[House Report 105-581]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-581
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1999

                                _______
                                

 June 16, 1998.--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. 4060]

    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, 1999, 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.....
                                                                      7
                General Investigations.....................     2
                                                                      7
                Construction, general......................     4
                                                                     27
                Flood control, Mississippi River and 
                    tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
                    Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
                    Missouri, and Tennessee................     8
                                                                     41
                Operation and maintenance, general.........     8
                                                                     43
                Regulatory program.........................     9
                                                                     57
                Flood control and coastal emergencies......
                                                                     57
                Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
                    Program................................     9
                                                                     58
                General expenses...........................     9
                                                                     58
                Administrative provision...................    10

II. Department of the Interior:
        Central Utah Project completion account............    10
                                                                     61
        Bureau of Reclamation:
                Water and related resources................    11
                                                                     61
                Bureau of Reclamation loan program account.    12
                                                                     72
                Central Valley Project restoration fund....    13
                                                                     75
                California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration.    14
                                                                     75
                Policy and Administration..................    14
                                                                     76
                Administrative provision...................    15

III. Department of Energy:
        Introduction.......................................
                                                                     77
        Energy supply......................................    15
                                                                     82
        Non-defense environmental management...............    16
                                                                     91
        Uranium enrichment decontamination and 
            decommissioning fund...........................    16
                                                                     92
        Science............................................    16
                                                                     92
        Nuclear waste disposal fund........................    17
                                                                     96
        Departmental administration........................    18
                                                                     97
        Office of inspector general........................    19
                                                                     99
        Atomic energy defense activities:
                Weapons activities.........................    19
                                                                     99
                Defense environmental restoration and waste 
                    management.............................    20
                                                                    103
                Defense facilities closure projects........    20
                                                                    109
                Defense environmental management 
                    privatization..........................    21
                                                                    110
                Other defense activities...................    21
                                                                    111
                Defense nuclear waste disposal.............    21
                                                                    117
        Power marketing administrations:
                Alaska Power Administration................
                                                                    119
                Bonneville Power Administration............    22
                                                                    119
                Southeastern Power Administration..........    22
                                                                    120
                Southwestern Power Administration..........    22
                                                                    120
                Western Area Power Administration..........    23
                                                                    120
                Falcon and Amistad operating and 
                    maintenance fund.......................    24
                                                                    121
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...............    24
                                                                    122
        General Provisions.................................    25
                                                                    131
IV. Independent agencies:
        Appalachian Regional Commission....................    28
                                                                    133
        Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............    28
                                                                    133
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................    29
                                                                    134
        Office of Inspector General........................    30
                                                                    136
        Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board...............    30
                                                                    136
        Tennessee Valley Authority.........................
                                                                    137
V. General Provisions......................................    30
                                                                    139
House Reporting Requirements...............................
                                                                    145

                Summary of Estimates and Recommendations

    The Committee has considered budget estimates which are 
contained in the Budget of the United States Government, 1999. 
The following table summarizes appropriations for fiscal year 
1998, the budget estimates, and amounts recommended in the bill 
for fiscal year 1999.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  1998 recommendation compared with--   
                                                    1998              1999 estimate      1999 recommendation -------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               1998 appropriation       1999 estimate   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of Defense--Civil.....        4,169,599,000         3,222,000,000         3,966,028,000         (-203,571,000)          744,028,000 
Title II--Department of the Interior......          916,134,000           934,297,000           803,757,000          (112,377,000)         (130,540,000)
Title III--Department of Energy...........       15,898,574,000        17,070,365,000        16,203,560,000           304,986,000          (866,805,000)
Title IV--Independent Agencies............          277,600,000           498,800,000           103,000,000          (174,600,000)         (395,800,000)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................       21,261,907,000        21,725,462,000        21,076,345,000         (-185,562,000)         (649,117,000)
Scorekeeping adjustments..................         (529,705,000)         (424,000,000)         (424,000,000)          105,705,000   ....................
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total of bill.................       20,732,202,000        21,301,462,000        20,652,345,000          (-79,857,000)         (649,117,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 1999 represents an opportunity to do more with 
less. Because of deep reductions in available resources for 
domestic discretionary programs, total spending in the bill is 
below that of fiscal year 1998. But by reordering the 
Administration's often misguided priorities, focusing resources 
on those areas of investment promising the greatest returns, 
and demanding greater efficiencies from program administrators, 
the Committee has produced a bill that is balanced, 
responsible, and protective of the Federal taxpayer.
    The Committee has soundly rejected the Administration's 
attempt to eviscerate the civil works program of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. The Administration's antipathy toward water 
infrastructure is reflected in a budget that decimates the 
construction program of the Corps. The budget withholds 
resources from the vital national priorities of flood control, 
navigation and shoreline protection. At the same time, the 
budget continues its insidious subversion of the Corps' 
traditional missions, neglecting cost-effective infrastructure 
investments in order to expand the Corps' involvement in 
environmentally related programs.
    The Committee strongly believes in protecting and restoring 
the natural environment, and it acknowledges that the Corps has 
an important role to play in the restoration of aquatic 
resources. The Committee's commitment to the environment is, in 
fact, reflected in the Energy and Water Bill, which increases 
funding for numerous environmental restoration projects above 
the budget request.
    The Committee, however, does not believe that protection of 
the environment can be pursued only at the expense of our 
economy and physical security. By shifting considerable sums of 
money away from navigation improvements, the Administration 
suggests that our competitiveness in international markets is a 
secondary priority. By withdrawing funds from flood protection 
projects, the Administration makes a similar comment on the 
safety and well being of the American people.
    With its budget for fiscal year 1999, the Administration 
asserts that there are insufficient resources available to 
continue ongoing flood protection projects across the country. 
Congress is told that, because of budgetary constraints, it is 
necessary to cancel harbor maintenance and shoreline protection 
projects that are currently in the construction pipeline. At 
the same time, however, the budget requests $25 million for a 
brand new, unauthorized spending program, the Challenge 21 
Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation 
program. This demonstrates that the Administration is not so 
much constrained by budget realities as it is driven by an 
aversion to water infrastructure and a blindness to its wealth 
producing benefits for the Nation.
    In fiscal year 1996, the Administration requested funding 
for three Corps of Engineers projects identified as 
environmental in nature. In fiscal year 1997, that number shot 
up to thirty-two. In fiscal year 1998, the Administration's 
request included fifty-two such projects. For fiscal year 
1999--a year for which the Administration proposes to cut the 
construction budget in half, terminate scores of ongoing 
projects, and increase the exposure of the citizenry to the 
devastating consequences of flooding--the budget includes 
eighty-eight environmental restoration projects. In three short 
years, the number of environmental projects for which the 
Administration has sought funding has increased by 2,833%.
    The Committee rejects the proposition that the principal 
mission of all Federal agencies should be environmental 
protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental 
Protection Agency are, for example, aggressive stewards of the 
environment, unhesitatingly bringing to bear the full force of 
their regulatory powers in pursuit of their goals. Having 
already witnessed the unbidden transformation of the Bureau of 
Reclamation from a dam-building agency to a water resources 
management and protection agency, the Committee is wary of 
further efforts to sap the nation of its water infrastructure 
expertise in order to feed the unrestrained growth of a Federal 
environmental bureaucracy.
    Although funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is reduced 
from the fiscal year 1998 level, the Committee has provided the 
funding necessary to maintain, operate and rehabilitate Bureau 
projects throughout the western United States. The Committee 
remains deeply committed to protecting the substantial Federal 
investment in these important national resources.
    The Committee observes that, as dam construction and water 
distribution activity dwindles, the funding requirements for 
these capital-intensive activities will continue to shrink. The 
West, in short, has been reclaimed, and serious consideration 
is due the question of the Bureau's appropriate and abiding 
role in this fully developed region of our country.
    In the oldest tradition of bureaucracy, however, the Bureau 
has already embraced new missions in a crusade of institutional 
perpetuation. The Bureau, having proclaimed its new mission to 
be water resource management and protection, is pursuing with 
vigor a new range of activities through which it will aspire to 
demonstrate its indispensability. These activities include 
partnering, technical assistance, water conservation and 
management planning, strategic analyses, development of 
integrated management programs and system integration 
alternatives, resource inventories, and environmental 
enhancements. Although the Committee has provided generously 
for these activities in fiscal year 1999, it intends to 
intensively scrutinize their value to the taxpaying public.
    Management of the Department of Energy continues to be 
unfocused and inefficient. On almost any issue, all of the 
right words are said, but implementation seldom lives up to the 
advance notice. As the Committee has noted previously, the 
Department of Energy lacks a corporate vision, and exhibits 
little coordination among the countless activities that 
substitute for a departmental mission. However, many of these 
programs are important for the national well being. 
Accordingly, the Committee has provided adequately for those 
programs intended to: promote the national defense; cleanup the 
hazardous and radioactive waste that is the legacy of our 
nuclear weapons complex; and advance the sciences.
    Like last year, the Committee has included statutory 
provisions to improve the management of the Department of 
Energy's programs through increased contract competition and 
standard contract language. Direction has also been provided 
instructing the Department to: review the current Headquarters 
and field organization structure to eliminate overlap, 
duplication, and inefficiencies; develop a plan to assign 
responsibility for Department-wide computer security to a 
single, accountable individual; review overhead rates charged 
by contractors in an attempt to gain more direct program 
funding; reduce the number of support service and management 
and operating (M&O) contractors assigned to Headquarters; and 
reduce excessive contractor training costs.
    In fiscal year 1998, Congress provided final-year funding 
for stewardship activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority. 
For fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, TVA is empowered and 
directed to fund these activities, including flood control 
navigation, and management of aquatic vegetation growth along 
the Tennessee River and tributaries, with internally generated 
savings and revenues. The Committee is confident that TVA, 
consistent with its public service responsibilities as a 
Federal agency, will continue to make the necessary investments 
in these programs. The Committee observes that assumption of 
these modest costs by the Federal utility--which is projected 
to receive $6.5 billion in revenues in fiscal year 1999--would 
have no measurable effect on the region's ratepayers, who have 
for generations enjoyed below-market rates for Federally 
produced power. The Committee further observes that there is 
economic value to TVA in retaining the Tennessee River system 
as an integrated system for hydropower production, flood 
control, navigation, and related purposes, and that this value 
may well exceed the costs of the so-called non-power 
activities.
    Authorization for projects and agencies funded by the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations 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 
vital government services.
                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

                              Introduction

    The Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request for 
the civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is 
breathtaking in its recklessness. In halving the construction 
program of the Corps, the Administration has submitted the 
lowest construction budget, in terms of real dollars, in the 
history of the civil works program. Moreover, this 
irresponsible budget terminates scores of water infrastructure 
projects currently in the construction pipeline. It provides 
nothing more than fragile life support for dozens more. It 
dictates excessive delays in project completion schedules. It 
results in alarming cost increases. It squanders untold sums 
that the American taxpayer has already invested in civil works 
projects nationwide. Most shocking, it unnecessarily increases 
the exposure of the American people to the devastating threats 
of floods, and it weakens our competitiveness in international 
commerce.
    In fact, the Administration knows that Congress cannot, 
will not, accept these draconian reductions in a program that 
produces such important and demonstrable economic benefits for 
the Nation. In relying on Congress to do the right thing and 
restore funding for civil works, the Administration has 
proposed these reductions as yet another in an endless series 
of gimmicks to fund new spending programs and to increase 
spending on pet initiatives. If one wonders whether the 
Administration submitted a phony budget for fiscal year 1999, 
one need look no further than the Energy and Water Bill to 
discover the answer.
    Unlike the Administration, the Committee recognizes that 
the Nation's water infrastructure needs are not at an all-time 
low. Furthermore, the Committee appreciates the value that the 
civil works program has in protecting American life and 
property and in promoting our international competitiveness. As 
a consequence, the Committee has produced a balanced and 
responsible budget for the civil works program of the Corps of 
Engineers--one that bears little resemblance to the 
Administration's proposal.

                         General Investigations

Appropriation, 1998-....................................   $156,804,000-
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     150,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     162,823,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998-................................      +6,019,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................     +12,823,000

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





    Baldwin County, Alabama.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study to investigate flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration in the watersheds in Baldwin County.
    Bayou LaBatre, Alabama.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study to evaluate an alternative, more efficient 
navigation route from the mouth of the bayou to the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Coastal Studies for Navigation Improvements, Brevig 
Mission, Alaska.--The Committee has provided $200,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to initiate the feasibility study on the 
development of a small boat harbor at Brevig Mission, Alaska.
    Tutuila, American Samoa.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of alternative locations for the 
development of a harbor at Tutuila, American Samoa. -
    Colonias Along U.S.-Mexico Border, Arizona and Texas.--The 
recommendation includes $800,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
provide planning and design assistance for water infrastructure 
improvements in Cochise County, Arizona, Old Nogales Highway 
Colonia, Pima County, Arizona, and the City of San Luis in Yuma 
County, Arizona.
    Little Colorado River Watershed, Arizona.--The 
recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of 
the Little Colorado River Watershed in northern Arizona.
    Rillito River, Pima County, Arizona.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete a 
reconnaissance study and initiate the feasibility phase of a 
project to address the environmentally degraded, flood-prone 
area between Craycroft Road and Country Club Road on the 
Rillito River in Pima County, Arizona.
    Santa Cruz River (Paseo de Las Iglesias), Arizona.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete a reconnaissance study and initiate the feasibility 
phase of a project to address the environmentally degraded, 
flood-prone area upstream of the City of Tucson downtown area 
on the Santa Cruz River, in Pima County, Arizona.
    Arkansas River, Fort Smith, Arkansas.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study of flooding in unprotected 
areas outside of the existing flood control levee at Fort 
Smith, Arkansas.
    Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas.--The Committee 
has included language in the bill which directs the Corps of 
Engineers to continue 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.
    Clear Lake Basin Watershed Restoration, California.--The 
recommendation includes $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete technical study and design efforts for restoration of 
the Clear Lake Basin Watershed under Section 503 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996.
    Huntington Beach, Blufftop Park, California.--The Committee 
has provided $300,000 for the feasibility study of protecting 
the shoreline and bluff from further erosion damages.
    Newport Bay (LA-3 Site Designation Study), California.--The 
Committee has provided $350,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
coordinate report preparation and field studies with the 
Environmental Protection Agency to complete the designation 
process at Newport Bay, California.
    Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed, California.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate a feasibility study of environmental preservation, 
restoration and related purposes in the San Diego Creek 
Watershed, north of Newport Bay, California.
    Rancho Palos Verdes, California.--The Committee has 
provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Rancho Palos 
Verdes, California, project.
    Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive 
Study, California.--The recommendation includes $5,500,000, an 
increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request, for this 
critical effort. The additional resources will be used to 
continue the feasibility studies on an optimum schedule and 
advance completion by twelve months.
    Sacramento Watershed Management Plan, California.--The 
recommendation includes $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue to provide planning, technical and design assistance, 
as authorized under Section 503 of the Water Resources 
Development Act, for such priority tasks as are identified by 
the City of Sacramento, the non-Federal sponsor of the project.
    San Bernardino County, California.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to 
investigate flood damage prevention and related opportunities 
along the Wilson Creek and in the Lytle Creek Confluence Area 
in California.
    San Pablo Bay Watershed, California.--The Committee has 
provided $500,000 to provide the San Pablo Baylands 
Partnership, the non-Federal sponsor of the project, with 
technical assistance, as authorized under section 503 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, on the development of 
a sustainable and environmentally beneficial levee maintenance 
and restoration program.
    Santa Margarita River and Tributaries, California.--The 
recommendation includes $800,000 to accelerate completion of 
the feasibility study that will address flood control, 
environmental enhancement, and recreation for Murrieta Creek.
    Seismic Reliability Studies, California.--The Committee has 
provided funding to bring to a conclusion demonstration studies 
on the seismic reliability of public infrastructure in Southern 
California. Follow-on funding has been provided for the Cities 
of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, California, project; the City of 
Huntington Beach, California, project; and the Southeast Los 
Angeles County Water Conservation and Supply, California, 
project. The Committee recognizes that other communities 
throughout the region, such as Newport Beach, can benefit from 
the information collected and knowledge derived as a result of 
these studies. Accordingly, the Corps is directed to widely 
disseminate such information as is useful and to assist in the 
development of broadly applicable seismic reliability standards 
for the benefit of communities subject to seismic risk.
    Southern California Aquatic Resources, California.--The 
Committee has provided $600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the special area management plan of aquatic and 
riparian resources in Orange County, California.
    Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, California.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance report on flooding 
problems along the Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs in 
California.
    Sutter Basin, California.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of levee improvement measures for existing 
levee systems and additional areas of flood protection for the 
Sutter Basin in California.
    Upper Santa Ana River Watershed, California.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study of the Upper 
Santa Ana River Watershed, California.
    Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $119,000 to continue preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Villas and Vicinity portion, 
$100,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for 
the Roosevelt/Lewes Beach portion, $100,000 to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Broadkill Beach 
portion, and $200,000 to continue preconstruction engineering 
and design for the Port Mahon portion of the project.
    Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, 
Delaware.--The Committee has provided $150,000 to advance 
completion of preconstruction engineering and design for the 
Rehoboth Beach/Dewey Beach portion and $100,000 to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design for the Bethany Beach to 
South Bethany Beach portion of the project.
    Dade County Water Reuse, Florida.--The Committee has 
provided $277,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
hydraulic, hydrology and economic studies of the Dade County 
Water Reuse, Florida, project.
    Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--In designing navigational 
improvements to the St. Johns River Channel, the Secretary of 
the Army shall coordinate with the Secretary of the Navy with 
respect to the channel improvements which would be needed for 
accommodating a nuclear aircraft carrier at the Mayport Naval 
facility.
    Lido Key Beach, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$268,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the feasibility 
study of the Lido Key Beach, Florida, project.
    St. Johns River, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$223,000 for the Corps of Engineers to develop and calibrate 
the Phase III water quality model for the St. Johns River.
    Tampa Harbor, Alafia Channel, Florida.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
preconstruction engineering and design of the Tampa Harbor, 
Alafia Channel, Florida, project.
    Illinois Shoreline Erosion (Interim IV), Illinois.--The 
Committee has provided $140,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete the wave flume model test, revise the feasibility 
report, and complete review requirements associated with the 
Illinois Shoreline Erosion, Illinois, project.
    Rock River Drainage Basin, Illinois.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study on environmental restoration 
opportunities in the Rock River Drainage Basin, Illinois.
    Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso, Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate 
and complete a reconnaissance study on flooding and ecosystem 
restoration opportunities in the Beauty Creek Watershed in 
Indiana.
    Deep River Basin, Indiana.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study for watershed management, flood damage 
prevention, ecosystem restoration, and the safety of Lake 
George Dam.
    Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design of the Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, 
project.
    Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana.--The 
Committee has provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete the general design memorandum and initiate plans and 
specifications for the Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh 
Ditch, Indiana, project.
    Wolf and George Lakes, Hammond, Indiana.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study of alternatives for restoring 
the environmental quality of Wolf and George Lakes in Indiana.
    Greenup, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of flood damage reduction alternatives for 
Greenup, Kentucky.
    Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, Kentucky.--The 
Committee has provided $155,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the feasibility phase of the Metropolitan Louisville, 
Southwest, Kentucky, project.
    Russell, Kentucky.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of flood damage reduction alternatives for 
Russell, Kentucky.
    Calcasieu Lock, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance 
study of the Calcasieu Lock, a feature of the Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway.
    Comite River, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes 
$1,100,000, an increase of $1,000,000 over the budget request, 
to complete plans and specifications and finalize preparations 
for construction of the Comite River, Louisiana, project.
    Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, Louisiana.--The 
Committee has provided $1,800,000 above the request to complete 
preliminary engineering and design and prepare for construction 
of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock Replacement project 
in Louisiana. Although the Committee has been compelled to 
defer the initiation of new construction starts due to budget 
constraints, it is aware of the dire need to begin this 
project, and, in doing so, to provide funding for the community 
impact mitigation plan.
    Port Fourchon, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes 
$50,000 to continue preconstruction engineering and design 
activities associated with the Port Fourchon, Louisiana, 
project.
    Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to begin preparation of the 
General Design Memorandum.
    Arthur Kill Channel, Howland Hook Marine Terminal, New York 
and New Jersey.--The Committee has included an additional 
$673,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the first set 
of plans and specifications for the 41-foot project and 
continue the evaluation of the 45-foot deep project.
    Arthur Kill Channel, Perth Amboy, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study of extending the 
channel to Perth Amboy from the Howland Hook Marine Terminal.
    Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $322,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete the feasibility phase of this project.
    Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey.--
The Committee has provided $113,000 to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design for the Absecon Island element and 
$200,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering and design for 
the Brigantine Island element of the project.
    Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the feasibility study for this project.
    Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue preconstruction engineering and design.
    Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue the feasibility study.
    Raritan Bay to Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.--The Committee 
has provided $275,000 to continue the feasibility study of the 
Cliffwood Beach element, $100,000 to initiate the feasibility 
study of the Highlands element, $100,000 to initiate the 
feasibility study of the Keyport element, $325,000 to continue 
the feasibility study of the Union Beach element, $100,000 to 
continue the feasibility study of the Leonardo element, and 
$200,000 to complete preconstruction engineering and design of 
the Port Monmouth element of the project.
    Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue preconstruction engineering and design of the 
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, project.
    Bronx River, New York.--The Committee has provided $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance report for flood control, environmental 
restoration and related purposes.
    Oneida Lake, New York.--The Committee has provided $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study on the removal of silt and aquatic growth 
at Oneida Lake.
    Otsego Lake, New York.--The Committee has provided $350,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study for 
the environmental restoration of Otsego Lake.
    Saw Mill River Basin, New York.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of the Saw Mill River in Westchester 
County.
    Lockwoods Folly Inlet, North Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the 
feasibility phase of the Lockwoods Folly Inlet, North Carolina, 
project.
    Neuse River Basin, North Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study of basin-wide flood damage 
reduction alternatives, ecosystem restoration, and related 
purposes in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina.
    Beaver River, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided 
$444,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete preconstruction 
engineering and design of the Beaver River, Pennsylvania, 
project.
    Buck and Brock Creeks, Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study of flood damage reduction 
alternatives for Buck and Brock Creeks in Pennsylvania.
    Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee River, Tennessee.--The 
recommendation includes $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate and complete a reconnaissance study on the Federal 
interest in rehabilitation or replacement of Chickamauga Lock 
for navigation on the Tennessee River.
    Davidson County, Tennessee.--The Committee has provided 
$100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of flood damage reduction alternatives for 
Davidson County, Tennessee.
    French Broad Watershed, Tennessee.--The Committee has 
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and 
complete a reconnaissance study of ecosystem restoration 
alternatives for the French Broad Watershed in Tennessee.
    Nolichucky Watershed, Tennessee.--The Committee has 
provided $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate the 
feasibility study for the Nolichucky Watershed, Tennessee, 
project.
    Onion Creek, Texas.--The Committee has provided $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study for flood damage prevention and ecosystem 
restoration along Onion Creek in Texas.
    Sulphur River, Texas.--The Committee has provided $100,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study that will identify potential measures for 
flood damage reduction and environmental restoration along the 
Sulphur River in Texas.
    Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, Virginia.--The Committee 
has provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
feasibility study for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Hampton, 
Virginia, project.
    Pulaski, Virginia.--The Committee has provided $100,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to initiate and complete a 
reconnaissance study of flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
restoration alternatives for Pulaski, Virginia.
    Tri-Cities Area Rivershore Enhancement, Washington.--The 
Committee has provided $550,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
initiate studies of modifications to the existing levee system 
for improved shoreline habitat in the Tri-Cities area of 
Washington.
    Other Coordination Programs.--The Committee has provided 
$8,000,000, a reduction of $400,000 from the budget request, 
for Other Coordination Programs. Within this amount, $300,000 
is provided for Interagency and International Support. These 
funds will permit the Corps of Engineers to continue its 
participation with other Federal agencies and international 
organizations in addressing domestic and international issues 
related to water resources, infrastructure planning and 
development, and environmental protection and restoration. The 
Committee has also fully funded the budget request of $250,000 
for the Chesapeake Bay Program in order for the Corps to 
continue its important role in Chesapeake Bay coordination 
activities.
    Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee has provided 
$5,300,000, the full amount of the budget request, for the 
Section 22 program. Within the amount provided, $300,000 is for 
the preparation of a county-wide flood hazard mitigation plan 
for Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. $150,000 is provided to 
initiate and complete a special study leading to a Master Plan 
for the Cherokee Reservation in North Carolina.
    Research and Development.--Within the $27,000,000 provided 
for Research and Development, $1,500,000 is dedicated to the 
Zebra Mussel Research Program. These funds will be used by the 
Corps to continue development of control strategies for 
navigation structures, hydropower and other utilities, vessels 
and dredges, and other water control structures. Within 
available funds the Committee urges the Corps to further 
implement the Environmental Modeling, Simulation, and 
Assessment Center at the Waterways Experiment Station.

