee recommendation is $39,462,000, the same as
the budget request.
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the
Department of Energy include the National Nuclear Security
Administration that consists of Weapons Activities, Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the
Administrator; Defense Environmental Management programs which
include Site Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental
Services; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear Waste
Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are provided
below.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Department of Energy is responsible for enhancing U.S.
national security through the military application of nuclear
technology and reducing the global danger from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous
agency within the Department, carries out these
responsibilities. Established in March 2000 pursuant to Title
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65), NNSA is responsible for the
management and operation of the Nation's nuclear weapons
complex, naval reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation
activities. Three offices within the NNSA carry out the
Department's national security mission: the Office of Defense
Programs, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and
the Office of Naval Reactors.
The Committee recommendation for the NNSA is
$8,508,184,000, a decrease of $326,391,000 from the budget
request of $8,834,575,000, but an increase of $330,617,000 over
fiscal year 2003.
Nuclear weapons budget requirements.--This Committee
continues to believe that our nation's nuclear arsenal provides
a vital deterrent to potential aggressors. In order to maintain
a modern nuclear stockpile, the Nation needs to have a modern,
efficient, and flexible nuclear weapons complex with the
necessary design, production, testing, refurbishment, and
dismantlement capabilities. Unfortunately, the country
possesses neither a modern stockpile nor a modern nuclear
weapons complex. Instead, both are largely carryovers from the
Cold War era. After careful consideration, the Committee has
concluded that much of the current situation results from a
flawed budget process. Under the current process, the
Department of Defense (DoD) establishes the military
requirements for Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile (i.e.,
numbers and types of warheads), which in turn dictates the
requirements that DOE must meet to ensure the safety, security,
and reliability of those weapons. The size, capability and cost
of DOE's weapons complex is a direct result of the specific
requirements established by DoD for warhead refurbishments,
design modifications, testing, and dismantlement. However, when
DoD develops their requirements their decision process is not
constrained by the normal types of budget trade-offs that an
agency confronts in the process of formulating a budget
request. In effect, DoD sets the requirements and leaves it up
to DOE to come up with the budget to support the nuclear
weapons complex each year. If these costs were funded directly
by DoD, the nuclear weapons activities would be considered
against other national defense priorities, such as developing
improved conventional weapons, procuring more of existing
weapon systems, paying ever-increasing operational and training
costs, and providing a better quality of life for our soldiers,
sailors, and airmen. Similarly, if the costs of the nuclear
weapons complex were solely determined by the DOE, they would
be balanced against other DOE priorities, such as
nonproliferation, science research, improving the Nation's
energy supply, or accelerating the cleanup of contaminated
sites. Instead, the weapons activities portion of the NNSA
budget is effectively insulated from any such tradeoffs--DoD
sets requirements that another agency has to fund, and DOE
treats the weapons activities budget as untouchable because DoD
set the requirements.
There needs to be a serious debate about whether the
approximately $6 billion spent annually on DOE's nuclear
weapons complex is a sound national security investment. Until
that debate occurs and the DOE weapons budget request is
subject to meaningful budget trade-offs, this Committee will
not assume that all of the proposed nuclear weapons requests
are legitimate requirements.
Future Years Nuclear Security Program.--The Committee
expects the NNSA Administrator to continue to address the
deficiencies noted by the Committee in the past so that the
NNSA's Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) can be
used by both the Department and Congress as an effective multi-
year programming and budgeting resource, which includes
realistic resource constraints that force meaningful decisions
on potential tradeoffs between programs. The Committee notes
particular support for the ongoing effort of the NNSA to
implement a Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation
(PPBE) structure and a budgeting by weapons type budget
process. The Committee will work with the Department to
implement a budgeting by weapons type pilot in fiscal year 2004
and full implementation in fiscal year 2005 and urges the
Department to maintain a management focus on this transition to
ensure a successful implementation process.
The Committee notes that the DOE Inspector General is
conducting an independent review of the NNSA's PPBE process and
structure, including its comparability to that of the
Department of Defense. The early indications from that review
indicate that the NNSA has made significant progress in
implementing their planning, programming, budgeting, and
evaluation process. However, there are several areas where
improvements need to be made before it is fully operational.
Specifically, the NNSA needs to address independent cost
validation of contractor cost estimates that form the basis for
Department's budget estimates. The Committee will withhold any
recommendations pending the final IG report.
Weapons Activities
Appropriation, 2003................................... $5,981,409,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 6,378,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 6,117,609,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +136,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -260,391,000
The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to ensure the
safety, security, reliability and performance of the Nation's
nuclear weapons stockpile. The program seeks to maintain and
refurbish nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety
and reliability under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms
reduction treaties. The Committee's recommendation for Weapons
Activities is $6,117,609,000, a decrease of $260,391,000 from
the budget request of $6,378,000,000, but an increase of
$136,200,000 over fiscal year 2003.
Within the total amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003
the wartime supplemental appropriations bill contained
additional funding of $67,000,000 for weapons activities. An
additional $47,000,000 was provided for increased safeguards
and security requirements and $20,000,000 for activities of the
Office of Secure Transportation Asset.
Availability of funds.--Consistent with the provisions of
H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004, the funds in this account are available until
September 30, 2006.
Stockpile Review.--The Committee is still waiting for the
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile report required in the Conference
Report accompanying the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7). This stockpile review
is to present a revised nuclear weapons stockpile plan
structured to support the President's announcement on November
13, 2001, to draw down our nuclear forces toward the goal of
1,700-2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads
between now and 2012. As the Committee noted in the FY 2003
House Report 107-681, ``The National Nuclear Security
Administration has not been able to reconcile the recently
announced dramatic reductions planned for deployed operational
nuclear warheads to its strategic weapons modernization plans,
some of which will cost billions of dollars each, and which are
currently structured to upgrade the maximum number of
warheads.'' One year later, the situation has not changed. The
Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for establishing the
military requirements that are incorporated into the
Presidentially approved Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan (NWSP).
Until a revised NWSP is finalized, the NNSA continues to plan
and budget for a weapons program that maintains the nuclear
weapons stockpile in accordance with the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START I) active and inactive stockpile
quantities. The fiscal year 2004 budget request is the second
budget request delivered to the Committee that is loosely
justified on the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR) policy document but lacking a formal plan that specifies
the changes to the stockpile reflecting the President's
decision. The Committee was hopeful that the outcome of the
Administration's review would provide a definitive inventory
objective for each weapons system to allow the NNSA to plan and
execute a program to support defense requirements based on what
is needed rather than the continuation of a nuclear stockpile
and weapons complex built to fight the now defunct Soviet
Union. While the conventional forces in the Defense Department
go through a 21st-Century transformation to meet the challenges
of a new era, the NNSA is forced, through inertia and
indecision, to maintain all contingencies regardless of how
unlikely the threat. The Department of Defense needs to
determine the composition of the stockpile required to support
the President's announced stockpile reductions, and then
coordinate with DOE to establish the nuclear weapons complex
requirements based on deliberate, timely, well-justified
decisions supported by Congress. Because the results of the
stockpile review will not be provided to Congress in time to
justify the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Committee has
to view the significant budget growth proposed for the current
program with skepticism.
W80 life extension project.--The Committee has had a
special interest in the W80 warhead stockpile life extension
project (W80 LEP) and has consistently asked for unambiguous
answers from the NNSA and the Air Force, the military user of
the W80 weapons system, justifying the significant budget
increases and the aggressive schedule for the W80 LEP. In
fiscal year 2000, the Nuclear Weapons Council agreed to a W80
LEP schedule assuming a W80 LEP First Production Unit (FPU) in
fiscal year 2006. However, the Committee understands that both
NNSA and the Defense Department are currently reviewing the Air
Force requirement for the W80 FPU and the NNSA is rebaselining
the W80 LEP program to meet a revised delivery date to the Air
Force in fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009. However, the
existing fiscal year 2006 FPU baseline continues to drive the
budget request and the Committee has yet to receive an
acceptable military justification for supporting such an
aggressive W80 LEP program. Until a revised W80 LEP baseline
has been finalized and justified to Congress, the Committee
will continue to view the large proportion of the NNSA budget
proposed for accelerated W80 LEP activities as unnecessary. As
a result, the Committee has reduced the weapons activity budget
for the W80 LEP.
Stockpile Life Extension Program budget request.--The
General Accounting Office is currently conducting a review of
the NNSA's Stockpile Life Extension Program (SLEP) addressing
the comprehensiveness and reliability of the SLEP budget
requests for each of the four specific warhead life extension
projects: W87, W80, W76, and the B61. The Department's life
extension activities are designed to extend the service life of
the existing nuclear weapons stockpile by providing new
subsystems and components for each warhead thereby extending
the operational service life. Preliminary results from the GAO
review identify concerns that question the reliability of the
SLEP fiscal year 2004 budget request. The Committee is
particularly concerned that the NNSA has yet to develop a
managerial cost accounting system that provides the full cost
of the refurbishments programs and validates the cost estimates
that are used to develop the budget requests. The Committee has
consistently requested comprehensive cost estimates for the
individual weapon type SLEPs. While the NNSA is making progress
in budgeting by weapons type, the weapons activities campaign
costs are still unassigned by weapon type even though the
budget justifications for many of the proposed campaigns
activities are tied to the life extension requirements. The
Committee will withhold any recommendations pending the final
GAO report.
Life-of-Program buys.--The Committee notes that the W76 and
W80 life extension programs include procurement actions
referred to in the Selected Acquisition Reports as ``Life-of-
Program buys.'' Such procurements assume the purchase of
sufficient units to supply the entire inventory of weapons
(i.e., every Block) to be refurbished during the life extension
program. The purpose of the ``life of program buy'' concept is
to ensure the availability of commercial parts and minimize the
scope of required qualifications and surveillance programs. The
Committee appreciates the potential program efficiencies of a
``life-of-program buy'' including a simplified qualification
process and subsequent surveillance program. However, if the
NNSA's current planning assumes refurbishing the entire START I
stockpile and the ongoing Administration's review of the
stockpile results in significant changes to the number of
warheads required for the relevant weapon system, such
procurements risk buying significantly more units than are
necessary. This is another instance where the continued delay
in the decision-making and implementation of a revised
stockpile plan risks wasting resources. The Administrator is
directed to include all ``life-of-program buy'' procurements
for each currently planned LEP in the Selected Acquisition
Reports submitted with the fiscal year 2005 budget request,
including the number of warheads to be refurbished assumed in
procurement, how much is budgeted for each procurement, the
procurement schedule and the specific rationale for proposing a
Life-of-Program buy.
Reprogramming Authority.--The conference agreement provides
limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities
account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in
advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The reprogramming thresholds will be as follows: directed
stockpile work, science campaigns, engineering campaigns,
inertial confinement fusion, advanced simulation and computing,
pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and
operating expenses for readiness in technical base and
facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to
manage these programs.
In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be
transferred between each of these categories and each
construction project subject to the following limitations: only
one transfer may be made to or from any program or project; the
transfer must be necessary to address a risk to health, safety
or the environment or to assure the most efficient use of
weapons activities funds at a site; and funds may not be used
for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds or
for a new program or project that has not been authorized by
Congress.
The Department must notify Congress within 15 days of the
use of this reprogramming authority. Transfers during the
fiscal year which would result in increases or decreases in
excess of $5,000,000 or which would be subject to the
limitations outlined in the previous paragraph require prior
notification and approval from the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
Directed Stockpile Work includes all activities that
directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including
maintenance, research, development, engineering, and
certification activities. The Committee's recommendation is
$1,343,786,000, a decrease of $21,000,000 from the budget
request, but an increase of $117,343,000 over fiscal year 2003.
The Committee notes an increase of over $138,343,000 in the
fiscal year 2004 request over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level in the Directed Stockpile Work account. Because of the
still undefined outyear DOD requirements for the W80 weapons
system, the Committee is reducing DSW workload concerning the
W80 Life Extension Program a total of $20,000,000. The
Committee notes that the Selected Acquisition Report for the
W80 shows a growth of $42,000,000 in DSW from fiscal year 2003
to fiscal year 2004. However, the Committee recognizes a
portion of this increase is associated with the ``first user
concept'' under which funding is assigned to a specific weapons
type on the basis of first required utilization of facilities
or activities on the part of a specific weapon refurbishment.
