[House Report 105-190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
 1st Session                                                    105-190
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1998
                                _______
                                

 July 21, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. McDade, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2203]

    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, 1998, and for other purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page Number

                                                            Bill Report
Introduction...............................................             4
I. Department of Defense--Civil:
        Corps of Engineers--Civil:
                Corps of Engineers civil works mission.....     2       7
                General investigations.....................     2       8
                Construction, general......................     4      32
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
                    Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
                    Missouri, and Tennessee................     8      48
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     8      51
                Regulatory program.........................     9      65
                Flood control and coastal emergencies......     9      65
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................    10      66
                General expenses...........................    11      67
                Administrative provisions..................    11    ....

II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............    12      69
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and related resources................    13      69
                Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.    14      81
                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    15      82
                California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.    16      83
                Policy and Administration..................    16      83
                Administrative provision...................    17    ....

III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................  ....    ....

        Energy supply......................................    17      90
        Non-defense environmental management...............    17      98
        Uranium enrichment decontamination and 
            decommissioning fund...........................    18     100
        Science............................................    18     101
        Nuclear waste disposal fund........................    19     106
        Departmental administration........................    19     107
        Office of inspector general........................    20     110
        Atomic energy defense activities:
                Weapons activities.........................    20     110
                Defense environmental restoration and waste 
                    management.............................    21     114
                Other defense activities...................    21     122
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    22     130
        Power marketing administrations:
                Alaska Power Administration................    22     130
                Bonneville Power Administration............    22     131
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    23     132
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    23     132
                Western Area Power Administration..........    24     133
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    24     134
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    25     134
        General Provisions.................................    25     134
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    29     147
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    29     147
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    30     148
        Office of Inspector General........................    32     149
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    33     149
        Tennessee Valley Authority.........................    33     150
V. General Provisions......................................    34     155
House Reporting Requirements...............................  ....     157

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 1998. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
1997, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 1998.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                     1998 recommendation compared with--
                                                                  1997                                  1998       -------------------------------------
                                                             appropriation      1998 estimate      recommendation          1997                         
                                                                                                                      appropriation      1998 estimate  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil....................      4,107,203,000      3,370,470,000      4,029,557,000        -77,646,000       +659,087,000
Title II--Department of the Interior.....................        826,375,000        933,218,000        910,297,000        +83,922,000        -22,921,000
Title III--Department of Energy..........................     15,757,418,000     18,433,515,000     15,282,735,000       -474,683,000     -3,150,780,000
Title IV--Independent Agencies...........................        299,031,000        310,700,000        194,400,000       -104,631,000       -116,300,000
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................     20,990,027,000     23,047,903,000     20,416,989,000       -573,038,000     -2,630,914,000
Scorekeeping adjustments.................................     -1,039,355,000       -414,000,000       -414,000,000       +625,355,000  .................
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total of bill................................     19,950,672,000     22,633,903,000     20,002,989,000        +52,317,000     -2,630,914,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 1998, 
represents another installment payment on the national 
obligation to balance the budget. At the same time, the bill 
advances initiatives to make government more efficient, and it 
preserves funding for important domestic priorities. As funding 
in the Energy and Water Bill declines in fiscal year 1998 
relative to CBO's baseline, the bill continues to deliver on 
the promise of deficit reduction.
    Significantly, the Energy and Water Bill for fiscal year 
1998 attempts to correct the fundamental imbalance in the 
Administration's allocation of resources among energy and water 
activities. The budget request for fiscal year 1998 continues 
to demonstrate the Administration's hostility toward the 
nation's water infrastructure. This institutional aversion to 
water projects (previously manifested in proposed Corps of 
Engineers policies to discontinue the Federal role in local 
flood control, small harbor maintenance and shore protection 
efforts) reflects a lack of appreciation for the value of 
Federal investments in water-related improvements.
    Flood control projects, which must pass rigorous cost-
benefit analyses, are designed to protect our communities from 
the devastating consequences of uncontrolled flood waters. 
Flood control works provide a real measure of protection for 
homes, businesses, and lives. The terrible floods of last 
winter and this spring should alert us all to the importance of 
developing and maintaining effective flood control mechanisms. 
Failure to do so is clearly more costly in the long run. It has 
been demonstrated time and again that a relatively modest 
investment in preventative measures can save: untold amounts in 
disaster assistance payments; communities from chaotic 
disruption, catastrophic physical damage, and enormous 
financial liabilities; and, most importantly, lives.
    Our investments in navigation, shore protection and 
environmental restoration likewise yield outstanding returns. 
Development, operation and maintenance of our international 
harbors and inland waterways help the U.S. preserve its 
leadership in international commerce. Shoreline erosion 
projects protect communities and maintain a vital recreational 
and economic resource.
    Federal investment in these water-related projects is as 
appropriate as it is vital to the continued well-being of 
communities throughout the nation. Yet the Administration 
continues to neglect these important priorities. Specifically, 
the Administration: propounds policies inimical to the Federal 
interest in water infrastructure; underfunds water projects 
currently in the pipeline; and, in several instances, provides 
no funding whatsoever for projects well on their way toward 
completion. With inadequate funding, the construction schedules 
for water resource projects extend and their costs increase.
    Unfortunately, the counterweight to the budget's 
inattention to water resource needs is the unjustifiably high 
priority it accords to the Department of Energy, a sprawling 
bureaucratic enterprise whose present activities bear faint 
relation to the mission the Department was created to pursue. 
The Department, characterized by continuing mission creep and 
management disorder, lacks a clear focus and invests far too 
much of its limited resources in a relevance-seeking and turf-
protecting effort to perpetuate itself.
    In addition to providing for the continued downsizing and 
streamlining of the Department of Energy, the Committee 
recommendation includes a number of management reforms intended 
to control costs, improve accountability, and increase 
efficiency. The Department's response to these reforms will 
help determine whether DOE should continue to exist as a 
cabinet-level agency.
    Notwithstanding the Committee's concerns surrounding 
management of the Department of Energy, the recommendation does 
support essential programs of the Department. More than $2 
billion is provided for science and basic research programs at 
the Department of Energy. Environmental cleanup activities at 
Department of Energy sites are continued with funding levels 
over $6 billion, while $3.9 billion is provided to maintain the 
nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. All of these activities are 
continued at a level consistent with fiscal year 1997.
    However, the Committee did not provide the total budget 
request for all programs and activities. The Department of 
Energy's budget request for fiscal year 1998 includes an 
unrealistic increase of $2.6 billion over the Department's 
fiscal year 1997 appropriation. With no consultation with the 
Congress, the Department proposed full funding of all 
construction projects and a $1 billion privatization initiative 
for the environmental cleanup program. Both of these proposals 
would have benefited from early consultation with the 
Committee. While it is clear that the Department has several 
problems managing and successfully completing construction 
projects, incremental funding is one of the lesser concerns. 
With respect to the privatization proposal, the Committee spent 
several months unsuccessfully attempting to get thorough and 
comprehensive answers on the proposed privatization projects. 
Funding these two proposals as requested would have jeopardized 
hundreds of millions of dollars on projects for which costs are 
still not well defined.
    The bill also terminates direct appropriations to the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. To provide for continuity of 
program management pending the implementation of the 
Administration's proposal to remove all appropriated programs 
from TVA's portfolio, the measure provides for the funding of 
TVA's nonpower activities with internally generated revenues 
and savings.
    Authorization for various projects and agencies funded by 
this bill is in various stages of the legislative process. The 
Committee has worked closely with jurisdictional committees to 
establish the funding levels recommended in the bill. Funding 
has been provided for certain programs in anticipation and 
advance of authorization in order to avoid unnecessary 
disruptions in the provision of government services.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    The Committee considers the full and effective 
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, 
P.L. 103-62, to be a priority for all agencies of government.
    Starting with fiscal year 1999, the Results Act requires 
each agency to, ``prepare an annual performance plan covering 
each program activity set forth in the budget of such agency.'' 
Specifically, for each program activity the agency is required 
to establish ``performance goals to define the level of 
performance to be achieved by a program activity'' and 
``performance indicators to be used in assessing the relevant 
outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program 
activity.''
    The Committee takes this requirement of the Results Act 
very seriously and plans to carefully examine agency 
performance goals and measures during the appropriations 
process. As a result, starting with the fiscal year 1999 
appropriations cycle, the Committee will consider the progress 
of jurisdictional agencies in articulating clear, definitive, 
and results-oriented (outcome) goals and measures as it reviews 
requests for appropriations.
    The Committee suggests that agencies examine their program 
activities in light of their strategic goals to determine 
whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more 
accurate and informed presentation of budgetary information. 
Agencies are encouraged to consult with the Committee as they 
consider such revisions prior to finalizing any requests 
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any 
requests with a view toward ensuring that budget submissions 
for fiscal year 1999 and subsequent years display amounts 
requested against program activity structures for which annual 
performance goals and measures have been established.
                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Mission

    In testimony before the Committee, the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Civil Works stated, ``The 1998 budget would 
fund a program that balances a number of high priority 
interests and objectives. Investments in water resources 
infrastructure development are balanced with investments in 
watershed and other environmental restoration. Continued 
funding to complete ongoing projects and studies is balanced 
with investment with new high-priority infrastructure and 
environmental projects. Continued maintenance and 
rehabilitation of existing projects is balanced with 
construction of new water resources development projects to 
serve society's current and future needs.''
    The Committee recognizes that budgetary realities do 
necessitate the balancing of competing priorities. However, in 
many respects, the Committee believes that the budget request 
represents a lack of commitment by the Administration to the 
traditional roles and missions of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers: navigation, flood control, and shore protection.
    The amounts requested by the Administration for continuing 
construction of a number of navigation and flood control 
projects are woefully inadequate to keep those projects on 
efficient construction schedules, significantly increasing the 
total cost of those projects. In addition, for navigation 
projects, stretched out project completion schedules delay the 
economic benefits that would be derived from those projects and 
hurt the nation's competitiveness in the world marketplace. For 
flood control, delay in the completion of projects increases 
the risk that our citizens will be devastated by the floods 
that those projects were designed to prevent. The Committee 
has, therefore, provided additional funds in order to 
accelerate completion of a number of projects.
    In the area of shore protection, the Committee is extremely 
disappointed that the Administration has once again failed to 
request funds to continue several ongoing construction projects 
and studies or to initiate new studies or projects. As the 
Committee stated last year, shore protection projects serve the 
same function as other flood control projects--they protect 
lives and property from the impacts of flooding. Accordingly, 
the Committee has included funds in the bill for construction 
of shore protection projects, the periodic nourishment of 
previously constructed projects, and for planning, engineering, 
and design of proposed projects.
    The Committee is also very concerned about the reductions 
proposed by the Administration in the Corps of Engineers' 
Operation and Maintenance program. The Committee recognizes the 
need to more efficiently utilize the limited resources 
available for operation and maintenance of existing projects; 
however, the Committee is concerned that the budget request 
will result in reductions in service to the public and that no 
analysis has been performed of the impacts of those reductions 
in service. The Committee expects the Corps to use the 
flexibility that exists within the Operation and Maintenance 
program to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts 
on the public as a result of the reduced funding levels 
proposed for a number of projects.

                         General Investigations

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $153,872,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       150,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       157,260,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        +3,388,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        +7,260,000
                                                                        

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


    Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.--The bill 
includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the need for 
navigation improvements on the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers 
below Demopolis, Alabama.
    Dog River, Alabama.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $200,000 to accelerate work on the feasibility study 
of the need for navigation improvements on the Dog River in 
Alabama.
    White River Navigation to Newport, Arkansas.--The Committee 
has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
general reevaluation study of extending navigation on the White 
River to Newport, Arkansas.
    Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and 
Louisiana.--The Committee has included language in the bill 
which directs the Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility 
phase studies of extending commercial navigation on the Red 
River upstream of Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana, into 
southwest Arkansas using funds previously appropriated for the 
Red River Waterway, Shreveport to Daingerfield, Texas, project.
    Rio Salado, Arizona.--The bill includes $540,000 for the 
Rio Salado feasibility study, the same as the budget request. 
The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to honor its 
commitment to the local project sponsor and complete the Rio 
Salado feasibility study in time for the project to be 
considered for authorization in the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1998.
    Tres Rios, Arizona.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
planning, engineering, and environmental analyses for the Tres 
Rios, Arizona, project.
    American River Watershed, California.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,099,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue to work with local interests in the development of a 
comprehensive plan for flood control along the American River.
    Clear Lake Basin Watershed Restoration, California.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for a study of wastewater 
improvements and ecosystem restoration in the Clear Lake Basin 
in California under the authority of section 503 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, California.--The bill 
includes $525,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to 
provide technical assistance, including design, for water 
infrastructure improvements, particularly those aimed at 
minimizing damages to water systems that might occur during an 
earthquake, for the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre.
    Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers, California.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of flooding problems along the Cosumnes 
and Mokelumne Rivers.
    Laguna de Santa Rosa, California.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of Laguna de Santa 
Rosa to determine if siltation has impacted its ability to act 
as flood control basin.
    Llagas Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee urges 
the Corps of Engineers, using available funds, to complete a 
reevaluation report and develop any necessary plans and 
specifications for the Llagas Creek project identified in the 
authorized Llagas Creek Watershed Plan of the Department of 
Agriculture in anticipation of Corps of Engineers construction 
of the unconstructed elements of the Llagas Creek project.
    Malibu Creek, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of environmental restoration and shoreline 
protection in the Malibu Creek Watershed.
    Morro Bay Estuary, California.--The bill includes $100,000 
for a reconnaissance study of the sedimentation and tidal 
circulation problems in Morro Bay in California.
    Mugu Lagoon, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of the 
environmental impacts associated with sediment transport, 
floodflows, and upstream watershed land use practices on Mugu 
Lagoon in California.
    Port of Stockton, California.--The bill includes $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study 
of deepening the Port of Stockton's main ship channel to forty 
feet.
    Redwood City Harbor, California.--The bill includes 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study to determine the Federal 
interest, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of 
deepening Redwood City Harbor.
    Sacramento Watershed Management, California.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to participate 
in a non-Federal project sponsored by the City of Sacramento to 
make combined sewer improvements in the City of Sacramento to 
improve water quality in the Sacramento River Watershed under 
the authority of section 503 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996. Participation by the Corps of Engineers shall 
include planning, technical, and design assistance as requested 
by the non-Federal sponsor.
    Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive 
Study, California.--In response to the devastating floods of 
1997, the Committee has added funds and directs the Corps of 
Engineers to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the entire 
flood control system within the existing study authorizations 
of the Sacramento River Watershed Management Plan (authorized 
by the Flood Control Act of 1962) and the San Joaquin River and 
Tributaries authority (authorized by 1964 Resolution of the 
House Committee on Public Works). These comprehensive 
investigations will include: (1) preparation of a comprehensive 
post-flood assessment for the California Central Valley 
(Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin), (2) 
development and formulation of comprehensive plans for flood 
control and environmental restoration purposes, and (3) 
development of a hydrologic/hydraulic model of the entire 
system including the operation of the existing reservoirs for 
evaluation of the current flood control system. Not later than 
18 months after the date of enactment of this Act the Secretary 
shall transmit an interim report describing results of the 
post-flood assessment and the assessment of the existing flood 
control system and its deficiencies.
    San Diego Harbor, National City Marine Terminal, 
California.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to complete a reconnaissance study of the 
potential for development of a Federal navigation project to 
deepen the existing Federal navigation channel in San Diego 
Harbor from the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal to the National 
City Marine Terminal.
    San Francisco Bay, California.--The bill includes $100,000 
for a reconnaissance study of the need to remove underwater 
rock formations in San Francisco Bay.
    San Francisco Bay Bar Channel, California.--The Committee 
has provided $600,000 for the San Francisco Bay Bar Channel 
feasibility study, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee is aware that the local sponsor for the study wishes 
to limit it to the need for deepening the Southampton Shoal 
Channel and Extension. The Committee expects the Corps to 
proceed with the study in compliance with the desires of the 
local sponsor and has renamed the study to reflect the change 
in emphasis.
    San Pablo Bay Watershed, California.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to address Federal 
participation and design assistance in the environmental 
restoration of the San Pablo Bay Watershed.
    Santa Margarita River and Tributaries, California.--The 
bill includes $300,000 to initiate the feasibility study for 
the Santa Margarita River and Tributaries project, the same as 
the budget request, which will include an examination of the 
need for flood control measures along Murrieta Creek.
    Santa Monica Water Infrastructure Reliability, 
California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for completion 
of a study to identify problems and alternative solutions for 
providing a more reliable water supply system during seismic 
events for the city of Santa Monica.
    Southeast Los Angeles County Water Conservation and Supply, 
California.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue to provide technical assistance for 
the design of seismically reliable water system capital 
improvements for the city of Norwalk, California.
    Southern California Aquatic Resources, California.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate Special Area Management Plans to protect aquatic 
resources, including wetlands, in Orange and San Diego 
Counties. The plans should be conducted in coordination with 
State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning 
Program, local governments, and the private sector. The plans, 
when complete, are to be used by the Corps of Engineers and 
local governments as the basis for the issuance of long-term 
permits.
    Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada.--The Committee has 
provided $270,000 to complete ongoing studies of watershed 
restoration opportunities on the California side of the Lake 
Tahoe Basin and $540,000 to complete similar studies on the 
Nevada side of the Basin.
    Tijuana River Valley, California.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers, in consultation 
with the International Water and Boundary Commission, to 
undertake a reconnaissance study of flood control and other 
water resources needs in the Tijuana River Valley in 
California, with particular emphasis on evaluation of the 
flooding potential in the event of a dam break and the 
development of emergency flood response plans.
    Toulumne River, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of options for increased 
flood protection along the Toulumne River and its tributaries, 
including the reoperation of New Don Pedro Dam.
    Twentynine Palms, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study to 
identify problems and alternative solutions for providing a 
more dependable water supply for the Twentynine Palms Water 
District service area, particularly with respect to minimizing 
damages to water systems that might occur during an earthquake.
    Ventura Harbor Sand Bypass, California.--The Committee has 
provided $150,000 for the Ventura Harbor Sand Bypass project, 
the same as the budget request. Of the funds provided, $100,000 
shall be used to complete a new reconnaissance study on the 
potential for developing a regional plan for maintaining 
Ventura Harbor and other existing Federal harbors in the 
Ventura County and Santa Barbara County area. The study shall 
consider the potential for beneficial uses of dredged material 
from maintenance dredging operations as well as other benefits 
including environmental restoration and storm damage reduction 
opportunities.
    Ventura-Santa Barbara Counties Shoreline Protection, 
California.--The bill includes $300,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to initiate the feasibility phase of the Ventura-
Santa Barbara Counties shoreline protection study.
    Chatfield, Cherry Creek, and Bear Creek Reservoirs, 
Colorado.--The bill includes $100,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to initiate a study of the potential for reallocation 
of storage at Chatfield, Cherry Creek, and Bear Creek 
Reservoirs from flood control to water supply.
    Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island 
(Rehoboth Beach/Dewey Beach), Delaware.--The bill includes 
$450,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Dewey Beach/Rehoboth Beach 
portion of the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick 
Island project.
    Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey.--The bill 
includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Port Mahon 
element of the Delaware Bay Coastline project and $256,000 to 
initiate preconstruction engineering and design of the Cape May 
Villas element of the project.
    Brevard County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$154,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Brevard County project in 
Florida.
    Dade County Water Reuse Facility, Florida.--The Committee 
has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
the feasibility study for the Dade County Water Reuse project 
in Florida.
    Tampa Harbor, Alafia River, Florida.--The bill includes 
$270,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility 
study of deepening the Alafia River channel in Tampa Harbor.
    Augusta, Georgia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate a reconnaissance study of 
flooding problems in the city of Augusta, Georgia.
    New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct, in 
cooperation with local interests, a study to develop a plan for 
the final disposition of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.
    Savannah Harbor Tidegate, Georgia.--The bill includes 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to examine alternatives for 
final disposition of the Savannah Harbor tidegate.
    Savannah River Comprehensive Study, Georgia.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
comprehensive study of the Savannah River basin authorized in 
Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee is aware 
that the local sponsor for the Savannah Harbor Expansion 
project has elected to conduct the feasibility study under the 
provisions of Section 203 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986. The Committee supports this initiative to expedite 
the project development process. The Committee has provided 
$800,000 for this project in fiscal year 1998, the same as the 
budget request. These funds may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering and design 
for the project upon submission of the feasibility report to 
the Secretary of the Army.
    Illinois and Michigan Canal, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided $175,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
feasibility study of improvements at Lock 14 on the Illinois 
and Michigan Canal.
    Mississippi River, Alexander County, Illinois.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a reconnaissance study to determine the potential 
benefits to navigation and flood control associated with 
improvements to the Len Small Levee.
    Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
feasibility phase studies to address flood control and 
navigation issues along the Illinois River in Peoria, Illinois.
    Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.--The bill includes $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to complete the reconnaissance phase and 
initiate the feasibility study of the Waukegan Harbor project.
    Wood River, Illinois.--The bill includes $100,000 for a 
reconnaissance study to analyze the need for rehabilitation of 
the existing Wood River levee system.
    Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana.--The 
bill includes $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
plans and specifications for the Little Calumet River Basin, 
Cady Marsh Ditch project in Indiana.
    Grayson Lake, Kentucky.--The bill includes $50,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of the possibility of 
using Grayson Lake as a water supply source for the city of 
Grayson, Kentucky.
    Kentucky Flooding, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided 
funds for the Corps of Engineers to initiate reconnaissance 
studies to address flooding problems in Augusta, Dover, 
Frankfort, Greenup, Olive Hill, and Russell, Kentucky.
    Licking River Watershed, Kentucky.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
individual reconnaissance studies to investigate structural and 
non-structural solutions to flooding problems in communities 
along the Licking River impacted by flooding in March of 1997, 
including Falmouth, Butler, and Cynthiana, Kentucky.
    Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, Kentucky.--The bill 
includes $470,000, the same as the budget request, for the 
Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, flood control project. In 
light of the recent floods which resulted in damages to 
thousands of homes and businesses in the area, the Committee 
has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of 
Engineers to continue with the feasibility phase of this study, 
which is essential to the safety of metropolitan Louisville.
    Rapides and St. Landry Parishes, Louisiana.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of flooding 
problems in Rapides and St. Landry Parishes and other areas 
west of the West Atchafalaya Basin protection levee in central 
Louisiana.
    Wallace Lake, Louisiana.--The Committee has included 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of flooding problems in the Wallace Lake 
area in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
    Havre de Grace, Maryland.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for a reconnaissance study of water resources problems 
in the area of Havre de Grace, Maryland, including shoaling of 
navigation channels, shoreline erosion flooding, loss of fish 
and wildlife habitat, and degraded water quality.
    Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a feasibility 
study of extending the Pascagoula Harbor 42-foot channel into 
Bayou Casotte.
    Walker River Basin, Nevada.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $280,000 to enable the Corps of Engineers to develop 
additional information on the hydrologic and hydraulic 
conditions of the Walker River Basin.
    Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
bill includes $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
the feasibility study for the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg 
Harbor Inlet project.
    Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--
The bill includes an additional $400,000 for preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Absecon Island element of the 
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet project.
    Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the feasibility study for the Great Egg Harbor Inlet 
to Townsends Inlet project.
    Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The 
bill includes an additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the 
Lower Cape May Meadows-Cape May Point project.
    Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The bill 
includes $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
feasibility study for the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet 
project.
    Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue the feasibility study of the Cliffwood Beach 
element of the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay project.
    South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $510,000 for the South River, Raritan 
River Basin project, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to include the Old 
Bridge section of Sayreville in the project.
    Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey.--The bill 
includes $500,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and 
design for the Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet project.
    Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake a reconnaissance study of the water resources needs, 
including flood control and environmental restoration, of the 
Upper Passaic River and its tributaries in Long Hill Township, 
Morris County, New Jersey.
    Upper Rockaway River, New Jersey.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a 
reconnaissance study of the water resources needs, including 
flood control and environmental restoration, of the Upper 
Rockaway River in Morris County, New Jersey.
    Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook Marine Terminal, New York 
and New Jersey.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction 
engineering and design for a 45-foot navigation channel as 
authorized in Section 301 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996.
    Flushing Bay and Creek, New York.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the 
feasibility study for the Flushing Bay and Creek, New York, 
project.
    Montauk Point, New York.--The bill includes $200,000 for 
the feasibility phase of the Montauk Point, New York, study.
    New York Harbor Anchorages, New York.--The bill includes 
$100,000 for initiation of the feasibility study for the Red 
Hook Flats Anchorage Area.
    South Shore of Staten Island, New York.--The bill includes 
$300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the feasibility 
phase of the South Shore of Staten Island study.
    Lockwoods Folly Inlet, North Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study 
of the effects of the construction of the Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway and the closure of the Eastern Channel on the water 
quality in the vicinity of Lockwoods Folly River and Inlet.
    Belpre, Ohio.--The Committee has provided $250,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to initiate feasibility phase studies of the 
potential for waterfront development in the vicinity of Belpre, 
Ohio.
    Ohio River Riverfront Restoration, Ohio.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of land and infrastructure requirements 
along the Ohio River for port and industrial development, and 
recreational and environmental restoration opportunities.
    Flood Damage Reduction Measures, Portland, Oregon.--Within 
the funds provided for the Flood Plain Management Services 
Program, the Committee expects the Corps of Engineers, in 
cooperation with the Portland Metropolitan Regional Government, 
the USGS, and the National Weather Service, to evaluate and 
recommend potential flood damage reduction measures for the 
Portland area, such as non-structural alternatives, flood 
warning systems, floodplain evacuation, and emergency response 
plans.
    Sunbury, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a study of the existing 
flood control system in Sunbury, Pennsylvania.
    Turtle Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 each for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
reconnaissance studies of ecosystem restoration needs in the 
Lyons Creek, Upper Turtle Creek, and Brush Creek Basins of the 
Turtle Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania.
    Beaver River, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $375,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate preconstruction engineering 
and design activities associated with a comprehensive plan 
being developed for the main channel of the Beaver River and 
its tributaries near the Boroughs of New Brighton, Rochester, 
and Bridgewater in Pennsylvania.
    Lower West Branch Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.--The 
bill includes $500,000 to modify the reconnaissance study for 
the Lower West Branch Susquehanna River Basin, Environmental 
Restoration, Pennsylvania, to address the wide range of complex 
water resources problems in the large study area which includes 
Clinton, Northumberland, Lycoming, Sullivan, Tioga, and Union 
Counties, Pennsylvania.
    Susquehanna River Levees, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake a study to 
modify the existing flood control project at Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania, to provide flood protection measures for 
expansion of the Williamsport Industrial Park.
    Nolichucky Watershed, Tennessee.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of ecosystem restoration and flood control 
needs in the Nolichucky Watershed in Tennessee.
    North Chickamauga Creek Watershed, Tennessee.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a reconnaissance study for ecosystem restoration and 
flood control in the North Chickamauga Watershed, Hamilton 
County, Tennessee.
    Hunting Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $500,000 
for preconstruction engineering and design activities on the 
Hunting Bayou project in Texas. The funds are to be utilized 
for reimbursement of the local sponsor and Corps of Engineers 
oversight activities in accordance with Section 211 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.--Within available 
funds, the Corps of Engineers is directed to undertake a study 
of the feasibility of constructing and maintaining the Packery 
Channel on the southern portion of Mustang Island as authorized 
by Section 442 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Sabine and Neches River Channels, Texas.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of expanding the 
existing navigation channels in the Sabine and Neches Rivers.
    White Oak Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided 
$150,000 for the White Oak Bayou project. The funds are to be 
utilized for reimbursement of the local sponsor and Corps of 
Engineers oversight activities in accordance with Section 211 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia.--The bill 
includes $286,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the 
feasibility study for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, 
Virginia, project.
    Powell River Watershed, Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
feasibility study of ecosystem restoration needs in Ely and 
Puckett Creeks in the Powell River Watershed in Virginia.
    John W. Flanagan Dam and Reservoir, Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a reconnaissance study of the potential for 
reallocation of storage at the John W. Flanagan Dam and 
Reservoir project to water supply purposes.
    Lake Merriweather, Little Calfpasture River, Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
undertake a study of the Lake Merriweather, Virginia, project 
authorized in Section 507 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996.
    Prince William County Watershed, Virginia.--The bill 
includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of water resources 
problems related to wetlands protection, flooding, erosion, 
environmental degradation, and water quality in the Prince 
William County Watershed in Virginia.
    Monongahela River, Fairmont, West Virginia.--The Committee 
has provided $350,000 for preconstruction engineering and 
design activities for the waterfront development project at the 
CSX site in Fairmont, West Virginia.
    Upper Monongahela River, West Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance study of port development opportunities along 
the upper Monongahela River in Monongahela County, West 
Virginia.
    Flood Plain Management Services.--The Committee has 
provided $9,000,000 for the Flood Plain Management Services 
Program, the same as the budget request. Within the funds 
provided, the Corps of Engineers is urged to: use $50,000 to 
study the effects of future development on flooding in 
Winchester, Kentucky; use $25,000 to provide technical 
assistance for levee construction in Monterey, Kentucky; and 
use $40,000 to provide technical assistance related to dam 
sites in the Gunpowder Creek Basin in Boone County, Kentucky.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee has provided 
$5,000,000 for the Planning Assistance to States program, the 
same as the budget request. Within the funds provided the 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to work with the 
Riverside County, California, Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District to complete the floodplain maintenance 
plan for Murrieta Creek. Within the funds provided, the 
Committee also directs the Corps of Engineers to participate in 
the development of Special Area Management Plans in 
coordination and association with the State of California 
Natural Community Conservation Planning Program in southern 
California.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has provided 
$27,000,000 for Research and Development activities, the same 
as the amount provided in fiscal year 1997. Within the funds 
provided, $200,000 is for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
the Construction Technology Transfer project.
    The amount provided for Research and Development also 
includes $2,000,000 for development of strategies for the 
control of zebra mussels at public facilities, the same as the 
budget request.