                         Construction, General

Appropriation, 1998.....................................  $1,473,373,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     784,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................   1,456,529,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................     -16,844,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................    +672,529,000

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





    Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas.--The 
Committee has provided $2,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue construction of Hurricane Revetments, Phase II, in 
Arkansas.
    Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam, 
Texas.--The Committee has provided $1,400,000 to continue 
design and construction for a bendway weir demonstration 
project at the U.S. Highway 271 bridge between Oklahoma and 
Texas.
    American River Watershed, California (Natomas).--The 
Committee has provided $10,100,000 for reimbursement to the 
sponsor of the American River Watershed, California (Natomas), 
project.
    Norco Bluffs, California.--The bill includes $4,400,000 to 
complete construction of the Norco Bluffs, California, project.
    Port of Long Beach, California.--The Committee has provided 
$6,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the deepening project at the Port of Long Beach, California.
    Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, California.--The 
bill includes an additional $3,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue engineering, design and construction of 
sites on the lower American River and to complete construction 
of Reclamation District 108-Colusa Basin Drain.
    Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, 
California.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the 
gradient restoration project, $1,300,000 more than the budget 
request. The project is an important component of the Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District fish protection program that must 
stay on schedule.
    Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.--The Committee has 
provided $53,000,000 to complete the Seven Oaks and Reach Eight 
elements of the Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, project. 
The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to continue with 
construction of the San Timoteo Creek element utilizing 
previously appropriated funds.
    Faulkner Island, Connecticut.--The Committee has provided 
$2,600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of shoreline protection measures.
    Broward County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$1,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to execute a Project 
Cooperation Agreement and initiate reimbursement to the sponsor 
of the Broward County, Florida, project.
    Dade County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$6,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue engineering 
and design efforts and ongoing construction work associated 
with the Dade County, Florida, project.
    Indian River County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue engineering and 
design for construction at Vero Beach.
    Lee County, Florida.--The Committee has provided $300,000 
to complete the General Reevaluation Report (GRR) for Estero 
and Gasparilla Islands.
    Miami Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$25,000,000 to reimburse the Miami-Dade County Seaport 
Department for the Federal share of dredging work which has 
been accomplished and an additional $300,000 to initiate a 
General Reevaluation Report (GRR) to determine the feasibility 
of further Port deepening.
    Palm Valley Bridge, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$2,600,000 for the continuation of efforts to replace the 
existing bridge.
    Panama City Beaches, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$6,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue to provide 
reimbursement to the sponsor for the Federal share of 
construction of the Panama City Beaches, Florida, project.
    Pinellas County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$5,679,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue the beach 
renourishment project at Pinellas County, Florida.
    St. Johns County, Florida.--The Committee has provided 
$250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete plans and 
specifications for the St. Johns County, Florida, project.
    Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee has provided 
$1,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete construction 
of the Tybee Island, Georgia, project.
    Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, 
Illinois.--The Committee has provided $500,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue design and construction of an 
environmental dispersal barrier in the Canal to prevent the 
spread of exotic species between the Great Lakes and 
Mississippi River ecosystems.
    Chicago Shoreline Protection Project.--The Committee notes 
that Section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out this storm 
damage reduction and shoreline erosion project. The Committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army to proceed immediately with 
design and construction of the Chicago Shoreline, Illinois, 
project, with 2003 as the expected completion date of the 
project. The Committee further directs the Secretary of the 
Army to use, to the maximum extent possible, work of the non-
Federal sponsors to reach the 2003 completion schedule. The 
Committee considers this project to be a priority and expects 
the Corps to proceed with construction on an optimum schedule.
    Des Plaines Wetlands Demonstration Project, Illinois.--The 
Committee remains supportive of this project and understands 
that sufficient funds will be carried forward into fiscal year 
1999 to meet project requirements for the coming year.
    East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois (Interior Flood 
Control).--The Committee has provided $375,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue the general reevaluation report on the 
East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois (Interior Flood Control), 
project.
    O'Hare Reservoir, Illinois.--The Committee has provided 
$1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to pay settled contractor 
claims associated with the O'Hare Reservoir, Illinois, project.
    Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana.--The Committee has 
provided $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to modify the 
third construction contract to complete the initial placement 
of beach material and continue the associated monitoring 
program of the Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, project.
    Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana.--The Committee 
has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to prepare 
plans and specifications for additional construction contracts 
for the Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, project.
    Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana.--The Committee has 
provided $1,700,000 for the continuation of ongoing 
construction of the Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana, 
project.
    Wabash River, New Harmony, Indiana.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
construction of the Wabash River, New Harmony, Indiana, 
project.
    Missouri River Levee System, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and 
Missouri.--The Committee has provided $400,000 to complete 
plans and specifications for Levee Unit L-385 and $450,000 to 
continue engineering and design of the Levee Unit L-142 of the 
Missouri River Levee System.
    Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky.--The Committee has 
provided $11,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky, project.
    McAlpine Locks and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.--The 
recommendation includes $6,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 
over the budget request, for the McAlpine Locks and Dam, 
Kentucky and Indiana, project. The Corps is encouraged to 
consider the acquisition of replacement miter gates for the 
lock that will remain in service during construction.
    Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky.--The bill includes 
$4,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and 
construction of selected environmental infrastructure projects 
in southern and eastern Kentucky.
    Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana (Hurricane 
Protection).--The Committee has provided an additional 
$12,324,000 above the budget request for the Lake Pontchartrain 
and Vicinity, Louisiana (Hurricane Protection), project. The 
Corps is directed to use these additional funds to continue 
construction of parallel protection, fronting protection, flood 
proofing and other authorized features in Orleans Parish; 
landside runoff, fronting protection and flood proofing in 
Jefferson Parish; and floodwall and levee contracts in St. 
Charles Parish.
    Lake Pontchartrain Stormwater Discharge, Louisiana.--The 
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue construction of the Lake Pontchartrain Stormwater 
Discharge, Louisiana, project.
    Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, (Hurricane 
Protection).--The recommendation includes an additional 
$1,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue engineering 
and design activities and to initiate the A-east levee, third 
lift, of the Larose to Golden Meadow hurricane protection 
project.
    Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 
above the budget request for continued construction of the Red 
River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, 
project. These additional funds are for the development of 
recreation sites and boat launch facilities at lock and dams 3, 
4, and 5, and pool 3.
    Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana.--The Committee is aware 
that the Corps of Engineers has determined, pursuant to the 
requirements of Section 533(d) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996, that additional work to be carried out 
on the Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana, project with funds in 
excess of the amount authorized to be appropriated in Section 
533(c) of said Act is technically sound, environmentally 
acceptable, and economic. Therefore, the Committee has provided 
$69,921,000 above the budget request for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue with design and construction of the entire 
Southeast Louisiana project.
    West Bank--Vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana (Hurricane 
Protection).--The Committee acknowledges that the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 modifies the ongoing West 
Bank Hurricane Protection Levee, Louisiana, project (commonly 
referred to as the Westwego to Harvey Canal, Louisiana, 
project), to add the East of Harvey Canal, Louisiana, project, 
and the Lake Cataouatche, Louisiana, project, as a single 
project for concurrent construction. The Committee has provided 
an additional $2,958,000 to continue construction of the 
Westwego to Harvey Canal and East of Harvey Canal components of 
the project.
    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
Program, Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.--The Committee 
has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
to implement the Tylerton project and initiate the design of 
additional projects recommended for implementation in the 
programmatic decision document.
    St. Croix River, Stillwater, Minnesota.--The Committee has 
provided $2,400,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete 
construction of the levee and retaining wall extension of the 
St. Croix River, Stillwater, Minnesota, project. Funds are also 
provided for the Corps to initiate design of the secondary 
floodwall upon demonstration of feasibility.
    Jackson County, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$7,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Federal 
portion of the Jackson County, Mississippi, project.
    Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided 
$12,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the Pascagoula, Mississippi, project.
    New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, 
New Jersey.--The bill includes an additional $6,000,000 above 
the budget request for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the 41-foot project at Port Jersey Channel.
    Passaic River Streambank Restoration, New Jersey.--The 
Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue construction of the Joseph J. Minish Waterfront park 
and Historic Area in New Jersey.
    Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.--The Committee 
has provided $150,000 for the Corps of Engineers to provide 
sand for pre-existing projects in Old Bridge Township, 
Keansburg, and North Middletown.
    Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee has provided $12,000,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to continue construction of the Lower Basin and Stony 
Brook portions of the Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-
Basin, New Jersey, project.
    Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, New York.--The Committee 
has provided $4,108,000 to complete planning, engineering and 
design and to award and complete a construction contract for 
nourishment of Gilgo and Tobay beaches.
    Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York.--The 
Committee has provided an additional $4,000,000 above the 
budget request for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the Fire Island to Montauk Point, New York, 
project, including sand bypass activities in the vicinity of 
Shinnecock Inlet to preserve access to the Shinnecock 
commercial fishing dock.
    Kill van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, New York and New 
Jersey.--The Committee has provided an additional $22,000,000 
above the budget request for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the 45-foot project at the Kill van Kull and 
Newark Bay Channels in New York and New Jersey.
    New York City Watershed, New York.--The Committee has 
provided $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
design and construction activities for individual projects 
within the New York City Watershed.
    New York State Canal System, New York.--The Committee has 
provided $3,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
design and construction for various repair and rehabilitation 
projects along the canal system.
    Orchard Beach, New York.--The Committee has provided 
$2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue design and 
construction activities.
    Elk Creek Lake, Oregon.--Funds provided herein and funds 
previously appropriated for the Elk Creek Lake, Oregon, 
project, are available to plan and implement long term 
management measures at Elk Creek Dam, to maintain the project 
in an uncompleted state, and to take necessary steps to provide 
for trap and haul transport around the project.
    South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Improvement 
Program, Pennsylvania.--The bill includes $45,000,000 to 
continue the South Central Pennsylvania Environmental 
Improvement Program. Among other project purposes, funds are 
available to address flooding problems associated with combined 
sewer overflows in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
    Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania (East Central 
Incinerator Site).--The Committee has provided $1,500,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers to continue the preparation of plans and 
specifications for demolition of the east central incinerator.
    Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.--The Committee has 
provided $27,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, project.
    Black Fox, Murfree, and Oakland Springs Wetlands, 
Tennessee.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue construction of wetland restoration 
sites. Appropriated funds are not to be used for construction 
of the environmental education center.
    Tennessee River, Hamilton County, Tennessee.--The bill 
includes $2,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue 
construction of the Tennessee River, Hamilton County, 
Tennessee, project in accordance with the Detailed Project 
Report completed in 1998.
    Beals Creek, Big Spring, Texas.--The Committee has provided 
$1,600,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete construction 
of the Beals Creek, Big Spring, Texas, project.
    Brays Bayou, Texas.--The Committee has provided $6,000,000 
for the Secretary of the Army to use in the implementation of 
Section 211(f)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-303, 110 Stat. 3683) and to reimburse the 
non-Federal sponsor for a portion of the Federal share of the 
project costs for the Brays Bayou, Texas, project.
    GIWW, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Texas.--The 
Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
continue construction of shoreline protection measures at the 
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge.
    Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas.--The Committee has provided an 
additional $8,550,000 above the budget request to continue 
construction of the Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas, project on the 
optimum schedule.
    Waco Lake, Texas (Dam Safety).--The Committee has provided 
an additional $3,434,000 to advance the construction schedule 
for the Waco Lake, Texas, dam safety project.
    Wallisville Lake, Texas.--The Committee has provided 
$5,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
of the Wallisville Lake, Texas, project.
    Virginia Beach, Virginia.--The Committee has provided 
$13,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue construction 
activities associated with the Virginia Beach, Virginia, 
project.
    Virginia Beach, Virginia (Reimbursement).--The Committee 
has provided $1,460,000 to reimburse the local sponsor of the 
Virginia Beach, Virginia, project for the Federal share of 
fiscal year 1998 beach nourishment costs.
    Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and 
Idaho.--The Committee has previously expressed its deep 
concerns regarding the vast sums of taxpayer dollars pouring 
into this project with little apparent effect. For all its 
reliance on technological fixes and fish barging, there is no 
clear evidence that the salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific 
Northwest are, or will become, successful. A decision on fish 
recovery options in the lower Snake River, expected in 1999, 
may have dramatic impacts on mitigation measures currently 
being pursued. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended 
$3,730,000 to continue the John Day drawdown study and 
$4,028,000 to continue the lower Snake River feasibility study.
    Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big and Sandy River and Upper 
Cumberland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia.--The bill 
includes $1,000,000 to continue land acquisition, relocations, 
and engineering and design for the Grundy, Virginia, element of 
the Levisa and Tug Forks project. In addition to the amounts 
provided in the budget request, the bill includes: $10,000,000 
to continue construction of the Harlan/Clover Fork, Kentucky, 
element of the project; $1,500,000 to continue construction of 
the Williamsburg, Kentucky, element of the project; $5,000,000 
to continue construction of the Middlesboro, Kentucky, element 
of the project; $4,900,000 to continue floodproofing and 
acquisition efforts for the Pike County, Kentucky, element of 
the project; $4,600,000 to continue floodproofing and 
acquisition efforts for the Martin County, Kentucky, element; 
and $730,000 to complete the Detailed Project Report for the 
Town of Martin, Floyd County, Kentucky, element of the project.
    Southern West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure 
Program, West Virginia.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
for the Corps of Engineers to select and initiate at least two 
additional pilot projects of the Southern West Virginia 
Environmental Infrastructure Program.
    West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia 
and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has provided $750,000 for the 
Corps of Engineers to initiate and continue the preparation of 
detailed project reports for the West Virginia and Pennsylvania 
Flood Control, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, project.
    Lafarge Lake, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.--The Committee has 
provided $3,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to: undertake 
necessary safety modifications to the water control structures 
at Lafarge Lake; remediate identified contamination sites; 
close wells; complete real estate transfer documents; and 
pursue other activities associated with transfer of project 
land to the State of Wisconsin.
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206).--Section 206 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorizes the 
Corps of Engineers to 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 $11,200,000. This amount is $9,200,000 
above the budget request and $5,200,000 above the fiscal year 
1998 level. Within the funds provided, the bill includes: 
$125,000 for the Cache Creek Gravel Pit Restoration, 
California, project; $300,000 for the Clear Lake Basin 
Watershed Restoration, California, project; $500,000 to 
continue an aquatic ecosystem restoration project along 
Henessey Creek, California to assist in the rehabilitation of 
Suisun Marsh; $500,000 for the Corps' participation in the 
Pacific Flyway Center project in the Yolo Wetlands for 
planning, land acquisition and environmental restoration, 
provided that none of these funds may be used for building 
construction; $3,740,000 to continue the cleanup of the 
abandoned Penn Mine site in California; $325,000 for an 
environmental mitigation project at Santa Anita Creek, 
California; $120,000 for the Upper Truckee River, Trout Creek 
and Vicinity, California, project; $500,000 to continue the 
environmental restoration of Indian River Lagoon in Florida; 
$1,000,000 for the Koontz Lake, Indiana, project; $200,000 for 
the restoration of Parker Pond in Gardner, Massachusetts; 
$60,000 for construction of a biofilter at Albermarle City Lake 
in North Carolina; $500,000 to continue efforts to restore Nine 
Mile Run in Pennsylvania; $1,000,000 for environmental 
restoration efforts in the Lake Wallenpaupack watershed in 
Pennsylvania, including the continuation of studies, design and 
construction of projects on Morgan Cove, Mill Brook, and 
Wallenpaupack Creek in Delran Township; $750,000 for wetlands 
restoration projects within the Seely Creek Watershed in 
Bradford County, Pennsylvania; and $750,000 for the Upper 
Jordan River restoration project in Utah; $148,000 for 
ecosystem restoration efforts along the Tucannon River at 
Starbuck, Washington. The balance of funds previously 
appropriated under the authority of Section 1135 of Public Law 
99-662 to construct project modifications for improvement of 
the environment as part of the Anacostia River Flood Control 
and Navigation project within Prince Georges County, Maryland, 
is to be used under the authority of Section 206 of Public Law 
104-303 for the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
of Engineers, to construct aquatic system restoration projects 
in the same watershed in Prince Georges County, Maryland.
    The Committee is aware of the serious problems of stream 
and river degradation associated with acid drainage from mining 
operations. The Committee further observes that the Corps of 
Engineers has the experience and capability to participate 
meaningfully in acid drainage remediation efforts. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs the Corps to participate in the Acid 
Drainage Technology Initiative of the National Mine Land 
Reclamation Center, using available funds and to the extent 
authorized by law.
    -Beach Erosion Control Projects (Section 103).--The 
Committee has recommended $2,000,000, a reduction of $600,000 
from the budget request, for the Section 103 program. Of the 
amount provided, $750,000 is for the Sylvan Beach Breakwater, 
New York, project.
    Clearing and Snagging for Flood Control (Section 208).--The 
Committee has provided $300,000 for the Section 208 program. Of 
the amount provided, $100,000 is for the removal of log jams 
from the Rolling Fork River in Kentucky, and $100,000 is 
provided for channel debris removal in Dickenson County, 
Virginia. Within available funds, the Corps of Engineers is 
urged to design and construct clearing and snagging projects on 
selected sites along the San Joaquin River and its tributaries 
in California.
    Emergency Streambank and Erosion Control (Section 14).--The 
Committee has provided $7,000,000, a decrease of $8,000,000 
from the budget request, for the Section 14 program. Within the 
funds provided, the bill includes: $628,000 for the Whittier 
Bank Stabilization, Alaska, project; $365,000 for repair of 
Whittier Creek Dike in Alaska; $40,000 for the Rising Sun, 
Indiana, project; $40,000 to initiate planning and design of a 
streambank protection project along the Little Arkansas River 
in the City of Halstead, Kansas; $50,000 to address an erosion 
problem along the Ohio River bank in the vicinity of Owensboro 
Dam in Kentucky; $875,000 for emergency streambank and erosion 
protection of the Belle Isle shoreline near Detroit, Michigan; 
$40,000 to remedy a streambank erosion problem along Shot Rock 
Creek in the City of Wildwood, St. Louis County, Missouri; 
$150,000 to address an erosion problem on the Niagara River in 
the City of Tonawanda, New York; $400,000 for the Bryson City, 
Swain County, North Carolina, project; $240,000 for the French 
Broad River, Water Treatment Plant, Rosman, North Carolina, 
project; $300,000 for the Glouster, Ohio, project; $130,000 for 
the Sardis, Monroe County, Ohio, project; $100,000 for the 
Little Muncy Creek, Franklin Township, Lycoming County, 
Pennsylvania, project; $100,000 for streambank restoration 
projects in Tioga County, Pennsylvania; and $150,000 for the 
Columbia, Maury County, Tennessee, project.
    Small Flood Control Projects (Section 205).--The Committee 
has provided $40,000,000 for the Section 205 program. This is 
$13,500,000 above the budget request and the full amount 
authorized by law. Within the funds provided, the bill 
includes: $200,000 for the Coosa River, Etowah County, Alabama, 
project; $300,000 for the Dallas Branch and Pinhook Creek, 
Huntsville, Alabama, project; $1,250,000 for the Huntsville 
Spring Branch, Huntsville, Alabama, project; $350,000 for the 
City of Novato, California, project; $100,000 for a small flood 
control project in Hamilton City, California; $300,000 for 
flood control improvements at Ledgewood Creek, Fairfield, 
California; $1,650,000 for the Magpie Creek, Sacramento, 
California, project; $225,000 for the Rock Creek and Keefer 
Slough, California, project; $100,000 for the Tehama, 
California, small flood control project; $30,000 for appraisal 
investigations of flooding along Hogans Creek and McCoys Creek 
in Jacksonville, Florida; $395,000 for the Deer Creek, 
Illinois, project; $150,000 for the Oak Forest and Midlothian 
(Natalie Creek), Illinois, project; $100,000 for the small 
flood control project at Tinley Park/Hickory Creek, Illinois; 
$1,000,000 for the Flatrock River, Indiana, project; $15,000 to 
initiate construction of the Pipe Creek, Alexandria, Indiana, 
project; $63,000 for the White River, Anderson, Indiana, 
project; $25,000 for the Canoe Creek, Henderson, Kentucky, 
project; $100,000 for the Hopkinsville, Kentucky, project; 
$400,000 for a flood warning system in the Licking River 
Watershed of Kentucky; $100,000 for a study of flooding on the 
North Fork of Panther Creek in Daviess County, Kentucky; 
$100,000 for the Oak Grove, Christian County, Kentucky, 
project; $50,000 for the Ohio River, Lewisport, Kentucky, 
project; $50,000 for an investigation of flooding problems near 
the Red River in Stanton, Kentucky; $50,000 for an 
investigation of flooding along the Town Branch Stream in the 
City of Nicholasville, Kentucky; $100,000 for the Crown Point, 
Louisiana, project; $58,000 for the Fisher School Basin, Jean 
Lafitte, Louisiana, project; $100,000 for the Goose Bayou, 
Louisiana, project; $100,000 for the Lockport to Larose, 
Louisiana, project; $100,000 for the Lower Lafitte, Louisiana, 
project; $100,000 for the Pailet Basin, Barataria, Louisiana, 
project; $80,000 for the Rosethorne Basin, Jean Lafitte, 
Louisiana, project; $55,000 for the Blackwater River, 
Salisbury, Massachusetts, project; $750,000 for the Cass River, 
Spaulding Township, Michigan project; $100,000 for the Wellston 
Branch, Upper River Des Peres Creek, Missouri, project; 
$225,000 for the Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersey, 
project; $225,000 for the Poplar Brook, Borough of Deal and 
Ocean Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, project; $125,000 
for the Buffalo and Cazenovia Creeks ice retention project in 
New York; $200,000 for the Dry Creek, Cortland, New York, 
project; $150,000 for a flood control project in Bakersville, 
North Carolina; $200,000 for the French Broad River, North 
Carolina, project; $100,000 for the Mud Creek, Hendersonville, 
North Carolina, project; $300,000 to initiate feasibility 
studies on Upper Little Sugar Creek, Briar Creek, Irwin Creek 
and McMullen Creek in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; 
$200,000 for the Lower West Branch Susquehanna River Project at 
Lycoming Creek, Pennsylvania; $500,000 for a project to control 
flooding along Loyalsock Creek in the Borough of Dushore, 
Sullivan County, Pennsylvania; $5,000,000 for the Lycoming 
County (Heshborn to Hepburnville, Pennsylvania, project; 
$737,000 for flood damage prevention efforts along Muncy Creek 
in Muncy Creek Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania; 
$117,000 for flood damage reduction efforts along the McClure 
Run in the Poco Farm Area, Loyalsock Township, Lycoming County, 
Pennsylvania; $300,000 for an integrated flood forecasting 
system for Lycoming County, Pennsylvania; $100,000 for the 
Baxter Bottom, Tipton County, Tennessee, project; $150,000 for 
the Doe River, Carter County, Tennessee, project; $100,000 for 
the Huntington, Tennessee, project; $350,000 for the Richland 
Creek, Morgantown, Tennessee, project; $100,000 for the 
Rossville, Tennessee, project; $1,000,000 for the Cedar River 
at Renton, King County, Washington, project; and $200,000 for 
the Stillaguamish River at Stanwood, Snohomish County, 
Washington, project.
    Navigation Mitigation Projects (Section 111).--The 
recommendation includes $200,000, an increase of $100,000 over 
the budget request for the Section 111 program. These funds are 
to be used to conduct a study of beach erosion at Ogden Dunes, 
Indiana.
    Small Navigation Projects (Section 107).--The Committee has 
provided $2,700,000, the full amount of the budget request, for 
the Section 107 program. From within the funds provided, the 
bill includes: $200,000 for the Duluth (McQuade Road) Harbor, 
Minnesota, project; $31,000 for the Union Ship Canal, Buffalo 
and Lackawanna, New York, project; $140,000 for the Port of 
Morrow, Oregon, project; and $1,416,000 for the Blair Waterway 
Navigation Improvement Study, Pierce County, Washington.
    Project Modifications for Improvement to the Environment 
(Section 1135).--The Committee has provided $4,100,000 for the 
Section 1135 program. Within the funds provided, the bill 
includes: $250,000 for theRillito/Swan Wetlands Ecosystem 
Restoration Study, Arizona; $1,500,000 for the Gunnerson Pond 
Environmental Restoration, City of Lake Elsinore, California, project; 
$150,000 for the Wildcat-San Pablo Creeks, California, project; 
$300,000 for the Chicopit Bay, Florida, project; $200,000 for the 
Manatee Protection at Port Canaveral, Florida, project; $450,000 for 
the Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, project; $150,000 for the Little Sugar 
Creek Habitat Restoration, North Carolina, project.