The Committee agrees with this cost accounting concept and
expects the NNSA to continue to use it for budgeting by weapons
system. The Committee expects the NNSA to maintain the fiscal
year 2003 level of effort as it rebaselines the W80 LEP to be
consistent with revised Air Force plans and requirements. DSW
Stockpile Research and Development is reduced $13,000,000 to
slow activity consistent with the W80 LEP rebaselining. The
Committee's recommendation increases Stockpile Maintenance a
net $9,000,000 by reducing W80 LEP activities by $6,000,000 and
increasing funding by $15,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in
Tennessee to complete and closeout the W87 LEP activities in
fiscal year 2004. Stockpile Evaluation is reduced $1,000,000 to
slow activity consistent with the W80 LEP rebaselining.
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Advanced Concepts
research.--The Committee notes that the National Nuclear
Security Administration has requested $21,000,000 in DSW
Stockpile R&D to explore advanced weapons concepts, including
$15,000,000 to continue feasibility and cost studies for the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and $6,000,000 for other
advanced concepts definition studies. The Committee provides
$5,000,000 for RNEP and eliminates funding for additional
advanced concepts research in favor of higher priority current
mission requirements. The Committee is concerned the NNSA is
being tasked to start new activities with significant outyear
budget impacts before the Administration has articulated the
specific requirements to support the President's announced
stockpile modifications. Under current plans, the NNSA is
attempting to modernize the industrial infrastructure of the
weapons complex and restore production plant capability in
order to refurbish the entire START I stockpile, reengineer the
federal management structure of the complex and downsize the
workforce by 20 percent by the end of fiscal year 2004, while
struggling to successfully demonstrate its core mission of
maintaining the existing stockpile through the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. Before any of the existing program goals
have been successfully demonstrated, the Administration is now
proposing to spend millions on enhanced test readiness while
maintaining the moratorium on nuclear testing, aggressively
pursue a multi-billion dollar Modern Pit Facility before the
first production pit has even been successfully certified for
use in the stockpile, develop a robust nuclear earth penetrator
weapon and begin additional advanced concepts research on new
nuclear weapons. It appears to the Committee the Department is
proposing to rebuild, restart, and redo and otherwise exercise
every capability that was used over the past forty years of the
Cold War and at the same time prepare for a future with an
expanded mission for nuclear weapons. Nothing in the past
performance of the NNSA convinces this Committee that the
successful implementation of Stockpile Stewardship program is a
foregone conclusion, which makes the pursuit of a broad range
of new initiatives premature. Until the NNSA has demonstrated
to the Congress that it can successfully meet its primary
mission of maintaining the safety, security, and viability of
the existing stockpile by executing the Stockpile Life
Extension Program and Science-based Stewardship activities on
time and within budget, this Committee will not support
redirecting the management resources and attention to a series
of new initiatives.
The Committee directs that funding provided for the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) be used for research on the
problem of deep earth penetration through hard or hardened
surfaces, including modeling and simulation of the use of
advanced materials, and varied trajectories and speeds. The
Committee further directs that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) coordinate the RNEP research program with
ongoing programs at the Department of Defense relating to
research on earth penetration to maximize the dual-use
applicability for both conventional and nuclear weapons.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request identified specific
funding amounts by weapons system in the Selected Acquisition
Reports that accompanied the submission of the President's
budget request. The Committee is to be notified in advance if
the proposed funding levels for any weapons system change from
the estimate provided in the Selected Acquisition Reports
submitted with the fiscal year budget justification.
Congressional approval will be required before any actual RNEP
modifications are initiated.
CAMPAIGNS
Campaigns are focused efforts involving the three weapons
laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the weapons production
plants, and selected external organizations to address critical
capabilities needed to achieve program objectives. The
Committee recommendation is $2,268,455,000, a decrease of
$127,000,000 below the budget request of $2,395,455,000.
In order to facilitate review of the President's annual
budget request, the Committee continues to direct the
Department to provide project baseline data for each campaign
to include a brief description of the campaign with planned
completion dates, the total estimated cost of each campaign,
the costs by fiscal year for each major component of the
campaign, and a list of major milestones by year. The Committee
expects the Department to provide detailed project baseline
data for each campaign showing the annual and five-year costs,
schedule, scope, and deliverables for individual project
activities as part of the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
From within funds provided for the various campaigns,
$4,300,000 is for the University Research Program in Robotics.
Science campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for
science campaigns is $236,548,000, a reduction of $33,000,000
from the budget request. The dynamic materials properties
campaign is reduced by $5,000,000 because of slower progress
than anticipated in Atlas experiments in fiscal year 2003, and
the advanced radiography campaign is reduced by $20,000,000 due
to reduction in the level of R&D work in the development of the
multi-axis multi-time radiography. The primary certification
campaign was reduced $8,000,000 by limiting the increase in the
Boost Physics activity to $5,000,000 over current year and
limiting the Materials Science Integration and Analysis
increase to $3,516,000 over current year consistent with W80
LEP rebaselining.
Inspector General report.--The Committee is very concerned
about the recent DOE Inspector General report (DOE/IG-0599) on
the Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility (DARHT)
project that included findings that, notwithstanding the NNSA
announcement that DARHT construction project had been completed
on time and within budget, the facility would not be fully
operational until June 2004. In addition to the 15-month delay
from the projected completion date of March 2003, the IG noted
a lack of a viable baseline and the shifting of at least $57.5
million of additional costs that were transferred to other work
elements but should have been identified with the DARHT total
project cost. The Committee has consistently urged the NNSA to
strengthen its federal project management oversight expertise
and reviews such as the DARHT audit reinforces the Committee's
position on that recommendation.
Engineering campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for
engineering campaigns is $298,187,000, a decrease of
$33,000,000 from the budget request. The enhanced surety
campaign is reduced $5,000,000 to slow down the level of effort
identified for advanced use denial elements and options for the
W80 Block 2, which under current W80 LEP schedule is not
scheduled to start until fiscal year 2011. The Committee
reduces the large increase for the enhanced surveillance
campaign by $3,000,000 within the nonnuclear components,
nonnuclear materials, and systems work activities.
Construction projects.--The Committee recommends
$36,800,000 a reduction of $25,000,000 from the budget request,
for Project 01-D-108, Microsystem and engineering science
applications (MESA), SNL, New Mexico, to rebalance the current
financial state of the construction project. The Committee is
supportive of the MESA project, however, the significant
uncosted balances associated with the project in addition to
the significant increases over the requested budget levels
provided over the past two years represent a serious project
management challenge for the NNSA and a serious concern for the
Committee.
Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee recommends
$511,769,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an
increase of $45,000,000 over the budget request of
$466,769,000. Consistent with the recommendation of the House-
passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
the Committee recommendation provides $58,337,000 for
Experimental Support Technologies, a reduction of $5,000,000
from the request, but an increase of $27,975,000 over current
year. The Committee recognizes the recent successes on the NIF
project and expects NNSA to focus on the core NIF project to
maintain cost and schedule performance. The recommendation
includes $25,000,000 to continue development of high average
power lasers and supporting science and technology. The
Committee recommendation also includes the budget request of
$10,467,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory, and $68,132,000
for the University of Rochester, an increase of $25,000,000
over the budget request. This additional funding has been
provided to the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser
Energetics for the OMEGA Extended Performance Facility in
support of the nation's stockpile stewardship program.
The Committee recommendation provides $150,000,000 for
construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the same
as the budget request.
Advanced simulation and computing.--The Committee
recommendation for Advanced Simulation and Computing is
$715,626,000, a reduction of $35,000,000 below the budget
request of $750,626,000, but an increase of $15,763,000 over
the current year. Within the ASCI campaign, the Committee
provides $52,102,000 for Simulation Support, a reduction of
$5,000,000 from the budget request; $135,000,000 for Physical
Infrastructure and Platforms, a reduction of $5,000,000 from
the budget request; $61,534,000 for Computational Systems,
reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request; $10,000,000
for PathForward, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget
request; $2,250,000 for ASCI Integration, a reduction of
$5,000,000 from the budget request; and $37,600,000 for
University Partnerships, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the
budget request.
Pit Manufacturing and Pit Certification.--The Committee
recommendation for pit manufacturing and certification campaign
is $273,228,000, a reduction of $47,000,000 from the budget
request, but an increase of $12,228,000 over the current year
budget. The Committee strongly supports the progress the NNSA
and the Los Alamos National Laboratory have demonstrated in
turning around the performance in the pit manufacturing and
certification activities. The Committee urges the Department to
continue to concentrate its management attention on meeting the
fiscal year 2007 schedule for a certified pit and challenges
the NNSA to reduce the total estimated cost required to meet
the fiscal year 2007 certification goal. The Committee provides
$116,773,000 for W88 Pit Manufacturing and $98,592,000 for W88
Certification. The Department is requesting $19,700,000 for pit
manufacturing capability to develop manufacturing technologies
for pits other than the W88. The Committee has determined this
level of technology development for manufacturing capability in
a facility that is a minimum of 15 years away from planned
operational capability is premature. The Committee
recommendation is $4,700,000 in FY 2004, an increase of
$2,000,000 over the current year program level.
The Committee recommendation is $10,810,000 for the modern
pit facility (MPF), a reduction of $12,000,000 from the
request. The Committee supports the budget request in fiscal
year 2004 for continued conceptual design work on a Modern Pit
Facility, but urges the NNSA to look diligently at ways to more
effectively utilize TA-55 at Los Alamos National Laboratory to
address Stockpile Stewardship Program pit manufacturing
requirements in the near term and take a less aggressive
planning approach for a new multi-billion dollar facility. The
Committee feels the Department's rush to commit to an MPF
design and siting decision is premature without the development
of a detailed analysis of outyear pit production capacity
requirements tied to the 2012 stockpile.
The Committee provides the budget request for Pit Campaign
support activities at the Nevada Test Site.
Readiness campaigns.--The Committee recommendation for
Readiness Campaigns is $233,097,000, a reduction of $24,000,000
from the budget request. The Committee recommends $45,158,000,
for Stockpile Readiness. The Committee reduces the Establish
Near-Term Process Capability $10,000,000 to reduce the growth
in procurements for capital equipment associated with the W80
LEP to be consistent with W80 LEP rebaselining. The Committee
recommends $19,649,000 for High Explosives Manufacturing &
Weapons Assembly/Disassembly, a reduction of $10,000,000 from
the budget request to slow the growth of high explosive
manufacturing, product requalification, and science-based
manufacturing activities consistent with W80 LEP rebaselining.
The Committee recommends $33,397,000 for Nonnuclear Readiness,
a reduction of $4,000,000 from the budget request, to reduce
the level of effort associated with the W80 readiness of
production operations. The Committee recommends $134,893,000
for Tritium Readiness, the same as the budget request.
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 $1,511,080,000, a reduction of
$102,391,000 below the budget request of $1,613,471,000.
Operations of facilities.--The Committee recommendation for
Operations of facilities is $997,773,000, an increase of
$25,000,000 over the budget request. Additional funding of
$20,000,000 has been provided for the Pantex plant in Texas and
$5,000,000 for the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee to meet facility
needs.
Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends $106,202,000,
a reduction of $24,891,000 from the budget request for Program
Readiness. The budget request proposes $24,891,000 for enhanced
test readiness activities. The increase over the base program
for Nevada site readiness is proposed to fund the transition
from the current 24 to 36 month time-to-test requirement to an
18-month test readiness posture at the Nevada Test Site. The
Committee is concerned with the open-ended commitment to
increase significantly funding for the purpose of Enhanced Test
Readiness without any budget analysis or program plan to
evaluate the efficiency or effectiveness of this funding
increase. Recent reports done by the DOE Inspector General and
two NNSA management studies done at the Committee's request all
identified significant problems with the current test readiness
program, but the Department's proposal does not address the
fundamental difficulties in maintaining test readiness during a
testing moratorium.
The September 2002 Office of Inspector General audit (DOE/
IG-0566) identified several problem areas impacting the ability
to resume testing within the existing 24 to 36 month
requirement: decline in the number of employees with testing
experience; the deterioration of necessary systems and
equipment; the inability to keep pace with new technology; and
a delay in conducting required safety studies. The Committee
notes that the IG identified these problems assuming the
current 24 to 36 month test readiness posture rather than the
proposed test readiness time frame of 18 months. As the IG
audit noted, if the current testing infrastructure and
personnel resources are moribund due to eleven years of
inactivity, the Committee fails to see how the NNSA's enhanced
test readiness proposal puts in place a program that precludes
a similar state of disarray ten years into the future. Neither
past performance nor any program or planning documentation
provided to the Committee supports the Department's contention
that an additional $100 million over three years and a $45
million increment every year thereafter is likely to result in
a consistent 6 to 12 month improvement in test readiness
posture when the current requirement has not been successfully
maintained.