                         Construction, General

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................    $1,081,942,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................     1,062,470,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................     1,475,892,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................      +393,950,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................      +413,422,000
                                                                        

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


    Rillito River, Arizona.--Subsequent to authorization of the 
Rillito River and Associated Streams, Arizona, project, severe 
flooding has caused damages to public infrastructure and 
private property along Tanque Verde Creek immediately upstream 
of its confluence with the Rillito River, between Craycroft and 
Sabino Canyon Roads. The Corps of Engineers is directed, as 
part of the Rillito River project, to accomplish a limited 
reevaluation report of Tanque Creek immediately upstream of and 
including Craycroft Road Bridge to determine the advisability 
of extending the bank protection and related measures. The 
analysis will be consistent with that of the Chief of 
Engineers' report for the Rillito Creek project to include full 
use of location benefits for economic justification purposes. 
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for this work and the 
construction of pedestrian bridges required for safety 
purposes.
    Arkansas River, Tucker Creek, Arkansas.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for rehabilitation and reconstruction of 
Faulkner County Levee #1.
    Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas.--The Committee is 
aware that the reliability of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
navigation system is threatened by low river stages on the 
Mississippi River and that dredging alone will not provide a 
solution to this problem. The solution developed by the Corps 
of Engineers is the construction of a new lock and dam near the 
confluence of the White River entrance channel with the 
Mississippi River. Because of the need to protect the 
investment that has been made in the McClellan-Kerr system, the 
Committee has provided $25,000,000, $15,000,000 above the 
amount requested by the Administration, to expedite 
construction of this important project.
    Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, 
Texas.--The Committee has provided $1,400,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue work on the Red River Waterway, Index, 
Arkansas, to Denison Dam, Texas, bank stabilization project. Of 
the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for plans and specifications 
for a bendway weir demonstration project at the U.S. Highway 
271 bridge between Oklahoma and Texas.
    American River Watershed (Natomas), California.--The 
Committee had provided $10,000,000 for partial reimbursement to 
the local sponsor of the Federal share of the cost of 
construction of flood control improvements undertaken by the 
sponsor in the Natomas area of Sacramento. The Committee has 
also provided $100,000 for initiation of the Ueda Parkway 
feature of the project.
    Marysville/Yuba City Levee Reconstruction, California.--The 
Committee has provided $9,300,000 for the Marysville/Yuba City 
Levee Reconstruction project to accelerate levee reconstruction 
in reaches that failed or were weakened in the floods of 
January of 1997.
    Norco Bluffs, California.--The bill includes $1,000,000 for 
initiation of construction of the Norco Bluffs, California, 
project.
    Prado Dam, California.--The Committee is aware that the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works approved the 
Prado Dam element of the Santa Ana River Mainstem project as a 
separable element pursuant to Section 309 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996. The Committee further 
understands that the Corps will be modifying the Local 
Cooperation Agreement consistent with Section 309. The Corps of 
Engineers is urged to proceed expeditiously on this matter and 
to continue design of the Prado Dam work in fiscal year 1998 so 
that it can proceed to construction by fiscal year 1999.
    San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.--The Committee 
has provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
the environmental review and continue preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Baldwin Phase of the San 
Francisco Bay to Stockton project.
    San Lorenzo River, California.--The Committee has provided 
$4,200,000 for the San Lorenzo River project, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers 
to proceed with the Section 1135 environmental restoration 
project for the San Lorenzo River concurrently with the flood 
control project.
    San Timoteo Creek, California.--The bill includes 
$5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the San Timoteo Creek feature of the Santa Ana River 
Mainstem project.
    Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue work on the General Reevaluation Report for the Silver 
Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, project.
    Upper Sacramento Area Levee Reconstruction, California.--
The Committee has provided $2,750,000 for the Upper Sacramento 
Area Levee Reconstruction project to accelerate work in 3.7 
miles of levee on the right bank of the Sacramento River 
between the City of Colusa and the Tisdale Bypass. Of the funds 
provided, $750,000 is intended to be used to reinforce and 
protect from future damage and potential failure the recently 
repaired levees within Site B, the so-called Back Levee of 
Reclamation District 108, and to identify and initiate work on 
additional sites in the project area requiring reconstruction.
    Faulkner's Island, Connecticut.--Within available funds, 
the bill includes $500,000 for the Faulkner's Island, 
Connecticut, project. Using these funds, along with funds 
appropriated for the project in fiscal year 1997 that will be 
carried over into fiscal year 1998, the Committee directs the 
Corps of Engineers to award a continuing contract in fiscal 
year 1998 for construction of the Faulkner's Island project.
    Broward County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to review the General 
Design Memorandum for renourishment of the Broward County, 
Florida, project currently being prepared by the local sponsor.
    Canaveral Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $3,500,000 for the sand bypass project at Canaveral 
Harbor.
    Canaveral Harbor Deepening, Florida.--The Committee has 
provided $640,000 for reimbursement to the local sponsor for 
the Federal share of revetment work completed by the sponsor 
and $1,000,000 for widening of the entrance channel.
    Dade County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$9,400,000 for the Dade County, Florida project, $1,215,000 
above the budget request. The funds provided include $4,400,000 
for the Surfside feature of the project, $2,000,000 for the Bal 
Harbour element of the project, $1,000,000 for modifications to 
the north jetty at Government Cut, $1,000,000 for the Sunny 
Isle feature of the project, and $1,000,000 for continuing 
engineering and design of the project.
    Lee County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $300,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to continue preparation of a General 
Reevaluation Report for the Estero and Gasparilla elements of 
the Lee County, Florida, project.
    Palm Beach County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$5,762,000 for the Palm Beach County, Florida, project, which 
includes $2,462,000 for the Boca Raton element of the project 
and $3,300,000 for the Ocean Ridge element of the project.
    Sarasota County, Florida.--The Committee directs the Corps 
of Engineers to reimburse the City of Venice, Florida, from 
available funds for the non-Federal share of the construction 
of an artificial reef, stormwater outfalls, and such other 
activities as the Corps deems appropriate.
    St. Johns County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the General 
Reevaluation Report and initiate plans and specifications for 
the St. Johns County, St. Augustine Beach, Florida, project.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee 
has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to design and 
construct an environmental dispersal barrier in the Chicago 
Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the spread of exotic species 
between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River ecosystems.
    Des Plaines Wetlands Demonstration Project, Illinois.--The 
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
participate in the Des Plaines Wetlands Demonstration project, 
which was reauthorized in Section 363 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996.
    East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
General Reevaluation Report for the East St. Louis and 
Vicinity, Interior Flood Control, project.
    McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee is 
aware that the Corps of Engineers plans to use $4,922,000 in 
carryover funds in fiscal year 1998 to continue engineering and 
design of the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs project.
    Melvin Price Lock and Dam, Illinois.--The amount provided 
for the Melvin Price Lock and Dam project includes $500,000 for 
the design and construction of exhibits at the visitor center 
which is currently under construction.
    North Branch of the Chicago River, Illinois.--The bill 
includes $39,000 for the Corps of Engineers to reimburse the 
Village of Deerfield for its costs associated with the 
completion of a feasibility study for the project and $500,000 
for remaining work on reservoirs 15, 27, and 29A.
    O'Hare Reservoir, Illinois.--The Committee supports the 
Corps of Engineers' plan to reprogram the funds necessary for 
completion of the O'Hare Reservoir project.
    Burns Waterway Harbor Major Rehabilitation, Indiana.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $1,400,000 to complete 
construction of the Burns Waterway Harbor major rehabilitation 
project.
    Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The bill includes 
$3,000,000 for completion of the initial nourishment phase of 
the Indiana Shoreline Erosion project.
    Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $7,000,000 for the continuation of construction of 
the Indianapolis Central Waterfront project.
    Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.--The bill includes $3,500,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete 
construction of the Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, project.
    Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana.--The Committee has 
provided $1,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
rehabilitation of six flood protection projects along the Ohio 
River in southern Indiana.
    Salyersville, Kentucky.--The bill includes $2,050,000 to 
complete construction of the Salyersville, Kentucky, project.
    Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes 
$3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake 
environmental infrastructure projects in southern and eastern 
Kentucky as authorized by Section 531 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996.
    Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Hurricane Protection, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided additional funds for the 
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project to be used for landside 
drainage on lakefront levees in Jefferson Parish, fronting 
protection at pumping stations in Orleans and Jefferson 
Parishes, and the continuation of construction of parallel 
protection along the London and Orleans Avenue canals.
    Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $15,297,000 for 
continued construction of the Red River Waterway, Mississippi 
River to Shreveport, Louisiana, project. The additional funds 
are available for the acquisition of mitigation lands, the 
construction of recreation features at Locks and Dams 3, 4, and 
5, and the construction of dikes and capouts along the 
waterway.
    Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana.--Section 108 of the fiscal 
year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and 
Section 533 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
authorized and directed the Secretary of the Army to proceed 
with engineering, design, and construction of projects to 
provide for flood control and improvements to rainfall drainage 
systems in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes in 
Louisiana. Construction of the project is being delayed, and at 
this time only a small portion of the project is being 
implemented. The Committee considers this to be most 
inefficient and believes it will result in higher costs to the 
Federal government. Continued delays in implementing this 
project will result in continued disastrous loss of life and 
property such as that experienced as a result of the rainfall 
flooding in southeast Louisiana in May of 1995. Therefore, the 
Secretary of the Army is directed to proceed immediately with 
design and construction of the Southeast Louisiana project and, 
consistent with authorized appropriation ceilings, is directed 
to award continuing contracts beginning in fiscal year 1998. 
The Committee has provided $47,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue construction of the project.
    Red River Below Denison Dam Levee and Bank Stabilization, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for 
reinforcement of the Twelvemile Bayou Revetment to eliminate 
the bank erosion threat to the integrity of the Federal levee 
system.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
Program, Maryland.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate work on the Chesapeake Bay 
Environmental Restoration and Protection Program authorized in 
Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Flint River, Michigan.--The bill includes $875,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to replace the inflatable dam on the Flint 
River in Michigan as authorized by section 329 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.--The Committee has provided 
$150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin detailed design 
and plans and specifications for the Knife River Harbor, 
Minnesota, project.
    Jackson County, Mississippi.--The bill includes $3,000,000 
for the Jackson County alternative water supply system 
authorized in Section 504 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996. The funds are to be used for construction of a new 
water treatment plant and related transmission pipelines.
    Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare plans and 
specifications and initiate construction of phase 2 of the 
Pascagoula Harbor project.
    New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, 
New Jersey.--The Committee has provided $600,000 to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Port Jersey 
Channel project.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey.--
The bill includes $3,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete engineering and design and initiate construction of 
the Lower Basin and Stony Brook portions of the Raritan River 
Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin project. Within the funds 
provided, $100,000 shall be used to reevaluate alternative 
plans for the Upper Basin portion of the project.
    Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee 
has provided $15,116,000 for the Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, 
New Jersey, project, the same as the budget request. The 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to consider a proposal 
to remove the dilapidated pier in Long Branch, New Jersey, as 
part of the ongoing project to address safety concerns related 
to construction of the project with the pier in place. In 
addition, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to 
consider a proposal to extend the Ocean Grove, New Jersey, 
fishing pier as part of the project in order to mitigate 
impacts on the pier by construction of the project.
    Hudson River, Athens, New York.--The bill includes 
$8,700,000 for design and construction of a navigation channel 
on the Hudson River near Athens, New York.
    Hudson River Habitat Restoration, New York.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to expedite 
completion of the Hudson River Habitat Restoration feasibility 
study and initiate work authorized in Section 551 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, New York.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $500,000 for the 
initiation of the Phase II dredging of the Kill Van Kull and 
Newark Bay Channels navigation project to 45 feet.
    Wilmington Harbor Navigation Projects, North Carolina.--The 
budget request includes funds for three separate navigation 
improvement projects for Wilmington Harbor in North Carolina: 
the Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening project; the Cape Fear-
Northeast (Cape Fear) River project; and the Wilmington Harbor-
Northeast Cape Fear River project. The Committee is aware that 
the consolidation of these three projects into a single 
construction effort would produce significant savings from the 
resulting construction efficiencies. Therefore, the Committee 
has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of 
Engineers to proceed with construction of the three projects as 
a single project requiring one Project Cooperation Agreement. 
The Committee has provided $2,430,000 for the initiation of the 
combined project in fiscal year 1998.
    Buford-Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota.--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
begin the process of acquiring flowage easements from willing 
sellers as authorized by Section 336 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996.
    Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate activities 
associated with the rehabilitation of the Lower Girard Lake Dam 
as authorized by Section 507 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996.
    Johnstown, Pennsylvania (Major Rehabilitation).--The 
Committee has provided an additional $164,000 for design and 
construction of the Conemaugh River Urban Greenway Trail.
    Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania.--The bill 
includes an additional $3,000,000 for planning, engineering, 
and design of the Green Ridge section, and an additional 
$2,000,000 for planning, engineering, and design of the Plot 
section of the Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 
project. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
budget in subsequent fiscal years for construction of the Green 
Ridge and Plot sections as part of the Lackawanna River, 
Scranton, Pennsylvania project.
    Lackawanna River, Olyphant, Pennsylvania.--The bill 
includes $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake 
activities leading to construction of flood control measures at 
Dickson City, Pennsylvania as part of the Lackawanna River, 
Olyphant, project. The Committee directs that the Secretary of 
the Army provide Dickson City, Pennsylvania, with the same 
levels of protection as provided to Olyphant, Pennsylvania.
    Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $339,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to design and implement an early 
flood warning system for Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
    Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake 
work at the East Central Incinerator site under the authority 
of Section 566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure 
Program, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $30,000,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to continue the South Central Pennsylvania 
Environmental Infrastructure Program. Of the funds provided, 
$3,000,000 is for Hollidaysburg Borough stormwater and 
wastewater improvements; $200,000 is for the Northern Blair 
County Regional Sewer Authority; $300,000 is for Taylor 
Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania; $1,000,000 is for 
Greenfield Township sewer improvements; $5,500,000 is for 
Chestnut Ridge Municipal Authority wastewater improvements; 
$10,000,000 is for work in the Ohio River watershed of south 
central Pennsylvania; and $10,000,000 is for design and 
construction assistance for water-related environmental 
infrastructure and resource protection and development projects 
in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe 
Counties in Pennsylvania.
    Sunbury, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $200,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to undertake engineering and design 
for modifications to the pump stations at the Sunbury, 
Pennsylvania, local flood protection project.
    Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
activities associated with the environmental restoration of the 
Susquehanna River as authorized by Section 303 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992.
    Williamsport, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $225,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to undertake necessary repairs to the 
flume and conduit at Hagerman's Run for the flood control 
project at Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
    Black Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs Wetlands, 
Tennessee.--The Committee has provided $2,900,000 for the Black 
Fox, Murfree, and Oaklands Springs wetlands preservation 
project authorized in Section 573 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996. The funds are to be used for 
preserving and enhancing the wetland area, and planning and 
design, but not construction, of an environmental education 
center.
    Hamilton County, Tennessee.--The bill includes $1,500,000 
for design and construction of the Hamilton County, Tennessee, 
bank stabilization project authorized by Section 574 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    East Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee has provided 
$1,500,000 for the initiation of construction of the East Ridge 
flood control project authorized by Section 572 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Brays Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
for construction of the Brays Bayou, Texas, project by local 
interests in accordance with the provisions of Section 211 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Red River Below Denison Dam (Bowie County Levee), Texas.--
The Committee has provided $900,000 for design and construction 
for restoration of the Bowie County Levee to the same level of 
protection as the adjoining Miller County Levee in Arkansas.
    Neabsco Creek, Prince William County, Virginia.--The 
Committee has provided $800,000 for design and construction of 
a flood control project on upper Neabsco Creek as authorized by 
Section 576 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and 
Idaho.--The Committee has previously expressed concern about 
the level of spending for Pacific Northwest salmon recovery 
efforts and the lack of clear evidence of benefits resulting 
from that spending. Moreover, the budget request appears to 
reflect the pursuit of multiple restoration strategies, some of 
which may not be adopted. Accordingly, the Committee has 
recommended $85,000,000 for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation 
program, $42,000,000 below the budget request.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big and Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia.--In addition 
to the amounts provided in the budget request, the bill 
includes: $16,000,000 to continue construction of the Harlan, 
Kentucky element of the project; $4,690,000 to continue 
construction of the Williamsburg, Kentucky, element of the 
project; $7,200,000 to continue construction of the 
Middlesboro, Kentucky, element of the project; $5,800,000 to 
continue construction of the Pike County, Kentucky element of 
the project; $5,500,000 to continue the Martin County, 
Kentucky, element of the project; $500,000 to initiate a 
Detailed Project Report for the Buchanan County element of the 
project; and $400,000 for a flood warning system for the Levisa 
Fork Basin element of the project.
    Marmet Locks and Dam, West Virginia.--The Committee has 
provided $1,830,000 for the Marmet Locks and Dam project for 
the Corps of Engineers to complete engineering and design and 
initiate real estate acquisition.
    Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure 
Program, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 
for the Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure 
program. Of the funds provided, at least $750,000 shall be 
allocated to the Krouts Creek Storm Drainage project.
    West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia 
and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for 
the West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control project 
authorized in Section 581 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996. Of the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for the 
development of a management plan and the initiation of 
individual project reports for non-structural opportunities for 
reducing flooding in the lower Allegheny River Basin of western 
Pennsylvania, including the communities of Meyersdale, 
Connellsville, Benson-Hooversville, Clymer, and New Bethlehem; 
$100,000 is for flood control on Pentz Run, Dubois, 
Pennsylvania; $125,000 is for flood control on Bloody Run, 
Everett, Pennsylvania; $50,000 is for Newton Hamilton Borough, 
Mifflin County, Pennsylvania; $75,000 is for flood control on 
Six Mile Run, Bedford County, Pennsylvania; $150,000 is for 
flood control on Muddy Run, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania; $500,000 
is for flood control in Logan Township/Altoona, Pennsylvania; 
and $1,000,000 is for preconstruction engineering and design 
for flood control measures, including, but not limited to (and 
only if ultimately necessary) flood warning systems and 
emergency evacuation plans, in the communities of Philippi and 
Belington, West Virginia.
    Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The 
Committee has provided $11,000,000 for the Section 14 program, 
$3,500,000 more than the budget request. Within the funds 
provided, the bill includes: $500,000 for a streambank 
protection project at Ditto Landing in Huntsville, Alabama; 
$390,000 for a streambank erosion project along the Ohio River 
in Tell City, Indiana; $500,000 for streambank restoration at 
Sugar Creek, Troy, Bradford County, Pennsylvania; $100,000 to 
remove a large island gravel bar in the Susquehanna River at 
the outlet of the Hepburn Street Pump Station, Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania; $100,000 for dredging the Lackawanna River and 
for stream bank restoration at Carbondale, Lackawanna County, 
Pennsylvania; $100,000 for stream bank restoration and 
placement of rip rap to control erosion and protect residential 
properties at Lycoming Creek, Trout Run, Lycoming County, 
Pennsylvania; $106,000 for stream bank stabilization by 
replacement of 500 feet of rip rap at Dingman Township, Pike 
County, Pennsylvania; $118,000 for stream bank stabilization 
and debris and gravel removal at Hop Bottom Borough, 
Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania; $10,000 to rebuild a creek 
bank at La Porte, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; $50,000 for 
stream bank restoration and gravel bar removal at Satterlee 
Creek, Athens Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania; $25,000 
for a streambank erosion protection project along Elk Creek in 
Hills Grove, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; $300,000 for 
dredging Loyal Sock Creek through Dushore and a ponding area on 
the Loyal Sock at the junction of Route 87 and Route 487 at 
Dushore, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; $500,000 for a 
streambank erosion project at Scotts Hill Park, Scotts Hill, 
Tennessee; $500,000 for streambank erosion control measures at 
Mousetail Landing State Park, Perry County, Tennessee; $770,000 
for a streambank erosion protection project on the Cumberland 
River (river miles 193.8 to 197.5) in Nashville, Tennessee; 
$325,000 for a streambank erosion control project at the 
Loudoun County, Tennessee, municipal facilities; $300,000 for 
streambank erosion control measures along Beaver Creek in 
Bristol, Tennessee; and $800,000 for a streambank erosion 
control project in Moundsville, West Virginia.
    The bill also includes $1,000,000 for the project for bank 
stabilization, St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana, including 
recreation and pedestrian access features as authorized by 
Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee 
has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program, 
$14,500,000 above the budget request. Within the funds 
provided, the bill includes: $3,900,000 for the Muscle Shoals, 
Alabama, project; $2,000,000 to reimburse the local sponsor for 
the Lake Elsinore, California, project; $875,000 for completion 
of engineering and design and initiation of construction of the 
San Pedro Creek, California, project; $774,000 for the Mission 
Zanja Creek, California, project; $1,440,000 for construction 
of the Magpie Creek, California, project; $1,000,000 for the 
Northern California Streams, Winters and Vicinity, California, 
project; $50,000 for appraisal investigations of Blockhouse 
Creek, Fishing Creek, Little Six Mile Creek, Nine Mile Creek, 
and Trout River in Jacksonville, Florida; $1,200,000 for 
construction of the Cedar River (Wills Branch), Florida, 
project; $1,178,000 for the installation of floodgates on the 
McHenry and Algonquin Dams on the Fox River in Illinois; 
$350,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along 
Deer Creek in Cook County, Illinois; $250,000 for a feasibility 
study of flooding problems along Stony Creek, Illinois; 
$200,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along 
Tinley Creek in Illinois; $1,125,000 for construction of the 
North Libertyville Estates, Illinois, project; $100,000 for 
construction of the Flatrock River project in Rushville, 
Indiana; $55,000 for plans and specifications for the Pipe 
Creek project in Alexandria, Indiana; $100,000 for completion 
of the feasibility study and initiation of plans and 
specifications for the White River project in Anderson, 
Indiana; $50,000 each for studies of flooding problems in 
Lawrenceburg, Burgin, Georgetown, and Millersburg, Kentucky; 
$75,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems in Silver 
Grove, Kentucky; $165,000 for construction of the Bardstown, 
Kentucky, Water Treatment Plant floodwall; $100,000 for 
completion of plans and specifications for the Lebanon 
Junction, Kentucky, floodwall project; $640,000 for 
construction of the Cy Bend, Jackson, Kentucky, project; 
$660,000 for studies of flooding problems in Jefferson and St. 
Tammany Parishes in Louisiana, including the W-11/W-12Basins, 
Bayou Tete L'Ours, Unnamed Bayou; Little Bayou Castine, and Galvez 
Street; $100,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems on Mud 
Creek, Hendersonville, North Carolina; $3,741,000 for construction of 
the Pender (Logan Creek), Nebraska, flood control project; $150,000 for 
a study of flooding problems in Ponca, Nebraska; $250,000 to continue 
the feasibility study for the Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersrey, 
project; $120,000 to continue the feasibility study for the Poplar 
Brook, New Jersey, project; $250,000 for a feasibility study of 
flooding problems along Cazenovia Creek in New York; $100,000 for a 
study of the Buffalo Creek, New York, project; $400,000 for 
construction of a concrete retaining wall, replacement of sluice pipes, 
removal of sedimentation, and installation of retaining walls at a 
bridge on Towanda Creek, Canton, Bradford County, Pennsylvania; 
$2,100,000 for construction of a flood protection dike, storm water 
pump station, discharge pipe, rip rap and storm drain at Montoursville, 
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania; $5,000,000 for construction of a flood 
protection dike on Loyal Sock Creek to accommodate a new airport access 
road at the Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, Pennsylvania; 
$300,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems in Eastlake, 
Ohio; $275,000 for a feasibility study of the Lake Carl Blackwell flood 
control project in Oklahoma; $800,000 for construction of the Emily/
Timothy Residential Area, Knoxville, Tennessee, project; $100,000 for a 
study of flooding problems along Richland Creek in Morgantown, 
Tennessee; $100,000 for a feasibility study of flooding problems along 
the Doe River in Carter County, Tennessee; $300,000 for a feasibility 
study of flooding problems along Walnut and Browder Creeks in 
Springtown, Texas; $300,000 for a feasibility study of flooding 
problems along Lick Creek and the Clinch River in Russell and Dickenson 
Counties in Virginia; and $100,000 to complete the feasibility study 
for the Snoqualmie River flood control project.
    Clearing and Snagging for Flood Control (Section 208).--The 
Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the Section 208 program, 
$1,500,000 more than the budget request. From within the funds 
provided, the bill includes: $500,000 for a project to remove 
sediment from Blackwood Creek in California; $500,000 for a 
project to remove sediment from Ward Creek in California; and 
$50,000 to clear debris from Saw Mill Creek in the Borough of 
Milford, Pensylvania.
    Small Beach Erosion Control Projects (Section 103).--The 
Committee has provided $3,000,000 for the Section 103 program, 
the same as the budget request. From within the funds provided, 
the bill includes: $100,000 for a study of beach erosion 
control measures at the former U.S. Coast Guard seaplane base 
in Miami, Florida; and $800,000 to complete the Shelter Island/
Ram Island Causeway project in New York.
    The Committee recognizes the serious erosion problems being 
experienced on the east end of Dauphin Island, Alabama. To 
counter this threat to property and habitat, the Committee 
urges the Corps of Engineers, acting in coordination with non-
Federal interests, to initiate a beach restoration project on 
the east end of Dauphin Island, Alabama, utilizing alternative 
sand recapture technologies.
    Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $11,400,000 for the Section 107 program, $6,400,000 
more than the budget request. From within the funds provided, 
the bill includes: $250,000 for planning associated with the 
project to deepen the West Turning Basin at Canaveral Harbor in 
Florida; $150,000 for a feasibility study for construction of a 
harbor of refuge at Duluth (McQuade Road) Harbor, Minnesota; 
$1,500,000 for construction of a harbor of refuge at Taconite 
Harbor, Minnesota; $3,500,000 for construction of a harbor of 
refuge at Two Harbors, Minnesota; $50,000 for completion of the 
feasibility study for the Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina, 
project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for the Buffalo Inner 
Harbor, New York, project; $100,000 for a feasibility study for 
the Union Ship Canal, New York, project; and $31,000 for a 
feasibility study of expanding the turning basin at the Port of 
Morrow, Oregon, project.
    Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment 
(Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $21,175,000 for the 
section 1135 program, $7,000,000 more than the budget request. 
Within the funds provided, the bill includes: $2,770,000 for 
construction of the Ajo Detention Basin project in Arizona; 
$2,100,000 for completion of plans and specifications and the 
initiation of land acquisition for the Gunnerson Pond, 
California, project; $500,000 for completion of plans and 
specifications and initiation of construction for the Pine Flat 
Dam Turbine Bypass, California, project; $150,000 for a project 
modification plan for the Wildcat-San Pablo Creeks, California, 
project; $1,350,000 for design and construction of the Middle 
Creek, California, project; $200,000 for construction of 
manatee protection features at Canaveral Locks in Florida; 
$3,133,000 for construction of the Lower Amazon Creek 
Restoration and Protection project in Oregon; $1,000,000 for 
the Mecklenburg County Streambank Stabilization and Restoration 
project in North Carolina; $1,000,000 for an environmental 
restoration project at Lake Wallenpuapack, Wayne County, 
Pennsylvania; $1,052,000 for completion of plans and 
specifications and initiation of construction of the Bear Creek 
Fish and Wildlife Restoration project in Washington; $450,000 
to initiate work on the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration 
project in Washington; $400,000 for the feasibility phase of 
the Hiram Chittendam Locks fish passage project in Washington; 
and $120,000 to initiate and complete the Sammamish River weir 
restoration project in Washington.
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--Section 206 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized a new 
program under which the Corps of Engineers could carry out 
aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects if the 
Secretary of the Army determines that such projects will 
improve the quality of the environment, are in the public 
interest, and are cost-effective. The Committee has provided 
$8,900,000, $6,900,000 above the budget request for this 
program. Within the funds provided, the bill includes: $500,000 
for design and construction of an aquatic ecosystem restoration 
project on the Huntsville Spring Branch in Huntsville, Alabama; 
$1,000,000 for the project to remove sediments from upper 
Newport Bay in California; $1,000,000 for the cleanup of the 
abandoned Penn Mine site in California; $600,000 for the Upper 
Truckee River restoration program in California; $750,000 for 
the Santa Rosa Vernal Pools, California, demonstration project; 
$250,000 for the Fairfield Streams and Suisun Marsh Watershed 
project; $200,000 for the Clear Lake Basin Watershed 
Restoration project in California; $250,000 for the 
environmental restoration of Rose Bay in Florida; $500,000 for 
the environmental restoration of Indian River Lagoon in 
Florida; $500,000 for design and construction of an ecosystem 
restoration project along the Lower Cumberland River in 
Kentucky; $500,000 for work associated with development of a 
plan to eliminate combined sewer overflows in Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania; $500,000 for the Upper Jordan River Restoration 
project in Utah; and $500,000 for the Decker Lake Restoration 
in Utah.
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Section 204).--The 
Committee has provided an additional $400,000 for the Corps of 
Engineer to initiate a study for a possible aquatic restoration 
project at Hamilton Army Airfield in Marin County, California.

            Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries

  Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 
                               Tennessee

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $330,374,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       266,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       285,450,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -44,924,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................      +19,450,000 
                                                                        
Note.--The fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes $20,000,000 in       
  emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-18.                

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


    Channel Improvement.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of the use of dikes in maintaining the navigation 
channel on the Mississippi River and supports their continued 
use. The Committee is also aware that on rare occasions dikes 
can inhibit access to the main channel from private and public 
boat ramps located in the vicinity of dikes as a result of 
deposition that occurs and results in the formation of sand 
bars. The Committee has been advised that such a situation now 
exists for a boat ramp that is located on the left descending 
bank of the Mississippi River at river mile 798.5 between 
Forked Deer dikes 3 and 4. Accordingly, the Committee has 
provided $50,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform 
necessary dredging from the boat ramp to the main channel of 
the Mississippi River.
    Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The Committee has 
provided $13,500,000 for the Mississippi Delta Region project, 
$2,000,000 above the budget request. The additional funds will 
permit the Corps of Engineers to initiate work on the Southern 
Pacific Railroad Bridge relocation. If this work is not started 
in fiscal year 1998, the schedule for completion of the project 
will slip by two years.
    Mississippi River Levees.--The Committee has provided 
$34,738,000 for the Mississippi River Levees element of the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, $10,500,000 more 
than the budget request. Of the funds provided, up to 
$9,000,000 shall be used to accelerate completion of work to 
bring mainline levees up to grade, including work to advance 
construction of the levees at Mayersville, Mississippi, and 
Lake Providence, Louisiana, and work to complete levee slide 
repairs north of Lake Providence, Louisiana. In addition, 
$1,500,000 shall be used to advance construction of the 
Commerce to Birds Point levee in Missouri.
    Sardis Lake, Yazoo Basin, Mississippi.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $1,900,000 for the Sardis Lake project 
to permit the Corps of Engineers to complete the dredging of 
Shady Cove Marina.
    Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--
The Committee has provided $15,000,000, $5,000,000 more than 
the budget request, for the Demonstration Erosion Control 
Program, a continuation of a joint effort by the Vicksburg 
District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service in the Yazoo Basin of 
Mississippi. The funds provided will permit the Corps of 
Engineers to undertake construction work in the following 
watersheds: Abiaca Creek, Batupan Bogue, Black Creek, Coldwater 
Creek, Cane-Mussacana Creek, Hurricane-Wolfe Creek, Hickahala-
Senatobia Creek, Hotophia Creek, Long Creek, Pelucia Creek, 
Otoucalofa Creek, and the Yalobusha River. Design of future 
work, acquisition of real estate, and monitoring of results 
will be accomplished for all watersheds in order to facilitate 
work in fiscal year 1998 and for future work as required for 
completion of the program. The Committee expects the 
Administration to continue to request funds for this important 
project.
    Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.--The 
Committee is aware of the severe groundwater depletion problem 
in eastern Arkansas, particularly in the Grand Prairie and 
Bayou Meto areas. This problem has caused and will continue to 
cause irreparable damage to the alluvial aquifer. The Committee 
believes the Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, 
Arkansas, project reauthorized in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 would provide the much-needed solution 
to this problem. Therefore, from within available funds, the 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to continue design on 
the Grand Prairie portion of the project and initiate a 
reevaluation on the Bayou Meto Basin portion.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................    $1,866,015,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................     1,618,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................     1,726,955,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................      -139,060,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................     +108,955,000 
                                                                        
Note.--The fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes $19,000,000 in       
  emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 104-208 and            
  $150,000,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-18.

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


    Isabella Lake, California.--The Committee expects the Corps 
of Engineers to use funds provided in this act to conduct the 
measures required by the April 18, 1997, Biological Opinion 
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to 
the long-term operation of Isabella Reservoir in Kern County, 
California. The Committee further expects the Corps of 
Engineers to identify the least costly actions available, 
including, whenever possible, the utilization of partnerships 
with other Federal and non-Federal agencies and organizations, 
so that the Corps can continue to operate and maintain Isabella 
Dam and Reservoir for flood control and water conservation 
purposes as provided in the October 23, 1964, contract among 
the United States of America and various public agencies.
    Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.--The 
Committee has provided additional funds for the Los Angeles 
County Drainage Area project for the completion of recreation 
facilities at Howard Hansen Dam.
    Morro Bay Harbor, California.--The bill includes $3,200,000 
for maintenance dredging of Morro Bay Harbor in California.
    Anclote River, Florida.--The bill includes $1,500,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to address the backlog of maintenance 
dredging in the Anclote River in Florida.
    Fort Myers Beach, Florida.--The Committee has included 
language in the bill directing the Corps of Engineers to 
reimburse the local sponsor of the Fort Myers Beach, Florida, 
project for maintenance dredging performed by the local sponsor 
to open the authorized channel to navigation using $375,000 
appropriated in the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act for that purpose.
    Wolf Creek Dam--Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The Committee 
has provided an additional $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to undertake a study for a bridge to replace the current route 
of U.S. 127 at Wolf Creek Dam. In addition, the Committee is 
concerned about the amount of solid waste entering Lake 
Cumberland, Kentucky. Within the amounts available, the 
Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the Wolf Creek Dam, Lake 
Cumberland, project, with which the Secretary of the Army is 
directed to implement measures upstream of Lake Cumberland to 
intercept and dispose of solid waste.
    Mississippi River Outlets at Venice, Louisiana.--The bill 
includes $2,400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform 
dredging of Baptiste Collette and make repairs to the Baptiste 
jetty.
    Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $2,478,000 
for the Red River Waterway project to maintain 24 hour per day 
lock operations and to perform additional revetment repairs to 
maintain the integrity of the navigation channel.
    Cohasset Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided 
$1,342,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance 
dredging of Cohasset Harbor in Massachusetts.
    Cedar River Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee has provided 
$2,377,000 for repair of the east breakwater at Cedar River 
Harbor in Michigan.
    Alternative Technology Project, Duluth, Minnesota.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 for the project to develop and 
implement alternative methods for decontamination and disposal 
of contaminated dredged material at the Port of Duluth, 
Minnesota, authorized in Section 541 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996.
    Little Falls, Mississippi River, Minnesota.--The bill 
includes $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a 
study to determine the feasibility of a project for clearing, 
snagging, and sediment removal on the Mississippi River at 
Little Falls, Minnesota, and, if the project is found to be 
feasible, to complete it under the authority of Section 3 of 
the River and Harbor Act of 1945 in accordance with Section 106 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Clearwater Lake, Missouri.--The Committee has provided 
$350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to undertake engineering 
and design activities related to the relocation of facilities 
impacted by floodings.
    Tuckerton Creek, New Jersey.--The bill includes $650,000 
for maintenance dredging of Tuckerton Creek in New Jersey.
    Buffalo Harbor Environmental Dredging, New York.--The bill 
includes $125,000 for the Corps of Engineers to investigate the 
dredging of contaminated sediments located outside of and 
adjacent to the Federal navigation channels in Buffalo Harbor 
and in the Buffalo River.
    Mamaroneck Harbor, New York.--The bill includes $6,200,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance dredging main 
and tributary channels and anchorage areas of Mamaroneck Harbor 
project, including justified advance maintenance dredging to 
-10 feet MLW.
    Owasco Outlet, Owasco Seawall, New York.--The Committee has 
provided $250,000 for study, design, and the preparation of 
plans and specifications for rehabilitation of the seawall at 
the outlet of Owasco Lake.
    Ports of New York and New Jersey, New York and New 
Jersey.--The Committee has provided additional funds for the 
Corps of Engineers to address the critical backlog of 
maintenance dredging in authorized navigation channels in the 
Ports of New York and New Jersey.
    Sag Harbor, New York--The Committee has provided $90,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the need for 
repair of the breakwaters at Sag Harbor, New York.
    Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for mosquito control activities in the 
vicinity of Williston, North Dakota.
    Bonneville Lock and Dam, Oregon and Washington.--The 
Committee has provided $115,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
determine if the Old Dalles Levee, constructed as afeature of 
the Bonneville Lock and Dam project, is still required for project 
purposes, and, if it is not, to initiate actions to transfer it to the 
City of The Dalles for expansion of its wastewater treatment facility.
    Mahoning River, Ohio.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate activities 
associated with the dredging of contaminated sediments from the 
Mahoning River in Ohio under the authority of Section 312 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, as amended.
    Willamette River Basin, Oregon.--The Committee has provided 
$647,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the program to 
mark hatchery reared salmon in order to permit a selective 
fishery to be developed. This will allow wild salmon to be 
released, while at the same time permitting the recreational 
fishery to continue.
    Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.--Within available funds, the 
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to extend the 
navigation channel on the Allegheny River to provide passenger 
boat access to the Kittanning, Pennsylvania, Riverfront Park.
    Aylesworth Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $25,000 for operation and maintenance of 
recreational facilities at Aylesworth Lake in Pennsylvania.
    Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $127,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
make improvements to recreation facilities at Curwensville Lake 
in Pennsylvania.
    Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,170,000 for the Raystown Lake project for the 
Corps of Engineers to implement recommendations of the 1992 
update of the project Master Plan.
    Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $380,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
repair and reopen the Lambs Creek Recreation area.
    Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The bill includes an 
additional $900,000 for the Charleston Harbor project to be 
used for dewatering and diking of the Clouter Creek dredged 
material disposal site.
    Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Rincon Canal System, Texas.--
The Committee has provided $675,000 for maintenance dredging of 
the Rincon Canal in Texas as authorized by Section 509 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Neabsco Creek, Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to perform maintenance 
dredging of the Neabsco Creek navigation project.
    Potomac River, Virginia.--The bill includes $350,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to complete the planning process and 
initiate maintenance dredging for the Potomac River at 
Alexandria and Potomac River below Washington, D.C., navigation 
projects.
    Grays Harbor, Washington.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $6,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to extend the 
south jetty at the Grays Harbor project to provide a permanent 
solution to the ongoing erosion problem.
    Willapa River and Harbor, Washington.--The Committee has 
provided an additional $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a study to find a permanent solution to erosion 
problems at the Willapa River and Harbor project.
    Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
an additional $475,000 for the Bluestone Lake project in West 
Virginia to be used for engineering and design of the preferred 
alternative for drift and debris removal, and to initiate 
cleanup downstream of the dam.
    Great Lakes Sediment Transport Models.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to develop 
sediment transport models for river systems depositing sediment 
into Federal navigation projects in the Great Lakes as 
authorized by Section 516(e) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996.

                           regulatory program

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $101,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       112,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       112,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       +11,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

     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 1998, the Committee recommends 
$112,000,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee has 
recommended the full amount of the budget request with the 
expectation that the Corps of Engineers will move rapidly to 
put in place an administrative appeals process for the 
Regulatory Program.
    The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to transfer 
regulatory responsibility for Lake, Porter, and LaPorte 
Counties in Indiana from the Detroit District to the Chicago 
District.
    Agricultural Drainage Wells, Iowa.--The Committee is aware 
of the ongoing environmental problems associated with 
agricultural drainage wells in Iowa. The Committee expects the 
Corps of Engineers to cooperate with the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture in 
facilitating the closing of these wells in a timely manner. 
Furthermore, the Committee recognizes the environmental 
benefits associated with the closure of agricultural drainage 
wells and expects these benefits to be taken into account fully 
for purposes of determining wetlands mitigation when and if the 
wells are closed and alternative drainage systems are devised.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $425,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        14,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        14,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................      -411,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        
Note.--The fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes $415,000,000 in      
  emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-18.                

    This activity provides for flood emergency preparation, 
flood fighting and rescue operations, and repair of flood 
control and Federal hurricane or shore protection works. It 
also provides for emergency supplies of clean drinking water 
where the source has been contaminated and, in drought 
distressed areas, provision of adequate supplies of water for 
human and livestock consumption.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997..................................  .................
                                                            ............
Budget Estimate, 1998................................  .................
                                                            ............
Recommended, 1998....................................       $110,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997..............................        110,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998............................        110,000,000
                                                                        


    The Committee recommendation includes statutory language 
transferring the funding and responsibility for administering 
the Department of Energy's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program (FUSRAP) to the Corps of Engineers. The 
Department of Defense has a similar environmental restoration 
program for cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The 
Corps of Engineers manages and executes these cleanup projects 
at formerly owned or leased defense sites which were 
contaminated during previous use. The Committee believes that 
there are significant cost and schedule efficiencies to be 
gained by having the Corps manage FUSRAP as well.
    The FUSRAP program was funded at $75,085,000 in fiscal year 
1997. The Committee recommendation includes $110,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1998 to accelerate cleanup of the existing sites. 
The current estimate for completion is 2016. The Department of 
Energy's fiscal year 1998 budget request stated that funding of 
$182,079,000 along with appropriate outyear funding would 
permit completion of all existing FUSRAP sites by 2002, a 
significant acceleration from the current completion date of 
2016. However, the budget did not include a detailed plan on 
how this schedule is to be accomplished, and was dependent on 
reaching agreement with local communities on work to be 
performed. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to 
review the baseline cost, scope and schedule for each of the 
cleanup sites, and determine what actions can be taken to 
reduce costs and accelerate cleanup activities. The Corps 
should determine if the 2002 completion date is reasonable and 
report to the Committee on what steps must be taken to meet 
this date.
    In those instances in which a contract or agreement has 
been reached between the Federal government and a contractor or 
subcontractor, the terms of that agreement should still be 
honored. In addition, the Corps of Engineers is expected to 
immediately pursue cost recovery from the responsible parties 
at FUSRAP sites either through a negotiated settlement or a 
court action.
    The Committee has provided an additional $35,000,000 for 
FUSRAP activities in fiscal year 1998, for a total of 
$110,000,000, but does not agree to provide additional funds 
for any site where a final cleanup agreement is not in effect. 
Statutory language has been included providing that additional 
funds are available only for those sites which have a validated 
baseline for the work to be performed, including a technical 
plan, schedule, and life-cycle cost estimate for the selected 
cleanup remedy, and that this baseline has been agreed to by 
the Federal government, the local community, and the 
appropriate state and Federal regulators.

                            General Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $149,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       148,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       148,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        -1,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

    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 
$148,000,000, the same as the budget request.
    It has come to the Committee's attention that the Corps of 
Engineers is in the process of restructuring its headquarters' 
Resource Management organization, including the assumption of 
functions, including oversight of programmatic goals, mission 
execution, and customer coordination, that have previously been 
accomplished by program managers within the Civil Works 
Directorate of the headquarters. The Committee believes that 
there is a significant difference between Civil Works program 
management and the legal resource distribution and performance 
measurement activities that are a part of Resource Management 
in the Corps of Engineers. The Committee has enjoyed an 
excellent relationship with the Corps of Engineers program 
managers, who provide the Committee with the accurate and 
responsive program, project, and policy information that the 
Committee needs to make spending and policy decisions and 
perform oversight of the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works 
program. The Committee would not like to see this relationship 
endangered by a restructuring that would detract from the 
program managers' ability to achieve program results and may 
overemphasize ``financial management'' at the expense of 
``program management.''
                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                Central Utah Project Completion Account

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $43,627,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        41,153,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        41,153,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        -2,474,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................  ................
                                                                        

    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 1998 to carry 
out the provisions of the Act is $41,153,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      Water and Related Resources

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       685,937,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       651,552,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       651,931,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -34,006,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................         +379,000 
                                                                        
Note.--The amount shown as the fiscal year 1997 appropriation includes  
  funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997 under General Investigations,  
  Construction Program, and Operation and Maintenance; and also includes
  $7,355,000 in emergency appropriations for Operation and Maintenance  
  enacted in Public Law 105-18.                                         

    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:


    New Programmatic Budget Structure.--For fiscal year 1998, 
the Bureau of Reclamation has proposed a new budget structure 
which it believes more accurately reflects the work it 
currently undertakes. The previous budget structure defined the 
three phases of development of water resources projects: study; 
construction; and operation and maintenance. The Bureau of 
Reclamation believes that its original mission of water 
resources development is now complete and that its core mission 
is now water resources management. Therefore, it has proposed 
that funds previously appropriated under the General 
Investigations, Construction Program, and Operation and 
Maintenance appropriation accounts be combined in a single 
account titled ``Water and Related Resources''. All work under 
the Water and Related Resources account is allocated to one of 
five programmatic activities: Water and Energy Management and 
Development; Land Management and Development; Fish and Wildlife 
Management and Development; Facility Operation; and Facility 
Maintenance and Rehabilitation. A description of the work which 
is performed under each programmatic activity is contained in 
the Bureau of Reclamation budget justification documents, which 
are published in Part 3 of the Committee's hearing record for 
fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee has agreed to adopt this new budget structure 
for fiscal year 1998 because in many ways it does a better job 
of displaying the type of work being performed by the Bureau of 
Reclamation. In doing so, however, the Committee is not 
indicating its agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation's 
assertion that it can create a new mission for itself. The 
roles and missions of Federal agencies are established through 
the legislative process and cannot and should not be 
arbitrarily changed by those agencies. The Committee believes 
that it is up to the Congress to decide if the Bureau of 
Reclamation's original mission is complete and, if it is, 
whether Reclamation should have a new mission.
    Central Arizona Project, Arizona.--The Committee has 
provided $54,242,000 for the Central Arizona Project, 
$7,000,000 less than the budget request.
    Yuma Area Project, Arizona.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $1,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate 
work to reduce the threat of flooding to Federal, tribal, and 
local facilities in Yuma, Arizona, that exists as a result of 
the deposition of large amounts of sediment that occurred in 
the lower Colorado River during flooding in 1993.
    In Situ Copper Mining Research Project, Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided $1,400,000 to conduct the In Situ Copper 
Mining Research Project to achieve conclusive demonstration of 
the technology, including the efficient control and 
manipulation of transport solutions. These funds will be cost 
shared by the private sector participant as provided for in the 
contract. In addition, $300,000 is provided for Bureau of 
Reclamation oversight of the project and technology transfer 
activities to other groundwater programs administered by the 
Bureau to assure that the Federal investment in this technology 
is maximized.
    Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $2,250,000 for the Bureau 
of Reclamation to complete design and initiate construction of 
the fish screen at the Contra Costa Canal intake at Rock 
Slough.
    Central Valley Project, American River Division, 
California.--
          Permanent Pumping Facility, Placer County Water 
        Agency.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the 
        Bureau of Reclamation to undertake design and 
        construction of a permanent pumping facility for the 
        Placer County Water Agency.
          Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge.--The Committee has 
        provided $700,000 for repairs to the Mountain Quarries 
        Railroad Bridge, which is commonly known as the ``No 
        Hands Bridge.''
          Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Reimbursement.--
        The Committee has provided $3,900,000 for the Federal 
        share of costs associated with the variable flood 
        control operation of Folsom Dam as authorized in 
        Section 101(a)(1)(D) of the Water Resources Development 
        Act of 1996.
    Central Valley Project, San Felipe Division, California.--
The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to 
work with the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) on 
implementation of its Basin Management Plan, dated November 
1993. The Committee further directs the Bureau of Reclamation, 
consistent with the provisions of Public Law 102-575, to 
identify and assist PVWMA obtain additional sources of water 
through water transfers and/or other opportunities and to 
identify and address impediments to obtaining such supplies 
including, but not limited to, cost.
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs, 
California.--
          Anadromous Fish Screen Program.--The Committee has 
        provided $8,000,000 for the Anadromous Fish Screen 
        Program, $3,000,000 more than the budget request. 
        Within funds available to the Anadromous Fish Screen 
        Program, including funds appropriated in fiscal year 
        1997, the Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation 
        to fund the following fish screen projects at the 
        levels indicated below or provide such other amounts as 
        may be necessary to keep construction of each of these 
        high priority fish screen projects on an optimum 
        schedule: Reclamation District 108, $5,000,000; 
        Reclamation District 1004, $2,625,000; and Princeton-
        Glenn-Codora and Provident Irrigation Districts, 
        $2,500,000.
          The Committee supports streamlining the process for 
        making funding decisions under the Anadromous Fish 
        Screen Program, and, therefore, directs the Secretary 
        of the Interior to assign full and sole responsibility 
        for the allocation of funding under the program to the 
        Bureau of Reclamation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
        Service's role in the program should be limited to 
        providing technical asistance and advice to help the 
        Bureau of Reclamation evaluate the relative merits of 
        various screening options at individual diversion 
        sites.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, 
California.--
          Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock 
        Program.--The Committee has provided $250,000 to 
        continue the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive 
        Broodstock Program.
          Colusa Basin Drainage District.--The Committee has 
        provided $750,000 for continued work on the Colusa 
        Basin Drainage District's integrated resource 
        management program.
    Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.--The Committee has 
provided $4,000,000 for continuing work on a new fish screen 
and fish recovery facility associated with the Glenn-Colusa 
Irrigation District's Hamilton City Pumping Plant, the same as 
provided in the budget request. Elsewhere in the bill, under 
the Corps of Engineers, Construction, the Committee has 
provided $600,000 for the construction of a gradient facility, 
which is an essential and integral part of the fish screen 
facility authorized pursuant to the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act. The fish screen facility and gradient facility 
are both necessary to meet fish protection goals at the 
Hamilton City Pumping Plant. Despite the different funding 
sources, the Committee directs both agencies to consider both 
activities as two elements of the same project, and to take 
every step possible to ensure that the two elements are fully 
coordinated in every respect.
    Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, 
California.--Within the funds provided for the Trinity River 
Division, $1,500,000 is for continued support of the Co-
Management Agreement between the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the 
Bureau of Reclamation.
    Central Valley Project, West San Joaquin Division, San Luis 
Unit, California.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$3,000,000 for operation and maintenance of San Luis Unit 
joint-use facilities.
    Brackish Water Reclamation Demonstration Facility, 
California.--The Committee has provided $1,700,000 for 
completion of the Port Hueneme Water Agency's brackish water 
reclamation demonstration project. In addition, the Committee 
has provided $300,000 for a study of the use of brine from the 
facility to maintain an existing salt marsh.
    Del Norte County and Crescent City Wastewater Reclamation 
Study, California.--The Committee has provided $550,000 for the 
Bureau of Reclamation to continue the Del Norte County and 
Crescent City Wastewater Reclamation study. The Committee 
believes that in view of the depressed economy of the area, the 
Bureau should make every effort to minimize any requirement for 
a local contribution. At a minimum, in-kind services performed 
by the local sponsor should be considered part of the local 
share.
    Sacramento County Reclamation Reuse Study, California.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 to continue the study of 
utilizing reclaimed water in Sacramento County.
    Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado.--The Committee wishes to 
state its continued support for the Animas-La Plata project in 
Colorado and New Mexico, which is necessary to satisfy the 
requirements of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement 
Act of 1988. Controversy has delayed the construction of the 
project by the Bureau of Reclamation despite the commitments 
made in the Settlement Act and a subsequent directive by the 
Congress that those portions of the project which were approved 
under the Endangered Species Act should be constructed without 
delay. In the last year, the Governor of Colorado and the 
Secretary of the Interior have convened the project supporters 
and opponents in a process intended to seek resolution of the 
controversy. The Colorado process calls for a proposal from 
parties to the settlement as well as one from those who oppose 
the project as presently contemplated. Proposals are due by 
July 31, 1997, and meetings will reconvene shortly thereafter. 
The Committee directs that funds previously appropriated for 
the project and still available are to be used for the project 
and advancement of a proposal from the process which meets the 
original intent of the Settlement to provide a new supply of 
water to meet the present and future needs of the Ute Tribes 
and the surrounding region. In the event such a proposal is 
advanced, the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to utilize to 
the fullest extent the existing environmental compliance 
documents.
    Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, 
Kansas.--The Committee has provided $667,000 for operation and 
monitoring of the Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration 
Project. The Committee directs that the Bureau of Reclamation 
not reprogram funds from the Equus Beds project in fiscal year 
1998.
    Fort Peck Indian Reservation Water System Investigation, 
Montana.--The Committee has provided $240,000 to continue pre-
authorization activities for a municipal and industrial water 
supply system for the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
    Fort Peck Rural Water Supply System, Montana.--The bill 
includes $293,000 for preconstruction activities, such as NEPA 
compliance, associated with the Fort Peck Rural Water Supply 
System project.
    Walker River Basin, Nevada.--The Committee has provided 
$300,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to work with local 
interests to identify the most effective water conservation 
practices applicable to the Walker River Basin, and to quantify 
the contribution that conservation can make to solving the 
water resources problems in Walker Lake and the basin as a 
whole.
    Northwest Wastewater Reuse Project, Texas.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000 for completion of the Northwest 
Wastewater Reuse project in Texas.
    Rio Grande Conveyance Canal/Pipeline, Texas.--The Committee 
has provided $400,000 for NEPA compliance and design activities 
associated with the Rio Grande Conveyance/Pipeline project.
    Yakima Project, Washington.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $2,000,000 for the Yakima River Basin Water 
Enhancement project.
    Operation and Maintenance Costs, Deficits, and Budget 
Development/Priorities.--The Committee is concerned about 
reports of exceptionally large increases in operation and 
maintenance (O&M) costs at a number of Bureau of Reclamation 
projects and reports that Bureau of Reclamation overhead is 
responsible, in some cases, for more than half of such cost 
increases. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
conduct a survey of O&M costs associated with each of its 
projects and report back to the Committee on: the O&M costs for 
each of its projects; the percent change, on an annual basis, 
in O&M costs for each project; the amount and percentage of O&M 
costs attributable to overhead for each project; the charges to 
beneficiaries for municipal and industrial, irrigation, power, 
fish and wildlife, recreation, and other purposes; and a brief 
explanation of the justification for any overhead rate in 
excess of 20 percent of total O&M costs for any project. The 
above information should be provided for fiscal years 1993-
1997. The cost of this survey shall be a non-reimbursable 
expense that is the sole responsibility of the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The results of the survey shall be provided to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate, the 
House Committee on Resources, and the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
    The Committee is also concerned that the Bureau of 
Reclamation has adopted water rate-setting policies that 
diminish the repayment of O&M deficits. The net result of these 
changes is that revenues collected from municipal and 
industrial water contractors as well as some agricultural water 
contractors are applied first to repay lower interest rate 
obligations rather than higher interest rate O&M deficit 
balances. The Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
review and, where necessary, modify these policies to ensure 
that current O&M water rate revenues are applied against O&M 
expenses with any deficiency resulting in an O&M deficit to the 
water contractor. Any O&M revenues in excess of O&M expenses, 
along with any additional water rate revenues derived from a 
water contractor, shall be applied first, to the greatest 
degree practicable, to repay the highest rate obligation of the 
water contractor.
    The Committee strongly encourages the Bureau of Reclamation 
to create new opportunities for water and power contractors to 
participate in the review and development of O&M budget 
priorities for their respective Bureau of Reclamation projects. 
Many water and power contractors have expressed concerns to the 
Committee that there is insufficient consultation between the 
water and power users and the Bureau of Reclamation on O&M 
funding priorities. The Committee believes this is 
inappropriate given that the water and power users are required 
to repay, in full, the costs of their proportionate share of 
O&M activities undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation and 
approved by Congress. Significant consultation by the Bureau of 
Reclamation with the affected water and power contractors, in 
advance of the budget submission, is both reasonable and 
desirable.