            flood control, mississippi river and tributaries

  arkansas, illinois, kentucky, louisiana, mississippi, missouri, and 
                               tennessee

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    $296,212,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     280,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     312,077,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      15,865,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      32,077,000

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





    The Committee has provided $32,077,000 above the budget 
request to continue ongoing construction of Mississippi River 
and Tributaries projects and to expedite award of contracts in 
fiscal year 1999 to alleviate the impacts of continued flooding 
and to relieve the suffering of affected communities.
    Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.--The Committee 
recognizes the importance of the Mississippi River Levees 
project by providing $28,666,000 for fiscal year 1999. This 
amount is $4,916,000 above the budget request. Within the 
amount provided, the Corps is directed to advance construction 
of mainline levees in the Vicksburg District; initiate 
construction on Items 503-R, 487-R, and 489-R; advance items 
496-L, 502-L, and 490-L, as well as three levee enlargement 
items; and initiate seepage control items. The Committee 
regards these activities to be of the highest priority and 
expects the Corps to commit such sums as are necessary from 
within the amount provided for their expeditious prosecution. 
Of the amount provided, $1,010,000 is for the Commerce to Birds 
Point Levee component of the project.
    Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes 
$9,477,000 above the budget request to initiate flood proofing 
measures for Morgan City and Berwick and to initiate 
construction of a pumping station at Bayou Yokely.
    Atchafalaya Basin, Floodway System, Louisiana.--The 
recommendation includes $7,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers 
to continue acquisition of real estate interests for 
environmentally sensitive lands in the Atchafayla Basin.
    Louisiana State Penitentiary, Louisiana.--The 
recommendation includes $2,600,000 above the budget request for 
the Corps of Engineers to continue construction of the 
Louisiana State Penitentiary, Louisiana, project.
    Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.--The recommendation 
includes an additional $2,000,000 above the budget request to 
keep the Mississippi Delta Region freshwater diversion project 
closer to the scheduled completion date.
    Yazoo Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control, Mississippi.--
The Committee has provided $12,000,000 for the Demonstration 
Erosion Control program. Within the amount provided, $2,300,000 
is to be used to initiate work on Black Creek at Lexington, 
Mississippi, in accordance with Alternative III of the 
``Technical Report Lexington Flooding'' developed by the 
Vicksburg District, under the terms and conditions of the Yazoo 
Basin, Demonstration Erosion Control project.

                   operation and maintenance, general

Appropriation, 1998.....................................  $1,845,210,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................   1,603,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................   1,637,719,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................    -207,491,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................     +34,719,000

Note.--The fiscal year 1998 appropriation includes $105,185,000 in 
emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-174.

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





    Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The 
recommendation includes an additional $5,000,000 above the 
budget request of $17,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
perform maintenance activities along the Tennessee-Tombigbee 
Waterway, including dredging, development of disposal areas and 
access roads, wildlife mitigation efforts, and recreational 
development.
    McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, 
Arkansas.--The recommendation includes $25,993,000 for 
operation and maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
Navigation System, Arkansas, project. Of the amount provided, 
$3,900,000 is for the acquisition and installation of tow 
haulage equipment for system locks.
    Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.--The 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to plan the award of 
contracts for dredging the Ouachita River during periods of 
high water level to maximize dredging efficiency.
    Isabella Lake, California.--The Committee expects the Corps 
of Engineers to use funds appropriated in this Act to conduct 
the measures required by the April 18, 1997, Biological Opinion 
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with respect to 
the long-term operation of Isabella Reservoir, Kern County, 
California. The Committee further expects the Corps of 
Engineers to identify the least costly actions available, 
including whenever possible, the utilization of partnerships 
with other Federal and non-Federal agencies and organizations, 
so that the Corps can continue to operate and maintain Isabella 
Dam and Reservoir for flood control and water conservation 
purposes as provided in the October 23, 1964, contract among 
the United States of America and various public agencies.
    Santa Ana River Basin, California (Arundo Eradication).--
Within available funds, the Committee urges the Corps of 
Engineers to participate with local agencies, including 
agencies managing the Santa Ana Conservation Trust Fund, for 
ongoing arundo removal activities in the Santa Ana River Basin, 
California.
    Success Lake, California.--The bill includes an additional 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to continue with seismic 
studies and remediation design to prevent foundation 
liquefaction that could lead to a catastrophic failure of the 
dam at Success Lake, California.
    Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, Georgia, 
Alabama and Florida.--The Committee has provided an additional 
$500,000 for the Corps of Engineers to conduct model studies of 
the Chipola Cutoff to the Corley Slough reach of the river to 
determine environmentally acceptable ways of reducing the 
amount of dredging and associated costs for beneficial uses of 
dredged material and an additional $200,000 for the Corps of 
Engineers to conduct model studies to develop a design that 
would alleviate safety problems on the downstream approach to 
the George W. Andrews Lock and Dam.
    Lake Michigan Diversion, Illinois.--The recommendation 
includes an additional $500,000 for activities specified in the 
1996 Great Lakes Mediation Memorandum of Understanding. 
Specifically, funds are provided to: initiate testing on the 
lakefront measurement and reporting system at the Chicago River 
Controlling Works and the O'Brien Lock; continue operation and 
maintenance of two acoustic velocity meters; initiate and 
complete a quality assurance/quality control program on the 
accuracy of domestic and industrial withdrawals from Lake 
Michigan or its watershed; and initiate and complete a 
technical review on the accuracy of the sluice gate rating 
curve at Wilmette Lock, Illinois.
    Lake Shelbyville, Illinois.--The recommendation includes an 
additional $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to dredge the 
harbors and boat ramps at the Sullivan and Findlay marinas.
    Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The recommendation includes 
$750,000 for the Corps of Engineers to complete construction of 
the debris rack at Lake Cumberland, along with landscaping, 
fencing, and bank paving.
    Bayou Teche, Louisiana.--The recommendation includes an 
additional $1,860,000 to initiate the dredging of Bayou Teche, 
in the vicinity of Iberia Parish, Louisiana, and to repair the 
Keystone Lock as required to upgrade the facility for 
restoration of navigation along Bayou Teche.
    Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The recommendation 
includes $145,000 above the budget amount for the Corps of 
Engineers to dredge the Calcasieu Ship Channel in addition to 
budgeted operation and maintenance activities.
    Tchefuncte River and Bogue Falaya River, Louisiana.--The 
bill includes $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to remove 
fallen trees from the Bogue Falaya in Louisiana.
    Owasco Outlet, Owasco Seawall, New York.--The Committee is 
concerned about the apparent unwillingness of the Corps of 
Engineers to work with state and local officials to address the 
severe erosion problems along the Owasco Lake Seawall. The 
Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to make the repair and 
rehabilitation of the Owasco Seawall outlet a priority and 
directs the Corps to initiate the study and design of 
modifications for rehabilitation of the Owasco seawall using 
previously appropriated funds.
    Mahoning River, Ohio and Pennsylvania.--The Committee has 
provided $250,000 for the Corps of Engineers to initiate a 
reconnaissance report for the Pennsylvania portion of the 
Mahoning River.
    John Day Lock and Dam, Oregon and Washington.--The 
Committee directs the Corps to execute a transfer of land to 
the City of Umatilla for the expansion of its wastewater 
treatment facility upon the completion of appropriate studies.
    Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.--The recommendation includes 
an additional $1,300,000 for the Corps of Engineers to repair 
the vertical concrete walls at Lock and Dam 7 on the Allegheny 
River in Pennsylvania. The recommendation also includes an 
additional $200,000 for the Corps of Engineers to maintain 
traditional levels of service.
    Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee River, Tennessee.--The 
recommendation includes $4,200,000, subject to authorization, 
for the Corps of Engineers to conduct repairs of Chickamauga 
Lock on the Tennessee River.
    Corpus Christi Ship Channel (Rincon Channel), Texas.--The 
recommendation includes $275,000 for the Corps of Engineers to 
complete its review of the feasibility study and environmental 
assessment of the Rincon Channel prepared by the local sponsor 
and to initiate dredging.
    Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.--The 
recommendation includes an additional $4,000,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue implementation of the South Jetty 
Maintenance project at Grays Harbor in Washington.
    Fox River, Wisconsin.--The recommended amount includes 
$3,360,000 for the repair and rehabilitation of the De Pere, 
Little Kaukana and Menasha Locks.
    Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) 
Program.--The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Corps 
of Engineers to continue its research effort on contaminated 
sediments and dredged material management. The Committee 
expects the Corps to focus its efforts principally on the area 
of contaminated sediment characterization, management and 
treatment.
    Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities Assessment.--The 
Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to initiate its 
assessment of the general conditions of confined disposal 
facilities in the Great Lakes, using available funds.

                           Regulatory Program

Appropriation, 1998.....................................   $106,000,000-
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     117,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     110,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................       4,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      -7,000,000

Note.--Of the $117,000,000 budget estimate, $7,000,000 is to be derived 
from permit fees dependent upon the enactment of proposed legislation.

    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 1999, the Committee recommends 
$110,000,000, a $4,000,000 increase above the fiscal year 1998 
level. This also represents the full amount of new 
discretionary budget authority requested by the Administration. 
Within the amount provided, $320,000 is for the development of 
a Special Area Management Plan for the Upper Yellowstone River, 
from Gardiner to Springdale, Montana.
    In fiscal year 1998, the Committee unambiguously stated its 
expectation that the Corps of Engineers would move rapidly to 
implement a nationwide administrative appeals process for the 
Regulatory program. Furthermore, Congress provided $5,000,000 
for the effort. It has come to the Committee's attention that 
the Corps has not fully implemented the administrative appeals 
process for wetlands decisions. Accordingly, the Committee 
restates its direction to establish the administrative appeals 
process without delay.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $4,000,000-
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................................
Recommended, 1999.......................................................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      -4,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................................

    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.
    No funds are required for fiscal year 1999, because 
carryover balances from previous appropriations are adequate to 
meet anticipated needs.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1998...................................     $140,000,000-
Budget Estimate, 1999.................................       140,000,000
Recommended, 1999.....................................       140,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1998...............................  ................
                                                             ...........
    Budget Estimate, 1999.............................  ................
                                                             ...........
                                                                        

    The Committee recommendation for the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is $140,000,000, the 
same as the budget request. In fiscal year 1998, Congress 
transferred responsibility for cleanup of contaminated sites 
under FUSRAP to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 
appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the 
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for 
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible 
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not 
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real 
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy. 
The Committee expects the Department to continue to provide the 
institutional knowledge and expertise needed to best serve the 
Nation and the affected communities in executing this program.
    The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the 
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its 
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. 
The Committee intends for the Corps expertise to be used in the 
same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP, 
and expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for 
FUSRAP as part of the civil works program.
    There were concerns that the transfer of FUSRAP to the 
Corps would unnecessarily delay the program. This did not 
happen and the Committee has been very pleased to date. 
However, the Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers 
have been unable to enter into an agreement on the functions of 
the program assumed by the Corps. The Department's Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee, office has been very helpful during the transition 
of the program, but issues which must be resolved at the 
Headquarters level have not been addressed expeditiously. The 
Committee directs the Department and the Corps of Engineers to 
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to remedy any 
misunderstanding that may exist between the two agencies as to 
the roles and responsibilities related to the cleanup program. 
This is essential to improving the exchange of information and 
resolution of future issues.

                            General Expenses

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    $148,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     148,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     148,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................................

    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.
                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $41,153,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      40,948,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      40,948,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................        -205,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................................

    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 1999 to carry 
out the provisions of the Act is $40,948,000, the same as the 
budget request. Within the total amount, however, the Committee 
has provided $2,000,000 above the budget request for project 
planning and construction activities of the Central Utah Water 
Conservancy District. The Committee has provided $2,000,000 
less than the budget request for the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      Water and Related Resources

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    $698,868,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     640,124,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     596,254,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................    -102,614,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................     -43,870,000

Note.--The amount shown as the fiscal year 1998 appropriation includes 
$4,520,000 in emergency appropriations enacted in Public Law 105-174.

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





    Transfer from the Working Capital Fund.--The recommendation 
accepts the budget proposal to transfer $25,800,000 from the 
Working Capital Fund for program activities under the Water and 
Related Resources account.
    Reductions from the Budget Request.--Except as otherwise 
noted, project-specific reductions from the budget request are 
to be applied against proposed increases for water and energy 
management and fish and wildlife activities.
    Central Arizona Project, Arizona.--Reductions from the 
budget are to be applied as follows: $190,000 from Tucson 
Reliability Division and $3,528,000 from Native Fish 
Protection. Pending the reopening of the consultation, the 
Secretary may not expend any current or previously appropriated 
funds for Central Arizona Project native fish protection major 
contracts that are in response to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
Biological Opinion on Transportation and Delivery of Central 
Arizona Project Water to the Gila River Basin in Arizona and 
New Mexico, dated April 15, 1994.
    In Situ Copper Research Mining Project, Arizona.--The 
Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with a 
timely close-out of the In Situ Copper Research Mining Project 
in Arizona.
    South/Central Arizona Water Management and Technical 
Assistance Program, Arizona and New Mexico.--$200,000 is 
provided for the West Salt River Valley Water Management Study. 
Funds are also provided to continue the cost-shared Southern 
Arizona Regional Water Management Study and Verde River Basin 
Management Study at the amounts requested in the budget.
    Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration, Arizona.--The 
recommendation provides $1,200,000, an increase of $800,000 
over the budget request, for continuation of the Tres Rios 
Wetlands Demonstration project in Arizona.
    California Water Management and Technical Assistance 
Program, California.--Funds are provided to continue the 
following cost-shared studies at the budgeted amounts: 
California Water Augmentation Program, and Delta Model 
Development Study.
    Central Valley Project, American River Division, 
California.--
          Folsom Dam Temperature Control Device.--Because of 
        budget constraints, and in deference to the prerogative 
        of jurisdictional committees to specifically authorize 
        it, the initiation of construction of the Folsom Dam 
        Temperature Control Device is deferred without 
        prejudice.
          Permanent Pumping Facility, Placer County Water 
        Agency.--The Committee has provided $5,200,000, which 
        is $3,200,000 above the budget request, for the Bureau 
        of Reclamation to continue construction of a permanent 
        pumping facility for the Placer County Water Agency.
          City of Folsom.--The City of Folsom has incurred 
        police, fire and emergency response costs exceeding 
        $300,000 since July 17, 1995, the day Folsom Dam Gate 
        No. 3 failed. The Committee believes partial 
        reimbursement of these costs to be both reasonable and 
        appropriate. The Committee believes the Bureau of 
        Reclamation should make available up to $100,000, from 
        within the amount provided to the Bureau of Reclamation 
        for the Central Valley Project, American River 
        Division, to the City of Folsom to reimburse the City 
        for public safety and police, fire and other emergency 
        response costs it has incurred as a result of the 
        closure of Folsom Dam Road. Folsom Dam Road is one of 
        two main arteries connecting the two halves of the City 
        of Folsom and has been either completely or partially 
        closed for significant periods of time since the gate 
        failed.
    Central Valley Project, Delta Division, California.--The 
Committee has provided the full amount of the budget request, 
including full funding of fiscal year 1999 requirements for 
construction of the fish screen at the Contra Costa Canal 
intake at Rock Slough. The recommendation also includes 
$1,200,000, the full amount of the budget request, for Bay 
Delta Oversight. Of the amount provided, $250,000 is for the 
Delta Wetlands Project.
    Central Valley Project, Miscellaneous Project Programs.--
Within the amount provided, $5,500,000--an increase of 
$2,000,000 above the budget request--is for Refuge Water 
Supply.
    Central Valley Project, Sacramento River Division, 
California.--
          Colusa Basin Drainage District.--The Committee has 
        provided an additional $1,000,000 for continued work on 
        elements of Colusa Basin Drainage District's integrated 
        resources management program.
          Hamilton City Pumping Plant (Glenn Colusa Irrigation 
        District).--The Committee has provided $9,000,000, an 
        addition of $1,100,000 to the budget request, to 
        continue construction of a fish screen and fish 
        recovery facility associated with the Glenn-Colusa 
        Irrigation District's Hamilton City Pumping Plant. 
        Elsewhere in the bill, under the Construction, General 
        account of the Corps of Engineers, the Committee has 
        provided $2,000,000 for continued 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. Consequently, the Committee repeats 
        its direction from last year for 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 coordinated in every respect.
          Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock 
        Program.--The Committee has provided $350,000 to 
        continue the Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Captive 
        Broodstock Program.
          Operations and Maintenance.--Last year, the Committee 
        directed the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a report 
        on the allocation of operation and maintenance costs at 
        all of its projects and to re-evaluate its policy 
        regarding the application of payments to operation and 
        maintenance deficits in the Central Valley Project. The 
        Committee also directed the Bureau to create 
        opportunities for water and power users to participate 
        in the preparation of annual operation and maintenance 
        budgets. The Bureau has assured the Committee that it 
        is working to carry out these directives, but it has 
        yet to produce tangible results. The Bureau is directed 
        to move expeditiously to complete its work and provide 
        the required reports to Congress.
    Central Valley Project, Shasta Division, California.--The 
Committee recommends the full amount of the budget request for 
the Shasta Division of the Central Valley Project. Within this 
amount, $311,000 is provided to complete the Shasta Temperature 
Control Device Ecology Study, and $500,000 to continue the 
Clear Creek Restoration Program. The recommendation also fully 
funds the budget request for continuation of the hatchery ozone 
plant at the Coleman Fish Hatchery.
    Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, 
California.--The Committee recommends full funding of the 
budget request for the Trinity River Restoration Program. 
Within the funds provided, the Bureau is directed to continue 
its cooperative effort with the Hoopa Valley Tribe.
    Lower Colorado Water Management and Technical Assistance 
Program, California, Arizona, and Nevada.--Funds have been 
provided to complete the cost-shared Imperial Valley Water 
Reclamation and Reuse Study.
    San Gabriel Project, California.--The Committee has 
provided $2,500,000, the full amount of the budget request. The 
Committee understands that this is the maximum amount that 
could be effectively utilized by the Bureau in fiscal year 
1999.
    Southern California Water Management and Technical 
Assistance Program, California.--The funds provided are to 
continue the following cost-shared studies at the levels 
requested in the budget: Mammoth Lakes Water Optimization 
Study, Southern California Coastal Water Supply Study, and 
Lower Owens River Environmental Study.
    Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado and New Mexico.--The 
Committee continues its longstanding support of the Animas-La 
Plata Project and has included $3 million, the full amount of 
the budget request, for project development. The Bureau is 
directed to use these funds to assist in the implementation of 
the modification to the project required by the proposed 
amendments to the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement 
Act of 1988. The Bureau is further directed to discontinue the 
needless study of so-called alternatives that have been 
rejected by the parties to the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights 
Final Settlement Agreement.
    Colorado Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Colorado.--Funds are provided to continue the Mesa County Water 
Conservation Study.
    Idaho Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Idaho.--Funds are provided to continue the following cost-
shared activities at the levels requested in the budget: Lower 
Boise River Water Quality Plan, Treasure Valley Hydrologic 
Analysis, Lower Payette River Water Quality Plan, and Upper 
Salmon River Water Optimization.
    Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project, 
Kansas.--The Bureau is directed to notify the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and the Senate prior to 
reprogramming any funds from this project in fiscal year 1999.
    Kansas Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Kansas.--The funds provided are to continue the cost-shared 
Cheney Reservoir Water Quality Assessment and the Cheyenne 
Bottoms Investigation at the budgeted amounts.
    Montana Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Montana.--The recommended funding is to continue the cost-
shared Montana River System Study, Jefferson River Basin Return 
Flow Study, the turbidity and sediment analysis at Nevada 
Reservoir, and the North Fork of the Blackfoot River 
investigation. Funds are also provided to complete the Upper 
Whitefish Lake investigation and the Hungry Horse Reservoir 
investigation.
    Nebraska Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Nebraska.--The recommendation provides funding to continue the 
cost-shared Nebraska Water Supply Assessment and the Nebraska 
Rainwater Basin Wetlands study at the requested levels.
    Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee 
supports ongoing efforts in New Mexico to enhance the habitat 
of the endangered silvery minnow. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Bureau to use existing Federal water allocations to 
the maximum extent possible and to enhance silvery minnow 
habitat without negatively affecting current water policy on 
the Rio Grande.
    Southern New Mexico/West Texas Water Management and 
Technical Assistance Program, New Mexico and Texas.--Funds are 
provided to continue the cost-shared Rio Grande/Rio Bravo 
International Basin Assessment and the Rio Grande Project 
Drains Water Quality Study at the requested amounts.
    Upper Rio Grande Basin Water Management and Technical 
Assistance Program, New Mexico and Colorado.--Funds are 
provided to complete the cost-shared Rio Grande Riparian Tree 
Species Consumptive Use Study.
    Dakota Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
North Dakota and South Dakota.--$250,000 has been provided for 
the Black Hills Water Management Investigation. The additional 
funding above the budget request of $125,000 for this 
investigation has been provided to complete the Integrated 
Ground and Surface Water Model and the Water Quality Models 
essential to the success of the study.
    Oklahoma Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Oklahoma.--The funds provided are to complete the cost-shared 
Oklahoma Water Supply Study and to continue the Lugert-Altus 
Water Resources Management Options Study at the amounts 
requested in the budget.
    Klamath Project, Oregon.--The Committee recognizes that the 
creation of additional storage capacity is critical to 
alleviating the pressures inherent in allocating water for 
competing uses. Consequently, the Committee directs that funds 
for the Agency Ranch project be applied solely for the purpose 
of water storage and that additional water supplies be 
available for all Klamath Basin users without discrimination 
among user groups.
    Umatilla Basin Project, Phase III Study, Oregon.--Within 
the funds provided, the Bureau is directed to begin the 
examination of alternatives for increasing the surface water 
supply available to local cities and agricultural areas 
suffering from groundwater shortages in the Stage Gulch area.
    Oregon Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Oregon.--The funds provided are to continue the cost-shared 
activities in the Malheur/Owyhee and Powder River Basins, the 
Rogue River Basin, the John Day River Basin, and the Deschutes 
River Basin, and the Grande Ronde River Basin.
    Texas Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Texas.--The funds provided are for the cost-shared Rio Grande 
Conveyance Canal Pipeline Study, otherwise known as the El 
Paso-Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project.
    Northern Utah Water Management and Technical Assistance 
Program, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho.--The funds provided for this 
program are to continue the cost-shared Ashley/Brush Creeks 
Optimization Study and the Ogden River Basin Water Quality 
Management Plan.
    Southern Utah Water Management and Technical Assistance 
Program, Utah and Nevada.--The funds provided are for continued 
development of the cost-shared Carbon/Emery Counties Water 
Quality Management Plan.
    Washington Water Management and Technical Assistance 
Program, Washington.--The funds provided are to complete the 
cost-shared Warden Coulee investigation.
    Wyoming Water Management and Technical Assistance Program, 
Wyoming and Nebraska.--The funds recommended for this program 
are for tribal assistance.
    Reclamation Recreation Management.--Of the amount provided, 
$1,500,000 is for the Yuma West Wetlands Restoration project. 
The remaining funds are provided for the Bonny Reservoir 
Project in Colorado.
    Unscheduled Maintenance.--The Committee has rejected the 
Administration's initiative to create an unscheduled 
maintenance program to address unanticipated needs associated 
with the Bureau's water and power infrastructure. The Committee 
notes that it has fully funded the Administration's request for 
facilities operations, maintenance and rehabilitation for 
Bureau projects throughout the West. The Committee expects the 
Bureau to reorder priorities and utilize its existing 
reprogramming authority to address unanticipated needs as they 
arise.
    Wetlands Development.--Of the amount provided, $377,000 is 
for the Sahuarita Constructed Wetlands Demonstration Project in 
Arizona.
    In fiscal year 1997, the Committee directed the Bureau to 
use funds provided to the Wetlands Development program to 
continue the Caddo Lake Scholars and other wetland development 
components of the Caddo Lake Wetlands project. The Committee is 
concerned that this direction was not followed. Consequently, 
the Bureau is redirected to use previously appropriated funds 
for the purposes described above.