The Department's rationale for the change to an 18-month
posture was included in the April 2003 Report to Congress on
Nuclear Test Readiness, ``An 18 month posture is appropriate
because this is the minimum time we would expect it would take,
once a problem was identified, to assess the problem, develop
and implement a solution, and plan and execute a test that
would provide the information needed to certify the fix.'' The
NNSA's July 2002 Enhanced Test Readiness Cost Study stated that
even during the Cold War era of routine testing, the national
labs required 18-24 months to design and field a nuclear test
with full diagnostics. The Committee questions a proposal to
move to and attempt to indefinitely maintain a test readiness
state that is the absolute minimum amount of time necessary to
conduct a test designed to produce meaningful diagnostic
results. The proposal reflects a disturbing ``cost is no
object'' perspective in the Department's decisionmaking
process.
The Committee supports the continued maintenance of the
Nevada Test Site as a valuable resource for the NNSA nuclear
weapons complex. Indeed, the Committee provides significant
resources every year to fund a wide variety of activities at
NTS that support the overall Stockpile Stewardship program.
However, the Committee will not spend money on a perceived
problem when the Department has not provided a rationale or a
plan that addresses the underlying problems inherent in
maintaining a testing capability during a testing moratorium.
The Department's report states, ``The NNSA has made a
deliberate decision, in consultation with DOD and other
agencies with the Administration, to move to an 18-month
nuclear test readiness posture by the end of fiscal year
2005.'' The Committee does not recognize the NNSA declaring a
revised test readiness posture as a new requirement nor is it
convinced that the decision can be successfully implemented
based on the planning information provided to date. The
Committee challenges the NNSA to work within the significant
funding provided each year for its site readiness activities to
demonstrate the ability to meet its current requirements before
additional funds are added to meet a more problematic goal.
The Committee provides no funds for Enhanced Test Readiness
as proposed by the Department in fiscal year 2004 pending
better definition of the national security requirement.
Special Projects.--The Committee recommendation for Special
Projects is $34,975,000, a reduction of $8,000,000 from the
budget request. The Committee concurs with the concerns
identified in the Report accompanying the House-passed Fiscal
Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act and recommends the
elimination of the $8,000,000 of funding assistance for the Los
Alamos School District.
The Committee recommendation for material recycle and
recovery is $76,189,000, the same as the budget request. The
Committee recommendation for containers is $16,006,000, the
same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation for
storage is $11,365,000, the same as the budget request. The
Committee recommendation for nuclear weapons incident response
is $89,694,000, the same as the budget request.
Construction projects.--
Project 04-D-101, Test capabilities revitalization, SNL,
Albuquerque, NM. The Committee recommends $36,450,000, the same
as the budget request. The Committee notes the importance of
the test capabilities being available for the out year
stockpile life extension programs.
Project 04-D-102, Exterior Communications Infrastructure
Modernization, SNL, NM. The Committee recommends the
modernization of the exterior communications infrastructure at
Sandia National Lab be delayed until fiscal year 2005 and
redirects the funds to higher priorities.
Project 04-D-104, National Security Sciences building,
LANL, NM. The Committee recommends the LANL office building,
Project 04-D-104, be delayed until fiscal year 2005 and
redirects the funds to higher priority requirements.
Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Facility Replacement (CMR-R)--LANL. The Committee recommends no
funding for Project 04-D-125 in fiscal year 2004. Due to the
complexity of this project, the Committee directs the
completion of the project management decision process for the
CMR-R in fiscal year 2004 prior to actual start of construction
in fiscal year 2005. The Committee notes the Department has not
completed the project engineering steps concerning CMR-R,
including reaching critical decision one (CD-1) to commence the
acquisition strategy or any baseline cost validation. The
current cost estimate is based on pre-conceptual planning while
the baseline cost validation will not be completed until
reaching critical decision two. Although the Committee
continues to be a strong adherent of the Department's new
project management process, the Committee must question the
actual commitment of the Department to its own process by
allowing this project to go forward in the fiscal year 2004
budget request.
Project 03-D-121, Gas Transfer Capacity Expansion, Kansas
City, The Committee recommends $11,300,000, a reduction of
$4,000,000 from the request. The construction activity is
slowed consistent with the W80 life extension program FPU
rebaselining.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION
The Committee recommendation for Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is $255,123,000,
a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request, but an
increase of $14,187,000 over the current year. The Committee
remains encouraged by the execution of this program and holds
the NNSA to its commitment to ensure the results of this
funding are quantifiable and provide measurable improvements at
each site.
FIRP is a corporate program to restore, rebuild, and
revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons
complex. Its purpose is to stem the deterioration of the
complex and address the backlog of maintenance, repair, and
upgrade projects. The Committee directs NNSA to ensure that
funds for recapitalization are not diverted to fund ongoing
maintenance and programmatic needs while at the same time
guarding against the inefficiency of large uncosted balances.
The Committee recognizes the effort to revitalize the physical
infrastructure of the weapons complex is in its early phases
however, the Committee cannot continue to support such
significant budget increases for FIRP unless the funds are
being utilized efficiently.
The Committee directs that at least $50,000,000 of the
facilities and infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2004 be
used to dispose of excess facilities. The Committee encourages
continuation of the strides made during the first two years of
this program to reduce the overall facilities footprint of the
complex. The use of new and innovative decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) practices must continue to be implemented
to reduce costs and expedite site cleanups. The Committee
continues to expect that services for D&D and demolition of
excess facilities services be procured through open-competition
where such actions provide the best return on investment for
the federal government. The Committee directs the NNSA to
continue a free and open competition process for at least 70
percent of the funds provided for disposing of excess
facilities.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Secure Transportation Asset program provides for the
safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear
materials, and non-nuclear weapon components between military
locations and nuclear weapons complex facilities within the
United States. The Committee recommendation is $182,400,000,
the same as the budget request.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
This program provides for all safeguards and security
requirements at NNSA landlord sites. The Committee
recommendation is $585,750,000, the same as the budget request.
Consistent with the recommendation of the House-passed National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Committee
recommends no funding in the weapons activities safeguards and
security for the new research and development initiatives in
cyber and physical security. The Committee notes that security
R&D activities are more appropriately funded within the
Department's Office of Security. The Committee directs an
additional $10,000,000 for Y-12 National Security Complex to
implement available security technologies to minimize
additional manpower increases to meet new security
requirements. As the Committee noted last year physical
safeguards and security measures are only part of the solution
to address security concerns throughout the weapons complex.
With program needs going unmet and infrastructure
deteriorating, the Committee strongly encourages the NNSA to
review these growing costs and seek smarter and more efficient
ways to meet security needs.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The budget request included an offset of $28,985,000 for
the safeguards and security charge for reimbursable work.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriation, 2003................................... $1,168,860,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 1,340,195,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 1,280,195,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +111,335,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -60,000,000
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account includes
funding for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development; Nonproliferation and International Security;
Nonproliferation Programs with Russia including International
Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation, Russian
Transition Initiative, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
Transparency Implementation, International Nuclear Safety,
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production; Accelerated
Materials Disposition; Fissile Materials Disposition; and
Program Direction. Descriptions of each of these programs are
provided below.
Risk based priority setting.--The Committee concurs with a
recent DOE Inspector General audit (DOE/IG-0603) wherein the IG
noted that the NN program had not established a formal, risk-
based approach to allocating program funding. Despite several
requests from the Committee, the Department has yet to produce
any sort of qualitative or quantitative analysis that compares
the costs of various nonproliferation initiatives against the
presumed benefits in terms of reduced risk. The Committee
acknowledges that such a comparison, especially on a
quantitative basis, is not simple, nor can it be the sole
decision making rationale. However, for the purpose of
evaluating budget requests and making funding decisions the
Committee requires a stronger analytical decision-making
justification to determine the appropriate use of the marginal
budget dollar for nonproliferation activities. The Committee
directs the NNSA to submit as part of its fiscal year 2005
budget request for nonproliferation activities a budget
justification including a program analysis applying a risk-
based evaluation of different activities proposed in the budget
request.
Availability of funds.--Consistent with the provisions of
H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004, as passed by the House of Representatives, the funds
in this account are available until September 30, 2006.
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 counter nuclear smuggling effort
and the entire Chemical and Biological National Security
component formerly a part of the nonproliferation and
verification research and development office were transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003.
The Committee recommendation is $203,873,000, the same as
the budget request, and includes $108,536,000 for proliferation
detection; $89,277,000 for nuclear explosion monitoring, of
which $25,000,000 is for ground-based systems for treaty
monitoring; and $6,333,000 for supporting activities.
The Committee has continuing concerns with the management
of the research and development program. The Department needs
to involve the end users in the project proposal process, not
allow laboratories and Headquarters program managers to come up
with ideas and then shop around in search of potential end
users. While funds for research and development are increasing,
there is a gap not being filled between long-term laboratory
research and development and what private industry is currently
developing. The potential users of these technologies are
looking for short-term improvements to existing products, not
long-term research and development projects. The need to bring
incrementally improved technologies to the marketplace quickly
has never been more urgent.
Competitive Research.--The capability of the Department to
develop and apply technology rapidly to meet growing
nonproliferation and terrorism challenges is a continuing
concern of the Committee. The Technical Support Working Group
(TSWG) is the focal point in the federal government to conduct
the national interagency research and development program for
combating terrorism requirements. TSWG seeks technology
solutions that address operational and technological shortfalls
identified by government agency users. Using a solicitation
format called a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), TSWG solicits
industry, academia, and government laboratories for innovative
research and development solutions to these requirements,
including nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological
countermeasures. The Committee directs the Department to use
the TWSG BAA process for all nonproliferation and verification
research and development activities during fiscal year 2004.
The Committee believes that TSWG will help the Department
identify and prioritize requirements and develop technology
solutions more quickly.
Annual Report Requirement.--The Committee directs the
Department to prepare an annual report of each project with the
baseline cost, scope and schedule, deliverables, lab performing
the research and development, and the proposed user and submit
this with the fiscal year 2005 budget.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
The nonproliferation and international security program
(formerly the Arms Control program) seeks to detect, prevent,
and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
materials, technology, and expertise. The major functional
areas of the program include: nonproliferation policy;
international safeguards; export control; and treaties and
agreements. The Committee recommendation for nonproliferation
and international security is $105,734,000, an increase of
$4,000,000 from the budget request to fund the accelerated
activities in Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors
(RERTR) and the HEU Research Reactor Fuel Purchase proposed
under the AMD initiative.
Within the nonproliferation policy program is the Reduced
Enrichment for Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) program to
prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by minimizing and
possibly eliminating the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU)
in civilian nuclear programs worldwide. The RERTR program
develops the technologies needed to substitute LEU for HEU in
research and test reactors, and proposes to complete this
activity by 2009. The recommendation includes $8,860,000, an
increase of $3,000,000 from the budget request to fund the
accelerated activities in Reduced Enrichment for Research and
Test Reactors (RERTR) proposed under the Accelerated Materials
Disposition initiative.
Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the Russian
Foreign Research Reactor Fuel Return (RFR) initiative to
prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons by repatriating to
Russia civilian HEU fuel from Russian-supplied research
reactors in various countries, including those located in
regions of proliferation concern. The recommendation includes
the budget request of $9,691,000.
Also in the nonproliferation policy program is the
Kazakhstan Spent Fuel Disposition initiative to secure three
tons of weapons-grade plutonium in the BN-350 reactor spent
fuel at Aktau, Kazakhstan. The recommendation includes the
budget request of $8,270,000. The Committee has serious
reservations concerning the baseline plan, which assumes
transporting the spent fuel out of its secure location in
Aktau, across the country, to an as-yet-unbuilt storage
facility in eastern Kazakhstan. The Department is directed to
conduct an updated vulnerability analysis (VA) applying the
revised Postulated Threat statement to the existing VA data to
evaluate the costs and risks of transporting the material to
the storage site area assumed in the baseline compared to
securing the material in a dry storage option on site at the
BN-350 reactor in Aktau. None of the funds provided for this
activity in fiscal year 2004, or previous fiscal years, may be
obligated for transportation equipment or activities without
first notifying the Committee.
NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA
The Department of Energy funds many nonproliferation
programs with Russia. These programs help secure Russian
nuclear weapons materials, prevent the outflow of scientific
expertise from Russia, eliminate excess nuclear weapons
materials, and help downsize the Russian nuclear weapons
complex.
Limitation on Russian Program Funds.--The Committee remains
concerned that the Department is not putting a high enough
management priority on ensuring as much of the funds
appropriated for the Russian programs as practical, be spent in
Russia rather than at the Department's own national
laboratories in the U.S. The Department's contracting
mechanisms are resulting in excess funds going to pay
laboratories for contract administration and oversight that
would be better performed by Federal personnel. The Committee
expects more direct contracting will be a result of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation office achieving its Federal staffing goals in
FY 2004. The Department's national laboratories should be used
to provide technical oversight and programmatic guidance in
those areas where they have special expertise.
