[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.''