               Bureau of Reclamation loan Program Account

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $10,425,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      12,425,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      12,425,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      +2,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................  ..............

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





                central valley project restoration fund

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $33,130,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      49,500,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      33,130,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................     -16,370,000

    The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized 
in Title 34 of Public Law 102-575, the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act. This Fund was established to provide funding 
from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement 
and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration 
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California. 
Revenues are derived from payments by project beneficiaries and 
from donations. Payments from project beneficiaries include 
several required by the Act (Friant Division surcharges, higher 
charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, and tiered water 
prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations Acts, 
additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
    The Committee has provided $33,130,000 for the CVP 
Restoration Fund. The recommended level of funding is due to 
severe budget constraints. The Committee is very supportive of 
the activities carried out with funds collected into this 
account, which is comprised of assessments on Central Valley 
Project water and power users. The Committee urges the Bureau 
of Reclamation to fully coordinate and integrate ecosystem 
restoration activities funded by the Restoration Fund with 
similar activities funded through the CALFED program.
    The Committee intends, to the greatest extent possible, 
that the Bureau of Reclamation take such steps as are necessary 
to ensure that amounts appropriated from the Restoration Fund 
equal funds assessed and collected. It is not the intent of the 
Committee to allow unappropriated balances to accrue in the CVP 
Restoration Fund.

               california bay-delta ecosystem restoration

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $85,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     143,300,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      75,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................     -10,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................     -68,300,000

    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. The funds appropriated in this 
account are 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.
    The Committee has provided $75,000,000 for the California 
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program, $68,300,000 less than 
the budget request of $143,300,000. While the Committee is 
unable to provide the full budget request for this important 
program due to severe budget constraints, the Committee is 
supportive of the program and believes that significant 
progress has been made during the last year.
    The Committee is well aware of important ongoing efforts of 
the CALFED-established Ecosystem Roundtable to better 
coordinate and, where possible, integrate the ecosystem funding 
and implementation activities currently underway as part of the 
1992 CVPIA, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, the 1996 Bay-Delta Act, 
and a number of related state and local funding initiatives. 
Such work will be an important part of the development and 
implementation of a fiscally responsible and scientifically 
sound near-term restoration coordination strategy for CALFED--
one that embraces the longer-term ecosystem restoration program 
plan, as well as current and proposed appropriations for this 
important ecosystem work.
    The Committee understands and anticipates that the 
Roundtable's revised priority-setting and funding allocation 
process will be in place and underway as part of the timely 
allocation and distribution of funds in fiscal year 1999.
    The Committee recognizes a need to develop criteria and/or 
performance standards to evaluate the effectiveness of 
expenditures for environmental enhancement as part of the 
CALFED process. The Committee believes that such an evaluation 
program should be developed through a peer review process. No 
individual should be selected to participate in this peer 
review process who--(1) has actively participated in advocating 
or opposing the issuance of funding for a type of project; (2) 
has a direct financial interest in the proposed plans; or (3) 
is employed by or related to any person having a direct 
financial interest in the proposed plan.

                       policy and administration

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $47,558,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      48,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      46,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      -1,558,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      -2,000,000

    The general administrative expenses program provides for 
the executive direction and management of all Reclamation 
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in 
Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, and in the five regional 
offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge 
individual projects or activities for direct beneficial 
services and related administrative and technical costs. These 
charges are covered under other appropriations.
    For fiscal year 1999, the Committee has recommended 
$46,000,000, a $2,000,000 reduction from 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 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 1999 are significantly below the Department's 
fiscal year 1999 budget request, but are generally consistent 
with the fiscal year 1998 funding levels. The Administration's 
proposed budget requests for the Department of Energy continue 
to be unrealistically high, resulting in much wasted effort by 
the Department in preparing these inflated budgets and the 
Committee in reviewing them. Perhaps the Administration could 
review the funding trends for the Department of Energy over the 
past three years and note that raising expectations for large 
budget increases and new programs is a significant waste of 
time and resources.

          computer security and the year 2000 computer problem

    The Committee is aware that breaches of computer security 
are an increasing concern at all government agencies, and is 
concerned about the possible vulnerability of publicly-
accessible unclassified computer systems maintained by the 
Department. A report by the Department's Office of Oversight 
identified numerous weaknesses that need to be addressed, 
including the presence of classified information on computers 
that were accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. The 
Secretary is directed to take the steps necessary to ensure 
that the security and integrity of DOE's electronic information 
is not compromised and that sensitive data is adequately 
protected throughout the Department's computational networks. 
Within the funding provided for Departmental computing systems, 
highest priority should be given to the expenditure of funds 
that reduce the vulnerability of DOE corporate computer systems 
and networks. The Secretary should also identify a single 
individual in the Department who is responsible for computer 
security issues at Headquarters and field installations.
    The Secretary shall submit to Congress by March 30, 1999, a 
computer security policy and implementation plan that states 
the overall Departmental policy on computer security, the roles 
and responsibilities of Departmental organizations for computer 
security both in headquarters and field installations, the 
steps being implemented to protect the Department's publicly 
accessible computer systems from external attempts to alter or 
delete data, and the steps being taken to ensure that all sites 
remove classified and sensitive information from Internet-
accessible computers and strengthen the programs to prevent 
recurrences. The report should specifically identify actions 
which the Department has taken to address identified weaknesses 
and strengthen computer security at headquarters and field 
installations, address any needed changes to current policies 
and guidance, and identify specific milestones for completing 
the necessary improvements.
    As noted in a recent General Accounting Office report, 
there are concerns that the Department's performance is below 
the government average in addressing mission-essential computer 
systems with regard to the Year 2000 computer problem. The 
Secretary of Energy should provide a report to the Committee by 
November 30, 1998, that outlines the status of efforts to 
address the Year 2000 problems and actions that are being taken 
to complete this effort within established milestones.

                        reprogramming guidelines

    The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 
inform the Committee when a change in program execution and 
funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist the 
Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 
for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act.
    Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of 
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or 
any significant departure from a program, project, or activity 
described in the agency's budget justification as presented to 
and approved by Congress. For construction projects, a 
reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one 
construction project identified in the justifications to 
another or a significant change in the scope of an approved 
project.
    Criteria for Reprogramming.--A reprogramming should be made 
only when an unforeseen situation arises, and then only if 
delay of the project or the activity until the next 
appropriations year would result in detrimental impact to an 
agency program or priority. Reprogrammings may also be 
considered if the Department can show that significant cost 
savings can accrue by increasing funding for an activity. Mere 
convenience or desire should not be factors for consideration.
    Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new 
programs or to change allocations specifically denied, limited, 
or increased by Congress in the Act or report. In cases where 
unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such 
changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the 
Committee and be fully explained and justified.
    Reporting and Approval Procedures.--The Committee has not 
provided statutory language to define reprogramming guidelines 
but expects the Department to follow the spirit and the letter 
of the guidance provided in this report. Consistent with prior 
years, the Committee has not provided the Department with any 
internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year 1999, unless 
specifically identified in the House, Senate, or conference 
reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority 
or prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees 
in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the 
Committees on Appropriations.

             department of energy organizational structure

    At the request of Congress, the Department conducted a 
study of how it manages the nuclear weapons program, including 
an analysis of the functions performed at Headquarters, 
operations offices, and applicable area and site offices. The 
March 1997 report, prepared by the Institute for Defense 
Analyses (IDA), identified a series of problems with Defense 
Program's management processes. Further, it noted that many of 
the issues could not be addressed by a single program, but 
required Department-wide management changes. It has been over 
one year since the report was published, and few of the 
recommendations have been implemented. While apparently aware 
of the problems, correcting them seems to be much harder and 
take much longer than was anticipated. The Committee directs 
the Department to undertake a much broader analysis of the 
current management and field structure to create a management 
framework which will take the Department into the next century. 
The Laboratory Operations Board has now spent several years 
reviewing the laboratory and field structure and may be in a 
position to support this review. The IDA study provides an 
initial basis for the review. The General Accounting Office has 
issued several reports on improving the management of Federal 
agencies. The Department is directed to report back to the 
Committees on Appropriations by November 30, 1998, with a 
proposal for performing a comprehensive management and field 
structure review during fiscal year 1999.

                     functional support cost system

    The Committee commends the Department on the development of 
the Functional Support Cost Report and encourages the 
Department to continue efforts to improve its accuracy and 
usefulness. The report has proven to be a useful tool in better 
understanding the Department's operating costs and provides 
evidence that the Department is actively working to control and 
reduce functional support costs. There are significant concerns 
that the overhead rates charged by the Department's contractors 
are quite high, and often duplicative when charged by prime 
contractors and subcontractors on the same project. The 
Department is directed to work with the Committee to determine 
what steps can be taken to better understand the existing 
overhead structure and possible changes that could reduce 
overhead rates and provide more funds for direct program 
activities.

                  excessive contractor training costs

    The Department of Energy provides funding to train 
contractor employees on a wide variety of subjects to improve 
such things as managerial expertise, job knowledge, working 
relationships, and professional development. Spending for these 
courses has dropped dramatically from $465,000,000 in 1995 to 
$322,000,000 in 1997 since the Committee began reviewing these 
programs, but improvements are still needed. A recent General 
Accounting Office (GAO) report determined there are significant 
differences in the way training is provided at various 
Departmental sites, and these differences offer several 
opportunities for cost savings. For example, Departmental 
contractors may maintain more than one independent training 
operation at a single DOE fieldlocation. These independent 
training operations have led to the creation of redundant training 
staffs which offer redundant training courses to contractor employees 
on many subjects. GAO found as many as 216 redundant training courses 
offered by the four prime contractors at one DOE field location. 
Another issue is the same course offered at different sites varied in 
length from 4 to 24 hours and in cost per classroom hour from eight 
dollars to thirty-eight dollars. The independent development of 
training courses by Departmental contractors, rather than seeking 
training materials from other DOE locations or acquiring the training 
from an outside vendor, has contributed to these variations and 
resulted in a waste of resources and non-standardized training across 
the Department. In addition, the Department has not developed a set of 
performance measures to evaluate contractor training across the 
complex.
    The Committee is also aware of an October 1997 report to 
the Secretary on the Status of the Department of Energy 
Safeguards and Security Program which identified significant 
duplication of effort in the area of security training, and ``. 
. . growing concern over both the quality and cost of training 
that is provided and the inefficiency caused by duplication of 
facilities and capabilities.'' This report recommended that the 
Department conduct a comprehensive review to identify and 
eliminate redundant training capabilities and coordinate 
activities at each site.
    To address this issue, the Committee directs the Department 
to conduct a comprehensive review of all training facilities 
and capabilities in light of the recommendations contained in 
the GAO report and any internal Departmental reports of 
training programs. The Department is to report to the 
Committees on Appropriations on the implementation of these 
recommendations by February 16, 1999.

                        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. Excessive use of support service 
contractors and management and operating contractors detailed 
to Headquarters organizations persists at the Department 
despite Inspector General reviews documenting the excessive use 
of contractor employees. The Committee expects the Department 
to continue to monitor this and reduce use of contractor 
employees at Headquarters in fiscal year 1999 by 10% below the 
fiscal year 1998 level of usage.
    The Committee directs the Department to provide a report at 
the end of fiscal year 1998 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, 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, 1997 through September 30, 1998, and 
estimates for fiscal year 1999, and is due to the Committee on 
January 31, 1999.

                  inappropriate use of appropriations

    The Committee continues to be very concerned about the 
inappropriate use of contractors in the development of budget 
requests and execution of Department programs. The Committee 
has learned that certain contractors have been reimbursed by 
the Department for the following activities: answering the 
organization's phones, faxes and e-mails; updating web sites of 
the organizations; getting industry together to develop 
``consensus positions'' on Department programs; conference 
calls with Department employees once a month; publishing 
association journals and other publications; and attending 
domestic and international conferences to represent their 
industry members. These contracts and grants are especially 
suspect considering that they are routinely awarded non-
competitively.
    While there may be instances where it is necessary for the 
Department to procure the services of a contractor for a 
specific task, it is inappropriate for the Department to 
routinely fund the operating budgets for these outside groups. 
As a rule, the Department should procure services from 
contractors in arms-length arrangements. In cases where it is 
determined that a specific service or product is needed and it 
is in the interest of the Department to secure the service or 
product through a grant or contract, the Department should 
procure or award using competitive procedures.

                       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, 1998-..................................      $906,807,000
Budget Estimate, 1999.................................     1,129,042,000
Recommended, 1999.....................................       882,834,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1998...............................       -23,973,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999.............................      -246,208,000
                                                                        

    The Energy Supply account includes the following programs: 
solar and renewables; nuclear energy; fusion; environment, 
safety and health; and energy support activities. In prior 
years, the Committee recommended significant reductions to 
programs in this account, with reductions to solar and fusion 
programs of about 30%. This year, the Committee recommendation 
is generally supportive of the level of funding provided in the 
current fiscal year.
    The Committee has been actively working to improve the 
scope and management of the Department's research and 
development programs. Before it can be determined whether more 
funding is needed for existing programs, there are basic 
questions about the purpose and value of these activities. 
These questions include: the balance of basic research versus 
development; the prioritization of technologies; the wisdom of 
awarding non-competitive grants and contracts to the same 
groups of beneficiaries year after year; the ability (and 
desire) to actually track and collect the thousands of research 
and development ``deliverables''; the inability to spend funds 
appropriated in prior years; and the very basic question of the 
applicability of some of these activities to the lives of 
American taxpayers.
    The Committee notes that the Department has acknowledged 
that improvements must be made. Secretary Pena, in response to 
hearing questions this year, criticized Departmental procedures 
that ``often provided inadequate competition for grant awards 
and inadequate requirements for peer review.'' The Secretary 
also cited ``inadequacies'' as detailed by a recent report of 
the Department's Inspector General (IG). The IG surveyed five 
of nineteen procurement offices and cited the Department's 
failure to collect the actual work product of 718 grants with a 
total value of $232,000,000.
    In its report to the President in November 1997, the 
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology 
(PCAST) reported that: ``In the course of this study, the Panel 
observed a number of problems in DOE management of R&D, 
including: ``stovepiping'' of programs and a frequent lack of 
effective coordination, micromanagement of R&D programs, 
burdensome oversight; limited technical skills among a 
significant number of DOE staff, resulting in misdirection of 
some R&D programs; and sometimes a lack of clear leadership . . 
. These are not new observations; the SEAB Alternative Futures 
and SEAB Strategic Energy R&D studies reported similar 
findings. As far as the Panel has been able to tell,however, 
DOE actions in response to the findings and recommendations of these 
past Task Forces have been insufficient and major deficiencies 
remain.''
    The Secretary of Energy, Inspector General, Government 
Accounting Office, and Assistant Secretary all agree with the 
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. 
Reforms are needed. The way to reform a program is not to 
increase spending by 30% to 100%. Having identified many of the 
problems, the next step is to follow through with improved 
management.
    Last year, and again this year, the Committee included 
statutory language to improve contracting practices and 
prohibit lobbying with Federal funds. The Committee is 
continuing to examine programs and identify deficiencies. The 
Committee looks forward to working with the new management team 
to reduce the current emphasis on the preparation and 
justification of future year budgets and increase the emphasis 
on current year management. There is widespread agreement that 
there is greater value that can be gained from the current 
level of spending, which is substantial. There may never be 
agreement on what amount of spending is appropriate, but there 
should be no disagreement on the need to get better value for 
the dollars being spent by the Department.
    With regard to the Administration's request to increase 
spending for programs it identifies as part of the Climate 
Change Technology Initiative, the Committee questions the 
premise of the Administration's argument for more spending. The 
Committee believes that the $272,200,000 in fiscal year 1998 
funds identified by the Administration is an arbitrary amount 
considering the programs not included. Why not include the 
$44,304,000 the Office of Energy has budgeted for solar and 
renewable energy research? Why wouldn't the $8,200,000 provided 
for the National Institute for Global and Environmental Change 
be counted in the effort to study global and environmental 
change?
    In short, the Committee believes that the tens of billions 
of dollars spent on renewable energy, nuclear energy, fusion 
energy, and the Federal workforce needed to manage these 
programs, has been a significant amount of funding. The 
hundreds of millions recommended by the Committee last year and 
in this bill again this year represent a serious and 
significant level of funding. Rather than suggesting this 
funding is insufficient by proposing unrealistic and dramatic 
increases, the Committee observes that American taxpayers are 
supporting a level of effort for these technologies unrivalled 
by any other nation.
    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 
research and development is $351,405,000, an increase of 
$5,139,000 over the amount provided in the current fiscal year. 
The Committee continues to be concerned that, over the years, 
the Department has placed a higher priority on providing funds 
to commercialize technologies that are not yet ready to fully 
compete in the marketplace. These efforts have come at the 
expense of a more proper role for government: fostering peer-
reviewed research which could lead to cutting-edge discoveries 
in plant research, chemical and materials sciences, and other 
areas fundamental to development of these technologies. Last 
year, the Committee combined the solar and renewable energy-
related research performed by the Office of Energy Research 
with the research and development activities performed by the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The Committee 
directed the Department to submit a comprehensive research and 
development request for fiscal year 1999, representing a new 
partnership between the two Offices. The Committee is pleased 
that the Department has worked to coordinate the efforts of 
these two Offices that have each justified their budgets based 
on common goals. The Committee further encourages program 
managers in both Offices to explore the opportunities for more 
relevant research and better directed development of these 
technologies.
    Million Solar Roofs.--In June of last year, in an address 
to the United Nations, President Clinton announced the Million 
Solar Roofs Initiative. The Committee was concerned about the 
cost of one million solar roofs and the initiation of a program 
not funded by Congress. These concerns were confirmed in a DOE 
press release announcing the award of $5,000,000 to selected 
business ventures to install 1,000 solar systems. Assuming the 
Department's estimates are accurate, at this rate, each roof 
system will cost an average of $32,000, of which taxpayers will 
pay $5,000. To install one million roof systems by 2010 would 
require thirty-two billion dollars, of which five billion 
dollars would be taxpayer-funded.
    The Committee can neither contemplate the source of this 
massive funding requirement nor the justification for taking 
taxpayer funds and selecting business ventures and rooftops to 
equip with these solar systems. As no funding has been provided 
for this program, the Committee urges the Department to use 
lower case letters when touting the goal of outfitting one 
million solar roofs. The Committee has not rejected the goal of 
this program. The Committee observes that the attainment of 
this goal relies primarily on the affordability of these 
systems for consumers rather than the ability of the government 
to force these systems onto one million rooftops.
    Following are specific recommendations for programs:
    Solar building technology research.--The Committee 
recommendation of $2,200,000 does not include funding for the 
Solar Rating and Certification Corporation ``to remove 
restrictions to the use of solar energy in communities'' as 
requested in the budget justification.
    Photovoltaic energy systems.--The Committee continues to 
strongly support the goals of this program. The Committee 
recommendation provides $69,683,000, including $2,883,000, the 
same amount as the budget request, for related research funded 
through the Office of Energy Research. The recommendation 
includes full support for basic research and thin-film 
partnerships. The recommendation does not include an increase 
over the current fiscal year for PV Building Opportunities 
activities.
    The Committee encourages the Department to fully consider 
the qualifications of Arizona State University when evaluating 
institutions participating in the photovoltaic energy systems 
development research program.
    Solar thermal energy systems.--The Committee recommendation 
of $17,100,000 includes a total of $1,000,000 for activities 
directly or indirectly related to Solar Two. The Department is 
directed to prepare a plan to complete this project in fiscal 
year 2000 which includes all termination costs. The 
recommendation does not include funding for systems and 
markets/industrial assistance activities.
    Biomass/biofuels energy systems.--The total Committee 
recommendation is $100,799,000, including $27,199,000, the same 
amount as the budget request, for related research funded 
through the Office of Energy Research. The recommendation 
includes $31,100,000 for power systems, of which $17,700,000 is 
provided for rural development, $3,000,000 is provided for co-
firing biomass with coal, and $1,000,000 is provided for 
demonstration of black liquor gasification. No increase is 
provided for modular systems development. The recommendation 
includes $42,500,000 for transportation, of which $5,000,000 is 
included for the Gridley rice straw project. The recommendation 
includes increases for research and development of advanced 
fermentation organisms, advanced cellulases, and pretreatment 
of feedstocks. The recommendation also includes $2,500,000 for 
the Plant Biotechnology Consortium to be funded from the 
$27,199,000 provided for the Office of Energy Research. The 
$4,600,000 for feedstock development and $2,500,000 for 
regional biomass is to be equally derived from the power 
systems and transportation programs.
    Wind energy systems.--The total Committee recommendation is 
$33,483,000, including $283,000, the same amount as the budget 
request, for related research funded through the Office of 
Energy Research. The recommendation includes a minimum of 
$1,700,000, the amount requested, for certification and 
standards activities. The Committee has been assured that the 
certification program will be in place in fiscal year 1999. The 
Committee welcomes the attainment of one of the goals of the 
wind energy program.
    Renewable energy production incentive.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000, a $1,000,000 increase over 
the amount requested.
    International solar energy.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $500,000 exclusively for the U.S. Initiative on Joint 
Implementation. No funds provided in this or any prior Act are 
to be made available for the America's 21st Century or CORECT 
programs.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,000,000, of which $1,000,000, the 
amount requested, is provided for infrastructure and general 
purpose equipment. The remaining $1,000,000 is to be made 
available following submission of a program plan by the winner 
of the competition for the management and operating contract.
    Geothermal.--The Committee recommendation of $27,500,000 
includes $6,500,000 for the geothermal heat pump deployment 
program. The Committee continues to be concerned about the 
Department's reluctance to provide adequate funding to meet its 
commitment to this partnership.
    Hydrogen.--The total Committee recommendation is 
$18,008,000, including $3,008,000, the same amount as the 
budget request, for related research funded through the Office 
of Energy Research. The recommendation includes $3,000,000 for 
core research and development.
    Hydropower.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,000,000 for cost-shared research and development of ``fish-
friendly'' turbines, an increase of $1,250,000 over the amount 
provided last year.
    Electric energy systems and storage.--The recommendation 
includes $34,000,000 for high-temperature superconductivity, an 
increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee 
fully supports the efforts to demonstrate truly first-of-a-kind 
high-temperature superconducting technologies. The 
recommendation also includes $4,000,000 for energy storage 
systems, an increase of $50,000 over the current fiscal year. 
The Committee strongly supports the goals of this program. 
Superconducting transmission lines, motors and storage devices 
have the potential to greatly enhance the viability of 
renewable energy resources in the near term. The recommendation 
does not include funding for the climate challenge program.
    The Committee has been made aware that the Department has 
fallen behind schedule on its commitment to the 
Superconductivity Partnership Initiative. The Committee 
provided the full amount of the budget request last year and is 
not aware of any failure of the industry partner to fulfill its 
commitment to the initiative. Unless the Department has 
identified a problem with its partner, the Department is 
directed to finalize contracts under the Superconductivity 
Partnership Initiative on schedule to ensure that this 
important research is not delayed.
    Transmission reliability.--The Committee is concerned that 
the transition to a deregulated, competitive electricity market 
not be accompanied by a decrease in transmission system 
reliability, and urges the Department to coordinate and 
integrate research and technology development to address 
critical concerns related to the reliability of the emerging 
electricity market.
    Federal buildings initiative.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 to be awarded for installation of renewable 
power sources for Federal facilities. All proposals must 
include a cost benefit analysis. The Department may only 
approve proposals that have verifiable, favorable cost benefits 
over a period of not more than ten years. Cost benefits shall 
be based exclusively on actual monetary costs and savings.
    Program direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $15,600,000, approximately the same as the 
amount provided in the current fiscal year. The Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy continues to lead the 
Department in the ratio of salaries and expenses to program 
dollars. The recommendation for program direction includes all 
funding for support service contractors and Assistant 
Secretary/cross-cutting activities.
    The Committee is aware that restructuring of the 
electricity industry is related to implementation of certain 
technologies funded under this account. The Committee will work 
with the Department to outline a more clearly defined 
electricity restructuring program.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS -

    The Committee recommendation is $227,769,000, a decrease of 
$15,291,000 from the current fiscal year. Unless otherwise 
specified, the Committee has accepted reductions identified in 
the budget request and denied funding increases identified in 
the budget justification.
     Advanced radioisotope power systems.--The recommendation 
includes $35,000,000, a $5,500,000 reduction from the amount 
provided in the current fiscal year. The Committee continues to 
be concerned about the lack of interest the Department has 
shown in streamlining management, reducing the infrastructure, 
and reducing the extensive level of support service contractors 
in this program. The Department is directed to prepare a plan 
to streamline and reduce costs for this program. The plan is to 
be included with the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
    Test reactor area landlord.--The recommendation includes 
$6,101,000, a net reduction of $1,324 from the current fiscal 
year, considering the $2,000,000 reduction in the amount 
requested for construction as proposed in the budget request.
    University reactor fuel assistance and support.--The 
recommendation includes $12,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 
over the current fiscal year. The recommendation includes 
$5,000,000 for the peer-reviewed Nuclear Engineering Education 
Research grant program (NEER), $1,000,000 for the university 
graduate fellowship program, and $1,000,000 for the industry-
matching program. The recommendation also provides support to 
the university nuclear engineering community with full funding 
for the reactor fuel, sharing, and instrumentation programs.
    Nuclear energy research initiative.--The recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 as the first year of funding for this 
research program, a reduction of $19,000,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee supports this program, which would award 
grants to laboratories, universities and consortiums using a 
formal peer-review process. Possible research topics include: 
nuclear safety and risk analysis, proliferation-resistant 
reactor and fuel technologies and new technologies for nuclear 
wastes.
    Termination costs.--The recommendation is $81,150,000, a 
$4,115,000 increase over the current fiscal year. The 
recommendation includes $45,000,000 for electrometallurgical-
related activities including $20,000,000 for the nuclear 
technology research and development program to continue study 
of treating spent fuel using electrometallurgical technology 
and $25,000,000 to demonstrate electrometallurgical technology 
at the Fuel Conditioning Facility. The budget request of 
$31,200,000 to maintain the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) has 
been included in the non-defense environmental management 
account.
    The Committee is concerned that the schedule for the 
shutdown activities at the Experimental Breeder Reactor II 
(EBR-II) at the Argonne National Laboratory-West site in Idaho 
continues to slip. The Office of Nuclear Energy is directed to 
submit to the Committee a validated baseline project schedule 
by December 31, 1998. The baseline should include the cost, 
schedule, and major milestones for each activity by fiscal 
year, the total cost, and the Department's confidence level 
that this schedule is accurate and can be executed. The report 
should also include an analysis of any weak points in the 
schedule and the technical issues which must be resolved to 
maintain the project cost and schedule. The program should work 
with the Committee during development of this report to ensure 
that sufficient detail is being provided.
    Uranium programs.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$53,518,000, an $11,082,000 reduction from the amount provided 
in the current fiscal year. The recommendation includes a 
$3,000,000 reduction, the same as the budget request, in 
construction. The recommendation also reflects acceptance of 
the decreases proposed in the budget request and the 
elimination of increases proposed in the budget request.
    Security at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee is 
aware there have been disagreements among the Department of 
Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the United 
States Enrichment Corporation as to the appropriate 
implementation of Section 511 of the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act which relates to 
authority of the Department's contractors to carry firearms and 
make arrests in providing security at Federal installations. 
The Committee directs the Department of Energy, in consultation 
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States 
Enrichment Corporation, to provide to the Committee by December 
30, 1998, a report on the current status of implementing the 
provision, a finding as to which agency has the final authority 
to determine arming and arresting needs at the facilities, and 
a recommendation to the Committee on steps which will be taken 
to ultimately resolve this issue.
    Isotope support.--The Committee recommendation is 
$14,000,000, $2,000,000 less than the amount provided in the 
current fiscal year. The recommendation includes neither the 
full amount requested for production of molybdenum-99, nor the 
new construction start requested.
    Nuclear energy plant optimization.--The recommendation does 
not include funding for this new spending program.
    Program direction.--The recommendation includes 
$21,000,000, of which no more than $1,700,000 is available for 
all program direction expenses to support the Federal employees 
managing the nuclear energy programs recently transferred to 
the Office of Nonproliferation.
    The Committee notes that the Office failed to observe 
internal budget procedures by providing funding for support 
service contracts from program funds. The Committee directs 
that support service contracts be funded from the amount 
provided for program direction.

                    ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

    The recommendation includes $46,000,000, a reduction of 
$30,000,000 from the budget request of $76,000,000. Funding for 
support service contractors who assist the Federal employees in 
the execution of their duties has been reduced by $10,000,000. 
As the Committee has consistently noted, the Department relies 
too much on outside contractors for level-of-effort activities 
which should be performed by Federal government employees.
    For program direction, the Committee recommendation is 
$18,398,000, a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request 
of $38,398,000. Consistent with the funding for program 
direction expenses in fiscal year 1998, the Committee has 
provided $24,769,000 for program direction in the Other Defense 
Activities appropriation account. The total funding recommended 
for program direction is the same as the fiscal year 1999 
budget request.

                         FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

    The Committee recommendation is $232,000,000, a $3,840,000 
increase over the budget request. The Committee continues to be 
very supportive of the increased emphasis on innovative 
confinement concepts and university-based experiments. The 
Committee encourages the Department to provide sufficient 
resources for these efforts. In particular, special emphasis 
should be placed on funding operations, upgrades, and enhanced 
design work on both existing research and proposals for new 
alternative concept experiments at the proof-of-principle 
level.
    In addition to magnetic fusion, there are several promising 
technologies that have potential for producing electricity. The 
Department is directed to comprehensively review all known 
technologies and submit a program plan that includes activities 
funded in this account and potentially-related activities 
funded elsewhere in the Department. Recognizing the significant 
advances in Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) sponsored by the 
national security program, the Committee strongly supports the 
complementary work to be funded in this account including 
heavy-ion drivers, high gain target concepts, and reactor 
concepts.
    International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.--The 
Congress has been very clear that no obligation exists for 
future participation in ITER beyond the fiscal year 1998 
contribution for engineering and design activities (EDA). The 
Committee is concerned about the recent announcement that the 
Department has already proposed to enter into a new agreement 
to start engineering and design of a newly-conceived, less 
costly reactor: ``ITER-Lite''. The Committee observes that the 
proponents of ITER have seized upon only one of the concerns 
the Congress has about ITER. The Committee continues to 
question whether the tokamak is the most promising technology 
and whether the current partners in ITER are willing and able 
to meet their commitments. The Committee observes that after 
ten years and a U.S. contribution of $345 million, the 
partnership has yet to even select a site for this construction 
project. The Committee objects to the proposed extension of the 
EDA and has not provided any additional funds for ITER, ITER-
Lite or the Joint Central Team. The Department may use prior 
year funds for closeout costs related to ITER.
    Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR).--In fiscal year 1997, 
Congress terminated funding for the TFTR. The Committee notes 
that TFTR has ceased operation and that many parts of the TFTR 
facility will be re-used for the new National Spherical Torus 
Experiment. Currently, the Department is spending approximately 
$4,000,000 annually for care-taking of the remaining TFTR 
components. The Department has no immediate plans for the 
decommissioning of the TFTR unit, proposing to continue care-
taking expenses indefinitely. The Committee has been made aware 
of decommissioning proposals to complete decommissioning in 
three years, with estimated savings of $25,000,000. The 
Committee directs the Department to prepare a reasonable, 
timely and cost-effective decommissioning plan and to submit 
this plan with the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The 
Department shall consult with the Princeton Plasma Physics 
Laboratory throughout the development of this plan.

                       Energy Support Activities

    -The Committee recommendation for Energy Support Activities 
is $105,100,000, a $21,781,000 reduction from the amount 
requested. The recommendation includes the Department's 
proposal to remove responsibility for funding Oak Ridge 
landlord activities from the Office of Nuclear Energy to the 
Office of Chief Financial Officer.
    Technical information management program.--The Committee 
recommendation is $9,100,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 from 
the current fiscal year. The reduction reflects the elimination 
of construction funding as recommended in the budget request. 
The Department is directed to reduce the redundancy currently 
found between its database and the National Technical 
Information Service database maintained by the Department of 
Commerce. The Committee supports the continued downsizing of 
this program and directs that the Department provide a program 
plan detailing the program and funding requirements anticipated 
through fiscal year 2002.
    Field offices.--The Committee recommendation is 
$85,000,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the amount 
provided for the current fiscal year. The Committee has 
provided funding for Federal employees at the Idaho field 
office in the Environmental Management program direction 
account.
    Oak Ridge landlord.--The Committee recommendation of 
$11,000,000 reflects a reduction of $1,500,000 as a result of 
the reprogramming approved by the Committee on March 16, 1998.

                          funding adjustments

    The recommendation includes two funding adjustments. The 
$47,905,000 adjustment represents the funding provided for 
renewable energy research programs managed by the Office of 
Energy Research and funded in the Science account. The 
$31,535,000 adjustment for prior year balances reflects the 
availability of funds appropriated in prior years that have not 
yet been costed or obligated. This is the same amount 
identified as available in the current fiscal year.

                         annual appropriations

    Last year, Congress made a change to provide funding for 
this account on an annual basis (appropriation expires at the 
end of the fiscal year) rather than providing ``no-year'' funds 
which are made available until expended. The Committee cited 
the Department's continuation of programs eliminated by 
Congress and other inappropriate reprogrammings of funds 
appropriated in prior years. While the continuation of these 
spending programs does not violate the law, it certainly 
violates the clear intent of Congress.
    It has come to the attention of the Committee that there is 
a potential contracting problem associated with the change to 
annual appropriations. The Committee notes that there are 
specific remedies for multi-year procurements in the law. The 
Committee is currently working with the Department and the 
General Accounting Office to resolve the issues the Department 
has identified with regard to the potential use of these 
remedies. The Committee is very much aware of the need to 
operate facilities under multi-year agreements and fully 
intends to remedy any potential problem before final action on 
this bill.

                  Non-Defense Environmental Management

Appropriation, 1998-....................................    $497,059,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     462,000,000
Recommended, 1999-......................................    -466,700,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998-................................     -30,359,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................       4,700,000

    For fiscal year 1999, the Environmental Management program 
has established a new structure that more closely aligns 
funding with the goals of accelerating cleanup and moving to a 
project-based management approach. This new structure should 
improve the ability of the Department and Congress to track 
costs and measure progress at each Departmental site. The three 
major activities are: Site Closure, where cleanup will be 
completed by the end of fiscal year 2006 and no further DOE 
mission is anticipated; Site/Project Completion, where cleanup 
will be completed by 2006 but DOE programs will continue; and 
Post 2006 Completion, where cleanup activities at the site will 
extend beyond 2006. The fiscal year 1998 appropriation is shown 
in the new structure for comparability purposes.
    The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 
funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian, energy 
research, and non-defense related activities. These past 
efforts resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste 
contamination which requires remediation, stabilization, or 
some other type of action.
    -The Committee recommendation is $466,700,000, an increase 
of $4,700,000 over the budget request of $462,000,000. The 
budget request included $26,500,000 for science and technology 
activities which were funded in the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management appropriation account in 
fiscal year 1998. The Committee recommendation retains that 
funding structure in fiscal year 1999, and $26,500,000 has been 
included in the Defense Environmental Management program. The 
budget request also transferred funding for the Fast Flux Test 
Facility (FFTF) at the Hanford site in Washington to the 
nuclear energy program. The Committee does not support this 
transfer, and has provided the budget request of $31,200,000 in 
this account to maintain the FFTF in a safe condition pending a 
final decision to proceed with the potential restart option for 
tritium production or to resume deactivation of the facility.
    The Committee urges the Department to seek additional 
funding in fiscal year 2000 to accelerate the cleanup of many 
of the smaller sites and laboratories. Due to severe budget 
constraints, the Committee was unable to provide additional 
funding in fiscal year 1999, but considers this an important 
activity.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

Appropriation, 1998-....................................    $220,200,000
Budget Estimate, 1999-..................................     277,000,000
Recommended, 1999--.....................................     225,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998--...............................       4,800,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999-..............................     -52,000,000

    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 United States 
Enrichment Corporation (USEC), as well as Department of Energy 
facilities at these and other uranium enrichment sites. The 
sites covered by this D&D Fund include the operating uranium 
enrichment facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, 
Kentucky, and the inactive K-25 site in Tennessee, formerly 
called the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Environmental 
restoration efforts at these three sites are supported from the 
D&D Fund established by a tax on domestic utilities and by 
Congressional appropriations. In fiscal year 1999, the 
Department of Energy will transfer $398,088,000 into this Fund.
    The Committee recommends $225,000,000, a reduction of 
$52,000,000 from the budget request of $277,000,000. Due to 
severe budget constraints, the Committee was unable to provide 
the budget request for this program, but the recommendation is 
an increase of $4,800,000 over fiscal year 1998. 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. The Committee continues to believe there are 
many efficiencies to be made in all areas of the environmental 
management program.
    The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000, a 
reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request of $35,000,000, 
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.

                                Science

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1998...................................    $2,235,708,000
Budget Estimate, 1999.................................     2,482,460,000
Recommended, 1999.....................................     2,399,500,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1998...............................       163,792,000
Budget Estimate, 1999.................................       -82,960,000
                                                                        

    The Science account includes the following programs: high 
energy and nuclear physics; biological and environmental 
research; basic energy sciences; computational and technology 
research and other research-related programs. The Committee 
continues its very strong support for these basic science 
programs. While the Committee has eliminated many Department of 
Energy programs and substantially reduced funding for others, 
the Committee has provided generous increases for physics 
programs and other basic research activities funded under this 
account.
    -The Committee has taken extraordinary steps to provide the 
increases included in this recommendation. This year, the 
Committee was forced to reduce net funding for domestic 
programs by over four hundred million dollars. In addition, the 
Committee had to identify an additional $27,400,000 that was 
available last year from unobligated balances for termination 
of the superconducting super collider and not available this 
year. Nevertheless, the Committee continues its strong support 
for basic research and development activities funded in this 
account.

                  climate change technology initiative

    The Committee has strongly supported the fundamental 
science pursued by the Department. The value and credibility of 
the Department's science program is dependent upon responsible 
leadership that would ensure that research is properly peer-
reviewed and wholly independent from the policy positions of 
any Administration. While it is critical that science inform 
policy, it is equally critical that policy not direct 
scientific conclusions.
    In the area of climate-related research, the Committee is 
concerned that this independence is being compromised. The 
Committee is disturbed that the Department has been publishing 
``reports'' and ``papers'' and ``assessments'' that are heavy 
on conclusions and recommendations and light on new data and 
sound logic. Examples of these policy-driven testimonials 
include: Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts 
of Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and 
Beyond (September 1997); Carbon Management: Assessment of 
Fundamental Research Needs (August 1997); and Technology 
Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (October 
1997).
    The Office of Energy Research has requested $27,000,000 for 
the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). Since much of 
the work done to date has been half-science and half-policy, 
the Committee reduction reduces the requested amount by one-
half, or $13,500,000. No funding has been provided for the 
Office of Energy Research to publish policy-related materials. 
Full funding has been provided for the underlying science 
needed to better understand the complexities of the changes in 
the Earth's climate.

                          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 strong support for 
these fundamental pursuits.
    -The recommendation is $696,500,000, a $16,465,000 increase 
over the amount provided in the current fiscal year and a 
$5,500,000 increase over the amount of the budget request. The 
recommendation includes a $3,000,000 increase over the budget 
request for facility operations, and a $2,500,000 increase for 
the research and technology program.

                         large hadron collider

    -The recommendation includes $65,000,000, an increase of 
$30,000,000 over the amount provided in the current fiscal 
year, and the same amount as the budget request. The 
recommendation does not include the advance appropriation for 
fiscal years 2000 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 will carefully monitor 
this program 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.

                            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 
$335,100,000, a $14,175,000 increase overthe amount provided in 
the current fiscal year and a $2,500,000 increase over the amount 
requested.

                 biological and environmental research

    The Committee recommendation is $405,900,000, an $810,000 
reduction from the current fiscal year, and a $13,300,000 
increase over the budget request. The Committee recognizes the 
ongoing valuable work being done in the fight against 
Parkinson's disease. The recommendation includes funding to 
increase the Department's research of cell structures, 
diagnostic techniques and efforts related to drug development.
    Within available funds, $8,800,000 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.

                         basic energy sciences

    The Committee recommendation for basic energy sciences is 
$779,100,000, an increase of $110,860,000 over the current 
fiscal year, and a $57,000,000 reduction from the budget 
request.
    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 1999, 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).

                    spallation neutron source (sns)

    -The recommendation includes $100,000,000 for a new neutron 
source, a $77,000,000 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. Due to severe budget constraints, the 
Committee was unable to provide the full amount of the request.

                     other energy research programs

    The Committee recommendation for the Computational and 
Technology Research program is $138,640,000, a reduction of 
$22,000,000 from the budget request. The recommendation does 
not include funds for the Next Generation Internet program 
(NGI). The Committee has had to cut existing programs and make 
hard choices and 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.

                    university and science education

    -The Committee has not provided funds for a new university 
and science education program. The Office of Energy Research 
informs the Committee that grants to colleges and universities 
are approximately one-half billion dollars in the current 
fiscal year. This level of funding is consistent with the 
Committee's direction that the Department fully support higher 
education. Two years ago, 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 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 recommendation does include funding for the Laboratory 
Cooperative, National Science Bowl, and Albert Einstein 
Distinguished Educator Fellowships programs in the program 
direction account as described below.

                           program direction

    The recommendation is $43,100,000, a $3,240,000 increase 
over the amount requested. The Committee has provided 
$38,600,000 for standard program direction activities, and an 
additional $4,500,000 to fund the Laboratory Cooperative, 
National Science Bowl, and Albert Einstein Distinguished 
Educator Fellowships programs. The Committee takes this action 
to establish a legitimate funding mechanism for these 
activities. The Office of Energy Research is directed to 
provide full funding for programs as directed by the Congress. 
In the past, the Department has funded these and other 
Secretary/Director initiatives despite the lack of 
appropriations and at the expense of other programs. The 
Committee directs that the Department refrain from 
surreptitiously funding programs not included in the budget 
request and programs for which funding has been specifically 
denied by Congress.

                          funding adjustments

    -The recommendation includes two funding adjustments. The 
$7,600,000 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 Super Collider. The $13,500,000 
adjustment represents an estimate of the policy-related work 
requested as part of the Climate Change Technology Initiative. 
This adjustment is to be made exclusively to the Basic Energy 
Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research programs.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    $160,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     190,000,000
Recommended, 1999 -.....................................     160,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998 -...............................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999 -.............................     -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.
    Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee recommends 
$160,000,000 to be derived from the Fund in fiscal year 1999. 
Combined with the appropriation of $190,000,000 to the Defense 
Nuclear Waste Disposal account, a total of $350,000,000 will be 
available for program activities in fiscal year 1999, the same 
as fiscal year 1998.
    The Department is to review all cost components to see what 
savings can be achieved in fiscal year 1999. The Committee has 
not provided funding for the State of Nevada or the affected 
units of local government. The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the excessive use of support service 
contractors at the Yucca Mountain Project Office and 
Headquarters and directs the Department to reduce their usage 
by a minimum of 10 percent in fiscal year 1999.

                      Departmental Administration

                          gross appropriation

Appropriation, 1998-....................................    $224,155,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     245,788,000
Recommended, 1999-......................................     175,365,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998--...............................     -48,790,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999-..............................     -70,423,000

                         miscellaneous revenues

Appropriation, 1998-....................................   -$136,738,000
Budget Estimate, 1999-..................................    -136,530,000
Recommended, 1999--.....................................    -136,530,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998--...............................         208,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................................