The Committee directs that not more than 35 percent of the
funding for Russian programs may be spent in the United States.
The Department's failure to review the types of administrative
and programmatic guidance that are needed for these programs
and to choose the proper contractual mechanism leads to
excessive costs for administration and less funding going to
Russia. The Department should report to the Committee by
December 15, 2003, on the steps being taken to meet the 35
percent limitation.
INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL AND COOPERATION
The International Nuclear Materials Protection and
Cooperation program is designed to work cooperatively with
Russia to secure weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material.
The focus is to improve the physical security at facilities
that possess or process significant quantities of nuclear
weapons-usable that are of proliferation concern. Activities
include installing monitoring equipment, inventorying nuclear
material, improving the Russian security culture, and
establishing a security infrastructure.
The Committee recommendation is $255,000,000, an increase
of $29,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for accelerating the
Material Consolidation and Conversion (MCC) program as proposed
under the Accelerated Materials Disposition initiative. The
Committee continues to direct the Department to increase the
level of program funding that goes to employing Russian workers
and purchasing Russian-made equipment and reduce the amount of
funding that is spent in the United States.
Megaports initiative.--The fiscal year 2003 wartime
supplemental included $84,000,000 for developing and deploying
radiation detectors at mega seaports. The Megaports initiative
is a new activity in fiscal year 2003 intended to install
radiation detection equipment at the top 20 major overseas
seaports to detect and interdict special nuclear material prior
to arrival in the U.S. The top 20 foreign seaports identified
in the Megaports initiative as priority upgrades are the source
of 70% of the container traffic from all overseas ports
destined for U.S. ports. The Committee is fully supportive of
the Megaports concept of interdicting source material for a
weapon of mass destruction as far from the U.S. border as
feasible and directs the department to expand this new program
in fiscal year 2004. The Committee provides $28,000,000 within
International Materials Protection, Control and Cooperation,
Second Line of Defense, for Megaports. The Department did not
include funding for Megaports activities in the department's
budget request for fiscal year 2004; however, the Committee
expects the Department to request funding for this high
priority activity in the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
Standards for Cleanup after RDD Event.--The Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, provided
$17,000,000 to expand efforts under the International Nuclear
Materials Protection and Cooperation program to secure
materials that may be used to construct a radioactive dispersal
device (RDD) and to develop standards for the cleanup of
contamination resulting from a potential RDD event. In its
efforts to help develop appropriate cleanup standards for an
RDD event, the Committee expects the Department to coordinate
fully with the other Federal agencies that have responsibility
for setting radiation standards in the United States, namely
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
RUSSIAN TRANSITION INITIATIVE
The Committee recommendation for the Russian Transition
Initiative program is $40,000,000, the same as the budget
request. This includes the Initiative for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP) program and the Nuclear Cities Initiatives
(NCI) to develop projects to employ Russian weapons scientists
and downsize the Russian weapons complex.
HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) TRANSPARENCY IMPLEMENTATION
The highly enriched uranium (HEU) transparency
implementation program develops and implements mutually
agreeable transparency measures for the February 1993 agreement
between the United States and the Russian Federation. This
agreement, which has an estimated value of $12 billion, covers
the purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU)
derived from 500 metric tons of HEU removed from dismantled
Russian nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, conversion of HEU
components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The
Committee recommendation is $18,000,000, the same as the budget
request.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY AND COOPERATION
With the completion of the Soviet-designed reactor safety
program in fiscal year 2003, the international nuclear safety
and cooperation program should plan to complete all ongoing
activities by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Committee does
not support an expanded mission for the program beyond the
original mandate of the Soviet-designed reactor safety program.
The Committee notes that the security of nuclear materials and
facilities is the mission of other offices within the Office of
Nuclear Nonproliferation, and that other Federal and
international entities already have nuclear safety as a primary
mission. The Committee recommendation is $6,083,000, a
reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget request of $14,083,000.
The Committee reallocates the funds to continue and accelerate
the Megaports initiative in fiscal year 2004.
ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
The Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production
Program (EWGPP) was transferred from the Department of Defense
to the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2003. This is a
cooperative effort with the Federation of Russia to stop
plutonium production at three nuclear reactors still in
operation in Russia, two located at Seversk and one at
Zheleznogorsk. The three reactors have approximately 15 years
of remaining lifetime and could generate an additional 25
metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium. They also provide heat
and electricity required by the surrounding communities. The
current approach is to shutdown these three reactors within six
years by providing alternate fossil-fueled energy plants to
supply heat and electricity to the surrounding communities. The
total estimated cost to shutdown the three nuclear reactors and
build two new fossil-fuel plants is $470,000,000. The Committee
recommendation is $50,000,000, the same as the budget request.
The Committee appreciates that the Administrator of the
NNSA choose to complete the EWGPP fossil fuel construction
projects in accordance with the direction of the Committee and
expects to be kept informed of program progress.
ACCELERATED MATERIAL DISPOSITION
The Department has proposed a new initiative to augment
activities currently conducted under the 1993 HEU/LEU Purchase
Agreement with the Russian Federation to reduce weapons useable
high enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) for
fuel to be used in civilian power producing reactors in the
U.S. The Accelerated Material Disposition initiative proposes
to directly purchase HEU and HEU converted to LEU material from
the Russia Federation for storage and use by the U.S.
government. The Accelerated Material Disposition initiative has
a ten-year projected cost estimate of $710 million to $1.13
billion in order to eliminate an additional 15 Metric Tons (MT)
of excess HEU in Russia. Under the existing 1993 HEU/LEU
Purchase Agreement, 30 MT per year are presently being
eliminated by downblending to low enriched uranium at no cost
to the taxpayer.
The Committee is disappointed that the Administration's
highest profile nonproliferation initiative imposes a
government solution at significant cost to the taxpayer for a
nonproliferation issue that has been successfully addressed for
nearly a decade using a free market approach under the HEU/LEU
Purchase Agreement. At a time of constrained resources when the
Department is ignoring an obvious unmet need such as nuclear
material detection at foreign seaports, the Committee cannot
support such a significant commitment of outyear budgets for
what is a marginal nuclear nonproliferation gain. The Committee
concurs with the recent DOE Inspector General audit (DOE/IG-
0603) wherein the IG noted that the NN program had not
established a formal, risk-based approach to allocating program
funding. A proposal such as the AMD initiative demonstrates
that the NN program requires a stronger analytical decision-
making model to determine the appropriate use of the marginal
budget dollar.
The Committee notes that the $14,000,000 provided for
fiscal year 2003 will most likely remain uncosted, as the
implementing agreement negotiations with the Russians have not
been completed. Considering the ongoing concern of the
Committee regarding the large uncosted balances in the
Nonproliferation programs the request for AMD has been reduced
pending conclusion of negotiations with the Russians.
Consistent with the direction provided in the House-passed
Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act the
Committee provides $5,000,000, a reduction of $25,000,000 for
the Accelerated Material Disposition proposal.
The Committee recommended funding for accelerated Reduced
Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) and the HEU
Research Reactor Fuel Purchase and the Material Consolidation
and Conversion (MCC) program in the appropriate NN program
account where the existing base programs are funded.
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 $656,505,000, the same as
the budget request. Funding of $193,805,000 is provided for
U.S. surplus materials disposition and $47,100,000 for the
Russian plutonium disposition program.
The U.S. portion of the fissile materials disposition
program is not to be counted in the 35 percent limitation on
funds for Russian programs to be spent in the U.S.
Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation
includes $402,000,000 for Project 99-D-143, the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication facility project. Funding of $13,600,000 is
provided for Project 99-D-141, the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility project.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommendation includes the use of
$60,000,000 of prior year balances. The Committee reiterates
its concern over the ever-increasing uncosted balances in the
Nuclear Nonproliferation program. The Department estimates that
the end of fiscal year 2003 uncosted balances for NN will be
over $1,000,000,000. The Committee questions whether the
program is achieving its program goals with uncosted balances
at such levels. These balances represent a serious management
challenge for the NNSA and the Committee expects these funds
will be efficiently utilized in a timely manner.
Naval Reactors
Appropriation, 2003................................... $702,196,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 768,400,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 768,400,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +66,204,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects
of naval nuclear propulsion--from technology development
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal.
The program provides for the design, development, testing, and
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to ensuring the
safety and reliability of 102 operating Naval reactor plants
and to developing the next generation reactor. The Committee
recommendation is $768,400,000, the same as the budget request.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriation, 2003................................... $325,102,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 347,980,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 341,980,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +16,878,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -6,000,000
The Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) provides corporate planning and
oversight for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors, including the NNSA field
offices in New Mexico, Nevada, and California. The Committee
recommendation is $341,980,000, a reduction of $6,000,000 from
the budget request to reflect the reduction in overall program
activities.
The NNSA formally delivered to Congress a management
reengineering plan on December 20, 2002, with a goal of
consolidating functions, clarifying lines of authority and
reducing federal employment levels by 20 percent throughout the
complex by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Committee fully
supports the successful implementation of the NNSA
reengineering effort and will work with the Administrator to
achieve the fiscal year 2004 goal. The Committee expects
regular updates on the reengineering implementation progress
throughout fiscal year 2004.
The Committee directs the Administrator of NNSA to provide
at least $5,000,000 for the Office of Engineering and
Construction Management for External Independent Reviews (EIRs)
of NNSA projects and continue to provide financial support for
training and mentoring programs to improve the skills of NNSA
project managers.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The Committee provides
$58,000,000 for the Federal employees in the Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation to allow greater management
flexibility for that office in hiring Federal employees. The
Committee continues to identify the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation separately to maintain the transparency and
management attention on achieving the FY 2004 goal of 244 on-
board Federal employees.
The Committee recommendation provides $12,000, the same as
the budget request, for official reception and representation
expenses for the NNSA.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Defense Environmental Management
Appropriation, 2003................................... $6,723,090,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 6,809,814,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 6,748,457,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +25,367,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -61,357,000
The Defense Environmental Management program is responsible
for identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites
where the Department carried out defense-related nuclear
research and production activities that resulted in
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring
remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup
action. These responsibilities include facilities and areas at
114 geographic sites. These sites are located in 30 states and
one territory and occupy an area equal to that of Rhode Island
and Delaware combined-or about two million acres.
The Department has restructured its Defense Environmental
Management budget for fiscal year 2004 to focus on accelerated
cleanup and closure. The former Defense Environmental
Management accounts (Defense Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management, Defense Facilities Closure and Defense
Privatization) have been collapsed into the new Defense Site
Acceleration Completion and Defense Environmental Services
accounts. Defense Site Acceleration Completion, by far the
largest account at a request of $5.8 billion, has as its
primary mission the closure of cleanup sites centered on three
timeframes: 2006, 2012 and 2035. Defense Environmental Services
are those activities that support closure (e.g. federal
salaries, and payments to States and communities) and non-
mission environmental work (e.g. storage of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level waste, management of newly generated low level
radioactive waste for other programs).
The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental
Management totals $6,748,457,000, a reduction of $61,357,000
from the budget request of $6,809,814,000. Details of the
recommended funding levels follow below for the specific
Defense Environmental Management accounts.
The Committee continues to support the Department's efforts
to reform the Environmental Management program and realize
significant cost and schedules savings and accelerate risk
reduction. The Department should focus on reducing risk,
accelerating cleanup, eliminating activities that do not
contribute to risk reduction and cleanup, and improving the
structure, scope, and management of cleanup contracts. The
Committee does have several significant concerns about the
execution of the accelerated cleanup initiative, as detailed
below.
Lack of Agreement for Accelerated Performance Management
Plans.--As noted above in the discussion for the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund,
Congressional support for accelerated cleanup, specifically in
the form of additional near-term funding for accelerated
cleanup, is predicated on the concurrence of the involved State
regulators to the accelerated Performance Management Plans
(PMPs). Where the Department has not been able to reach
agreement with State regulators for specific accelerated PMPs,
the Committee does not provide the additional increment of
funding requested to support accelerated cleanup. The Committee
encourages the Department to continue working with these State
regulators so that the funds to support accelerated cleanup may
be restored in a future fiscal year. The Committee is watching
closely the negotiations between the Department and the State
of Washington regarding accelerated cleanup at Hanford. For the
present, the Committee recommendation includes the requested
accelerated cleanup funds for Hanford because the Committee
believes the Department and the State are making substantial
progress toward agreement. However, if the Department is not
able to resolve its differences with the State in the next
several months, the Committee reserves the right at conference
to redirect the additional funds to other sites that are more
committed to accelerated cleanup.