               bureau of reclamation loan program account

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $12,715,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        10,425,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        10,425,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        -2,290,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

    Under the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a-
422l), loans and/or grants can be made to non-Federal 
organizations for construction or rehabilitation and betterment 
of small water resource projects.
    As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this 
account records the subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans, as well as administrative expenses of this program.
    The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 
shown on the following table:



                central valley project restoration fund

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $38,096,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        39,130,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        39,130,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        +1,034,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 34 of 
Public Law 102-575. 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.
    The General Accounting Office has advised the Committee 
that the Bureau of Reclamation has established a Water 
Acquisition Reserve, currently totaling $14,000,000, within the 
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund to be used for the 
purchase of water during periods of drought. The Committee is 
extremely concerned that it was not notified of the creation of 
this reserve fund, particularly since funds were never 
specifically appropriated for that purpose. In light of the 
current budgetary situation, the Committee has determined that 
those funds should be utilized now for activities authorized 
under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs that funds currently in the Water 
Acquisition Reserve be utilized for Central Valley Project 
habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other 
fish and wildlife restoration activities identified in the 
budget request for fiscal year 1998. The Committee has made a 
corresponding reduction in the amount appropriated in the Water 
and Related Resources Account for the Central Valley Project.

               california bay-delta ecosystem restoration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................  ................
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       143,300,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       120,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................      +120,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       -23,300,000
                                                                        

    The California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account 
funds the Federal share of ecosystem restoration activities 
being developed for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta by a State and Federal partnership (CALFED). 
Federal participation in this program was authorized in the 
California Bay-Delta Environmental and Water Security Act 
enacted in the fall of 1996. That Act authorizes the 
appropriation of $143,300,000 for ecosystem restoration 
activities in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The 
funds appropriated in this account would be transferred to 
participating Federal agencies based on a program recommended 
by the CALFED group and approved by the Secretary of the 
Interior in consultation with the participating agencies.
    Because of the timing of enactment of the authorization for 
this program, the Committee was surprised that the fiscal year 
1998 budget request included the full amount authorized, 
$143,300,000. Upon receipt of Bureau of Reclamation's budget 
justifications, the Committee was shocked to see that the 
justification for the proposed expenditure of $143,300,000 
consisted of a single page which included no details 
explaining: how the money would be utilized; which Federal 
agencies would be receiving funds; and how much each would 
receive. The Committee still does not know the answer to those 
questions.
    Notwithstanding the lack of detailed information on how 
funds appropriated under this program will be expended, because 
of the importance of this effort, the Committee has provided 
$120,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee directs the Department of the Interior to 
report to the Committee on a quarterly basis on how the funds 
appropriated for this program are being utilized. The report 
should include a description of each project to be undertaken, 
its cost, and the agency to which funds were provided to carry 
out the project.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
develop performance measures (e.g. indicators of ecosystem 
health and associated monitoring protocols) as part of this 
program to determine whether restoration goals are in fact 
being achieved over time. It is also the Committee's intent 
that the acquisition of lands or interests in lands as part of 
this program will be done on a willing-seller, willing-buyer 
basis.

                       policy and administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $46,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        47,658,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        47,658,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        +1,658,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

    The general administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all Reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, D.C., 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 1998, the Committee has recommended 
$47,658,000, the same as the budget request.
                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Funds recommended in Title III provide for Department of 
Energy programs relating to: Energy Supply, Non-Defense 
Environmental Management, the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Science, the Nuclear 
Waste Disposal Fund, Departmental Administration, the Inspector 
General, Weapons Activities, Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management, Other Defense Activities, Defense Nuclear 
Waste Disposal, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

                        committee recommendation

    Funding recommendations for Department of Energy programs 
in fiscal year 1998 are significantly below the Department's 
fiscal year 1998 budget request, reflecting the continuing 
realities of reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. As 
the Committee noted last year, these funding levels are not a 
one-time occurrence with the prospect of increasing 
appropriations in future years; rather, they reflect the new 
baseline for Department of Energy funding. Absorbing these 
reductions will require considerable effort on the part of the 
Department to prioritize activities and seek the most cost-
effective means for accomplishing program goals. The Department 
must focus on specific core program missions and reduce the 
number of activities currently being performed which may be of 
some value, but are not possible to continue in a severely 
constrained funding environment.
    A large portion of the reduction from the President's 
budget request is the Committee's rejection of the 
Administration's requests to provide full up-front funding for 
all construction projects and a major increase for 
privatization initiatives in the environmental cleanup 
programs. It would have been useful for the Administration to 
discuss these issues with the Committee before submitting a 
budget increase of almost $2.7 billion in fiscal year 1998 for 
the Department of Energy.
    The Committee recommendation for several appropriation 
accounts includes reductions for the use of prior year 
balances, contractor training, or other funding adjustments. 
The Department is to report to the Committee by December 15, 
1997, on the specific application of these reductions by 
program, project, or activity.

                          contract management

    The Department of Energy is the largest civilian 
contracting agency in the Federal government. In fiscal year 
1996, the Department obligated $16.4 billion, or about 83 
percent of its total obligations, to contracts. The Department 
uses Management and Operating (M&O) contracts with nonprofit, 
educational, or for-profit organizations to operate, maintain, 
or support its major research, environmental cleanup, and 
nuclear weapons facilities. The contracting authorities relied 
upon by the Department for these M&O contracts date back some 
50 years to World War II, reflecting circumstances which are 
not applicable today. The Department's authorities were 
inherited from its predecessor agencies, beginning with the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1946. This Act and succeeding legislation 
provides broad authority to adopt contracting practices and 
regulations which exempt the Department from many of the 
requirements governing other Federal agencies' contracting 
activities. Consequently, non-competition became the norm and 
policy for theDepartment's M&O contracts. Additionally, the 
Department's oversight of its contracts was based on blind faith under 
a policy of ``least interference.''
    In 1994, the Department issued a report on its unique 
contracting system and identified numerous weaknesses, many of 
which arise from the common problem of the Department not 
having adequate control of its contractors. The Secretary of 
Energy conceded that contractors were not being held 
accountable, and consequently, the Department could not ensure 
that taxpayers' dollars were being prudently expended. The 
report recommended some 48 reforms, including the policy to 
open its M&O contracts to competition.
    Despite this policy, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
analysis of the Department's contract reform initiative notes 
that the Department continues to award most of its contracts 
noncompetitively. Of 24 contracting decisions made from July 
1994 to the end of August 1996, the Department decided to 
extend 16 contracts on a noncompetitive basis and to 
competitively award the other eight. In a June 27, 1997 Federal 
Register notice, the Department affirmed a commitment to full 
and open competition in the award of its M&O contracts and 
adopted performance-based management. Exceptions to the use of 
competitive procedures are to be made pursuant to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulations and must be approved by the Secretary.
    The Committee recognizes the good intentions of the 
Department, but is concerned that exceptions to the rule will 
continue. To prevent this, the Committee has included statutory 
language prohibiting the use of funds in this bill to award an 
M&O contract unless the contract is awarded using competitive 
procedures. The language would permit an exception only for the 
research and development portion of the work performed at any 
DOE facility. All remaining activities at the facility such as 
environmental restoration are to be separated from the research 
activities and competitively awarded.
    The Department of Energy has its own unique procurement 
regulations to address agency needs. However, the Committee is 
concerned that the Department has made very liberal use of the 
procurement flexibility, and would benefit from a critical 
review of any contract provisions which contain deviations from 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Thus, the Committee has 
also included language that prohibits the use of funds for a 
contract that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 
unless the Secretary of Energy grants a waiver, on a case-by-
case basis, to allow for such a deviation. At least 60 days 
before such action, the Secretary must submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations a report notifying the 
Committees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the 
waiver.

 independent assessment of department of energy construction projects 
                     and project management systems

    The Department's track record for managing construction 
projects is not as successful as it could be. The General 
Accounting Office (GAO) believes that the high rate of cost 
overruns, schedule slippages, and terminations on major systems 
acquisitions can be traced to four key factors: constantly 
changing missions; incremental funding of projects; a flawed 
system of incentives that has often rewarded contractors 
despite poor performance; and difficulty in hiring, training, 
and retaining people with the requisite skills to provide 
effective oversight and management of contractor operations. 
The Committee also believes there is a lack of internal, 
independent oversight of projects at the Department. Projects 
are proposed by contractors and strongly defended by Federal 
employees who take on the role of program and project advocate 
rather than impartial overseer. There does not appear to be a 
strong independent assessment of projects within the internal 
Departmental system.
    Thus, the Committee has directed the Corps of Engineers to 
review all Departmental construction projects funded in fiscal 
year 1998. The Committee has further directed that no funds be 
obligated for any new fiscal year 1998 construction projects 
until the cost, schedule, scope, and supporting data for each 
construction project has been validated by an independent 
assessment of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee will work 
with the Department and the Corps to prioritize the order in 
which the projects should be reviewed.

                        excessive training costs

    The Committee has been reviewing the Department of Energy's 
training costs for Federal employees and contractors, including 
the cost of the Federal and contractor in-house training 
organizations, the cost associated with contracting for 
training, and the value of the time for Federal and contractor 
personnel being trained. The results were no less than 
astonishing. As outlined in a recent report by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO), training costs at the Department of 
Energy for Federal and contractor personnel were $554 million 
in fiscal year 1995, $476 million in fiscal year 1996, and 
estimated at $438 million in fiscal year 1997. With these 
funds, the Department offers a wide range of training ranging 
from technical courses on nuclear physics and chemistry to 
personal development and non-technical courses on back care, 
defensive driving, coping with adolescents, and intercultural 
views on animals.
    GAO noted that the Department's training structure is very 
decentralized; headquarters offices, field offices, and 
contractors all have their own training programs with dedicated 
staff, and the extent to which employees meet DOE-wide training 
requirements varies from office to office. These Departmental 
training requirements state, in part, that each employee must 
complete an individual development plan. In fiscal year 1996, 
the percentage of staff completing these plans varied from 25-
30 percent in some offices to 70-90 percent in others. Finally, 
the average number of training days per year per employee and 
cost per employee is twice that of private industry.
    While the Committee understands that some training is 
clearly warranted to maintain skills, it is hard to fathom why 
Federal employees at one DOE field office needed an average of 
23 days of training per employee in fiscal year 1996. 
Additionally, contractor employees at two DOE field offices 
averaged 15 days of training in fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
is concerned that there is no central oversight of training 
requirements, and there is no discipline in the system to 
prevent training abuses. Thus, the Committee has included 
funding reductions in several accounts to be applied to all 
non-safety related contractor training costs in the 
Department's programs. Reductions for Federal employee training 
costs have been applied individually to each of the program 
direction accounts.

                        augmenting federal staff

    The Committee continues to be concerned about excessive use 
of support service contractors and other non-Federal employees 
throughout the Department of Energy, and the involvement of 
these contractor employees in the development of Federal 
policies and programs. A recent report prepared for the 
Department by the Institute for Defense Analyses on ``The 
Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons Program'' 
also addressed the use of support service contractors. The 
report, which reviewed the Department's Defense Programs' 
organization and management structure, notes that Federal 
employees have augmented themselves by hiring large numbers of 
support service contractors to assist them. A consequence of 
this is the risk ofFederal employees losing their technical 
expertise and spending most of their time managing contracts, rather 
than sharpening their own skills.
    Despite continuing Congressional interest in reducing the 
funds spent on augmenting Federal staff at the Department of 
Energy, funding for such contracts appears to remain excessive 
or even increase in certain program areas. Congressional 
direction to include all support service contracts in the 
program direction account for each organization has been 
ignored by the Department in several instances. Additionally, 
there has been limited effort by the Department to accurately 
present funding for support service contracts in the budget 
submission, and to control the use of support service contracts 
by the program organizations.
    The Committee is also aware of other instances where the 
Department is supplementing its Federal staff with contractor 
employees. The first category includes management and operating 
(M&O) contractor employees from the Department's laboratories 
and facilities who are on detail to Headquarters program 
organizations. An audit by the Department's Inspector General 
last year found almost 400 laboratory employees assigned to the 
Washington, D.C. area for periods of six months or longer, and 
providing a wide range of services directly to program offices. 
The Inspector General concluded that laboratory contract 
employees were involved in programmatic and policy arenas in 
which real or perceived conflicts may exist between their 
official duties and the tasks they assume when serving the 
Departmental program offices, and that the Department may be 
augmenting its Federal workforce in a way that is neither cost-
effective nor consistent with its staffing objectives.
    An additional concern is individual employees or support 
service contractors in the Washington, D.C. area, who are hired 
by the Department's M&O contractors and field offices to 
provide direct administrative and technical support for 
Headquarters program organizations. These employees are not 
showing up as support service contractors in the budget request 
because they are not funded through Headquarters accounts, and 
apparently are not reflected in the Department's own tracking 
of support service contractor usage.
    The Committee will not fund contractor employees to perform 
activities which are normally considered the responsibility of 
Federal employees. The Committee is aware that the Department 
is hiring contractors to write speeches for Departmental 
employees, attend and report on Congressional hearings, clip 
articles of interest to the program areas, track legislation, 
and prepare Congressional briefing materials. These are 
examples of activities which the Committee thought Federal 
employees were being paid to perform. Since the Committee 
cannot rely on the integrity of the Department to control these 
types of contracts, the Committee is eliminating funding 
associated with support service contracts throughout many of 
the program areas.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Department to 
eliminate the use of all support service contractors or 
subcontractors hired by M&O contractors to support Headquarters 
program or field office Federal employees. This is a flagrant 
violation of the Committee's direction to identify all support 
service contractor funding in the budget request, and it is a 
violation of Departmental and Federal policies which state that 
it is inappropriate for program offices to use M&O contractors 
to obtain direct contract support for their programs. When 
direct contract support is necessary, program offices are 
required to use the Department's--not the M&O contractor's--
procurement procedures and personnel.
    The Committee directs the Department to provide a report at 
the end of fiscal year 1997 on the use of all support service 
contractors (those funded directly by Headquarters, and those 
funded by M&O contractors and assigned to Headquarters) and M&O 
contractor employees detailed to Headquarters. This report is 
to include the use of support service contractors and M&O 
employees at Headquarters and at each field, area, or site 
office. The report is to include for each support service 
contract: the name of the contractor; the program organization 
(at the lowest organization level possible) hiring the 
contractor; a descriptive and detailed list of the tasks 
performed; the number of contractor employees working on the 
contract; and the annual cost of the contract. The report is to 
identify all M&O contractor employees who are detailed to 
Headquarters program organizations, including the name of the 
employee, the name of the contractor, the organization and job 
title the employee is assigned in Headquarters, a description 
of the tasks the employee is performing, the annual cost of the 
employee to the Department, and the program account funding 
that employee, and the length of time the employee has been 
detailed to the Department. The report is to include actual 
data for the period October 1, 1996 through September 31, 1997, 
and estimates for fiscal year 1998, and is due to the Committee 
on December 1, 1997.

         external regulation of department of energy facilities

    The Committee is aware of the joint efforts by the 
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) to evaluate the costs and benefits of 
transitioning from DOE self regulation to external regulation 
by an independent regulatory entity overseeing the nuclear 
health, safety, and security of DOE nuclear activities and 
facilities. The Committee strongly supports this effort, and 
understands that initially three to five pilot projects will be 
identified for NRC regulation. The Department and NRC should 
keep the Committee fully informed of these efforts.
    In anticipation of future NRC regulation of DOE nuclear 
facilities, the Department is directed to ensure that, starting 
in fiscal year 1998, all new nuclear facilities are constructed 
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
licensing requirements.

                       asset acquisition accounts

    The President's budget request proposed three new 
construction accounts for the Department of Energy, and 
recommended full funding for all construction projects. The 
Administration subsequently amended the budget request to 
eliminate full funding for construction projects in the Energy 
and Science Asset Acquisition Accounts, but retained the full 
funding for the Defense Asset Acquisition Account. The 
Committee has not included these new accounts, and has 
recommended funding construction projects in the current 
appropriation account structure. The Committee has not provided 
funding for construction projects beyond fiscal year 1998.

                       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, 1997...................................    $2,699,728,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................     2,999,497,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       880,730,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................    -1,818,998,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................    -2,118,767,000
                                                                        

    The fiscal year 1997 appropriation for Energy Supply, 
Research and Development Activities provided funding for the 
Department of Energy's research and related programs including: 
solar and renewable energy; nuclear energy; environment, safety 
and health; biological and environmental research; fusion 
energy sciences; basic energy sciences; other energy-related 
research; and non-defense-related environmental restoration and 
waste management. This year's recommendation separates the 
functions of this account between three new accounts: Energy 
Supply; Science; and Non-Defense Environmental Management.
    Energy Supply includes the following programs: solar and 
renewable; nuclear energy; fusion; environment, safety and 
health; and energy support activities. The Committee provides 
funding for non-defense-related environmental restoration and 
waste management in the new account: ``Non-Defense 
Environmental Management.'' The recommendation establishes 
another new account, ``Science'', which combines funding for 
three programs formerly funded in the Energy Supply, Research 
and Development Activities account--basic energy sciences, 
biological and environmental research, and other energy 
research activities--with all of the activities formerly funded 
in the General Science and Research Activities account.
    The Committee recommendation for Energy Supply is 
$880,730,000, $118,126,000 less than the comparable amount in 
the budget request and $44,101,000 less than the comparable 
amount provided in the current fiscal year. This year's 
recommendation reflects a continuation of last year's effort to 
reverse the unsustainable increases of prior years. The 
recommendation is consistent with the Committee's view that the 
Department must continue to participate in the government-wide 
downsizing effort, shift its emphasis from commercial 
technology development to basic research, reverse its efforts 
to expand into new areas and focus on its core commitments.
    The Committee expected that last year's funding level would 
result in downsizing and elimination of low priority programs. 
The Committee is concerned that the Department failed to 
eliminate low priority programs and even identified new 
missions to continue to perpetuate the Federal bureaucracy. The 
Committee continues to be concerned about the abnormally high 
level of uncosted balances in programs under this 
appropriation. These balances represent an unreasonable 
accumulation of funds appropriated in prior fiscal years.

                       solar and renewable energy

    The Committee recommendation for solar and renewable energy 
programs administered by the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy is $285,000,000, an increase of $18,656,000 
over the fiscal year 1997 level. This programmatic increase, 
unusual among DOE programs, reflects the continued commitment 
of Congress to the development of clean and renewable sources 
of energy. The increase is especially notable, given the high 
level of uncosted balances remaining in various solar and 
renewable programs. Notwithstanding its commitment to renewable 
energy development, the Committee remains concerned about the 
Department's administration of the programs and will exercise 
vigorous oversight of their execution in fiscal year 1998.
    Two separate offices within the Department of Energy pursue 
renewable energy research activities: the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Energy 
Research. The recommendation also includes $44,304,000 for 
Office of Energy Research programs which directly support 
renewable energy programs. Taken together, the total amount 
provided to the Department for solar and renewable energy 
programs in fiscal year 1998 is $329,304,000. The table at the 
end of this title integrates the funding recommendation for 
both offices. The Department is directed to submit a 
comprehensive research and development request for fiscal year 
1999 which represents a new partnership between the two 
offices. If there is a role for government in development and 
improvement of renewable energy sources, it should be soundly 
based on cutting edge research and should be managed sensibly 
between the offices of jurisdiction.
    Following are specific recommendations for programs:
    Solar building technology research.--The recommendation is 
$3,000,000, an increase $693,000 over the current fiscal year.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The total recommendation is 
$66,774,000, including $2,274,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for related research funded through the Office 
of Energy Research. The amount provided comparable to the 
current fiscal year is $64,500,000, an increase of $4,579,000 
over the current fiscal year.
    The Committee also notes that the Department has once again 
provided funds for the construction of a photovoltaic 
manufacturing plant in Moscow, Russia. The Department provided 
this funding despite the Committee's specific direction to the 
contrary. The Committee repeats its direction that the 
Department discontinue and refrain from spending proposals that 
provide funding for building factories in other countries.
    Solar thermal energy systems.--The recommendation is 
$17,800,000, a decrease of $4,387,000 from the current fiscal 
year.
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems.--The total recommendation 
is $98,835,000, including $38,635,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for related research funded through the Office 
of Energy Research. The amount provided comparable to the 
current fiscal year is $60,200,000, which represents an 
increase of $5,225,000. The recommendation provides $30,100,000 
for the power systems program and $30,100,000 for the 
transportation program. The recommendation includes $750,000 to 
complete the Gridley rice straw project and $4,000,000 to 
complete the biomass ethanol plant in Jennings, Louisiana. The 
recommendation also includes $2,500,000 for the Plant 
Biotechnology Consortium. Funding for these three projects is 
to be made available from equal allocations from the power and 
transportation programs.
    Wind energy systems.--The total recommendation is 
$32,715,000, including $295,000, the same amount as the budget 
request, for related research funded through the Office of 
Energy Research. The amount provided comparable to the current 
fiscal year is $32,420,000, which represents an increase of 
$3,434,000, over the current fiscal year.
    The Department is directed to eliminate funding for 
incremental product improvement partnerships with 
manufacturers. The Committee is aware of a proposal to identify 
a private entity to test and certify wind and other solar 
technologies and encourages the Department to complete its 
recommendation for a testing and certification program for 
domestic manufacturers. The Committee notes that carryover 
balances in the wind program actually increased during fiscal 
year 1996, resulting in an unspent balance in excess of 
$45,749,000. After the current fiscal year appropriation of 
$29,000,000, the resulting funds available to be spent in 
fiscal year 1997 totaled $74,749,000 or 258% of the amount 
provided for the current fiscal year.
    Renewable energy production incentive.--The recommendation 
includes $3,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the current 
fiscal year.
    International solar energy.--The recommendation includes 
$750,000 for the international solar energy program.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).--In the 
current fiscal year, the Committee provided the full amount of 
the budget request for the second phase of improvements at the 
Field Test Laboratory Building. The Committee was informed that 
this project would result in more efficient use of space and a 
reduction of leased space. In the Department's responses to 
hearing questions submitted for the record, the Committee was 
informed that the budget request includes an increase for 
leased space this year. The Committee notes that the Department 
has plans to arrange to have a private sector partner build a 
new building on government property. The Department is directed 
to provide an outyear forecast for leased space needs. The 
description should itemize needs related to each appropriations 
bill and include space identified as being made available for 
``non-DOE customers.''
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommendation is $30,000,000, 
approximately the same amount as provided last year and the 
same amount as the budget request. The recommendation includes 
$6,500,000 for the geothermal heat pump deployment program. The 
Committee is concerned about the Department's continued 
reductions to the heat pump deployment effort and directs that 
no ``general reduction'' or other adjustment be made to reduce 
the $6,500,000 provided in fiscal year 1998.
    Hydrogen research.--The total recommendation is 
$17,100,000, including $3,100,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for related research funded through the Office 
of Energy Research. The amount provided comparable to the 
current fiscal year is $14,000,000, which represents a 
reduction of $987,000 from the current fiscal year. The 
Committee urges the Department to emphasize research-related 
activities for this program and to avoid commitments to multi-
million dollar demonstration projects.
    Hydropower.--No funds are included for hydropower. The 
Committee notes that Federal spending for programs to mitigate 
the impact of dams on various species of fish are spread 
throughout the government and total hundreds of millions of 
dollars. If the Department can perform a useful service, it is 
encouraged to enter into an agreement with any of several 
Federal agencies that are already spending considerable 
resources to address these issues.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The Committee 
recommendation is $44,500,000, the same amount as the budget 
request. The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for 
the electric and magnetic fields research program, $32,500,000 
for high temperature superconducting research and development, 
and $4,000,000 for energy storage systems. The Committee 
strongly supports the goals of the superconductivity program. 
Superconducting transmission lines, motors and storage devices 
have the potential to greatly enhance the economic viability of 
renewable energy sources in the near term.
    The recommendation does not include funding for the climate 
challenge program.
    Federal buildings initiative.--Within available funds, the 
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to provide financial and 
technical assistance to Federal agencies that are deploying 
renewable energy technologies. The Committee encourages the 
Department to identify, facilitate and document the economic 
benefit of using these technologies in areas where renewable 
technologies are currently cost-effective in the marketplace. 
Specifically, the Department is directed to examine and assist 
in wind development on San Clemente Island, California; solar 
domestic hot water collectors in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and a 
proposal to produce electricity using geothermal gradient 
technologies at the naval support facility in Diego Garcia. 
Since electricity prices in these areas represent the highest 
rates paid by the government, it is worthwhile to actively 
develop renewable energy technologies that result in direct 
economic benefits to taxpayers.
    The Committee notes that the Department is the lead Federal 
agency in developing and deploying solar technologies as 
directed by Executive Order 12902. The Department is directed 
to provide a report to the Congress on the progress of 
implementing this Order. The report should quantify the cost-
effectiveness of solar technologies and identify actions taken 
and planned by agencies in order to meet the requirements of 
the Order.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $12,130,000. The Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy continues to lead the 
Department in the ratio of salaries and expenses to program 
dollars. In addition to the program direction funds, the Office 
has supplemented its workforce with support service contractors 
as discussed below, and has further supplemented its staff with 
laboratory employees who travel back to Washington, D.C. as 
detailed in a July 1996 Inspector General's report. The 
recommendation for program direction includes all funding for 
support service contractors.
    Support service contractors.--In the conference report 
accompanying the bill providing appropriations for the 
Department in fiscal year 1996, Congress directed that the 
Department include all funds for support service contractors 
with salary, travel and other overhead in a separate account--
program direction. Most offices within the Department are in 
compliance with this direction which has been incorporated 
within internal budget submission instructions. Unfortunately, 
some offices are including only a portion of support service 
contractors in program direction and are continuing to fund 
support service contractors directly from programs. The Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has chosen to defy 
Congressional and Departmental direction by not including 
support service contractors in the program direction line in 
fiscal years 1997, nor in the fiscal year 1998 budget request. 
Further, the Office is requesting an increase for these 
services. The Committee is disappointed that the Office has 
failed to follow even its own internal budget rules and rejects 
the Office's proposal to use wind, geothermal, 
superconductivity and photovoltaic program funding for support 
service contractors. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 
1997 appropriation for program direction would require a 33% 
increase to fund the level of support contractors which the 
Office is funding directly from solar and renewable program 
funds.
    Excessive carryover balances.--Most funds appropriated by 
the Congress are available for a limited time--from one to five 
years in most cases. When funds are not used, the appropriation 
is cancelled. Because the funds appropriated under this account 
were available until expended, there was no imperative to 
expend funds in a timely manner. Consequently, appropriated 
funds have been accumulating from year to year. In its April 
1996 report, ``Energy Management: DOE Needs to Improve its 
Analysis of Carryover Balances,'' the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) repeated its concerns about the extraordinarily high 
uncosted balances in certain DOE programs. (Similar concerns 
were included in GAO's March 1992 report: ``Energy Management: 
Systematic Analysis of DOE's Uncosted Obligations Is Needed.'') 
The most recent report points out that while some DOE programs 
have improved management of carryover balances, ``* * * other 
programs, such as Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and 
Energy Research, have not used significant amounts of their 
carryover balances and have experienced growing balances.''
    At the end of fiscal year 1996, the carryover balance under 
solar and renewable energy programs was $280,783,000 
representing 105% of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 
1997. On March 31, 1996, halfway through the fiscal year, the 
carryover balances under solar and renewable energy programs 
included $419,000 in unallocated funds, $103,764,000 in 
unobligated funds and $253,188,000 in uncosted funds, 
representing a total unspent balance of $357,371,000. This 
balance includes appropriated funds that have yet to be made 
available to the offices that obligate the funds, appropriated 
funds for which contracts or grants have not yet been awarded, 
and funds which have been obligated with costs that have yet to 
be incurred. This balance, on the books halfway through the 
current fiscal year, reflects 134% of the appropriation 
provided last year.
    Last year, the Committee specifically directed that the 
Department distribute the $48,177,000 reduction to energy 
supply, research and development activities among programs 
based on each program's proportionate share of carryover 
balances. The Committee was dismayed to learn that the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy instead chose to 
distribute its share without consideration of carryover 
balances. The recommendation includes a $15,000,000 adjustment 
to be allocated to solar and renewable programs, the same as 
the adjustment in the budget request. The Department is 
directed to distribute this adjustment considering carryover 
balances for each solar and renewable program.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The recommendation is $228,595,000, an increase of 
$8,705,000 over the current fiscal year. The Committee accepts 
the Administration's recommendation to include the uranium 
program in the Energy Supply account. Adjusting to reflect this 
change, the comparable level of funding represents a 
$51,626,000 reduction. This change reflects elimination of the 
advanced light water reactor program and the recommendation to 
fund $12,000,000 of the nuclear technology research and 
development program as part of the defense-related activities 
of the Department.
    Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The recommendation 
includes $38,800,000, the same amount as the current fiscal 
year.
    Nuclear technology research and development.--The 
recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the nuclear technology 
research and development program to continue study of treating 
spent fuel using electrometallurgical technology. This funding 
is included with demonstration of the electrometallurgical 
treatment provided as part of termination costs. An additional 
$12,000,000 is provided as part of the defense-related 
activities of the Department for a total of $20,000,000, the 
same amount provided in the current fiscal year.
    University reactor fuel assistance and support.--The 
recommendation is $7,000,000, a $3,000,000 increase over fiscal 
year 1997. The Committee supports a sound nuclear sciences 
portfolio, particularly the peer-reviewed Nuclear Engineering 
Education Research (NEER) program. The Department is directed 
to include appropriate laboratories, industry groups and 
universities in this program. None of the funds are to be 
provided for industry and no less than $5,000,000 is to be made 
available to universities participating in this program.
    Termination costs.--The recommendation is $77,535,000, a 
$1,554,000 decrease from the current fiscal year. The 
recommendation includes $33,000,000 for electrometallurgical-
related activities including $8,000,000 for activities funded 
in the current fiscal year for the nuclear technology research 
and development program and $25,000,000 to demonstrate 
electrometallurgical technology at the Fuel Conditioning 
Facility. The recommendation does not include $5,500,000 
requested for the advanced light water reactor program.
    Uranium programs.--The recommendation is $60,331,000, which 
reflects consolidation of program direction activities among 
nuclear energy programs. The full amount of the increase over 
the current fiscal year is to be made available for safeguard 
and security costs related to highly enriched uranium equipment 
shutdown and inventory disposition.
    Isotope support.--The Committee recommendation is 
$11,314,000, the same amount as provided in the current fiscal 
year, with an adjustment made reflecting consolidation of 
program direction activities among nuclear energy programs.
    Nuclear energy security program.--The recommendation does 
not include funds for the Administration's proposal for this 
new spending program.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation is 
$7,290,000, the same amount as requested for fiscal year 1998 
requirements. The recommendation does not include $3,535,000 
identified as available from prior year balances.
    Program direction.--The Committee's recommendation for 
program direction is adjusted in accordance with the downsizing 
of the nuclear energy program. The amount provided herein for 
program direction includes funding for all nuclear energy 
employees, including those proposed to be funded separately in 
the isotope support and uranium programs.

