[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 147 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12645-S12646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CBO PROJECT ANALYSES

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources filed its reports on H.R. 4079, to authorize the 
construction of temperature control devices at Folsom Dam in 
California, and H.R. 3687, the Canadian River Prepayment Act, the 
analyses from the Congressional Budget Office were not available. Those 
analyses have now been received. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
printed in the Record for the advice of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

     H.R. 4079--An act to authorize the construction of 
         temperature control devices at Folsom Dam in California
       Summary: H.R. 4079 would authorize the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to 
     construct devices for controlling and monitoring water 
     temperatures at Folsom Dam and certain nonfederal facilities. 
     Temperature control devices allow water to be diverted from a 
     higher point in the water column of a reservoir, thereby 
     preserving cool water for fish. The act would authorize the 
     appropriation of $7 million (in October 1997 dollars) for 
     construction and such sums as necessary for operating, 
     maintaining, and replacing the devices. A portion of these 
     amounts would be repaid by water and power users in the 
     region.
       CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4079 would result in 
     additional outlays of $7 million over the 1999-2003 period, 
     assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts. H.R. 
     4079 would affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
     procedures would apply. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4079 
     would decrease direct spending by about $400,000 over the 
     1999-2003 period. The legislation contains no 
     intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would have no 
     significant impact on the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
     governments.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of H.R. 4079 is shown in the following 
     table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
     function 300 (natural resources and environment).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        By fiscal years, in millions of
                                                   dollars--
                                      ----------------------------------
                                        1999   2000   2001   2002   2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level........      7  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)
Estimated Outlays....................      5      1      1  (\1\)  (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.

       Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
     assumes that H.R. 4079 will be enacted by the beginning of 
     fiscal year 1999 and that the estimated amounts necessary to 
     implement the act will be appropriated each year.
     Spending subject to appropriation
       H.R. 4079 would authorize the appropriation of $5 million 
     for constructing a temperature control device and monitoring 
     apparatus at Folsom Dam and $2 million for constructing 
     similar mechanisms at nearby nonfederal facilities. Those 
     amounts are authorized in October 1997 dollars and may be 
     adjusted to reflect inflation, but such adjustments would not 
     be significant if funds are provided in fiscal year 1999 or 
     2000. Based on information provided by the bureau, CBO 
     expects that construction at Folsom Dam would be completed in 
     1999 and that construction at nonfederal facilities would be 
     completed by 2001, if the necessary appropriations are 
     provided. CBO estimates that the annual cost of operating, 
     maintaining, and replacing these devices over the 1999-2003 
     period would be negligible.
     Direct spending
       About $4 million of the cost of constructing the 
     temperature control device and monitoring apparatus at Folsom 
     Dam would be repaid by water and power users. (The costs of 
     devices at nonfederal facilities would not be repaid.) CBO 
     estimates that repayments would total $140,000 annually over 
     the 2001-2030 period. (Because water and power rates are set 
     one year in advance, there would be a one-year lag between 
     the year the project is completed, 1999, and the year that 
     repayment begins.)
       Pay-as-you-go-considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go 
     procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
     receipts. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4079 would affect 
     direct spending but that there would be no significant impact 
     in any year. Enacting this legislation would not affect 
     governmental receipts.
       Estimated intergovernmental and private sector impact: H.R. 
     4079 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 
     as defined in UMRA and would have no significant impact on 
     the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
       Previous CBO estimate: On August 10, 1998, CBO provided an 
     estimate for H.R. 4079, as ordered reported by the House 
     Committee on Resources on July 29, 1998. The two versions of 
     the legislation and their estimated costs are identical.
       Estimate prepared by: Gary Brown.
       Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
                                  ____

     H.R. 3687--Canadian River Project Prepayment Act
       Summary: H.R. 3687 would authorize prepayment by the 
     Canadian River Municipal Water Authority of amounts due for 
     the pipeline and related facilities of the Canadian River 
     Project in Texas. Current law provides for conveying title 
     for these elements to the authority once repayment is 
     complete.
       CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3687 would slightly reduce 
     discretionary spending, and would yield a net decrease in 
     direct spending of $26 million over the 1999-2003 period. 
     That near-term cash savings would be offset on a present-
     value basis, however, by the loss of currently scheduled 
     payments. Because H.R. 3687 would affect direct spending, 
     pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
       The act contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA). State and local governments might incur some costs as 
     a result of H.R. 3687's enactment, but these costs would be 
     voluntary.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of H.R. 3687 is shown in the following 
     table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
     function 300 (natural resources and environment).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        By fiscal years, in millions of
                                                   dollars--
                                     -----------------------------------
                                       1999    2000   2001   2002   2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             DIRECT SPENDING
Spending Under Current law: \1\
  Estimated Budget Authority........       0      0     -3     -3     -3
  Estimated Outlays.................       0      0     -3     -3     -3
Proposed Changes:
  Estimated Budget Authority........     -35      0      3      3      3
  Estimated Outlays.................     -35      0      3      3      3
Spending Under H.R. 3687:
  Estimated Budget Authority........     -35      0      0      0      0
  Estimated Outlays.................     -35      0      0      0      0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The next payment from the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority
  is not due until 2001.

       Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that H.R. 3687 is enacted 
     near the beginning of fiscal year 1999 and that prepayment 
     will occur within this fiscal year. (The authority to prepay 
     would expire 360 days after enactment.)
     Direct spending
       CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3687 would result in a 
     prepayment to the federal government of about $35 million in 
     1999. After prepayment, the authority would no longer make 
     the regularly scheduled payment of $3 million a year over the 
     2001-2022 period.

[[Page S12646]]

     Spending subject to appropriation
       The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority pays 100 
     percent of the cost of operating and maintaining the Canadian 
     River project dam, reservoir, pipeline, and related 
     facilities. The Bureau of Reclamation reimburses the 
     authority for about 26 percent of the cost of operating and 
     maintaining the project dam and reservoir. The 1998 
     appropriated amount for this purpose was about $30,000. 
     Enacting H.R. 3687 would eliminate this annual federal cost 
     as early as 1999.
       Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go 
     procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
     receipts. The net changes in outlays that are subject to pay-
     as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. For 
     the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the 
     effects in the budget year and the succeeding four years are 
     counted. Enacting H.R. 3687 would not affect governmental 
     receipts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays........................        -35          0          3          3          3          3          3          3          3          3
Changes in receipts.......................                                                  Not applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
     H.R. 3687 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
     in UMRA. The conveyance authorized by this legislation would 
     be voluntary on the part of the authority, and any costs 
     incurred as a result would be accepted by them on that basis. 
     As conditions of the conveyance, H.R. 3687 would require the 
     authority to prepay its outstanding obligations to the 
     federal government and to assume all responsibility for the 
     operations and maintenance costs of the project. The act 
     would impose no other costs on state, local, or tribal 
     governments.
       Estimated impact on the private sector: This act would 
     impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Gary Brown. Impact on 
     State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller.
       Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

                          ____________________