Review of Cost and Schedule Baselines.--The Department
recently notified the Committee that the total estimated cost
for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (project 01-D-
416) at Hanford has increased from $4.35 billion to $5.78
billion. This represents an increase of $1.43 billion, or
roughly 33 percent. Some of this increase is a result of
changes to the project scope resulting from the accelerated
cleanup schedule at Hanford, but much of this increase stems
from the dubious quality of the previous estimate. The Office
of Engineering and Construction Management has completed an
External Independent Review (EIR) on this latest project
baseline cost and schedule and confirmed it to be reasonable,
and the Committee has no real alternative but to accept that
judgment. However, the dramatic cost increase for this one
project does call into question the reliability of the
baselines for the other major projects within the accelerated
cleanup program. The Committee directs the Department to review
the baseline cost and schedule estimates for all of the line
item construction projects included in the fiscal year 2004
budget request. To fund these reviews, $2,500,000 should be
provided from within funds made available for the appropriate
Defense Environmental Management accounts.
Statutory Changes Required for Accelerated Cleanup.--The
Department's contractor for the cleanup of the Fernald, Ohio,
site recently proposed a statutory change to allow the material
stored in the Fernald silos to be treated as 11(e)(2) material
for purposes of disposal in a commercial disposal facility.
Such a statutory change is not required to meet the current
cleanup baseline, but apparently is necessary if the contractor
is to achieve the maximum possible schedule acceleration and
receive the maximum possible performance fee from the
Department. The Committee does not disagree with the merits of
this proposal regarding the classification of the Fernald silo
material for disposal purposes. However, the Committee strongly
objects to the Department sending forth its contractors to
advocate for legislative changes that are necessary to execute
accelerated cleanup plans. If these statutory changes are
responsible and for the benefit of the Government and the
taxpayer, then the Department should submit such changes as
part of a formal legislative proposal from the Administration
to the Congress. The Committee directs the Department to review
its current PMPs and cleanup contracts and identify any other
instances where statutory changes are required to execute
accelerated cleanup. The Department is directed to report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60
days after enactment of this Act with the results of this
review, and to submit a comprehensive legislative proposal with
the fiscal year 2005 budget request including all such proposed
changes to existing law.
Legacy Management.--A recent report by the National
Research Council on the status of Long-Term Stewardship of DOE
legacy waste sites raised concerns that departmental cleanup
planning and decision making was decoupled from long-term
stewardship planning. The Committee expects the department to
consider explicitly the long-term stewardship requirements when
implementing its accelerated cleanup plans to ensure that long-
term stewardship is not used as a substitute for complete and
effective site cleanup. The PMPs should identify the resources
that will be required to execute legacy responsibilities at
each site.
Economic development.--None of the Defense Environmental
Management funds are available for economic development
activities unless specifically authorized by law.
Defense Site Acceleration Completion
The Defense Site Acceleration Completion account is a new
account largely incorporating the programs, projects, and
activities from the previous site/project completion and post-
2006 completion subaccounts within the Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management account, the site closure
activities within the Defense Facilities Closure Projects
account, and the Defense Environmental Management Privatization
account, as well as the Environmental Management Cleanup Reform
initiative proposed by the Department in fiscal year 2003. The
Committee recommendation for defense site acceleration
completion in fiscal year 2004 is $5,758,278,000, a reduction
of $56,357,000 from the budget request of $5,814,635,000.
Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to
support the need for flexibility to meet changing funding
requirements at sites which are undergoing accelerated cleanup
activities. In fiscal year 2004, each site manager may transfer
up to $5,000,000 between Defense Site Acceleration Completion
subaccounts (i.e., accelerated completions 2006, accelerated
completions 2012, accelerated completions 2035, and line item
construction projects) to reduce health or safety risks or to
gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased
or decreased by more than $5,000,000 once during the fiscal
year. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate
new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or
increased by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
thirty days of the use of this reprogramming authority.
Accelerated Completions, 2006.--The Committee
recommendation provides $1,242,751,000, a reduction of
$2,420,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of
regulatory agreement on accelerated 2006 cleanup activities for
the Sandia National Laboratories. This funding supports the
closure by the year 2006 of the Rocky Flats, West Jefferson,
Fernald, Miamisburg, and Ashtabula sites, and the completion of
significant cleanup projects at various other sites such as
Melton Valley.
Accelerated Completions, 2012.--The Committee
recommendation provides $2,216,587,000, a reduction of
$11,727,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of
regulatory agreement on accelerated 2012 cleanup activities for
the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Pantex site. This
amount includes the requested funding of $23,500,000 for
project engineering and design of two projects at the Savannah
River Site (SRS) and the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) (project 04-D-414), $1,134,000
for construction of container surveillance capability at SRS
(project 04-D-423), $1,126,000 for construction of the INTEC
cathodic protection system expansion project at INEEL (project
02-D-402), and $690,000,000 for construction of the Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant at Hanford (project 01-D-
416).
Accelerated Completions, 2035.--The Committee
recommendation provides $1,961,387,000, a reduction of
$17,210,000 from the budget request to reflect the lack of
regulatory agreement on accelerated 2035 cleanup activities for
the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This amount includes the
requested funding of $13,954,000 for construction of the
Immobilized High Level Waste Interim Storage Facility at
Hanford (project 03-D-403), $51,500,000 to continue design of
the Salt Waste Processing Facility Alternative at SRS (project
03-D-414), and $20,259,000 for construction of Glass Waste
Storage Building #2 at SRS (project 04-D-408).
Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommendation
provides $299,977,000, the same as the budget request.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommendation provides $63,920,000, the same as the budget
request. Within available funds, the Committee provides
$5,000,000 to continue the five-year international agreement
with AEA Technology, and $7,000,000 to continue the five-year
agreement with Florida International University's Hemispheric
Center for Environmental Technology.
Funding adjustments.--The Committee recommendation includes
an offset of $1,344,000, the same as the budget request, for
the security costs associated with reimbursable work, and a
general reduction of $25,000,000 to be applied primarily to
activities with the least impact on near-term cleanup and
closure.
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
The Defense Environmental Services account is a new account
incorporating the activities that indirectly support the
cleanup and closure of contaminated sites. These include
activities such as the management of non-legacy spent nuclear
fuel and newly-generated waste and the recovery and disposal of
sealed radioactive sources, as well as community and regulatory
support, the Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, and program direction
for the Department's environmental management efforts. The
Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental Services in
fiscal year 2004 is $990,179,000, a reduction of $5,000,000
from the budget request.
Community and Regulatory Support.--The Committee
recommendation is $61,337,000, the same as the budget request.
Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund.--The Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Public Law 102-486, created the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of
cleanup of the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The
Committee recommendation includes the budget request of
$452,000,000 for the Federal contribution to the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as
authorized in Public Law 102-486.
Non-Closure Environmental Activities.--The Committee
recommendation is $189,698,000, the same as the budget request,
including the requested amounts for spent nuclear fuel
stabilization and disposition at the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, and Savannah River Site, and solid waste
stabilization and disposition of newly generated waste at the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Department is to fund the
Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program at the fiscal year 2003
level from within available funds.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for
program direction is $292,144,000, the same as the budget
request.
Funding adjustments.--The Committee recommendation includes
a general reduction of $5,000,000.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--
The Committee continues to expect the Department to fulfill its
responsibilities at FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial
actions to be performed by the Corps of Engineers.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriation, 2003................................... $515,659,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 636,154,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 666,516,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +150,857,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +30,362,000
This account provides funding for Energy Security and
Assurance; the Office of Security; Intelligence;
Counterintelligence; Independent Oversight and Performance
Assurance; Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Worker and
Community Transition; National Security Programs Administrative
Support; and the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Descriptions
of each of these programs are provided below.
ENERGY SECURITY AND ASSURANCE
The operational component of this office was transferred to
the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003. The
remaining Department of Energy component will be maintained as
an office for the purpose of advising the Secretary of Energy
in the development of policy to ensure the reliability of the
nation's energy infrastructure. The Committee recommendation
for energy security and assurance is $2,472,000, a reduction of
$1,800,000 from the budget request. The Committee notes the FTE
level dropped from 22 to 8 from fiscal year 2003 to 2004.
OFFICE OF SECURITY
The Office of Security provides a domestic safeguards and
security program for protection of nuclear weapons, nuclear
materials, nuclear facilities, and classified and unclassified
information against sabotage, espionage, terrorist activities,
or any loss or unauthorized disclosure that could endanger the
national security or disrupt operations. The Committee
recommendation for security and emergency operations is
$211,757,000, the same as the budget request.
In fiscal year 2004, the Department of Energy will spend
over $1 billion on safeguards and security activities at
Headquarters and field locations. The $211,757,000 provided to
the Office of Security is for Headquarters activities only.
Funding for safeguards and security activities at Departmental
facilities and laboratories in the field is included within
each program budget.
The Committee notes that safeguards and security is not a
mission of the Department of Energy; instead it is a
requirement that must be met when conducting activities to meet
the actual defense, science, and environmental clean up
missions of the Department. When implementing the needed
security enhancements to meet increased requirements, the
Committee will look to the Department's use of improved
technology and the efficient restructuring and consolidation of
material and facilities requiring the highest levels of
security with the goal of improving S&S and reducing the
percentage of the budget that must be used for safeguards and
security.
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 $39,823,000, the same as the budget
request.
OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
The Office of Counterintelligence seeks to develop and
implement an effective counterintelligence program throughout
the Department of Energy. The goal of the program is to
identify, neutralize, and deter foreign government or
industrial intelligence threats directed at the Department's
facilities, personnel, information, and technologies. The
Committee recommendation is $45,955,000, the same as the budget
request.
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE
The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance
Assurance is the focal point for independent evaluation of
safeguards, security, emergency management, and cyber security.
The Committee recommendation is $22,575,000, 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 $107,686,000,
the same as the budget request. With a significant Headquarters
staff of Federal employees, the Committee continues to believe
that outside contractor assistance can be reduced.
The recommendation for health effects studies is
$48,160,000, the same as the budget request. The Department
funds several programs for occupational medicine, public health
studies, and epidemiologic monitoring. The Committee expects
the Department to review all these activities to achieve
efficiencies through consolidation.
WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION
The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community
transition program is $15,000,000, the same as the budget
request. Funding has remained stable or increased in many
Departmental programs, and there are no significant contractor
reductions requiring additional funds in fiscal year 2004. The
Committee has provided $1,400,000 from within available funds
for the Pinellas Community Reuse Organization to complete the
STAR Center transition. The Committee directs that none of the
funds provided for this program be used for additional
severance payments and benefits for Federal employees.
The worker and community transition program was established
to mitigate the impacts on workers and communities of
contractor workforce reductions as a result of the end of the
Cold War. Funds are provided for enhanced severance payments to
employees at former defense sites, and for assisting community
planning for defense conversion through Federal grants.
However, the cost of this program has not been insignificant
and now exceeds $1 billion. With program funds increasing in
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 at NNSA and environmental
cleanup sites, the Committee sees no need to increase funding
for severance benefits above the budget request for fiscal year
2004.
Program direction.--The Committee recommendation of
$2,679,000 for program direction, the same as the budget
request.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT
The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes to establish
the Office of Legacy Management to manage the long-term
stewardship responsibilities at the Department of Energy clean
up sites after remediation activities are completed. The
functions of the Office will include long-term surveillance and
maintenance of DOE facilities where remediation measures are
substantially completed and the management of the post-closure
benefits of former contractor employees. The Committee expects
the Department's legacy management plans and activities will be
coordinated with the Office of Environmental Management to
ensure clean up and long term stewardship is appropriately
integrated. The Committee recommendation for the Office of
Legacy Management activities includes $47,525,000, the same as
the budget request, of which $19,178,000 is provided in Other
Defense Activities and the balance is provided in nondefense
Environmental Services. The Committee directs the Legacy
Management appropriation account line to continue to be
identified separately in future departmental budget requests.
FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO
The Committee recommendation includes $112,306,000 to fund
the defense-related (050 budget function) activities at the
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)
and associated Idaho cleanup sites. This amount includes
$21,415,000 for INEEL infrastructure, the same as the budget
request, for activities at this site previously funded under
the Defense Environmental Management account; 56,654,000 for
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security, the same as the budget
request; and $34,237,000 for program direction to support
Headquarters and Idaho Field Office personnel previously funded
under Defense Environmental Management.
NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The Committee recommendation includes $86,679,000, to
provide administrative support for programs funded in the
atomic energy defense activities accounts. This will fund
Departmental activities performed by offices such as the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary, the General
Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources,
Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs, which support the
organizations and activities funded in the atomic energy
defense activities accounts.