                     ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

    The Committee recommendation is $74,500,000 a decrease of 
$9,503,000 from the current fiscal year. This year's 
recommendation continues the downsizing in Federal staff, 
support service contractors and training expenses for this 
program.

                        ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS

    The recommendation establishes a new account: ``Science'', 
which combines funding for three programs formerly funded as 
part of energy research programs in the Energy Supply, Research 
and Development Activities account--basic energy sciences; 
biological and environmental research; and other energy 
research activities--with all of the activities formerly funded 
in the General Science and Research Activities account. The 
fusion energy sciences program remains in the Energy Supply 
account.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation for the fusion energy sciences 
program is $225,000,000. This appropriation will allow the DOE 
to fulfill its fiscal year 1998 planned program to implement 
the recommendations of the January 1996 report of the Fusion 
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC). The Committee notes 
that, with the closure of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor 
(TFTR), the program will have approximately $40,000,000 more 
than the current fiscal year for new efforts to better 
understand the challenges of economically producing electricity 
with a fusion machine. The Committee encourages the Department 
to continue to place an emphasis on university programs and 
exploration of alternative concepts.
    The Committee notes the significant progress made by the 
community in restructuring the fusion energy sciences program 
since the beginning of fiscal year 1996. Under the guidance of 
the FESAC, the program has been able to organize and utilize 
people and resources to maximize progress in plasma and fusion 
science despite constrained budgets. This appropriation will 
permit enhanced operation and/or upgrades of the three major 
collaborative facilities: C-Mod, DIII-D and NSTX, enhancements 
to university programs in alternate concepts and plasma 
science, and the strengthening of theory and computation. The 
Committee is encouraged that the Department has responded to 
Congressional direction by reducing salaries and expenses by 
$1,420,000. The Department is encouraged to continue to reduce 
overhead costs.
    International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).--
The Committee has provided $55,400,000, the full amount of the 
budget request, for the final contribution for engineering and 
design activities (EDA). The Congress has been very clear that 
no obligation exists for future participation in ITER beyond 
the fiscal year 1998 EDA contribution. The Committee is 
concerned about the recent announcement that plans to build the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) have 
been suspended. The Japanese government has reportedly 
announced that it would not begin construction before 2003. 
There are considerable questions about ITER: Where will it be 
built? Is the current design too ambitious? What environmental 
concerns need to be addressed? What level of confidence can be 
reached regarding the willingness and ability of our partners 
to make timely and sufficient contributions to the project? 
Indeed, there are enough serious questions to justify reducing 
the fiscal year 1998 contribution. However, the Committee 
wishes to make a good faith effort to the partnership.

                       ENERGY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

    The Committee recommendation for Energy Support Activities 
is $96,000,000, a $14,300,000 reduction from the current fiscal 
year. The recommendation continues ongoing downsizing of the 
Federal staff at field offices.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The recommendation includes three funding adjustments. The 
$44,304,000 adjustment represents the funding provided for 
renewable energy research programs managed by the Office of 
Energy Research funded in the Science account. The $18,535,000 
adjustment represents the amount the Administration recommended 
as a reduction based on prior year balances available to reduce 
the amount requested. The Committee opposes using a general 
reduction to programs and directs the Department to use prior 
year balances to fund programs to the levels recommended. The 
recommendation also includes a $9,830,000 reduction which 
represents the Committee's determination to discontinue 
excessive training programs throughout the Department. As 
previously mentioned in this report, the reduction does not 
apply to safety training and should be targeted to contractor 
training and other non-essential training programs.

                         RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

    Details of the Committee's recommendations are included in 
the table at the end of this title. The budget request amounts 
and amounts provided in prior fiscal years are shown to be 
comparable to the new account structure.

                  Non-Defense Environmental Management

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $591,711,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       684,684,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       497,619,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -94,092,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................      -187,065,000
                                                                        

    The Non-Defense Environmental Management program which was 
funded in the Energy Supply, Research and Development 
appropriation account in fiscal year 1997 has been established 
as a separate appropriation in fiscal year 1998. The Non-
Defense Environmental Management program includes funds to 
manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy research, 
and non-defense related activities. These past efforts resulted 
in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination which 
requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of 
action. This program includes environmental restoration 
activities, waste management functions, and nuclear material 
and facilities stabilization activities. The Committee 
recommendation is $497,619,000, a reduction of $187,065,000 
from the budget request of $684,684,000. The recommendation 
includes the budget request for all programs except the 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program which is 
described below.
    Transfer of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program.--The budget request for fiscal year 1998 for the 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was 
$182,079,000, but the Committee was unable to provide this 
level of funding due to severe funding constraints. The 
Committee recommendation includes $110,000,000 for fiscal year 
1998 to accelerate cleanup of the existing facilities, an 
increase from the fiscal year 1997 funding level of 
$75,085,000.
    The Department continues to acknowledge that the costs for 
performing cleanup work at Department of Energy sites are 
significantly higher than the costs of cleanup work performed 
by private sector companies. The reasons for this anomaly are 
difficult to ascertain because the Department uses private 
sector companies to perform all of its cleanup work. Clearly, 
the problem must be in the contract management and contract 
administration function performed by the Department of Energy 
and the management and operating contractors who actually 
subcontract for most of the cleanup work. The Committee 
believes it must break this pattern, and thus, has recommended 
transferring the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program (FUSRAP) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    The Department of Defense has a similar environmental 
restoration program for cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites 
(FUDS). The Corps of Engineers manages and executes these 
cleanup projects at formerly owned or leased defense sites 
which were contaminated during previous use by the Department 
of Defense. The Committee believes that there are significant 
cost and schedule efficiencies to be gained by having the Corps 
of Engineers manage the Department of Energy's FUSRAP program 
as well.
    Budget Request.--The budget request is not sufficiently 
detailed to provide an accurate assessment of program 
management costs, technical assistance contracts, and support 
service contracts which are funded in this account. The 
Committee directs the Department to provide a detailed 
description of these costs at each site in the fiscal year 1999 
budget request.
    Funding Adjustments.--The Committee recommendation includes 
a general reduction of $4,440,000 to be applied to program 
management costs, support service contractors and consultants, 
and non-safety related contractor training costs throughout the 
non-defense cleanup sites.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination And Decommissioning Fund

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $200,200,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       248,788,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       220,200,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       +20,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       -28,588,000
                                                                        

    The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 
(D&D) Fund supports D&D, remedial actions, waste management, 
and surveillance and maintenance associated with preexisting 
conditions at sites leased and operated by the newly created 
USEC, as well as Department of Energy facilities at these and 
other uranium enrichment sites. Sites covered by this D&D Fund 
include the operating uranium enrichment facilities at 
Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, and the inactive K-25 
site in Tennessee, formerly called the Oak Ridge Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant. Environmental restoration efforts at these 
three sites are supported from the D&D Fund established by a 
tax on domestic utilities and by Congressional appropriations. 
In fiscal year 1998, the Department of Energy will transfer 
$388,000,000 into this Fund.
    Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee recommends 
$220,200,000, a reduction of $28,588,000 from the budget 
request of $248,788,000. The Committee understands that this 
will limit funding for activities related to immediate cleanup 
of the gaseous diffusion plants. The Committee encourages the 
Department to review all costs included in the UED&D program 
and seek to minimize those of lesser priority. As noted 
previously, an independent assessment of environmental 
management project performance found that the Department's 
projects are approximately 25 percent more costly than 
comparable private sector work. The Committee believes that 
there are many efficiencies to be made in all areas of the 
environmental management program.
    Funding reductions are to be made to non-safety related 
contractor training costs and the use of contractors to manage 
program activities. For example, the budget request for fiscal 
year 1998 includes nearly $20,000,000 for additional program 
planning, management, and integration activities, financial and 
budget activities, and contract administration--activities 
which should be performed by Federal employees.
    The Committee was also unable to provide full funding of 
$40,456,000 to implement the reimbursement program authorized 
under Title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act for active 
uranium and thorium processing sites which sold uranium and 
thorium to the United States Government. This program is to 
assist site owners by compensating them on a per ton basis for 
the restoration and disposal costs of those mill tailings 
resulting from sale of materials to the government. Due to 
severe budget constraints, funding of $37,000,000 has been 
provided for reimbursement in fiscal year 1998, an increase of 
$3,000,000 over last year.
    The Committee is aware that the Department is seeking 
funding for a major new initiative to D&D three gaseous 
diffusion process buildings in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The 
Department has negotiated a contract in which the contractor 
will D&D the buildings, and use the value obtained from 
salvaged materials (estimated at $74,860,000) to offset the 
cost of the D&D effort. If successful, this will reduce the 
Federal government's total cost to $272,126,000. While the 
Committee supports the Department's efforts to find innovative 
approaches to cleanup, the Committee is equally concerned that 
the Department does not have an overall cleanup plan developed 
for the three gaseous diffusion sites in Tennessee, Ohio, and 
Kentucky, and that choices are being made for short term gains 
which could lead to increased cleanup costs in the future. It 
appears that lower risk buildings with the potential for 
community reuse are being funded first at the expense of higher 
risk buildings which are not being maintained. Forgoing 
surveillance and maintenance of higher risk buildings today 
only means that cleanup costs will be more difficult and more 
expensive in the future.
    Report Requirements.--The Department is directed to prepare 
a report outlining its strategy for maintaining and cleaning up 
the three gaseous diffusion plant sites within the funding 
levels for the Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund established by the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992. This report should address the 
current status of each building, rank the safety risk to the 
public, the worker, and the environment, and include a 
realistic schedule and cost for cleanup of each building as 
well as the current cost of surveillance and maintenance.
    Additionally, the report should provide: a full description 
of the Department's reindustrialization efforts at Oak Ridge, 
including the cost of cleaning up the facilities for reuse 
versus the cleanup cost if the facilities were not to be 
reused; the cost of site-wide support services and any other 
benefits provided by the government for the leased facilities; 
the amount of reimbursement received by the Federal government 
from the leased facilities; a detailed description of the 
contracts signed with community reuse organizations, including 
the amount of money the community reuse organization will 
receive from each of the leases; and a description of any 
potential liabilities which the Federal government may face for 
permitting private companies and private sector workers access 
to leased facilities which may not be totally free of 
contamination. This report is due to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 1998.

                                Science

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................    $2,239,517,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................     2,260,377,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................     2,207,632,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -31,885,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       -52,745,000
                                                                        

    This is a new account which combines the high energy and 
nuclear physics activities funded last year in the General 
Science and Research Activities account with three activities 
funded last year in the Energy Supply, Research and Development 
Activities account: biological and environmental research; 
basic energy sciences; and other energy research. The Committee 
has taken this action to make a clear distinction between 
funding provided for research and development related to energy 
supply, and to consolidate the more basic research activities 
of the Office of Energy Research.

                       COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

    The Office of Energy Research informs the Committee that 
grants to colleges and universities represent nearly one dollar 
of every four dollars provided for basic research programs. 
This level of funding is consistent with the Committee's 
direction that the Department fully support higher education. 
Last year, the Committee eliminated the university and science 
education program and directed that the Department fully 
support university programs by providing funds from programs. 
The Committee recommendation includes the full amount of the 
budget request for college and university programs. The 
Committee urges the Department to continue to place a high 
priority on graduate and post-graduate students. The Committee 
continues to believe that the Department should place the 
highest priority on university programs. The use of program 
funds benefits the missions of the Department and directly 
connects our nation's future scientists to cutting edge 
research.
    The Committee supports the goals of the Department's 
Hispanic Outreach Initiative. The Committee recognizes the 
value of investing in long-term educational and outreach 
programs. The Department is encouraged to fully consider the 
location of Hispanic populations and the proximity of 
Department facilities as it continues efforts to develop a 
geographically balanced program.

                          HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

    High energy physics research seeks to understand the nature 
of matter and energy at the most fundamental level, as well as 
the basic forces which govern all processes in nature. The 
recommendation continues the Committee's support for these 
fundamental pursuits.
    The recommendation is $680,035,000, $9,960,000 more than 
the amount provided in the current fiscal year. The 
recommendation represents a sizeable increase in program 
funding considering that construction funding has been 
completed for the B-Factory at the Stanford Linear Accelerator 
and significantly reduced for the main injector at Fermilab, 
representing $66,050,000 in reduced funding requirements from 
the current fiscal year. The recommended increases include 
$20,000,000 for the U.S. contribution to the Large Hadron 
Collider (LHC), $34,925,000 for facility operations (adjusted 
to exclude LHC funding), $12,000,000 for research and 
technology (adjusted to exclude LHC funding), and $6,400,000 
for the master substation upgrade at the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator.

                         LARGE HADRON COLLIDER

    The recommendation includes $35,000,000, the amount 
requested for fiscal year 1998. The recommendation does not 
include the advance appropriation totaling $394,000,000 for 
fiscal years 1999 through 2004. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of this new machine to the physics community. The 
nation's scientists who have played a vital role in the recent 
cutting edge discoveries at Fermilab and other U.S. facilities, 
including the discovery of what may be the top quark certainly 
should have an opportunity to participate in the cutting edge 
science that will be possible upon completion of the world's 
most powerful accelerator. The Committee is encouraged by the 
spirit of cooperation that has characterized the relationship 
between the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) 
and the United States, and in particular recognizes the recent 
adjustments made to address concerns about funding, management 
and reciprocity. The Committee will carefully monitor this 
relationship to protect the investment made by the American 
people and with the hope that this unprecedented investment 
across borders will be a model for future sensible cost-sharing 
international partnerships.
    No funds appropriated in this bill for high energy physics 
may be used for the Large Hadron Collider project unless the 
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Director of the 
National Science Foundation, has transmitted to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee on Science 
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources of the Senate, a report containing:
          (1) assurances that the project will provide for 
        equal access for United States participants and a 
        significant management role for the United States;
          (2) a list of the sources of non-United States funds 
        used for the project;
          (3) an enumeration of the total costs of the project 
        and potential sources of contingency funding if the 
        project runs over budget;
          (4) a statement that the Member States of CERN--
                  (A) have agreed that future large 
                accelerators and other scientific facilities 
                are expected to be constructed, operated, and 
                supported multinationally and may be located in 
                any participating nation, including the United 
                States;
                  (B) have agreed that the United States 
                contribution to the construction of the Large 
                Hadron Collider project represents an important 
                step forward in international scientific 
                collaboration; and
                  (C) will follow the United States' example in 
                high energy physics accelerator construction 
                with interregional contributions to future 
                important scientific construction projects of 
                mutual interest to the United States and the 
                member states of CERN; and
          (5) an assessment of the impact of the obligation of 
        United States funds for the project on high energy and 
        nuclear physics projects in the United States.

                            NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    The goal of nuclear physics research is to improve 
understanding of the structure and properties of atomic nuclei 
and the fundamental forces between the constituents that form 
the nucleus. Nuclear processes determine essential physical 
characteristics of our universe and the composition of matter 
that forms it. The recommendation continues the Committee's 
support for these fundamental pursuits. The recommendation is 
$320,925,000, a $5,000,000 increase over the amount provided in 
the current fiscal year and a $5,000,000 increase over the 
amount requested by the Administration (adjusted to reflect 
reduction for construction of the Relativistic Heavy Ion 
Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory).

                 BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

    The Committee recommendation is $381,710,000, a $7,365,000 
reduction from the current fiscal year. However, adjusting to 
reflect completion of the Environmental Molecular Science 
Laboratory (EMSL), the operating budget provided reflects a 
$28,748,000 increase over the current fiscal year.
    The Committee supports the increase proposed for the Human 
Genome Project, with the exception of the increase requested to 
evaluate ethical, legal, and social implications. The 
Department is urged to concentrate on sequencing and related 
activities. The Committee recognizes the ongoing valuable work 
being done in the fight against Parkinson's. The recommendation 
includes funding to increase the Department's research of cell 
structures, diagnostic techniques and efforts related to drug 
development.
    Within available funds, $8,200,000 is provided for 
continuing the research contribution of the National Institute 
for Global Environmental Change program. This is the same 
amount included in the Administration's request.
    The Committee wishes to reinforce its position that the 
Department be proactive in seeking out and using the expertise 
and knowledge base of the energy research programs and the 
national laboratories to address the multitude of complex 
challenges facing the environmental cleanup programs.

                         basic energy sciences

    The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 
$668,240,000, an increase of $18,892,000 over the current 
fiscal year.
    The Committee remains committed to robust basic energy 
research programs which are characterized by cutting-edge basic 
research, availability of world-class facilities to the 
scientific and research community, and direction to meet 
current and future energy-related challenges. For purposes of 
reprogramming during fiscal year 1998, funding may be 
reallocated by the Department among all operating accounts in 
basic energy sciences.
    The recommendation includes $7,000,000, the same amount as 
the budget request, for the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research (EPSCoR).

               national spallation neutron source (nsns)

    The recommendation includes $23,000,000 for a new neutron 
source, a $15,000,000 increase over the current fiscal year. 
There is widespread agreement that a new neutron source and 
related instrumentation would provide scientists with the tools 
needed to advance understanding of materials composition and 
cell structures. The Committee directs that the Department 
provide an outyear funding profile identifying outyear funding 
requirements needed to complete this project. The Committee 
notes that outyear projections suggest that the NSNS would 
require close to $300 million a year in the peak years. The 
profile should indicate what programs will be reduced to 
provide the funding in the outyears.

                     other energy research programs

    The Committee recommendation for the Computational and 
Technology Research program is $147,831,000, a reduction of 
$28,076,000 from the budget request. The recommendation 
represents a $14,724,000 increase over the request after 
subtracting out the Administration's $35,000,000 proposal to 
start a new spending program (described below) and the 
$7,800,000 reduction to reflect the recommendation to transfer 
fusion-related computer activities to the amount provided for 
fusion.
    The Committee recommendation does not include funds for the 
Next Generation Internet program. The Committee was unable to 
justify starting a new spending program. The justification 
provided for this program did not explain the need for a multi-
million dollar government program at a time when hundreds of 
private companies are investing billions of dollars on hardware 
and software innovations. The Committee was informed that funds 
would be used to upgrade hardware at laboratories and 
universities and that the Department would study ways to 
improve the capabilities of the internet. The Committee notes 
that these activities have been funded in this account and that 
it is unnecessary to create a new program to continue these 
efforts. The Committee also notes that the Department has 
already signed an agreement to transfer a third of the amount 
requested to the National Science Foundation. It appears that 
this new spending program is a work in progress.
    The Committee recommendation for Multiprogram Energy 
Laboratory Support is $21,260,000, the same amount provided in 
the current fiscal year. The recommendation is consistent with 
last year's decision not to provide an omnibus line-item for 
construction projects. The Committee recommendation reflects 
full support for construction items proposed in the budget 
request for fiscal year 1998 requirements. The recommendation 
does not include the $19,007,000 requested for full funding of 
outyear construction requirements.
    The recommendation for program direction is $37,600,000, a 
$3,200,000 reduction from the amount requested for the Office 
of Energy Research ($30,600,000 requested in the Energy Supply, 
Research and Development Activities account and $10,200,000 
requested in the General Science and Research Activities 
account). The reduction is consistent with the effort to 
downsize the Federal workforce.

                          funding adjustments

    The recommendation includes three funding adjustments. The 
$35,000,000 adjustment represents previously appropriated funds 
the Department has identified as surplus. The funds were 
provided as part of the closeout costs related to cancellation 
of the Superconducting Supercollider. The $13,800,000 
adjustment represents an estimate of the availability of prior 
year balances available to reduce the amount appropriated. This 
year's reduction is $7,403,000 less than the $21,203,000 
reduction recommended in the current fiscal year for Office of 
Energy Research programs. The recommendation also includes a 
$2,669,000 reduction which represents the Committee's 
determination to discontinue excessive training programs 
throughout the Department. As previously mentioned in this 
report, the reduction does not apply to safety training and 
should be targeted to contractor training and other non-
essential training programs.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $182,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       190,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       160,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -22,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       -30,000,000
                                                                        

    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act Amendments of 1987 established a waste management 
system for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste from commercial and atomic energy defense 
activities. These laws also established the Nuclear Waste 
Disposal Fund to finance disposal activities through the 
collection of fees from the owners and generators of nuclear 
waste.
    The Committee recommends $160,000,000 to be derived from 
the Fund in fiscal year 1998. Combined with the appropriation 
to the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, a total of 
$350,000,000 will be available for program activities in fiscal 
year 1998. This amount is in addition to the $85,000,000 
provided in Public Law 104-46 for interim storage activities, 
subject to authorization. Should site-specific interim storage 
activities be authorized by fiscal year 1998, the total program 
budget will be $415,000,000; this represents a $33,000,000 
increase over fiscal year 1997.
    Due to severe funding constraints, the Committee has 
reduced the budget request by $30,000,000. The recommendation 
includes a reduction of $14,000,000 from the budget request of 
$87,000,000 for the science program, bringing that program to 
the fiscal year 1997 level of $73,000,000. The Committee 
directs that the remaining reduction of $16,000,000 be applied 
to personnel costs, training, and travel expenses for Federal 
employees, support service contractors, non-safety related 
training for contractor employees, cooperative agreements, and 
other programs that are not directly associated with the 
performance of characterization and interim storage activities.
    Consistent with authorizing legislation pending in the 
House Committee on Commerce, no funds are provided for 
multipurpose canister development or certification. Also, no 
funds are provided for the State of Nevada or affected units of 
local government.
    The Administration refuses to advance or endorse proposals, 
legislative or otherwise, that would permit it to discharge its 
obligation to remove spent fuel from commercial reactor sites 
in fiscal year 1998. The Committee's frustration at this policy 
of non-engagement continues unabated. Rather than propose 
solutions to the problem of interim nuclear waste storage, the 
Department seems content to leave the matter to the courts, 
inviting judicial activism and continued delays. The Committee 
is anxious for the Administration to reverse its course and 
demonstrate some measure of leadership and responsibility in 
connection with this important issue. Unfortunately, the 
Committee is not possessed of optimism equal to its 
anxiousness.