    The funding recommended for Departmental Administration 
provides for general management and program support functions 
benefiting all elements of the Department of Energy. The 
account funds a wide array of activities not directly 
associated with program execution. In fiscal year 1999, the 
Committee has provided funding for Departmental Administration 
activities in two appropriation accounts. The Committee has 
provided $175,365,000 in this account, and $60,000,000 in the 
Other Defense Activities appropriation account, for total 
funding of $235,365,000, a reduction of $10,423,000 from the 
budget request. For many years, full funding for all corporate 
and administrative activities of the Department has been 
provided in the energy portion of this bill despite the fact 
that over 70 percent of the Department's funding is provided in 
the defense accounts. The Committee has distributed these costs 
more equitably in fiscal year 1999.
    In a change from fiscal year 1998, where funding for 
general management expenses was provided as a lump sum program, 
the Committee recommendation provides funding for individual 
administrative offices at the same level of detail as included 
in the budget justification. The Committee continues to believe 
that Headquarters staffing for many administrative functions is 
excessive, and has reduced the funding for certain offices 
accordingly. These changes are shown in the accompanying table.
    Office of Contract Reform.--The Department has established 
an Office of Contract Reform to guide and coordinate the 
Department's contract reform initiatives and 
the``privatization'' proposals to pursue fixed-price contracts and 
private sector financing for major construction projects. Through 
contract reforms aimed at increasing competition, the Department seeks 
to improve contractor and project performance and gain cost and 
schedule efficiencies. The Department's budget request included no 
funding for this new office, but the Committee has recommended 
$3,200,000 to staff this office in fiscal year 1999.
    Information management.--The recommendation includes the 
budget request of $8,000,000 for a new Corporate Management 
Information System. Last year the Committee requested a 
detailed project plan for acquisition of this system. The 
report provided by the Department was late and not complete. 
The Committee believes that the investment in these systems has 
the potential to generate substantial savings over the next 
five years, but is concerned that the project management is not 
sufficient to ensure success. The Department is directed to 
provide the Committee with a semi-annual status report starting 
November 1, 1998, showing project milestones, cost schedules, 
performance measures, and progress to date. The report should 
also describe any current issues or concerns which could 
adversely impact the cost or schedule of the project.
    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 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 2000 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 working capital fund is to be audited each year by the 
Department's Inspector General to ensure the integrity of the 
accounts. 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.
    Official Reception and Representation Expenses.--Consistent 
with recommendations made throughout this bill for agency 
representation expenses, the Committee has provided $5,000 in 
the Departmental Administration account.
    Use of Prior Year Deobligations and Construction Project 
Reserves.--Throughout the fiscal year, funds often become 
available as projects are completed and contracts closed out 
throughout all of the Department's appropriation accounts. 
These funds become available for reuse and are retained by the 
Controller as either prior year deobligations or transferred to 
construction project reserve accounts. During fiscal year 1999 
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 $44,312,000, 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 1999 is 
$136,530,000, the same as the budget request, and a decrease of 
$208,000 from the revenues estimated for fiscal year 1998.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriation, 1998 -...................................     $27,500,000
Budget Estimate, 1999--.................................      29,500,000
Recommended, 1999--.....................................      14,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998--...............................     -13,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999--.............................     -15,000,000

    -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.
    -In fiscal year 1999, the Committee has provided funding 
for the Inspector General in two appropriation accounts. The 
Committee has provided $14,500,000 in this account, and 
$15,000,000 in the Other Defense Activities appropriation 
account, for a total of $29,500,000, the same as the budget 
request. The funding increase over fiscal year 1998 is 
necessary because unobligated balances were available to offset 
funding requirements in prior fiscal years. For many years, 
full funding for the Office of the Inspector General has been 
provided in the energy portion of this bill despite the fact 
that over 70% of the Department's funding is provided in the 
defense accounts. The Committee has distributed these costs 
more equitably in fiscal year 1999.

                    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 
Facilities Closure Projects; Defense Environmental Management 
Privatization; Other Defense Activities; and Defense Nuclear 
Waste Disposal. Descriptions of each of these accounts are 
provided below.

                           Weapons Activities

Appropriation, 1998-.................................... $4,146,692,000-
Budget Estimate, 1999--.................................   4,500,000,000
Recommended, 1999--.....................................   4,142,100,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998--...............................      -4,592,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999--.............................    -357,900,000

    The goal of the Weapons Activities program is to maintain 
high confidence in the safety, security, reliability and 
performance 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 in a smaller, more efficient weapons complex 
infrastructure. The program must maintain indefinitely the 
safety, reliability and performance of the current nuclear 
weapons stockpile without underground nuclear testing; maintain 
the capability to return to the design and production of new 
weapons and to underground nuclear testing, if directed by the 
President; and dismantle excess weapons safety and dispose of 
or store excess components.
    The future weapons complex will rely on scientific 
understanding and expert judgment, rather than on 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 Committee's recommendation for Weapons Activities is 
$4,142,100,000, a decrease of $4,592,000 from the fiscal year 
1998 appropriation, and a decrease of $357,900,000 from the 
budget request of $4,500,000,000. An adjustment of $305,436,000 
has been made to the total account to reflect the use in fiscal 
year 1999 of funding balances carried over from prior 
fiscalyears. The Committee will work with the Department to assure the 
accuracy and availability of these balances as costs are incurred 
during execution of the nuclear weapons program in fiscal year 1998.
    The reduction to the fiscal year 1999 budget request 
reflects the Committee's concern that the Department is using a 
very broad brush to define activities which are essential to 
maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile and should look 
closely at all of the individual activities which are being 
performed at the nuclear weapons laboratories and production 
plants. Cost controls and project management at the 
laboratories have been inadequate as evidenced by many examples 
of projects which have experienced scope creep, missed 
milestones, and cost overruns. Funds are used for numerous 
multi-colored publications, education activities, conferences, 
contractor training that is not essential to work performance, 
and extensive contractor travel. In addition, six percent of 
all operating funding provided to each laboratory is allocated 
to the laboratory director to fund discretionary research. The 
Committee will not argue there is no value to some of these 
activities, but questions whether they are all critical to 
maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile.
    Stockpile stewardship appears to be a very large rug under 
which to sweep a broad and diverse group of activities. The 
Committee is not convinced that the Department has made a 
critical assessment of all activities being performed 
throughout the nuclear weapons complex in the name of stockpile 
stewardship nor that the Department has exercised sufficient 
oversight of costs and project management. Until such an 
assessment is performed and the Department can assure the 
Committee that stringent cost controls and project management 
systems have been put in place, large budget increases will be 
difficult to maintain.

                         stockpile stewardship

    -The stockpile stewardship program addresses issues of 
maintaining confidence in stockpile safety and reliability 
without nuclear testing through a technically challenging 
science-based stockpile stewardship program using upgraded or 
new experimental and computational capabilities. Funding of 
$2,123,075,000, an increase of $255,925,000 over fiscal year 
1998, has been recommended for fiscal year 1999. For core 
stockpile stewardship operating expenses, the Committee 
recommendation reduces funding by $30,000,000 from the budget 
request of $1,505,832,000. As noted above, the Committee 
believes there are many cost efficiencies to be achieved 
throughout the laboratory complex.
    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 supports the 
ASCI program, and the budget request of $329,100,000 for fiscal 
year 1999. This is a significant increase from the fiscal year 
1998 funding level of $223,529,000. 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 Fusion.--The Committee recommends $508,000,000 for 
the inertial fusion program, an increase of $10,000,000 over 
the budget request of $498,000,000. The recommendation includes 
the budget request of $291,000,000 for the National Ignition 
Facility, and $29,000,000 for the University of Rochester's 
OMEGA laser. Recognizing the impact that laser technology has 
made in the national security missions of the Department, the 
Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 to further the 
development of high average power lasers.
    Technology Transfer and Education.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $49,000,000 for technology transfer and 
education programs, a decrease of $20,000,000 from the budget 
request. The recommendation includes the budget request of 
$10,000,000 for the AMTEX cooperative research and development 
agreement.
    Construction projects.--The budget request of $115,543,000 
for stockpile stewardship construction includes funding for 
many ongoing projects throughout the nuclear weapons complex, 
including seven new starts in fiscal year 1999. The Committee's 
recommendation reduces funding for new starts in stockpile 
stewardship by $25,300,000. In light of the concerns expressed 
by the Committee last year about the Department's costly 
project management failures, initiating a large number of new 
projects before the causes of prior project failures have been 
fully identified does not seem prudent. An independent 
assessment of the entire project management system in the 
Department and separate assessments of individual projects are 
underway. Pending completion of this review, the Committee has 
deferred without prejudice many of these new starts. Specific 
details by project are shown in the accompanying table.

                          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 $2,084,461,000, an increase of $33,336,000 over 
the budget request of $2,051,125,000. The recommendation 
provides funding for activities necessary to sustain a 
reliable, quality production capability to support the nuclear 
weapons stockpile as it ages.
    Nuclear weapons production complex.--Additional funding of 
$53,500,000 over the budget request of $1,935,803,000 for 
stockpile management operating expenses has been provided to 
maintain adequate production capability throughout the 
Department's nuclear weapons production complex. Additional 
funding of $15,500,000 is provided for the advanced 
manufacturing, design and production technologies (ADAPT) 
program; $25,000,000 is provided for core stockpile management 
weapons activities at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas; and 
$13,000,000 is provided for handling uranium materials and 
infrastructure upgrades at the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee.
    -Tritium.--The Committee's recommendation fully funds the 
budget request of $157,000,000 for continued research and 
development on a new source of tritium to support the Nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
    Construction projects.--The Committee has not included 
fiscal year 1999 funding of $9,164,000 for Project 97-D-122, 
the nuclear materials storage facility renovation project, at 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and has reduced funding for 
Project 95-D-102, the chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR) 
upgrades project, to $5,000,000. The Committee is concerned 
that a validated baseline for the cost and schedule of these 
two ongoing projects does not exist.

                           program direction

    The Committee recommendation of $240,000,000 for program 
direction is a reduction of $20,500,000 from the budget request 
of $260,500,000. This reflects a reduction in funding for 
personnel costs and travel expenses for Federal employees, 
support service contractors, advisory and assistance services, 
and training.

                          funding adjustments

    The recommendation for Weapons Activities includes the use 
of uncosted obligations and unobligated balances carried 
forward from prior year balances. The Committee recommends the 
use of $305,436,000 to offset fiscal year 1999 funding 
requirements.

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Appropriation, 1998-....................................  $4,429,438,000
Budget Estimate, 1999--.................................   4,259,903,000
Recommended, 1999--.....................................   4,358,554,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998--...............................     -70,884,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999--.............................      98,651,000

    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. Environmentalmanagement activities are budgeted under 
the following appropriation accounts: Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management; Defense Facilities Closure Projects; Defense 
Environmental Management Privatization; Non-Defense Environmental 
Management; and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning Fund.
     In fiscal year 1999 the Environmental Management program 
has established a new structure that more closely aligns 
funding with the goals of accelerating cleanup and moving to a 
project-based management approach. This new structure should 
improve the ability of the Department and Congress to track 
costs and measure progress at each Departmental site. The three 
major activities are: Site Closure, where cleanup will be 
completed by the end of fiscal year 2006 and no further DOE 
mission is anticipated; Site/Project Completion, where cleanup 
will be completed by 2006 but DOE programs will continue; and 
Post 2006 Completion, where cleanup activities at the site will 
extend beyond 2006. The fiscal year 1998 appropriation is shown 
in the new structure for comparability purposes.
    The Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 
account includes site/project completion, post 2006 completion, 
science and technology, the environmental science program, and 
a variety of crosscutting and program management activities. -
The Committee's recommendation for Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management is $4,358,554,000, an increase 
of $98,651,000 over the budget request of $4,259,903,000. 
Details of the recommended funding levels follow.

                                general

    The Committee commends the environmental management 
organization for the current effort to develop a project basis 
for the environmental cleanup program. This approach will make 
it easier for Congress to review projects and track the status 
of individual project costs, schedules, and milestones at each 
site. It will provide additional accountability for the 
Department's managers who oversee the cleanup and contractors 
who perform the work. This can only improve the performance of 
the program and the credibility of the Department in managing 
the program.
    Budget Justifications.--The Committee directs the 
Department to submit a fiscal year 2000 budget request which is 
based on these individual projects, including costs, schedules, 
and milestones for each. The current system of identifying 
activities by operational units and waste streams may be one 
useful metric for tracking performance, but it tends to lose 
sight of the overall goal of this program which is to complete 
cleanup as quickly and efficiently as possible. The Department 
should work with the Committee to establish the level of detail 
required in the budget document.
    Complex-Wide EM Integration Project.--The Committee 
believes the systems engineering and analysis process developed 
under DOE's Complex-Wide Integration Project can significantly 
improve overall management of the environmental management and 
civilian radioactive waste management programs. There is a need 
to expand the development of core capabilities in the complex 
to apply systems engineering and analysis on a broader, 
national scale. The Committee expects the Department to provide 
sufficient funding to establish systems engineering and 
analysis as a basis for the requirements and resource decisions 
in the environmental management and civilian radioactive waste 
management programs.
    Reprogramming Authority.--The Committee continues to 
support the need for greater flexibility to meet changing 
funding requirements at former defense sites which are 
undergoing remedial cleanup activities. In fiscal year 1999, 
each site manager may 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.

                        site/project completion

    The site/project completion account will provide funding 
for projects that will be completed by fiscal year 2006 at 
sites or facilities where a DOE mission will continue beyond 
the year 2006. This account focuses management attention on 
completing specific environmental projects at sites where the 
Department anticipates continuing missions, and distinguishes 
these projects from the long-term cleanup activities such as 
those associated with high level waste streams.
    The Committee's recommendation for site/project completion 
activities is $1,067,253,000, an increase of $20,000,000 over 
the budget request of $1,047,253,000. The recommendation 
includes an additional $20,000,000 to process tritium-
contaminated heavy water currently being stored at the Savannah 
River Site. This material could be sold if cleaned up to 
customer specifications, resulting in a projected net revenue 
of approximately $38,000,000.

                          post 2006 completion

    Environmental Management projects currently projected to 
require funding beyond fiscal year 2006 are funded in the Post 
2006 completion account. This includes a significant number of 
projects at the largest DOE sites--the Hanford site in 
Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; the Oak 
Ridge Reservation in Tennessee; and the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho--as well as 
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Nevada 
Test Site, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New 
Mexico. A variety of multi-site activities are also funded in 
this account. The Committee's recommendation for Post 2006 
completion is $2,758,451,000, an increase of $85,000,000 over 
the budget request of $2,673,451,000.
    The recommendation includes an additional $18,000,000 for 
Hanford tank farm operations including single shell tank 
drainage which has been delayed. An additional $12,000,000 has 
been provided to continue the successful project to 
decontaminate and decommission reactors at the Hanford site. 
From within available funds, the Department is encouraged to 
provide an additional $800,000 to operate the Hazardous 
Materials Management and Emergency Response Training facility 
at the fiscal year 1998 funding level.
    The Committee is aware that existing pretreatment processes 
for the Defense Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River 
have been found to be inadequate, and the Department is 
reviewing treatment alternatives. Equipment modifications will 
be needed in fiscal year 1999, and the Committee has provided 
an additional $30,000,000 to support the preferred treatment 
option.
    Additional funding of $5,000,000 has been provided for the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico to support 
operational needs of the facility which is scheduled to open 
this summer, and an additional $5,000,000 has been allocated to 
continue the National Spent Fuel Program at Idaho.
    Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Contribution.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the budget request of $398,088,000 for 
the defense contribution to the Uranium Enrichment 
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in 
Public Law 102-486, the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
    Health Effects Studies.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $15,000,000 for worker and public health effects 
studies to be managed by the Office of Environment, Safety and 
Health. The Department has not previously budgeted for this 
activity in the environmental management account, but has taxed 
each of the program areas to support this activity during the 
fiscal year. The Committee does not support taxing programs for 
any reason, and, to clarify the funding levels, has provided a 
specific appropriation for health effects studies. This funding 
will be combined with the $41,456,000, provided in the Defense 
Environment, Safety and Health account for a total health 
effects studies program of $56,456,000.
    Transportation.--The Department has a Motor Carrier 
Evaluation Program to screen carriers used to transport 
hazardous materials. -The Committee directs the Department to 
review its current rating system for selecting carriers which 
is based on a variety of factors, including cost, safety, and 
other issues. Evaluations currently can be very subjective, and 
the Committee recommends the Department move more to 
performance-based evaluations, including evaluating the need to 
raise the current minimum safety standards for determining the 
eligibility of a motor carrier to transport hazardous or 
radioactive materials. The Department should examine the costs 
and benefits of changing the evaluation standards, including 
increasing the current safety standards, and report back to the 
Committee by January 31, 1999 on the results of this 
evaluation.

                   science and technology development

    The Committee recommendation for science and technology 
development is $270,750,000, an increase of $77,750,000 over 
the budget request of $193,000,000. The recommendation includes 
the budget request of $193,000,000 included in the Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management appropriation 
account, the budget request of $26,500,000 included in the Non-
Defense Environmental Management appropriation account, and an 
additional $51,250,000 to be allocated toward activities noted 
below.
    Technology Deployment.--The Committee has provided 
$30,000,000 to continue the Department's efforts to deploy 
cost-effective new technologies. Deployment of new technologies 
is a strategic activity affecting virtually all environmental 
management programs and sites, and should be strongly supported 
as a complex-wide program to help meet compliance agreement 
milestones within a resource constrained budget. This funding 
should be used to accelerate the use of new technologies and 
leverage funding already available for deployment activities.
     Environmental Management Science Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $42,000,000 for the environmental 
management science program, an increase of $10,000,000 over the 
budget request of $32,000,000. This is a collaborative program 
between the Department's Office of Environmental Management and 
the Office of Energy Research that identifies long-term, basic 
science research needs and targets the research and development 
toward critical cleanup problems. This program has been given 
high marks by the National Research Council and the 
Department's Environmental Management Advisory Board. 
Unfortunately, the Department has not requested funding for new 
research and development grants in fiscal year 1999. The budget 
request only continues grants awarded in prior years. The 
Committee believes it is critical to provide continuity of 
funding for this research program, and has provided $10,000,000 
for the next round of new and innovative research grants in 
fiscal year 1999.
    Risk Policy.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$8,000,000 for the risk policy program, an increase of 
$3,000,000 over the budget request of $5,000,000. The Committee 
has been concerned that the Department's risk policy program is 
not well integrated. There are several groups doing risk policy 
work, but the national program perspective does not appear to 
be well formed. The Committee understands that the Department 
has created a Center for Risk Excellence in Chicago. This 
Center will be the focal point for coordination of risk-related 
activities within the Department's Environmental Management 
program which will use the Center to facilitate risk-related 
planning profiles, risk assessments, risk-informed decision-
making, and communication. The Center will also manage and 
coordinate risk-related grants and cooperative agreements. The 
Committee supports continuing the Risk Center management of the 
national technical peer review program for the technology 
development program.
    Within the funding provided, the Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 to continue the cooperative agreement with the 
Consortium for Risk Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation 
(CRESP) and $2,000,000 to continue support for the Consortium 
for Environmental Risk Evaluation (CERE).
    Annual Report.--In fiscal year 1998 the Committee directed 
submission of a semi-annual report on the technologies under 
development by the Department. The Committee has received the 
first report, and has determined that an annual report on the 
science and technology development program will be sufficient. 
The annual report for fiscal year 1998 is to be submitted to 
Congress by the Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management by February 15, 1999. The annual report should 
document the prior year accomplishments of all the science and 
technology development program activities. It should also 
include a description of each technology research and 
development program, with costs, schedules and major milestones 
for each, and a description of the critical environmental 
problems which each technology addresses. The Department should 
consult with the Committee on the specific elements to be 
included and the format of this annual report.
     -University Robotics Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes the budget request of $4,000,000 for 
the university robotics program.
    Asset Management.--The conference report to accompany the 
fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act provided $3,500,000 to initiate a national pilot program 
for electronics recovery and recycling. For a variety of 
reasons, the Department was unable to execute this program in 
fiscal year 1998. The Committee recommendation includes the 
same amount in fiscal year 1999 in the Environmental Management 
program to initiate this activity.
    Other.--The Committee supports partnerships between the 
Office of Science and Technology and university research 
institutions. One such partnership is the Hemispheric Center 
for Environmental Technology at Florida International 
University in Miami, Florida. The Committee encourages the 
Department to continue this partnership and investigate and 
develop new ways to expand the partnership.
    The Committee continues to be concerned with the high costs 
associated with temporarily storing and monitoring wastes that 
are ready for permanent disposal. The Committee encourages the 
Department to seek out and support innovative cleanup 
technologies offered by small companies which can be used to 
lower the costs of the management and surveillance of long-
term, on-site, and landfill storage of hazardous and 
radioactive materials. Many of these technologies have been 
successfully demonstrated at Departmental sites, but no funding 
has been provided to use the technologies for full scale 
cleanup projects. Funding of $2,000,000 is provided to use a 
technology that will safely and effectively destroy the 
asbestos removed from Federal facilities during the 
decontamination and decommissioning process. The Department is 
also urged to expedite the use of the macroencapsulation method 
for immobilizing and treating low-level mixed waste. The use of 
these technologies should not be limited to the funding 
provided in this account, but should be incorporated throughout 
the complex using any available funds.
    The Committee recommendation includes $350,000 to cover the 
cost of an on-line tritium monitor to provide early warning for 
the City of Savannah, Georgia, when high levels of tritium are 
present in the Savannah River, which the city uses for drinking 
water.

                           program direction

    The Committee recommends $356,200,000 for program 
direction, an increase of $10,001,000 over the budget request 
of $346,199,000. The funding increase is accompanied by the 
transfer of the salaries and expenses of the Federal employees 
performing administrative functions at the Idaho operations 
office. These employees had originally been funded in the 
program account for multi-purpose DOE offices, while the 
remaining two-thirds of the Idaho Federal employees were funded 
in the environmental management account. Since the majority of 
the funding for the Idaho site is for environmental management 
activities, the administrative personnel should be funded from 
the same account. To accommodate this additional requirement, 
funding reductions should be made to support service 
contractors both in the field and at Headquarters.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).--
The Committee is disappointed that the Department has not yet 
reached agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the 
transfer of responsibilities under FUSRAP. The Committee 
expects the Department to fulfill its responsibilities at 
FUSRAP sites, exclusive of the remedial actions to be performed 
by the Corps. Last year when the program was transferred to the 
Corps, the Committee continued to fund approximately 27 
employees at the Department who had worked on the program. The 
funding provided in fiscal year 1999 in this account and the 
departmental administration account will support continued 
Departmental involvement in the transition of the FUSRAP 
program.

                          funding adjustments

    The recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management includes the use of uncosted obligations 
and unobligated balances carried forward from prior year 
balances. The Committee recommends the use of $94,100,000 to 
offset fiscal year 1999 funding requirements.