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is responsible for
all of the Department's adjudicatory processes, other than
those administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Committee recommendation is $3,797,000, the same as the
budget request.
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommendation for funding adjustments
includes an offset of $712,000 for the safeguards and security
charge for reimbursable work, the same as the budget request.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriation, 2003................................... $312,952,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 430,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 430,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +117,048,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for
activities related to the disposal of high-level waste and
spent nuclear fuel generated from the atomic energy defense
activities of the Department of Energy. At the end of fiscal
year 2002, the balance owed by the Federal government to the
Nuclear Waste Fund was $1,212,000,000 (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 2002, a total of $1,693,129,000 has been
appropriated to support nuclear waste repository activities
attributable to atomic energy defense activities.
The Committee recommendation is $430,000,000, the same as
the budget request. Combined with the funding recommended for
Nuclear Waste Disposal, this will provide a total of
$765,000,000 for nuclear waste disposal activities in fiscal
year 2004.
Cerro Grande Fire Activities
The Committee has included language proposed by the
Administration canceling $75,000,000 of remaining available
balances from the Cerro Grande Fire activities. The Committee
directs the Secretary of Energy to deobligate the funds to be
cancelled.
Power Marketing Administrations
Management of the Federal power marketing functions was
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department
of Energy by the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L.
95-91). These functions include the power marketing activities
authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and
all other functions of the Bonneville Power Administration, the
Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern Power
Administration, and the power marketing functions of the Bureau
of Reclamation that have been transferred to the Western Area
Power Administration.
All power marketing administrations except the Bonneville
Power Administration are funded annually with appropriated
funds. Revenues collected from power sales and transmission
services are deposited in the Treasury to offset expenditures.
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004 does not
support the Administration proposal to continue the phase-out
of federal financing of the customers' purchase power and
wheeling expenses for the Southeastern Power Administration,
the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area
Power Administration. Also, the Committee recommendation does
not at this time incorporate the Administration proposal for
the Power Marketing Administrations to fund directly from
revenues the costs of operation and maintenance of federal
hydropower facilities at Corps of Engineers dams, as this
proposal is presently under consideration by the authorizing
committees.
Operations of the Bonneville Power Administration are self-
financed under the authority of the Federal Columbia River
Transmission System Act (P.L. 93-454). Under this Act, the
Bonneville Power Administration is authorized to use its
revenues to finance the costs of its operations, maintenance,
and capital construction, and to sell bonds to the Treasury if
necessary to finance any additional capital program
requirements.
Purchase power and wheeling.--The Committee finds no
compelling reason to continue the phase out of purchase power
and wheeling, particularly since this activity is budget
neutral. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2004
maintains purchase power and wheeling activities at
approximately the fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee will
continue to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for
purchase power and wheeling, and also establish the amount of
offsetting collections.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating
facilities in the region, and exchanges and markets surplus
power with Canada and California.
The Committee continues to have concerns about Bonneville's
financial situation, particularly in light of the $700 million
in additional borrowing authority provided to Bonneville in the
Energy and Water Development Act, 2003. At the same time that
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations were
conferencing the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill and
deciding whether to provide this additional borrowing
authority, Bonneville realized that it had a 74 percent
probability that it would miss its loan repayment to the
Federal Treasury in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, Bonneville
neglected to inform Congress of this critical change in its
financial circumstances until after the fiscal year 2003
appropriations conference was completed.
The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)
to conduct a thorough review of the Bonneville Power
Administration. The GAO has provided the following preliminary
findings and observations: (1) increasing borrowing authority
for the transmission side of BPA will increase BPA's overall
costs but will not resolve its current financial difficulties
on the power generation side of BPA (i.e., low cash reserves
and poor bond rating); (2) BPA is currently overextended as a
result of committing to provide more power than it can generate
from the Federal hydropower system, creating greater volatility
in costs and revenues; (3) stakeholders see a lack of
sufficient oversight and a lack of incentives to control costs;
and (4) the present rate structure insulates customers from
natural fluctuations in hydropower availability, thus
eliminating any price signal when electricity is scarce. The
net result is that Bonneville continues to operate at
significant financial risk, which impacts both ratepayers in
the region and taxpayers in the rest of the country.
The Committee directs the Secretary to conduct an
independent review of Bonneville's mission, management, and
financial condition to address the GAO findings and
conclusions. The Committee expects the Secretary to make
specific recommendations to Congress to show how Bonneville
might focus its mission on delivering the electricity generated
by the Federal hydropower system and reduce the risk to the
ratepayers in the region and to the Federal Treasury. The
Secretary should submit this report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not later than December 31, 2004.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2003................................... $4,505,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 5,100,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 5,100,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +595,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Southeastern Power Administration markets the
hydroelectric power produced at 23 Corps of Engineers projects
in eleven states in the Southeast. Southeastern does not own or
operate any transmission facilities, so it contracts to
``wheel'' its power using the existing transmission facilities
of area utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southeastern Power
Administration is $5,100,000, the same as the budget request.
The total program level for Southeastern in fiscal year 2003 is
$39,100,000, with $34,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling
and $5,100,000 for program direction. The purchase power and
wheeling costs will be offset by collections of $34,000,000.
The offsetting collections total of $34,000,000 includes
$15,000,000 made available in Public Law 106-377 for use in
fiscal year 2004, plus an additional $19,000,000 provided in
this Act.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
Appropriation, 2003................................... $27,200,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 28,600,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 28,600,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +1,400,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Southwestern Power Administration markets the
hydroelectric power produced at 24 Corps of Engineers projects
in the six-state area of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern operates and maintains 1,380
miles of transmission lines, with the supporting substations
and communications sites. Southwestern gives preference in the
sale of its power to publicly and cooperatively owned
utilities.
The Committee recommendation for the Southwestern Power
Administration is $28,600,000, the same as the budget request.
The total program level for Southwestern in fiscal year 2004 is
$30,400,000, including $4,663,000 for operating expenses,
$1,800,000 for purchase power and wheeling, $19,205,000 for
program direction, and $4,732,000 for construction. The offset
of $1,800,000 from collections for purchase power and wheeling
yields a net appropriation of $27,378,000. The offsetting
collections total of $1,800,000 includes $288,000 made
available in Public Law 106-377 for use in fiscal year 2004,
plus an additional $1,512,000 provided in this Act. The
Committee recommendation also provides authority for
Southwestern to accept advances from non-Federal entities to
provide interconnections to Southwestern's transmission system.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
Appropriation, 2003................................... $167,760,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 171,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 171,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +3,240,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long. Western provides electricity to 15 Central and Western
states over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee recommendation for the Western Area Power
Administration is $171,000,000, the same as the budget request.
The total program level for Western in fiscal year 2003 is
$360,992,000, which includes $12,200,000 for construction and
rehabilitation, $36,204,000 for system operation and
maintenance, $186,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and
$126,588,000 for program direction. Consistent with the budget
request, no funds are provided for Utah mitigation and
conservation. Offsetting collections for purchase power and
wheeling total $186,000,000; with the use of $3,992,000 of
offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam Fund (as
authorized in P.L. 98-381), this requires a net appropriation
of $171,000,000. The offsetting collections for purchase power
and wheeling includes $20,000,000 made available in Public Law
106-377 for use in fiscal year 2004, plus an additional
$166,000,000 provided in this Act.
Within available funds, the Committee recommendation
includes $4,825,000 for upgrades of the Phoenix substation.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
Appropriation, 2003................................... $2,716,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 2,640,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 2,640,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -76,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam are two international water
projects located on the Rio Grande River between Texas and
Mexico. Power generated by hydroelectric facilities at these
two dams is sold to public utilities through the Western Area
Power Administration. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 created the Falcon and Amistad
Operating and Maintenance Fund to defray the costs of
operation, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Fund is
administered by the Western Area Power Administration for use
by the Commissioner of the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission.
The Committee recommendation is $2,640,000, the same as the
budget request.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2003................................... $192,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 199,400,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 192,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -7,400,000
REVENUES APPLIED
Appropriation, 2003................................... -$192,000,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. -199,400,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... -192,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... ................
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. +7,400,000
The Committee recommendation for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) is $192,000,000, the same as the
fiscal year 2003 funding level and a decrease of $7,400,000
compared to the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Revenues for
FERC are established at a rate equal to the budget authority,
resulting in a net appropriation of $0.
The Committee has concerns regarding the integration of
various Midwestern companies into a regional transmission
organization (RTO) under the FERC order issued July 31, 2002.
To protect consumers in the Midwestern States, the Committee
expects FERC will require that the conditions of its July 31,
2002, order be met before proceeding with any irreversible
integration of transmission systems. The Committee may address
this issue in more detail at conference, pending receipt of a
report from FERC on the status of this integration.
The Federal Power Act requires FERC to establish and
collect reasonable annual charges for the use of federal lands
for non-federal hydropower projects. Since 1987, FERC has
charged land rents for hydropower projects based on a system
used by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management
for linear rights-of-way (e.g., power lines, pipelines, etc.)
The General Accounting Office (GAO), in response to a request
from this Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Interior
Appropriations, conducted an analysis of these land rents
charged by FERC for non-federal hydropower projects located on
federal lands. In its completed report (GAO-03-383), GAO
concludes that FERC is collecting only two percent of the fair
market value of these Federal lands used for non-federal
hydropower. This represents a significant loss of revenues to
the Treasury and also a significant subsidy for non-Federal
hydropower projects.
Based on preliminary results from this GAO review last
year, in House Report 107-681 the Committee directed FERC to
submit in its fiscal year 2004 budget request a proposal to
revise the existing fee schedule to capture more of the real
market value of these federal lands. The Committee did not
direct FERC to make a change to the existing fee schedule, and
certainly did not suggest that these land rents should be
increased overnight by a factor of 50 or more. However, the
Committee did expect to receive a serious proposal from FERC on
how the current land rent fees could be revised over time to
capture more of the real value of these lands for the U.S.
Treasury. Instead, FERC submitted a 2-page letter report
explaining its reservations about adopting the GAO net benefits
methodology (which the Committee did not direct FERC to do),
noting that a shift to a more complex methodology will require
additional resources (which the Appropriations Committee
already realized), and stating that FERC intends to wait until
the Forest Service revises its right-of-way index before it
will consider making any changes to the FERC methodology.
The Committee considers this FERC response to be wholly
inadequate. The Committee does not support increased budget
authority for FERC at this time. Further, the Committee
strongly recommends that the House Budget Committee and the
Office of Management and Budget take a closer look at the
revenues being foregone by FERC's continued use of the existing
fee schedule for land rents.
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.--The Committee is very concerned that
the Department continues to maintain a number of management and
operating (M&O) contracts that have never been competed, some
since their inception over 60 years ago. The general provision
carried in previous Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Acts, requiring competition of these contracts but allowing the
Secretary to waive the requirement upon notification to
Congress, has not been effective in changing the Department's
continued reliance on noncompetitive contract awards and
contract extensions. Therefore, this Committee has included
bill language barring the use of appropriated funds to continue
to pay for M&O contracts that have not been competitively
awarded within the past fifty fiscal years (i.e., since fiscal
year 1954). For M&O contracts that have not been competitively
awarded within that time period, the Department may continue to
fund such contracts only if the Secretary announces his intent
to compete these contracts when their current terms expire. The
Secretary must publish such notification in the Federal
Register, and must submit a written notification to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, within 60 days of
enactment of this Act. The specific reference to section
303(c)(1) of the Title III of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(3)) in
included to ensure that the Department does not continue to use
the status of DOE laboratories as federally funded research and
development centers (FFRDCs) as an excuse for not competing
these laboratory contracts.
It is not the Committee's intent to disrupt contracts that
have been competitively awarded in recent years (e.g.,
Brookhaven, NREL, Sandia), nor to undo decisions the Secretary
has already made to extend non-competitively the existing
contracts at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory. However, the Committee does intend to
change the Department's contracting practice going forward. The
Committee is hopeful that the Secretary's Blue Ribbon
Commission on the Use of Competitive Procedures for DOE
Laboratories will be able to provide the Secretary with
specific guidance on how to evaluate the performance of the
incumbent contractors, how to structure a full and open
competition that is fair to incumbents and competitors alike,
and how to compete the contracts for those laboratories
situated on university property. The Committee also expects
that these changes will help to stimulate a larger pool of
qualified for-profit, non-profit, and academic contractors to
compete for these M&O contracts.
To the Department's credit, it has recently announced its
intent to compete the M&O contracts for the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and for the
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and has made significant
improvements in competing the contracts for the cleanup of
Environmental Management sites. However, the Secretary has
imposed several conditions on the competition of the LANL
contract that this Committee believes will unduly bias any
competition in favor of the incumbent LANL contractor.