                      Departmental Administration

                          gross appropriation

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $215,021,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       232,604,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       214,723,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................          -298,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       -17,881,000
                                                                        

                         Miscellaneous Revenues

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................     -$125,388,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................      -131,330,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................      -131,330,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        -5,942,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

    The funding recommended for Departmental Administration 
provides for general management and program support functions 
benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy. The 
account funds a wide array of activities not directly 
associated with program execution. Due to severe budget 
constraints, the Committee recommendation for administrative 
activities is $214,723,000, a decrease of $17,881,000 from the 
budget request of $232,604,000. The Committee expects the 
Department to continue to restructure its administrative work 
force to achieve the necessary cost savings.
    Staffing levels.--The Committee continues to believe that 
Headquarters staffing for many administrative functions is 
excessive, and thus, has not provided additional funding in 
fiscal year 1998 as requested. The fiscal year 1998 budget 
request assumes increased employment levels for the office of 
the general counsel; this additional funding has not been 
provided. The Committee also continues to question the need for 
a large central policy staff of 121 employees when each 
Assistant Secretary has a separate policy office.
    The Committee directs the Department to reduce staffing to 
the level which can be appropriately supported within the 
available funds provided for fiscal year 1998. Necessary 
reductions are not to be prorated across each organization. The 
Committee expects the Department to assess objectively the 
workload and value added by many of these support and 
administrative organizations and the redundancy existing within 
program organizations which have created their own support 
staffs, thereby duplicating many of the central staff 
functions. Actions to maintain current staffing levels by 
furloughing employees, withholding performance awards, or any 
other actions to avoid staffing reductions are not acceptable.
    Office of the Secretary.--The Committee's recommendation of 
$2,500,000 includes an increase of $500,000 over the fiscal 
year 1997 funding level. The Department submitted an amended 
budget request of $4,473,000 for this account, but the 
amendment was received too late for the Committee to address. 
The Committee expects the Department to include full funding of 
all staff supporting the Office of the Secretary in the fiscal 
year 1999 budget request.
    Performance awards.--In fiscal year 1997, Congress reduced 
funding and limited the number of employees in the Departmental 
Administration account. The Department reduced the number of 
employees but still had a funding problem. Rather than continue 
to reduce the number of employees consistent with fiscal year 
1997 funding levels, the Department chose a variety of 
techniques to reduce costs in the account. Unfortunately, those 
management decisions to reduce costs rather than employment 
levels led to unfair treatment of those employees who remained. 
For example, non-Senior Executive Service (SES) employees have 
been denied their fiscal year 1996 performance awards because 
they were to have been paid in a lump sum out of fiscal year 
1997 funds. SES employees have received their fiscal year 1996 
performance awards because they were accrued as they were 
earned during each pay period in fiscal year 1996. This 
treatment is inherently unfair. It was never the intention of 
the Committee to treat the remaining employees as second-class 
citizens, and the Committee is dismayed that the Department has 
chosen this approach. To prevent this from happening again, the 
Committee has earmarked $950,000 to be allocated for non-SES 
performance awards, and expects the Department to accrue the 
costs as they are earned during the pay period in the same 
manner as SES performance awards.
    Information management.--The budget request includes 
$8,000,000 for a new Corporate Management Information System. 
The Committee recommendation of $4,000,000 includes funding to 
update and replace a number of independent, antiquated computer 
systems with compatible, user-friendly business systems that 
will provide real-time management and financial data on a DOE 
complex-wide basis. Funding has been provided for the Corporate 
Financial and Business Information System and the Corporate 
Human Resources Information System. The investment in these 
systems has the potential to generate substantial savings over 
the next five years.
    Working Capital Fund.--The Department is using a charge 
back program similar in nature to a working capital fund which 
charges benefiting programs and organizations with certain 
administrative and housekeeping activities traditionally funded 
in a central departmental account. The Committee continues to 
support this, but wants to reiterate its expectations that: no 
salaries or other expenses of Federal employees may be charged 
to the fund, nor will the Committee agree to this proposal as 
part of the fiscal year 1999 budget request; Departmental 
representation on the Board establishing the policies should be 
broad based and include smaller organizations; the pricing 
policies used must be sound and defensible and not include 
added factors for administrative costs; the advanced payments 
at any time may be no more than the amount minimally required 
to adequately cover outstanding commitments and other 
reasonable activities; and a defined process must be 
established to dispose of excess advance payments (accumulated 
credits). Additionally, it is the Committee's expectation that 
the fund manager will ensure that the fund will neither be 
managed in a manner to produce a profit nor allow the program 
customers to use the fund as a vehicle for maintaining 
unencumbered funds.
    The Committee is aware that the Department must conduct 
audits prior to the award of contracts and at the conclusion of 
these contracts to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulations. 
For the most part, these audits are conducted by the Defense 
Contract Audit Administration. The Committee does not agree 
that these audit costs should be included in the working 
capital fund. Audit costs are the direct cost of doing 
business, and as such, should be charged directly to the 
program budget which funds the contract, not an administrative 
account like the working capital fund. Thus, audit costs should 
not be included in the working capital fund in fiscal year 
1998.
    The working capital fund is to be audited each year by the 
Department's Inspector General to ensure the integrity of the 
accounts. The Inspector General will perform the first audit of 
the account based on fiscal year 1997 activities. Upon 
completion by the Inspector General of the initial audit of the 
fund, the Committee expects to be apprised of any 
recommendations to improve the charge back system.
    Capital Equipment and General Plant Projects.--The 
Committee eliminated capital equipment and general plant 
projects as separate budget accounts two years ago to provide 
more flexibility to the Department to maintain facility and 
laboratory infrastructure. An enhancement to this flexibility 
would permit the equitable distribution of costs associated 
with general purpose capital requirements to all site programs 
by allowing these costs to be distributed in a manner 
consistent with other general institutional expenses. The 
Committee encourages the Department to implement this 
accounting procedure.
    Use of Prior Year Deobligations and Construction Project 
Reserves.--Throughout the fiscal year, funds often become 
available as projects are completed and contracts closed out 
throughout all of the Department's appropriation accounts. 
These funds become available for reuse and are retained by the 
Controller as either prior year deobligations or transferred to 
construction projectreserve accounts. During fiscal year 1998 
these funds are not available for reallocation within the Department 
unless approved by Congress as part of a reprogramming or specifically 
identified in the budget request.
    Cost of Work for Others.--The recommendation for the cost 
of work for others program is $32,062,000, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee recognizes that funds received 
from reimbursable activities may be used to fund general 
purpose capital equipment which is used in support of those 
activities.
    Revenues.--The revenue estimate for fiscal year 1998 is 
$131,330,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of 
$5,942,000 over the revenues estimated for fiscal year 1997.
    Funding adjustments.--The Committee recommendation includes 
the use of $1,924,000 from available prior year balances.

                      Office of Inspector General

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $23,853,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        29,499,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        27,500,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................         3,647,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -1,999,000
                                                                        

    The Office of Inspector General performs agency-wide audit, 
inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct 
management and administrative deficiencies which create 
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste 
and mismanagement. The audit function provides financial and 
performance audits of programs and operations. The inspections 
function provides independent inspections and analyses of the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of programs and 
operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
    The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 1998 is 
$27,500,000, a reduction of $1,999,000 from the budget request 
of $29,499,000. The funding increase over fiscal year 1997 is 
necessary because unobligated balances were available to offset 
funding requirements in prior fiscal years.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

    The Atomic Energy Defense Activities programs of the 
Department of Energy include Weapons Activities; Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; Defense Asset 
Acquisition; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear 
Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are 
provided below.
    In prior years, the funds in these appropriation accounts 
were available until expended. Consistent with the provisions 
included by the House National Security Committee in the Fiscal 
Year 1998 National Defense Authorization bill, these accounts 
will be one-year appropriations accounts in fiscal year 1998.

                           Weapons Activities

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................    $3,911,198,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................     3,576,255,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................     3,943,442,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       +32,244,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................      +367,187,000
                                                                        

    The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain 
the safety, security, and reliability of the nation's enduring 
nuclear weapons stockpile. This must be done within the 
constraints of a comprehensive test ban, using a science-based 
approach to stockpile stewardship and management in a smaller, 
more efficient weapons complex infrastructure. Since October 
1992, the United States has maintained a moratorium on 
underground nuclear testing and has explored other means to 
assure confidence in the safety, reliability and performance of 
nuclear weapons. The future weapons complex will rely on 
scientific understanding and expert judgment, rather than on 
underground nuclear testing and the development of new weapons 
to predict, identify, and correct problems affecting the safety 
and reliability of the stockpile. Enhanced experimental 
capabilities and new tools in computation, surveillance, and 
advanced manufacturing will become necessary to recertify 
weapons safety, performance, and reliability without 
underground nuclear testing. Weapons will be maintained, 
modified, or retired and dismantled as needed to meet arms 
control objectives or remediate potential safety and 
reliability issues. As new tools are developed and validated, 
they will be incorporated into a smaller, more flexible and 
agile weapons complex infrastructure for the future.
    The Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget request for 
Weapons Activities totaled $5,078,650,000 which included 
$3,576,255,000 for operating expenses in the Weapons 
Activitiesappropriation account and $1,502,395,000 for full funding of 
weapons activities construction projects in a separate Defense Asset 
Acquisition appropriation account. The Committee recommendation has 
consolidated both of those accounts.
    The Committee's recommendation for Weapons Activities is 
$3,943,442,000, an increase of $32,244,000 over the fiscal year 
1997 appropriation, and an increase of $367,187,000 over the 
budget request of $3,576,255,000. The significant difference 
between the Committee's recommendation and the budget request 
for fiscal year 1998 reflects the Administration's proposal to 
include full funding for construction projects in a separate 
appropriation account. The Committee did not accept this 
proposal, and has provided incremental funding for construction 
projects in this account. Details of the recommended funding 
levels follow.

                                GENERAL

    Outyear funding.--The Committee is concerned that the 
Department continues to pursue a program which will require a 
substantial increase in resources in future years. Several 
major initiatives, such as construction of a new tritium source 
and facilities for disposal of excess plutonium, are not 
included in the Administration's outyear funding levels. The 
Administration seems content to propose funding levels and new 
initiatives in fiscal year 1998 which will be difficult to 
support in future years with constrained resources.

                         STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP

    The stockpile stewardship program addresses issues of 
maintaining confidence in stockpile safety and reliability 
without underground nuclear testing through a technically 
challenging science-based stockpile stewardship program 
utilizing upgraded or new experimental and computational 
capabilities. Funding of $1,733,400,000, an increase of 
$91,633,000 over fiscal year 1997, has been recommended for 
fiscal year 1998. This provides the budget request for core 
stockpile stewardship activities, and the incremental funding 
needed for each construction project.
    Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.--The 
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) will provide 
the software, computer platforms, and operating environments to 
accelerate the development of simulation capabilities to ensure 
confidence in a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile 
without underground nuclear testing. The Committee 
recommendation supports the budget request of $204,800,000, an 
increase of $53,185,000 over the fiscal year 1997 funding level 
of $151,615,000. The Committee strongly supports the 
Department's efforts to engage universities in this program. To 
the extent that university groups participating in the Academic 
Strategic Alliances Program component of ASCI require 
additional computational support, the Department should make 
use of a university-based supercomputer facility compatible 
with the ASCI systems installed at the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory.
    Inertial Confinement Fusion.--The Committee recommends 
$414,800,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an 
increase of $48,340,000 over fiscal year 1997. The 
recommendation includes the budget request for operating 
expenses, and the incremental funding request of $197,800,000 
for the National Ignition Facility. The Committee also 
recommends $26,100,000 for the University of Rochester's OMEGA 
laser, an increase of $2,500,000 over the budget request.
    Technology Transfer and Education.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $61,500,000, for technology transfer 
and education programs, a decrease of $7,500,000 from the 
budget request. The recommendation does not include the budget 
request of $7,500,000 for the Partnership for a New Generation 
of Vehicles. This activity is funded in other sectors of the 
Department and is not an appropriate use of national security 
funding. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the American 
Textiles (AMTEX) partnership project, an increase of $4,500,000 
above the budget request.

                          STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT

    The stockpile management program supports the enduring 
stockpile, including maintenance, system refurbishment, and 
weapons dismantlement, and seeks to ensure an adequate supply 
of tritium. The Committee recommendation for stockpile 
management is $2,024,150,000, an increase of $80,319,000 over 
fiscal year 1997. The recommendation includes $85,000,000 more 
than the budget request for operating expenses for activities 
necessary to sustain a reliable, quality production capability 
to support the nuclear weapons stockpile as it ages. 
Incremental funding for construction projects is provided 
except as noted below.
    Nuclear weapons production complex.--Additional funding of 
$85,000,000 over the budget request has been provided to 
maintain adequate production capability throughout the 
Department's nuclear weapons production complex. The additional 
funding includes $35,000,000 in support of the W87 program and 
to provide capability at the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee, in preparation for expected stockpile life extension 
activities; $15,000,000 for enhanced surveillance activities; 
and $35,000,000 for manufacturing and infrastructure 
initiatives.
    Safeguards funding for cleanup sites.--Funding of 
$44,000,000 for safeguards and security activities at the Rocky 
Flats environmental cleanup site in Colorado, and $1,200,000 
for the Fernald environmental cleanup site in Ohio, was 
requested in the stockpile management program in fiscal year 
1998. The Committee has moved that funding and programmatic 
responsibility to the Defense Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management appropriation account to reflect the full 
funding for closure of these cleanup sites in one account.
    Tritium.--The Committee's recommendation fully funds the 
operating budget request of $184,485,000, an increase of 
$34,485,000 over fiscal year 1997, for continued research and 
development of the Department's dual-track strategy for a new 
source of tritium. This strategy will pursue the use of a 
commercial light-water reactor or purchase of irradiation 
services from such a reactor, and the design and testing of 
components of an accelerator system for production of tritium. 
In addition, the budget request of $67,865,000 has been 
provided for design-only activities for Project 98-D-126, the 
Accelerator Production of Tritium.
    Construction projects.--The Committee recommendation does 
not include fiscal year 1998 funding for Project 95-D-102, the 
chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) upgrades project, at 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Department recently 
stopped this project to review ongoing activities which appear 
to be beyond the authorized scope of the project and to examine 
current cost overruns. The Committee is concerned that this 
project may be suffering the same deficiencies found by the 
Department's Inspector General (IG) in a report issued in 
January 1997on the Nuclear Materials Storage Facility (NMSF) 
project at Los Alamos. The deficiencies in that facility were so 
serious that it was rendered unusable for its intended purpose. The IG 
found that ``* * * the primary cause for NMFS problems was due to 
inadequate design criteria, poor coordination among participants, and a 
need for better project and construction management''. The Committee 
will not provide more funds to a project which could be suffering from 
the same deficiencies until the Department has provided an independent 
assessment of the status of the design, cost, and schedule for the CMR 
project.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    At the direction of Congress, the Secretary of Energy 
initiated a review of the organization of the field activities 
and management of the national security functions of the 
Department of Energy. The Department recently submitted the 
report entitled, ``The Organization and Management of the 
Nuclear Weapons Program,'' prepared by the Institute for 
Defense Analyses. The general findings indicate that ``* * * 
practices for managing environment, safety and health concerns 
are based on a counterproductive hybrid of centralized and 
decentralized management practices that have evolved over the 
past decade * * * the process is ad hoc, and almost defies 
description''. Other major findings are that there are too many 
people (including support service contractors) chasing too 
little work; there are concerns over the expertise and training 
of people; there is confusion over the difference between line 
and staff; there are two headquarters for stockpile management; 
there is weak integration of programs and functions within 
Defense Programs and across the Department of Energy; there is 
an absence of a formal, disciplined DOE-wide resource 
allocation process; and there are wide variations among field 
activities in relationships and processes.
    In addition to this analysis, Congress had requested a plan 
to reorganize the field activities and management, but the 
Department failed to provide an implementation plan based on 
the recommendations of the report. The Committee understands 
the reluctance of the Department to quickly implement the 
recommendations of the study, but believes it is imperative 
that such actions be taken. The Committee's recommendation for 
program direction funding for field offices and headquarters 
reflects the anticipated reorganization.
    The Committee recommendation of $208,500,000 for program 
direction is a reduction of $95,000,000 from the budget request 
of $303,500,000. This reflects a $25,000,000, or 15 percent, 
reduction in funding for personnel costs and travel expenses 
for Federal employees, and a reduction of $70,000,000 in 
support service contractors, advisory and assistance services, 
and training.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes a general reduction 
of $20,000,000 to be applied to non-safety related contractor 
training costs throughout the nuclear weapons complex. The 
recommendation also includes the use of $2,608,000 in available 
prior year balances.

         Defense Environmental Restoration And Waste Management

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................    $5,459,304,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................     5,052,499,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................     5,263,270,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................      -196,034,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       210,771,000
                                                                        

    The Environmental Management program is responsible for 
identifying and reducing risks and managing waste at sites 
where the Department carried out nuclear energy or weapons 
research and production activities which resulted in 
radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination requiring 
remediation, stabilization, or some other type of cleanup 
action. Environmental management activities are budgeted under 
the following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management; Non-Defense Environmental 
Management; and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund.
    The Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
account includes environmental restoration, closure projects, 
waste management, nuclear materials and facilities 
stabilization, technology development, the environmental 
science program, and a variety of crosscutting and program 
management activities.
    The Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget request for 
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management totaled 
$5,695,163,000 which included $5,052,499,000 for operating 
expenses in the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
Management appropriation account and $642,664,000 for full 
funding of construction projects in a separate Defense Asset 
Acquisition appropriation account. The Committee recommendation 
has consolidated both of those accounts. In addition to this 
program funding, the Administration requested $1,006,000,000 
for the Defense Environmental Privatization appropriation 
account. The Committee's concerns about the Department's 
privatization proposal are addressed later in this report.
    The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management is $5,263,270,000, a reduction 
of $431,893,000 from the budget request of $5,695,163,000. The 
significant difference between the Committee's recommendation 
and the budget request for fiscal year 1998 reflects the 
Administration's proposal to include full funding for 
construction projects in a separate appropriation account. The 
Committee did not accept thisproposal and has provided 
incremental funding for construction projects in this account. This 
recommendation reduced the budget request by $476,989,000. The other 
significant difference was the addition of $45,200,000 of safeguards 
costs from the Weapons Activities account to the closure project 
account. Details of the recommended funding levels follow.

                                GENERAL

    A project performance study performed by Independent 
Project Analysis, Inc. in 1996 found that while improvements 
had been made to the Department of Energy's Environmental 
Management (EM) project system over the past two years, the EM 
project system remains more costly and slower than systems 
performed by industry. The analysis notes that many 
opportunities remain to reduce the costs of projects. Right 
now, DOE environmental restoration projects are approximately 
25 percent more expensive than those of the private sector and 
DOE waste management projects are approximately 35 to 40 
percent more expensive than those of the private sector for 
comparable work. Clearly, there are many opportunities for 
improvement. The Committee urges the Department to adopt more 
industry practices, reduce the numerous layers of oversight, 
apply the rule of common sense, and remember that the objective 
of these programs is to complete tasks, not justify continued 
employment for Federal and contractor employees.
    Ten Year Plan.--The Committee is extremely discouraged by 
the Department's failure to issue a supportable Ten Year Plan 
for completing cleanup of the Environmental Management sites. 
The Committee views the repeated delays by the Department to 
provide a Ten Year Plan as symptomatic of broad, cultural 
problems that require aggressive, institutional changes. The 
discussion draft entitled ``Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 
2006'' does not come close to the Committee's expectations. It 
is at best a high level document that can be used to initiate 
discussions with stakeholders. The Committee is extremely 
disappointed that the document itself admits that the top level 
document cannot be supported by the details, that it is not 
based on budget quality data, and that after a year of 
planning, the Department is only at the initial planning 
stages.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to produce 
and deliver to Congress a Ten Year Plan along with its Fiscal 
Year 1999 Budget. The Ten Year Plan must provide at a minimum 
for each site, projects that contain a defined scope of work 
and end state, interim milestones, and validated costs and 
schedules, including identifying what scope will be completed 
through fiscal year 2006 and after fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee expects the Department to provide budget quality data 
for each project. The Ten Year Plan should address the full 
life-cycle costs and schedules. The Committee urges the 
Department to consider risk and mortgage reduction in the 
prioritization and sequencing of clean-up projects.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is trying to 
force a scope of work to fit into an unrealistic acceleration 
plan using efficiency goals or management challenges that are 
virtually impossible to meet, especially in the out-years. 
While the Committee applauds the Department's efforts to be 
more efficient and believes that there are additional savings 
to be gained by doing the most important work first and by 
lowering the cost of doing business, relying on basically yet-
to-be defined goals of the magnitude presented in discussion 
document challenges the overall credibility of the plan. 
Accordingly, the Committee strongly urges the Department to 
create a Ten Year Plan that completes as much as the cleanup 
mission as possible by 2006, with aggressive but defensible 
efficiency goals, using data based on the true state of the 
individual Environmental Management sites. The Committee 
discourages the Department from writing a plan and then trying 
to force-fit data as appears to be the case with the ``Focus on 
2006'' draft.
    The Committee also urges the Department to consider more 
realistic land use planning assumptions than have been used 
previously. Consideration should be given to existing 
compliance agreements; however, there should be flexibility in 
the process to allow for changes where an improved outcome can 
be demonstrated.
    Low-Level Waste Disposal.--The Committee strongly 
encourages the Department to pursue an open competition for 
waste disposal services for various categories of low-level 
radioactive and mixed low-level radioactive waste. This 
proposal should also allow for an evaluation of an alternative 
regulatory structure under the provisions of the Atomic Energy 
Act. The Department should report back to the Committee by 
November 30, 1997, on the status of this competitive proposal.
    Reprogramming Authority.--Last year Congress provided 
greater flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 
former defense sites which are undergoing remedial cleanup 
activities. In fiscal year 1998, each site manager may continue 
to transfer up to $5,000,000 between Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management programs and construction 
projects to reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost 
savings as long as no program or project is increased or 
decreased by more than $5,000,000 once during the fiscal year. 
This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new 
programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased 
by Congress in the Act or report. The Committees on 
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within 
thirty days after the transfer of funds occurs.
    Economic development.--The Committee wants to reiterate the 
prohibition against using environmental management funds for 
economic development activities. The Committee appropriates 
funding for the ``Worker and Community Transition Program'' 
which is the only program authorized in the Department to 
provide economic development funding for communities, and this 
is the proper forum for evaluating the merits of the many 
proposals which the Department receives for economic 
development funding.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

    The environmental restoration program assesses, remediates, 
and decontaminates and dismantles contaminated Department of 
Energy facilities and sites which are inactive or surplus to 
current program needs. The Committee recommendation moves 
$743,600,000 of funding for the Rocky Flats Closure Project and 
the Fernald Environmental Management Project from this account 
to a separate closure project account. The Committee 
recommendation of $1,000,973,000 provides full funding of the 
budget request for the remaining programs in the environmental 
restoration account.
    The budget justifications do not provide the necessary 
information to evaluate the progress being made in the 
environmental restoration program to clean up the facilities 
and sites. The Department is directed to work with the 
Committee to establish an adequate level of budget detail that 
will show the estimated cost of each of these cleanup projects, 
the projected schedule for completion, the scope of the 
project, and the types of expenses being incurred. With the 
information currently provided, assessing progress on an annual 
basis is not possible.

                            CLOSURE PROJECTS

    Last year the Committee expressed significant interest in 
accelerating closure of environmental management sites and 
urged the Department to provide adequate funds to support this 
effort at sites which could be cleaned up within ten years with 
a notable reduction in mortgage costs due to the accelerated 
schedule. However, the fiscal year 1998 budget request did not 
implement this direction. The Committee considers this a very 
important issue, and the funding recommendation reflects 
implementation of this proposal.
    Rocky Flats Closure Project.--Current cost projections 
indicate that completing cleanup at the Rocky Flats Closure 
Project by 2006 would cost approximately $6.5 billion, while a 
completion date of 2010 will cost $7.5 billion. With a 
relatively small increase in funding over the budget request in 
fiscal year 1998, total project costs of $1 billion can be 
saved. This seems to the Committee to be a worthy investment. 
The Department's budget included $598,850,000 for Rocky Flats 
in various program accounts including $44,000,000 funded in the 
Weapons Activities account for safeguards activities. The 
Committee's recommendation consolidates all of this funding and 
provides an additional $33,250,000 for a total of $632,100,000 
for cleanup activities.
    Fernald Environmental Management Project.--Current cost 
projections indicate that closing the Fernald site by 2006 
would cost approximately $2.5 billion while closing it by 2011 
increases costs to approximately $2.8 billion. The Committee 
recommendation of $258,700,000 provides the budget request from 
the environmental restoration program, $1,200,000 for 
safeguards from the Weapons Activities appropriation, 
$25,200,000 for the Waste Pits Remedial Action project, and 
$6,900,000 for the Silo 3 Residue Waste Treatment project.
    Report Requirement.--As part of the fiscal year 1999 budget 
submittal, the Department is directed to provide adequate 
detail showing the cost, scope, schedule, and technical 
assumptions which support project closures by 2006. The 
Committee will work with the Department to ensure that the 
budget justifications provide adequate detail to permit 
Congress to track closure progress on an annual basis.
    Other Closure Projects.--The Committee recommendation also 
includes the budget request of $15,000,000 to accelerate 
cleanup.
    Closure Project Management.--The Committee is concerned 
that the current management and organization structure in the 
Environmental Management program at the Department does not 
lend itself to the successful management of dynamic projects 
with established completion dates and fixed price costs. 
Federal management of such projects requires skills quite 
different from the level of effort activities often performed 
at DOE sites. The Committee directs the Department to establish 
a small, separate, and highly skilled team of Federal employees 
to manage these closure projects. These individuals must be 
highly motivated, creative, results-oriented, and accountable 
for the success of each closure project. The Department is 
directed to provide the Committee within 60 days of enactment 
of this bill with a detailed plan outlining a proposed project 
management structure which reduces the numerous layers of 
Federal bureaucracy through which closure projects must report.

                            WASTE MANAGEMENT

    The waste management program treats, stores, and disposes 
of radioactive and hazardous wastes generated across the 
Department of Energy complex. The Committee recommendation is 
$1,455,576,000, the same as the budget request. The independent 
assessment of environmental management projects conducted last 
year indicated that the Federal government's waste management 
costs exceeded those of the private sector by 35 to 40 percent. 
The Committee expects the Department to explore every available 
avenue to reduce operational costs. Any savings that can be 
achieved within the available funding should be used to ensure 
that programs and facilities such as the Defense Waste 
Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site in South 
Carolina, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New 
Mexico, and the Hanford waste tank farm operations in Richland, 
Washington, are fully funded to meet critical program needs. 
The Committee urges the Department to review the funding needs 
associated with each of these critical facilities to ensure 
they are adequately funded and can be fully utilized in fiscal 
year 1998. The Committee will expect the Department to submit a 
reprogramming during the year if it becomes apparent that full 
operation of any of these facilities is funding limited.

             NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND FACILITIES STABILIZATION

    The nuclear materials and facilities stabilization program 
was established to manage the activities related to surplus 
weapons complex facilities; to ensure that nuclear materials 
remaining in the facilities are placed in a form suitable for 
longer-term storage; and to deactivate the facilities. The 
Committee recommendation for fiscal year 1998 funding is 
$1,244,021,000, a reduction of $58,439,000 from the budget 
request. This difference reflects an increase of $41,000,000 
for operating expenses, and a decrease of $99,439,000 for full 
funding of construction projects.
    The funding recommendation includes an additional 
$41,000,000 for operation of the facilities at the Savannah 
River Site to accelerate processing of ``at risk'' spent 
nuclear fuel currently stored at the site. The Committee has 
provided the additional funding for the Savannah River Site 
with the expectation that this will permit the Department to 
accelerate cleanup of the Site. The funding has not been 
provided merely to permit the Site to maintain the existing 
workforce without showing significant progress. The Department 
is directed to submit to the Committee by October 31, 1997, a 
report indicating: the specific activities which were to be 
performed under the original budget request; how the additional 
funds will be allocated by activity; and the specific 
activities which will undertaken in fiscal year 1998 with the 
additional funding to accelerate cleanup of the Site. The 
Committee expects each of these activities to be quantified, 
and the Committee will expect a quarterly status report on the 
progress which is being made on each of these activities 
throughout the fiscal year.
    An additional $10,000,000 is also included for the 
Department's national spent fuel program which is managed by 
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 
The Committee has also provided $8,500,000 for the hazardous 
waste operations and emergency response training program, an 
increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request of $7,500,000.

                         TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommendation for technology development is 
$182,881,000, a reduction of $75,000,000 from the budget 
request of $257,881,000. The Department proposed a new program, 
the Technology Development Initiative, to find ways to 
encourage the use of new and innovative technologies which are 
available but untried. The Committee has no objection to the 
concept, but sees no reason to set up a new program to do this. 
Instead, the Committee directs the Department to allocate 
$10,000,000 in each of the budgets for environmental 
restoration, waste management, and nuclear materials and 
facilities stabilization to be used to accelerate the use of 
new technologies and leverage funding already available for 
these activities. Evaluating and using new technology should be 
an integral part of the management of each of these program 
areas.
    The additional reduction of $25,000,000 is to be applied to 
the domestic and international technology systems applications 
programs. Accountability for program activities in these 
accounts has been lacking; funds are reallocated and used for 
activities which never appear in the budget request; and direct 
application to anything in the technology development arena 
appears to be marginal.
    Funding to support the private industry programs and 
continue ongoing activities is provided at the budget request 
of $40,066,000.
    University Robotics Program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $4,000,000 for the university robotics program.
    Program taxes.--The Committee is aware that in prior years 
the technology development program has been ``taxed'' to fund 
activities which were not included in the budget request. The 
Committee directs the Department to submit a reprogramming 
request to Congress for any additional program requirements not 
included in the budget request which arise during the fiscal 
year.

                         POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

    Due to funding constraints, the Committee recommendation 
for policy and management is $20,000,000, a reduction of 
$3,104,000 from the budget request of $23,104,000.