                  Defense Facilities Closure Projects

Appropriation, 1998-....................................    $890,800,000
Budget Estimate, 1999--.................................   1,006,240,000
Recommended, 1999--.....................................   1,038,240,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998--...............................    +147,440,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999--.............................     +32,000,000

    The Defense Facilities Closure Projects account includes 
funding for sites which have established a goal of completing 
cleanup by the end of fiscal year 2006. After completion of 
cleanup, no further Departmental mission is envisioned, except 
for limited long-term surveillance and maintenance, and the 
sites will be available for some alternative use. Sites to be 
completed by2006 include the Rocky Flats Closure Project in 
Colorado, and several sites in Ohio: Fernald, Mound, Ashtabula, and 
Battelle Columbus Laboratory.
    Establishment of this account is intended to highlight 
those sites where cleanup can be accelerated and substantial 
savings achieved by the resulting reduction in long-term 
program costs and ongoing support costs. The Committee strongly 
supports this program, and the Committee recommendation for 
fiscal year 1999 funding is $1,038,240,000, an increase of 
$32,000,000 over the budget request. Funding levels for each of 
the sites are addressed below.
    Rocky Flats Closure Project.--The Committee has challenged 
the Department to close the Rocky Flats Site in Colorado by 
2006 within a total project cost of $6 billion. The 
Department's current plan is for site closure by fiscal year 
2010 at a total project cost of $7.3 billion. Accelerating the 
cleanup schedule can save $1.3 billion. The Committee is aware 
that to meet the 2006 deadline, stable funding will be required 
over several years, and critical path work activities must be 
successfully completed, not only at Rocky Flats, but at other 
sites throughout the Department's complex. The Department 
should ensure that complex-wide funding issues are addressed as 
they relate to the closure of the Rocky Flats Site. It is only 
through the closure of smaller sites like Fernald and Rocky 
Flats that funds will be made available to support expensive 
future cleanup projects like the vitrification plants needed at 
Hanford and Idaho.
    The Committee intends to do everything possible to ensure 
project closure by 2006, and has provided fiscal year 1999 
funding of $657,200,000, an increase of $32,000,000 over the 
budget request. Stable and assured funding for the life of the 
project is a critical element in managing the total cleanup. 
Another critical element is the interdependence of Rocky Flat's 
cleanup activities with the activities being conducted at other 
sites throughout the complex. The Department is expected to 
coordinate the Department-wide decision-making process to 
address these issues in a timely manner.
    Fernald Environmental Management Project.--The Fernald site 
in Ohio has implemented an accelerated cleanup schedule which 
provides for site closure with the completion of all currently 
established in-situ contaminant source remediation and risk 
mitigation by fiscal year 2005. Follow-up activities for fiscal 
years 2006 through 2008 include finalizing treatment and 
disposal of the silo wastes and structures. The site is 
currently seeking to complete all of these activities by 2006, 
and the Committee strongly supports these efforts. 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 for the Fernald site is $275,347,000, the same 
as the budget request.
    Mound Plant.--The Department plans to complete cleanup at 
this Miamisburg, Ohio, site by fiscal year 2005. The Committee 
recommends the budget request of $89,988,000.
    Ashtabula.--The goal at the Ashtabula site in Ohio is to 
achieve complete cleanup by fiscal year 2003, with an 
associated cost reduction of $39,000,000 from the original 
baselines. The Committee supports the budget request of 
$15,405,000.
    Columbus Environmental Management Project.--This project 
consists of two geographic sites in Columbus, Ohio. Activities 
at one of the sites will be completed in 1998, and at the 
remaining site by fiscal year 2005. The budget request of 
$300,000 has been provided.
    Report Requirement.--As part of the fiscal year 2000 budget 
submittal, the Department is directed to provide adequate 
detail showing the major projects to be accomplished and the 
project cost, scope, schedule, and technical assumptions which 
support 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 by 
project on an annual basis.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

Appropriation, 1998-....................................    $200,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     516,857,000
Recommended, 1999-......................................     286,857,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................     +86,857,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................    -230,000,000

    The Department requested $516,857,000 for the Defense 
Environmental Management Privatization program. The Committee 
has recommended $286,857,000 for fiscal year 1999, a reduction 
of $230,000,000 from the budget request.
    The Department has always relied on the private sector to 
accomplish environmental cleanup at DOE sites, usually through 
cost-reimbursement contracts. In an effort to reduce costs and 
improve the timeliness of cleanup of environmental problems, 
the Department is pursuing an approach referred to as 
``privatization''. This requires the use of fixed price 
contracts and private financing of the construction of waste 
treatment facilities. The General Accounting Office (GAO) 
reviewed the Department's proposal and found that fixed-price 
contracting can be successfully used for environmental cleanup 
projects when certain conditions are met. For example, fixed-
price contracts are appropriate when projects are well-defined, 
uncertainties can be allocated between the parties, and 
sufficient price information and/or multiple competing bidders 
are available to help determine a fair and reasonable price for 
the work. In addition, managing fixed-price contracts takes 
managerial and procurement skills that are different from those 
required for managing cost-reimbursement contracts.
    Total private financing--the second feature of 
``privatization''--represents one end of a continuum of 
construction financing while government financing is the 
opposite end. Private financing transfers performance risk from 
the government to the private contractor, but costs for this 
approach are significant because of the increased risk assumed 
by the contractor. With government financing, financing costs 
are minimized, but performance risk, which has also proven to 
be costly, remains with the government. In between these two 
extremes, other financing options exist that attempt to strike 
a balance between performance risk and financing costs.
    The GAO analysis clearly shows that ``privatization'' is 
not a one size fits all option. When the scope of work for an 
environmental project has not been clearly defined or the 
technology is not readily available, the use of fixed-price 
contracts will not prevent cost overruns and schedule delays. 
Fixed price contracts and private financing of construction 
projects are tools to be used under the right circumstances, 
not a magic bullet to correct the Department's project 
management problems or remedy a chronic shortfall of funds to 
meet compliance agreements. The Committee will support 
alternative financing proposals when deemed appropriate, but 
will expect sufficient justification from the Department to 
support each of the proposed projects.
    Hanford Tank Waste Vitrification Project.--The budget 
proposed $330,000,000 for the Hanford tank waste vitrification 
project, also referred to as the Tank Waste Remediation System 
(TWRS), in Richland, Washington, but the Committee 
recommendation is $100,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. This will 
provide a total of $385,000,000 when added to the $285,000,000 
which was provided for this project in prior years. None of 
these prior year funds have been obligated, and they will be 
carried over into the new fiscal year.

                        Other Defense Activities

Appropriation, 1998-....................................  $1,666,008,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................   1,667,160,000
Recommended, 1999-......................................   1,761,260,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      95,252,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      94,100,000

    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); National Security Programs Administrative Support; 
the Office of Hearings and Appeals; 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. The Committee recommendation is 
$210,000,000, the same as the budget request.
    The nonproliferation and verification research and 
development program consists of hundreds of projects executed 
primarily at the nuclear weapons laboratories. The value of 
these disparate projects is difficult to ascertain as there 
does not appear to be an overriding program plan or technology 
roadmap which identifies how the individual projects contribute 
to the overall objectives. An external, peer-review process to 
examine each of the projects, their progress, and their value 
to the overall needs of the program would lend credibility to 
this effort which right now looks much like a fairly static, 
generally unfocussed, level-of-effort research program.

                   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 $256,900,000, the same as the budget request. The 
recommendation fully supports the budget request of 
$152,263,000, an increase of $15,255,000 over fiscal year 1998, 
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 Department recently announced the reorganization of 
this program to improve counterintelligence capabilities and 
enable better coordination with national law enforcement 
agencies. The Committee recommendation is $39,600,000, an 
increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request of $33,600,000, 
to support the new counter-intelligence organization. The 
Committee expects this new organization to seriously evaluate 
the issue of computer security throughout the Department and 
the employment of foreign nationals at the Department's nuclear 
weapons laboratories.

                          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 $20,000,000, a reduction of $3,700,000 from the 
budget request of $23,700,000, but the same level as fiscal 
year 1998.

                    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 
$55,200,000, an increase of $2,000,000 over the budget request, 
and an increase of $8,000,000 over fiscal year 1998.
    The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to 
study the susceptibility of security equipment to existing and 
emerging technologies such as radio frequency weapons, and to 
assist in the development of safeguards to ensure that 
commercial off-the-shelf equipment does not introduce 
vulnerabilities in DOE security systems. These studies should 
be coordinated with any other activities the Department is 
pursuing in the area of safeguards and security.
    The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the procurement 
of security locks that meet the Federal Specification FF-L-
2740A for containers that hold sensitive classified material. 
The Department should initiate a retrofit program to ensure 
that the containers holding sensitive classified material are 
protected with security locks meeting the Federal 
specification.

                        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 $30,000,000, the same as the budget request. 
In fiscal year 1999 the program organizations which request 
background investigations for contractors and non-Federal 
employees will fund the investigations. This will provide a 
$20,000,000 funding offset to the budget request of 
$30,000,000.

                           PROGRAM DIRECTION

    The Committee recommendation of $84,900,000 for program 
direction is a reduction of $4,000,000 from the budget request 
of $88,900,000, but an increase of $2,000,000 over fiscal year 
1998. The reduction should be applied to the use of support 
service contractors in all accounts except the Intelligence 
program.

                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 
$94,000,000, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request 
of $74,000,000, but the same as fiscal year 1998. The increase 
reflects the transfer of $20,000,000 from the non-defense 
environment, safety and health program to this account, 
consistent with the fiscal year 1998 appropriation.
    Health Effects Studies.--For fiscal year 1999, the 
Committee recommendation for health effects studies is 
$56,456,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the budget 
request. This funding consists of $15,000,000 provided in the 
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management account, 
and $41,456,000 in the Defense Environment, Safety and Health 
program. In addition to this, $14,000,000 has been provided for 
the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) to continue to 
analyze the medical effects of radiation on man or diseases 
that may be affected by radiation.
    The Department funds a large number and wide variety of 
epidemiologic and other health-related activities to address 
the potential effect of DOE operations on the health of DOE 
workers and communities. Through a Memorandum of Understanding 
between DOE and the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS), studies of worker and community health are funded 
through the Office of Environment, Safety and Health and 
independently peer-reviewed and administered by HHS Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention. Similar activities are 
separately funded by the Assistant Secretary for Environmental 
Management and independently administered by the HHS Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATDSR) under its 
statutory authority under CERCLA. Still other health studies 
and medical monitoring programs are funded directly by both the 
offices of Environment, Safety and Health, and Environmental 
Management. To date, hundreds of millions of dollars have been 
spent on such studies.
    The Committee is concerned that, under the current 
arrangement, there is no focal point within the Department 
responsible for funding these various health studies and for 
ensuring that the results of these efforts are used for the 
maximum benefit of DOE workers and communities. Further, there 
appears to be little evidence of a coherent, prioritized agenda 
for selecting and conducting these studies or assurances that 
their results are being effectively communicated to workers and 
communities and used to improve public and occupational health.
    The Committee is aware that the DOE, in partnership with 
the various agencies of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, has begun a process that will result in a 
consolidated and coherent strategy to include a public health 
agenda for each DOE site. The Committee understands that the 
result of this process will be clearly defined goals, 
objectives and priorities for ongoing and future health 
activities to ensure that it is directed at the issues of 
greatest concern to DOE workers and communities. Beginning in 
fiscal year 1999, the Committee expects that all newly-funded 
health activities will be consistent with the priorities 
established by this process. The Committee further expects that 
the Department will not initiate major new programs, such as 
the proposed medical monitoring project at Hanford, that are 
not specifically identified in its budget request or otherwise 
approved by Congress.
    The Committee further directs that beginning in fiscal year 
1999, all DOE-funded studies or other activities associated 
with the health effects of radiation or other hazardous 
substances on DOE workers or communities be managed through the 
Office of Environment, Safety and Health and that funding for 
all HHS-managed health activities, (either through CDC or 
ATSDR) be incorporated into a single Memorandum of 
Understanding with HHS. In addition, the Department should 
submit with its annual budget request a list of projects which 
includes those that have been completed, those currently being 
funded, the total and annual cost of each study, and a summary 
of findings.
    Annual Oversight Report Requirement.--The Committee has 
found the reports on environment, safety and health, and 
safeguards and security issues as well as the periodic 
briefings prepared by the Office of Oversight to be very 
informative. The Committee directs the Office of Oversight to 
prepare and provide to the Committee an annual report on the 
status of environment, safety, and health; and safeguards and 
security at the DOE sites. This report should provide an 
overview of the status of DOE programs, and identify trends, 
systemic weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.
    Program Direction.--The Committee recommendation for 
program direction is $24,769,000, an increase of $20,000,000 
over the budget request of $4,769,000. In its fiscal year 1999 
budget proposal, the Department moved salaries and expenses, 
which had been funded in the defense account in fiscal year 
1998, to the non-defense environment, safety and health 
program, This recommendation transfers the funds to the defense 
account and maintains the fiscal year 1999 funding allocation.

                    WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION

    The Committee's recommendation for the worker and community 
transition program is $29,800,000, a decrease of $15,200,000 
from the budget request of $45,000,000. This reduction should 
be applied to the excessive prior year balances being carried 
in this program. The program currently has uncosted balances 
equal to the total new funding provided in fiscal year 1998.
    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 
$718,997,190, and Federal grants to communities have totaled 
$191,426,006, for a total cost of $953,207,951.
    Funding at DOE cleanup sites and the nuclear weapons 
complex has stabilized and, in some instances, is increasing. 
The need for enhanced severance payments to contractor 
employees and grants to local communities has declined. The 
Committee concurs with the House National Security Committee 
which has established fiscal year 2000 as the final year for 
this program. Any multi-year community assistance grants which 
extend beyond fiscal year 2000, such as the agreement with the 
State of Idaho, should be included in the appropriate program 
budget.
    The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for 
this program be used for additional severance payments and 
benefits for Federal employees.

                     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 
$168,960,000, the same as the budget request.
    The Committee continues to support the Department's dual 
strategy of immobilization and mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) for 
reactors to dispose of stockpiles of surplus weapons plutonium. 
The Committee strongly endorses the use of existing reactors 
for the disposition of MOX fuel derived from excess weapons 
plutonium, and sees no requirement or value in expending 
limited budgetary resources to develop new and advanced reactor 
technologies in Russia for the disposition of weapons 
plutonium.
    The Committee supports the Administration's efforts to 
reach agreement with the Russian Federation on a bilateral 
program for the conversion and disposition of weapons derived 
plutonium. The Department of Energy should proceed with 
preparations for plutonium disposition to include the design 
and licensing of key disposition facilities as well as 
qualification of MOX fuel in order to send a signal to Russia 
of the seriousness with which the U.S. views the disposition of 
stockpiles of excess weapons plutonium. The United States, 
however, should not proceed unilaterally to dispose of excess 
plutonium without parallel progress on the Russian side. 
Further, the Committee does not intend to authorize the 
expenditure of funds for the actual construction of these 
facilities without such an agreement.

                        NUCLEAR ENERGY (DEFENSE)

    The international nuclear safety program is designed to 
reduce the threats posed by the operation of unsafe and aging 
Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in Russia and the Newly 
Independent States. The Committee recommendation for this 
program is $35,000,000, the same as the budget request.
    There have been delays in many of the milestones for this 
program, and there are large uncosted balances which indicate 
that program execution is lagging. The Committee directs the 
Department to provide an annual report showing the status of 
each of the Soviet-designed reactors, the work to be 
accomplished, the total cost of completing the upgrades to each 
of the reactors, the schedule by fiscal year for accomplishing 
this work, and the cost of each task by fiscal year. The 
Department should work with the Committee on the level of 
detail which should be included in the annual report.

           NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

    The Committee recommendation includes $75,000,000 to 
support a new initiative to provide administrative support for 
national security programs. This recommendation includes 
$60,000,000 for support of national security programs performed 
by offices such as the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under 
Secretary, the General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Human 
Resources, Congressional Affairs, and Public Affairs. The 
recommendation also provides $15,000,000 for support of 
national security programs provided by the Office of the 
Inspector General.

                     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. 
The Committee recommendation is $2,400,000, the same as the 
budget request.

                             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 $681,500,000, an increase 
of $16,000,000 over the budget request of $665,500,000. 
Additional funding of $16,000,000 has been provided to continue 
test reactor inactivation efforts and preclude inefficiencies 
due to delaying environmental cleanup activities that are 
scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2002.

                          FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommendation includes an offset of 
$20,000,000 from user organizations which will fund security 
investigations through other program accounts. The use of 
$2,000,000 of prior year balances from the new production 
reactor program is also included.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Appropriation, 1998-....................................    $190,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     190,000,000
Recommended, 1999-......................................     190,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998-................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................................

    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 1997, the balance owed by the 
Federal government to the Nuclear Waste Fund was approximately 
$1,039,000,000 (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 1998, a total of 
$987,800,000 has been appropriated to support the nuclear waste 
repository activities attributable to atomic energy defense 
activities.
    The Committee recommendation is $190,000,000, the same as 
the budget request.

                       Power Marketing Activities

    Management of the Federal power marketing functions was 
transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department 
of Energy as directed in the Department of Energy Organization 
Act (Public Law 95-91). The functions include power marketing 
activities authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1944 and all other functions of the 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.
    Electricity Restructuring.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned about the reliability of the grid and the changing 
role for Federal power marketers in the emerging restructured 
electricity markets. The Committee is fully supportive of 
efforts to promote full and open access to improve 
affordability and efficiency of the nation's power transmission 
and marketing systems. The Committee is committed to working 
with the Department to ensure that the Federal marketers have 
the resources to ensure reliability and fully support the 
implementation of open markets.
    The Committee recommendation includes repeal of the 
prohibitions on using funds to conduct studies related to the 
Federal power authorities. As restructuring proposals are being 
implemented, there are many potential changes that involve 
Federal power authorities that deserve serious analysis. The 
Committee would like to make it very clear that there is no 
intention to implement changes in authorization. However, the 
Committee feels that the current prohibitions on even studying 
proposals is overly broad and not in the best interests of full 
and fair consideration of proposals to improve the efficiency 
and management of Federal programs.

         Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration

    The Administration did not request funding for the Alaska 
Power Administration (APA) with its submission of the fiscal 
year 1999 budget. The Department has made it clear that it 
expects to complete the sale of the APA in the current fiscal 
year, and that no additional funding is needed.

                    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 1999, the 
Committee recommendation includes an additional increment of 
$258,000,000 in new borrowing authority, the same as the budget 
request, for transmission system construction, power services, 
conservation and energy efficiency, and capital equipment 
programs.
    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 require Bonneville 
to obligate borrowing authority in excess of such amounts.
    Repayment.--During fiscal year 1999, Bonneville plans to 
pay the Treasury $614,000,000, of which $164,000,000 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 1999.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

Appropriation, 1998-....................................     $12,222,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................       8,500,000
Recommended, 1999-......................................       8,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998-................................      -3,722,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999-..............................................

    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 $8,500,000, the same amount 
as the budget request.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

Appropriation, 1998-....................................     $25,210,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      26,000,000
Recommended, 1999-......................................      24,710,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998-................................        -500,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      -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.
    -Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee 
recommendation is $24,710,000, a reduction of $500,000 from the 
current fiscal year.

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

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Appropriation, 1998-..................................      $189,043,000
Budget Estimate, 1999.................................       215,435,000
Recommended, 1999.....................................       205,000,000
Comparison:                                                             
    Appropriation, 1998...............................        15,957,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999.............................       -10,435,000
                                                                        

    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.
    Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee 
recommendation is $205,000,000, a reduction of $10,435,000 from 
the budget request. Last year, Western was able to supplement 
the appropriation with $40,921,000 in carryover balances. This 
year, the current estimate of carryover funding is 
substantially lower. Because prior-year funds are not available 
this year, the recommendation actually represents a reduction 
in available resources from the amount provided in the current 
fiscal year. The Committee has recommended $5,036,000, the same 
amount as the budget request, for deposit in the Utah 
reclamation mitigation and conservation account.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

Appropriation, 1998-....................................        $970,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................       1,010,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................         970,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998-................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................         -40,000

    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, a reduction of 
$40,000 from the amount requested.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    $162,141,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     168,898,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     166,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................       4,359,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      -2,398,000

                Salaries and Expenses--Revenues Applied

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    -162,141,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................    -168,898,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................    -166,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      -4,359,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................       2,398,000

    The Committee recommendation is $166,500,000, an increase 
of $4,359,000 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 is very concerned about the reliability of 
the grid in a restructured regulatory environment. The 
Committee will work with the Commission during the budget 
process to ensure that sufficient resources are available to 
ensure reliability.

                        Committee Recommendation

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





                           General Provisions

                          department of energy

    Contract Competition.--Section 301 provides that none of 
the funds in this Act may be used to award a management and 
operating contract unless such contract is awarded using 
competitive procedures, or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a 
case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. At 
least 60 days before such action, the Secretary of Energy must 
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
report notifying the Committees of the waiver and setting forth 
the reasons for the waiver. Section 301 does not preclude 
extensions of a contract awarded using competitive procedures.
    The Committee's concerns regarding the Department's 
contracting procedures result from the Department's history of 
having management and operating contracts which had never been 
bid competitively, in some cases for over four decades. 
Ensuring competition for these situations in particular, and 
establishing competition as the norm for the Department's 
contracting, is imperative. However, the Committee is well 
aware that there may be circumstances where the existing 
contract has been competed in the past few years; the existing 
contractor has been doing a good job; the mission at a specific 
site has been scheduled to end in a limited amount of time; or 
the time required for a full competitive procurement would 
result in significant delays to an ongoing project. In 
particular, the Committee is concerned that the delays, 
additional costs, and loss of momentum involved in competing 
contracts for sites designated for accelerated closure could 
hamper the Committee's overriding interest in completing 
cleanup of these sites as quickly as possible. In those 
instances where it is clearly in the taxpayers' interest, the 
Committee would not object to a contract extension.
    Use of Standard Contracting Clauses.--Section 302 provides 
that none of the funds in this Act 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.
    The Committee directs the Department, as contracts are 
awarded, amended or modified, to standardize its contracts in 
accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
    Limitation on Benefits for Federal Employees.--Section 303 
provides that none of the funds in this Act or any prior 
appropriations Act may be used to prepare or implement 
workforce restructuring plans or provide enhanced severance 
payments and other benefits and community assistance grants for 
Federal employees of the Department of Energy under section 
3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 
1993, Public Law 102-484. The Committee has provided no funds 
to implement workforce restructuring plans which would provide 
benefits to Federal employees of the Department of Energy which 
are not available to other Federal employees of the United 
States Government.
    Limitation on Funding for Section 3161 Benefits.--Section 
304 provides that none of the funds in this Act or any prior 
appropriations Act may be used to augment the $29,800,000 made 
available for obligation in this Act for severance payments and 
other benefits and community assistance grants authorized under 
the provisions of section 3161 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484.
    Limitation on Initiation of Requests for Proposals.--
Section 305 provides that none of the funds in this Act or any 
prior appropriations Act may be used to initiate requests for 
proposals or expressions of interest for new programs which 
have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget 
submission, and which have not yet been approved and funded by 
Congress.
    Limit on Competition with the Private Sector.--Section 306 
provides that none of the funds in this Act may be used for any 
program, project, or activity of the Department of Energy to 
produce or provide articles or services for the purpose of 
selling the articles or services to a person outside the 
Federal government, unless the Secretary of Energy determines 
that the articles or services are not available from a 
commercial source in the United States.
    The Committee is aware of instances in which the Department 
of Energy's contractor-operated laboratories and facilities 
have been accused of competing with the private sector seeking 
to provide services and products. It is not the Committee's 
intent that Federal facilities use privileged information or 
access to facilities to compete in the market-place against a 
small business that raises and risks its own capital. 
Department of Energy laboratories and facilities receive 
billions of dollars a year in Federal appropriations, and the 
Department must be very careful that these appropriations are 
not used unfairly to compete with private sector companies. 
This provision does not apply to the transmission and sale of 
electricity by any Federal power marketing administration.
    Transfer and Merger of Unexpended Balances.--Section 307 
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this 
bill.
                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    $170,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      67,000,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     65,900,000-
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................   -104,100,000-
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      -1,100,000

    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 $65,900,000, a reduction of 
$1,100,000 from the budget request. The Committee observes that 
funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System will 
henceforth be provided through Highway Trust Fund revenues.
    The Committee recognizes the substantial challenges faced 
by the Appalachian region in adapting to the changes presented 
by welfare reform and welfare-to-work programs. In order to 
meet these challenges and to ensure the ultimate success of 
welfare reform efforts in the Appalachian region, the Committee 
urges the ARC to commit a greater share of available resources 
to new and innovative activities to break the cycle of poverty 
and to provide for improved child care and child development 
programs throughout Appalachia.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $17,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      17,500,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      16,500,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................        -500,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      -1,000,000

    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, the Committee recommendation is 
$16,500,000, a decrease of $1,000,000 from the budget request 
of $17,500,000. 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.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                          gross appropriation

Appropriation, 1998.....................................    $468,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     483,340,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................     462,700,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      -5,300,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................     -20,640,000

                                revenues

Appropriation, 1998.....................................   -$450,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................    -152,341,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................    -444,700,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................       5,300,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................    -292,359,000