Specifically, the Secretary has directed that any competition
of the LANL contract must protect all of the existing workforce
and all of the pension benefits of the existing workforce. In
addition, the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has recently suggested that the incumbent
contractor for LANL may be able to charge its proposal
preparation costs to the existing contract. Any incumbent
contractor already enjoys enormous advantages over potential
competitors in proposal preparation, both in terms of having a
known record of performance and of having inside knowledge of
lab operations that other competitors will not have. The
Department should not offer to pay the incumbent's proposal
costs unless the Department is prepared to offer the same
benefit to all competitors, an obviously expensive and
impractical solution. Therefore, the Committee includes bill
language prohibiting the inclusion of any condition to an M&O
contract that has the effect of biasing the competition in
favor of the incumbent contractor or otherwise establishing
something less than full and open competition. The prohibition
on such conditions does not extend to defining the scope of the
contract, for which the incumbent enjoys a natural advantage,
or to crediting the incumbent's past performance when
evaluating its qualifications for a future contract.
Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 302
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
prepare or implement workforce restructuring plans or provide
enhanced severance payments and other benefits and community
assistance grants for Federal employees of the Department of
Energy under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization
Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. The Committee has
provided no funds to implement workforce restructuring plans
which would provide benefits to Federal employees of the
Department of Energy which are not available to other Federal
employees of the United States Government. This provision was
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2003.
Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section
303 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used to
augment the $15,000,000 made available for obligation in this
Act for enhanced severance payments to contractors and other
benefits and community assistance grants authorized under the
provisions of section 3161 of the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484. This
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2003.
Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 304 provides that none of the funds in this Act may be
used to initiate requests for proposals or expressions of
interest for new programs which have not yet been presented to
Congress in the annual budget submission, and which have not
yet been approved and funded by Congress. This provision was
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2003.
Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 305
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this
bill. This provision was included in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2003.
Limitation on Bonneville Power Administration.--Section 306
provides that none of the funds in this or any other Act may be
used by the Administrator of the Bonneville Power
Administration to perform energy efficiency services outside
the legally defined Bonneville service territory unless the
Administrator certifies in advance that such services are not
available from private sector businesses. This provision was
included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2003.
User Facilities.--Section 307 establishes certain notice
and competition requirements with respect to the involvement of
universities in Department of Energy user facilities. This
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2003. The detailed guidance on the
application of this provision was provided in House Report 107-
681 and continues to apply.
Research, Development and Demonstration Activities.--
Section 308 provides authority for up to 2 percent of national
security funding at the Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 plants,
the Savannah River Plant, and the Nevada Test Site to be used
for research, development, and demonstration activities. This
provision was included in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2003.
Authorization of Intelligence Activities.--Section 309
authorizes intelligence activities of the Department of Energy
for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of
1947 during fiscal year 2004 until the enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
Authorization for Continued External Regulation Analyses.--
Section 310 provides that, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of Energy shall proceed with planning and
analyses for external regulation of the Department's
laboratories under the Office of Science.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriation, 2003................................... $70,827,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 33,145,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 33,145,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -37,682,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
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 recommendation is $33,145,000, the same as the budget
request.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, 2003................................... $18,876,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 19,559,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 19,559,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +683,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President,
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the
standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department
of Energy.
The Committee recommendation is $19,559,000, the same as
the budget request.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriation, 2003................................... $7,948,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 2,000,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 2,000,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -5,948,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Delta Regional
Authority for fiscal year 2004, the same as the budget request.
The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the
Authority to submit a detailed budget justification if funds
were requested in fiscal year 2004. The Authority did not
comply with this requirement. If no budget justification is
submitted with the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the
Committee will not provide funding for the Authority.
Denali Commission
Appropriation, 2003................................... $47,688,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 9,500,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... ................
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -47,688,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. -9,500,000
The Committee has recommended no funding for the Denali
Commission in fiscal year 2004 due to funding constraints.
The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act directed the
Commission to submit a detailed budget justification if funds
were requested in fiscal year 2003. The Commission did not
comply with this requirement. The Committee again directs the
Commission to submit a detailed budget justification if funds
are requested in fiscal year 2005.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Appropriation, 2003................................... $577,806,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 618,800,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 618,800,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +40,994,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
REVENUES
Appropriation, 2003................................... $-520,087,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. -538,844,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... -538,844,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -18,757,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriation, 2003................................... $57,719,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 79,956,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 79,956,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +22,237,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) salaries and expenses is $618,800,000, the
same as the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated
revenues of $538,844,000, resulting in a net appropriation of
$79,956,000. The recommendation includes the requested amount
of $33,100,000 to be made available from the Nuclear Waste Fund
to support the Department of Energy's effort to develop a
permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-
level waste.
Fee Recovery.--Pursuant to the agreement reached in fiscal
year 2001, the NRC is required in fiscal year 2004 to recover
92 percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from
the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees.
Of the $618,800,000 gross appropriation, $33,100,000 is drawn
from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 92 percent of the balance of
$585,700,000 (i.e., $538,844,000) is funded by fees collected
from NRC licensees, and the remaining eight percent (i.e.,
$46,856,000) is funded from the General Fund of the Treasury.
This amount funded from the General Fund is available to fund
those activities, such as NRC corporate homeland security
expenses, that may not be appropriate to assess to NRC
licensees.
Repository Licensing.--The Committee is concerned about the
extent of documentation that the Department of Energy may be
required to post as part of the License Support Network (LSN).
The Committee has provided guidance in Title III of this report
directing DOE that Congressional communications between the
Members and staffs of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Department are not to be included in
documentation the Department posts on the LSN. The Committee
encourages the Commission to review its regulatory requirements
and guidance regarding the LSN to ensure they do not require
duplication of information otherwise easily obtainable, focus
on information that is truly relevant to substantive decisions
that will have to be made, and establishes a timeframe in
accord with the traditional conduct of an adjudicatory
proceeding. The Committee expects the Commission to work with
the Department to ensure that all significant and relevant
documents are made available in the License Support Network to
support sound decisionmaking on the License Application, but to
also ensure that the care and feeding of the License Support
Network does not expand to consume a disproportionate amount of
DOE and NRC resources.
Reports.--The Committee directs the Commission to continue
to provide monthly reports on the status of its licensing and
other regulatory activities.
Office of Inspector General
Gross Appropriation
Appropriation, 2003................................... $6,797,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 7,300,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 7,300,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +503,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
Revenues
Appropriation, 2003................................... $-6,392,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. -6,716,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... -6,716,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -324,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
Net Appropriation
Appropriation, 2003................................... $405,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 584,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 584,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... +179,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,300,000,
the same as the budget request and an increase of $503,000 over
fiscal year 2003. The Commission is required by law to recover
92 percent of this budget authority in fiscal year 2004 through
the assessment of license and annual fees. Therefore, the
revenue estimate is $6,716,000, resulting in a net
appropriation for the NRC Inspector General of $584,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriation, 2003................................... $3,179,000
Budget Estimate, 2004................................. 3,177,000
Recommended, 2004..................................... 3,177,000
Comparison:
Appropriation, 2003............................... -2,000
Budget Estimate, 2004............................. ................
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established by
the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to
provide independent technical oversight of the Department of
Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The Committee sees the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as having a continuing
independent oversight role, as is specified in Section 503 of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, as the
Department begins to focus on the packaging or transportation
of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,179,000 for
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the same as the
budget request and a decrease of $2,000 from fiscal year 2003
funding.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommendation includes several general
provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Prohibition on Lobbying.--Section 501 provides that none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way,
directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on
any legislation or appropriation matters pending before
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
Buy American.--Section 502 requires that American-made
equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent
practicable.
Transfer of Funds.--Section 503 provides that none of the
funds made available in this Act may be transferred to any
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer
authority provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act.
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 Commission of the United States of America which states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury bill in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)2 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary........................... 27,080 27,211 27,080 27,173
Mandatory............................... ................ ................ ................ ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Five-Year Outlays 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.............................................. 27,080
Outlays:
2004...................................................... 17,975
2005...................................................... 7,786
2006...................................................... 1,285
2007...................................................... 22
2008 and beyond........................................... 7
Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to
State and local governments is as follows:
Millions
Budget Authority.............................................. 32
Fiscal year 2004 outlays resulting therefrom.................. 3
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 $57,330,000 shall be available for
transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and
$33,570,000 shall be available for transfer to the
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which
such amounts as may be necessary may be advanced to the
Colorado River Dam Fund; * * *
* * * Provided, That such transfers may be increased
or decreased within the overall appropriations under
this heading: * * *
* * * Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San
Gabriel Restoration Fund established by section 110 of
division B, Title I of Public Law 106-554, as amended *
* *
Under Title III, Weapons Activities:
* * * Provided further, that not less than
$10,000,000 of the funds provided in this paragraph
shall be transferred to the Chief Financial Officer of
the Department of Energy for the sole purpose of
upgrading the Department of Energy's accounting and
financial systems to track National Nuclear Security
Administration costs by weapon system.
Under Title III, Environmental Cleanup Reform:
* * * Provided, That these amounts may be transferred
to and merged with accounts under this title which fund
specific cleanup activities only after the Secretary of
Energy enters into an agreement satisfactory to the
Secretary and the appropriate State and Federal
regulators, for each site for which these funds may be
used.
Under Title III, General Provisions:
Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior
appropriations provided for activities in this Act may
be transferred to appropriation accounts for such
activities established pursuant to this title. Balances
so transferred may be merged with funds in the
applicable established accounts and thereafter may be
accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the
application of existing law.
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Language has been included under Corps of Engineers,
General Investigations, providing for detailed studies and
plans and specifications of projects prior to construction.
Language has also been included under General Investigations
providing credit for work done by local interests on the Ohio
Riverfront, Cincinnati, Ohio, project.
Language has been included under Construction, General,
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also
included under Construction, General, directing the Corps of
Engineers to proceed with the New York Harbor Deepening project
under certain conditions and placing a limitation on the use of
funds for activities related to restoration of the Everglades.
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
General stating that funds may be used for providing security
at facilities owned and operated by or on behalf of the Corps
of Engineers, including the Washington Aqueduct.
Language has been included under Operation and Maintenance,
General, stating the following:
* * * for the maintenance of harbor channels provided
by a State, municipality or other public agency that
serve needs of general commerce * * *
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.
Lanaguage has been included under General Expenses
regarding support of the Humphreys Engineer Support Center
Activity, the Institute for Water Resources and headquarters
support functions at the USACE Finance Center. Language is also
included under General Expenses prohibiting the use of other
title I funds for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the
division offices. Language is also included prohibiting the use
of funds to support an office of congressional affairs within
the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.
Lanaguage has been included under Administrative Provision
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of
motor vehicles.
Language is included under General Provisions as follows:
Sec. 101. The Committee has included language proposed by
the Administration which places a limit on credits and
reimbursements allowable per project and annually for all
projects.
Sec. 102. The Committee has included language prohibiting
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
Sec. 103. The Committee has included language prohibiting
the expenditure of funds related to a proposed landfill in
Stark County, Ohio.
Sec. 104. The Committee has included language renaming Lock
and Dam 3 on the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Language has been included under Water and Related
Resources providing that funds are available for fulfilling
Federal responsibilities to Native Americans and for grants to
and cooperative agreements with state and local governments and
Indian tribes. Language is included under Water and Related
Resources providing that such sums as necessary may be advanced
to the Colorado River Dam Fund. Language is included under
Water and Related Resources which permits fund transfers within
the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin
Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.
Language is included under Water and Related Resources
providing that funds may be used for work carried out by the
Youth Conservation Corps. Language is included under Water and
Related Resources providing that funds may be derived from the
Reclamation Fund or the special fee account established by 16
U.S.C. 4601-6a(i). Language is included under Water and Related
Resources which provides that funds contributed by non-Federal
entities shall be available for expenditure. Language is
included providing that funds advanced for operation and
maintenance of reclamation facilities are to be credited to the
Water and Related Resources account. Language is 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 providing that $10,000,000 shall be deposited
in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. Language is included
under Water and Related Resources amending the Reclamation
States Emergency Drought Relief Act.
Language has been included under the Bureau of Reclamation
Loan Program Account 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 is included under the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund providing that none of the funds
provided may be used for the acquisition or lease of water for
in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to in-
stream purposes be a court adopted decree or order.
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 included under the Working Capital Fund
rescinding unobligated balances.
Language has been provided under General Provisions as
follows:
Section 201. The Committee has included language proposed
by the Administration regarding the San Luis Unit and the
Kesterson Reservoir in California. This language has been
included in Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts
for several years.