                     ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE PROGRAM

    The Committee recommendation for the environmental science 
program is $55,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 over the 
budget request of $50,000,000. Within this funding, $50,000,000 
has been provided for the basic science program, and $5,000,000 
for the risk policy program.
    The Committee is concerned that some of the grants provided 
under the environmental science program are not directly 
related to real and identifiable cleanup problems throughout 
the Department of Energy complex. Thus, the Department is to 
provide to the Committee a list of each grant that has been 
funded, a description of what cleanup problem is being 
addressed, and how the grantee is to interact with the 
appropriate Departmental site to address the specific problem. 
The purpose of this program is provide future-oriented 
solutions to existing problems, not just to support basic 
research in environmental areas. The Committee wants to ensure 
that this link is established and maintained throughout the 
award and execution phase of the grants.

             DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION

    The Department requested $1,006,000,000 for the Defense 
Environmental Management Privatization program. The Committee 
has recommended no funding for this program in fiscal year 
1998. Not only was this request a major component of the 
Department's unrealistic budget increase over fiscal year 1997, 
but there are serious programmatic concerns about how the 
``privatization'' program, which was initiated in fiscal year 
1997, has been managed.
    In the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the Department 
proposed a new initiative called ``privatization'' which would 
seek to procure services from the private sector through fixed 
price contracts with no payment due from the Federal government 
until services and/or products are provided. This concept 
required the private sector to finance the design and 
construction of the project with no payments made until the 
facility is operational. However, this is not ``privatization'' 
in the true sense of the word, because the Department already 
uses private sector contractors to perform all of its cleanup 
activities.
    Based on the budget request for privatization activities in 
fiscal year 1997, Congress provided $170,000,000 for the 
Hanford waste vitrification project in Richland, Washington, 
and $160,000,000 for three other initiatives. The information 
provided in support of these projects was not as thorough as is 
normally expected for a construction project, but there was 
much interest in pursuing an innovative process which sought to 
reduce costs and improve contract efficiencies through the use 
of fixed price contracts and the discipline of private sector 
financing.
    In fiscal year 1998 the Department requested an additional 
$1,006,000,000 for eleven new privatization initiatives. Since 
submittal of the budget request, the Committee has been seeking 
consistent and timely answers on the ``privatization'' program 
for both fiscal year 1997 projects and fiscal year 1998 
projects. Accurate and consistent information on the projects 
has been difficult, if not impossible, to acquire from the 
Department. Answers on financial data and requirements vary 
from individual to individual, and from meeting to meeting. 
Questions have arisen pertaining to the accuracy of the cost 
estimates, the accuracy of the cost savings, the changing scope 
of the projects, and the very need for some of the projects.
    Based on this experience, the Committee is recommending 
funding no new ``privatization'' projects in fiscal year 1998. 
The four projects which were started in fiscal year 1997 will 
continue. Once the Committee sees that these projects are 
successfully executed, it will then be prepared to consider 
further funding for this type of activity. The Committee wants 
to reiterate that it in no way objects to proposals for 
creative financing, fixed price contracts, or more involvement 
by the private sector in cleanup activities. The Department's 
failure to obtain funding in fiscal year 1998 is a result of 
the sloppy work done in developing the project proposals, 
inadequate and inconsistent answers to questions, and 
skepticism that the Department is capable of managing 
technically complex, fixed price contracts. The Committee 
expects proposals for any future projects, whether funded 
totally by the Federal government or through the private 
sector, to have been thoroughly evaluated to ensure the 
accuracy of the cost estimates, the scope, the schedule, and 
the projected cost savings.

                HANFORD TANK WASTE VITRIFICATION PROJECT

    The Committee recommends $70,000,000 to continue the 
Hanford tank waste vitrification project at the Hanford site 
near Richland, Washington. This will provide a total of 
$240,000,000 when added to the $170,000,000 which was provided 
for this project in fiscal year 1997. None of these prior year 
funds have been obligated, and they will be carried over into 
the new fiscal year. The Department had requested $427,000,000 
in the defense environmental management privatization account 
for this project, but the Committee does not believe that this 
large increase in funding is necessary in fiscal year 1998. The 
Department is currently funding two design efforts for this 
project. Designs will be submitted to the Department in January 
1998, with a selection to be made by the Department in May 
1998. The Committee directs that the Department notify the 
Committee 30 days prior to execution of the contract. To 
indicate a commitment to this project and provide assurance for 
the contractors who will be seeking private sector financing 
for this project, the Committee is providing funding in advance 
of knowing the specific project details. Once a decision is 
made, the Department is to provide detailed information on the 
decision to the Committees on Appropriations prior to signing 
the contract.
    The Committee has an additional concern about the Hanford 
waste vitrification project. The success of the project also 
rests on the ability of the Department to provide high-level 
liquid waste from the Hanford waste tank farm to meet the waste 
specifications of the vitrification plant. There is a concern 
that the Department is focusing so specifically on the contract 
for the vitrification plant that the integration of the entire 
waste tank system may be overlooked. The Committee directs that 
adequate funding be provided to maintain the activities at the 
Hanford tank farm on a schedule to ensure that waste will be 
available to meet the operating schedule for the proposed 
Hanford waste vitrification plant.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommends $288,251,000 for program 
direction, a reduction of $100,000,000 from the budget request 
of $388,251,000. This reflects a $40,000,000, or 15 percent, 
reduction in funding for personnel costs and travel expenses 
for Federal employees, and a reduction of $60,000,000 in 
support service contractors, advisory and assistance services, 
and training.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes a general reduction 
of $40,000,000 to be applied to non-safety related contractor 
training throughout the environmental management programs.

                        Other Defense Activities

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................    $1,605,733,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................     1,605,981,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................     1,580,504,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -25,229,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       -25,477,000
                                                                        

    This account provides funding for Nonproliferation and 
National Security Programs which include Nonproliferation and 
Verification Research and Development, Arms Control, 
Intelligence, Emergency Management, Nuclear Safeguards and 
Security, Security Investigations, and Program Direction; 
Environment, Safety and Health (Defense); Worker and Community 
Transition; Fissile Materials Disposition; Nuclear Energy 
(Defense); Independent Assessment of DOE Projects; and Naval 
Reactors. Descriptions of each of these programs are provided 
below.

       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. Due to funding constraints, the 
Committee recommendation is $190,000,000, a reduction of 
$20,000,000 from the budget request of $210,000,000. The 
Committee is aware that the nonproliferation and national 
security program organization makes extensive use of management 
and operating contractors detailed to Headquarters to provide 
program expertise and direction. This funding reduction should 
be applied to the costs associated with these contractor 
employee details.

                   ARMS CONTROL AND NONPROLIFERATION

    The arms control and nonproliferation program supports the 
nation's arms control and nonproliferation policies by securing 
nuclear materials and expertise in Russia and the Newly 
Independent States; limiting weapons-usable fissile materials; 
establishing transparent and irreversible nuclear reductions; 
and controlling nuclear exports. The Committee recommendation 
is $220,000,000, a reduction of $14,600,000 from the budget 
request of $234,600,000. This recommendation includes 
$15,000,000, a reduction of $14,600,000 from the budget request 
for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, 
formerly the Industrial Partnering Program. The Committee is 
concerned that not enough of the funding appropriated for the 
Department's program for Initiatives for Proliferation 
Prevention is actually reaching the Russian scientists who are 
supposed to benefit from the program. It appears that 
approximately half of the funding stays in the United States 
with the Department's laboratories. Of the remaining funds that 
go to Russia, it is reported that approximately half is 
siphoned off by duties, regional taxes, and overhead charges, 
leaving only 25 percent of the funding actually going to pay 
salaries of the Russian scientists. The Department is to report 
to the Committee on the expenditure of funds for the IPP 
program in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and estimated for 1998, and 
include a detailed description by activity and recipient of the 
expenditures, a listing of all duties, taxes and overhead 
charges paid by the program in each country, the number of 
individual Russian scientists who are funded through this 
program, and an accurate accounting of the annual amount which 
actually ends up in the paycheck of an individual Russian 
scientist.
    The recommendation includes the budget request of 
$137,008,000, an increase of $24,371,000 over fiscal year 1997, 
for the materials protection, control and accounting program to 
secure and safeguard nuclear materials in Russia and the Newly 
Independent States.

                              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 $33,600,000, the same as the budget 
request.

                          EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    The emergency management program encompasses all 
Departmental emergency management and threat assessment related 
activities, with the exception of the nuclear response 
activities funded in the Weapons Activities account, and 
ensures an integrated response to emergencies affecting 
Departmental operations and activities or requiring 
Departmental assistance. The Committee recommendation for 
funding is $17,000,000, a reduction of $10,700,000 from the 
budget request, but an increase of $206,000 over fiscal year 
1997.

                    NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

    The nuclear safeguards and security program provides 
policy, programmatic direction, and training for the protection 
of the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, 
classified information, and facilities. The Committee 
recommendation for nuclear safeguards and security is 
$47,200,000, the same as the budget request.
    The Committee directs the Department to assess and survey 
their security containers used to hold sensitive classified 
material to determine how many do or do not meet Federal 
specification FF-L-2740. This survey should include all DOE 
facilities and contractor facilities. This survey should be 
completed so that the results of the survey will be available 
at the same time the Department sends its fiscal year 1999 
budget request to Congress.

                        SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS

    The security investigations program funds background 
investigations for Department of Energy and contractor 
personnel who, in the performance of their official duties, 
require access to restricted data, national security 
information, or special nuclear material. The Committee 
recommendation is $20,000,000, the same as the budget request.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation of $68,900,000 for program 
direction is a reduction of $26,000,000 from the budget request 
of $94,900,000. This reflects a $6,000,000, or 15 percent, 
reduction in funding for personnel costs and travel expenses 
for Federal employees, and a reduction of $20,000,000 in 
support service contractors, advisory and assistance services, 
and training.

                ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

    The Environment, Safety and Health activities included in 
this account provide oversight processes to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the Department's environment, safety, health, 
and safeguards and security programs; fund epidemiologic 
studies to examine possible linkages between conditions at DOE 
sites and adverse health effects among workers and offsite 
populations; and oversee epidemiologic studies on the health of 
population groups in the Marshall Islands who have been exposed 
to ionizing radiation. The Committee recommendation is 
$73,000,000, an increase of $19,000,000 over the budget request 
of $54,000,000. Included in this recommendation is the budget 
request of $6,800,000 for Marshall Islands support.
    In its fiscal year 1998 budget proposal, the Department 
moved to the non-defense portion of this bill some environment, 
safety and health activities which had been funded in this 
defense account in prior years. These activities should clearly 
be funded in the defense account because they include studies 
of the health effects that may have resulted from past 
operations at Department of Energy nuclear weapons research and 
production facilities. Additionally, this account included a 
portion of the salaries and expenses for the Federal employees 
who administer these programs. The Committee's recommendation 
includes $14,731,000 to continue collaboration in epidemiologic 
studies conducted under the Memorandum of Understanding with 
the Department of Health and Human Services; $4,000,000 for the 
final year of funding for State Health Agreements; and 
$10,000,000 for Federal employee expenses. Any programmatic 
reductions necessary to accommodate these transferred 
activities should be applied to the use of support service 
contractors and non-safety related training.

                    WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

    The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community 
transition program is $56,000,000, a decrease of $14,500,000 
from the budget request of $70,500,000. The worker and 
community transition program was established to mitigate the 
impacts on workers and communities of contractor workforce 
restructuring by providing enhanced severance payments to 
employees at defense sites, and assisting community planning 
for defense conversion through Federal grants. Using these 
tools, the Department of Energy contractor workforce has been 
successfully downsized from almost 150,000 to approximately 
105,000 contractor employees through the end of fiscal year 
1997. However, the cost of this program has not been 
insignificant. From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997, 
enhanced severance payments and benefits have totaled 
$661,231,000, and Federal grants to communities have totaled 
$168,611,000, for a total cost of $829,842,000.
    Since passage of this legislation, the Department has taken 
many steps to mitigate the impacts of DOE program reductions 
through community investment initiatives. These initiatives are 
intended to stimulate the regional economy by job creation 
through means other than DOE funding. One of the most 
successful appears to be the use of a contract incentive that 
requires DOE contractors to propose corporate (non-DOE) 
investment in the community and the region. This is intended to 
diversify the regional economy to help offset the impact of 
changing DOE missions.
    From within available funds, the Committee directs the 
Department to continue to support those commitments which have 
been made for facilities where the Department of Energy's 
production mission has ended. However, the Department should 
not enter into any long-term commitments for community 
assistance which extend beyond fiscal year 1998. The Committee 
is aware that ending the nuclear weapons production mission at 
the Pinellas Plant in Florida which employed 2,000 people at 
its peak and had a direct economic impact on the region of 
$200,000,000 seriously disrupted the community. Departmental 
assistance has mitigated these reductions, and the Committee 
believes continued support is necessary to complete the 
successful conversion of the Pinellas plant from its national 
security mission to commercial ventures.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO) documented that the 
Department is providing generous separation and severance 
benefits to contractor employees who are separated, and that 
these generous packages are being offered to contractor 
employees hired after 1991. Further, GAO and the Department's 
Inspector General (IG) have identified instances at some sites 
where the contractors subsequently either rehire some of the 
separated workers or hire new employees with the skills of the 
separated workers because the Department and contractor failed 
to properly manage the downsizing. The Committee expects the 
Department to revise this program to prevent its abuse.
    The Committee directs that the fiscal year 1998 funding be 
used to mitigate the impact to workers at current or former 
defense nuclear facilities who were hired prior to September 
27, 1991, the day President Bush announced the first unilateral 
reduction of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the 
date used by the Department as the end of the Cold War. The 
Committee expects the Department to use the funding in a manner 
that most effectively mitigates the impact to displaced 
workers. The Committee further directs that no other 
Departmental funds be used to provide enhanced severance 
payments and other benefits authorized under the provisions of 
Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, and that the Department 
provide a report by March 30, 1998, regarding the future need 
and justification for the program.
    The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for 
this program be used for additional severance payments and 
benefits for Department of Energy employees. The Committee has 
been informed by the Secretary of Energy that the Department 
plans to extend the provisions of section 3161 to Federal 
employees at Department of Energy sites. This would provide to 
Department of Energy employees additional benefits which are 
not available to any other Federal employees. This was never 
the intent of this legislation. Federal employees are covered 
by a multitude of laws which control employee benefits and 
protections during the downsizing of Federal agencies.

                     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 
$103,451,000, a reduction of $345,000 from the budget request 
of $103,796,000. Additional funding for Federal salaries and 
expenses has not been provided.
    The Committee commends the Department on the progress made 
in developing a storage and disposition strategy for the excess 
weapons-grade fissile materials. The Committee believes that 
the dual track strategy for disposition of excess plutonium is 
critical to completing the disposition mission as rapidly as 
possible and maintaining the credibility of the process. 
Additionally, the Committee believes that international 
confidence in the arms control process may hinge on the 
Department's adherence to the dual track strategy and, 
specifically, the mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel option. Accordingly, 
the Committee expects the Department to complete the process 
for selection of contractors for the mixed-oxide fuel plant and 
reactors in fiscal year 1998.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY (DEFENSE)

    The budget request for nuclear energy activities includes 
funding for the nuclear technology research and development on 
the electrometallurgical program, the international nuclear 
safety program which funds the Soviet-designed reactor program, 
the nuclear security program for spent nuclear fuel management, 
the Chornobyl shutdown initiative, and the Russian plutonium 
reactor core conversion program. Descriptions of these programs 
follow.
    Nuclear Technology Research and Development.--This program 
supports research and development on the electrometallurgical 
treatment of spent nuclear fuels for storage and ultimate 
disposal in a geologic repository. For fiscal year 1998, the 
Department requested $25,000,000 for this program in the 
defense portion of this bill while last year this program was 
funded in the non-defense portion of the bill. The Committee 
recommendation includes $12,000,000 in this account and an 
additional $8,000,000 in the Energy Supply appropriation 
account, for a total of $20,000,000. The Department is directed 
to request all funding for this program in the Energy Supply 
account in fiscal year 1999.
    International Nuclear Safety.--The international nuclear 
safety program is designed to reduce the threats posed by the 
operation of unsafe Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in 
Russia and the Newly Independent States. The Committee 
recommendation for this program is $25,000,000, a decrease of 
$25,000,000 from the budget request of $50,000,000. The 
Committee continues to believe that this program is more 
appropriately funded through the Department of State and the 
foreign operations appropriations bill.
    The Committee is aware that the Department has been 
spending money on Soviet-designed research and test reactors, 
and directs that these activities be halted. This program is 
intended specifically to address the safety concerns and risks 
associated with the 67 nuclear power reactors.
    The Committee directs the Department to provide a report 
showing the status of each of the Soviet-designed reactors, the 
work to be accomplished, the schedule by fiscal year for 
accomplishing this work, and the cost of each task by fiscal 
year.
    Nuclear Security.--The nuclear security program seeks 
funding to transfer nuclear safety concepts to Eastern Europe 
and Asia, implement safety upgrades for a nuclear breeder 
reactor in Kazakstan, and develop a spent nuclear fuel and 
radioactive waste management plan for countries of the former 
Soviet Union. The budget request for these new initiatives is 
$4,000,000, but the Committee has recommended no funding for 
these activities. These activities are not perceived as 
critical national security issues.
    Chornobyl Shutdown Initiative.--This new initiative for the 
Department of Energy would augment work already being funded by 
the United States. The budget request for this initiative is 
$2,000,000, but the Committee has recommended no funding for 
this activity which is already being funded by the U.S. Agency 
for International Development (USAID). USAID provided 
$25,000,000 for Chornobyl sarcophagus and decontamination and 
decommissioning efforts in fiscal year 1997, and $27,000,000 is 
anticipated in fiscal year 1998.
    Russian Plutonium Reactor Core Conversion.--In fiscal year 
1997, funding of $3,500,000 was provided for preparatory work 
for converting the fuel in three Russian production reactors so 
that they do not produce weapons-grade plutonium while 
producing heat and electricity. The Department requested no 
funding for this activity in fiscal year 1998 as it was to be 
funded by the Department of Defense. Consistent with the 
recommendations of the House National Security Committee, the 
Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue this program in 
fiscal year 1998.

                     OFFICE OF HEARING 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. 
In fiscal year 1997, OHA was funded in the Office of 
Nonproliferation and National Security. Consistent with the 
fiscal year 1997 funding level, the Committee recommendation is 
$1,900,000, a reduction of $785,000 from the budget request of 
$2,685,000.

        INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECTS

    As noted in the introduction to Title III, the Committee 
has serious concerns about the Department's ability to manage 
construction projects and is equally concerned that there is a 
lack of strong internal, independent oversight of projects at 
the Department. The Committee has directed the Corps of 
Engineers to review all Departmental construction projects 
funded in fiscal year 1998. The Corps will review and assess 
the quality of the technical scopes, cost estimates, schedules, 
and supporting data, and make recommendations on the validity 
of the proposed scopes, costs, and schedules. If DOE's proposed 
approach is unreasonable, unjustified, or not integrated into 
the overall program activities, the Corps will recommend 
alternatives. Recommendations will be focused on those projects 
upon which net savings can be made. The Committee has included 
statutory language providing that no funds be obligated for any 
new fiscal year 1998 construction projects until the cost, 
schedule, and scope of each construction project has been 
validated by an independent assessment of the Corps of 
Engineers.
    The Committee believes that the root cause of the 
Department's failure to manage projects is the lack of 
qualified Federal personnel to manage the contracts and the 
lack of internal project management systems supporting this 
critical contract oversight. As such, the Committee has 
provided funding for an independent assessment of the 
Department of Energy's project management systems and facility 
acquisition management processes by the Corps of Engineers 
working with private industry, if appropriate, and the National 
Academy of Engineering. The evaluation should focus on the 
process and management structure that DOE uses to identify and 
meet the identified requirements of the users of the proposed 
facilities, and ultimately, deliver the facilities meeting 
these needs as cost effectively and timely as possible.
    The Committee has also provided funding to the Corps of 
Engineers to complete the environmental management site 
assessments which were initiated in fiscal year 1997 at the 
request of the Department. The Committee expects the Corps to 
not just make recommendations for cost savings, but also to 
report back to the Committee on the success with which the 
Department is implementing these recommendations.
    The Committee recommendation includes $35,000,000 to be 
provided to the Corps of Engineers for this independent review 
of the Department's construction projects and project 
management system.

                             NAVAL REACTORS

    The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects 
of Naval nuclear propulsion--from technology development 
through reactor operations to ultimate reactor plant disposal. 
This program provides for the design, development, testing, and 
evaluation of improved naval nuclear propulsion plants and 
reactor cores. These efforts are critical to the continued 
success of over 110 reactors in operating nuclear-powered 
submarines and surface ships, and to the New Attack Submarine 
class currently under development.
    The Committee recommendation is $673,500,000, an increase 
of $25,700,000 over the budget request of $647,800,000, but 
$8,432,500 less than fiscal year 1997. Additional funding of 
$38,000,000 has been provided to continue test reactor 
inactivation efforts and preclude inefficiencies due to 
delaying environmental cleanup activities which are scheduled 
to be completed in fiscal year 2002.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes the use of $3,000,000 
in prior year balances remaining in the canceled new production 
reactor program, and $3,047,000 from other available prior year 
balances. The budget request did not propose the use of any 
prior year balances.

                       Defense Asset Acquisition

    The President's budget request proposed creating a new 
appropriation account for all atomic energy defense 
construction projects and requested $2,166,859,000 for full 
funding of all construction projects. The Committee 
recommendation does not include this proposed change.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $200,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       190,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       190,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -10,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

    Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended, the Nuclear Waste Fund has incurred costs for 
activities related to disposal of high-level waste generated 
from the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of 
Energy. At the end of fiscal year 1996, the balance owed by the 
Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was approximately 
$1,071,000,000 (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 1997, a total of 
$797,800,000 has been appropriated to support the nuclear waste 
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense 
activities.
    The Committee recommends the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request of $190,000,000.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

    Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department 
of Energy as directed in the Department of Energy Organization 
Act (Public Law 95-91). The functions include power marketing 
activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1944 and all other functions of the Alaska Power 
Administration, Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern 
Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and 
the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, now 
included in the Western Area Power Administration.
     All power marketing administrations except Bonneville are 
funded annually with appropriated funds. Revenues collected 
from power sales and transmission services are deposited in the 
Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-financed under 
authority of Public Law 93-454, the Federal Columbia River 
Transmission System Act of 1974, which authorizes Bonneville to 
use its revenues to finance operating costs, maintenance and 
capital construction, and sell bonds to the Treasury if 
necessary to finance any remaining capital program 
requirements.

         Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................        $4,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................         1,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................         1,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        -3,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

     The Alaska Power Administration is responsible for 
operation, maintenance, and marketing of power for Alaska's two 
Federal hydroelectric projects. The operating projects are the 
30 MW Eklutna Project near Anchorage and the 78 MW Snettisham 
Project near Juneau. Project facilities include dams, 
reservoirs, powerplants, transmission systems, and necessary 
maintenance facilities.
     The Committee recommendation is $1,000,000, the same 
amount as the budget request. The Committee was assured last 
year that no further funding would be needed. If additional 
funding is required after carryover balances are depleted, the 
Department should provide a reprogramming request. The 
Committee supports the transfer of assets authorized by the 
Alaska Power Administration Asset Sale and Termination Act 
(Public Law 104-58). If the transfer is completed before the 
end of fiscal year 1998, any unobligated appropriations must be 
returned to the Treasury.

                    Bonneville Power Administration

     The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of 
Energy's electric power marketing agency in the Pacific 
Northwest, a 300,000 square-mile service area that encompasses 
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and small portions 
of adjacent western States in the Columbia River drainage 
basin. Bonneville markets hydroelectric power from 29 Corps of 
Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects, as well as 
thermal energy from non-Federal generating facilities in the 
region. Bonneville also markets and exchanges surplus electric 
power inter-regionally over the Pacific Northwest-Pacific 
Southwest Intertie with California, and in Canada over 
interconnections with utilities in British Columbia.
    Bonneville constructs, operates and maintains the Nation's 
largest high-voltage transmission system, consisting of 14,800 
circuit-miles of transmission line and 400 substations with an 
installed capacity of 21,500 MW. Public Law 93-454, the Federal 
Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974, placed 
Bonneville on a self-financed basis. With the passage in 1980 
of Public Law 96-501, the Pacific Northwest Electric Power 
Planning and Conservation Act, Bonneville's responsibilities 
were expanded to include meeting the net firm load growth of 
the region, investing in cost-effective, region-wide energy 
conservation, and acquiring generating resources to meet these 
requirements.
    Borrowing Authority.--A total of $3,750,000,000 has been 
made available to Bonneville as permanent borrowing authority. 
Each year the Committee reviews the budgeted amounts Bonneville 
plans to use of this total and reports a recommendation for 
these borrowing requirements. For fiscal year 1998, the 
Committee recommends an additional increment of $253,000,000 in 
new borrowing authority, the same as the budget request, for 
transmission system construction, power services, conservation 
and energy efficiency, and capital equipment programs.
    Fish Facilities.--The Administration requested language to 
authorize construction of facilities as required by the Pacific 
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act for new 
fish and wildlife facilities of $1,000,000 and an economic life 
greater than 15 years (Public Law 96-501, section 4. 
(H)(10)(B)). The Committee recommendation modifies the proposed 
language to identify the specific facilities which are 
approved. The statutory language includes anadromous fish 
supplementation facilities in the Yakima River Basin, Methow 
River Basin, and Upper Snake River Basin, for the Billy Shaw 
Reservoir resident fish substitution project, and for the 
resident trout fish culture facility in Southeast Idaho. These 
facilities were reviewed and approved for implementation by the 
Northwest Power Planning Council.
    Budget Revisions and Notification.--The Committee expects 
Bonneville to adhere to the borrowing authority estimates 
recommended by the Congress and promptly inform the Committee 
of any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the 
need for Bonneville to obligate borrowing authority in excess 
of such amounts.
    Repayment.--During fiscal year 1998, Bonneville plans to 
pay the Treasury $805,000,000, of which $228,000,000 is to 
repay principal on the Federal investment in these facilities.
    Limitation On Direct Loans.--The Committee recommends that 
no new direct loans be made in fiscal year 1998.

 Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Marketing Administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $16,359,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        14,222,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        12,222,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        -4,137,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -2,000,000
                                                                        

    The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 10 
southeastern states. There are 23 projects now in operation 
with an installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts. Southeastern 
does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries 
out its marketing program by utilizing the existing 
transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This 
is accomplished through ``wheeling'' arrangements between 
Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission 
lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver 
specified amounts of federal power to customers of the 
Government, and Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility 
for the wheeling service performed.
    The Committee recommendation is $12,222,000, $4,137,000 
less than the amount provided in the current fiscal year and 
$2,000,000 less than the budget request. The reduction from the 
budget request reflects an increase in the estimate of 
carryover balances available to supplement the appropriation 
for fiscal year 1998.

 Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Marketing Administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $25,210,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        26,500,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        25,210,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -1,290,000
                                                                        

    The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing 
agent for the power generated at Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric plants in the six-state area of Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed 
capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and maintains some 
1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 
24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale primarily to 
publicly and cooperatively owned electric distribution 
utilities.
    The recommendation is $25,210,000, the same amount as the 
amount provided in the current fiscal year. The Committee has 
been informed that no carryover balances will be available to 
offset the appropriation for fiscal year 1998. Therefore, the 
Department is directed to reduce spending in fiscal year 1998.