                           net appropriation

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $18,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................     330,999,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      18,000,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................      ..........
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................    -312,999,000

    The Committee recommendation is $462,700,000, a reduction 
of $5,300,000 from the current fiscal year and $20,640,000 from 
the budget request. The recommendation reflects the Committee's 
continued concerns over ever-increasing budget requests of the 
Commission, while, by its own admission, the Commission must 
place more emphasis on streamlining and making more efficient 
use of its resources.
    The recommendation includes $14,800,000, a reduction of 
$200,000 from the current fiscal year in support of the 
Department of Energy's efforts to characterize Yucca Mountain 
as a potential site for a permanent nuclear waste repository. 
Funding for these activities is to be derived from the Nuclear 
Waste Fund. The recommendation also includes $3,200,000, the 
same amount as the budget request, for regulatory reviews and 
other assistance provided to the Department of Energy.
    The Omnibus Budget 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. 
This authority expires at the end of the current fiscal year. 
The Committee has included a statutory provision providing for 
a one-year extension of this authorization. The extension of 
this authority is necessary to provide the resources needed to 
fund the activities of the Commission.
    The Committee notes that while the workload of the 
Commission should continue to decrease with the closure of 
plants, overall improvements in plant safety and the increase 
in the number of agreement states, there has not been a 
commensurate reduction reflected in budget requests. Indeed, 
outyear budget projections for the Commission show steadily 
increasing budgets. The Commission has resisted recommended 
reforms including risk-informed, performance-based regulation. 
The Commission is directed to reduce its workforce, reduce the 
regulatory burdens on licensees, and streamline its 
adjudicatory process. The Committee observes that the 
Commission has resisted these and other reforms which have been 
recommended in six major reviews dating back to 1979.
    In the Commission's strategic plan, the Commission claims 
that it will: ``implement risk-informed, and, where 
appropriate, performance-based regulatory approaches for power 
reactors''; ``make licensee performance and compliance with our 
requirements consequential by decreasing the inspection 
frequency for good performers and assessing penalties for poor 
performers''; ``eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements 
and policy statements, and streamline our processes''; and 
``adjust our regulatory oversight of facilities undergoing 
decommissioning to be commensurate with the safety risk.'' The 
Commission has stated its intention; the Committee urges the 
Commission to follow through with meaningful reforms.
    In the strategic plan, the Commission also states that it 
will make improvements ``in a continuous, systematic, and open 
manner with the support and input of our internal and external 
stakeholders.'' The Commission also rightly observes that: 
``The Administration, the Congress and the public will continue 
to expect cost-effective programs throughout the Government.''
    The Committee observes that much work remains to be done 
before the Commission can clear the bar of making these reforms 
with the support of its stakeholders. The Committee expects 
that these changes would result in lower budget requirements 
and has therefore recommended a lower amount for fiscal year 
1999. The Committee is committed to the same goals of public 
safety as the Commission. The Committee is very much committed 
to working with the Commission throughout the budget process to 
resolve the current differences between the resources requested 
and the resources recommended by the Committee.
    The Committee recognizes and has been strongly supportive 
of the Commission's commitment to establishing independent 
oversight of certain Department of Energy facilities. 
Currently, the Department of Energy operates its facilities in 
a self-regulating environment. The Commission and the 
Department have 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.
    The Committee believes that one of the most important 
activities the Commission will undertake is license renewal of 
current operating reactors. The Committee is aware that the 
licensee for the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant has filed 
such an application with the agency. The Commission must have a 
fair, effective, predictable and efficient process for license 
renewal. The Committee is concerned, however, that the 
Commission may not be prepared to ensure a timely license 
renewal review. The Committee urges the Commission to act 
expeditiously to resolve public comments received, and to 
streamline the hearing process. To that end, the Committee 
believes that such a process should take no more than two years 
for the submittal of the license application to approval by the 
Commission. The Commission shall issue detailed guidance by 
December 1998 on how the licensing process will be structured 
so that licensees, Commission staff, and the public will have a 
clear understanding of the regulatory framework in which these 
plants will continue to operate.
    The Committee recommendation includes a statutory provision 
that permanently extends the authority for the Commission to 
expend funds for various purposes and retain moneys collected 
for the cooperative nuclear research program, services rendered 
to State governments and international organizations, and the 
material and information access authorization programs. The 
authority provided is identical to the authority the Committee 
has been including annually with the appropriation.

                      Office of Inspector General

                          gross appropriation

Appropriation, 1998.....................................      $4,800,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................       5,300,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................       4,800,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................        -500,000

                                revenues

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $-4,800,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      -1,749,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................      -4,800,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................      -3,051,000

    This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector 
General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pursuant to law, 
budget authority appropriated to the Inspector General must be 
recovered through the assessment of license and annual fees.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000, 
equal to the the amount provided in the current fiscal year, 
and $500,000 less than the amount requested. 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, 1998.....................................      $2,600,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................       2,950,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................       2,600,000
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................................
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................        -350,000

    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 $2,600,000, 
the same as the current fiscal year, and a reduction of 
$350,000 from the budget request due to funding constraints.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority

Appropriation, 1998.....................................     $70,000,000
Budget Estimate, 1999...................................      76,800,000
Recommended, 1999.......................................................
Comparison:
    Appropriation, 1998.................................     -70,000,000
    Budget Estimate, 1999...............................     -76,800,000

    Public Law 105-62 provides that, for fiscal year 1999 and 
thereafter, funding for essential stewardship activities, 
including flood control navigation, and management of aquatic 
vegetation growth along the Tennessee River and tributaries, of 
the Tennessee Valley Authority are to be derived from TVA's own 
internally generated revenues and savings. As used in the 
public law, ``stewardship activities'' is intended to mean all 
nonpower functions for which funding was provided in Public Law 
104-206.
    The Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority is directed 
to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
Senate an itemized listing of the amounts of the reductions or 
increased receipts for fiscal year 1999 made pursuant to the 
paragraph under this heading in Public Law 105-62. This 
submission is to be made within thirty days of enactment of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 1999.
    The Committee restates its expectation that TVA shall 
provide such sums as are necessary for the proper operation, 
maintenance, and improvement of Land Between the Lakes (LBL). 
The Committee understands that proposals for the transfer of 
LBL to another Federal resource agency are under active 
consideration and is supportive of these efforts.
                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes several general 
provisions pertaining to specific programs and activities 
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
    Prohibition on Lobbying.--Section 501 provides that none of 
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, 
directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on 
any legislation or appropriation matters pending before 
Congress, other than to communicate to Members of Congress as 
described in section 1913 of Title 18, United States Code.
    Buy American.--Section 502 requires that American-made 
equipment and goods be purchased to the greatest extent 
practicable.
    Drainage of the San Luis Unit.--Section 503 provides 
language clarifying the funding requirements for the San Luis 
Unit.
    Restart of the High Flux Beam Reactor.--Section 504 
provides that no funds may be used to restart the High Flux 
Beam Reactor at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.
    Extension of Authority for Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
Collect Fees and Charges.--Section 505 provides a one-year 
extension of the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
to collect fees and charges to offset appropriated funds.
    Extension of Authority for Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
Expend Funds for Certain Purposes.--Section 506 provides 
permanent authority for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
expend funds for various purposes for which the Committee on 
Appropriations has been providing annual authorization.
    Repeal of Prohibitions on Studying Rate-Setting and Asset 
Sales at Federal Public Power Authorities.--Section 507 repeals 
section 505 of Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year 1993 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act and section 208 of 
Public Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
1986. Section 505 prohibits the use of funds to conduct studies 
relating to consideration of market or other non-cost pricing 
of hydroelectric power sales by the six Federal public power 
authorities. Section 208 prohibits the use of funds to conduct 
studies relating to selling assets of the six Federal public 
power authorities.
    External Regulation of Department of Energy Laboratory.--
Section 508 provides that notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the Department of Energy can no longer implement and 
enforce its own regulatory systems for environment, safety, and 
health at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 
California.
    Recent Congressional hearings and a General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report have highlighted concerns that the 
Department of Energy is no longer moving expeditiously toward 
external regulation of its facilities. As GAO noted, the 
Department has long been criticized for weaknesses in its self-
regulation of the environment, safety, and health of its own 
facilities. Previous Departmental leaders recognized this, and 
in 1993, then-Secretary Hazel O'Leary announced that the 
Department would seek external regulation for worker safety. 
The benefits of external regulation include: increased 
credibility and public confidence; more effective and 
consistent safety management; enhanced competitiveness as 
uniform safety standards apply to both DOE and non-DOE 
laboratories; elimination of a conflict of interest whereby DOE 
regulates safety and directs program execution; and cost 
savings to the taxpayer by minimizing overlapping and 
conflicting requirements.
    Last year at the request of Congress, the Department was 
asked to conduct a study of how it manages the nuclear weapons 
program, including an analysis of the functions performed at 
Headquarters, operations offices, and applicable area and site 
offices. The March 1997 report, prepared by the Institute for 
Defense Analyses (IDA), noted that:

          The single largest problem uncovered in this study is 
        that Defense Programs'--and, more generally, DOE's--
        practices for managing environmental, safety, and 
        health (ES&H) concerns are constipating the system. The 
        Department's ES&H practices are based on a hybrid of 
        centralized and decentralized management practices that 
        have evolved over the past decade. For example, in 
        Defense Programs' review of key documents defining a 
        contractor's safety envelope, the current system can 
        best be described as one in which everybody reviews 
        everything until everyone is satisfied. The ``process'' 
        is ad hoc; there is inadequate discipline regarding who 
        should participate and how that participation should 
        take place.
          Compounding these process problems, there is no 
        consensus among all these reviewers and checkers, and 
        checkers of checkers regarding the desired end-state 
        for a facility. That is to say, there is no agreement 
        on what it means to be safe. Consequently, each of the 
        organizations that review a document, decision, or 
        process does so from its own perspective and insists 
        that the facility meet its priority requirements for 
        safety. At any time during what could be a multi-year 
        process, the area office or contractor might, for 
        example, receive a hundred pages of comments from just 
        about anyone that must then be addressed. When 
        conflicts arise between two or more reviewers, there is 
        no formal method for resolving them.

    Both outside advisory groups and internal reviews have 
voiced significant concerns over the Department's environment, 
safety, and health processes, but actions to resolve these 
concerns have been woefully slow. Changes in the leadership of 
the Department have delayed implementation of this effort. 
Departmental actions to submit legislation in support of this 
objective have lagged. Instead, a pilot program to simulate 
NRC's regulation at various facilities over a two year period 
was initiated. The Department now appears to be reevaluating 
the need for independent external regulation of safety and 
health.
    Pilot Project for Simulated Regulation.--The first pilot 
project was conducted at the Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory (LBNL) in California. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) staff conducted the simulated regulation at LBNL through 
developing a mock license and performing typical NRC inspection 
activities. In recent testimony, the Chairman of the Commission 
noted that the license developed was typical of that of an NRC-
licensed major research and development center such as the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the University of 
Missouri. The inspection showed the current radiation safety 
program at LBNL to be acceptable, with some minor exceptions. 
The cost of NRC regulation at LBNL likely would be the same as 
that for a similar very large facility like the NIH.
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Pilot 
Project.--A pilot project for OSHA regulation was completed at 
Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois in November 1996. Since 
completion of the Argonne pilot, DOE and OSHA cosponsored a 
report by the National Academy of Public Administration 
entitled, ``Ensuring Worker Safety and Health Across the DOE 
Complex'' (January 1997). The Academy panel concluded that with 
appropriate support from Congress, DOE should formally transfer 
regulatory authority for occupational safety and health across 
its complex to OSHA, and urged Congress and the Administration 
to expedite the transition. The President's fiscal year 1999 
budget proposes a one-time increase of OSHA resources by five 
employees and $400,000, and a one-time reduction in DOE 
resources by an equal amount, to offset any extraordinary 
logistical burden on OSHA enforcement resources that might be 
imposed by DOE facilities during the pilot projects.
    Implementation of External Regulation for the Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory.--The Committee has included 
statutory language eliminating the Department's regulatory 
authority for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 
California. The Committee wants to ensure that future changes 
in top management of the Department do not lead to further 
delays in implementing this important initiative. No later than 
March 31, 1999, the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory in California will no longer be subject to 
Department of Energy self-regulation of environment, safety and 
health activities.
    Departmental Oversight Under External Regulation.--In 
response to an inquiry by the House Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Energy and Water Development, several laboratory directors 
expressed their support for moving to external regulation by 
both the NRC and the OSHA. However, the laboratory directors 
were also unanimous in their concern that the move toward 
external regulation not create dual or overlapping regulatory 
roles between DOE and the NRC. The Committee is quite cognizant 
of this concern. For those facilities which are to beexternally 
regulated, the Department is directed to eliminate all internal safety 
and health oversight staffs at Headquarters and in field offices with 
the exception of a small corporate group at Headquarters. The 
Department should establish a small Headquarters quality assurance 
program designed to complement, but not duplicate external regulation 
and enforcement, and it should be modeled after private industry 
corporate safety organizations. This small organization would be 
responsible for understanding the external safety and health standards 
and regulations and determining that the laboratory or facility was in 
compliance with these standards.
    Fiscal year 1999 Pilot Projects.--To continue progress 
toward external regulation of additional facilities, the 
Department is directed to include a nuclear reactor in the 
pilot projects to be conducted in fiscal year 1999. The 
Department and NRC should keep the Committee fully informed of 
these efforts.
    Reimbursement for Cost of Regulation.--Departmental 
facilities which are subject to external regulation shall 
reimburse NRC and OSHA for the incremental cost of the services 
provided to Department of Energy facilities. These expenses 
should be identified in the Department's budget submission.
    New Construction Consistent with NRC Standards.--In 
anticipation of future NRC regulation of DOE nuclear 
facilities, the Department is directed to ensure that, starting 
in fiscal year 2000, all new nuclear facilities, with the 
exception of the naval reactors program, are constructed in 
accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing 
requirements. The Department should ensure that this 
requirement does not result in a program requirement to meet 
two separate sets of standards (both DOE and NRC standards), 
but should ensure a smooth transition for meeting NRC 
standards.
    Department of Energy Reporting Requirement.--There are 
several issues which need to be addressed in the transition to 
external regulation. The report due October 31, 1998, should 
include, but not be limited to: identifying who will be the 
external regulator of radiation, and who will be named in the 
NRC license; addressing the issue of regulatory jurisdiction 
over accelerators, accelerator-produced isotopes, and other 
electronic sources of radiation not currently assigned to the 
NRC; determining the impact of NRC decommissioning 
requirements; analyzing the impacts on existing agreements for 
storing legacy waste materials; assessing the possibility of 
conflict of interest issues when DOE laboratories perform work 
for NRC; determining the impact of imposing civil penalties on 
government facilities; and identifying funding mechanisms for 
external regulation of DOE facilities.
    The Department should coordinate development of the report 
with the NRC and OSHA and other affected units of government to 
ensure that the report to Congress is a fair and unbiased 
representation of the issues surrounding the elimination of 
Departmental regulation of LBNL.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reporting Requirement.--The 
Committee recognizes that the Commission currently does not 
have the authority to regulate the use of accelerators, and 
that the primary regulatory authority for accelerator use lies 
at the state level. As accelerator regulation is an integral 
component of the external regulation of many DOE facilities, 
the Committee expects the Commission to provide a report by 
January 30, 1999, recommending what statutory changes, if any, 
would be needed to provide the Commission with the authority to 
regulate accelerator use; what additional Commission resources 
would be needed to accomplish such regulation; and what 
technical or regulatory hurdles to Commission regulation of 
accelerator use may exist.
    Good Faith Effort.--The Committee understands there may be 
concerns about the transition of this authority, but expects 
each of the participants to act in a good faith manner to 
ensure a smooth transition, and to use external regulation to 
strengthen the integration of health, safety, and productivity 
throughout the Department of Energy complex.
              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 302 
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]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   302(b) Allocation                       This bill            
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Budget authority       Outlays      Budget authority       Outlays    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...........................            20,820            20,514            20,652            20,425
Mandatory...............................  ................  ................  ................  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Five-Year Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:
                                                                Millions
Budget Authority........................................          20,652
Outlays:
    1999................................................          12,862
    2000................................................           6,404
    2001................................................           1,185
    2002................................................              88
    2003 and beyond.....................................             140

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) 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........................................              74
Fiscal year 1999 outlays resulting therefrom............              16

                           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 II, Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related 
Resources:

          * * * of which $1,873,000 shall be available for 
        transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
        $49,908,000 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, 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. 307. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
appropriation accounts for such activities established pursuant 
to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds 
in the applicable established accounts and thereafter may be 
accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
originally enacted.
    Under Title V, General Provisions, Section 506:
                  (G) Transfers of funds to other agencies of 
                the Federal Government for the performance of 
                the work for which such funds are appropriated, 
                and such transferred funds may be merged with 
                the appropriations to which they are 
                transferred.
                  (H) Transfers to the Office of Inspector 
                General of the Commission, not to exceed an 
                additional amount equal to 5 percent of the 
                amount otherwise appropriated to the Office for 
                the fiscal year. Notice of such transfers shall 
                be submitted to the Committees on 
                Appropriations.

                 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 $700,000 of the funds appropriated 
in Public Law 102-377 for the feasibility phase of the Red 
River navigation, Southwest Arkansas, study. Language is also 
included under General Investigations directing the Secretary 
of the Army to use $500,000 of the funds appropriated in the 
bill to implement section 211(f)(7) of Public Law 104-303 and 
to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor a portion of the Federal 
share of project costs for the Hunting Bayou element of the 
Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, project and to use 
$300,000 of the funds appropriated in the bill to implement 
section 211(f)(8) of Public Law 104-303 and to reimburse the 
non-Federal sponsor a portion of the Federal share of project 
costs for the White Oak Bayou watershed, Texas, project.
    Language is included under Construction, General, 
permitting the use of funds from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Language is also 
included under Construction, General, providing that 
$15,000,000 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. 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. Language is also included under 
Construction, General, making funds appropriated by Public Law 
103-126 for projects associated with the restoration of the 
Lackawanna River Basin Greenway Corridor, Pennsylvania, 
available for other projects and activities on the Lackawanna 
River in Pennsylvania. Language is included under Construction, 
General, directing the Secretary of the Army to use $6,000,000 
of the funds appropriated in the bill to implement section 
211(f)(6) of Public Law 104-303 and to reimburse the non-
Federal sponsor a portion of the Federal share of project 
construction costs for the Brays Bayou element of the Buffalo 
Bayou and tributaries, Texas, 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.
    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 Water Resources Support Center and 
headquarters support functions at the USACE Finance Center. 
Language is also included under General Expenses prohibiting 
the use of other Title I funds for the Office of the Chief of 
Engineers and the division offices.
    Under Administrative Provision, 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 fund transfers within 
the overall appropriation to the Upper Colorado River Basin 
Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. 
Language is included under Water and Related Resources 
providing that funds may be 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.
    For the Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account, 
language is included providing that funds may be derived from 
the Reclamation Fund.
    For the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, language 
is included directing the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and 
collect the full amount of additional mitigation and 
restoration payments authorized by section 3407(d) of Public 
Law 102-575.

                    title III--department of energy

    Language is included under the Energy Supply account 
providing not to exceed $3,000 for official reception and 
representation expenses for transparency activities.
    Language is included under the Science account providing 
that $7,600,000 shall be derived from unobligated balances 
originally available for Superconducting Super Collider 
termination activities.
    Language is included under 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 Departmental Administration 
account, providing that notwithstanding the provisions of the 
Anti-Deficiency Act, such additional amounts as necessary to 
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
others, as long as such increases are offset by revenue 
increases of the same or greater amounts.
    Language is included under the Weapons Activities account, 
providing for the purchase of one fixed-wing aircraft.
    Language is included under the Bonneville Power 
Administration account precluding 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 $5,036,000 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 unless Congress is 
notified 60 days in advance.
    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, 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, 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 by any Department of 
Energy program, project, or activity to produce or provide 
articles or services unless the Secretary of Energy determines 
that these are not available from a commercial source in the 
United States. This provision does not apply to electricity 
sold by any Federal power marketing administration.-
    Language is included under Department of Energy, General 
Provisions, providing that unexpended balances of prior 
appropriations may be transferred and merged with new 
appropriation accounts established in this Act.

                     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 to exclude the costs of NRC prelicensing activities 
related to the cleanup of the Hanford site 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 utilize revenues collected to offset appropriations, 
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302. This language has been carried 
in previous appropriations Acts.

                      title V--general provisions

    Language is included under General Provisions, prohibiting 
the use of funds in this Act to influence congressional action 
on any legislation or appropriation matters pending before 
Congress.
    Language is included under General Provisions, requiring, 
to the greatest extent practicable, that all equipment and 
products purchased should be American-made, and prohibiting 
contracts with persons falsely labeling products as ``Made in 
America.''
    Language is included under General Provisions, prohibiting 
the use of funds to determine the point of discharge for the 
interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit until development by 
the Secretary of Interior and the State of California of a plan 
to minimize the impact of drainage waters.
    Language is included under General Provisions, directing 
the Secretary of Interior to classify the costs of the 
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup program and San Joaquin Valley 
Drainage Program as reimbursable or nonreimbursable.
    Language is included under General Provisions, prohibiting 
the restart of the High Flux Beam Reactor.
    Language is included under General Provisions providing a 
one-year extension of the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to collect fees and charges to offset appropriated 
funds.
    Language is included under General Provisions providing 
permanent authority for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
expend funds for various purposes for which the Committee on 
Appropriations has been providing annual authorization.
    Language is included under General Provisions repealing 
section 505 of Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year 1993 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act and section 208 of 
Public Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
1986.
    Language is included under General Provisions, implementing 
external regulation of environment, safety, and health 
activities at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

                  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
          Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund
          Departmental Administration
          Office of the Inspector General
          Weapons Activities
          Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste 
        Management
          Defense Facilities Closure Projects
          Defense Environmental Management Privatization
          Other Defense Activities
          Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
          Power Marketing Administrations
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    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 (RAMSAYER)

    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 italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman);
    The accompanying bill would repeal section 505 of Public 
Law 102-377, the fiscal year 1993 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act.
    [Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts or 
any other provision of law hereafter, none of the funds made 
available under this Act, subsequent Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Acts or any other law hereafter 
shall be used for the purposes of conducting any studies 
relating or leading to the possibility of changing from the 
currently required ``at cost'' to a ``market rate'' or any 
other noncost-based method for the pricing of hydroelectric 
power by the six Federal public power authorities, or other 
agencies or authorities of the Federal Government except as may 
be specially authorized by Act of Congress hereafter enacted.]
    The accompanying bill would repeal section 208 of Public 
Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986.
    [Sec. 208. No funds appropriated or made available under 
this or any other Act shall be used by the executive branch for 
soliciting proposals, preparing or reviewing studies or 
drafting proposals designed to transfer out of Federal 
ownership, management or control in whole or in part the 
facilities and functions of the Federal power marketing 
administrations located within the contiguous 48 States, and 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, until such activities have been 
specifically authorized and in accordance with terms and 
conditions established by an Act of Congress hereafter enacted: 
Provided, That this provision shall not apply to the authority 
granted under section 2(e) of the Bonneville Project Act of 
1937; or to the authority of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
pursuant to any law under which it may transfer facilities or 
functions in the normal course of business in carrying out the 
purposes of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as 
amended; or to the authority of the Administrator of the 
General Services Administration pursuant to the Federal 
Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949, as amended, 
and the Surplus Property Act of 1944 to sell or otherwise 
dispose of surplus property.]
    The accompanying bill would amend Section 6101(a)(3) of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended:
    Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1990, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2214(a)(3)) is amended by 
striking ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting [``September 30, 
1998''] ``September 30, 1999.''





                                