Section 202. The Committee has included language which
prohibits the use of funds for any water acquisition or lease
in the Middle Rio Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico
unless the acquisition is in compliance with existing State law
and administered under State priority allocation.
Section 203. The Committee has included language which
amends Section 206 of Public Law 101-514 regarding water supply
contracts for the Sacramento County Water Agency and the San
Juan Suburban Water District by removing the requirement that
the contracts include an annual needs determination.
Section 204. The Committee has included language which
authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to amend
the Central Valley Project water supply contracts for the
Sacramento County Water Agency and the San Juan Suburban Water
District by deleting a provision requiring a determination of
annual water needs.
Section 205. The Committee has included language which
provides that funds in the Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund shall not be diverted to the General Fund of
the Treasury pending the completion of an omnibus Arizona water
rights settlement agreement.
Section 206. The Committee has included language which
provides that funds provided to the Bureau of Reclamation may
be used for the payment of claims not exceeding $5,000,000.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Language has been included under Energy Supply providing
for the purchase of not to exceed 12 passenger motor vehicles
of replacement only, including 2 buses.
Language has been included under Science providing for the
purchase of not to exceed 15 passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, including not to exceed one ambulance.
Language has been included under Nuclear Waste Disposal
providing that none of the funds provided in this or any other
appropriations Act may be used for the planning, design, or
development of the rail corridors that pass near the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Area, specifically the Valley Modified Corridor
and the Jean Corridor, and providing that $65,000,000 of the
$70,000,000 made available in this Act for Nevada rail
transportation shall be available only if the Secretary
designates rail as the preferred mode of transportation within
Nevada and selects a Nevada rail corridor within 60 days of
enactment of this Act and commences the necessary environmental
and engineering analysis to develop and issue a record of
Decision for a specific rail alignment within the selected rail
corridor by June 30, 2005.
Language has been included under the Nuclear Waste Disposal
providing that funds appropriated to the State of Nevada shall
be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management
for oversight activities.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent
with the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the
Department of Energy to use revenues to offset appropriations.
The appropriations language for this account reflects the total
estimated program funding to be reduced as revenues are
received. This language has been carried in prior
appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing that notwithstanding the provisions of
the Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary
to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue
increases of the same or greater amounts.
Language has been included under Departmental
Administration providing not to exceed $35,000 for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Naval Reactors providing
for the purchase of not to exceed one bus.
Language has been included under the Office of the
Administrator providing not to exceed $12,000 for official
reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Naval Reactors providing
for the purchase of not to exceed one ambulance for replacement
only.
Language has been included rescinding $75,000,000
previously appropriated for Cerro Grande Fire activities.
Language has been included under the Bonneville Power
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for
official reception and representation expenses, and precluding
any new direct loan obligations in fiscal year 2004.
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 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 Southwestern Power
Administration providing that notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
beginning in fiscal year 2004 and thereafter such funds as are
received by the Southwestern Power Administration from any
state, municipality, corporation, association, firm, district,
or individual as advance payment for work that is associated
with Southwestern's transmission facilities, consistent with
that authorized in section 5 of the Flood Control Act, shall be
credited to this account and be available until expended.
Language has been included under the Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration account providing not to exceed $1,500 for
official reception and representation expenses.
Language has been included under Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration providing that, not withstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to the account as
offsetting collections and remain available until expended for
the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Language has been included under the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor
vehicles, to provide official reception and representation
expenses, and to permit the use of revenues collected to reduce
the appropriation as revenues are received. This language has
been included in previous appropriate acts.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing that no funds may be used to pay
for management and operating contracts that have not been
competitively awarded within the past fifty fiscal years unless
the Secretary, within 60 days of enactment, announces his
intent to compete those contracts when the current contract
term expires.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare
workforce restructuring plans or to provide enhanced severance
payments and other benefits for Department of Energy employees
under section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the
funding provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless
a reprogramming is submitted to the Committee.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to prepare or
initiate 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 establish in this Act.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, prohibiting the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration to enter into any agreement to
perform energy efficiency services outside the legally defined
Bonneville service territory.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, requiring the Department of Energy to
ensure broad public notice when it makes a national user
facility available to universities and other potential users or
seeks input regarding significant characteristics or equipment
in a national user facility or a proposed national user
facility, and requiring competition when the Department
partners with a university or other entity for the
establishment or operation of a user facility.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing the manager of a nuclear weapons
production plant or the Nevada Test Site to engage in research,
development, and demonstration activities using no more than 2
percent of the amounts available from national security
programs.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing that, notwithstanding the
provisions of any other law, the Secretary may proceed with
planning and analyses for external regulation of the
Department's Science laboratories.
Language has been included under Department of Energy,
General Provisions, providing that funds for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized for
purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947
during fiscal year 2003.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Language has been included under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission allowing the purchase of promotional items for use
in recruiting new employees. Language is also included to
permit the NRC to utilize revenues collected to offset
appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language
has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
Language has been included under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Inspector General, to utilize revenues
collected to offset appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302. This language has been carried in previous appropriations
Acts.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Language has been included under General Provisions
prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress.
Language has been included under General Provisions
requiring to the greatest extend practicable, that all
equipment and products purchased should be American-made, and
prohibiting contracts with persons falsely labeling products as
``Made in America.''
Language has been included under General Provisions
prohibiting the transfer of funds in this Act except pursuant
to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this
Act or any other Appropriation Act.
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in the black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
The accompanying bill would amend section 301 of Public Law
102-250, the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of
1991, as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title
(related to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam,
California), there is authorized to appropriate not more than
$90,000,000 in total for fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, [and 2003] 2003, and 2004.
The accompanying bill would amend subsection 206(b) of
Public Law 101-514 as follows:
(b)(1) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
and directed to enter into the following contracts: (A)
a municipal and industrial water supply contract with
the Sacramento County Water Agency, not to exceed
22,000 acre-feet annually, to meet the immediate needs
of Sacramento County and a municipal and industrial
water supply contract with the San Juan Suburban Water
District, not to exceed 13,000 acre-feet annually, for
diversion from Folsom Lake[, with annual quantities
delivered under these contracts to be determined by the
Secretary based upon the quantity of water actually
needed within the Sacramento County Water Agency
service area and San Juan Suburban Water District after
considering reasonable efforts to: (i) promote full
utilization of existing water entitlements within
Sacramento County, (ii) implement water conservation
and metering programs within the areas served by the
contract, and (iii) implement programs to maximize to
the extent feasible conjunctive use of surface water
and groundwater]; and (B) a municipal and industrial
water supply contract with the El Dorado County Water
Agency, not to exceed 15,000 acre-feet annually, for
diversion from Folsom Lake or for exchange upstream on
the American River or its tributaries, considering
reasonable efforts to implement water conservation
programs within areas to be served by the contracts.
The contracts required by this subsection are intended
as the first phase of a contracting program to meet the
long-term water supply needs of Sacramento and El
Dorado Counties. The Secretary shall promptly initiate
the necessary analysis for the long-term water supply
contracts. The Secretary shall include in these
contracts terms and conditions to ensure that the
contracts may be amended in any respect required to
meet the Secretary's obligations under applicable State
law and the Federal environmental laws.
The accompanying bill would amend subsection Public Law
102-377 as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation in this Act or
in subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts
shall hereafter be available for payment of claims for damages
to or loss of property, personal injury, or death arising out
of activities of the Bureau of Reclamation, not to exceed
$5,000,000 for each causal event giving rise to a claim or
claims; * * *
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not
authorized by law:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Agency/program Last year of Authorization in last year of Appropriations
authorization level authorization in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers:
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 140,000
Program................................
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply:
Biomass/Biofuels.................... 1993 (\2\) (\4\) 69,750
Geothermal Energy................... 1993 23,000 (\4\) 25,500
Hydrogen............................ 2001 40,000 27,000 67,982
Hydropower.......................... 1982 11,700 (\4\) 5,489
Solar Energy........................ 1993 (\2\) (\4\) 79,693
Wind Energy Systems................. 1993 (\2\) (\4\) 41,600
Intergovernmental activities 1995 (\7\) (\4\) 16,500
Renewable Energy Production
Incentive..........................
Renewable Energy Production
Incentive..........................
International Renewable Energy 1996 (\3\) (\4\) ...............
Program............................
Electricity Transmission and 1994 (\3\) (\4\) 77,377
Distribution.......................
Departmental Energy Management...... 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 2,300
Renewable Program Support........... 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 2,059
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 9,100
Program Direction................... 1984 (\3\) (\4\) 12,230
Nuclear Energy:
Space and defense infrastructure.... 1992 (\2\) (\4\) 36,230
Isotopes............................ 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 26,425
University Reactor Fuel Assistance 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 19,500
and Support........................
Research and Development............ 1994 (\7\) (\4\) 117,746
Radiological Facilities Management.. 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 62,655
Program Direction................... 1992 (\2\) (\4\) 23,970
Environment, Safety and Health.......... 1974 (\2\) (\4\) 24,000
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion.... 1984 (\5\) (\5\) 170,875
West Valley Demonstration Project........... 1981 5,000 5,000 99,558
Non-Defense Environmental Services ............... ............... ............... 292,121
(including Other Uranium Activities).......
Science..................................... 1984 500,000 635,417 3,480,180
High Energy Physics..................... 1984 (\3\) 477,947 747,978
Nuclear Physics......................... 1984 (\3\) 155,220 399,430
Biological and Environmental Research... 1994 (\3\) 388,298 562,035
Basic Energy Sciences................... 1994 (\3\) 743,590 1,016,575
Advanced Scientific Computing Research.. 1996 169,000 111,068 213,490
Science Laboratories Infrastructure..... 1994 (\3\) 39,327 71,535
Fusion Energy Sciences.................. 1994 380,000 322,277 268,110
Science Program Direction............... 1984 (\2\) (\4\) 147,053
Energy Research Analysis............ 1994 (\3\) 3,507 1,020
Technical Information Management.... 1981 (\2\) (\4\) 7,774
Nuclear Waste Disposal...................... (\8\) (\2\) 190,654 335,000
Departmental Administration................. 1984 246,963 185,682 101,329
Office of the Inspector General............. 1984 (\2\) 14,670 39,462
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security
Administration:
Weapons Activities.................. 2002 5,343,567 5,901,641 6,117,609
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.... 2002 776,886 1,104,130 1,280,195
Naval Reactors...................... 2002 688,445 706,790 768,400
Office of the NNSA Administrator.... 2002 312,596 325,929 341,980
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 2002 6,022,415 4,510,133 ...............
Management.................................
Defense Environmental Cleanup Reform........ (\6\) (\6\) (\6\) ...............
Defense Facilities Closure Projects......... 2002 1,080,538 1,109,314
Defense Environmental Management 2002 153,537 158,399 ...............
Privatization..............................
Defense site acceleration completion........ ............... ............... ............... 5,758,278
Defense environmental services.............. ............... ............... ............... 990,179
Other Defense Activities.................... 2002 499,663 462,664 694,863
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.............. 2002 280,000 315,000 430,000
Power Marketing Administrations:
Southern Power Administration........... 1984 24,240 39,463 39,100
Southwestern Power Administration....... 1984 40,254 29,288 30,400
Western Area Power Administration....... 1984 259,700 237,037 360,992
Falcon and Amistad Operating and 1995 (\2\) 2,663 2,640
Maintenance Fund.......................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission........ 1984 275,000 175,200 192,000
Independent Agencies:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Study Board.. 2002 18,500 18,459 19,559
Nuclear Regulatory Commission........... 1985 460,000 448,200 618,800
Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Office of 1985 (\9\) (\9\) 7,300
Inspector General......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.
(\2\) No amount specified.
(\3\) Authorized level provided for multiple programs with no separate program allowances.
(\4\) Funding for these activities was spread throughout multiple programs with no individual amount specified.
(\5\) Funding for these activities was spread throughout many programs with no amount specified. The last year
of authorization was 1984. In 1989, cleanup activities were merged into the non-defense environmental
management appropriation account. There has not been a separate authorization of this account.
(\6\) New program in FY 2003.
(\7\) Such sums as necessary.
(\8\) Overall program authorized in 1982 and 1987, but without any authorization of appropriations.
(\9\) The first separate appropriation for the Office of the Inspector General in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission was in FY 1990. Prior to that, the NRC-IG was included within the overall authorization and
appropriations for the NRC.
The Commission 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.
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:
RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
Department or Activity Amount
Bureau of Reclamation: Working Capital Fund............. $4,525,000
Department of Energy: Cerro Grande Fire Activities...... 75,000,000
Full Committe Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and those voting
against, are printed below:
There were no rollcall votes.