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Power 
                        Marketing Administration

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $182,230,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       194,334,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       189,043,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        +6,813,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -5,291,000
                                                                        

    The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for 
marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. Western operates hydropower 
generating plants in 15 central and western states encompassing 
a 1.3 million square-mile geographic area. Western is also 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of 16,727 miles 
of high-voltage transmission lines with 257 substations.
    Western, through its power marketing program, must secure 
revenues sufficient to meet the annual costs of operation and 
maintenance of the generating and transmission facilities, 
purchased power, wheeling and other expenses, in order to repay 
all of the power investment with interest, and to repay that 
portion of the Government's irrigation and other nonpower 
investments which are beyond the water users' repayment 
capability. Under the Colorado River Basins Power Marketing 
Fund, which encompasses the Colorado River Basin, Fort Peck, 
and Colorado River Storage Facilities, all operation and 
maintenance and power marketing expenses are financed from 
revenues.
    The Committee recommendation for Western is $189,043,000, a 
decrease of $5,291,000 from the budget request. Because Western 
was able to supplement the appropriation for the current fiscal 
year with $66,461,000 in carryover balances, and is able to 
supplement the appropriation for fiscal year 1998 with a 
substantially lower amount, $26,389,000, the recommendation 
actually represents a substantial reduction of $14,532,000.
    The Committee is aware of the Western Area Power 
Administration's proposed distribution of projected fiscal year 
1998 costs across several financing sources, including funds 
appropriated by the Committee. As Federal appropriated funds 
are reduced while electricity rates drop in the marketplace, 
the Committee directs that Western maximize efficient use of 
all available resources to keep its wholesale rate as 
competitive as possible and thereby maintain as robust a 
repayment stream back to the Treasury as possible.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................          $970,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................         1,065,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................           970,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................           -95,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

     Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operation and 
Maintenance Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995. This legislation 
also directed that the Fund be administered by the 
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration for use 
by the Commissioner of the United States Section of the 
International Boundary and Water Commission to defray 
operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams in 
Texas. Prior to fiscal year 1996, funds for Falcon and Amistad 
were included in the appropriations of the Department of State.
    The Committee recommendation is $970,000, the same amount 
as the budget request.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $146,290,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       167,577,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       162,141,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       +15,851,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -5,436,000
                                                                        

                SALARIES AND EXPENSES--REVENUES APPLIED

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      -146,290,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................      -167,577,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................      -162,141,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       -15,851,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        +5,436,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommendation is $162,141,000, an increase 
of $15,851,000 over the amount provided last year. Revenues are 
established at a rate equal to the amount provided for program 
activities, resulting in a net appropriation of zero.
    The Committee recommends that the Commission give high 
priority to the processing of hydroelectric licenses for which 
there are competing applications. In particular, the Committee 
urges the Commission to decide these cases as their licenses 
expire.

                           General Provisions

    Section 301 provides that none of the funds in this Act or 
any prior appropriations Act may be used to award a management 
and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using 
competitive procedures. This provision would permit an 
exception only for the research and development portion of the 
work performed at any DOE facility. All remaining activities at 
the facility such as environmental restoration are to be 
separated from the research activities and competitively 
awarded.
    Section 302 provides that none of the funds in this Act or 
any prior appropriations Act may be used to award, amend, or 
modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy grants, 
on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a 
deviation. At least 60 days before such action, the Secretary 
of Energy must submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations a report notifying the Committees of the waiver 
and setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
    Section 303 provides that none of the funds in this Act or 
any appropriations Act may be used to award, amend, or modify 
any contract for support services unless a cost comparison 
conducted under the procedures and requirements of Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-76 shows that the cost of 
performing the support services by contractor personnel is 
lower than the cost of performing such services by Department 
of Energy personnel.
    Section 304 provides that none of the funds in this Act or 
any prior appropriations Act may be used to make payments under 
a management and operating contract for providing products or 
services for use by Department of Energy personnel.
    Section 305 provides that none of the funds in this Act or 
any prior appropriations Act may be used to prepare or 
implement workforce restructuring plans or provide enhanced 
severance payments and other benefits for Department of Energy 
employees under section 3161 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484.
    Section 306 provides that none of the funds in this Act or 
any prior appropriations Act may be used to augment the 
$56,000,000 made available for obligation in this Act for 
severance payments and other benefits and community assistance 
grants authorized under the provisions of section 3161 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public 
Law 102-484.
    Section 307 provides that none of the funds provided in 
this Act to initiate new construction projects in fiscal year 
1998 by the Department of Energy may be obligated until the 
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
has performed an independent assessment of the cost, scope, and 
schedule of each construction project, has validated the 
accuracy of the Department of Energy's estimates, and reported 
to Congress on the results of this assessment.
    Section 308 provides that none of the funds in this Act or 
any prior appropriations Act may be used to prepare or initiate 
requests for proposals for programs which have not yet been 
funded by Congress.
    Section 309 provides that none of the funds in this Act 
(including funds appropriated for salaries of employees of the 
Department of Energy) may be used in any way, directly or 
indirectly, to influence congressional action on any 
legislation or appropriations matters pending before Congress.
    Section 310 permits the transfer and merger of unexpended 
balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts 
established in this bill.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee's detailed funding recommendations for 
programs in Title III are contained in the following table.


                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $160,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       165,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       160,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -5,000,000
                                                                        

    The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional 
economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed 
of the Governors of the thirteen Appalachian states and a 
Federal Co-Chairman who is appointed by the President.
    The Committee recommends $160,000,000 for fiscal year 1998. 
This is the same amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         Salaries and Expenses

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $16,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        17,500,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        16,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................  ................
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -1,500,000
                                                                        

    The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by 
the Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
Board, composed of five members appointed by the President, 
provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy 
regarding public health and safety issues at the Department's 
defense nuclear facilities. The Board is responsible for 
reviewing and evaluating the content and implementation of the 
standards relating to the design, construction, operation and 
decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of the Department 
of Energy.
    Consistent with agency reductions that the Committee has 
made throughout this bill in personnel salaries and expenses, 
the Committee recommendation is $16,000,000, a decrease of 
$1,500,000 from the budget request of $17,500,000, and the same 
level as last year. The Committee urges the Board to focus on 
those defense nuclear production facilities that are 
operational and represent the highest radiological risk to 
workers and the public. Low risk environmental restoration 
projects are overseen by many state and Federal regulators, and 
should not demand the attention of the Board.
    The Committee supports the Department of Energy's 
initiative to seek external regulation of Departmental 
facilities. The Committee expects the Board to begin planning 
for a smooth transition of those projects and facilities now 
being overseen by the Board which could quickly and effectively 
be moved to external regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                          Gross Appropriation

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $471,800,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       476,500,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................       462,700,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................        -9,100,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       -13,800,000
                                                                        

                                Revenues

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................     -$457,300,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................      -457,500,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................      -446,700,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................       +10,600,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................       +10,800,000
                                                                        

                           Net Appropriation

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       $14,500,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        19,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        16,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................         1,500,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................        -3,000,000
                                                                        

    The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, 
requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recover 100 
percent of its budget authority, less the appropriation from 
the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. 
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $462,700,000 for 
fiscal year 1998, $9,100,000 less than last year and 
$13,800,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee notes that while the workload of the 
Commission decreases with closure of Yankee Rowe and self-
regulation by agreement States, there has not been a 
commensurate reduction reflected in budget requests. The 
Committee was especially concerned that the Commission has 
proposed that licensee fees be raised by eight percent.
    The Committee includes $13,000,000 for activities related 
to the implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and in 
support of the Department of Energy's efforts to characterize 
Yucca Mountain as a potential site for a permanent nuclear 
waste repository. This funding is to be derived from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund, and the funds are provided subject to 
authorization of Nuclear Waste Fund expenditures for Department 
of Energy program activities. The recommendation is $2,000,000 
more than the current fiscal year and $4,000,000 less than the 
budget request.
    The recommendation also includes $2,000,000, the same 
amount as the budget request, for activities related to 
commercial vitrification at the Hanford site. This funding is 
to be derived from general funds, not to be offset by fees and 
collections.
    The recommendation also includes $1,000,000 to provide the 
resources needed to evaluate the costs and benefits of 
establishing independent oversight of certain Department of 
Energy nuclear facilities. Currently, the Department of Energy 
operates its facilities in a self-regulatory environment. The 
Department has taken steps to participate in a pilot program to 
identify facilities over which the Commission could exercise 
independent regulatory oversight. This demonstration effort 
should not interfere with ongoing national security programs, 
nor with current regulatory and other oversight authorities for 
nuclear safety at Department facilities. The Commission is 
directed to provide a status report to the Committee as part of 
the fiscal year 1999 budget justification.

                      Office of Inspector General

                          gross appropriation

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................        $5,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................         4,800,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................         4,800,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................          -200,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

                                revenues

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................       -$5,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................        -4,800,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................        -4,800,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................          +200,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................  ................
                                                                        

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pursuant to law, 
budget authority appropriated to the Inspector General must be 
recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000, 
equal to the Administration's budget request. Pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 2214, this appropriation must be recovered through the 
assessment of license and annual fees, resulting in a net 
appropriation of $0.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................        $2,531,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................         3,200,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................         2,400,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................          -131,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................          -800,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommendation provides continued funding for 
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directs the Board to evaluate the 
technical and scientific validity of the activities of the 
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The 
Board must report its findings not less than two times a year 
to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,400,000, a 
five percent reduction from the fiscal year 1997 level.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1997...................................      $106,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1998.................................       106,000,000
Recommended, 1998.....................................  ................
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1997...............................      -106,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1998.............................      -106,000,000
                                                                        

    The Committee recommendation includes no appropriated 
funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in fiscal year 
1998. The bill does, however, provide for the funding of 
essential nonpower activities with power and nonpower revenues 
and programmatic savings. As TVA has repeatedly observed, its 
nonpower programs constitute a tiny fraction of the Authority's 
$5.8 billion program. The Committee is confident that the 
relatively modest costs for nonpower activities can be absorbed 
by TVA with no detrimental effects on ratepayers or the 
maintenance of essential services. Furthermore, the Committee 
fully expects TVA to fund its essential nonpower programs to 
the extent necessary to protect the substantial Federal 
investment in TVA facilities and to provide for the continued 
enjoyment of vital TVA services by Tennessee Valley 
stakeholders. The Committee will exercise vigorous oversight 
during the coming year to ensure that this expectation is 
fulfilled.
    A New Deal agency with a storied history, the TVA was 
established in 1933 to promote development of the Tennessee 
Valley. As enumerated in the Tennessee Valley Act of 1933, the 
agency's principal purposes include flood control, navigation, 
power production, land management, reforestation and economic 
development. In a concession that its Depression-era missions 
have been largely achieved, TVA has proposed termination of its 
nonpower programs after fiscal year 1998. Enthused by the 
Administration proposal to discontinue direct appropriations, 
the Committee has decided to accelerate its implementation.
    The Committee's recommendation accommodates the many 
stakeholders and interested parties who have urged that 
precipitous action not be taken to strip TVA of its nonpower 
responsibilities. While providing for the continued operation 
of nonpower programs by TVA in fiscal year 1998, the 
recommendation: preserves the prerogative of Congress and its 
committees to determine the ultimate disposition of TVA's 
appropriated programs; provides for the continuation of the TVA 
Task Force process to its logical conclusion; and does not 
arbitrarily transfer responsibilities to other entities.
    The requirement that TVA absorb the costs of its nonpower 
program within its own internally generated revenues and 
savings is neither onerous nor unfair. According to TVA's 
testimony to the Committee, its $5.7 billion in electric power 
sales last year set an all-time record for revenue, and its 
power business is performing better than ever. The Chairman of 
TVA characterizes the financial condition of the Authority as 
``excellent.'' The assumption of financial responsibility for 
nonpower programs--1.8% of the Authority's total budget--should 
have little appreciable effect on an agency as financially 
robust as TVA claims to be. (The Committee parenthetically 
observes that the costs of the nonpower programs are 
dramatically lower than the financial liability TVA would face 
if it were subject to federal income taxation.)
    The Committee also observes that, compared to multi-purpose 
projects managed by other Federal agencies (viz., the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation), taxpayers 
bear a disproportionate share of the costs to operate and 
maintain TVA dams and reservoirs. It is consistent with the 
policies and methodologies of these Federal agencies to require 
TVA's power program to assume a greater share of such costs.
    The Committee is cognizant of a proposal for the future of 
TVA stewardship programs propounded by the Tennessee River 
Valley Association (TVRA), a coalition of some 350 members 
representing diverse interests throughout the Tennessee Valley 
(including, among others, small and large businesses, 
municipalities, academicinstitutions, and TVA distributors). In 
recent testimony to the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, TVRA proposed that:

        TVA's Resource Management Program be given authority 
        and management responsibility over the hydropower 
        system to integrate it into the river basin management 
        charge of TVA * * * Revenues generated from the sale of 
        hydropower could finance all the Resource Management 
        Programs (non-power programs) of TVA.

    The Committee applauds TVRA for this bold and visionary 
proposal. The TVA stakeholders who comprise TVRA have developed 
a plan that is consistent with the Committee's recommendation 
for fiscal year 1998. TVA is directed to fully evaluate the 
benefits of this proposal as the Authority continues to 
consider the future of its nonpower programs.
    Stewardship.--TVA has estimated the annual cost of 
statutorily required stewardship programs at $58.1 million. The 
Committee is confident that TVA will incorporate significant 
cost efficiencies into these programs and will depress total 
expenditures in fiscal year 1998 to the maximum extent 
practicable, consistent with the maintenance of essential 
services.
    Land Between the Lakes.--The Committee expects TVA to 
provide such sums as are necessary for the proper operation, 
maintenance and improvement of Land Between the Lakes. The 
Committee observes, however, that staffing levels and 
administrative and program costs for LBL remain higher than 
those for similarly situated national recreation areas. TVA is 
directed to take action to reduce these costs in fiscal year 
1998 without compromising the public's ability to enjoy vital 
services at LBL.
    Economic Development.--In testimony before the Committee 
last year, TVA acknowledged that Economic Development is not an 
essential appropriated activity of the Authority. The Committee 
agrees and has provided no funding for this activity in fiscal 
year 1998.
    The Committee urges TVA's favorable consideration of a 
proposal to allocate monies from the Northeast Mississippi Area 
Development Trust Fund for the purchase of land to expand the 
industrial park near the City of Fulton, Mississippi, located 
in Itawamba County.
    Environmental Research Center.--In testimony before the 
Committee last year, TVA acknowledged that the Environmental 
Research Center is not an essential appropriated activity of 
the Authority. The Committee agrees and, as it has for the past 
two years, recommends no operational funding for fiscal year 
1998.
    The Committee is seriously concerned about TVA's future 
plans for the Environmental Research Center (ERC). The 
Committee would view with pronounced disfavor any proposal that 
fails to account for the taxpayers' substantial long-term 
investment in the ERC. Any plans to fold the ERC into a profit-
making center of TVA would, for example, fail to address the 
Committee's concerns. Accordingly, the Committee directs TVA to 
provide a full and fair opportunity for outside entities to 
participate in the acquisition, management, and operation of 
the ERC. This direction contemplates the establishment of a 
public process to evaluate proposals for the disposition of ERC 
assets. If it is determined that the ERC lacks market value, 
then TVA is directed to consider termination of the center.
    Chickamauga Lock.--The Committee recommendation includes no 
funding for activities associated with the replacement of 
Chickamauga Lock. Given the Administration's proposal to 
terminate all of TVA's appropriated programs after fiscal year 
1998, the Committee considers it prudent to withhold commitment 
to this $300 million project until the jurisdictional 
responsibility for its execution is fixed and its relative 
priority among navigational needs nationwide is determined. If, 
however, TVA regards the replacement of Chickamauga Lock as 
sufficiently urgent to expend internally generated revenues and 
savings on activities associated with such replacement, then it 
may do so to the extent permitted under previously existing 
authorities.
    Power Program.--Although it applauds TVA's initiative in 
proposing the elimination of appropriated programs, the 
Committee is disappointed that the agency did not include its 
power production operations among those Federally subsidized 
activities it proposes to terminate. To the contrary, the 
agency has made it clear that its proposal to shed appropriated 
programs is motivated by a desire to concentrate on its ``core 
business'' of electricity production and sale.
    The Committee is concerned that a Federal agency would 
reinvent itself as a business opportunist. Furthermore, the 
Committee vigorously disagrees that TVA should be loosed to 
participate as a full competitor in the domestic electricity 
industry. By virtue of its status as an agency of the Federal 
government, TVA enjoys a broad range of competitive advantages, 
both direct and indirect. These advantages have operated to 
facilitate the transformation of the Authority into an electric 
utility of massive dimensions and enormous debt. The continued 
exploitation of these advantages in furtherance of the 
Authority's naked ambition to compete can be reconciled with 
neither basic tenets of free enterprise nor the appropriate 
role of a limited Federal government.
    The conditions that prevailed in 1933 to justify the 
Authority's involvement in power production no longer obtain in 
1997. With the electrification of the Tennessee Valley, the 
incipient deregulation of the electric utility industry, and 
the development of industries and national agencies capable of 
providing traditional TVA services, the rationale for the 
perpetuation of this New Deal agency has steadily eroded. 
Rather than concentrate on the continued growth of its power 
business, the Committee has concluded that it is far more 
appropriate for TVA to plan for its immediate reform.
    The Committee urges the TVA to work with local sponsors in 
Union County, MS, in its efforts to establish a new water 
supply lake, and to work cooperatively to resolve the need to 
relocate TVA power lines that may lie within the project area 
and assist in the preparation of the environmental impact 
statement on the project where appropriate.
                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 501 states the sense of the Congress that, to the 
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
American-made.
              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 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that: ``Each report of a committee on a 
bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution.''
     The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *''
     Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing 
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the 
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 602 
of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information 
follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         602(b) Allocation                  This bill .         
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                          Budget                    
                                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...................................          20,010          20,512          20,003          20,511
Mandatory.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill provides no new spending authority as described in 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.

                         Five-Year Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                                        
                                                            Millions    
                                                                        
Budget authority......................................            20,003
Outlays:                                                                
    1998..............................................            13,164
    1999..............................................             5,904
    2000..............................................               832
    2001..............................................                68
    2002 and beyond...................................                35
                                                                        

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93-
344, the new budget authority and outlays provided by the 
accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local 
governments are as follows:

                                                                        
                                                            Millions    
                                                                        
Budget authority......................................               163
Fiscal year 1998 outlays resulting therefrom..........                15
                                                                        

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X, the following is submitted 
describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill:
    Under Title I, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program:

          * * * That the unexpended balances of prior 
        appropriations provided for these activities in this 
        Act or any previous Energy and Water Development 
        Appropriations Act may be transferred to and merged 
        with this appropriation account, and thereafter, may be 
        accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
        originally enacted.

    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related 
Resources:

          * * * of which $12,758,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
        $54,242,000 shall be available for transfer to the 
        Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, and 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 appropriation under this heading * * *

    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related 
Resources:

          * * * That the unexpended balances of the Bureau of 
        Reclamation appropriation accounts for ``Construction 
        Program (Including Transfer of Funds)'', ``General 
        Investigations'', ``Emergency Fund'', and ``Operation 
        and Maintenance'' shall be transferred to and merged 
        with this account, to be available for the purposes for 
        which they originally were appropriated.

    Under Title II, Bureau of Reclamation, California Bay-Delta 
Ecosystem Restoration:
          * * * of which such amounts as may be necessary to 
        conform with such plans shall be transferred to 
        appropriate accounts of such Federal agencies * * *

    Under Title III, General Provisions--Transfer of unexpended 
balances:
    Sec. 310. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
appropriation accounts for such activities established pursuant 
to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds 
in the applicable established accounts and thereafter may be 
accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
originally enacted.
    Under Title IV, Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

          * * * That from this appropriation, transfers of sums 
        may be made to other agencies of the Government for the 
        performance of the work for which this appropriation is 
        made, and in such cases the sums so transferred may be 
        merged with the appropriation to which transferred: * * 
        *

    Under Title IV, Office of Inspector General:

          * * * and in addition, an amount not to exceed 5 
        percent of this sum may be transferred from Salaries 
        and Expenses, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Provided, 
        That notice of such transfers shall be given to the 
        Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate: 
        Provided further, That from this appropriation, 
        transfers of sums may be made to other agencies of the 
        Government for the performance of the work for which 
        this appropriation is made, and in such cases the sums 
        so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to 
        which transferred: * * *

                 Changes in Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill 
which may directly or indirectly change or be perceived to 
change the application of existing law.

                      Title I--Corps of Engineers

    Language is included under Corps of Engineers, General 
Investigations, providing for detailed studies and plans and 
specifications of projects prior to construction. Language is 
also included under General Investigations directing the 
Secretary of the Army to use $600,000 of the funds appropriated 
in Public Law 102-377 for the feasibility phase of the Red 
River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, study and directing the 
Secretary of the Army to use $470,000 of the funds appropriated 
in the bill to initiate the feasibility phase of the 
Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, Kentucky, project.
    Language is included under Construction, General, 
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund. Language is also included under Construction, General, 
providing that $10,000,000 of the funds provided for the South 
Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement Program is 
available only for work in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, 
Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe Counties. Language is also included 
under Construction, General, directing the Secretary of the 
Army to proceed with design and construction of the Southeast 
Louisiana, Louisiana, project. Language is included under 
Construction, General, authorizing and directing the Secretary 
of the Army to combine three projects into a single project. 
Under Construction, General, language is included directing the 
Secretary of the Army to incorporate the economic analyses for 
the Green Ridge and Plot sections of the Lackawanna River, 
Scranton, project with the Albright Street section of the 
project and to cost share all elements as a single project. 
Under Construction, General, language is included earmarking 
funds for the Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, project.
    For Operation and Maintenance, General, the following 
language is included:

          * * * including such sums as may be necessary for the 
        maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State, 
        municipality, or other public agency, outside of harbor 
        lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce 
        and navigation; * * *

    Also under Operation and Maintenance, General, language is 
included providing for construction, operation, and maintenance 
of outdoor recreation facilities and permitting the use of 
funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is 
included under Operation and Maintenance, General, directing 
the Secretary of the Army to use previously appropriated funds 
to reimburse the local sponsor of the Fort Myers Beach project 
for dredging performed by the local sponsor.
    Under the Regulatory Program, language is included 
regarding the regulation of navigable waters and wetlands of 
the United States.
     Under General Expenses, language is included relating to 
the Coastal Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer 
Support Center Activity, the Engineering Strategic Studies 
Center, the Water Resources Support Center, and 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 under General Expenses permitting the 
use of funds to implement a plan to reduce the number of 
division offices.
    Language is included under the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program providing that increased funds in 
fiscal year 1998 are only available for those sites which have 
a technical plan, schedule, and life-cycle cost estimate for 
the work to be performed; the remedy selected for cleanup meets 
reasonably anticipated future land and ground water uses; the 
remedy selected reduces, where practicable, the amount of 
materials to be treated or disposed; and the cleanup plan has 
been presented to the affected communities and other 
regulators, and has not received substantial disagreement.
    Under Administrative Provisions, language is included 
providing that funds are available for purchase and hire of 
motor vehicles.

                    Title II--Department of Interior

    Language is 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 funds 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 derived from the Reclamation Fund 
of the special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i). 
Language is included under Water and Related Resources which 
provides that funds contributed by non-Federal entities shall 
be available for expenditure. Language is provided under Water 
and Related Resources providing the cost of safety of dams work 
at Coolidge Dam, Arizona, is in addition to the amount 
authorized for safety of dams work in 43 U.S.C 506. Language is 
included under Water and Related Resources transferring to and 
merging with Water and Related Resources the unexpended 
balances in Bureau of Reclamation accounts for Construction 
Program, General Investigations, and Operation and Maintenance.
    For the Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account, 
language is included providing that funds may be derived form 
the Reclamation Fund.
    Under the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration 
account, language is included providing that funds may be 
transferred to other participating Federal agencies. Language 
is included under the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem 
Restoration account providing that funds may be obligated only 
as non-Federal sources provide their share in accordance with 
section 102(d) of the California Bay-Delta Environmental 
Enhancement and Water Security Act. Language is provided under 
the California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration account 
providing that funds may be obligated prior to completion of a 
programmatic Environmental Impact Statement only if consistent 
with 40 C.F.R. 1506.1(c) and used for purposes that the 
Secretary of the Interior finds are of sufficiently high 
priority to warrant such expenditure.
    Under Policy and Administration, language is included 
making the funds available until expended. Language is included 
under Policy and Administration providing that funds may be 
derived from the Reclamation Fund. Language is included under 
Policy and Administration referring to the five regions of the 
Bureau of Reclamation. Language is included under Policy and 
Administration prohibiting the use of other appropriations for 
policy and administration functions.
    Under Administrative Provisions language is included 
providing for the purchase of motor vehicles.

                    Title III--Department of Energy

    Language is included under the Science account providing 
that $35,000,000 shall be derived from unobligated balances 
originally available for Superconducting Super Collider 
temination activities.
    Language is included under the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund 
providing that none of the funds appropriated under that 
heading shall be distributed to the State of Nevada or affected 
units of local government for financial assistance.
    Language is included under the Departmental Administration 
account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and consistent with 
the authorization in Public Law 95-238, to permit the 
Department of Energy to utilize 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 is included under the Bonneville Power 
Administration account precluding any new direct loan 
obligations, and approving expenditures for anadromous fish 
supplementation facilities in the Yakima River Basin, Methow 
River Basin, and Upper Snake River Basin, for the Billy Shaw 
Reservoir resident fish substitution project, and for the 
resident trout fish culture facility in Southeast Idaho, and 
prohibiting any new direct loan obligations.
    Language is included under the Southeastern Power 
Administration to permit Southeastern to utilize reimbursements 
for transmission wheeling and ancillary services, 
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302.
    Language is included under the Southwestern Power 
Administration to permit Southwestern to utilize 
reimbursements, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language 
has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included under the Construction, 
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
Administration account providing for the replacement of two 
helicopters, and providing $5,432,000 for deposit into the Utah 
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account pursuant to 
Title IV of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1992.
    Language is included under the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to permit the hire of passenger motor vehicles, to 
provide official entertainment expenses, and to permit the use 
of revenues collected to reduce the appropriation as revenues 
are received.
    Language is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, providing that management and operating contracts 
must be awarded using competitive procedures.
    Language is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, requiring 60 days notice to the Committees on 
Appropriations if the Secretary of Energy awards, amends, or 
modifies a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation.
    Language is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, requiring that all contracts for support services 
be supported by OMB Circular A-76 studies showing that the 
contract costs are lower than the cost of performing such 
services by Department of Energy personnel.
    Language is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, prohibiting payments to a management and operating 
contractor to provide products or services for use by 
Department of Energy personnel.
    Language is 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 is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds to augment the funding 
provided for section 3161 of Public Law 102-484.
    Language is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, directing the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, to provide an independent assessment of 
the Department of Energy's new construction projects before 
funds can be obligated in fiscal year 1998.
    Language is 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 is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, prohibiting the use of funds in this Act to 
influence congressional action on any legislation or 
appropriation matters pending before Congress.
    Language is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, providing the unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations may be transferred and merged with new 
appropriation accounts established in this Act.

                     title iv--independent agencies

    Language is included under Appalachian Regional Commission 
waiving Section 405 of the Appalachian Regional Development 
Act.
    Language is included under the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission allowing transfer of appropriations to other 
agencies for certain necessary activities. Language is included 
to exclude the costs of NRC reviews and assistance to the 
Department of Energy and other Federal agencies from license 
fee revenues. Language is also included to permit the NRC to 
utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations, 
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried 
in previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included under the Office of Inspector General 
to permit transfer of funds to other agencies for performance 
of work, and to utilize revenues collected to offset 
appropriations, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language 
has been carried in previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included under Tennessee Valley Authority 
providing for the funding of nonpower activities with 
internally generated savings and revenues, notwithstanding 
sections 11, 14, 15, 29, or other provisions of the Tennessee 
Valley Authority Act, as amended.

                  appropriations not authorized by law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations 
in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
          Construction, General
          Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
    Department of Energy:
          Energy Supply
          Non-Defense Environmental Management
          Science
          Departmental Administration
          Office of Inspector General
          Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund
          Weapons Activities
          Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
        Management
          Other Defense Activities
          Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
          Power Marketing Administrations
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    Appalachian Regional Commission
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Office of Inspector General
    The Committee notes that the annual authorizing legislation 
for many of these programs is in various stages of the 
legislative process. It is anticipated these authorizations 
will be enacted into law later this year.

          COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3 (RAMSEYER)

    In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics):
    The accompanying bill would amend Section 114 of Public Law 
101-101, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
1990, as follows:
    Sec. 114. Notwithstanding section 601(b) of Public Law 99-
662, the project for flood damage prevention, along the Rillito 
River, Pima County, Arizona, is authorized for construction in 
accordance with the plans described in the report of the Chief 
of Engineers dated January 22, 1988, at a [total cost of 
$19,600,000] total cost of $40,000,000 with an estimated first 
Federal cost of $14,600,000.


